Document 15vnB8KozvOz7RorkXpZ0Zjyq

4624W Defendant Dow admits that it now knows that potential health hazards posed by respirable, airborne asbestos was being researched and reported in scientific and medical literature prior to 1935 , but until the late 1960's, it was generally accepted that the health hazards of respirable airborne asbestos was restricted to persons who worked in asbestos mines and textile factories handling large quantities of raw asbestos. 5. You instituted c corporate industrial hygiene program prior to: a) 1985, b) 1980 , c) 1975, d) 1970, e) 1965 , f) 1960, g) 1955 , h) 1950, `i> 1945, j) 1940 , k) 1935 . ANSWER: Defendant Dow admits subsection a) through h) ar.d denies i ) through k) .6 You began a corporate asbestos abatement or removal program prior to: a) 1985 , b) 1980, c) 1975, d> 1970, e) 1965 , f) 1960, g) 1955, h) 1950, i) 1945, j) 1940, k) 1935. ANSWER: Defendant Dow admits subparts a) through e) and denies subparts f) through k). -3- EXHIBrTNO. 3 1 WORLDWIDE COURI reporters 6906A It has ..utilized asbestos as a thermal insulator in the magnesium process area and in the diaphragms separating the caustic from the chlorine in the chlorine/caustic process. 7. Describe in detail each ownership interest that you or any related company has ever had in: a) an asbestos mine; b) an asbestos manufacturer; and c) ;an asbestos marketer. ANSWER: Dow'has never had an ownership of interest of any type in an asbestos mine, an asbestos manufacturer or asbestos marketer.' 8. State what your corporate industrial hygiene program required in the way of respiratory protection from dust inhalation injuries since you first began to require or provide respiratory protection, stating: a) when you began to require or provide such devices; ANSWER: Dow has required employees and contractor employees to protect themselves from heavy vapors and/or respirable dust since the 1940s. After Dow learned of the potential hazards of respirable asbestos, it required contractor employers to provide proper respiratory equipment to contractor employees on Dow premises if they had not been doing so previously and that Dow employees follow more rigorous rules regarding use of respiratory protection. b) what type of equipment was required or provided; ANSWER: Dow cannot name each type of respiratory equipment which was available for the last fifty years, but some of the types of respiratory equipment used at Dow are: 1. MSA Fasfoe mouthbit respirator 2. Acme Duo Seal 3. Welsh with dust pad 4. Dustfoe 77 5. Nose & mouth OVAG 6. Dust respirators -3- 6906A c) what training programs or literature accompanied such programs; ANSWER: Contractor employers were required to inform and train their employees on the hazards of the products around which they were working and to train each employee on the proper use of any equipment which the contractor employee was required to have or use on Dow premises. Dow would not have access to such literature or training program conducted by contractor employers. 9. As to the above programs, identify: a) the persons primarily responsible for the program: ANSWER: The contractor employer was responsible for training the contractor employees; the designated safety foreman for each individual _ block was responsible for training Dow employees. b) The persons still living with ' most knowledge of the programs: 1) at the corporate level: ANSWER: Larry W. Rampy Midland, Michigan 2) at the subject premises: ANSWER: Roger Daniel Freeport, Texas 10 Identify the persons responsible for your industrial hygiene program at the subject premises, stating the years of responsibility for each person and the identity of their superior. ANSWER: Individual Ralph R. Langner Larry G.'Silverstein Donald L. Hyde Year 1956-60 1961-1962 1961-66 Supervisor D. J. Kilian, MD D. J. Kilian, MD D. J. Kilian, MD -4- , (c) ' Respiratory protection: Dow has required its employees and contractors to use proper protection against heavy vapors and respirable dust since 1941 in Texas. Prior to the late 1960's, brickmasons working in the mag areas and insulators were wearing respirators and this became a requirement around this period of time. Although, Dow had implemented safe handling procedures for asbestos, it published a Handbook for Handling Asbestos Materials which was specific regarding the type of respiratory equipment required when handling asbestos. 12/ State when and by what means defendant first became aware that asbestos: a) Caused an irreversible lung disease: ANSWER: Late 1960's b) caused cancer in humans: ANSWER: Late 1960's C) caused cancer in other animals: ANSWER: Late 1960's d) caused mesothelioma: ANSWER: Late 1960's 13. State when and by what means defendant first began testing in defendant's plants and refineries for asbestos levels in the air. ANSWER: Corporate: 5/26/55 Air analysis while mixing asbestos with floor tile vinyl (research project) Texas Operations: Chlor-Alkali area 4/20/68 Air analysis of 14 State when defendant began the systematic removal of asbestos from defendant's plants and refineries, and corporate headquarters. -6- ANSWER: ' Beginning in 1970, asbestos was not used on Dow premises for the purposes of construction except in areas of greater than 1500 F, and only then until another material could be located in lieu of the asbestos. Any maintenance or scheduled demolition from late 1960's was used as an opportunity to remove the existing asbestos in that specific area safely. Through the years, if the asbestos began to deteriorate, it was removed and replaced and will continue to be replaced. 15. State why defendant began such removal at that time. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 14. 16. State' why defendant did not begin the systematic removal of asbestos . from its plants, refineries, and corporate headquarters before that time. ANSWER: The hazards of respirable asbestos were not generally recognized until the late 1960's. When Dow learned of the potential dangers of asbestos fibers, it immediately had all stocks of asbestos it had taken off the premises and returned to the supplier. It was not always possible nor feasible to remove asbestos already in place because in many instances, there was no other material that could be used or the form in which the- asbestos was located was not hazardous unless it was disturbed by cutting, etc., which is still true today. As it stated in Interrogatory No. 14, procedures were put into place to eliminate the asbestos at the appropriate time. 17. Identify by date and description of study and results thereof each study made: a) by defendant b) for defendant c) upon any premises controlled by defendant, or d) known to defendant: concerning the 1) creation, 2) existence, U'-"' -7- C0UB3E-RE2BRTERS, INC. April 15,1991 HAND DELIVERY Re: Cause No. B-l26,986 Russel H. Allen, et al vs. American Petrofina, Inc. Deposition of: Harold Robert Hoyle (B91-8), (B91-9), (B91-11) Heritage Plaza 1111 Ba^b)-. Suite 2500 Houston. Texas ~7002 Fax: (713) 65-i-l8R8 Tel: (713) 651-1100 Petroleum Tower 550 Fannin. Suite 1125 Beaumont, Texas 77701 Fax: (409) 833-0793 Tel: (409) 833-0016 Ms. Sandra Clark MEHAFFY & WEBER 2615 Calder Avenue Beaumont, Texas 77704 Dear Ms. Clark: Enclosed herewith please find the original depositions of the witness named above which has been signed by the witness. By copy of this letter we are informing all interested counsel of the changes made to the depositions by the witness. Should you have any questions concerning the above matter, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Charlotte J. Gengo Scheduling Department Enclosure cc: Mr. Herschel L. Hobson Ms. Kathy Kubach Mr. George R. Covert Ms. Denise Abrams Mr. Peter Boyd Wells, III Mr. Thomas W. Duesler Mr. Duncan S. Stuart Mr. James H. Powers Mr. Gary A. Bezet Mr. Kristopher E. Fernandez Mr. Robert H. Hood Clark.Ltr\410.91\tu Mr. J. Thad Heartfield Mr. David W. Ledyard l/Ms. Gail C. Jenkins Ms. Ann L. Burkey Mr. John J. Hainkel, III Mr. Christopher A. Conkling Mr. William E. Schweinle, Jr. Mr. J. Wiley George Mr. D. Allan Jones Ms. Katherine Armstrong Mr. John B. Hall April 15,1991 CERTIFIED MAIL P 451 890 818 Re: Cause No. B-126,986 Russel H. Allen, et a! vs. American Petrofina, Inc. Deposition of: Mr. Harold Robert Hoyle (B9I-8), (B91-9), (B91-11) I l 11 B.urbt. Suite 2500 Houston. Tex.is "()o^ Fax: (' 15) (iS-i-ISSS Tel: (7].i) 651-1100 Beaumont. Texas "'01 Fox: (-1091 Sis-0'93 Tel. (-109) Si 1-00 16 Mr. John S. Appleman DISTRICT CLERK Jefferson County Courthouse P. O. Box 3707 Beaumont, Texas 77704-3707 Dear Mr. Appleman: Enclosed herewith please find the Certificate Pages to the original depositions of the witness named above which we would appreciate your filing among the official records of the above-mentioned cause. By copy of this letter, we are informing all interested counsel of the filing of these Certificate Pages. Thanking you for your assistance in this matter, I remain. Sinrerelv. Charlotte J. Gengo Scheduling Department CJg Enclosure cc: Ms. Sandra Clark Mr. J. Thad Heartfield Mr. David W. Ledyard \A*Is. Gail C. Jenkins Ms. Ann L. Burkey Mr. John J. Hainkel, III Mr. Christopher A. Conkling Mr. William E. Schweinle, Jr. Mr. John B. Hall Mr. J. Wiley George Mr. D. Allan Jones Ms. Katherine Armstrong Appleman.Ltr\410.91\tw Mr. Herschel L. Hobson Ms. Kathy Kubach Mr. George R. Covert Ms. Denise Abrams Mr. Peter Boyd Wells, III Mr. Thomas W. Duesler Mr. Duncan S. Stuart Mr. James H. Powers Mr. Robert H. Hood Mr. Gary A. Bezet Mr. Kristopher E. Fernandez AMENDMENT SHEET k~ i. 1 Job No.. CASE: DEPOSITION OF: I wish to amend the foregoing deposition in the following respects: Pagejl/]_ Line Reads: UMV r Should Read: KsJ&'LL- Vv<vf yk<?/L/y*u^v<`.Idict Reason for Change:. Paoe '^LJ1 Line I Reads: v-vlL^Ju:- ^ Should Read: c/- ^ Reason for Change: /t, <&< Page 1 'V^> Line / Reads: Should Read: Reason for Change: f /> J; Page Line 2> Reads: Should Read:______________________ Reason for Change: susunM.__________ ^ Page <J'bV Line 'M Reads: Should Read: Reason for Change: Si> ____________________ ,^/tcvls. -<Aj~ PageLine Reads: Should Read: Reason for Change:. Witness' Signature SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN1 TO before meti the undersigned authority, on this \(L' day of ///')'?'/, 1991 .^NOTARY. .PUBLIC ....... -'i-f. ; February 23, 1991 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Sandra F. Clark MEHAFFY & WEBER 2615 Calder Avenue Beaumont, Texas 77704 Heritage Plaza 1111 Bagby, Suite 2500 Houston, Texas 77002 Fax: (713) 654-1888 Tel: (713) 651-1100 Petroleum Tower 550 Fannin, Suite 1125 Beaumont, Texas 77701, Fax: (409) 833-0793 Tel: (409) 833-0016 Re: Cause No. A-l34,614 Russel H. Allen, et al vs. American Petrofina, Inc. Deposition of: Harold Hoyle (B91-8), (B91-9), (B91-11) Dear Ms. Clark: Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the original deposition of the witness named above. Please have the witness review and sign the jurat page before any Notary Public prior to returning to our office. Should the witness find it necessary to make any changes or additions to the deposition, please use the amendment sheets enclosed. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Marisa A. Rangel Scheduling Department * mar Enclosure cc: Mr. Hershel L. Hobson Ms. Kathy Kubach Mr. George R. Covert Ms. Denise Abrams Mr. Peter Bovd Wells, ID Mr. Thomas W. Duesler Mr. Duncan S. Stuart Mr. James H. Powers Mr. Robert H. Hood Mr. Gary A Bezet Page 2 Ms. Sandra Clark Mr. J. Thad Heartfield Mr. David Ledyard i/Ms. Gail C. Jenkins Ms. Ann L. Burkey Mr. John J. Hainkel, II Mr. Christopher A. Conkling Mr. William E. Schweinle, Jr. Mr; John B. Hall Mr. J. Wiley George Mr. D. Allan Jones Mr. Kristopher E. Fernandez Ms. Katherine Armstrong