Document rnMZD861dvGxV9NnmvBYQy2V

NEVADA POWER COMPANY MONSANTO COMPANY, GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION, et al., CONTINUATION OF THE DISCOVERY DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ROUSH On the part of the Plaintiff March 18, 1993 IH Concannon & Jaeger I General Court Reporters 705 Olive Street, Suite 604 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 (314) 421-1000 .*u wiv^ : Jk>t 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT POR THE DISTRICT OP NEVADA " :3 NEVADA POWER COMPANY, ' ) ) 4 Plaintiff, ) -vs- ) # CV-89-555-LDG (LRL) 5) MONSANTO COMPANY, GENERAL 6 ELECTRIC CORPORATION, et al.. , ) ) ) 7 Defendants ) 8 9 10 11 12 v 13 -. 14 15 16 17 INDEX V7ITNESS ; Page: GEORGE ROUSH Direct Examination by Mr. Bradley ............... 125 Cross Examination by Mr. Featherstone . . . . . . 150 - Redirect Examination by Mr. Bradley ............. 200 Recross Examination by Mr. Feather s t o n e ......... 223 EXHIBITS Roush Deposition Exhibit A ,, (Letter from Sinclair to Roush, dtd. 6-25-76) 158 ; 18 19 20 Roush Deposition Exhibit 3 . . . . . ......... .. (Monsanto Memo dtd. 8-27-76) .-,163 Roush Deposition Exhibit C . . . . ............... . i 167 (Press Release dtd. 9-21-76) 21 Roush Deposition Exhibit D ............... . . . . . . 181 (Itinerary dtd. 11-10-75) 22 23 24 25 - 123 - CONCANNON & JA EG ER W M XJ jrviiMo U i Xi'T XUIi 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT POR THE DISTRICT OP NEVADA 2 3 NEVADA ROW ER CO MPANY , ) ) 4 PIaintiff , } . 5 -vs- ) ) # CV-89-555-LDG (LRL) 6 HONSANTO COMPANY, GENERAL ) ) ) 7 ELECTRIC CORPORATION, et al., ) Defendants, ) 8 9 CONTINUATION OP THE DISCOVERY DEPOSITION OF WITNESS, 10 to be used in an action pending in the District Court of 11 the United States, for the District of Nevada, wherein 12 NEVADA POWER COMPANY is Plaintiff, and MONSANTO COMPANY, et 13 al . are Defendants, pursuant to Notice, under the 14 provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 15 taken on March 18, 1993, at the lav; offices of Messrs. 16 Husch & Eppenberger, 100 North Broadway, St. Louis, 17 Missouri, before John T. Concannon, a Notary Public within 18 and for the State of Missouri. 19 A P P E A R A N C E S 20 The Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Ralph A. Bradley, of the law firm of Bradley a Merrell, c/o Jones, 21 Jones,<Close a Brown, 300 South Fourth Street, Sts. 700, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89101. 22 The Defendant, Monsanto Company, was represented by 23 Mr. Bruce A. Feather stone, of the lav; firm of Kirkland a Ellis, 1999 Broadway, Ste. 4000, Denver Coloraoo, 80202. 24 The Defendant, Westinghouse Corporation, was 25 represented by i-fs. Laurie Basch, of the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153. - 124 - CONCANNON JAliG tiR -n-t XJ A A m V D U t X r T !U\j 1 GEORGE ROUSH, ' 2 of lawful age, having been previously sworn to tell the " 3 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, deposes 4 and says on behalf of the Plaintiff, as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 QUESTIONS BY MR. BRADLEY: 7 Q. Dr. Roush, w e 1re here on the second day of 8 your deposition, and you understand that you* re still under 9 oath? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. All right. We had spoken briefly yesterday 12 about Dr. Paul Wright, and you indicated that, as I recall, 13 that Dr. Wright was an employee of Monsanto's when you 14 became an employee in 1973? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did Dr. Wright leave Monsanto to go work with 17 Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories during the 1970's? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Was Dr. Wright a Monsanto -- As a rule, you 20 don't remember when Dr. Wright left Monsanto; is that 21 correct? 22 A. It was before me. What do you mean by -- 23 Q. Okay. Well, tell me what you know about Dr. 24 Wright1s employment with Monsanto. When was he employed by 25 Monsanto? - 125 - CONCANNON 0 JA EG ER j. a\ -4o x_.r *T 1 A. He was working for Monsanto v?hen I came. '1 2 0 . Okay. 3 A. And he had been to Bio-Test before that. 4 Q. And before working with Industrial Bio-Test, 5 had Dr. Wright been a Monsanto employee, do you knov;? 6 A. I think so. 7 Q. All right. And Dr. Wright eventually was 8 charged with a crime regarding the work that he did at IBT 9 Labs? is that correct? 10 A. I don't know. I didn't know the basis tor 11 that criminal -- that action in court. 12 Q. Do you knov? that he was charged with a crime 13 during the 1970's? 14 A. That word "criminal" never got to me from 15 Monsanto. 16 Q. Did Monsanto ever give any awards to Dr. 17 Wright for his role in forestalling SPA's promulgation of 18 regulations to limit discharges of PCB's? 1 19 A. No. 20 Q. I'm going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 1137 21 and ask you to look at that. Have you had a chance to 22 review that? 23 A. Yes. 2 4 Q. Had you seen that document before today? 25 A. I signed it in 1976. - 126 - COMCANNON S JAEGER u j. j.v*u* o v^i\ x X'XXUIN 1 Q-. \ 2 bottom?? * 3 A. All right. That1s your signature down at the Yes. 4 Q. And 5 A. It's 6 Q. And 7 that? 8 A. 8-4- 9 HR. 10 .gnature, D 11 THE ! 12 HR. 13 THE 1 14 as well.- 15 Q- (by 16 ,o Dr. Paul 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And !was the amount of the award one hundred 19 i? 20 A. I th 21 Q. Was 22 A. No. 23 Q. Was 24 A. Yes. 25 MR. - 127 - COiCAilMOl & J AEG ER Uii U XXWXLVO XJt**X' HJU 1 cash now? 7 Z. 3 H R . BRADLEY: Yes. Now, I'm looking at the middle paragraph of 4 the exhibit in which it says, the form says* "Describe the 5 achievement and its significance to Monsanto. " And halfway- 6 down, beginning on the far right-hand side it says, "In the 7 former instance..." Actually, let me go up. "Particularly 3 noteworthy were his..." meaning Dr. Wright's, "..efforts on 9 polychlorinated biphenyls, (Aroclors) and chlorinated 10 Isocyanurafes (ACL products). In the former instance, his 11 excellent analysis and syntheses of widely scattered 12 observations played a prominent role in forestalling the 13 HIPA's promulgation of unrealistic regulating to limit 14 discharge of polychlorinated biphenyls. 11 Do you see that 15 there? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What did Dr. Wright do as part of his 18 excellent analysis and synthesis of widely scattered 19 observations which played a prominent role in forestalling 20 EPA1s promulgation of unrealistic regulating to limit 21 discharges of PCB`s? 22 A. As I read it back then, is, he did some v/ork, 23 he looked at the PCB data that was available, and put it 24 together in a fashion that could be acceptable to the EPA, 25 and they agreed with the recommended course. - 123 - coMCAiinon a j a e g e h ^ j-iiiXiil u X JT--2. L'i 1 Q. Is that a true copy of the award that you T o signed in August of 1976? 3 A. I don* t recall, but I would suspect it is. It 4 looks reasonable. I can't imagine doing it again. 5 Q. And is that a document that was written on or 6 about the date signed by Dr. Levinskas and you? 7 A Ye s 8 Q. And the contents of that exhibit were 9 apparently written by Dr. Levinskas and you based upon 10 knowledge you had of the information contained in the 11 exhibiti is that correct? 12 MR. FEATHERSTOMS: Object to the form. 13 A. The work that was done, was done by Paul 14 Wright and evaluated by Levinskas. 15 HR. BRADLEY: Would you read back tnat answer 16 for me, please? 17 (Thereupon, the reporter read back the previous 18 answer.) 19 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Was it Dr. Levinskas, you, 20 or someone else who developed the wording of Plaintiff's 21 Exhibit 1137? 22 A. Levinskas. 23 Q. And do you knov/ whether Dr. Levinskas had 24 Knowledge of the facts that were contained in Exhibit 1137 25 when lie wrote it? - 129 COiJCA1TNOil a JA EG ER X o Uii -Li'T .ULM 1 A. Yes. r ot* Q. And do you know whether Dr. Levinskas wrote 3 Exhibit 1137 at or near the time that Dr. Wright received 4 the award? 5 A. I can1t answer that. 6 Q. And do you know whether this exhibit was made 7 as part of the regular practice of Monsanto's business, and 3 that they kept records of the awards that they gave? 9 HR. FEATHERSTQNE: Let me hear back the 10 question, please. 11 (Thereupon, the reporter read back the previous 12 question.) 13 MR. FEATHERSTOWE: Object to tue form. 14 Q- (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether this 15 record was -- excuse me -- this exhibit was part of the 16 regular practice of Monsanto1s business? 17 A. I don1t know. 18 Q. Did Monsanto regularly make awards? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Did Monsanto occasionally make awards? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And when Monsanto made those awards, would 23 Monsanto maintain copies of those awaras in its business 2 4 f il es? 25 A. I don't know. - 130 COMOARMOK JAEGER  M i u i u v i i v j f r j i jtV/14 1 Q. You don1t know whether these awards were -- r 2 Well, let me ask it this way: Do you know whether awards -n were kept in the ordinary course of Monsanto1s regularly4 conducted business? 5 A, I*m sorry. 6 Mil. FEATHERS TOME: Part of the problem here 7 maybe is that you* re talking about awards, Mr. Bradley, and 8 the document says "Achievement Award Data Sheet." 9 MR. BRADLEY: Well, all right. Thank you. 10 Do you know whether Monsanto kept copies of 11 achievement award data sheets in the ordinary course of 12 their business activity? 13 A. I don't know. 14 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) When you began work at 15 Monsanto, up to the time of your retirement, did you ever 16 review minutes of the corporate development committee 17 within Monsanto that occurred prior to your employment at 18 Monsanto? 19 A. Ho. 20 Q. I'm now going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 21 1252 and ask you if you've ever reviewed that document 22 before? That is a document that we received from Monsanto 23 as part of our discovery. It was not attached to anything, 24 and I'm trying to figure out when it was written, what it 25 was attached to, if anything. Have you ever seen that - 131 COHCAIIUOH a JAEGER i-Ji-i U 1 document before? r 2 A. I can1t recall. 3 Q. I'm now going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 1433, which we received from Monsanto pursuant to our 5 discovery, which is also undated, and ask that you reviev; 6 that to tell me whether y o u 've ever seen it before. 7 A. I don1t think I saw that. 8 Q. While you were employed at Monsanto, did you 9 ever review a presentation by Dr. E. S. Tucker on 10 semicontinuous activated sludge degradation? 11 A. No. 12 Q. While you were at Monsanto, did you review any 13 Monsanto documents relating to the biodegradability of 14 Aroclor 1221? 15 A. I don*t think so. 16 Q. I'm now going to show you Plaintiff*s Exhibit 17 431 and ask if you've seen that document before. 18 A. No. 19 Q, Okay. During the time you were employed at 20 Monsanto, did you review any correspondence in the 1950's 21 between Monsanto and the State of Indiana, State Board of 22 Health? 23 A. 19501s? 24 0 . Correspondence from the1950's. 25 A. I don't recall. -- XTOOO1 _ COIICANNON 1 JAECNN *  o i* JLLJLU LJ JL- aim UK I PT ION 1 Q. I will show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 442 and r 2 ask you if you've seen that document before. i 3 A. What was the question? 4 Q. Have you seen that document before? 5 A. 6 Q. While you were employed at Monsanto, were you 7 ever informed that Indiana workers reportedly became ill 8 due to inhalation of Aroclor vapors? 9 A. No. 10 Q. I'm going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 441 11 and ask if you have seen that document before. 12 A. No, I hadn't seen that, either. 13 Q. When you worked at Monsanto, were you ever 14 informed that in the 1950's there were complaints of upper 15 respiratory tract, plus possible liver damage for workers 16 exposed to Aroclors in Brasil? 17 A. No. 18 Q Did Monsanto manufacture a product called 19 Inerteen? 20 A. I don't know. 21 Q. Did Monsanto mix chemicals on Monsanto 22 property where the mixture was called Inerteen? 23 MR. FEATHERS TON 13: Is there a time period to 24 your question? 25 HR. BRADLEY: Any time. - 133 CONCANNON & JAEGER -------- - a A if iit i j J . T J.' 1 HR. FEATHERS T ONE: Object to the lack or r 2 foundation. Calls for speculation. 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether 5 Westinghouse used a product called Inerteen, which was 6 comprised of PCS'S? 7 A. I don* t knov;. 3 Q. Have you ever heard the word "Inerteen" 9 before? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Tell me how you know about Inerteen. 12 MR. FEATHERSTOME; Object ot the form. 13 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) What is Inerteen? 14 MR. FEATHERSTOME: Object to the form. Wor I 15 don't object to the form. Object to the foundation. 16 A. Interteen is a product like PCB tnat can be 17 used to -- as a dielectric, 13 Q, (by Mr, Bradley) When did you first hear the 19 term "Interteen"? 20 A. I heard it many times at Monsanto. 21 Q- All right. And while you were at Monsantor 22 did you read any documents indicating what the composition 23 of Inerteen is -- or was. Excuse me. 2 4 A. I've read it and I can't recall any more than 25 to say I've read that it was largely PC3's . Whether it's - 13 4 COHCANIJOH U** r,llhUJ r\ ___ .----- 4. i \ A M O U ^ l J ^ T 1U I >1 1 something else, I don*t know. r 2 Q. Do you recall whether -- Nov? you' re reading - 3 you learned that the Inerteen was -- Let me .-- was a 1 4 mixture of chemicals that were mixed by Monsanto? `5 A. Yes. 6 J>. Have you heard of a business called Cleveland 7 Works? 8 A. Cleveland what? 9 Q. Works. 10 A. Wo. 11 Q. In your work at Monsanto, did you ever learn 12 of the identity of a gentleman named E. C. Barnes? 13 A. If I did, it was casual. 14 Q. Do you know whether Westinghouse had an 15 industrial hygiene engineer named E. C. Barnes? 16 A. I don* t know. i7 Q. While at Monsanto, did you review any 18 documents written by the industrial hygiene engineers of 19 Westinghouse regarding the toxicity of Inerteen? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Did you know whether, in the 1940*s, 22 I'iestinghouse industrial hygiene engineers were indicating 23 that chronic poisoning may occur where there are repeated 24 or recurring exposures to a sufficient concentration of 25 Inerteen (6935) vapor over a period of months or years, - 135 COITCANNON a JAEGER .. J. . <li J- IV 1 that such exposures may produce internal bodily injury 2 which may be disabling and could be ratal? ' 3 A. Wo. 4 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form. 5 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether# in the 6 1940's, Westinghouse1s industrial hygiene engineers were 7 indicating that Inerteen is absorbed through the skin and 8 can produce toxic reactions internally? 9 A . No. 10 Q. Have you heard of a male or female whose name 11 is F. fl. Clark? 12 A. Not that I recall. 13 Q. Do you know of a Dr. Jenkins -- 14 A. No. 15 Q. -- who was with Monsanto Chemical Company at 16 the Anniston, Alabama plant in 1941? 17 A. Ho. 18 Q. Do you know agentleman named I. A. Natt? 19 A. Not that 1 recall. 20 Q. Do you knov; whether, in the1930's, Monsanto 21 put out Aroclor booklets? 22 A . H o . 23 Q. I'm now going to showyou Plaintiff's Exhibit 24 1190. This also was provided to us, I believe, by Monsanto 25 through our discovery, and it appears to be a section of - 136 COTCAWMOW JAEGER * *1*44.1u 1 1UW 1 something, but we don't know what it's a section or, so I'm 2 interested in your reviewing it to tell me whether you've '3 seen it before. 4 A. I haven1t seen it. 5 Q. Do you know whether Monsanto ever produced a 6 document that, had a -- an eleventh chapter or section which 7 was titled "Hazards" and which related to Aroclor? 8 A. No. The answer to that is, I don't know. 9 Q. All right. I'm now going to show you 1-0 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1208, which is also a document that we 11 received during discovery, which is undated, and ask you to 12 review it to tell me whether you've ever seen it before. 13 Have you ever seen that document before, Dr. Roush? 14 A. I don't think so. No, I have not. 15 Q. Do you know whether, in the 1970's, Monsanto 16 ever distributed to the business group working with PCB's a 17 list of questions and answers which may be asked by 18 customers receiving Monsanto's Aroclor PCB letter? 19 A. What's your question, now? 20 MR. BRADLEY: Would you read it back. 21 (Thereupon, the reporter propounded the previous 22 question.) 23 A. I don't know. 24 Q. (by Hr. Bradley) Do you know whether Monsanto 25 ever instructed the business group working with PCS's that - 137 CONCANIION a JAEGER --- J-.VJ-U.4*-JUA'W J. JT A ikJ I.'J 1 they should not give any answers to -- regarding Aroclor -- r 2 Excuse me. Let me rephrase that. Do you know whether, in i 3 the 1970*3, Monsanto ever informed its business group that 4 they should not give answers to customers about Aroclor in 3 wri ting? 6 MR. FEATHERSTOME: Object no the form. 7 A. I don* t know. 3 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether, in the 9 1970's, Monsanto ever indicated internally that they did 10 not want customers to return Aroclor to Monsanto? 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. Do you know a gentleman named A. Olson? 13 A. I don't think so. 14 Q. Do you know whether Monsanto, in the 1970's, 15 had a sales department, division, section, regarding PCS's? 16 A. Mo, l don't know. 17 0 . Have you ever heard of a functional fluids 18 group? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What is the functional fluids group? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q* Do you know whether Monsanto ever produced a 23 document indicating that there is a problem with Aroclor 24 1260 but not a problem with Aroclor 5460? 25 MR. FEATHERSTOME: Object to the rora. - 13 8 - COITCAHHON a JAEGER M M LJT ^ X W t M 1 A. I don* t know, 2 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether, during 3 the 1970*s, that claim was ever made by Monsanto? 4 MR. FEATHERS T OME: Object to the form. 5 A. I don't know. 6 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether Monsanto 7 ever made payments for Dr. Paul Wright's criminal defense? 3 A. Yes. 9 Q. Who made the decision within Monsanto to pay 10 for Dr. Paul Wright's criminal defense? 11 MR. FEATHERSTOIiE: The Magistrate has blocked 12 you from asking questions about that, so I will instruct 13 tne witness not to answer, consistent x?ith the Magistrate's 14 rule on December 23, 1993. 15 MR. BRADLEY: The Magistrate prohibited me on 16 the amount of the payment, not a rationale for the payment. 17 MR. FEATHERSTOIiE: Do you have the order? 18 MR. BRADLEY: Yes. 19 MR. FEATHERSTOIiE: May I see it? 20 HR. BRADLEY: I have a section of it. 21 MR. FEATHERSTOIiE: Do you have the 30(b)6 22 notice that was the target of the motion? Can I see both 23 of those? 24 MR. BRADLEY: Yes. 25 MR. FEATHERSTOIiE: May X hear the question, - 13 9 COMCAMMOM & JA EG ER ** 1 I 1 pi ease ? 1, 2 (Thereupon, the reporter propounded the previous 3 question-) 4 MR. FEATHERSTOME: You're instructed not to 5 answer on the grounds or the Magistrate's ruling. 6 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know what reason 1 Monsanto paid for Dr. Paul Wright's criminal defense? 3 A. Mo. 9 Q. Do you know whether Monsanto made any payments 10 to Dr. Wright after the criminal prosecution for conviction 11 of fraud in the case of the United States versus 12 Xepplinger, et a l .? 13 A. My impression is yes. 14 Q. And what were the payments for? 15 MR. FEATHERSTONE: He said his impression, so 16 I will object on the grounds of speculation. 17 Go ahead and answer. 18 THE WITNESS: What was the question? 19 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) What were the payments for? 20 MR. FEATHERSTOME: Object also to the form of 21 the question. 22 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Why did Monsanto pay money 23 to Dr. Wright following his criminal conviction for fraud 24 in the case of the United States versus Kepplinger, ot a l .? 25 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form of the - 140 COHCAHNOM & JAEGER w ^ J* J.V iV p 1 question, and also to the absence of any shoviing of 1 2 personal knowledge or foundation* 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know if Dr. Wright 5 has received any awards from Monsanto following his 6 criminal conviction for fraud? 7 A. Mo. 8 Q* No, you don*t know, or no, he didn't? 9 A. He did not. 10 Q. Why did you have the impression that Monsanto 11 made payments to Dr. Wright following his criminal 12 conviction? 13 A. He was not convicted -- Up until the time he 14 was convicted, he was not -- 15 MR. FEATHERSTONE: He's talking about after 16 the conviction. That's the question. 17 A. No.After the conviction -- 18 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) My question was, do you know 19 whether Monsanto made payments to Dr. Wright following his 20 conviction. 21 A. No. I thought it wasbefore. The answer is, 22 they did not, I think. 23 Q. All right. And why do you think that Monsanto 24 did not make payments to Dr. Wright following his 25 conviction? - 141 CON CANNON <* JAEG ER 1 A. I don' t know. 2 Q. Did-you review any statements from -- 4 3 A. Any what? 4 Q. Did you review any letters or billing 5 statements addressed to Monsanto regarding payments made 6 for the criminal defense of Dr. Wright? 7 A. NO. 8 Q. Did you know how much money, if any, Monsanto 9 paid for the criminal defense of Dr. Wright? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Have you heard of the law firm of Wilmer, 12 Cutler & Pickering, in Washington, D.C.? 13 A. I don't know. 14 Q. Do you know whether any money was paid to the 15 lav; firm of Kirkland & Sliis regarding the criminal defense 16 of Paul Wright? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Do you know whoV within Monsanto, made 19 payments for the. criminal defense of Paul Wright? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Did Monsanto receive information regarding the 22 criminal prosecution of Paul Wright during the time that 23 you were employed at Monsanto? 24 A. I don't knov;. 25 Q. Did you receive information? - 142 CO13CANNON ii JAEGNN , ___ _______ ______ V V * 4a * A 1 A. No. 2 Q- Did you speak with Dr. Wright regarding the 3 allegations of fraud made against him? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Did you speak with anyone within Monsanto 6 regarding the allegations of fraud made against Dr. Wright? 7 A. No. 3 Q. Did you speak with anyone from Industrial Bio9 Test Laboratories about the allegations of fraud brought 10 against Dr. Wright? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Did you speak with Dr. K. Landra regarding the 13 allegations of fraud brought against Dr. Wright? 14 A. No. IS Q. Did you speak -- Dr. K. Landra was head of 16 IBT, wasn1t he? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did you speak with Dr. K. Landra regarding the 19 allegations of fraud brought against him? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Did you speak with Dr. K. Landra regarding the 22 allegations of fraud brought against other IBT employees? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Do you know whether anyone within Monsanto 25 spoke with Dr. Wright regarding the allegations of fraud - 143 CONCANNON & JAEGER W X V &.J*' J*W 1 made against him? 9 A. No. 3 Q. Did you know whether Dr. Levinskas had 4 discussions with Dr. Wright regarding the allegations of 5 fraud brought against Dr. Wright? 6 A. NO. 7 Q. Did you ever speak with Dr. Levinskas about 8 the allegations of fraud brought against IB? employees? 9 A. No. 10 Q. After youlearned of the allegations of fraud 11 against IB? employees, did Monsanto do anything to 12 determine whether the studies it gave tc IBT regarding 13 P C B 1s were done fraudulently? 14 A. I don1t know how to answer that question. 15 MR. BRADLEY: Would you read that question 16 back, please? 17 (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) 13 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) AfterMonsantolearned of 19 the allegations of fraud at IBT, did Monsanto request that 20 studies previously done by IBT regarding PCB's be performed 21 by some other lab? 22 A. I don* t know. 23 Q* Did Monsanto do anything after it learned of 24 the allegations of fraud against IBT employees to determine 25 whether the studies performed by I3T for Monsanto regarding - 144 CONCANNON a JA EG ER 1 PCB 1s were done correctly? 2 A. I don1t know. 3 Q. Did you have meetings with anybody after you 4 were employed at Monsanto to determine what should be done 5 regarding IBT studies regarding PCB's once you learned that 6 IBT employees had been charged with fraud? 7 A. Ask that again. 3 MR. BRADLEY: Would you read it back, please. 9 (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Did youever attend any 12 meetings where the subject matter of the charges against 13 IBT employees were discussed? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Did you read anything that was written by a 16 Monsanto employee regarding the allegations of fraud 17 against Dr. Wright or the other IBT employees? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did you read any document written by anyone 20 regarding the allegations of fraud brought against Dr. 21 Wri ght? 22 A. No. I 23 Q. When the allegations of fraud were brought 24 against Dr. Wright, was there an assembly of documents 25 within Monsanto regarding the allegations of fraud brought - 145 CONCANNON & JA EG ER 1 against Dr. Wright? 2 A. I don1t know. * 3 Q. Do you know whether there was a request by 4 anyone within Monsanto to gather documents regarding the 5 allegations against Dr. Wright tnat he engaged in fraud? 6 A. I don1t know. 7 Q. Do you know whether anyone within Monsanto 8 destroyed any documents regarding the work that -- Excuse 9 me -- either the work or Dr. Wright or the correspondence 10 to and from Dr. Wright, once there were allegations that he 11 had committed fraud? 12 H R . FEATHERSTONE : Any co rrespondence, any 13 documents, or was it related to PC31s? 14 MR. BRADLEY: Any correspondence. 15 A. I don5t know. 16 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) You didn't see any of that, 17 did you? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Was there someone within Monsanto during the 20 time Paul Wright was charged with fraud who you knew to be 21 speaking with Dr. Wright regarding those allegations? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Was Monsanto concerned at all that, after Dr. 24 Wright was charged and convicted of fraud, that some of the 25 studies he had worked on for Monsanto may not have been - 146 COMCANNON JAEGER 1 valid? n A. Y es. 3 Q. And what, then, did i'lonsanto do about that 4 concern? 5 A. I don1t know. 6 Q. V7as someone placed in charge within [Monsanto 7 ror dealing with that concern? 3 A. X don't know. 9 Q. Would you know whether someone within the 10 medical department was responsible for addressing that 11 concern? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Why not? You were the director of it. And I 14 don*t mean to argue; I'm really trying^to find out. 15 A. Someone would have made j uifgm^ents:. .Some 16 things were worthwhile looking at. There were some things 17 that were outdated and of no interest, no product, not 13 being used -- 19 MR. FEATHERSTONE: That's not his question. 20 His question was, you said that you did not know whether 21 someone within the medical department was charged with the 22 responsibility of responding to the concern about a test 23 done, or involving Dr. Wright, and when you said you didn't 24 know, Mr. Bradley wanted to know why you didn't know, since 25 you were the head of the medical department. - 147 - COMCAMIIQI7 Cl JA EG ER 1 A. Because a decision before that was made as to. 2 what things do we have to be concerned about. Those things 3 that were dead files were thrown away. And how they made 4 that decision, I didn't know. So what became a subject for 5 review or concern, or whether there was concern, wasn1t 6 given to us. 7 MR. FEATHERSTONE: W a s n `t given to the medical 8 department? 9 THE WITNESS: Right. 10 MR. FEATHERSTONE: All Rignt. 11 A. So if they -- They gave us some tnings to look 12 at, but we didn't look at all of them. It was expansive. 13 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Who gave you things to look 14 at? 15 A. I'm not sure how that -- where that decision 16 was maae. 17 Q. Who gave the medical department documents to 18 review regarding Dr. Wright? 19 A. They were given to Dr. Levinskas. 20 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Let's go off the record. 21 (Thereupon, a short colloquy was had.) 22 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Who was Dr. Levinskas 23 reporting to regarding thismatter? 24 A. I don't know. 25 Q. Who was he -- - 148 - CONCAUHON Cl J 7> 41i- tO t*j 1 A. I wasn* t involved in that. r 2 Q. All right. Do you know whether Monsanto ever 3 requested that IBT change study results to show that PCB 4 products were less toxic than originally claimed by IDT? 5 A. I don't know. 6 Q. Did youknow whether Monsanto ever wro'te to 7 IBT asking them to change a study result from absolutely 3 toxic to not toxic regarding PCB1s? 9 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form. 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Did you have a discussion 12 with anyone within Monsanto during the time you were 13 employed there regarding documents sent by Monsanto to IBT, 14 where Monsanto asked IBT to change the results of studies? 15 MR. FEATHERSTONE: May I hear the question, 16 please? 17 (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) 18 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form of the 19 question. 20 THE WITNESS: I'd like to hear it again. 21 (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) 22 A. No. 23 MR. BRADLEY: I have nothing further. r 24 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Okay. Off the record. 25 (Thereupon, a short colloquy was had.) - 149 CONCANNON & JAEGER 1 CROSS EXAMINATION I 2 QUESTIONS BY HR. .FEATHERSTONE: 9' 3 Q. Dr. Roush, to set the chronology, I believe 4 you testified that you joined Monsanto sometime in 1973? 5 A. Yes. o Q. And you retired sometime in 1988? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And when you joined Monsanto in 1973, you had 9 joined as associate medical director? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. When becoming the medical director when Dr. 12 Kelly retired at the end of 1974 -- 13 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. -- and from 19 -- from that point in 1974, 15 that is, the end of the year, until when you retired in 16 1988, you were the medical director of Monsanto? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. All right. Now, in response to Mr. Bradley's 19 question, you made some schematics ox the medical depart 20 ment. V7as the medical department a business group? 21 A. No. 22 Q. You have used the word or the phrase "business 23 group." Were there a number of business groups at Monsanto 24 during the time you were medical director? 25 A. Yes. - 150 CON CANNON tt JAEGER 1 Q. And did each of the various business groups o have responsibility for certain products? f 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And I take it there was a business group .that .. 5 had responsibility for PCB products while PCB's were being 6 manufactured and sold by Monsanto? 7 A. Yes. 3 Q. All right. Was the medicaldepartment apart 9 of any business group? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Was the medical department, for instance, a 12 part of the business group that had responsibility for 13 PCB1S? 14 A. Ho. 15 Q. Was themedical departmentwhile youwere at 16 Monsanto separate and apart from the business groups? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. All right.In response to Mr. Bradley"s 19 question yesterday, you stated that the business group had 20 the responsibility for communicating with customers. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did themedical department, itself, have any 23 responsibility for communicating directly with customers? 24 MR. BRADLEY: Objection to the form. 25 A. No. - 151 - COIICAHHON & JASGER 1 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) In your role, first as 2 associate medical director and then as the medical i 3 director, did you have any responsibility for communicating 4 directiy with customers? 5 HR. BRADLEY: Object to the form. "Responsi 6 bility" is vague. 7 A. No. 8 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) Did you, during your 9 employment at Monsanto, in fact ever meet with any of 10 Monsanto's customers to discuss PCB1s? 11 A. Ho. 12 Q. Did you, during your employment v;ith Monsanto, 13 have any written communication directly to customers of 14 Monsanto regarding PCB* s? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Okay. To your understanding, who had 17 responsibility for communicating, eicher written or oral, 18 to the customers? 19 MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form. "Responsi 20 bility" is vague, and he's already indicated ne doesn't 21 know the answer to this, so he* s speculating. 22 THE WITNESS: What is the question, again? 23 MR. FEATH2RST0NE: You want to read it back, 24 please, John? 25 (Thereupon, the reporter read back tne question.) - 152 COHCAHNOn a JAEGER 1 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) I'm talking now about 2 Monsanto* s communications, either oral or written, to 3 Monsanto1s customers. 4 A. I'm not sure what the title of the man was who 5 made contact with any of them. 6 Q. Do you now whether it was a business group 7 responsible for PC3* s or some other department or group 3 that had responsibility within Monsanto for those 9 communi cati ons ? 10 MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form. 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) Was it ever part of 13 your responsibility or job while you were at Monsanto to 14 review any written communications that Monsanto made to its 15 customers regarding PCB's? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Was it ever a part of your responsibility 18 while you were at Monsanto to become familiar with or 19 review any of the oral disclosures that Monsanto made to 20 its customers regarding PCB's? 21 A. NO. 22 Q. Is it safe to say that any communications 23 regarding PCB1s made by Monsanto to its customers were 24 handled by people other than yours or your department's? 25 A. . Yes. - 153 CON CANNON St JAEGER 1 Q. All right. And in preparation for your 2 testimony today, .either Mr. Bradley*s direct examination or i 3 my cross examination, have you made any effort to review 4 the files or speak to people concerning what disclosures 5 Monsanto made to its customers regarding BCD's? 6 A. Ho. 7 Q. How, as an associate medical director and then 8 the medical director at Monsanto, did you have any 9 responsibility or involvement in the specifications, 10 chemical specifications for Monsanto's PC3 products? 11 A. Ho, 12 Q. Did you have any responsibility for the 13 manufacture of those products? 14 A. Ho. 15 Q. Did you have any responsibility for the sale 16 of those products? 17 A. Ho, 18 Q. I want to ask you some questions about Aroclor 19 1016, a product that Mr. Bradley asked you about yesterday. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did you know it by the -- Weil, strike that. 22 Did you have any involvement in the development ofAroclor 23 1016? 24 A. Ho. 25 Q. Did you haveany involvement in any - 154 COM CAHHOil it J AEG Bn X discussions that Monsanto may have had with its customers 2 regarding Aroclor 1016? o A. No. 4 Q. Did you understand Aroclor to refer to PCB's? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you know to whatextent Monsanto kept its 7 customers advised of the development of Aroclor 1016? 3 A. No. 9 Q. Based on yourknowledge of theresponsibili 10 ties and operations of the medical department, would you 11 suspect the medical department to be involved at all in the 12 development of Aroclor 1016? 13 MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form of the ques 14 tion* It calls for him to speculate. 15 A. No. 16 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) Or involved atall in 17 the discussions with customers regarding the development of 18 Aroclor 1016? 19 A. No. 20 MR. BRADLEY: Same objection. 21 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) Do you knowwhyAroclor 22 1016 was developed? 23 A. NO. 24 Q. Do you know the purpose of Aroclor 1016? 25 A. No. - 155 - CONCANNOH a JAEGER 1 Q. If there had been discussions between Monsanto J 2 and its customers regarding the chemical makeup of Aroclor 1015, can you think of any reason you would have been 4 informed of those discussions? 5 A. That v/as very -- Ho. 6 Q. If there had been discussions, whose 7 responsibility v/ould it have been to have those discussions 8 with those customers? 9 A. The business group. 10 Q. The business group that is responsible for 11 P C B'S? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did you ever hear of any claim by any customer 14 chat the customer of Monsanto did not know that Aroclor 15 1016 had PCB's? 16 A. NO. 17 Q. Did you ever hear of any claim by anyone 18 connected with the federal government that the federal 19 government did not know that Aroclor 1016 had PCB's? 20 A. No. 21 Q. All right. I'd like to ask you about 22 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1421, which Hr. Bradley showed you 23 yesterday. Just so the record is clear on this, this is a 24 memorandum from a fellow by the name of Johansen to you of 25 August 27, 1976? - 156 CONCANNON a JAEGER 1 A. Yes. r 2 Q- Was it Hr. or Dr. Johansen? i 3 A. Doctor. 4 Q. Was he in the medical department? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And does this memorandum relate to work 7 regarding employees at the W.G. Krummrich Plant? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. All right. That was a Monsanto facility -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- that manufactured a wide variety of 12 chemicals -- 13 A. Yes. 14 Q- -- including PCB* s? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And had, for some time, manufactured-PCB*s -- 17 A. Yes. 18 . Q. -- to your understanding? All right. Was 19 there an effort made on or about August 27thf 1976 to 20 survey the health of the workers in the PC3 production unit 21 at the Krummrich Plant? 22 Let me withdraw that question and ask it this 23 way: lias there an effort on or about August 27thr 1976 to 2 4 take a look at the death certificates relating to people 25 who had worked in the Aroclor-manufacturing department at - 157 CONCAMHOH & JAEGER i Krummrich? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. All right. What was the purpose or that 4 review? 5 A. It was related to the Mobile statement, -that 6 they had melanomas at the research laboratory, as well as 7 pancreatic cancers. 8 Q. Was there a particular researcher whose name 9 was connected with that study, or that statement? 10 A. The medical director of Mobile. 11 Q. Who was the medical director of Mobile? 12 A. Dr. Sinclair. 13 Q. Did you know Dr. Sinclair? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Did you speak with him? 16 MR. BRADLEY: Ever, about anything, or about 17 this ? 18 MR. FEATHERSTOME: Good point. 19 Did you speak at all with Dr. Sinclair about 20 the work that Monsanto was doing at the Krummrich facility? 21 A. The answer -- 22 MR. FEATHERSTOME: Off the record. 23 (Thereupon, a short colloquy was had.) 24 A. The answer is no, I guess. 25 (Thereupon, the reporter marked Roush Deposition - 158 coiiCAiinoi: s j a e g e r 1 Exhibit A, for identification.) i i dn* Q. (by. Mr. Featherstone) Dr. Roush, I'm going to I '. 3 show you a letter dated June 25, 1976. I've marked.it 'as. 4 Roush Exhibit A, and it* s also been previously marked,:I 5 believe, as Plaintiff's Exhibit 977. Is that a letter from 6 Mr. Sinclair -- 7 A. Doc -- 8 Q. -- Dr. Sinclair at Mobile Oil to you? 9 A. Right. 10 Q. All right. Is this the Dr. Sinclair who's the 11 medical director of Mobile that you just referred to in 12 your previous answer? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Now, does this letter refer to the report 15 issued by Mobile that you've testified to? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Now, Dr. Sinclair'sletter states, in the 18 first paragraph, that he has informed NIOSH "...of our 19 findings at Mobile's Paulsborough refinery." What is 20 "NIOSH,n or what was it in 1976? 21 A. It* s the NationalInstitute ofOccupation 22 Safety and Health. 23 Q. And what was the basic function of NIOSH in 2 4 1976? 25 A. To improve the state of health of workers in - 159 - COIICANNON & JAEGER 11 the United States. 2 Q. Second paragraph of the letter refers to a Dr. 3 Anita Bond. Were you familiar with that name in 1976? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Do you know whether the Mobile report was ever 6 published in a peer review journal? 7 A. It was not. 8 Q. Nov/, is the Anita Bond report as referenced 9 here, in E::hibit A to your deposition, the report that 10 prompted Monsanto and its medical department to take a look 11 at the raortality, the death experience, if you will, of 12 workers at the Aroclor unit at the Krummrich Plant? 13 MR. BRADLEY: Objection to the form of the 14 question. Mo foundation. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. (by Mr. Feather stone) Nov/, in the -- Did you 17 have any involvement, by the way, in the decision to take a 18 look at the death certificates and to make the mortality 19 review that Dr. Johansen was involved in? 20 A. I can*t answer your question. 21 Q. Okay. Who started Dr. Johansen on his work 22 regarding the Krummrich workers? 23 A. 1-did. 24 Q. And in performing his work, did Dr. Johansen 25 report to you, among otners? - 160 CON CAMIIOM a JAEGER ,1 . Yes. 42 Q. At some point in time, did Monsanto go outside 3 of the company and hire an expert consultant in connection 4 with that study? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Who was thatexpertconsultant? 7 A. Dr. Maboubi. 8 Q. And -- With what group did Dr. Maboubi work? 9 In other words, where was he a consultant? 10 A. He was a consultant to Dr. Johansen. 11 Q. All right. V7as hean employee of Monsanto? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Was he an employee of some other company or 14 group? 15 A. University of Nebraska. 16 Q. Is there an institute connected with the 17 University of Nebraska that Maboubi was involved with? 18 A. The Epply Institute. 19 Q. WHat is the Epply Institute at the University 20 of Nebraska? 21 A. Their responsibility was cancerresearch. 22 Q. What was Dr. Maboubi*s area of specialty? 23 A. He was an epidemiologist. 24 Q. What is an epidemiologist? 25 A. An epidemiologist is a specialist in evaluat- - 161 CONCANNON JAEGER ,1} ing, or studying the health and mortality of populations. 2 Q. When you say "populations," are you talking 3 aoout human populations, or rodents, or other animal 4 populations? 5 A. All -- Human populations. 6 Q. And how does an epidemiologist differ from a 7 toxicologist? If at all. 3 A. And epidemiologist is studying humans, and 9 he's evaluating the health status of a population. 10 Q. Such as a work force at a plant like 11 Krummrich? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did Monsanto have a staff, in the medical 14 department, an epidemiologist, in 1976? 15 A. NO. 16 Q. How, the third paragraph of Exnibit A, I'd 17 like to go back to that. Dr. Sinclair writes, "May 18 repeat my appreciation of your sharing your data with me. 19 Did Monsanto share data with Dr. Sinclair? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q- What data was that? 22 A. The results of the Fred Johannsen study of the 23 PCS mortality experience. 24 Q. At Krummrich? 25 A. At Krummrich. - 162 COM CAMMOT u tj f. ,1 Q* And is this the same study that Dr. Haboubi 2 was involved in? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Were the results of the Monsanto study of its 5 Kruirtmrich workers given to Mobile Oil through Dr. Sinclair? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. All right. 3 (Thereupon, the reporter marked Roush Deposition 9 Exhibit B, for identification.) 10 Q. (By Mr. Featherstone) I have had marked as 11 Roush Exhibit B, a three-page document bearing the Bates 12 numbers NEV 024775 through 777. Let me show you Exhibit 8 . 13 Do you recognize that as a Monsanto memorandum dated August 14 27th, 1976? 15 A. Did you say B? 16 Q. Roush Exhibit B. 17 A. All right. 18 Q- Do you recognize it as a Monsanto memorandum 19 dated August 27, 1976? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Does it relate the work of Dr. Johannsen and 22 Dr. Haboubi? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q, Does it relate to the work regarding the PCB 25 workers at the Krummrich Plant? - 163 CONCAI1WON & JAEGER 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Would you please take a look at it and tell us 3 whether the --- whether it addresses -- the memorandum 4 addresses the findings to data regarding melanomas and 5 pancreatic cancer? 6 MR. BRADLEY: I object to the line of ques 7 tioning. He hasn't indicated he is familiar with the docu 8 ment. It, at this point, hasn't been authenticated, it's 9 hearsay, and I object to any questions based upon it* 10 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) Dr. Roush, are you 11 shown as a carbon copy recipient on this document? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Is D r . Johannsen? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q- Do.you see a carbon copy to E. H. Harbason? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Who is E. H. Harbason? Was he with Monsanto 18 at the time? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. All right. And a copy to D. R. Bishop? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q- Is that a Monsanto employee? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Do you recognise the names Macoe or Nolan? 25 A. Yes. - 154 CONCAMMON a u ALG iiiR ,1 Q. All right. And who were they in August of 2 1976? 3 A. In personnel. In public relations. 4 0. All right. Would you look through or read 5 through the first page of the exhibit and tell us whether 6 it, to the best of your recollection, accurately records 7 the results of the study as of August 27th, 1976? 8 MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form of the ques 9 tion. The witness still hasn1t indicated whether he's ever 10 seen this document before, so it hasn1t been authenticated, 11 and it's still a hearsay document, and so I object to the 12 form of the question. 13 A. My conclusion is that Monsanto did not have 14 melanomas -- 15 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) My initial question, 16 Mr. Roush, is whether the first page of the exhibit 17 accurately records the conclusions of the study as of 18 August of 1976. 19 A. Yes. 20 MR. BRADLEY: Same objections. 21 MR. FEATHERSTONE; All right. 22 Mow, did -- In the study of its Monsanto 23 workers as of August of 1976, did Monsanto look for mela 24 nomas, malignant melanomas? 25 A. Yes - 165 CONCANNON & JAEGER iy ** ,1 Q. (by Mr. Feather stone) Did it find any? 2 A. Wo.. 3 Q- In its study of its Erumznrich workers, Did 4 Monsanto look for pancreatic cancer? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q- Did it find any? 7 A. Wo. 8 Q. Had the Mobile report indicated malignant 9 melanomas? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And pancreatic cancer? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Wow, the earlier exhibit that Mr. Bradley 14 showed you and that I've shown you again this morning from 15 Dr. Johann sen talks about lung cancer. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Did the study of the Krummrich workers at 18 Monsanto report on lung cancer? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. All right. Did Monsanto request Dr. Maboubi 21 to take -- to make any study or evaluation of any informa- 22 tion regarding lung cancer of the workers at the t*J. G. 23 Krummrich Plant? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And what was Dr. Maboubi asked to do? - 166 - COHCAWHOH & JAEGER I 1 A. To look at what data we had and zo give his 2 interpretation of the data. 3 Q- When was he asked to do that? 4 A. I'm not sure of the time, but it was about 5 this same time. 6 Q. August of 1976? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. All right. And what did Dr. Kaboubi report to 9 you and others at Monsanto regarding the findings 10 concerning lung cancer? 11 MR, BRADLEY: Objection. That's hearsay. 12 Object to the form of the question. 13 Q. (by Mr. Feather stone) Go ahead. 14 A. That the lung cancer excess, though 15 statistically above expected, was not -- had not been shown 16 to be related to work with PCB's. 17 (Thereupon, the reporter marked Roush Deposition 18 Exhibit C, for identification.) 19 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) I have marked as Roush 20 Exhibit C, a press release dated September 2, 1976. It 21 also bears the designation Plaintiff's Exhibit 559; is that 22 right? 23 MR. BRADLEY: Yes. I was just looking for the 24 date. All right. 25 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) Dr. Roush, is this a - 167 CO17CAMNON St JAEGER ,1 press release froia September 2, 197 6? 2 A. Yes. t 3 Q. All right. Does thepress release relate to 4 the study of the Monsanto workers at the Krummrich Plant? 5 HR. BRADLEY: 1*11 object to the question <S about the document because it hasn't been authenticated and 7 it hasn*t been shown to be anything other than hearsay. 8 The witness hasn't even identified or indicated whether 9 he* d seen the document before. 10 HR. FEATHERSTONE: John, would you read back 11 my question, please. 12 (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) 13 HR. BRADLEY: Same objections. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. (by Mr. Feather stone) Hoy/, this Exhibit C, 16 the press release, is less than one week after Plaintiff's 17 Exhibit 1421, which Hr. Bradley showed you initially 18 yesterday; that is, the memorandum from Dr. Johannsen to 19 you, Dr. Roush. Would you please read through Roush 20 Exhibit C and tell us whether you are quoted at length in 21 that press release? 22 MR. BRADLEY: I object to the counsel's 23 statements characterizing and comparing the dates of the 24 exhibits and ask that they be stricken. 25 THE WITNESS: The whole thing? - 16 8 COIICANNON JAEGER ,1 M R . FEATH ERS TOME: Yes. , 2 Now-# are you quoted In Exhibit C? 3 A. Yes. 4 MR. BRADLEY: I object to the question. What 5 I'd like to do is get a continuing objection to any 6 questions relating to this exhibit, since it has not been 7 authenticated and since it's a hearsay document. Hay I Or* have that continuing objection on the grounds of authenti 9 cation and hearsay? 10 HR. FEATHERSTOME: Yes. 11 HR. BRADLEY: Fine. That's all I -- 12 Q. (by Hr. Featherstone) All right. Now# having 13 reviewed Exhibit C, does the press release set forth the 14 findings of the study as of September 2, 1976? 15 A. Where1s the date? Yes. 16 Q. And based on your review, is the press release 17 accurate in its statement of the f indings as of September 18 2 , 1976? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. All right. In Exhibit G, the press release, 21 does the document describe or refer to the Mobile Oil study 22 that you've testified to previously? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. In the second paragraph of the first, page of 25 the release -- - 16 9 CON CAilliOH & JAEGER .1 A. Second paragraph* 2 Q. All right. And does that second paragraph of 3 the release state that Mobile Oil reported finding three 4 cases of melanoma and two cases of pancreatic cancer? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Does the press release report that Monsanto* s 7 study of its workers found no cases of malignant melanoma 8 or pancreatic cancer? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Does the pressrelease, on pagethree, report 11 what the study had found so far with regard to the 12 Krummrich workers and lung cancer? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And specifically,does the pressrelease 15 report that for the former employees, deceased former 16 employees, who worked at the PCB unit at Krummrich during 17 any portion of their employment, that the lung cancer rate 1 8 was higher than the rate for the general U.S. population? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Does thepress release then go onto say that 21 the study is continuing? 22 A. Ye 3. 23 Q, All right. Did you know D. R. Bishop to be in 24 the public relations department? * 25 A. Yes. - 170 - COMCAMNON & JAEGER ,1 Q. And is this a press release that Monsanto f 2 issued? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. All right. Now, with regard to this time 3 period, September or 1976, was it, to your understanding, 6 still the business group for PCB's that had the responsi 7 bility for communieating with the customers? S A. Yes. 9 Q. And to the extent that any information 10 regarding the Mobile Oil study or the Monsanto study of the 11 Srummrich workers was communicated to customers, to your 12 knowledge, that would have been handled by the business 13 group? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Now, yesterday you also said that the study 16 resulted in a final paper? do you remember that? 17 A. No. 18 Q. All right. Did the study result in a final 19 paper 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. All right. Do you know Dr. Zach? 22 A. It's not Dr . Zach. 23 Q. All right. Mrs. Sacn. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. All right. Did Mrs. Zach get involved in the - 171 COM CAMMO!f & T7*P^ T*,!? ,1 project involving Krummrich workers, the study of mortality 2 of Krummrich workers? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And did Mrs. Zach have anything to do with a 5 final report issued? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What was her involvement? 3 A. She was the one who did it and wrote it. 9 Q- Let me show you what Mr. Bradley showed you 10 yesterday as Pla i n t i f f s Exhibit 367. What is Exhibit 367? 11 A. Well, it* s a study of the mortality of 12 Monsanto workers who had been working with PCB's. 13 Q. Does this paper relate to the study that Dr. 14 Johannsen started? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And is this the final report of that study? 17 A. Yes. 10 Q. Was Mrs. Sach employed by Monsanto Company? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And David Mutch? Who was David Mutch?. 21 A. I think he was a student. 22 Q. Assisting Mrs. Sach? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Are the conclusions of the study shown on 25 pages five and six of Plaintiff's Exhibit 367? - 172 ~ COHCANMOH St JAEGER 71 MR. BRADLEY: Can you excuse me for one 2 laxnute? 3 MR. FEATHERSTOHE: Sure. 4 (Thereupon, a short recess was taken.) 5 Q. (by Mr. Feather stone) All right. Dr. Roush, 6 V7ith regards to Plaintiff's Exhibit 367, the final report 7 that was issued on December 14th, 1979, does that report 3 discuss observations regarding pancreatic cancer or 9 malignant melanomas? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. What does the report say was the results of 12 the study regarding malignant melanoma? 13 A. There were none. 14 Q. And what does the report say about pancreatic 15 cancer in the workers at the PCB unit at Krummrich? 16 A. There were none. 17 Q. Was there also a statement, conclusions 18 reached about liver cancer? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And what does the report say were ehe findings 21 regarding the presence of liver cancer in the workers in 22 the PCB unit at Erummrich? 23 HR. BRADLEY: Object to the form of the 24 question -- 25 A. There was none. - 173 COHCAMHOil JAEGER T1 MR. BRADLEY: -- because the study doesn* t 2 deal with liver cancer among the workers. It refers to 3 liver cancer axaong the deceased workers. 4 Q. (by Mr. Peatherstone) Mr. Bradley raises a 5 point. Let me ask you: The study looked at deceased 6 former employees? is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q- And the study looked for the presence of 9 malignant melanoma, pancreatic cancer, and liver cancer in 10 those deceased employees; is that correct? 11 A. Ask the question again. 12 Q. Did the study look for -- Well, did the study 13 report an absence -- that is, none -- of malignant melanoma 14 in deceased workers? 15 A . In the study? 16 Q. In the deceased workers that were studied at 17 Krummrich. 18 A. That13 right. Those that were studied. 19 Q. All right. Did it report an absence of 20 pancreatic cancer among deceased workers studied? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did it report an absence of liver cancer among 23 deceased workers studied? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you know whether Mobile ever published a - 174 COMCANNON & JAEGER ,1 final report for its study? 2 A. Wot- to ray knowledge. 3 Q. And was the purpose of the study that resulted 4 in Plaintiff1s Exhibit 367 as a final report, a study to 5 see what the experience of the Monsanto workers had been as 6 a result of the Mobile report regarding malignant melanoma 7 and pancreatic cancer? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. All right. You were asked yesterday some 10 questions to which you gave some testimony regarding 11 hearing about an incident of chloracne. Do you recall that 12 incident of chloracne at Monsanto? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. All right. Did that occur, to your knowledge, 15 before or after you joined Monsanto? 16 A. Before. 17 Q. Have -- With regard to what you heard regard 18 ing that incident, what plant was involved? 19 A. The Anniston Plant, Anni3ton, Alabama. 20 Q. Is that afacilitysomehow involved with the 21 manufacture of biphenyl or PCB1s? 22 A. Yes. 23 MR. BRADLEY: Object tothe form of the 24 question. Do you mean, was it? Your question was, is it. 25 MR. FEATHERSTOWE: Did I say chat? Strike the - 175 COMCAITNOU Ut \Vir-J?Vnipr> a wnole question, then, and the answer, if Mr. Bradley 2 aoesn't raincL 3 MR. BRADLEY: All right. 4 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) WasAnniston a plant 5 that Monsanto used for the manufacture of biphenyl? 6 A. Manufacture of what? 7 Q. Biphenyl. 3 A. Yes. 9 Q. And to your knowledge,is it a facility that 10 Monsanto acquired from Swan Chemical Company? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. I believe you told us that the incident that 13 y o u 1ve heard about took place in Anniston before you became 14 medical director? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Have you ever reviewed any records regarding . 17 that incident? 18 A. Mo. 19 Q. All right. Have you ever made any investiga 20 tion regarding that incident? 21 A. Mo. 22 Q. Let me show you -- And insofar as you've heard 23 anything about that incident, have you heard of any 24 incident of chioracne involving the PCB unit of Anniston, 25 other than the one incident? - 176 COMCAMMON & JAEGER ,1 A. No. 2 Q. All- right. Let me shov/ you what's been marked 3 as Plaintiff*s Exhibit 1190. Before I show you Exhibit 4 1190, let me ask you this: You testified that you replaced 5 Dr. Kelly? isn't that correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. You replaced Dr. Kelly when he retired? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. All right. Did Dr. Kelly's involvement with 10 Monsanto, indeed his job as medical director, date far back 11 in time? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. All right. Do you know how far back, roughly? 14 A. About 1940, or earlier. 15 Q. If Dr. Kelly had investigated the -- an 16 incident of chloracne at Anniston, would you defer to his 17 j udgment? 18 MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form. It's vague, 19 speculative. 20 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) Would you defer to his 21 judgment about the cause? 22 A. About the what? 23 Q. About the cause of any chloracne down there. 24 MR. BRADLEY: Same objection. 25 A. I don't know. - 177 COD CANI? ON St JA E G ER ,1 Q. (by Hr. Featherstone) Okay. Do you know what 2 may have caused any chioracne in that one incident at 3 Anniston? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Let me show you what1s been marked as 6 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1190. This is a document Mr. Bradley 7 showed you earlier today that you had not seen before. Let 8 me ask you this: Is there a reference to chloracne at 9 Anniston in the second paragraph of the first page of 10 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1190? 11 MR. BRADLEY: Well, I'll object to any 12 questions having to do with a document that hasn't been 13 authenticated and is hearsay. Object to the form of the 14 question. 15 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Viell, is your objection to 16 the form based on the lack of authentication and, there 17 fore, its hearsay nature? 18 MR. BRADLEY: Yes. 19 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Is that what you're saying? 20 MR. BRADLEY: Yes. 21 MR. FEATHERSTONE: All right. Do you want a 22 continuing objection on that ground? 23 M R . BRADLEY: Please. 24 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Okay. 25 Second paragraph of the first page of - 178 CONCANNON JAEGER ,1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1190, does it deal with a reported 2 incident of chloracne at Anniston? 3 1. Yes. 4 Q. (by Mr. Feather stone) And insofar as you have 5 any knowledge of the incident at Anniston, do you have any 6 knowledge that's different than what's shown in the second 7 paragraph? 8 A. NO. 9 Q. Let me ask you about some testimony you gave 10 in response to Mr. Bradley's questioning concerning a 11 conf erence in Chicago on PC3* s. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall attending a conference in 14 Chicago on PCB's ? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You were also asked some questions by Mr. 17 Bradley about a trip to Washington to meet with various 13 government agencies; do you recall that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. All right. In terms of tixne frame, was the 21 meeting in Chicago regarding PCS's one that occurred before 22 or after the visit to the government agencies? 23 A. Before. 24 Q. Nov/, the meeting in Chicago, was that an open 25 meeting, a public meeting? - 17 9 - COlTCAHllOil u JABC HR .1, A. Yes. .2 Q. How many people werethere? 3 A. Several hundred. 4 Q. Did it last days, or several days? , 5 A. A week. 6 Q. There1s been evidence in this case about a 7 national conference on PCB1s in Chicago in November of 8 1975. Did you attend that? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Is that the conference you were talking about 11 in Chicago? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And then a document that Mr. Bradley showed 14 you regarding your trip to some government agencies 15 regarding the IBT tests states there was a trip in -- or a 15 visit in November, 1975. Was that a trip that occurred 17 shortly after the national conference on PCB*s? ia MR. BRADLEYs I'll object to the form of the 19 question. It1s compound. 20 A. I'm not sure how close it was to the other 21 one, what time. When was the Chicago meeting? 22 Q. (by Mr. Feather stone) Well, I believe it was 23 in November, but what I want is your recollection of 24 whether this meeting with the government agencies was at or 25 about: the time of the national conference on PCB1s. - 180 CONCANNON & JAEGER 1 A. Yes. r\ Q. AH' right. Nowr the meeting that's rererencsd 3 in Plaintiff's Exhibit 1251, do you recall going to 4 'Washington and meeting with the government agencies, 5 various government agencies? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. All right. And do you recall going with Dr. 8 Calandra from Industrial Bio-Test -- 9 A. Yes. id Q. -- andotherMonsanto people? n A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you visit several agencies during that 13 trip, or just one? 14 A. Several. 15 (Thereupon, the reporter marked Roush Deposition 16 Exhibit D, for identification.) ^ 17 Q. (by Mr.Featherstone) All rignt. I've had IS marked as Exhibit D to your deposition a two-page document: 19 bearing the Bates numbers NEV 008412 and 008413. It's a 20 document dated November 10, 1975 from Mr. Papageorge to Dr. 21 Calandra and Dr. Roush and 1-lr. Weber. 22 Ail right. In November of 1975, did you know 23 Mr. Papageorge? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Was heinvolved inPC3* s? - 1S1 - COIIGAMMON a JAEGER ,1 A. Yes* , 2 0 . Did- he attend the meetings in Washington with 3 you? 4 A* I think he did* 5 Q. All right. Is Exhibit D the itinerary for 6 those visits to government agencies in November? 7 A. Yes, 8 Q. And did you in fact see the various government 9 agencies that are listed on Exhibit D? That is, did you go 10 visit them, each one? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q- And did you personally attend each meeting? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Was the subject matter of each meeting roughly 15 the same? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Now, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1251, presented by 18 Hr. Bradley, states -- concerns a meeting with NIOSH; is 19 that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And this is the same NIOSH that you identified 22 for us earlier in this examination? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And the meeting says that, "A meeting was held 25 to discuss the results of certain polychlorinated biphenyl - 1S2 CONCANNON & JAEGER A experimental animal exposure studies and their interpreta , 2 tion. " Was that the purpose of the meeting? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. At themeeting, was there any presentation 5 made regarding IBT tests? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. All right. Was there a presentation regarding 8 the effects on rat livers from exposure to PCB's in 9 experimental testing by IBT? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Yesterday,Hr. Bradley showed you Plaintiff's 12 Exhibit 350. Did you recognise Exhibit 350? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. I believe you identified that as a letter from 15 Dr. Calandra to you, April 18, 1975? 16 A. Yes, 17 Q. Mow, the cover letter refers to a meeting, and 18 I believe you told us yesterday that you in fact had a 19 meeting with Dr. Calandra, as stated, or as referenced in 20 the cover letter; isthat correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Now, theattachment to this letter, second 23 page of the letter, talks about review of a PC3 meeting, 24 and then it goes on for four or five pages. Did your 25 meeting with Dr. Calandra relate to the interpretation of 5 - 133 CONCAMNON a JAEGER ,1 lesions in rat livers? , 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. What are lesions? 4 A. Any abnormality that can be seen with a 5 microscope, in this case. 6 Q. You said "any abnormality." Does that include 7 enlarged cells in a liver? 8 A. Yes, 9 Q. Does the -- "any abnormality" include lesions 10 that are not cancerous? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q, Does the term lesion, or any abnormality, 13 include injury to the liver that's reversible? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Or that can go away? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Was the purpose of the meeting with Dr. 18 Calandra to assess whether the IBT findings regarding the 19 livers of the rats did or did not show cancer? 20 A. No. It was to assess the lesions that were 21 seen in the rats. 22 Q, Is that the IBT rats? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And in the attachment to the letter to you, 25 does Dr. Calandra set forth IBT's viev/s concerning the - 184 CONCANNON & JAEGER ,1 lesions seen as a result of dosing the rats with PCB* s? 2 A. Yes*, it does. 3 Q. Would you look at the top of page three of the 4 attachment? in his letter to you, does Dr. Calandra 5 report, "The important point in the most recent study of 6 the sections is the fact that no hepatocellular carcinomas 7 were found, which is in agreement with the earlier 8 indings n? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What arehepatocellular carcinomas, orwhat 11 did you understand them to be in 1975, April of 1975? 12 A. This says that hepatocellular carcinomas are 13 cancers of the liver of a specific type. 14 Q. All right. And hepatocellular refers to liver 15 cells? is that right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And Dr.Calandra isreporting there are no 18 liver cell cancers? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. The next sentence of the report, Dr. Calandra 21 says to you, "It must be emphasised that the diagnosis of 22 hepatoma by Gordon ana Richter connotes a benign process 23 and must not be confused with the classical definition of 24 the term by human pathologists." Do you see that? 25 coucAtmoiT a ja e g e r ,1 Q And what was your understanding of the phrase,. 2 "benign process"? 3 A. Benign means one that is -- one that will 4 revert to normal, or if it stays, it doesn11 have any 5 effect on the health of the animal. 5 Q. Is Dr. Calandra there saying the hepatomas 7 that were found were benign hepatomas? 8 A. Yes. 9 HR. BRADLEY: Object to the form of the 10 question. No personal knowledge. Dr. Calandra -- 11 Q. (by Mr. Feather stone) Do you understand that 12 what Dr. Calandra found were benign hepatomas -- 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. -- as distinct from cancerous hepatomas? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Now, the neat paragraph reads, "Further, Dr. 17 Squires reviewed a number of the same slides on Aroclor 18 1260 with Drs. Gordon, Levinskas, Kimbrough and Richter and 19 agreed with the Bio-Test pathologist that liver carcinomas 20 were not present in the slides." 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you understand that to be the IBT slides? 23 A. Yes. 2 4 Q. Nov/, in your -- Strike that. Plaintiff's 25 Exhibit 350 refers to your review of the information by IBT - 186 CONCANNON & JAEGER ,1 concerning livers in the rats exposed to ?CB? is that n t right? 3 A, Yes. 4 Q. All right. Nov/, does this review culminate in 5 the visit to the government agencies in November of 1975? o A, Yes. 7 Q. Is what Dr. Calanara writes to you in Exhibit 8 350 -- does that relate to the same general issue that was 9 di scussed with the government in November of 1975? 10 A. Yes. 11 G* Now, after Dr. Calandra's letter of April, 12 1975, did the medical department at Monsanto retain any 13 additional consultants to take a look at the I3T slides? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q- In specific, did Monsanto retain a consultant 16 to take a look at the findings regarding the livers of rats 17 exposed to PC31s? 18 A. To specific ones, it aid. 19 Q. And what was the purpose of that review? 20 A. To get an independent evaluation of these 21 liver lesions. 22 Q. Was the consultant asked to determine wnether 23 the liver lesions were or were not evidence of cancer? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Who was the consultant who was hired? - 187 - cgncannon a ja eg er .1 A. A D r . P o u r . r\ Q. VIho is Dr. Pour? 3 A Dr. Pour is a pathologist from the Epply 4 Laooratcry at tne University of Nebraska. 5 Q. is this the same Epply Institute or Center 6 that you identified in regard to Dr. Maooubi? 7 A. Yes. OO Q. All right. And did you -- Did Monsanto retain 3 Dr. Pour and the Epply center before or after it visited 10 tne government -- federal government agencies in November 11 of 197 5? 12 A. I think it was after -- before. 13 Q. If you would take a look at Exhibit 1251, 14 whicn is a government memorandum of the meeting with 13 Monsanto. At the top of page two, the government 15 memor andura 3tates that Industrial Bio-Test Labs had 17 submitted its material for review by the Epply Institute's 18 Dr. Pour. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do you see that? 21 A. X CCk r*J 22 MR. BRADLEY: I object to the form of tne 23 quo scion. 24 Q. (by Mr. Feather stone) To your knowledge, is 25 that the same Dr. Pour that Ilonsanto aired? - 188 COlICAiUlOM a JAEGER ,1l A. Yes. Eh is is spelled wrong. _ 2 Q. How- do you spell Dr. Pour*s name? 3 A. P-o-u-r. 4 Q- And the memo says P-a-u-r. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What was Dr. Pour*s finding regarding the -- 7 A. He didn1t think there was cancer in the IBE 8 studies. 9 Q. Did you have that conclusion before you went 10 to the government agencies? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And when you went to Washington in November of 13 1975, did you and the others from Monsanto present the IBE 14 analysis and Dr. Po u l t s conclusions to the government 15 agencies? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Now, in any of your discussions with IBE, v?as 18 there ever any discussion about falsifying or faking data? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Or falsifying or fakingthe analysis of the 21 liver tissues from the rats? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Was there any discussion of anyintention to 24 conceal from the governrnent information regarding the 25 dosing of the rats with PC3`s? - 139 - concanmon & jaeger t ,1, A. Ho. 2 i Q. All.right. Did you have anyintention of oj concealing any information from the government? 4 A. Ho. 5 Q. Did you ever hear any Monsantoemployee even 6 suggest misleading or concealing information from the 7 government? 8 A. No. 9 Q. All right. I next want to ask you about X Plaintiff's Exhibits 360 and 359, which you were shown 11 yesterday. Now, with regard to these exhibits, I'm going 12 to ask you, first, I believe you testified yesterday that 13 your first real knowledge about the Yusho incident was 14 gained at the national conference on PCB1s? 15 A. At the Chicago meeting. 16 Q. At that time did you learn information 17 regarding the exposure of the people involved at Yusho? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. What information did you learn at that time 20 about the exposure to the people at Yusho? 21 A. The Japanese who were discussed were those who 22 had ingested PCB1s, which had been the result of 23 contamination of cooking oils with PCB1s. 24 Q. Did you gain any understanding of the size of 25 the dose or exposure? - 190 - COMCAHHON ii JAEGER ,1 A. Yes. They were talking about exposures in the 2 two-thousand-parts-per-million range. It was gross 3 exposure. 4 Q. And it was ingestion -- 5 A. Yes. It was in the cooking oils, heated 6 cooking oils. 7 Q. It was ingestion by the consumption of food 8 heavily contaminated with PCB*s? 9 A. That* s right. 10 Q. Did you have any understanding of the 11 differences between those exposures and the exposures that 12 someone working with the PCB electrical fluid raay have? 13 A. The concentration of PCB1s in the atmosphere 14 of these workers had to be below one milligram for cubic 15 meter of air. That1s one milligram versus two thousand 16 milligrams. That* s one milligram for ten cubic meters, so 17 it* s ten milligrams. 18 Q. When you say "the atmosphere of the workers," 19 are you talking about the air that they were breathing? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Is this inside a plant, for instance? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And you quoted us a number. Is that based on 2 4 some regulation? 25 A. It's a government regulation of one milligram - 191 COHCAMON a JAEGER t ,1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 per cubic meter is a maximum of exposure. _ Q. Is that for an eight-hour day? A. Yes. Q. Continuously? Continuous exposure, I mean. A. Yes. Q. How does that relate in terms of relative size to the exposure -- the amount of exposure in the Yusho case, as you understand it? A. Their exposure in that contaminated oil was in the order of two thousand parts per million. Q. I mean, is that -- how much bigger than the workers1 exposure are we talking about? A. We* re talking about the worker getting it at one milligram per cubic meter of air. So we get about ten cubic meters in an eight-hour workday, so there* s a difference between ten milligrams and the concentration in the cooking oils at two thousand PPM. Q. I mean, is it a big difference? A. Ten versus two thousand is two hundred times bigger. Q. And one was by ingestion, versus inhalation? is that correct? A. Yes. Q. All right. Mow, you were asked about 359, and I guess 360, yesterday. This is a publication by NIOSH? is - 192 - COKCAHIIOH A JAEGER ,1 that correct? 2 A. Yes. i 3 Q. And this publication is dated, according to 4 the documents, in November of 1975; is that right? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. The same month as the national conference on 7 PCB1s in Chicago? 3 A. I think that1s right. 9 Q. And the same month that Monsanto and others IO visited the government to talk about the liver effects 11 shown in the IBT studies? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Mr. Bradley asked you about a sentence on page 14 five, under the section headed -- or subsection headed 15 "Human." Did you see that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And he specifically asked you about the 18 sentence that begins, "The known, toxic effects of PCB's in 19 humans include..." Do you see that? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. How, there*s a reference for that sentence? is 22 that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And that -- The way these aocument work, you 25 put down a reference, and that means that1s tne authority - 193 CO NCAliliOM & JAEGSP >1 for that sentence? 2 A. Yes-. 3 Q. And is the authority for the sentence 4 regarding the effects, the known toxic effects, the one S that Mr. Bradley asked you about, is that a Yusho report, 6 or a report on the Yusho incident? 7 A. Yes. 3 Q. And that's the gross exposure that you were 9 just describing to us? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Yesterday when you said that you acknowledged 12 that sentence -- Have you conducted any -- your ovzn 13 investigation of Yusho? 14 A. Wo. 15 Q. All right. Your information regarding Yusho 16 is based on what is made available to you in the public 17 literature? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Was aMonsanto PCB product at all involved in 20 Yusho, to your knovjledge? 21 A. Wo. 22 Q. Was that PCB1s manufactured by aJapanese 23 company, according to the reports? j+ 24 A. I don* t know. Japanese do make PCB's. 25 Q. All right. I take it that, based oh your - 194 COMCAMHOH & JAEGER ,l information regarding Yusho, you have no reason to disagree 2 with the sentence in here citing a report on Yusho and 3 purporting to summarise the known tOKic effects shown in 4 the Yusho incident? is that correct? 5 A. If they would just include Yusho. 6 Q. All right. Is that how you understand that 7 sentence ? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. As reporting the effects seen in the Yusho 10 patients? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. All right. From the ingestion of high 13 concentrations of PCB's in the cooking oil? 14 A. Yes. 15 o. Now, with regard to communications to 15 customers regarding the Yusho incident, again, I take it, 17 similar to your previous testimony, you were not involved 18 in any communications by Monsanto to its customers 19 regarding Yusho? 20 A. No. 21 Q. And you have no personal knowledge of v/hat 22 information may have been communicated by Monsanto to its 23 customers regarding Yusho? 24 A. No. 25 Q. That, to your understanding, would have been - 195 CON CANU ON JiidG ,1( handled by the business group; is that right? 2 A. Yes-. 3 Q. In talking about the exposures to workers, are 4 you familiar with something called vapor pressure? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And with regard to a fluid like PCB's, is 7 vapor pressure important in considering exposure, or 8 possible exposure? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q* What is vapor pressure? 11 MR. BRADLEY; X object to the form of the 12 question. It1s beyond the scope of direct exam. 13 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Okay. 14 What is vapor pressure? 15 A. In industrial hygiene, vapor pressure has to 16 do with the characteristic of a chemical to become airborne 17 by virtue of its bubbling off, or coming off from a 18 chemical. 19 Q. (by Mr. Feather stone) Or a fluid? 20 A. Or a fluid. 21 Q. And I take it, it has to become airborne in 22 order to be inhaled? 23 MR. BRADLEY: Same objection. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) All right. Now, do you - 196 CONCANMON a JAEGER a know whether the PCB fluids had a high vapor pressure or a , 2 low vapor pressure? 3 MR. BRADLEY: Same objection. 4 A. It depends on the temperature. 5 Q. (by Mr. Feather stone) Okay. At room 6 temperature or the temperature in which the product exists 7 before it1s put to use, would it have a high vapor pressure 8 or a low vapor pressure? 9 MR. BRADLEY: Same objection. 10 A. The vapor pressure that's permitted is one 11 milligram per cubic meter. 12 Q. (by Mr. Featherstone) That's the air 13 concentration on PCB's? 14 A. That1s OSHA1s recommendation, as well as 15 ACGIH. 16 Q. At the product's normal temperature, that is, 17 before it* s put to work, does it tend to give off a lot of 18 vapor or very little vapor? 19 A. No. It has a low vapor pressure. 20 Q. What does that mean? 21 MR. BRADLEY: Object. It's beyond the scope 22 of the direct exam. Subject to the form. 23 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Are you objecting to beyond 24 the scope, or are you objecting to the form? 25 MR. BRADLEY: I'm objecting to the form of tne - 197 COHCANNOM & JAEGER TlI question 2i. 3 HR.- FEATHERSTONE: All right. MR. BRADLEY: And it1s beyond the scope. 4 HR. FEATHERSTONE: You want a continuing 5 objection to beyond the scope? 6 MR. BRADLEY: Yes. 7 M R . FEATH ERSTON E : All right. 8 What is meant by low vapor pressure? 9 A. It's less likely to become airborne. It1s a 10 relative term. 11 Q. (by Mr. Feather stone) All right. And the PCB 12 fluids manufactured by Monsanto, do you know whether they 13 had a low or high vapor pressure? 14 A. Low vapor pressure. 15 Q. And does that -- What doesthatmean, in terms 16 of inhalation exposure? 17 A. If it1s 1ow vapor pressure, it* s less likely 18 to be inhaled. 19 Q. As contrasted with something with a high vapor 20 pressure? 21 A. That1s right. 22 Q. We've seen in the documents here some 23 reference to the heating of the fluid. Does that have any 24 effect on vapor pressure? 25 A. It increases the vapor pressure. - 198 - CONCANNON & JAEGER 1 Q Does than then mean an increased likelihood of ,2 inhalation? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. As the temperature goes up? 5 A* Yes. 6 Q. Let me finally ask you, Dr. Roush, about 7 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1137. It's a document that Mr. Bradley 8 shov/ed you this morning. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. It's one that you signed, I believe, in August 11 of 1976; is that correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q . All right. The text of the document, to the 14 best of your knowledge, was prepared by Dr. Levinskas? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And am I correct, from looking at this 17 document, it v/as Dr. Levinskas who recommended that this 13 hundred-dollar award be given to Dr. Wright? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And does the text of the document in its 21 entirety set forth the reason for the award? 22 MR. BRADLEY: Objection to the form of the 23 question. Ho foundation, no personal knowledge. He didn't 24 write it. X don't know how he can answer that. 25 Q. (by Mr. Feather stone) Well, let me ask you - 199 CONCAimOH JAEGER a this: Does Pl a i n t i f f s Exhibit 1137 set forth the reasons , 2 for giving Dr. Wright the award? 3 A. Yea. 4 Q. All right. With regard to Dr. Wright*a review 5 and submission of data to the PEA that1s referenced in 6 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1137 and about which you testified 7 generally this morning, do you know of any falsification of 8 any such data by Dr. Wright? 9 A. No. 10 Q. All right. Do you know of any improper con 11 duct of Dr. Wright that lead to Plaintiff's Exhibit 1137? 12 A. Say that again. 13 Q. Yes. Do you know of any award given to Dr. 14 VJright for falsifying or concealing information? 15 A. No. 16 HR. FEATHERSTONE: All right. No further 17 questions. Thank you. IS (Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.) 19 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 20 QUESTIONS BY HR. BRADLEY: 21 Q. Dr. Roush, Hr. Featherstoneasked you some 22 questions about Aroclor 1016, and you indicated that 23 Arocior was the term given to products containing PCB* s, 24 correct ? r, 25 A. Yes. - 200 - CON CANNON St JAE GER *3, Q. So that when reference was made to Aroclor 2 1016, at least you understand that product to contain 3 PCS's, correct? 4 A. I said I don't know what -- I haven1t worked 5 with 1016. 6 Q, But at least relative to what you understood 7 to be Aroclor 1016, because it was an Aroclor, and Aroclor 3 contains PCB's, then you knew Aroclor 1016 contained PCB's? 9 is that fair to say? 10 A. It's a little bit strong. I'm not that far. 11 That all came after I left Monsanto - 1016. 12 Q. And the other Aroclors, for example 1260, the 13 last two digits indicated sixty percent chlorine content? 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 0. And in the -- Well, around the time you began 15 your work with Monsanto, there was a claim that higher 17 chlorinated biphenyls did not biodegrade, whereas the lower 18 chlorinated biphenyls did biodegrade; is that true? 19 HR. FEATHERSTONE: Claimed by whom? 20 A. No, 21 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Okay. When you began your 22 work at Monsanto, do you know whether Monsanto 23 differentiated between the higher and lower chlorinated 24 PCS's regarding their biodegradability? 25 A. Yes. - 201 CONCAMMOM JAEG ER TI Q. And what did Monsanto claim about that? , 2 A, The higher chlorinated were more resistant 3 than the lower chlorinated. 4 Q. Now, Aroclor 1016, the last two digits don't 5 reflect the chlorine content of that compound -- Let me ask 6 the question again. For Aroclor 1016, the last two digits 7 does not indicate the percentage of chlorine in that 8 product? is that correct? 9 HR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. Absence of 10 oundation. 11 A. I started out, I said Ididn't know 1016. 12 Q. (by Hr. Bradley)My memory is that you 13 testified yesterday that 1016 had between forty-one and 14 forty-two percent chlorine. Am I wrong? 15 A. You1re wrong. 16 Q. All right. 17 MR. FEATHERSTONE; Wrong witness. 18 MR. BRADLEY: All right. 19 And was it your understanding that any product 20 tnat was identified as an Aroclor was a product that 21 contained PCB* s? 22 A. To my knowledge, yes. 23 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) All right. Now, do you know 24 whether Aroclor 1016 was ever referred to by a different 25 name? - 202 - CONCANNON a JAEGER '1 A Yes * 2 Q. And what other name was it referred to as? 3 A. Inerteen would be an example. 4 Q. Well, did it ever have a name that did not 5 indicate it was an Aroclor? 6 A. I don1t know. 7 Q. Have you ever heard of a product called MGS 3 1016? 9 A. No. 10 Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked for 11 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1541 and ask you to 12 review that document for me. Have you reviewed it? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. That is a report on the introduction of MCS 15 1016 in Europe written by P. J. Marsh? is that correct? 16 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. No shov/ing of 17 foundation for this witness to answer that question. 18 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Is that correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Who is P. J. Marsh? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. Did you see the distribution down at the 23 nottorn? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you know ?. G. Beni gnus? - 203 CONCANNON & JAEGER O- A know the name i 2 Q- All right. 3 A. Don't know him. 4 Q. Do you know whether he1s a Monsanto employee 5 in the St. Louis Monsanto employee? 6 M R . PEATH ERS TON E : Is? 7 MR. BRADLEY: Was. 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether a P. G. 10 Benignus was ever a St. Louis Monsanto employee? 11 A. I do not know. 12 Q. Do you know whether a W. R. Richard was ever a 13 St. Louis Monsanto employee? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Do you know whether a J. R. Savage was ever a 16 St. Louis Monsanto employee? 17 A. I'm sort of stuck with that list adjacent with IS it that gives you a place. 19 MR. FEATHERSTONEs The question, though, 20 Doctor, is whether you know that. He can ask whether the 21 document somehow reflects that. 22 A. No. 23 MR. PEATHERSTONE: They're two different 24 questions. 25 THE WITNESS : I understand, but it's still - 204 CONGAMMON & JAEGER '1 hard. * 2 Q. (by Hr. Bradley) All right. Does the docu 3 ment indicate that J. R. Savage is a St. Louis employee? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And does this document refer to what you know 6 to be Aroclor 1016? 7 A. I don't know 1016. 8 Q. Do you know whether MCS 1016 was claimed by 9 Monsanto to be similar to Aroclor 1242 in its electrical 10 and functional properties? 11 A. That's what this report says. 12 Q. Do you know whether Monsanto either performed 13 its own or commissioned biodegradation work which showed a 14 clear advantage of MCS 1016 over Aroclor 1242? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. I'm going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 1564 17 and ask you to review that document. 18 A. 1564? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. In 1973, when you began your employment with 22 Monsanto, did Monsanto have a Monsanto Chemicals, Limited, 23 research and development department in Ruabon? 24 A. I don* t know. 25 Q. Did they in 1971? - 205 COHCAHHON u JAEGER ,1;*r A. I don1t know. . 2 Q. Did they at any point during the period of 3 your employment with Monsanto? 4 A. I don* t know. 5 Q. Is this a January, 1971 document entitled 6 "PCB's Environmental Studies"? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. The document, for example, on page two, under 9 "Scope," 1.1 says "The development of analytical techniques 10 and procedures for interpretation are well advanced but 11 some more effort is required to complete the work on 12 Aroclor 1262 and MCS 1016." Did I read that correctly? 13 A. I think so. 14 Q. Did you know whether the MCS 1016 there refers 15 to what you've called Aroclor 1016? 16 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. Cumulative. 17 It's been asked and answered. 18 A. I don't know. 19 Q. I'm now going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 20 1544. 21 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Do you want him to read the 22 entire document? 23 MR. BRADLEY: I want him to review the entire . 24 document. He doesn't need to read it word for word, but 25 I'd like him to become generally familiar with it. - 206 - CONCANNON & JAEG ER ',1 THE WITNESS: I understand. M 2 Q. (by- Mr. Bradley) Have you generally reviewed 3 that exhibit? 4 A. Yes* 5 Q. And do you recognise that as a confidential 6 Monsanto special study report regarding MCS 1016? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q . And -- 9 A. And more. 10 Q. All right. And what else does it -- 11 A. Well, there's other chlorinated PCB's that 12 undergo degradation at different rates than 1016. 13 Q. All right. And this document demonstrates the 14 different degradation rates for the different Aroclors, 15 including MCS 1016? 16 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form of the 17 question and the absence of foundation for this witness to 18 testify to these matters. 19 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Is that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Would you turn to page three under table two. 22 A. On page three? 23 Q . Yes. 24 A. What is it? 25 Q. Under table two. - 207 CONCANNON a JAEGER A. Yes. n, Q. You.see the reference to Aroclor 1254? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And a reference to Aroclor 1242? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And a reference to MCS 1016? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And a reference to Aroclor 1221? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What are the numbers under each of those? 11 What do they represent? 12 A. If I take that left column, just dealing with 13 the chlorines per biphenyl molecule. 14 Q. All right. And it shows the homologue number 15 of chlorine per biphenyl molecule for those four different 15 Ar o d o r s? 17 MR. FEATHERSTONE: I'll object now as beyond 18 the scope of cross examination. Improper redirect. 19 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Is that correct? 20 A. I think so. 21 Q. All right. And do you know whether the MC3 22 1016 referred to on page three of Plaintiff* s Exhibit 1544 23 is what you've referred to as Aroclor 1016? 24 A. I think that* s right. 25 Q- Now, I'm going to show you -- Before I show - 208 CONCANNOH & JAEGER  1 you any other documents, did Monsanto have any Aroclors . 2 that you know of that were identified as MCS 1043? 3 A. I don1t know. 4 Q. I'm going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 1594 . 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. The second paragraph of thatdocument refers 8 to Aroclor 1248; is that correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And the third paragraph refers to Aroclor il 1242, Aroclor 1254, and Aroclor 1260? is that correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And the first sentence of the wording under 14 "Biodegradation Testing Program" reads, "Results from the 15 last sampling period show tnat replacement product MCS 16 1043, which is free of four, five and six chlorine isomers, 17 degrades at about tv?ice the rate (56 percent in 43 hours) 18 of MCS 1016 and Aroclor 1242." And it goes on and 19 references MCS 1016 later in that same paragraph. Do you 2G know whether the MCS 1016 referred to in that paragraph is 21 the same Aroclor 1016 that you referred to with Mr. 22 Feather stone? 23 MR. FEATHERSTONE s Well, I object to the form 24 of tne question. I object as beyond the scope of the cross 25 examination. A1so, tnere's no showing of personal kaow- - 20 9 - COUCAiTNON U b*7 7. *?/*' *1 ledge of this witness to answer a question on that subject * 2 on that document. 3 (Thereupon, a short recess was taken.) 4 TEE WITNESS; Ask your question again, please. o Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether the MCS 6 1016 referred to in that paragraph is the same as the 7 Aroclor 1016 that you mentioned in your answers to some of 8 Mr. featherstone*s questions? 9 MR. FEATHERSTONE: And I'll assert the same 10 obj actions. 11 A. I don't know, but I would suspect so. 12 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Have you ever seen Monsanto 13 products that had the letters MCS in front of them? 14 A. No. 15 Q. You don* t .know -- 16 A. No, I have not. 17 Q. You wouldn't know what MCS refers to, then, if 18 there was such a product? 19 A. No, sir. 20 Q. When you learned of the Yusho incident, did 21 you go speak with somebody in Monsanto1s business group 22 responsible for relaying information to Monsanto customers? 23 A. No, I did not. 24 Q. Did the medical department at Monsanto, while 25 you were there, undertake any effort to insure that the > t - 210 CONCANNON & JAEGER i 1 business group within Monsanto working with PCB* s told 2 Monsanto1s customers about the health and environmental 3 effects or PCB1s? 4 A. I don*t know. 5 Q. All right. Do you have Plaintiff* s Exhibit 6 359 there, Dr. Roush? Would you turn to page five for me, 7 please? 3 A. Yes, sir. 9 Q. Mr. Featherstone asked you some questions 10 about the first paragraph under the section entitled 11 "Human*" 12 A, Yes. 13 Q. It says, "The know toxic effects of PCB*s in 14 humans include an acne-like skin eruption (cnloracne), 15 pigmentation of the skin and nails, excessive eye 16 discharge, swelling of eyelids and distinctive hair 17 follicles," correct? 13 A. That* s what it says. 19 Q. There* s a reference nineteen, and the nineteen 20 reference is to the Yusho incident? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. It was known well before the Yusho incident, 23 though, wasn't it, Dr. Roush, that PCB's caused an acne 24 like skin eruption, cnloracne? 25 MR. FEATHERSTOME: Object to the form. - 211 COnCANlIQH & JAEGER \ / / ' 1 MR. BRADLEY: Would you read the question 2 back? 3 (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) 4 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Let me redo it. 5 Monsanto -- Was it reported in the literature 6 prior to the Yusho incident that PCB1s effects on humans 7 included an acne-like skin eruption? 8 A. Yes. 9 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. Cumulative. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Was it reported in the 12 literature before the Yusho incident that the toxic effect 13 of PC3's on humans included chloracne? 14 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. Cumulative. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Was it reported in the 17 literature prior to the Yusho incident that the known toxic 18 effects of PCB1s in humans included pigmentation of the 19 skin and nails? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Was it reported in the literature prior to the 22 Yusho incident that the known toxic effects of PCB's in 23 humans included excessive eye discharge? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Swelling of eyelids? - 212 COMCANNON u JAEGER 'I A. I don* t know. 2 Q. Distinctive hair follicles? 3 A. WO. 4 Q. Wow, the second paragraph under "Humans" says, 5 "For a number of years chloracne of the face and neck has 6 been reported among workers exposed to chlorinated 1 hydrocarbons. Workers exposed to PCS*s in the process of 8 insulating cables, in the production of condensers and the 9 manufacture of chiorobiphenyls have reported these skin 10 lesions along with systemic effects such as digestive 11 disturbances, edema of the face and hands, burning of the 12 eyes, impotence and hematuria." Did I read that correctly? 13 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. Beyond the 14 scope of cross, improper redirect. 15 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Did I read that correctly? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Are the references to that information prior 13 to the Yusho incident? 19 MR. FEATHERSTOWE: Improper redirect. 20 A. Kimbrough wasn't Japanese, but she could be 21 reporting the Yusho incident in this report in her paper. 22 MR. FEATHERSTOWE: He's referring to reference 23 sixteen. 24 THE WITNESS: So am I. 25 FIR. FEATHERSTOWE: I was pointing out that is - 213 CONCANUOH U JAEGER ,"1 what you were referring to. 2 THE-WITNESS: Yes. 3 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) How about reference twenty.?.'; 4 A. Twenty-two? 5 Q- Well, references twenty and twenty-two are the 6 ones that are remaining. 7 A. I see. 8 MR. FEATHERSTONE: By the way, same objection. 9 The scope of redirect. Improper. 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q * (by Mr. Bradley) Well, reference twenty is 12 dated 1936/ is it not? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. That's before the Yusho incident? 15 A. Yes, that was. 16 Q. And reference twenty-two is dated 1946? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q * And that's before the Yusho incident? 19 A. Yes. They sure are. 20 Q. In fact, that's about thirty years before the 21 Yusho incident, isn't it? 22 M R . FEATHERSTONE : Objection. Impr oper 23 redirect. 24 A. That* s about right, yes. 25 What's the question? Is that before Yusho? - 214 COMCANNON & JAEGER J X Is that the question? 2 Q- (by Mr. Bradley) You've answeredthe question 3 that I*ve asked. 4 MR. FEATHERSTONE : You1re current. 5 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Mr.Featherstonea s k e d `some, 6 questions about Plaintiff's Exhibit 350, and if you would, 7 I'd like you to locate that document, because I have a fey 8 questions based upon what Mr. Featherstone asked you. Do 9 you have that there in front of you, Dr. Roush? 10 A. Yes. 350, yes. 11 Q. As I understand your testimony, Dr. Pour was 12 asked by Monsanto to review various slides of rat livers 13 that had previously been examined by IBT; is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Did Dr. Pour write areport regarding his 16 examination of tne rat livers? s 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And as I understand your testimony, Dr. Pour 19 was not shown all of the rat livers that -- the slides of 20 rat livers that were examined by IBT. He was rather shown 21 only some of the slides; is that correct? 22 A. I don't recall. 23 Q . Do you recall indicating to M r . -- in response 24 to one of Mr. Featherstone*s questions that Dr. pour was oc -J shown only some slides of the IBT rat livers? - 215; - CON CAMMON : JAEGER AU. V A. I don't recall having r 2 Q. Okay. Would you now loi 3 \m Yes 4 Q. -- of Exhibit 350 M r . 5 the first tv/o paragraphs I'm 6 tne third, so could you review 7 A. All right. 8 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Talking about this para 9 graph rignt here. 10 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) The one that begins, "Dr. 11 Squires has stated in a letter..." 12 A. All right. When you say -- 13 MR. FEATHERSTONE: No. I don't tnink he's 14 asked you a question yet, nave you? 15 MR. BRADLEY: He was trying to tell me how I 16 contused aim. 17 THE WITNESS: I was looking for Pour, not 18 Squi res. 19 Q. (oy Mr. Bradley) All right. According to 20 that paragrapn, "Dr. Squires stated in a letter to Dr. 21 Kimbrough, dated November 12th, 1974 that, 'I defined 22 'discrete nodules' and 'trabecular basophilic hyperplasia' o7 as precancerous lesions, and thus indicative of 2 4 carcinogenic response." Did I read that correctly? 25 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to tne form. - 216 COMCANNON a JAEGER ' I A. Yes. 1 2 Q. (by- Mr. Bradley) Are hepatomas or hepatomas 3 the same as discrete nodules or trabecular basophilic 4 hyperpiasi a? 5 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form and 6 foundation as to this witness*s response to Dr. Squires* -- 7 MR. BRADLEY: I wasn*t asking what Dr. Squires 3 meant. I'm asking this witness whether they are the same. 9 A. Well, he is saying that these are two 10 different lesions, the discrete nodule and basophilic 11 hyperplasia. 12 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Well, is the importance of 13 that paragraph that at least some pathologists believed 14 that where there is a benign or cancerous process, that 15 even a benign change is an indication of a precancerous 15 condition? 17 18 question. MR, FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form of the 19 Q. (by Mr. Bradley) Well, let me ask it this 20 way: The paragraph goes on and says, "This reflects a 21 point of view which is not shared by all pathologists." 22 And I assumed that paragraph references a split of opinion 23 among pathologists regarding whether discrete nodules, for 24 example, as precancerous lesions, are indicative with 25 carcinogenic response. Would you agree with that? - 217 - CONCANNON & JAEGER ' I A. It all depends on the -- each one of them has * 2 to be individualized. 3 Q. Do you know whether in 1974 a credible portion 4 of pathologists believed that discrete nodules and 5 trabecular basophilic hyperplasia as precancerous lesions 6 were indicative of carcinogenic response? 7 HR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. No showing of 8 personal knowledge for this witness to respond to that, 9 lack of foundation. 10 A. What each one of the pathologists looking at 11 this would have to do would be to individualise and look at 12 them. There are hepatomas that are known are not 13 precancerous, and so the interpretation of this is up to 14 the pathologist. 13 Q. (by Hr. Bradley) Allright. Apparently, back 16 in 1974, different pathologists had different ways of 17 analysing whether hepatomas were precancerous; is that 18 correct ? 19 A. That would be my interpretation of it. 20 Q. Now, you have had some education in the field 21 of cancer and hepatomas, have you not? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. In fact, youworked forthe National Cancer 24 Institute? 25 A. Yes. - 218 CONCANNON a JAEGER r j- O, nd by the time of November, 1974, you had 2 received training in the field of cancer research; is that 3 true? 4 A. Yes. Clinical. 5 Q. Now, if you'd look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 367, 6 which is the report by Judith 2ach and David Mutch -- By 7 the way, am I pronouncing his last name correctly? 8 . I think so. 9 Q. I'll show you my copy, Dr. Roush. Mr. 10 Featherstone asked you some questions about that exhibit 11 regarding the malignant melanoma, pancreatic cancer and 12 liver cancer in deceased workers. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Do you know whether those researchers 15 determined whether the deceased workers, in fact, had 16 pancreatic cancer? 17 A. Yes. 13 Q. And how would they know that, Dr. Roush? 19 A. Apart from the death certificate. 20 Q. The death certificate would identify the cause 21 of death, would it not? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And if this one particular worker, for 2 4 example, died of a heart attack and there was no autopsy 25 done, no one would know if the fellow had pancreatic - 219 - CONCA1JNCi-J S JAEGER 1 cancer, would they? L 2 A. There's a place on the death certificate for 3 that, "Contributing to cause of death,n 4 Q. nd they'd know that if they performed an 5 autopsy ? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. If they didn't -- 8 A. They would know that if they didn't perform an 9 autopsy. 10 Q. How would they know if somebody died in part 11 -- Let me rephrase that. How would a person completing a 12 death certificate know whether pancreatic cancer existed in 13 someone who died from an apparent heart attack? 14 A. There's a place on the death certificate that 15 says "For contributing causes of death.n 16 Q. I understand that. 17 A. All right. 18 Q. How would a doctor completing the death 19 certificate determine whether someone had pancreatic cancer 20 if, in fact, it appeared they died from an acute heart 21 attack? 22 A. The doctor who filled out that death 23 certificate is supposed to know. 24 Q. How would the doctor know without doing an 25 autopsy? - 220 COHCANNON & JAEGER  1 A. Most of the people who die today do not have - 2 autopsies* They, used to have. Used to be, eighty percent 3 would have an autopsy. They don1t do that any more. 4 Q. And then my question is, if somebody died of a 5 heart attack, for example, how would a doctor know whether 6 a person also had liver cancer unless the doctor did an 7 autopsy? 8 A. They are reporting them all the time based on 9 clinical records. 10 Q. In fact -- 11 A, This is a standard way of doingepidemiology, 12 however. 13 Q. In fact, the death certificatelists the cause 14 of death. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And if there are known contributing factors, 17 those are listed as well? 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. And if there are illnesses within the body 20 that a doctor doesn't identify, then they're not listed on 21 the death certificate? 22 A. That's right. 23 Q. And as I understand your testimony, as medical 24 director within Monsanto, you had no way of knowing what 25 the business group within Monsanto working with RCB1s was - 221 COMCAKI-JON &JAEGER ' 1 relating to its customers, other than looking at some 2 safety data sheets; is that fair to say? 3 A. I don't know what the Chicago meeting on PC3* s 4 -- how that was communicated, but I'm sure that was 5 communicated, as well. 6 Q. You just don't know -- 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. -- what the business folks were saying to the 9 customers? 10 A. That1s right. 11 Q. Have you ever spoken with one of the Monsanto 12 sales engineers who sold Monsanto PCB products to Monsanto 13 customers? 14 A. No. 15 Q* Do you know whether the business group within 16 Monsanto working with PCB's was headed by a doctor, a 17 medical doctor? 18 A. No, it was not. 19 Q- Do you know whether the business group within 20 Monsanto working with PCB's was headed by a toxicologist? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Do you know whether the business group within 23 Monsanto working with PCS's was headed by an 24 epidemiologist? 25 A. NO. - 222 C01CAMNON & JAEGER '1 Q. Do you know whether it was headed by anyone 2 qualified to review a scientific article on toxicity of a 3 particular chemical? 4 A. Only in the department of medicine, 5 environmental health. 6 MR. BRADLEY: I don*t have anything further. 7 Thank you very much. 8 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Okay. Real quickly, Dr. 9 Roush -- 10 HR. BRADLEY: I'll object to any recross as 11 not allowed by the rules. 12 HR. FEATHERSTOHE: Fine. You can have a 13 continuing objection to that for my five minutes worth of 14 examination. 15 MR. BRADLEY: All right. 16 RECROSS EXAMINATION 17 QUESTIONS 3Y MR. FEATHERSTOHE: 18 Q. With regard to Plaintiff1s Exhibit 1541, 1564, 19 1594 and 1544, have you ever seen any one of those exhibits 20 during your employment at Monsanto? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Some of these exhibits talk about biodegrada 23 tion studies. Were you ever involved in any biodegradation 24 study of PCB's at Monsanto? 25 A. No. - 223 CON CANITON a JAEGER  1 MR. BRADLEY: You mean him personally? 2 MR.. FEATHERSTONE: Yes. 3 MR. BRADLEY: Okay. 4 Q. (by Ilr. Feather stone) Some or thesedocuments 5 talk about an applied sciences group. Were you ever in the 6 applied sciences group? 7 A. No. 8 Q. You testified that you had noknowledge about 9 what was meant by MGS 1016. Did you have anything to do 10 with the assigning of chemical specification numbers to 11 products or test chemicals? 12 A. NO. 13 Q. Exhibit 1544 is from the analytical chemistry 14 group. Were you ever in the analytical chemistry group? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Do you have any training as an analytical 17 chemist? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Do you have any experience or expertise to run 20 biodegradation studies? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Or interpret them? 23 A. No. 24 Q. All right. With regards to your personal 25 training, you said that you are trained in the clinical - 224 COHCANNON & JAEGER * 1 aspect of cancer, human cancer? - 2 A. That's my experience, yes. 3 Q. What does that mean,*the clinical aspect of 4 human cancer? 5 A. 1 did chemotherapy on people with cancer. 6 Q. When Mr. Bradley was asking you questions 7 about the classification of various hepatomas or lesions, 8 is that something a clinical -- a clinician does? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Were you ever trained in that area? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Did you have anyexpertise intheclassifica 13 tion of hepatomas or lesions? 14 A. No. 15 Q. When you were engaged in this activity in 16 1975, that is, participating in meetings regarding 17 interpretations, were you relying on other people? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Lastly, with regard toExhibit 350, page three 20 where you were, page three of the attachment, where you 21 referenced the paragraph concerning Dr. Squires, did you 22 'ever she this letter from Dr. Squires to Dr. Kimbrough of 23 November 12th, 1974? 24 A. NO. 25 Q. Did you know Dr. Kimbrough at that time to be - 22 5 CONCANNON & JAEGER 4 1 a government toxicologist -- ' 2 ' A. Yes. 3 Q. -- with the Center for Disease Control? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And Dr.Kimbrough wassomeone who was running 6 her own toxicological testing of rats with PCB* s? 7 MR. BRADLEYs Objection. Beyond any scope of 3 recross. 9 A. Yes. 10 MR. FEATHERSTONE: No further questions. 11 MR. BRADLEY: No redirect. 12 13 14 GEORGE ROUSH 15 Subscribed and sworn to before me t h i s _________ day 16 of __,________ , A. D. f 1993 . 17 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: IS 19 20 Notary Public, within and for the State of Missouri 21 22 23 24 25 - 226 - CONCANNON & JAEGER 1 STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) SS 2 COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS ) 3 I, John T. Concannon, a Notary Public within and for 4 the State of Missouri, duly commissioned, qualified and 5 authorised 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 a l ., Defendants, to be 11 used in the trial of said cause in said Court, I was 12 attended at the law offices of Messrs. Husch & Eppenberger, 13 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1300, in the City of St. Louis, 14 State of Missouri, by Ralph A. Bradley, attorney for the 15 Plaintiff; by Bruce A. Feather stone, attorney for the 16 Defendant, Monsanto Company; by Laurie Basch, attorney for 17 the Defendant, Westinghouse; and by GEORGE ROUSH witness, 18 in said office on March 18, 1993. 19 The said witness, GEORGE ROUSH, being of sound mind 20 and being by me first carefully examined and duly cautioned 21 and sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing 22 but the truth in the case aforesaid, thereupon testified as 23 is shown in the foregoing transcript, said testimony being 24 by me reported in shorthand and caused to be transcribed 25 into typewriting, and that the foregoing pages correctly - 227 CONCANNON & JAEGER ' *1 set out the testimony of the aforementioned witness, GEORGE 2 ROUSH, together with the questions propounded by counsel 3 and the remarks and objections of counsel thereto, and is 4 in all respects a full, true and complete transcript of the 5 questions propounded to and the answers given by said 6 witness; and that said testimony, so transcribed, was 7 subscribed to by the witness on the ______ day of 8 ____________________ , A. D., 1993. 9 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not of counsel nor 10 attorney for any of the parties to said suit, nor related, 11 nor interested in any of the parties or their attorneys. 12 I FURTHER CERTIFY that Roush Deposition Exhibits A 13 through D, marked for identification and attached to and 14 made a part of this deposition, are the identical exhibits 15 referred to and identified by the witness in the foregoing 16 deposition. 17 WITHESS MY HAND and Notarial Seal, given this ______ 18 day of _______________ , A. D . , 1993, at St. Louis, Missouri. 19 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 12, 1994 20 21 22 JOHN T. CONCANNON, 23 Notary Public, within and for the State of Missouri 24 25 - 228 CONCANNON & JAEGER '1 2 3 May 5, 1993 4 5 Bruce A. Featherstone, Esq. 6 Kirkland & Ellis 1999 Broadway - Ste. 4000 7 Denver, Colorado 80202 8 Re: Nevada Power Company -v- 9 Monsanto Company, et al. 10 Dear M r . Featherstone: 11 This letter, incorporated as the last page of Mr. Roush's deposition, taken on March 18, 1993, will serve as 12 notice to you that his testimony is now ready for reading and signing of same. You will recall you indicated a 13 preference for him reading nis deposition, rather than waiving signature. 14 Enclosed please find the original signature page of 15 Mr. Roush's deposition, along with an eratta sheet. Please have Mr. Roush read and sign his deposition and return the 16 original signature page to me. I will then return the signature page to the original transcript, and notify Mr. 17 Bradley of any corrections the witness may have made. 18 Thank you for your cooperation in this regard. 19 Sincerely, 20 21 JOHN T. CONCANNON Shorthand Reporter 22 Concannon & Jaeger 23 General Court Reporters 705 Olive Street - Ste. 604 24 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 25 JTC:mpk - 229 - CONCANNON ii JAEGER * i GEORGE ROUSH 2 3 - DEPOSITION CORRECTION SHEET - 4 In Re: NEVADA POWER COMPANY Vs, MONSANTO COMPANY, et al. 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 read: 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: 21 Page Line should read: 22 Reason assigned for change: 23 Page Line should read: 24 Reason assigned for change: 25 GEORGE ROUSH - 230 - CONCANNON JAEGER