Document gbjoq0LJGqOXby9GgY19GD7Rq

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA NEVADA POWER COMPANY -vs- Plaintiff ) # CV-S-89-555-LDG (LR MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., ) Defendants. ) 30(b)(6) DISCOVERY DEPOSITION OF JOHN Ho CRADDOCK On the part of the Plaintiff July 21, 1993 Concannon & Jaeger | General Court Reporters 705 Olive Street, Suite 604 St. Lovuuiiso,, Miuiiososuouuirii 61 3101 (314) 421-1000 1 WATER PCB-00050056 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 NEVADA POWER COMPANY, ) 3) 4 -vs- Plaintiff, ) ) # CV-S-89-555-LDG (LRL) ) 5) MONSANTO COMPANY, efc al., ) 6) Defendants ) 7 8 9 *** 10 INDEX 11 WITNESSi Pages 12 JOHN H. CRADDOCK 13 Direct Examination by Mr. Bradley......................... . . 4 14 EXHIBITS 15 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit # 1 ......... . 4 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit # 704 ......... 14 1G Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit # 710 . .12, 13, 14, 18, 19 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -2- CONCANNON & JAEGER i WATER PCB-00050057 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 NEVADA POWERCOMPANY, ) 4 -vs- ) Plaintiff, ) 5) MONSANTOCOMPANY, et al. , ) 6) Defendants. ) 7 ) # CV-S-89-555-LDG(LRL) 8 30(b)(6) DISCOVERY DEPOSITION OF WITNESS, to be used 9 in an action pending in the District Court of the United 10 States, for the District of Nevada, wherein NEVADA POWER 11 COMPANY is Plaintiff, and MONSANTO COMPANY, et al. are 12 Defendants, pursuant to Notice, under the provisions of 13 Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, taken on July 21, 14 1993, at the law offices of Messrs. Husch, Eppenberger, 15 Donohue, Cornfeld & Jenkins, 100 N. Broadway, STe. 1300, 16 St. Louis, Missouri 63102, before Mark D, Concannon, a 17 Notary Public within and for the State of Missouri. 18 APPEARANCES 19 The Plaintiff was represented by Attorney Ralph A. Bradley of the law firm of Jones, Jones, Close & Brown, 20 Chartered, 700 Bank of America Piaaa, 30(5* South Fourth Street, STe. 700, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101. 21 The Defendant, Monsanto, was represented by Attorney 22 Scott R. Bauer of the lav/ firm of Kirkland & Ellis, 1999 Broadway, Ste . 4000, Denver, Colorado 70202, 23 The Defendant, Westinghouse, was represented by 24 Robert P. Morgan, In-House Counsel, westinghouse Electric Corporation, Westinghouse Building, Gateway Center , 25 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222. -3- CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050058 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 JOHN H. CRADDOCK, 2 of lawful age, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, 3 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, deposes and 4 says on behalf of the Plaintiff, as follows* 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 QUESTIONS BY MR. BRADLEY* 7 Q. Dr. Craddock, you have been designated as a 8 witness who is here to speak on behalf of Monsanto 9 Corporation regarding items six and eight on Attachment A, 10 which I am going to mark as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. I'll 11 make a copy of that and mark it as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. 12 (Thereupon/ the reporter marked Plaintiff's Deposi 13 tion Exhibit # 1, for identification.) 14 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) we have taken your deposi 15 tion several times in this lav/suit where I represent Nevada 16 Power Company/ who has brought this lawsuit against 17 Monsanto/ General Electric and Westinghouse. If I ask you 10 the same questions about your educational background and 19 work history in this deposition that I asked you in your 20 other depositions, would your answers be 'the same? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q, Are you familiar with Industrial Bio-Test 23 Laboratories? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Also goes bythe name IDT? -4CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050059 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did IBT conduct some tests for Aroclors manu 3 factured by Monsanto? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q,, At some point in time did Monsanto review the 6 tests that were performed by IBT? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Why? 9 A. In 1981# in conjunction with a rule-making for 10 PCB regulations by the U.S. EPA, the agency had asked for 11 submission of data relevant to certain points. One includ 12 ed health effects and taxi cities of PCB * s of various in 13 dustry groups. 14 I was a member of a task force of chemical 15 manufacturers association members, and I was representing 16 Monsanto on this task force, and I was elected chairman of 17 the toxicology subgroup, and it was the task of this sub 18 group under my chairmanship to collect and provide certain 19 information related to the published health effects of 20 PCB's from the published literature. '> ' 21 Q, What was the name of the task force? 22 A. It was the Chemical Manufacturers Association 23 Special program Activities Group for Polychlorinated 24 Biphenyls. It was called SPAG, S-P-A-G, for PCB*s, or just 25 CKA PCB. -5- CONCANNQH & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050060 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 Q. Which agency requested the review of certain 2 experiments? 3 A* The U.S. EPA requested the data, not neces 4 sarily a review of experiments, but a review of the pub 5 lished literature 6 Q. Did the U.S. EPA require that submission for 7 any company that had tests done by IBT? 8 A. No. This was purely a voluntary program, 9 wherein the trade associations -- CMA was merely one who 10 participated in this activity -- agreed to retain inde 11 pendent toxicological consultants who would review the 12 literature. 13 Q. At some point did Monsanto learn that IBT 14 employees were indicted for falsifying -- allegedly falsi 15 fying information relating to tests that were performed at 16 IBT? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And did Monsanto learn that it was claimed in 19 the indictments that part of the data falsified was for 20 products manufactured by Monsanto? ' 21 A. Yes,, 22 Q. And did Monsanto ultimately learn that at 23 least three of the people who were indicted were ultimately 24 convicted? 25 A. Yes. - 6- CONCANNON & JAEGER I WATER PCB-00050061 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 Q. Did Monsanto know that one of the people who 2 was indicted and convicted was named Dr Paul Wright? 3 A. Yes, 4 Q. Did you know that Dr Paul Wright was a 5 Monsanto employee before he became an employee at IBT? 6 A. Yes. I knew there was a connection. I don't 7 know the precise time chronology, but yes. 8 Q. Did you know that when Dr. Wright left IBT in 9 September of 1972 he returned to work at Monsanto? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Did youknowthat while Dr.Wright was at IBT 12 he worked on tests conducted for Monsanto on its Aroclor 13 products? 14 A. I did notrecall specifically that Dr. Wright 15 worked on Aroclor products, no. 16 Q. Did you know that when Dr, Wright returned to 17 work at Monsanto in September of 1972 that he maintained 18 some responsibility for the toxicological testing of 19 Monsanto's Aroclor products? 20 MR. BAUERi Object to the cfrm.` Lacks founda 21 tion . 22 A. In 1972 I did not know that I was not in 23 volved then, 24 0. (by Mr, Bradley) Did you ever learn that when 25 Dr. Wright returned to Monsanto in September of 1972 that -7 - CONCAMNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050062 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 he had some responsibility relative to Monsanto * s Aroclor 2 products? 3 A, No, I didn't, 4 0. Did you ever learn that during the criminal 5 investigation of Dr, Wright it was alleged that he falsi 6 fied data regarding IBT*s testing of Aroclor products manu 7 factured by Monsanto? 8 A. No, I never learned that Aroclor products 9 were involved in the IBT allegations at all. 10 Q. Following Monsanto's learning that Dr, Wright 11 had been indicted and convicted, did Monsanto undertake any 12 effort, that you're aware of, to determine whether any of 13 the other data resulting from tests conducted at IBT on 14 Monsanto products may have been falsified? 15 A. I am not aware of what investigations took 16 part on the products, no, 17 Q. Did Monsanto review some of the data from IBT 18 regarding Monsanto's Aroclor products in 1980 or 1981? 19 A. Yes, 20 MR. BAUER; Objection. Lack's foundation. 21 Q. (by Mr, Bradley) Do you have any foundation 22 for telling me whether Monsanto ever reviewed experiments 23 conducted by IBT on Monsanto's PCS products? Are you able 24 to tell me that? 25 MR. BAUER I He just did. -8CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050063 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 MR. BRADLEY: But you just objected on foun o dation grounds. 3 A. What are you asking me? 4 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Well, why don't you listen 5 to ray question. 6 A. Okay. 7 Q. Do you know whether Monsanto made any review 8 of experiments conducted by IBT on Monsanto's PCB products? 9 A. I don't know whether Monsanto reviewed spe 10 cific experiments or not, no. 11 Q. Do you know whether Monsanto reviewed results 12 of experiments conducted by IBT on Monsanto's PCB products? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. The results thatMonsanto reviewed werethe 15 tests conducted by IBT on Monsanto1s Aroclor products that 16 Dr. Wright worked onj isn't that true? 17 MR. BAUER: Object to the form. Lacks founda 18 tion. 19 A. I don't know Dr. Wright's involvement with the 20 details of any of the testing or the experiments on the 21 Aroclor products, 22 Q. (by Mr.Bradley) WhenMonsantoconducted a 23 review of the results of experiments conducted by IBT on 24 Monsanto's PCB products, did it know that there was an 25 allegation that Dr. Wright had falsified the data involved -9- CONCAMNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050064 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 in those experiments? 2 A. Repeat that again? 3 MR. BRADLEY: Would you read the question 4 back * 5 (Thereupon, the reporter propounded the previous 6 question.) 7 MR. BAUER: Object to the form of the ques 8 tion. Assumes a fact not in evidence, and contrary to the 9 testimony of the witness. He had no information that there 10 was ever an allegation that the falsification data was re 11 lated to any PCB products or Aroclors. 12 MR. BRADLEY: That is an objection to the form 13 of ray question? 14 MR. BAUER: Yes. 15 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Go ahead and answer. 16 A. I didn * t know that Dr. Wright had any involve 17 ment with the PCB experiments. 18 Q. Do you know whether any of the reviewers who 19 participated in Monsanto's review of the results of experi 20 ments conducted by IBT on Monsanto's PCB products acknow 21 ledged that Dr. Wright had falsified the data involved in 22 those experiments? 23 MR. BAUER: Same objection. Assumes facts not 24 in evidence. 25 A. I didn't know that there was any allegations - 10 CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050065 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 against Dr, Wright regarding PCS experiments. 2 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) My question was, do you know 3 whether anybody else knew about it who was involved in the 4 review. Did anybody tell you about it? Did you read any 5 documents authored by people involved in the review that 6 indicated that, "We're doing this in part because there was 7 an allegation that Dr. Wright falsified data"? Did you see 8 any information like that at all? 9 MR. BAUER: Same objection, 10 A. There was never any question through my in 11 volvement that Dr, Wright's involvement had anything to do 12 with our review of the IBT data for this 1981 purpose of 13 submission to the regulatory agency. 14 Q, (by Mr. Bradley) So, when this review was 15 conducted you had not seen any documents that alleged that 16 Dr. Wright had falsified any information regarding the 17 experiments that you were reviewing? 18 MR. BAUER: Objection, Assumes a fact not in 19 evidence. 20 You can answer. '> ` 21 A. That's correct. Specifically regarding PCBs, 22 I had no evidence that Dr, Wright had any involvement with 23 the PCB experiments or any allegations of wrongdoing for 24 the PCB experiments. 25 Q. (by Mr, Bradley) I am now going to show you - 11 - CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050066 COMPUTER AIDED TRAMSCRIPTIOK 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 710. 2s this a Monsanto review of the 2 results of experiments conducted by IBT on Monsanto's PCS 3 products? 4 A* Yes. 5 Q. Is this the review that you referred to as 6 being conducted in `80 , '81? 7 A* Ycg,, 8 Q. Other thanthis document, didMonsanto prepare 9 any other reviews of the results of experiments conducted 10 by IBT on Monsanto's PCB products? 11 A. No. Not to my knowledge. 12 Q,, Did you participate in the development of 13 Plaintiff's Exhibit 710? 14 A. I participated to theextent that Irequested 15 Dr. Levinskas to review and summarise the results of the 16 IBT studies, 17 Q. Why did you make that request to Dr. IS Levinskas? 19 A. As part of the submission of available infor 20 mation to the 0.S. EPA regarding the health studies, the 21 toxicological studies on PCB's on animal species, during 22 our discussions with some EPA staff members, they indicated 23 that they had not seen a complete published copy of the IBT 24 studies. Some of these were younger staff members who had 25 been in the agency only a few years. The IBT studies had -12COKCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050067 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 not been published in a Peer Review Journal because they 2 had been presented to the agencies, various regulatory 3 agencies, in the decade preceding, by the Members of 4 Monsanto's medical department as the results became 5 available. 6 Q. Dr. Craddock, why didn't Monsanto simply pro 7 vide the IBT study results to the BPA instead of preparing 3 its own review of the results of those experiments? 9 MR. BADERs Objection. Assumes facts not in 10 evidence, that it was an instead-of situation. 11 A. The reason was -- is that, in my capacity as 12 chairman of the toxicology subgroup, in discussions with my 13 committee as to what kind of information that we would 14 provide on all of the health affect studies, and what we 15 would do is that we would provide summaries, and as brief 16 as possible. This was an attempt to summarize three very 17 lengthy two-year chronic rat feeding studies with several 10 hundred animals. So this was a summary of results as 19 recorded in the IBT reports, and it was left up to Dr. 20 Levinskas as to the format, in whatever procedure he wanted 21 to present the data. It was asked for in summary form and 22 that is what they got. 23 Q. Did Dr. Levinskas show you, as part of his 24 preparation of Plaintiff's Exhibit 710, any documents 25 whereby Monsanto requested changes in the conclusions of - 13 CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050068 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 the test results prepared by IBT? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Are you aware that Monsanto wrote to IBT re 4 questing changes in the conclusions of the portions of the 5 reports prepared by IBT on Aroclor products manufactured by 6 Monsanto? 7 MR. BAUERi Objection. Outside of the scope 8 of this witness, who is being tendered only on topics six 9 and eight. 10 You can answer. 11 A. I have heard of such allegations, but I have 12 not seen any documents. 13 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Had you heard the allega 14 tions prior to completion of Plaintiff's Exhibit 710? 15 A. Ho. 16 Q. I am going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 704 17 and represent that your attorney has told me that you are 18 prepared to testify about this document in relation to to 19 day's deposition. Is this a document you have seen before, 20 absent the fax information at the top? '> ` 21 A. Yes, I have. 22 Q. Is this document aMonsanto review of experi 23 ments conducted by IBT on Monsanto's PCB products and their 24 results? 25 A. I think this may includethe IBTstudies. - 14 CONCANNON b JAEGER WATER PCB-00050069 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 This is a review of the literature of health effects 2 studies? published health effects studies in general, but 3 it also includes the IBT work, I believe. 4 Q. So this document does or does not include a 5 review of experiments conducted by IBT on Monsanto's PCS 6 products and their results? 7 A. I'd have to look, but I think it may include 8 it, but I'd have to look at the tables to tell you. This 9 may be everything except the Monsanto results. 10 This includes the IBT results in tabular form? 11 along with the results from all of the other pertinent 12 studies up to that point in time. 13 Q. Is that a review of the experiments conducted 14 by IBT on Monsanto1s PCB product? 15 A. This paper is a review of the conclusions of 16 the various published papers and the literature, including 17 the summary paper that Dr. Levinskas prepared for submis 1C sion to the agency, which was not published in Peer Review 19 literature. 20 0. Were there communications b&tween Monsanto and 21 any government agency concerning PCB studies performed for 22 Monsanto at IBT? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Tel1 me what communications you're aware of 25 regarding that topic with any government agency. - 15 CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050070 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 A. With regard to chemicals which required a 2 federal registration, such as U.S. BPA for pesticides, Food 3 and Drug Administration for food and food additives, and 4 USDA for certain agricultural product uses, any product 5 that had been tested at IBT that required such a registra 6 tion was required by the agency to be validated by a group 7 of independent consultants, or, if it could not be vali 8 dated under certain criteria, to be repeated at another 9 laboratory. 10 Q. Do you know why that was required? 11 A. The agency required -- 12 MR. BAUER: Objection. Outside of the scope 13 of the 30(B)(6) Notice. 14 A. The agent required it to renew the registra 15 tion . 16 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know why the agency 17 required it? 10 MR. BAUERi Objection. Outside of the scope 19 of the 30(b)(6) Notice. Lacks foundation, Hearsay, 20 A. (by Mr Bradley) Go ahead ^nd answer it. 21 Q. The agency required all animal studies that 22 had been used for registration of any product by any com 23 pany, including many companies other than Monsanto, that 24 all of these studies had to undergo the same review 25 criteria, - 16 CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050071 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 Q. Was it only for companies that had tests per 2 form at XETf or was it for companies, in addition, that had 3 tests performed at other labs? 4 MR BAtJERi Same objections 5 A# I don't know about other laboratories All I 6 was involved with was the IBT review and validation process 7 for Monsanto, 8 Q. (by Mr, Bradley) And how did you get involved 9 in the review process for the IBT studies at Monsanto? Did 10 somebody ask you to get involved? 11 MR, BAUER: Same objections. 12 A, Yes. 13 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Who? 14 MR, BAUER; Same objections. Outside of the 15 scope. 16 A. It was my boss or director at the time. It 17 was prior to my involvement as the corporate focal point 10 for PCB's. 19 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Okay. And you were given 20 that assignment in 1980 or 1981? *'f 21 A. Yes. 22 No. This assignment was before 1980-'81. The 23 review and validation of the IBT studies was done probably 24 about the 1978-179 time frame , before my involvement as the 25 PCD focal point, - 17 - CONCANNON & JAEGER I WATER PCB-00050072 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 Q. And did the person who asked you to partici 2 pate in the review and validation of the IBT studies indi 3 cate to you why a review was being made of IBT studies? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. What did that person indicate to you? 6 MR, BAUER: Objection, Outside of the scope. 7 A As I testified previously, the agencies were 8 requiring the validation of studies performed by IBT 9 Laboratories of products that required registration from 10 those three federal agencies. 11 Q. (by Mr, Bradley) And they didn1t tell you why 12 those agencies were requiring a validation of IBT studies? 13 HR, EAUER: Same objection. 14 A. Yes, It was known that there were allegations 15 of fraud for certain studies at IBT Laboratories. 16 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) And as part of that review 17 and validation of the IBT studies that made its way into 18 Plaintiff`s Exhibit 704, did Monsanto undertake any effort 19 to determine whether the underlying data that waa reported 20 by IBT relative to its testing of Monsanto * s' Aroclor 21 products was falsified? 22 MR, BAUER: Object to the form of the ques 23 tion. Vague, and assumes facts not in evidence as to what 24 you mean by "review and validation." 25 (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) - 18 CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050073 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 A* As to the question just stated, the work that 2 was done by Dr. Levinskas at my request in '81 was not a 3 review and validation of the data. It was -- I asked him 4 to summarize the results as had been reported. Dr. 5 Levinskas was able to do this any way he wanted. I gave 6 him no directions as to what to do. He subsequently told 7 me he wanted to look at some of the underlying data, and I 8 presume that is what he did, as well as look at the reports 9 and the conclusions. But this report was not intended to 10 be a validation or any type of investigation into the pre 11 vious allegations. This v/as strictly to review what had 12 been published and what had been submitted previously to 13 the various regulatory agencies from 1971 up until whenever 14 it was. 15 MR. BAUER} For the record, when the witness 16 said "This document," he was touching Plaintiff's Exhibit 17 704. 18 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Did Monsanto review and 19 validate the IBT studies in 1979? 20 A. No. ` 21 Q. Did Monsanto review and validate the IBT 22 studies ever7 23 MR. BAUER; IBT studies for PCB's? 24 MR. BRADLEY; Yes. 25 MR. BAUERj Object to the form. Vague as to - 19 - COHCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050074 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 what you mean by "review and validate.8 n Q. (by Mr. Bradley) You understand what I mean 3 by that. You used the word. You said that the government 4 required you to review and validate IBT studios. So, when 5 you -- 6 A. Well, we're talking about two different 7 things. We have talked about IBT studies for existing 8 product registrations. PCB's were never a product which 9 had a government registration. It was never required. It 10 was never done. PCB's were never a part of the validation 11 program. The validation program was only for products 12 which had a federal registration by one of the three 13 agencies we discussedt USDA, PDA, and EPA. PCB's never 14 were a registered product under any of those agencies. 15 They were not required to be under the validation and 16 review process. Those are two separate issues. 17 Q, (by Mr. Bradley) So I take it, then, Monsanto 18 never did audit and validate the IBT studies that they 19 undertook for Monsanto* s PCB's? is that correct? 20 A. That's correct. As a part dt what is the for 21 mal audit and validation review of products for government 22 agency registration, that was never done. That is a cor 23 rect statement. 24 Q, And even an informal audit, outside of any 25 responsibility to any government agency, Monsanto never -20CCNCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050075 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 undertook an effort to informally audit and informally 2 validate the IBT studies for Aroclors product manufactured 3 by Monsanto? isn*t that true? 4 HR BAUERi Object to the form of the ques 5 tion . It's contrary to the evidence The evidence -- 6 A. That8s not a correct statement, no. 7 MR. BRADLEY? Well, you know, Mr. Bauer, l#m 8 not certain that I could find that objection in any of the 9 Federal Rules of Evidence. It appears to roe you may be 10 attempting to educate a witness regarding an answer you'd 11 like him to give. Do you have an objection that's appro 12 priate under the Federal Rules of Evidence? 13 MR. BAUER : I object to the form of that ques 14 tion . 15 MR. BRADLEY: Fine. 16 Did Monsanto undertake any informal audit, or 17 formal audit, or informal validation, or formal validation, 18 whether or not as a result of any requirement of any 19 agency, to determine the reliability and validity of the 20 IBT studies conducted on Monsanto * a Arocl'or 'products? 21 A. If you use the term "Monsanto" as any Monsanto 22 employee, the answer is yes. 23 Q. (by Mr, Bradley) And describe for me what 24 that Monsanto employee did. 25 A, As I have testified previously, at my request - 21 - ' CONCANNON 6 JAEGER WATER PCB-00050076 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 Dr a Levinskas was to undertake a review of the IBT studies 2 and the conclusions, and whatnot, and summarize his re 3 sults. Dr, Levinskas told me that/ to satisfy himself, 4 that, in addition to reviewing the IBT reports where infor 5 mation was available, he undertook to validate the experi 6 mental data that was available to him. I do not knew the 7 details of what he did or how he did it, but he said his 8 goal was to satisfy himself, and he is a board certified 9 toxicologist, and I think his review was pretty good. 10 MR. BRADLEYi Well, let's go off the record. 11 (Thereupon, a discussion was had.) 12 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) And did Dr, Levinskas tell 13 you whether he was able to validate the prior IBT studies? 14 A. Dr. Levinskas told me that he was satisfied 15 that the results and the conclusions from the prior IBT 16 studies were sound. 17 Q. Do you know what it means to validate a study? 18 A. Yes, I do. 19 Q. What does it mean? 20 A. In the validation program fo'f I`ST studies that 21 I was involved with for registered products, there was an 22 independent consulting firm of toxicologists who designed a 23 formal protocol as to how they would do this in advance, 24 and they designed the criteria that they would use to 25 prioritizes the studies that they would evaluate, and they - 22 CONCAHNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050077 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 decided in advance what information they would require to 2 go through to look at, and how much data, and what types of 3 data, and then attempts were made to go to the records at 4 IBT to identify any and all notes, original notes, pages, 5 notebooks, whatever, any information, data, weights, 6 measurements, that were identified as being a part of the 7 particular study, and that they would take this original 8 data from the laboratory and they would look at this, and 9 they would track the animals to make sure that the calcula 10 tions from one phase to the other were in good shape. So 11 it was a monumental job of actually trying to track the 12 original data back to the conclusions and the results that 13 were in the report. 14 Q, And as part of that validation did the inde 15 pendent group of toxicologists examine the individual data 16 for individual animals that was reported in the IBT 17 studies? 18 MR. BAUERi Objection. Outside of the scope. 19 Validation for non PCB products. 20 A. For the validation program ds we * ve defined 21 it, yes, they looked at any and all raw data that they 22 could find. 23 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) And is that what you be 24 lieved was a requirement for validating a study in 1980? 25 MR. BAUERs Object to the form of the ques- ' - 23 CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050078 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 felon. Validation, if the purpose is not defined -- Well, 2 it's vague if the purpose of validation is not defined, 3 A. We're sort of mixing apples and oranges here. 4 The validation program was a specific program and protocol 5 which was defined in advance by the consultants, which was 6 agreed upon in advance by the scientists and powers that be 7 at the regulatory agencies So it was -- 8 Q (by Mr, Bradley) Dr. Craddock, let me ask you 9 this question; Does validation have a meaning other than 10 the way it's used by the federal agencies when they re 11 quested a review and validation of IBT studies that you 12 have already referred to? Does it have a meaning in the 13 field of toxicology that you are aware of, a meaning in the 14 field of statistics that you are aware of, a meaning in any 15 field that you are aware of? 16 MR, BAUER; Objection. Outside the scope. 17 A, The answer is, most words have a meaning that 13 is far beyond the scope of the regulatory definition. For 19 instance, PCB's, in the regulatory definition, is total 20 different from PCB's in a definition of alchemist. 21 Q, (by-Mr, Bradley) My question is, does valida 22 tion have a meaning in the field of statistics. Do you 23 know? 24 A. It most probably does, but I don't know about 25 the statistics. - 24 CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050079 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 Q, We have been talking about whether# among many 2 things# whether Dr. Levinskas validated the IET studies on 3 Aroclor. What did you mean when you answered my question 4 on that subject? What did you mean by "validation? 5 MR. BAUERs Object to the form of the ques 6 tion. characterisation of the earlier testimony# which I 7 believe was related to an attempt to validate# 0 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Whether it was related to 9 validation or an attempt to validate# what did you mean by 10 the word "validate#" or "validation"? 11 A. In our first discussion of the validation -- 12 we keep mixing these things -- the validation program for 13 the IBT studies involved products which were registered 14 products, and that was a very deliberately defined proto 15 col . 15 Q. I do not want, ever again in this deposition, 17 to talk about that program. I. agree it's apples and 18 oranges; I don't want to talk about it. 19 My question to you is# when we talked about 20 validate# or validation done by Dr. Levifekas of IBT 21 studies on Aroclor, what did you mean by "validate" or 22 "validation"? 23 MR. BAUERj Again, I object to the form of the 24 question. I don't recall that he ever used those words 25 specifically with respect to the words that Dr. Levinskas - 25 CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050080 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 used? 2 A. I don't recall that exact question. If we 3 could read that answer back, I'd be happy to try to explain 4 it. Dr. Levinskas said I think I said in answer to one 5 question# Dr. Levinskas said he wanted to satisfy himself. 6 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Let's go back for a moment, 7 then. 8 A. As to the quality of the data. The quality of 9 the data and the reliability of the data# and he did that. 10 Q. My question I believed posed to you at one 11 point was whether Dr. Levinskas ever indicated to you that 12 he had validated the IBT studies on Aroclor. And so, sub 13 ject to an asked-and-answered, let me ask that same ques 14 tion again. 15 A. I thought we talked about that. The Aroclor 16 studies were not validated, they were not. part of the 17 validation program. That is a separate issue. I guess I 18 would have to ask you to read that answer back. I don't , 19 understand -- 20 Q. I know they weren't part of />the validation 21 program, and I'm not suggesting they were. I know they 22 were not. 23 Separate from whether they were part of the 24 validation program, did Dr. Levinskas indicate to you 25 whether he had validated the IBT studies on Aroclor - 26 - CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050081 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 products manufactured by Monsanto? 2 MR. BAUER % Objection. Asked and answered. 3 A. Dr. Levinskas indicated to me that he reviewed 4 the data to satisfy himself that it was sound scientific 5 data^ and that it was reliable, and the conclusions based 6 upon it were reliable scientifically. 7 0. (by Mr Bradley) Did he ever use the word 8 "validate" in describing the work he did relative to the 9 IBT studies on Aroclors? 10 A. I don't recall that he ever used that word in 11 that context. 12 Q. Did Dr. Levinskas indicate to you that, in 13 determining that the IBT studies were reliable, that he 14 reviewed data on individual animals that were part of those 15 IBT studies on Aroclor manufactured by Monsanto? 16 A. I don't recall he specifically said he used 17 data on individual animals. He said something to the 18 effect that he looked at original data, where availabler 19 whatever that means. 20 Q. Did he indicate to you that '`he ` looked into 21 necropsy logs? 22 A. I did not go into that detail, and I don't 23 think that he did, no. He did not indicate that to me. 24 Q. Do you know whether a researcher would need to 25 review necropsy logs to determine if a study was statis- - 27 CONCANNON 6 JAEGER WATER PCB-00050082 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 tically reliable? 2 A. I don't know the details of what he did to 3 determine the reliability of the studies. I asked Dr. 4 Levinskas to undertake this task because he is a board 5 certified toxicologist# and he is the director of the 6 toxicology department at Monsanto Company. Q. Dr. Levinskas is also the gentleman who B employed Paul Wright in 1972# when, prior to that# Paul 9 Wright was an IBT employee? isn't that correct? 10 A. He may have been? 1 don't know that for a 11 fact. I don't know who hired him. 12 MR. BAUER: Object to that. Lacks foundation. 13 Q. {by Mr. Bradley) You don't have any training 14 in statistics# I take it? 15 A. I've had a couple of courses in statistics, 16 but I am not a statistician no* 17 Q. You are not able to tell us# for example# what 18 is statistically required to determine whether a study is 19 statistically valid or reliable? 20 MR. BAUERs Objection. Outside of the scope. 21 A. Talking specifically about an animal study# 22 no# I am not. 23 Q. Are there any other communications between 24 Monsanto and government agencies concerning PCB studies 25 performed for Monsanto by IBT that you have not described - 28 CONCANNON $ JAEGER r 1 WATER PCB-00050083 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 for us? #> MR. BAUERi Object to the form. I don't 3 recall that he's described any of the communications yet, 4 but I could just be missing whatever. 5 THE WITNESS * No, I haven't described any 6 communications. 7 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) All right. What communica 8 tions took place between Monsanto and any government agency 9 concerning PCB studies performed by Monsanto at IBT? 10 A. Monsanto had these studies prepared by Dr. 11 Levinskas. They were made available to the CMA PCB panel, 12 which included them in the submission of data to the U.S. 13 EPA under the rule made in the public domain. 14 In subsequent meetings with the U.S. EPA staff 15 of the HERD group, which is the Health Evaluation Research 16 Department of the Office of Toxic Substances, there were 17 meetings among the CMA panel members and other industry 18 association groups to discuss their needs in order to re 19 view all of the information that was coming in. They had a 20 court-mandated deadline. ` 21 The agency asked industry groups if they could 22 provide hard copies of information and references to cer 23 tain of the summaries that they wanted to look at indivi 24 dually at the request of certain people from the U.S. EPA. 25 I provided copies of references to Dr. -29- CONCANNON b JAEGER WATER PCB-00050084 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 Levinskas's studies, to the references contained therein, 2 so that they would be able to look at those references or 3 any other information that they asked for. 4 Q. And during any of those meetings was it dis 5 cussed that there were allegations that Dr Wright had 6 falsified data as part of the work at IBT on Aroclor 7 products manufactured by Monsanto? 8 MR. BAUER: Object to the form. Assumes facts 9 not in evidence. 10 A. Dr. Wright was never mentioned. 11 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Have we concluded your know 12 ledge of communications between Monsanto and government 13 agencies concerning PCB studies performed for Monsanto? 14 A, Any knowledge of - 15 C. Are there other communications that you have 16 not told us about that you are aware of between Monsanto 17 and government agencies concerning PCB studies performed 18 for Monsanto at IET? 19 A. During the time period 176 to eighty -- 20 MR. BAUERr The time period Vhich is being 21 tendered is 1980 forward, 22 A. There is no other information that I am aware 23 of. 24 MR. BRADLEY: I have no further questions. 25 MR. BAUER: I have no questions. - 30 CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050085 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 of 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MORGANs I have no questions. JOHN H. CRADDOCK Subscribed and sworn to before me this _________ day # A. D,, 1993. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES . Notary Public, within and for the State of Missouri - 31 CONCANNOM & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050086 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 STATE OP MISSOURI ) ) ss 2 COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS ) 3 I, Mark D. Concannon, a Notary Public within and for 4 the State of Missouri, duly commissioned, qualified and 5 authorized to administer oaths and to take and certify to 6 depositions, do hereby certify that pursuant to Notice in 7 the civil cause now pending and undetermined in the 8 District Court of the United States, within and for the 9 District of Nevada, entitled NEVADA POWER COMPANY, 10 Plaintiff, -vs- MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., Defendants, to be 11 used in the trial of said cause in said Court, I was 12 attended at the law offices of Messrs. Busch, Eppenberger, 13 Donohue, Cornfeld k Jenkins, 100 H. Broadway, Ste. 1300, in 14 the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, by Ralph A. 15 Bradley, attorney for the Plaintiff; by Scott R, Bauer, 16 attorney for the Defendant Monsanto; by Robert P. Morgan, 17 In-House Counsel for the Defendant West!nghouse? and by 18 JOHN H, CRADDOCK, the witness, in said office on July 21, 19 1993. 20 The said witness, JOHN H. CRADDOCfvi being of sound 21 mind and being by me first carefully examined and duly 22 cautioned and sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth 23 and nothing but the truth in the case aforesaid, thereupon 24 testified as is shown in the foregoing tran- script, said 25 testimony being by me reported in shorthand and caused to - 32 CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050087 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 be transcribed into typewriting, and that the foregoing 2 pages correctly set out the testimony of the aforementioned 3 witness, JOHN H. CRADDOCK, together with the questions 4 propounded by counsel and the remarks and objections of 5 counsel thereto, and is in all respects a full# true and 6 complete transcript of the questions propounded to and the 7 answers given by said witness; and that said testimony, so 8 transcribed# was subscribed to by the witness on the _____ 9 day of_________ ____________ , A.D., 1993. 10 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not of counsel nor 11 attorney for any of the parties to said suit, nor related, 12 nor interested in any of the parties or their attorneys. 13 WITNESS MY HAND and Notarial Seal, given this ____ ____ 14 day of ___ __ ,___ ________ , A. D., 1993 , at St. Louis, Missouri . 15 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 21, 1994. 16 17 18 MARK D. CONCANNON, 19 Notary Public, within and for the State of Missouri 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 33 - CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050088 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 JOHN H. CRADDOCK 2 3 - DEPOSITION CORRECTION SHEET - 4 In Re: NEVADA POWER Vs. MONSANTO 5 Upon reading hie deposition transcript and before subscrib ing thereto# the deponent indicated the following: 6 7 Page Line should read* 8 Reason assigned for change: 9 Page Line should read: 10 Reason assigned for change: 11 Page Line should reads 12 Reason assigned for changes 13 Page Line should reads 14 Reason assigned for changes 15 Page Line should reads 16 Reason assigned for changes 17 Page Line should read * 18 Reason assigned for changes 19 Page Line should read: 20 Reason assigned for change* ` 21 Page Line should read t 22 Reason assigned for changes 23 Page Line should read * 24 25 JOHN H. CRADDOCK ~~ - 35 - CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050089 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 2 Concannon and Jaeger General Court Reporters 3 705 Olive Street, Ste. 604 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 4 August 10, 1993 5 0 7 Mr. Scott R Bauer Kirkland 6 Ellis 8 1999 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80202 9 Ret Nevada Power Vs. Monsanto 10 Dear Mr. Bauer: 11 This letter, incorporated as the last page of Mr* 12 Craddock's deposition, taken on July 20 and 21, 1993, will serve as notice to you that Mr. Craddock's testimony is now 13 ready for his reading and signing of same. 14 Enclosed, please find your copy of the deposition, along with the original signature page, (pg.31), and errata 15 sheets. Please have Mr. Craddock read his deposition at his earliest possible convenience, making whatever changes 16 he feels necessary on the errata sheets, along with his reason for making same. Have him sign the original 17 signature page and eratta sheets before any notary, and return the original signature page and eratta sheets to me 18 at the above address so that I may file the original transcript in Court and notify opposing counsel of the 19 changes. 20 Thank you for your cooperation in^this regard. 21 Sincerely, 22 &/ 23 MARK D. CONCANNON 24 MDCsmk ends. 25 - 34 - CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050090 COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION 1 JOHN H. CRADDOCK 2 3 - DEPOSITION CORRECTION SHEET - 4 In Re: NEVADA POWER Vs. MONSANTO 5 Upon reading his deposition transcript and before subscrib ing thereto, the deponent indicated the following: 6 7 Page Line should read: 8 Reason assigned for change: 9 Page Line should reads 10 Reason assigned for change: 11 Page Line should read: 12 Reason assigned for change: 13 Page Line should read: 14 Reason assigned for change: 15 Page Line should read: 16 Reason assigned for change: 17 Page Line should read: 18 Reason assigned for change: 19 Page Line should read: 20 Reason assigned for change: Sr i 21 Page Line should read: 22 Reason assigned for change: 23 Page Line should read: 24 25 JOHN H. CRADDOCK - 35 - CONCANNON & JAEGER WATER PCB-00050091