Document 2JNZNGB46meKmoGZMG4ERDZr6

DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT (S(0)Rf1 NO. 95--04--1728--D 2 MANUEL P. GONZALEZ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 3 vs. CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS 4 OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS 5 103RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 6 7 8 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 9 10 taken on the 19th day of September, 1997, beginning .11 at 9:40 a.m., at he law offices of Matthiesen & 12 Chase, L.L.P., 3303 Eleven Greenway Plaza, Houston, 13 Texas, before Karen A. Russell, a Certified Shorthand 14 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of C 15 Texas, pursuant to notice and the following 16 agreements of counsel: 17 IT WAS AGREED by and between counsel for the 18 respective parties hereto that the deposition would 19 be taken in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil 20 Procedure. 21 22 23 24 25 WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 2 1 2 3 APPEARANCES: 4 5 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS: 6 Law Offices' of Andrew Waters 400 South Zang Boulevard 7 Suite 1420 Dallas, Texas 75208 8 by Mr. Andrew Waters and Mr. George Brady 9 10 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT; ARMCO INC.: 11 Matthiesen & Chase, L.L.P. 3003"Eleven Greenway Plaza 12 Houston, Texas 77046 by Mr. R. Harding Erwin, Jr. 13 14 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS, PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION, W.R. GRACE & COMPANY-CONNECTICUT: 15 Adams & Graham, L.L.P. 16 222 E. Van Buren, West Tower P.O. Drawer 1429 17 Harlingen, Texas 78551 by Mr. Juan A. Gonzalez 18 19 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT, BROWN & ROOT, INC.: 20 Meredith,_Donnell & Abernethy 6850 Texas Commerce Tower 21 800 Travis Street Houston, Texas, 77002 22 by Mr. Alan H. Marks 23 24 25 WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 1 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT, A C AND S, INC.: 3 Dunn, Kacal, Adams, Pappas 4 & Law, P.C. 2929 Allen Parkway 5 Suite 2600 Houston, Texas 77019-2151 6 by Mr. Ken Rhodes and Ms. Karen M. Alvarado 7 8 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT, U.S. MINERAL PRODUCTS: 9 DeHay & Elliston, L.L.P. NationsBank Plaza 10 910 Main Street, Suite 3500 Dallas, Texas 75202 11 Ms. Laura Ellis Kugler and Mr. William C. Arnold 12 13 ALSO PRESENT: 14 Mr. Michael Reynolds, Videographer 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 4 1 INDEX 2 3 Testimony of Richard Schmidt 4 Page 5 Examination by Mr. Erwin 5 - 56 6 Examination by Mr. Waters 56 - 186 7 Examination by Mr. Gonzalez 186 - 187 8 Examination by Ms. Kugler 188 - 189 9 Examination by Ms. Alvarado 189 10 Examination by Mr. Marks 190 - 192 11 Further Examination by Mr. Erwin 192 - 198 12 Further Examination by Mr. Waters 199 - 200 13 - INDEX OF EXHIBITS 14 15 Number Description Page 16 1 Search Results from the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational 17 Safety and Health Administration Re: ARMCO Steel Corporation, 18 Seven Pages 141 19 2 Search Results from the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational 20 Safety ,and Health Administration Re: ARMCO Steel Corporation 21 Violation Summary, Two Pages 143 22 3 Search Results from the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational 23 Safety and Health Administration Re: ARMCO Steel Corporation 24 Violation Summary, One Page 145 25 WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 5 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the 2 videotaped deposition of Richard Schmidt 3 taken September 19th, 1997, starting at 4 approximately 9:39 a.m. We are on the 5 record. 6 7 RICHARD SCHMIDT, 8 having been first duly sworn on oath, testified as 9 follows: 10 11 EXAMINATION 12 13 BY MR. ERWIN: 14 Q Would you state your full name for the record, 15 please, sir? 16 A Richard Schmidt. 17 Q Mr. Schmidt, have you ever worked for ARMCO? 18 A Yes, I have. 19 Q And when did you work for ARMCO, sir? 20 A August 1st of__'74 through, I think it was 21 December the 2nd of '83. 22 Q And where did you work for ARMCO? 23 A Here in Houston, Texas. 24 Q And is that the Houston Works steel plant 25 facility? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 6 1 A That's correct. 2 Q And in what capacity did you work at the ARMCO 3 Houston Works facility? 4 A I began as an industrial hygiene engineer and 5 then moved into employee relations group. 6 Q How long were you an industrial hygiene engineer, 7 sir? 8 A Approximately three and a half years. 9 Q So from 1974 through the better part of 1977 or-- 10 A Yes, actually into 1978. 11 Q -- '78. Sorry, my math wasn't very goo So 12 basically '74 to '78? 13 A That's correct. . 14 Q Okay. Now, had you worked anywhere before ARMCO? 15 A Only while I was in college. I worked part-time 16 j obs. 17 Q Okay. So the ARMCO industrial hygiene position 18 was the first position you had out of college? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q When you first-came to work at ARMCO, did you 21 receive any particular training in the field of 22 industrial hygiene? 23 A Several things happened. I was sent to some 24 courses that were designed to help me learn more 25 about industrial hygiene. One of them in WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 7 1 particular was the NIOSH 550 course which is a -- 2 I belive it's a two-week course that was held 3 here in Houston. I went through some Texas 4 Safety Association courses. They provided for me 5 a correspondence course with our insurance 6 carrier. I don't remember what the insurance 7 carrier's name is, but out of Baltimore. And it 8 was a correspondence course helping me to 9 understand the facets of industrial hygiene. 10 Q And then as you stayed at ARMCO for those almost 11 fc : years, did you receive any additional 12 training other than that initial training that 13 you just mentioned? 14 A There was training that the company held itself, 15 both internally at the Houston Works and through 16 conferences that were held by the corporation 17 either in Middletown, Ohio. There was another 18 one for a week long in Kansas City, Missouri. So 19 there was a number of informal-type training 20 sessions, aleo. - 21 Q And when you say "informal," you mean because 22 they were inside the company? 23 A Right, or it could have been, you know, someone 24 who is more experienced in industrial hygiene, 25 giving some training to how to do sampling or WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 8 1 some other, again, just small, I call informal 2 training, how to calibrate the machinery, things 3 of this nature. 4 Q Now, did you attend any meetings of industrial 5 hygienists groups outside of ARMCO other than 6 what you've told us? 7 A Yes. I joined the local chapter of the American 8 Industrial Hygiene Association, which is a 9 professional group and attended some of their 10 meetings. And I just thought, about it, I also ii went through some training to become certified, 12 which I did not, but at that time is when I moved 13 on into another area of employment. But I did 14 take some training also through American 15 Industrial Hygiene Association local chapter. 16 Q Okay. Since leaving ARMCO -- well, strike that. 17 Could you briefly explain for the jury how 18 the industrial hygiene department -- if it was 19 called that -- at the Houston Works plant was set 20 up? 21 MR. WATERS: Let me object as leading 22 as asked. 23 Q (By Mr. Erwin) Mr. Schmidt, how was the 24 industrial hygiene department at Houston Works 25 set up? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 9 1 MR. WATERS: Let me object that it 2 assumes lack of foundation. 3 MR. ERWIN: You can answer. 4 A I was hired in to be an industrial hygiene 5 engineer at the safety department which has been 6 called the safety industrial hygiene department 7 and there was also another safety engineer and a 8 supervisor of safety. Just when I first got 9 there, there was also a third safety person who 10 then moved into the workers7 comp area. So 11 basically the department was set up of -- I guess 12 that would be the four of us. There was also a 13 medical department with a physician who was there 14 half a day and there were industrial nurses who 15 were around the clock seven days a week. 16 MR. ERWIN: Okay. 17 MR. WATERS: Object to the 18 nonresponsive portion. 19 Q (By Mr. Erwin) So at the Houston Works the 20 industrial hygiene was part of the safety 21 department? 22 MR. WATERS: Objection. Leading. 23 Q (By Mr. Erwin) Is that right? 24 A That's correct. 25 Q Okay. Who was your supervisor at the Houston WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 10 1 Works? 2 A Burke Hueber. 3 Q Okay. And his title was? 4 A Supervisor of safety. 5 Q Okay. And were y'all located in the same 6 physical building or how did that work? 7 A Yes. We had our own building which was safety 8 and medical combined. 9 Q Okay. Did you gain an understanding while you 10 worked there about how long a safety department 11 had been out at t ie Houston Works? 1 12 MR. WATERS: Objection.^ Calls for 13 hearsay. 14 A I just know that the safety department had been 15 there a good while before I had. The people who 16 were on board when I was hired had been there 17 several years prior to my time including, again, 18 the one safety engineer that moved into workers' 19 comp who had been with the company many, many 20 years, 20-plus years. -. 21 MR. WATERS: Objection. 22 Responsiveness. 23 Q (By Mr. Erwin) And did I hear you say there was a 24 medical department at the facility when you came 25 on? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 11 1 A Yes. 2 Q And what did that involve, who was staff there? 3 A There were actually a team of doctors. There was 4 a group. Dr. Jones and Hambrick and they rarely 5 were there both at the same time. They split 6 time out of their practice to cover the plant for 7 half a day. 8 Q And in addition to the doctors were there any 9 other health care professionals there? 10 A Right. There were industrial nurses there, as 11 many as two or even three sometimes on the first 12 shift and at least one on all the other shifts 13 around the clock. And there was also a lady who 14 was an X-ray technician who worked part-time 15 there and part-time in our department later on. 16 Q Okay. And was the medical department in a 17 separate facility from the facility in which you 18 worked? 19 A It was a -- there's separate rooms, but connected 20 by hallway between where the safety offices were 21 and where the medical department was located. 22 Q So in the same building? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Okay. About how many employees were working at 25 the plant at the time you were there? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 12 1 When I went to work in '74, there were 2 approximately 4,800 employees total. 3 And did that number stay the same between 1974 4 and '78? 5 It fluctuated some. There were some reductions 6 in force when business changed then people were 7 recalled when it came back. 8 If you could, sir, could you describe in your own 9 words what you understood and what you observed 10 the ARMCO safety program to encompass at the 11 Houston Works facility. 12 MR. WATERS: In, I guess, '74 to '78? 13 MR. ERWIN: Yes, yes. 14 When I went to work there, there was a program in 15 effect called Accident Prevention Fundamentals 16 and always referred to as APF. And it was a 17 multifaceted safety program which involved how to 18 investigate accidents, how to prevent accidents, 19 how to do investigations and meetings and things 20 of this nature. It was a --. also a training 21 program as well as an active program. 22 Individuals who were employed in the company -23 superintendents, general foremen -- were asked to 24 do the training for new supervisors that came on. 25 So it became kind of a perpetual program in that WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 13 1 census, that it was passed on from those who had 2 been with the program before to the ones who 3 became the new supervisors coming on. 4 Part of that program also involved monthly 5 meetings called the central safety committee 6 meetings where members of management got together 7 with the works manager. He was the chairman of 8 that committee, and each month would be either a 9 different type of topic to be covered to make 10 sure that we handled that between that point and 11 the next meeting and also to discuss what our 12 ongoing problems were at that time and to discuss 13 statistics in terms of number of accidents and 14 where they were occurring and what type of 15 accidents were occurring and to discuss what kind 16 of programs we could do to prevent those things. 17 Q What level of management attended the central 18 safety committee monthly meetings? 19 A It was held or it was chaired by the works 20 manager who was the top official at the company . 21 and attended by all levels of management down to 22 the general supervisor level. So that would be 23 general supervisor, superintendent. And there 24 was a title, also, at that time called area 25 superintendent and could be as many as 30 people WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 15 1 new standards that were being developed. This 2 was really the infancy of OSHA and we were kind 3 of learning the process along with everyone else. 4 MR. WATERS: Objection to the 5 nonresponsive portion. 6 Q (By Mr. Erwin) Were there, to your knowledge 7 during the time you were there at the plant, Mr. 8 Schmidt, any sort of safety materials that were 9 prepared and delivered to the employees, the work 10 force at the Houston Works? 11 A Oh, there was a number of different prog its. We 12 had programs where summer safety was an example 13 of that because we noticed that there were an 14 increase in the number of accidents during the 15 summertime, and so we would have handouts that 16 would go as a part of the supervisors' monthly 17 safety meeting each month. There was things for 18 family safety to take home with them, again, if 19 someone was -- during the summertime might be on 20 operating your_lawn mower or might be on , 21 operating your individual boats or things of that 22 nature. Just whatever the topic was that fit the 23 time and what was going on at the plant maybe. 24 I can't think of anything real specific 25 other than, again, like lawn mowers or boating WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 19 1 I saw him in the plant, he would approach me and 2 maybe say something about a circumstance that he 3 was aware of or that somebody maybe had made him 4 aware of. It was -- there was no real formal 5 program on that respect. 6 There were occasions where I'm sure he 7 filed some grievances. I have to go by my memory 8 here. I don't remember one specifically, but I 9 know there -- there were some safety grievances. 10 Q If he made -- you mentioned the informal contacts 11 you ad with him. If he made an observation or 12 informal complaint, as you were stating it, did 13 you make it your practice to follow up on it? 14 A I would say yes, yes. 15 Q And certainly if a grievance of some sort was 16 filed, was that followed up, as well? 17 MR. WATERS: Objection. Leading. 18 A Well, there was a formal process for a grievance 19 which was a part of the union contract, so if it 20 went into a grievance procedure, then it had to 21 be answered at the first or second step by the 22 supervisor in the area and if it went to the 23 third step, it was handled by the 24 employee-relations groups. So there was a very 25 formal and written procedure, yes. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 21 1 A To my knowledge of what a motor inspector did, 2 mainly they were assigned to the specific 3 location. If you said he was assigned 4 maintenance to a certain mill, a structural mill, 5 wide flange mill, whereever it may be, they 6 basically stayed at that facility and were 7 responsible for any maintenance of that -- the 8 machinery there. Mostly roll line electrical 9 motors, things of that nature. 10 They would -- if there was damage to one 11 they would replace it and take it out of service 12 and put another one in service. They would do 13 preventative maintenance on those motors, that 14 sort of thing, light electrical-type work in 15 either the control booths or whatever. If it 16 went beyond that, then they would call for some 17 outside help to the crafts back at the central 18 maintenance office. 19 Q (By Mr. Erwin) And how did you come to have that 20 understanding-about what an electrician motor 21 inspector was doing at the plant? 22 A Just through my nine and a half years of working 23 there observing the jobs themselves, and I was 24 part of the labor relations group afterwards, so 25 I have that knowledge after the time of what the WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 23 1 operational on its own. 2 Q And was it a self-contained building? 3 A I guess I don't understand what you mean by 4 "self-contained." It was a stand-alone building 5 but, again, it could have been connected to other 6 things, but it was -- there was walls around it, 7 if that's -- if that's your question. 8 Q Okay. It had four walls and a -- 9 A Yes. 10 Q -- roof on top? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Okay. And did you have an opportunity to follow 13 up on those concerns about asbestos in the wide 14 flange mill baghouse? 15 A By following up, I sat down with the management 16 that was involved in maintaining of those, which 17 was the electrical maintenance group, and we 18 suggest -- or suggestion was made that we do 19 sampling while they do the job. We also sat down 20 with the management and had them understand that 21 we needed to have some protective clothing and 22 other precautions for them while they were doing 23 this operation, so we set them up with 24 respirators, both dust respirators which were -- 25 they could just wear underneath the mask and also WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IQ 11 12_ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 24 an air-supplied hood, besides disposable clothing that could then be thrown away with the asbestos after the process was finished. Q Okay. So do I understand that when this matter came to your attention -- MR. WATERS: I'm sorry. Just -- could you give it a time frame? I think that.would -- MR. ERWIN: Okay. Let me start over. Q (By Mr. Erwin) When, if you can recall,, did the baghouse situation come to your attention? A You mean what year or -- Q Right. A I don't remember. Q Okay. Well -- A It was during the -- between '74 and '78. Q Fair enough. And when it first came to your attention, did you have an understanding that those who were working in the area of the baghouse were-aware that the baghouse contained asbestos materials? MR. WATERS: Objection. Leading. A I believe so. We had -- we had discussions with the-employees as well as with the management about the situation. There was a concern by the WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 25 1 employees. They were, again, reluctant. Again, 2 they did not understand what asbestos was and 3 there was some.reluctance to work with it. So, 4 again, my recollection is we had some discussions 5 with them and explained to them and that was why 6 we went through all of the means of explaining to 7 them about the protective equipment and the 8 disposable suits and this sort of thing and then 9 why I'd be sampling them alongside and then, 10 again, give them a copy of the results of the- 11 sampling when it was all over with. 12 Q So were you aware of any changeouts of that 13 baghouse filter medium being done without the 14 protective measures that you've described being 15 taken? 16 MR. WATERS: Objection. Vague as to 17 time, time frame. 18 A I can't -- I can't recall it happening before the 19 material was there; so, yeah, not while I was 20 there. . ~ 21 Q (By Mr. Erwir.) Okay. So while you were there if 22 the baghouse's material was changed out, do I 23 understand that the employees were given 24 respiratory equipment and protective clothing? 25 MR. WATERS: Objection. Speculation, WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 26 1 other than the one time he's told you he 2 recalls. 3 A It's the one time. That's the one time that I 4 recall. 5 MR. WATERS: Okay. 6 Q (By Mr. Erwin) Okay. And you only recall one 7 time that it was changed out; is that right? 8 A That's the only time I remember, yes. 9 Q Were you -- Strike that. 10 I had asked you earlier about complaints 11 about asbestos exposures at the Houston Works. 12 Are you aware of any other exposures, other than 13 the baghouses, to asbestos products that 14 employees at the Houston Works were experiencing 15 while you were there as industrial hygienist? 16 A The only other ones that I can think of that we 17 were aware of -- at least that I was aware of, 18 and I'll limit it to myself during that period of 19 time -- we used asbestos gloves and materials 20 such as that -in some of the operations where 21 there were very hot materials. It was a steel 22 mill where we had melting facilities. And at the 23 time asbestos gloves and some materials such as 24 that were used, that was the best technology that 25 we had at the time. We were looking for WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 27 1 alternatives to that even as I was still in that 2 department between '74 and '78. 3 I know there were some areas where there 4 was asbestos insulation around certain piping. 5 My recollection of that is very vague. I know 6 there could have been some maintenance jobs 7 involved in that that I can't remember any 8 complaints. It could have been, but I .was aware 9 that there were some asbestos. The plant was 10 built in the '40's and very possibly it was used 11 during that time while it was being built. I 12 can't think of any -- 13 MR. WATERS: Go ahead. Finish your 14 answer. I'm sorry. 15 A I'm just saying I can't remember anything else 16 specifically. It's been 20 years, but the 17 baghouse was the big one. That was the one that 18 was the most concern that I was aware of and that 19 I got involved in and, again, other ones of a lot 20 lesser exposure, again, were the -- like asbestos, 21 gloves and those sort of things that were used to 22 handle hot -- hot materials. 23 MR. WATERS: Let me just object to 24 the nonresponsive portion about the 25 substitution issues. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 28 1 Q (By Mr. Erwin) When you first started at the 2 Houston Works in 1974, Mr. Schmidt, were 3 substitution or efforts underway to substitute 4 asbestos products out from use and use 5 nonasbestos-containing products? 6 MR. WATERS: Objection. Lack of 7 foundation. Calls for speculation on the 8 part of this witness. 9 A While I was there and during that 10 three-and-a-half-year period, I know there was 11 already efforts that had been made towar 12 identifying where asbestos was in the plant. 13 And, yes, there were efforts to try to eliminate 14 that, you know, while I was there. The biggest 15 example I can think of was, again, the gloves. 16 That was something that was -- you know, it was 17 existing technology at the time to use asbestos. 18 Things were hot. You were in a steel plant and 19 you had to have something to protect the employee 20 from the heat-.when they were -- when they were 21 exposed to it. 22 We went to different materials and we 23 experimented with some different materials with 24 vendors to get away from it and eventually did. 25 Again, other identification was, again, with the -- WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 29 1 that I can recall was with the piping, that sort 2 of thing? but there were efforts to try to 3 identify where asbestos was in the plant. 4 MR. WATERS: Let me object to the 5 nonresponsive portion. 6 Q (By Mr. Erwin) With regards to 7 asbestos-containing insulation for piping, 8 Mr. Schmidt, do you recall it -- well, let me 9 rephrase. Strike that. 10 You've mentioned having an awareness or 11 sen that there may have been some 12 asbestos-containing insulation or piping at the 13 plant. Was that situation, that is, the ; 14 identification of asbestos insulation on piping -- 15 and I understand you're talking in some 16 generalities and harking back a few years -- but 17 when you started there in 1974 and as you came on 18 to work and were finding out about the plant, 19 were you -- did you learn then that asbestos 20 insulation had already been identified in areas ..... 21 of the plant? 22 A Yes -- 23 MR. WATERS: Objection. Calls for 24 hearsay. 25 A Yes, I did learn that it had been identified when WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 30 1 I was there. 2 Q (By Mr. Erwin) Okay. Now, was part of your job 3 as an industrial hygienist to conduct 4 walk-throughs through the plant? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And explain for the jury what a walk-through 7 would be. 8 A Well, if we were looking to see what-- identify 9 what the hazards were in an area and, again, to -- 10 maybe to explain what my role was, I was learning 11 the craft, if you want to teal1 it that, of being 12 an industrial hygienist, so I spent time.going 13 through virtually every department, at least a 14 day to begin with and then after that went back 15 and did some walk-through surveys of different 16 areas, sometimes at the request of a supervisor, 17 sometimes it was the request of an employee, 18 sometimes it was on my own as an investigative 19 part to learn more about the area. And I would 20 walk through,--use material safety data sheets - ^ 21 that I had acquired for the materials used in 22 that area and, again, talking with either 23 supervisors or the employees in the area to see 24 what the exposures might be. 25 Obviously some of them come to the WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 31 1 forefront right away -- if you walk through an 2 area and then it was quite noisy. I mean, that 3 would be an easy way to identify that there was 4 noise in the area. If you walked through the 5 area and you could visually see some dust or 6 fume, then obviously you knew that there might be 7 some exposure on that front somewhere. Some of 8 them may not be quite so apparent and would _ 9 require a little bit of discussion with people to 10 determine whether or not there was a hazard one 11 way or the othe . 12 But that is basically the way I -- I do 13 that and it was, I would say, probably 14 concentrated mostly towards the blast furnace 15 area because of some standards that were very 16 active during that time, mainly being the Coke 17 oven emission standards and we had a Coke oven. 18 So there was a lot of my time spent probably in 19 the blast furnace area versus some of the other 20 parts of the plant. 5 21 Q You've mentioned material safety data sheets. 22 Just so the jury will understand, what were 23 those? 24 A A material safety data sheet is a form that is 25 required by a manufacturer of a chemical to pass WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 32 1 out along to whoever they sell that chemical to 2 to give a basic description of what the chemical 3 is and what are its physical functions and, also, 4 how it reacts in certain situations and how does 5 it affect an individual employee who might use 6 that. It also has first-aid procedures on it and 7 also cleanup procedures if there's a spill of 8 some sort, whether it be a liquid or a powder or 9 whatever the form that the chemical comes in. So 10 it's just a general description from the 11 manufacturer to the person using the chemical to 12 help them to use it safely. 13 Q Now, were those material safety data sheets 14 available for the products that were used at the 15 ARMCO Houston Works during the period you were 16 there? 17 A Some. It was not a perfect practice at that 18 time. It was, as I think I mentioned earlier, 19 OSHA was just starting off in -- with their 20 formulation oftheir regulations and also the 21 industry was catching up to those regulations. 22 - Some manufacturers of chemicals and products did 23 not have material safety data sheets for their 24 products and there had to be discussion with them 25 about providing those and that was one of my WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 34 1 check to see that, plus obviously check to see 2 those that were there for a long duration of 3 time. 4 Q So you had some equipment that allowed you to 5 make these samplings of the air? 6 A Yes. There were -- there were some in place when 7 I first started with the job and then I purchased 8 more equipment as I was there. i -9 Q Okay. When you foresaw the need to purchase the 10 new equipment and asked for -- requisitioned it, 11 was that ever denied? 12 A No. I was able to add a number of different 13 personal sampling pumps. I added some more noise 14 dosimeters. I got the equipment for calibration 15 of all of these pieces of equipment. I went to 16 training for how to use those -- those things, 17 both, again, outside of the company and within 18 the company. We had our own lab up in 19 Middletown, Ohio. 20 Q And after you-took the sample and you had -- or 21 what was it contained in, some sort of a dish or 22 cup or -- 23 A Well, if it was a dust sample, we received 24 preweighed -- what's called cassettes in hard 25 plastic with paper in between them and usually it WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 35 1 would be hooked up to the personal sampler. Air 2 would be drawn through that paper and then you 3 could -- after the sample was completed, you 4 could cap off the ends of that cassette so that 5 no more air could pass through. The lab in 6 Middletown had preweighed those and identified 7 them on the cassette. They were marked in ink, 8 identified for the Houston plant and a number and 9 then I would correspond that sampling cassette 10 with whoever I was sampling with the amount of 11 time that they were sampled, the sampling pump 12 number and any calibration of that pump to 13 indicate the flow through that -- that pump at 14 that time, send it back to the lab and they would 15 weigh it and make the calculations for the 16 exposure. 17 Q And then would there be any paperwork that was 18 generated out of this endeavor? 19 A The lab had developed a form that they passed on 20 to us for us_to fill out and I was required to , 21 fill that form out and send it in so that the 22 base information required for the lab was there, 23 and then it also had a description of what the 24 process was that I was sampling. 25 Q And then would you get any sort of written report WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 36 1 back? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Okay. And in the area of dust, what were you 4 looking for? Was there some threshold or whatnot 5 that was of concern? 6 A There were some standards that -- that I learned 7 about through my training that were TLV's, 8 threshold limit values, that were established by 9 the American -- I think it's American Counsel of 10 Government Industrial Hygienists. They had their 11 ownrsafiipling -- I guess it was a book of TLVs 12 pretty much accepted by OSHA and by industries as 13 a good guideline for what the levels------- safe 14 levels were. So we used those in determining 15 whether or not there was some action to be taken 16 if it -- if the sampling exceeded those values. 17 Q Okay. Now, would your report up to the------that 18 you filed or that you generated describing what 19 you did and the samples you took, that didn't 20 establish what-the TLV was, did it? - .. ... 21 A No. No. This was a -- this is a separate 22 standard that, again, set by the American Counsel 23 of Government Industrial Hygienists. 24 Q Okay. So then if a report came back, I guess, 25 from the lab, it would come back telling you WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 38 1 the exposures are. 2 Q And you mentioned personal protective equipment. 3 When you started working in 1974, were there 4 areas of the plant where respirators were 5 available already at that time for employee use? 6 A Oh, yes. 7 Q Okay. What other means of protecting employees 8 from dust exposure were in place when you started 9 back in '74, if you recall? 10 MR. WATERS: Are you speaking of dust 11 generally? 12 MR. ERWIN: Dust generally, yes, sir. 13 MR. WATERS: I'm sorry. 14 A Mainly respirators was the way it would have been 15 handled. I guess I can't think of another way 16 other than if there would have been a change in 17 process prior to my time, I wouldn't be aware of 18 it. 19 Q (By Mr. Erwin) And what I'm asking is: Were 20 there any-other devices such as dust masks, were^ 21 fans used for ventilation, any of that sort of 22 thing? 23 MR. WATERS: Objection. Leading. 24 A Yes, I'm sure there were. I mean, again, I can't 25 think of any that happened prior to my time WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 39 1 because I obviously wasn't there, but those would 2 be.other ways that it could be limited. 3 Q Well, when you started in 1974, sir, were the 4 dust masks available for employees to use? 5 A Yes. 6 Q In 1974 were fans a means used for ventilating 7 dusty areas at the plant? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Okay. Now, you talked about your memory of the 10 baghouse situation and asbestos.concerns there. 11 Do y i recall any protective measures taken for 12 folks working with asbestos -- any other product, 13 but particularly insulation products? 14 A The only thing I could say would be just a very 15 general response. I couldn't -- I can't be 16 specific -- would be that respirators would be 17 available for them. 18 Q Okay. Now, thinking about the monitoring of 19 employees for workplace hazards and particularly 20 dust or dust-generating activities, once you got .. ., 21 the reports back from the lab and knew what the 22 substance was and what the situation was, were 23 those reports kept in a certain place? 24 A The industrial hygiene reports, yes. 25 Q And that's what these reports that you and I have WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 40 1 been talking about are called, the industrial 2 hygiene reports? 3 A I guess. Again, I don't remember if there was a 4 formal title to them, but that's what I refer to 5 them as, sure. 6 Q Okay. And this would contain the lab analysis 7 plus the record of what your sampling was; is 8 that right? 9 A Yeah. There would be a file on that particular -- 10 if you want to call it event. If I did sampling, 11 if you used the baghouse one in particular, any 12 data that I had on that, possibly any calibration 13 of equipment would all be -- would all be kept 14 for that. 15 Q Okay. And as you think back to being there in 16 the industrial hygiene area at the Houston Works 17 in 1974 and when you started doing some of this 18 sampling and monitoring and had reports generated 19 and in putting those reports away, did you become 20 aware that there were -- whether or not there 21 were any previous reports of monitorings for dust 22 that had taken place at the Houston Works? 23 MR. WATERS: Objection. Calls for 24 speculation. 25 A I recall seeing at least one other occasion where WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 43 all the sampling or monitoring that had been done prior to the time you started work there. That wasn't part of your endeavor, was. it? MR. WATERS: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. A I may have looked back at it. I consider myself a pretty curious person when I'm looking at an area and I would say I probably looked back and looked at at just about everything that was available. I can only recall that I know I looked at least ohe set of sampling, but there --there could have been more. I can't say. Q (By Mr. Erwin) Okay. Can you recall any particular -- strike that. While you were out there, did you have any contact with OSHA investigators or representatives concerning their observations about -- of the plant? A Yes. Q And in what regard? How would your contact be with them? A Well, whenever OSHA came out, members of the safety industrial hygiene group usually accompanied them throughout the plant wherever they were going. In cases I can recall were WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 45 1 wanted to go through a door into a certain area 2 or walk over to a certain site of the building or 3 wherever they wanted to go, we went with them and 4 allowed them access to it. If they wanted to 5 talk to an employee by themselves or in front of 6 us, it didn't make a difference. We let them do 7 that. 8 Q Okay. Now, did you have occasion to spend any 9 time at the blast furnace area?. 10 A Yes. 11 Q And can you describe, just roughly speaking, what 12 that building looked like? 13 A Well, it was more than one building. 14 Q Okay. 15 A The blast furnace area was really comprised of a 16 Coke oven plant, which was a stand-alone 17 facility, a mold foundry, the blast furnace 18 itself, which is a 20-story tall vessel in an 19 accompanying building, and the direct-reduction 20 plant and the_.centering plant. So there was -- . 21 what is that -- five separate facilities. All of 22 them we called it kind of in the lower end of the 23 plant because it actually did drop off. The land 24 actually dropped off and you were at the lower 25 end of the plant right next to the Ship Channel. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 46 1 Q Okay. 2 A So that was considered the blast furnace area. 3 Q But the blast furnace itself was this 20-story -- 4 excuse me -- how big was the building? 5 A 20-story vessel. | `4 ^ 6 Q Okay. And was it -- did it have four walls, f 7 floor to ceiling? 8 A The vessel itself was contained within a sort of 9 a building, if you want to call it that. It's -- - 10 there was sheet metal around it and to protect . I; 11 the employees who were inside from the outside >; 12 weather, if you want to call it that. But there 13 was then -- the sides of the buildings were, I " 14 want to say, ten feet off the ground to allow 15 ventilation all the way around the building. It 16 was not air-conditioned. 17 Q Right. Was the roof vented? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Now, was the floor dirt or concrete? 2 0 A You're talking., specif ically of the blast furnace. . 21 itself? 22 Q Yes, sir. 23 A Actually it was sand. 24 Q Sand, okay. What about the roads around and 25 areas outside the blast furnace itself, were WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 47 1 those paved roads or were those dirt or what? 2 A Both. There were paved roads and there were slag 3 roads. It was dirt roads, a little bit of 4 everything. 5 Q Okay. The wide flange mill, now, do I understand 6 that it was -- when was it built, to your 7 knowledge? 8 A I came in '74 and it was already in operation. 9 So my understanding, it was completed '71, '72, 10 somewhere around in there. Again, that's just my 11 recollection of it. It was early '70's. It 12 could have been even "'70, but just a few years 13 before I got there. 14 Q So it was a fairly new facility? 15 A It was the newest facility on the site. 16 Q Okay. And was that a self-contained -- in other 17 words, four walls and a roof over it -- building? 18 A I don't want to simplify it as four walls because 19 it was quite a large building. It was separated 20 by the train -lines there from the rest of the 21 plant in a sense, but it was its own 22 self-contained set of buildings, yes. 23 Q Okay. Was the wide flange mill an open-air type 24 situation like the blast furnace? 25 A Almost all the buildings in the plant were WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 48 1 basically the same design in that sense, is that 2 they had sheet -- sheet metal walls around them 3 and a roof which was vented and the walls around 4 were -- again, I'm just approximating -- about 5 ten feet off the ground, eight to ten feet off 6 the ground so that people or equipment could 7 drive into the building, but, again, also to 8 protect it from any kind of weather on the 9 outside. 10 Q Okay. . There's been some testimony, I believe, in 11 this case or the case that the wide flange mill 12 was a dusty facility where there was kind of a 13 cloud of dust hanging in the air. Does that meet 14 with your recollection of what it was like in 15 1974 to 1978? 16 A I don't -- I wouldn't consider it a dusty area, 17 certainly compared to the other areas, no. 18 MR. ERWIN: Okay. I tell you what, 19 we've been going about an hour. I'd like 20 to go .over my notes -- - 21 THE WITNESS: Sure. 22 MR. ERWIN: -- and maybe everybody 23 take a little break. 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the 25 record at 10:32 a.m. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 51 1 you recall any particular area of the plant 2 having more complaints than another pertaining to 3 dustiness? 4 A I can't think of any -- any specific area that 5 there were more complaints on. I would say the 6 Coke oven would be the only one that would come 7 to mind in terms of amount of, again, exposure 8 and one we spent probably the most time on. I 9 really can't recall a majority of the complaints 10 coming from any one area, no. 11 Q Okay. If someone were to characterize AP Vs -- 12 well, let me back up. 13 How would you characterize ARMCO's 14 attention to employee safety and health during 15 the time you worked for the company, Mr. Schmidt? 16 A Well, I considered ARMCO to have a very good 17 safety program. Again, accident prevention 18 fundamentals was a very good organized program 19 for prevention of accidents -as well as follow up 20 and, you know,-looking at what happened after the 21 fact, but, again, the main point of it was 22 accident prevention. So they looked at trying to 23 prevent accidents before they happened. 24 A steel mill, as any steel mill, is a heavy 25 industry like that is a -- has a great potential WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 54 believe, mentioned in respect to the APF. Are you familiar with that? A Yes. Job safety analysis is just a tool for looking at an individual job in trying to identify it from the standpoint of safety. As a job description would help you and classify the job for how much it's worth in terms of pay or effort or something of that nature, a JSA looks at it for what potential hazards exist in that particular job. Q And s this a document, something that was written up? A Yes. Q Okay. And you observed those types of -- you observed JSA's for various -- strike that. Did you observe JSA's at the facility? A Oh, yes. In fact, I was involved -- I know I was involved in helping to develop some JSA's myself. Q And going back to instances where you may have been called in_ to analyze a dust hazard, would it ,, have been part of your practice to then see what the JSA said for the particular craft at issue and make sure that if a hazard was identified that it was part of the JSA? A If there was a JSA for the job -- and I don't WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 57 1 Q Okay. And so in '89 did you become a Cooper 2 employee? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And for how long were you a Cooper employee? 5 A Until March of -- excuse me -- January of this 6 year. 7 Q All right. So from '74 till the present with 8 different employers you have been employed by 9 companies that are involved with heavy industry 10 generally, manufacturing? 11 A Yes. 12 Q I was curious, before you came to ARMCO, sir, did 13 you have any level of training with respect to 14 industrial hygiene or industrial safety? 15 A A very, very vague amount. I was-- my degree is 16 in industrial engineering and one aspect of 17 industrial engineering talks about safety. It's 18 just one part of one'course. 19 Q You didn't receive any formal education in 20 industrial hygiene at school or part of a 21 master's program or anything like that? 22 A No. I took some masters courses just to help me 23 with some of the terminology in industrial 24 hygiene, but not towards a degree, no. 25 Q When you hired on with ARMCO, were you WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 58 1 specifically hired to be an industrial hygiene 2 engineer? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Okay. And you were hired by Mr. Hueber? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Would you agree with me that as far as -- well, 7 strike that. We'll come back to that. 8 After you left or after 1978, am I correct 9 that you did not have any further experience in 10 industrial hygiene, you were involved more 11 generally with j. arsonnel matters? 12 A I was in labor relations, that's correct. 13 Q Okay. But in the time frame '74 to '78, you 14 received instruction and training and your 15 day-to-day job activities were related to 16 industrial hygiene and industrial safety? 17 A Yes. 18 Q I take it then that before you arrived at the 19 plant in -- was it -- when was it, late '74? 2 0 A August 1st, yes. 21 Q August, '74, when you arrived at that time, you 22 did not -- had not yet received training in how 23 to do monitoring, for example, air monitoring? 24 A No, no. I had no training prior to August 1st. 25 Q You received that training on the job? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 59 1 A Yes. 2 Q Okay. And understanding that you arrived in late 3 '74, would it have been a year or so or how long 4 a period of time would it have been before you 5 actually received that training? 6 A Okay. That's 20-something years ago. The 7 correspondence course was probably the first one 8 that I actively got involved in. American 9 General. I finally thought of the insurance. I 10 think it's American General -- 11 Q Okay. 12 A -- had a correspondence course in industrial 13 hygiene. Again, it was kind of a notebook form, 14 self-paced type study. I went to a NIOSH 550 15 course. It was here in Houston -- I don't 16 remember. It was within the first year, but I 17 couldn't -- I couldn't remember exactly when. 18 Q Okay. Let me ask you first, the correspondence 19 course, would that have been in '75 perhaps? 20 A No. .That would have probably been in '74. 21 Q Okay. Was that the first thing that you got 22 involved with to get additional training? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Okay. Assuming that the correspondence course 25 was the first thing you did and that was in 1974, WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 60 1 would the NIOSH program have been in ' 75? You 2 can't -- can't tell for sure? 3 A I would say it probably was in early '75. 4 Q All right. And that was -- okay, NIOSH. Now, in 5 the NIOSH 550 course did you receive training in 6 how to do air monitoring? 7 A We discussed it and there were some protocols, I 8 believe, that were given to us at that time. I 9 didn't do any actual sampling in the training. 10 They -- 11 Q Did they have -- I apologize, but did they have a 12 how-to hands-on, this is the machine -- this is 13 the equipment and this is how we use it, or was 14 it more theoretical in early '75? 15 A A little bit of both; but, again, it was -- it 16 was not hands on to where I got my hands on it. 17 It was done by an instructor and then the 18 protocols were given to us. So in that sense 19 there was the theory, but my training for 20 sampling was .pretty much internal within ARMCO. , 21 Q Okay. Well, let's talk about that. Who was it 22 who trained you to do sampling at ARMCO? 23 - A I guess several. Bruce Rogers was one because he 24 had done some sampling prior. I believe I had 25 some conversations with Bill Chaddick who was -- WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 61 1 had preceded me in that responsibility and was 2 still in the environmental group. Wayne Simpson. 3 Q Right. 4 A And we also had some -- we had an industrial 5 hygiene conference in Kansas City. It would have 6 been spring of '75, I believe, and it was a week 7 long. So there I was exposed to all of the other 8 industrial hygienists throughout ARMCO. 9 Q So to speak? Never mind. 10 MR. ERWIN: Objection, side-bar. 11 Q (By Mr. Waters) All right. At the spring 12 conference in the spring of 1975 in Kansas City, 13 would you have received hands-on instruction or 14 further instruction with respect to actually 15 performing sampling or air monitoring? 16 A I don't recall. It was -- 17 Q I guess here's what I'm trying to figure out: 18 When was it when you did your first hands-on air 19 sampling at ARMCO? 20 A I believe I did some in '74. 21 Q Okay. And what would that have been, for what 22 type of substances? 23 A Again, by my recollection, my thinking is the 24 first one was in the pipe mill for dust sampling. 25 Q All right. Now, you mentioned in earlier WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 62 testimony that you recalled as part of the process of doing your first sampling, you looked to see if there were some previous forms, I guess to make sure you were filling everything out correctly; is that right? A Yes. There was --again, the only previous one that I can think of, I believe it was Bruce that had done the sampling and I looked at what paperwork he had done. He showed me the monitors themselves and then, again; I followed his _ procedures on how he did that. I kind of combined, also, some of the things that I had learned in my industrial engineering classes in terms of how to take a -- well, one of the things you did was time studies and work sampling. And so I used those same type of principles and applied it to industrial hygiene and it worked quite well. Q Okay. All right. So the pipe mill sampling, you believe it was-late '74 or early '75? . A I think it was '74. Again, I -- without seeing a document in front of me or something, I wouldn't know. Q Not to worry. As far as your training, however, in early '75, you had the NIOSH course and you WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 63 1 had in the spring of '75 the week-long seminar or 2 whatever in Kansas City- . If you did, in fact, do 3 any sampling in 1974 for dust, do you feel that 4 you were fully qualified to do that at that time? 5 A I think I followed all the procedures. In saying 6 fully qualified, I was a novice at it, yes. 7 Q That's fair. And in doing that work -- well, I 8 take it from your testimony that that sampling 9 you do not recall being specifically to determine 10 the presence or the significance of asbestos in 11 the air? 12 A No. No. It was. dust from a grinding operation. 13 Q - Okay. So it would not have been asbestos, in 14 fact? 15 A Oh, no, no. 16 Q Okay. And when you discussed the single -- the 17 one earlier sample results that you found in the 18 records when you went to look, I took it from 19 your earlier testimony that you do not recall 20 that that was__related to asbestos.-- 21 MR. ERWIN: Object -- 22 Q -- specifically? 23 MR. ERWIN: I'm sorry. Objection to 24 the extent the question mischaracterizes 25 his testimony. I do not believe his WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 64 1 testimony has been that's the only one he 2 found. That's the only one he recalls 3 seeing, so I object on those grounds. 4 MR. WATERS: Fair enough. Anyway, 5 you can answer the question. 6 A I don't recall it. I guess the question was: 7 Was the sample that I looked at asbestos -- * 8 sampling for asbestos in the air? As far as I 9 know> no, but I don't remember. 10 Q (By Mr. Waters) When was the first time you have 11 a sp ific recollection of doing air monitoring 12 to determine whether there was asbestos in the 13 air and how much, if ever? 14 A It was -- it was the baghouse. 15 Q Okay. The baghouse job? 16 A Right. 17 Q And you did seem to be focused on that. That's 18 something you remember pretty distinctly, I take 19 it? 20 A Oh, yes. Yes-- 21 Q Did you have an opportunity when you were meeting 22 with the attorney for ARMCO to look at any of the 23 documents in this case? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Did you actually look at the baghouse documents? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 65 1 A Yes. 2 Q Okay. And the records will reflect what that 3 was. We'll look at those in a little bit. Okay. 4 Would you, in fact, have become certified 5 had you continued in the field? Was that your 6 intention and were you in the process of doing 7 that? 8 A I was in the process of doing it; and, yes, it 9 was my intention. 10 Q You indicated that when you joined the safety 11 department there were four other people including 12 Mr. Hueber, the supervisor? 13 A Three other. 14 Q Oh, three and yourself. 15 A I was the fourth. 16 Q Okay. There were a total of four people? 17 A Right. 18 Q All right. 19 A One of those changed while I was there, but, I 20 mean, when I -first got there there was three 21 others besides myself. 22 Q When you first got there in '74, were you the 23 only person who had any qualification to do air 24 monitoring of the four people? 25 MR. ERWIN: Objection. Vague. I WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 66 1 think it -- 2 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection. Calls for 3 speculation. 4 MR. ERWIN: -- calls for speculation. 5 A Okay. Well, I wasn't qualified at that time. If 6 you go back to August 1st, I was just starting 7 myself. 8 Q (By Mr. Waters) Was there anybody else -- well, 9 was there anybody among the four people in the 10 safety department in the latter part of 1974 11 qualified, train ;d to do air monitoring work? 12 A Again, I don't know. I don't know what kind of 13 training they had prior to that time. 14 Q In terms of your responsibilities, you reported 15 to Mr. Hueber? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Okay. Would you agree with me that Mr. Hueber 18 would have more knowledge than you concerning 19 overall safety issues and the safety issues that 20 pertained to the entire plant? 21 A Oh, yes. 22 Q The safety building that you described, did that 23 have any asbestos in it? 24 A I'm not aware of any. 25 Q Okay. Best of your recollection, you don't WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 67 1 recall ever hearing or seeing or understanding 2 that there was any asbestos in the building in 3 which you spent a fair amount of your time? 4 A Not that I recall, no. 5 Q Okay. And let's talk about that briefly. Can 6 you give me a sense in that three-and-a-half year 7 period about how much time you spent in the 8 office in the safety building relative to doing 9 other work? Just on -- let's take an average day 10 filling out reports, doing whatever -- I don't 11 know exactly what you were doing, but -- 12 A 50/50 maybe. 13 Q About 50 percent of the time in the office and 50 14 percent around the plant? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay. And tell me, the 50 percent where you're 17 not in the office, give me the rundown on the 18 different things you might be spending your time 19 doing. 20 A I guess maybe^.the first year I was there, a lot 21 of it was just learning the plant. It's guite a 22 large plant. 23 Q Right. 24 A If you've not been to the plant, it's, I believe, 25 around 750 acres. I could be mistaken on that, WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 68 1 but it's quite large, 50-plus departments. So 2 one of the first training things I went through 3 from just an orientation, I guess, rather than 4 training thing was that I spent a day in as many 5 departments as I could. I was introduced to a 6 supervisor, let's say, at the Coke plant and then 7 I spent the day with the supervisor in the Coke 8 plant to familiarize myself with that facility 9 and then the next day the centering plant and the 10 next day the blast furnace. And when you go 11 through about 50 departments, that takes a while 12 just to -- just to do that. So I guess maybe the 13 first few months it `was even more than the 50/50. 14 That was kind of an average over the three and a 15 half years. 16 Q Okay. 17 A But a lot of it was learning, too, just getting, 18 you know, accustomed to the plant itself. 19 Q All right. You indicated that there were -- 20 there was an Xrray technician employed at the 21 plant? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And was it a lady? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Her services could have been used to perform WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 71 1 A Well, yes, in the sense of the baghouse. We 2 discussed that with them, the people -- I think 3 it was a crew of about three. Again, I'd have to 4 go back and look at the documents as to how many 5 were involved, but two or three that were 6 involved in a two-day process to do that and we 7 had discussions with them so they'd understand 8 what was going on. 9 Q Okay. All right. Other than the baghouse 10 incident, is it a fair statement that you do not 11 recall ever discussing asbestos or being involved 12 with safety meetings about asbestos that involved 13 the workers, the hourly workers? 14 A Again, unless it was a casual conversation. 15 Q All right. But understanding -- 16 A No. There was no formal, no. I didn't call the 17 meeting, if that's what you're asking. No, I did 18 not call the meeting with hourly employees to 19 discuss asbestos other than the baghouse 20 situation. 21 Q And you don't recall, as you sit here today, any 22 informal discussions, I take it, with workers on 23 that issue particularly? 24 A None that I recall, no. 25 Q The annual meetings that took place at the WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 72 1 corporate headquarters in Middletown, Ohio, do 2 you have a specific recollection one way or the 3 other of whether asbestos was discussed as a 4 safety hazard at those meetings? And if you 5 don't then -- 6 A No, I really don't recall. 7 Q Fair enough. Similarly, you indicated that from 8 time to time memorandumr memoranda, memos, were 9 received from the corporate headquarters in 10 Middletown on safety and on industrial hygiene 11 issues. Do you recall that testimony? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Is it a fair statement, sir, that you do not 14 recall any of those memos specifically focusing 15 on the hazards of asbestos in your time frame, 16 '74 to '78? 17 A Yeah. I can't -- I can't recall anything 18 specifically. 19 Q You indicated that there were handouts from time 20 to time that ,,were provided to workers at the 21 plant. Do you remember that, some related to 22 family "safety and summertime safety, that sort of 23 thing? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Okay. And I take it that these were written WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 75 1 Q Okay. 2 A But it was a -- it was not a major time consumer 3 of my time, no. 4 Q It was riot an area -- asbestos was not an area of 5 focus on your part. Is that a fair statement? 6 It's not a priority area in that respect? 7 A It was not a priority area because, again, we 8 considered that there was just a limited number 9 of sources that we had. 10 MR. WATERS: Okay. Let me object to 11 the nonresponsive portion. From t- ; to 12 time I have to do that, but it's -- 13 THE WITNESS: Sure. That's fine. 14 Q (By Mr. Waters) With respect to safety equipment, 15 I think you testified that the workers were 16 required to purchase their own safety shoes and 17 their own safety gloves? 18 A Certain safety gloves, just a cotton glove if 19 they wanted to use that, that was -- that's 20 something the.y_ had to purchase. . If it was a , 21 specific nature, it required by the job -- 22 leather-type gloves, again, heat-resistant 23 gloves, aluminized-type specialty items -- those 24 were all provided by the company. But just work 25 gloves for your general use to have a shovel -- _ WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 76 1 to have a glove for a shovel, that was paid for 2 by the employee. 3 Q So ARMCO didn't require, for example, its workers 4 to purchase the asbestos gloves you described? 5 A Oh, no. No. 6 Q With respect to -- you used the term 7 "respirators" and I want to be very clear about 8 what you mean by that because when you say 9 "respirators," are you using the term to include 10 any and all types of respiratory protection? 11 A TYes. 12 Q Okay. And so when you use the term "respirators" 13 as you have throughout your testimony, you may 14 well be referring to cloth or paper masks that 15 fit over the nose and mouth? 16 A Oh, yes. 17 Q All right. But those, in your mind, are separate 18 and distinct from respirators where -- that have 19 the canisters on them or that are heavier? 20 A There's -- yes.. There^s just the disposable -- . 21 it's called disposable respirator. There was a 22 chemical respirator. There were cartridge 23 respirators. 24 Q All right. 25 A There was airline respirators, there was WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 80 1 A That's correct. 2 Q All right. And if a supervisor were to take a 3 box of them to a particular job site, they might 4 be available on a particular job site? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Okay. But you're not going to tell -- you're not 7 telling this jury in this case that every 8 operation -- in every operation where there was 9 dust generated, workers had available ten feet 10 away, 20 feet away, masks to protect themselves? 11 MR. GONZAIjEZ: I'm going to object as 12 argumentative. 13 MR. ERWIN: Join. 14 A Well, again, I can't speak to every portion of 15 the plant. They were available both to the 16 employee and to supervisors; and, again, where 17 there -- where they were all located, I couldn't 18 testify. 19 Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. You know -- you know the 20 specific places where they were located and you ^ 21 told us that. How far, for example, is the blast 22 furnace area from the safety building? 23 A As the crow flies, probably about a quarter of a 24 mile. ' 25 Q Okay. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 84 1 discussed? You didn't name him, but you talked 2 about that a little bit. 3 A One of them I remember. There could have been 4 more, but one I remember was a fellow named Bobby 5 Cordor. 6 Q Bobby Cordor? 7 A Cordor. 8 Q Do you recall how to spell his name? 9 A I think it's C-o-r-d-o-r. 10 Q Okay. 11 A It could be d-e- . Again, it's been a long time 12 ago. 13 Q Sure. Now, what you said in your earlier 14 testimony was that -- and I wrote it down -- you 15 were certain that in the time frame you worked 16 there, some grievances were filed that related to 17 industrial hygiene or industrial safety; is that 18 correct? 19 A I don't know that I said I was certain that there 20 were some, but I would think there sure -- there.,., 21 would have been some. 22 Q All right. And what you can't tell us, I 23 suspect, given the passage of time is whether or 24 not any of those grievances related any to 25 asbestos hazards? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 86 1 there was just a lot of them within that one 2 craft area. 3 Q Okay. What have you been told about this case by 4 counsel for ARMCO? 5 A That it's a lawsuit -- I guess there were some 6 people that died of asbestos and there's a 7 lawsuit, a class-action suit, I believe. 8 Q Were you provided an opportunity to review the 9 deposition testimony, the sworn testimony of any 10 of the witnesses, the people that worked out at 11 the plant in the tine frame we're talking about? 12 A No. 13 Q Okay.. What were you provided, if anything, to 14 look at with respect to this case in your 15 anticipated testimony? 16 A Some of the documents such as the reports like 17 the one for the baghouse where I did the sampling 18 there, my reports that I wrote up, some reports 19 of others that had done some sampling after me -- 20 at.least there were some from Scott Gunderson -- 21 some memos, things of that nature. 22 Q Okay. Did you find any records that indicated 23 asbestos sampling at the ARMCO facility prior to 24 1976 or 1977? 25 A You'll tax my memory there. Again, the only one WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 87 1 that I can recall was the baghouse one and I 2 can't remember the date. I think that one was in 3 '76. 4 Q Okay. I think that's right. 5 The baghouse incident, is that something 6 that -- was that an operation where it was 7 necessary to remove asbestos as part of a 8 maintenance procedure? 9 A The baghouse was -- the whole purpose Of the 10 baghouse was to clean air. It was an 11 air-conditioning filter, is really what it was. 12 It's no different from the air-conditioning 13 filter you have in your house, to take the dust 14 out as it's being circulated through your house. 15 This was air that's going through a 16 switching station, and the main concern of the 17 switching station is you don't want dust in there 18 because dust would then build up on the switches 19 and could cause shorts. So it was an 20 air-conditioned location. So this was the 21 baghouse which was -- air was brought in through 22 the bag filtering material. Dust then, or 23 whatever was from outside ambient air, was 24 cleaned and settled in on the filters and then 25 the air that went through then was clean to go WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 88 1 through the -- through the substation. 2 Q So, in effect, this was a method of filtering air 3 at the plant and filtering out dust and other 4 particles? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And in 1976 y'all -- or the electricians, I guess -- 7 were involved with essentially cleaning the 8 filter? 9 A Well, the filter being -- if you saw the drawing 10 there, it was a --_ the baghouse was literally 11 bags, just like vacuum cleaner bags in a sense. 12 They're round and I'm going to approximate 15 13 feet high and quite a few of them. I don't 14 remember the number of how many bags there were 15 within this baghouse and -- 16 Q And that's where the stuff accumulated in the 17 bags? 18 A You -- you loaded the asbestos material in the 19 bags and then the outside air came through the 20 bags, was filtered out in the material and then 21 exited out through the top -- or, yeah, top or 22 the bottom. Again, it's been too long. 23 Q So the asbestos material was actually used for 24 the filtration process? 25 A Yes. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 89 1 Q What was that material? I mean, was it raw 2 asbestos? 3 A I don't recall. It was asbestos material. I 4 don't know if- it was -- 5 Q Was it -- 6 A -- partially or if there was other things in it. 7 Q Was it loose? 8 A Yeah. 9 Q Okay. I'm just trying to kind of visualize it. 10 In any event, I take it that because you've got 11 these bags filling up with material over the 12 course of time, that emptying them or cleaning 13 them was something that was done on a regular -- 14 regular or routine basis? 15 A . Regular in the fact that eventually they did get 16 dirty enough that they needed to be cleaned. I 17 don't remember what the cycle time was. It 18 wasn't weekly or anything like that. It could 19 have been several years before -- 20 Q Okay. 21 A -- before it required cleaning. 22 Q So it's possible, for example, that in 1974 or 23 1975 or 1977 or 1978 that this same operation 24 that you've described would have had to take 25 place? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT yu 1 A It's possible, yes. 2 Q Okay. Now, you indicated that other than the 3 baghouse, the only other exposure that you were 4 aware of had to do with asbestos gloves. Do you 5 recall that? 6 A I said and also some insulation, piping 7 insulation. 8 Q Okay. Were you aware in the '74 to '78 time 9 frame that the pipe insulation in the plant was 10 asbestos and had a potential for exposure to the 11 employees? 12 MR. ERWIN: I'm going to object to 13 the extent it mischaracterizes the 14 evidence and the facts. It's assuming 15 that all piping insulation was asbestos 16 and that's not the case. 17 MR. GONZALEZ: I'll join in that 18 objection. 19 MR. WATERS: You can answer. 20 A Well, that's basically it, is I didn't do any 21 sampling of that to indicate that it was. It was 22 my impression that it was, but I had no, again, 23 empirical evidence, or whatever you want to call 24 it, to say that it was or what percentage it was, 25 but it was my understanding that there was some WCMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT _-- -- | f 1 insulation and it was asbestos. 2 Q (By Mr. Waters) And you understood that since the 3 insulation was there, some insulation that 4 contained asbestos, that at a minimum there was a 5 potential there for exposures, correct; that is 6 to say, if the material was broken down or became 7 friable or something of that nature? 8 A Right, if those things occurred, but under normal 9 process it wouldn't. 10 Q Okay. But am I correct in that in the '74 to '78 11 time rame anyway, there were no efforts made to 12 monitor or to quantify exposures that might 13 result from working with asbestos pipe covering 14 or other asbestos -insulation? 15 MR. GONZALEZ: I'm going to object to 16 the extent it calls for speculation and to 17 the extent it assumes facts not in 18 evidence, that there was any work ongoing 19 involving pipe insulation that contained 20 asbestos in that time period. ~ ~~ - 21 MR. ERWIN: Join. 22 A Again, if there was something going on, I would 23 have -- and I knew about it. It's possible that 24 something was worked on that I did not know 25 about, but if it was -- if somebody would have WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 1 come to me, then I would have looked at sampling 2 it, but no one did. 3 Q (By Mr. Waters) If someone had come to you and 4 said, "We've got to remove 20, 40, 50 feet of 5 pipe covering off of this steam pipe in this 6 building and we're concerned it might have 7 asbestos," under those circumstances you would 8 have gone to monitor or made some arrangements of 9 that nature? 10 A I would hope so. 11 Q Okay. But you don't have a recollection -- that 12 never happened, I guess is what I'm saying. 13 A I don't recall it happening, no. 14 Q Okay. You indicated that in the '74 to '78 time 15 frame efforts were made to identify where 16 asbestos had been used in the facility? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Did you all actually start to do core sampling to 19 determine what materials were asbestos and what 20 were not throughout the plant? 21 A I don't think it was that sophisticated at that 22 time. 23 Q Okay. 24 A I think it was more of a -- 25 Q General? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 93 1 A -- general, this is where we believe it might 2 exist, and then take it, again, as you do any 3 kind of a problem as they come about, you 4 prioritize. And if something is a problem -- 5 example being the baghouse -- I was aware that 6 there was asbestos in there prior to them 7 changing it out. I had some discussions with 8 engineering. I don't remember any of them 9 written, but I remember having some -- some 10 verbal conversations. Then when it became time 11 to take it out, jbviously it came to the 12 forefront of something that needed to have 13 attention. 14 So prior to that time there was other -- 15 there was plenty of other activities I could get 16 involved with that, you know, superceded the fact 17 that asbestos was in this baghouse, but sitting 18 there totally enclosed and not bothering anyone. 19 So until that time, then, I did not take it as a 20 priority. 21 MR. WATERS: Okay. Let me object to 22 the nonresponsive portion. 23 Q (By Mr. Waters) You indicated that you did 24 some -- well, strike that. 25 Do you have a recollection, sir, of ever WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 I 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 94 observing dust being created from asbestos insulation? A I can't recall, no. Q If in one of these walk-through surveys that you talked about you had observed the tear out of asbestos insulation, rip out from pipes, for example, and you saw that going on and observed that it was creating visible dust, that's something that I assume would have concerned you a great deal? A Again, if I'd have observed it, yeah, I would hope so. Q Okay. And if you had observed conditions of that nature, then presumably you would have stopped the operation, for example? A Again, it depends on the circumstances for what -- how it was occurring and where it was occurring. If it was an area that there was not any exposure to anyone else outside or something of that nature, it.was not of a, you know, significant amount, then I don't know that we'd have stopped the operation. I probably would have looked at the individual to see what kind of protection they had to see if they were following any kind of procedures that would protect them and then WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 95 see how far they were going to go with it. Q Okay. A Again, it's kind of an open-ended question. It's hard to determine what I would have done in -- you know, under those circumstances -- Q Okay. A -- other than that. Q Let me see if I can make it a little more clear. If you have a situation where you observe an individual who's, doing that kind of work and he's removing asbestos insulation, it's creating dust, you can see the dust from your perspective on your walk-through survey and the gentleman is not wearing any of type of mask or protection, under those circumstances what do you do as the industrial hygienist? A Well, one of them is I would have talked to him about wearing a respirator under any circumstances, whether -- because, again, I don't know that I was ever trained at any point that I could identify asbestos on-site, you know, my own visual looking at it, that I would have had to have had some kind of a sample to get to a lab or whatever, either an air sample or a sample that I would have taken from the material itself. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 96 So, you know, I guess if you err on the side of safety, I would have had to assume it was asbestos and make sure that person was -- you know, had a respirator and also that the material in some way was either captured by some kind of a ventilation system or wetted down, something of that nature, that would keep it from becoming airborne. Q Okay. And those -- those ideas -- wetting down or enclosures or respiratory protection -- those are all -- those are all methods to try to deal with asbestos in a safe a way as possible? A Yes. Q Okay. A Well, another would be elimination of it or substitution, you know, but -- MR. WATERS: Okay. Let me object as nonresponsive. Q (By Mr. Waters) I meant to be speaking particularly ,,in terms of this scenario I've just described for you. A Oh, okay. Yeah, sure. Q The equipment that you had by 1976, I take it that that was sufficient for you to use to measure for asbestos in the air like you did at WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 97 the baghouse? A Oh, yes, I think so. Q Okay. And you indicated that the samples were actually sent all the way up to Ohio to be analyzed by ARMCO's own lab? A That's correct. Q So the samples were not interpreted, for example, by an independent laboratory in the Houston area? A I'm not aware of any, no. Q Okay. The records that we've been provided.do not indicate -- at least I don't recall any -- records of personal sampling for asbestos. Do you have any recollection as to; personal sampling; that is to say, monitor on the individual for asbestos? A I thought some of those were personal samplings. Q From the baghouse? A Yes. Q Okay. Well, I may be -- may have misread them. It wouldn't -- A I think I did both personal samples and area samples both. Q Okay. Other than the -- let me put it to you this way: Other than the baghouse incident, is it fair to say that you don't recall doing WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 98 personal sampling for asbestos anywhere else in the plant? A I don't believe I did, no. Q Okay. The -- it sounded to me -- we didn't really get into this, but in terms of what you were looking at, '74 to '78, at least with respect to asbestos and I guess with other materials, your concern would have been the ACGIH TLV's or threshold limit values? A Yes. Q And that's what y'all were trying to folic in order to have as safe a workplace as possible? A Yes. - Q Okay. You'll agree with me that using fans in a dusty area without ventilation to remove the dust can create -- can actually worsen the situation and make it dustier? A Well, under the right circumstances it can make it dustier and other circumstances it can -- it can make it less. So a lot of those kind of_ . situations are commonsense ones. If you have an individual who's got a fan blowing the fumes right at him, then it will obviously make it worse. There was occasions where I actually told the employee either you have to move the piece WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 100 1 Q I'm sorry. Let me -- let me try again. 2 A Okay. 3 Q Understanding that you had air-conditioning in 4 the safety department and for some of the other 5 management facilities, with respect to the hourly 6 employees who worked in some of these other 7 areas, am I correct that fans were used to try to 8 create some relief from the heat? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Okay. I take it that you don't recall any 11 loca zed ventilation; that is to say machinery 12 that would remove dust from the source of its 13 creation, being used around asbestos materials in 14 the '74 to '78 time frame? 15 MR. GONZALEZ: I'm going to object to 16 the extent that that's making the 17 assumption that there were indeed any 18 asbestos materials in those areas. 19 A I can't recall any, no. 20 Q (By Mr. Waters) You indicated that you consider 21 yourself to be a curious person and that one of 22 the things you would have done would be to look 23 and see which predecessors had done -- what 24 sampling work had been done before you arrived. 25 Do you recall that? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 101 A Yes. Q And what you can recall from that is, in looking to see what had been done previously was one dust sample that some other individual had done that you used as a model when you did your first one. Is that a fair statement? A Yes. Q With respect to OSHA investigations, you would agree with me that employees generally would not be in a position to complain about hazardous conditions unless they understand and have been told or know that the condition "actually creates a hazard? A Yes. I think that's a fair statement. Q In other words, if an employee has not been educated that asbestos, for example, is a hazard, then he's not very likely to make a complaint to OSHA or to ARMCO or anyone else, is he? A That's a fair statement. Q The Coke oven plant, is it coal tar pitch volatiles or is it coal pitch tar volatiles? I can never -- A You had it right the first time. Q Oh, okay. What is that? I know it's something that OSHA was concerned about and that y'all were WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 104 there were -- there were fumes that came from the operation of the -- of when the billets were then reduced down through the mills to a -- to a finished wide flange product. So it really wasn't dusty. It was a fume and some -- actually some mist that came off of those. So it really wasn't a dust, if you want to really use the term "dust." Q Okay. A There was practically no dust from the wide flange operation -- Q Okay. A -- whereas, in other areas -- MR. WATERS: Let me stop you there just to clear up the record. Let me just object as nonresponsive. THE WITNESS: Sure. Q (By Mr. Waters) My specific question is about -- again, I think you're about to get into it, but, again, the other areas and where you consider dust to have been an issue at the plant. A The dustiest area was probably the centering plant. Q Centering plant? A Uh-huh. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 108 A Most likely. Q Okay. If insulation work was done on boilers, for example, in the context of maintenance or repair, would that, again, have been pipe fitters or would that have been some other craft? A Most likely pipe fitters. Q And from time to time would general maintenance or laborers be involved with assisting with that work or cleaning up from that type of work? A I'm having to speculate on things that I -- I don't know. I don't recall any work like that, but it's very possible that if that took place that general labor would be involved, yes. Q Okay. Okay. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Sir, excuse me, can we go ahead and change the tape? MR. WATERS: Yeah, let's do that. That's a good idea. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at 11:59 a.m. (At this time a brief recess was taken, and the proceedings thereafter resumed as follows:) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record at 12:13 p.m. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 109 1 Q (By Mr. Waters) You mentioned that one of the 2 people you had some involvement with was Mr. 3 Wayne Simpson? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Would you agree with me, sir, that given his long 6 involvement with industrial hygiene issues 7 generally for ARMCO that he would be in a better 8 position to know and understand what ARMCO knew 9 about the hazards of asbestos at various times? 10 A Than myself? 11 Q Yes, sir. 12 A Yes. 13 Q I want to ask you about a company called Brown & 14 Root. Does that -- are you familiar with that 15 name? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Were you aware in the time frame of '74 to '78 18 that Brown & Root was performing maintenance work 19 on a continuing basis at the facility? 20 A I believe they were, yes. 21 Q Okay. Was Brown & Root required as a contractor 22 to follow ARMCO safety policy? 23 A I -- I don't know what they were instructed. 24 Q Okay. Did you have any involvement with Brown & 25 Root personnel with respect to industrial hygiene WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 110 or safety? A Some to safety. I had conversations on occasions with their safety coordinators. Q Okay. They had their own safety coordinators at the facility? A Yes. Q And did you essentially assume that the Brown & Root safety coordinators would be responsible for safe conditions in the vicinity of their workers? A Yes. Q What type of work were they doing there, to your general recollection? A I guess if -- one word would be construction. Q Okay. And when you use the word "construction," does that also include maintenance? In other words, I think of construction as being something brand new. Are you -- A Well, we were a unionized plant and there were lines drawn as to where we could and could not use an outside^ contractor and there was some pretty strict restrictions on -- on maintenance work, but there was some done. Now,.I don't recall what it all was. Q There was some maintenance work done by Brown & Root employees? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 1 objection. 2 MR. MARKS: Join in that objection. 3 MR. WATERS: You can answer. 4 A I guess I'd have to know a little bit more about 5 what you mean by criticize. You know, I would 6 hope that all companies would do that, if that's 7 an answer to your question. 8 Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. Well, with respect to the 9 corporate safety department, would -- would you 10 believe that a responsible corporate safety 11 department would do everything within its power 12 to follow its corporate safety policies as well 13 as federal and state regulations? 14 MR. ERWIN: Same objection. Vague, 15 ambiguous, overly broad, calls for 16 speculation, argumentative. 17 MR. GONZALEZ: Join. 18 A Again, I would hope that any company would do 19 that, yes -- 20 Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. 21 A -- follow the regulations and rules. 22 Q Okay. Did you receive some instruction in 23 training concerning the fact that asbestos was, 24 in fact, a hazardous substance in the time frame 25 where you did this work? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 114 that would have been the time frame, approximately, when you learned it? A Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Q Okay. In any event, as you sit here today, you've become aware of the fact that asbestos exposure can cause asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung cancer? A That's my understanding, yes. Q Okay. You'll agree with me that asbestos is considered to be a hazardous substance? A Yes. Q It's considered to be toxic and dangerous? A Okay, yes.. Q Okay. With respect to asbestos products -- let's just say thermal insulation or other types of asbestos products that in their normal use from time to time emit dust -- would you agree with me, sir, that those products can be dangerous if they are emitting dust? A Again, under .the right circumstances, yes. Q From 1974 to 1978, I believe what you've told us is that the precautions you recall being used with respect to asbestos would have been predominantly the use of respiratory protection? A Yes. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 115 1 Q Okay. Any other precautions -- you didn't 2 mention any other ones, but I want to ask if you 3 recall any other precautions being taken with 4 respect to reducing or eliminating asbestos 5 exposure, 1974 to 1978? 6 A Substitution. 7 Q Okay. And by -- any others, first, before I move 8 on? 9 A Well, again, like wetting down of the facility to 10 keep it from becoming airborne. . 11 Q Oka Did you ever observe with the wetting 12 process being used to keep levels of asbestos 13 dust down? 14 A Yes. 15 Q In the '74 to '78 time frame? 16 A Yes. 17 Q But you'll agree with me, whenever that occurred 18 you did not do any monitoring to determine the 19 levels of the dust? 20 A Well, actually, it was during that time that we ,,, 21 were doing the monitoring after --- 22 Q The baghouse event? 23 A Yes. During the cleanup process. 24 Q Okay. Other than the baghouse incident, is it a 25 fair statement that you do not specifically WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 116 recall the wetting method being used to reduce asbestos dust? A I don't recall it, no. Q Is it a fair statement, sir, that you do not recall there being warning signs placed in the vicinity of asbestos thermal insulation to advise workers that this was a dangerous substance or could cause cancer or anything of that nature? MR. GONZALEZ: I'll object. That -- A During this -- MR. GONZALEZ: -- that assumes facts not in evidence. A During this baghouse time when we were changing it out, we had labeling on the containers and that sort of thing, yes. Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. When you actually removed the asbestos materials to dispose of them, what you're saying is that you put labels on the bags that this was asbestos material? A Well, it wasn'jt actually a bag. It was cardboard containers that we used to dispose of the asbestos and they were labeled and with the warning signs on them. Q Okay. And the materials were disposed where, on the site somewhere? Do you have a landfill or WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 117 something of that nature? A Again, I -- I was turned over to a different group to take care of that, and I don't recall where it went. Q Okay. But the loose asbestos that you've recalled was essentially placed into a cardboard box for removal? A Yes, cardboard barrel. Q Cardboard barrels But at no time did you ever observe anywhere else in the plant any sign that indicated or an warning caution label on the wall or on materials that indicated potential hazard from those materials? A No. Q Were you aware, sir, at the time that the OSHA regulations specifically required that those warnings be placed on asbestos materials in place? A Yes. Q Okay. And how_ was it that you were aware of that, from your understanding of the OSHA regulations? A Could have been from my reading it or, you know, it could come from several different -- the training itself; but, yeah, I -- several WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 118 different places. Q Fair enough. I guess you would agree with me then that since you recall the regulations with that requirement and you've told us that you don't recall warning signs being placed on the materials, other than one specific instance, that would ARMCO would have been in violation of the regulations, at least with respect to that particular item? A I think that's -- MR. GON' ALEZ: Let me object that that assumes facts not in evidence. A -- kind of a broad -- MR. GONZALEZ: Calls for speculation. A -- statement because in the other places it was not becoming airborne or you could not put a label on a set of gloves that you were using. Again, we -- so our method of handling that was by substitution, getting rid of it. Q (By Mr. Waters) Let's talk --let's make sure we're clear. I'm talking specifically about thermal insulation materials. A Oh, okay. Q -- used throughout the plant. And by the way, you'll agree with me, won't you, sir, that there WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 119 was a significant amount of steam pipes that contained thermal insulation at this facility? A Oh, yes. Q Okay. Arid I think you've already testified that you have a recollection that the OSHA regulations required that warning signs be placed on or near those materials so workers who might need to get involved with those materials would know of the hazard? MR. ERWIN: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. He's testified concerning labeling on asbestos, but not thermal insulation products in general. It also mischaracterizes the facts in evidence. MR. GONZALEZ: Join in that. Q (By Mr. Waters) Can you answer? Do you need the question read back? A Yeah. MR. WATERS: Go ahead. Read it back to him. (At this time the court reporter read back the requested material.) A There were no warning labels that I'm aware of that was on any of the insulation. And as I WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 120 1 think I stated earlier, I was told that this was 2 asbestos, but I was not -- I did not do any 3 sampling, nor did I ever take any sampling, so I 4 had no personal knowledge -- 5 Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. 6 A -- that the thermal insulation was, in fact, 7 asbestos. 8 Q You had a general understanding that it was 9 asbestos. Fair enough? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Okay. And you also had a general understanding 12 from your involvement with the regulations that 13 it was necessary and required to have these 14 signs, correct, sir? 15 A It/s been such a long time with the regulations, 16 you have to be specific on regulations as to when 17 something is labeled. And I'm not aware that the 18 thermal insulation would have to be labeled. So 19 it -- I'd have to say don't know that I was 20 required to label that. That would be the best 21 way I could answer that question. 22 Q All right. Let's talk about what you do recall 23 from OSHA. You understood when you arrived in 24 1974 or shortly thereafter that there were 25 specific state and federal regulations, as well WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 121 as corporate policy, that governed a whole variety of safety matters, correct? A Sure. Q Okay. And one of the safety matters that the regulations and the corporate policy pertained to had to do with the hazards of asbestos, correct? A Yes. Q Okay. Did you understand, for example, that there was an exposure level above which exposures should not take place because of health hazards? A There was, again, a threshold limit value that at some point if you exceeded that, there had to be some kind of action taken, whether it be personal protective equipment or engineering controls, things of those nature, administrative controls to eliminate the exposure or minimize the exposure. Q Okay. And in order to know whether or not you had to take these additional measures, what you would have tc^ do is - what they call in the regulations initial monitoring of workplace to determine the levels of asbestos dust from various operations? A Yes. Q Okay. And you have to do that initial monitoring WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 122 to determine the potential level of the hazard that's out there, correct? A That's correct. Q And you'll agree with me that -- well, asbestos dust can be invisible, correct, sir? A Yes. Q And the only way to know whether or not you have a hazard in a given area is to do air monitoring to determine whether it's a safe level or an unsafe level? A That's correct. Q Okay. One thing you know is if you actually see dust from an asbestos operation, then you probably have a fairly significant level. Is that a fair statement? MR. ERWIN: Objection. Vague. A Well, as I stated earlier, I -- I don't think I'm trained, either then or now, to know that dust that's airborne is actually asbestos. It could be different, you know, combinations. It's rare that any dust is one particular compound by itself. Q Okay. A So if I could some way determine that, yes, that was asbestos and it was visible, that would be a WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 123 good indication that the levels were high. Q All right. If you observed -- let's take a hypothetical situation. If you observed an operation and you knew that the insulation material was asbestos, all right, and the operation -- whatever it was -- was producing visible dust, under those circumstances you would recognize even without measurement that you had a hazardous condition or a potentially hazardous condition? ;A Onf :hat, yes, deserves some attention, sure. Q Okay. And-you'll agree with me that if -- well, strike that. As far as the asbestos monitoring that you have any knowledge about, that would be limited to what was done at the baghouse, correct? A That's the only time I can recall. Q Okay. And you'll agree with me that if no monitoring was done with respect to insulation materials and work with or around insulation materials, then we will never know what levels of asbestos dust may have been created by those operations? A I won't know, that's correct. Q Okay. What we do know is if there is dust, WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 124 1 asbestos dust resulting from work practices, 2 there are a variety of steps that can be taken to 3 reduce the potential hazard, correct? 4 A Yes. 5 Q All right. One of those you mentioned was wet 6 methods? 7 A Yes. 8 Q All right. The wet methods, the only time you 9 can recall them being used in the context of 10 asbestos at the plant was with respect to the bag 11 ' facility. What did you call it, the bag -- 12 A Baghouse. 13 Q Thank you -- baghouse in 1976, correct? 14 A That's the only one I observed, yes -- 15 Q All right. 16 A -- that I can remember. 17 Q Fair enough. Also, there's the possibility of 18 using exhaust ventilation to actually remove the 19 hazardous asbestos dust from the breathing zone 20 of the workers? 21 A That would be another method, yes. 22 Q Okay. And as you sit here today, you're not able 23 to recall engineering controls of that nature 24 being used with respect to asbestos exposure at 25 ARMCO, 1974 to 1978? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 125 A None that I can recall. Q Personal protective equipment. Well, we've really covered that. I don't think I need to go back into that. Were you aware that the OSHA regulations required initial asbestos monitoring be done in 1972 or 1971 within six months of the publication of the regulations? A No, I don't remember that now. Q Okay. And in fairness to you, you weren't employed by ARM JO in 1972, were you, or 1971? A No. Q Okay. But in your work at ARMCO as the seniormost person concerning industrial hygiene matters, you never were told and you never saw any documents that indicated that ARMCO had done asbestos monitoring prior to your arrival and specifically in the time frame 1971 or 1972? A None that I can remember. MR. ERWIN: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. And just to be clear on this, in '74 to '78, you're the seniormost industrial hygiene person on the site, correct, with that training? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 126 A You keep using the word "senior." I was basically the only industrial hygiene person on the site. Q Okay. You were senior by virtue of the fact that there was -- A Senior that I was the only one, right. Q Okay. And would you agree with me also that you were the seniormost or the -- perhaps the singlemost person who had knowledge and training of a professional nature concerning the hazards of asbestos in that time frame at the plant? A That I was the only one, no. As I stated earlier, Bruce Rogers had been through some training, NIOSH course. Bill Chaddick who was there prior to me had some training. I can't testify to any of his, but I know he had spent some time in industrial hygiene. So their responsibilities had changed when I got there and it was my -- my responsibility when I was there, but they had knowledge of industrial hygiene practices. Q Okay. Fair enough. And Mr. Hueber obviously had some knowledge of industrial hygiene? A Oh, yes. Yes. Q Okay. And the OSHA regulations in Subsection "H" WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 130 should inform them if they're exposed to asbestos, but you should inform them of the potential hazard that is presented by asbestos in the workplace. Do you recall that? A Not specifically; but, you know, I would think that was in the standard, sure. Q Fair enough. And the whole point of the federal government having regulations to require employers to tell their workers about this asbestos hazard is so that those workers can take their own precautions, use respiratory protection and try to avoid developing diseases like cancer years down the road? MR. GONZALEZ: Argumentative. MR. ERWIN: Join. Calls for speculation. A Yeah. If that's your question, yes. Q (By Mr. Waters) We talked about safety meetings. Do you recall that there was a safety handbook that ARMCO gave to its employees? A Yes. Q And will you degree with me that the best place to put warnings about potential hazards and potential dangers in the workplace and have it available for the employees to read is going to WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 132 process? And if you don't recall, that's fine. A I think I had a dust respirator, but I couldn't -- I don't recall. I had respect for asbestos, so I would say I probably did, but -- Q Okay. A -- I don't know. Q You had respect for the hazards because you had been trained professionally and you had learned a little bit about what asbestos can do to the human body? A Yes. Q And as a result of that knowledge, that training and that respect, you were much more likely to take precautions in the event there was a potential exposure on your part? A Well, I did for the employees there because they were the ones that were handling the asbestos and that was the reason for having them wear the disposable clothing and the two sets of respirators and that sort of thing, yes. Q All right. Any reason you can think of that my client, or my client's husband in this case, should not have been told that asbestos could cause cancer 20 or 30 years later when he worked around asbestos in the '60's and '70's? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 134 and is argumentative. MR. GONZALEZ: I'll join. A I'll agree with you on the -- on the respect that I fully agree that employees should know what they're being exposed to. Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. Any reason you can think of to not tell employees that they're working around cancer-causing substances? A Not a good reason, no. Q Fair enough. You don't know what Mr. Pyle looked like? A No. Q Okay. A No. Q And do you have any recollection as you sit here today of any other electricians or motor inspectors who you knew personally during that time frame? MR. GONZALEZ: I'm going to object to the extent that it assumes that he knew Mr. Pyle personally by the way that question is being framed, so it's assuming facts not in evidence. MR. ERWIN: Join. A Could you repeat the question, please? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 140 MR. ERWIN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. Overly broad. A You're way out of my league. I -- I don't know what the requirements are. Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. No opinion on that one way or the other at this point in time? A Yeah, it would be no opinion. Q Okay. Are you aware or have you been made aware of the fact that ARMCO produced asbestos-containing products? A ARMCO produced -- no, I'm not aware of t t. Q Okay. Would you generally agree with me, sir, that a company that --that utilizes chemicals or toxic substances in its production of products should -- should have an understanding of the potential hazards of those chemicals or toxic substances? MR. ERWIN: Objection. Vague, ambiguous, overly broad. Calls for speculation. A Again, I would suppose so. Q (By Mr. Waters) When you arrived in '74 there was some monitoring equipment already available, correct? A Yes. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 142 1 Q Okay. Let me show you what's been marked as 2 Schmidt Exhibit No. 1, which is a print from the 3 United States Department of Labor Occupational 4 Safety and Health Administration. Do you see 5 that? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And that's the -- the umbrella organization for 8 OSHA, correct, the United States Department of 9 Labor? 10 A Yes. 11 Q A1` right. And in this instance they ran a 12 search from July, 1972 through December, 1979 and 13 catalogued all of the violations that ARMCO 14 facilities had in that time frame. And you'll -- 15 see the little numbers there under "VIO" for 16 violations? 17 A Uh-huh. 18 Q And you'll see over here on the right there are a 19 number of the -- that refers specifically to the 20 Houston facility. Okay. And some of these other 21 facilities -- for example, Middletown, that's -22 we've talked about that, haven't we? 23 A No, I don't remember you mentioning Middletown, 24 but I know of Middletown, yes. 25 Q All right. Okay. I don't want you to count WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 143 those up, but I want you to assume with me that there are a total of 720 OSHA violations in the time frame that we justified discussed. That's seven years or so, a little more than a hundred a year, about one every three days. Now, do you recall, sir, that there were a significant number of OSHA violations in the company at large in the 1970's? MR. ERWIN: I'm going to object to all the side-bar and lack of foundation of this document or authenticity of this document. MR. GONZALEZ: Join. MR. WATERS: You can answer. A For the size of the company and the fact that's all of the locations for ARMCO -- I noticed that there were several of them there -- no, I don't consider that to be excessive. MR. WATERS: Okay. Objection to the nonresponsive portion. (Whereupon, Schmidt Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.) Q (By Mr. Waters) Let me show you Exhibit No. 2, which is a -- let's see -- which relates to a specific series of inspections at the -- let's WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 144 1 see -- Kansas City facility. Do you see that? 2 A Yes. 3 Q All right. And it indicates -- let's see. Where 4 is the -- where is the section for this? Oh, the 5 bottom. Okay. 6 And just so we're clear on this, the OSHA 7 regulations are Section 1910.1001. Do you recall 8 that? 9 A Yeah. 10 Q All right. And here we see that as late as 1976 11 there are a ser .es of violations related to 12 asbestos and pertaining to the asbestos 13 regulations, at least at the Kansas City 14 facility. Do you see that? 15 A I -- 16 MR. GONZALEZ: I'm going to object. 17 That document speaks for itself. 18 A -- don't know that's what that says, but, you 19 know -- 20 Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. Well, let's look here. It 21 says "standard", okay, and it says "1910.001 -22 see the 1910.1001 right there? 23 A Oh, I see what you're saying. 24 Q Okay. 25 A Okay. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 146 A Research to OSHA -Q With respect to OSHA violations, were you asked by ARMCO to do any research -- A Oh, you mean just recently? Q Yes, sir, concerning this case. A No. Q Okay. You'll agree with me that unless an employee complained about asbestos to OSHA at the -- one of the ARMCO facilities, it would be very unlikely for a violation or an inspection to take place? MR. ERWIN: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. Are you talking about OSHA inspections, Andy? I'm sorry. MR. WATERS: Yeah. Sorry. A Well, there's other ways that OSHA does inspections and they do general inspections on occasion based on your injury frequency and things of that nature, and that could initiate a citation on just about anything. MR. WATERS: Let me object, nonresponsive. Q (By Mr. Waters) Let me take you back to your testimony earlier when I think you said that the OSHA inspections generally resulted from employee WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 148 it, I don't know that there could be a violation, but -- Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. So what you're saying is if a company isn't aware that exposures are taking place, then they have no responsibility to address the exposures? MR. GONZALEZ: Objection. Argumentative. A No. I think that's twisting of what I said. It's that if I don't know there's an exposure to asbestos and the worker didn't know there was exposure to asbestos, would there be a citation there? No, not unless somebody knew. Q Right. A You know, so -- Q And certainly the employer is in a much vastly better position than the employee to determine whether or not exposures are taking place? A Well, not necessarily because, again, I was one person out of_almost 5,000, so I certainly didn't know what each person on a day-to-day basis had for an exposure. Each person obviously is going to know that better. But if you're talking technically, I had probably the best expertise, absolutely. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 151 extent this document speaks for itself. There's no foundation. It's improper cross-examination. Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. Were you ever told, sir, that ARMCO had been part of an organization that as early as 1935 had warned of the hazards of asbestos? MR. ERWIN: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. A No. MR. ERWIN: Calls for speculation. Q (By Mr. Waters) Let me turn to the next page and ask you to follow along here. Let me-------let's see. "I think we need to digress for a moment to visualize what is meant by five million particles of dust of such tiny size." Now, let me ask you first: Were you aware, sir, that the TLV at one time, threshold limit value, was five million particles per cubic foot? Do you recall..that one way or another? A No, no. Q Okay. Fair enough. It goes on to state, "We know it's invisible" -- that's five million -- "to the naked eye because it takes 15 to 20 times that much to produce a haze, and even that isn't WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 152 1 visible as particles of materials." 2 Do you have any recollection of ever being 3 told what levels of dust were indicated if you 4 could actually see the dust? 5 MR. WATERS: Objection to the 6 side-bar preceding the question, reading 7 the document which there's no foundation 8 for, and it's improper cross-examination. 9 A I don't recall in the training what we were told 10 in terms of how to determine it, again, because 11 of -- you don't know what the content of the dust 12 is just by visually looking at it. 13 Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. Fair enough. Now, let's 14 look over here. It says, "If you can see the 15 dust, you know it to be a terrific hazard." 16 First of all, did I read that sentence 17 correctly? 18 MR. ERWIN: Again, objection. Lack 19 of foundation for this particular 20 document. Object to the side-bar reading 21 the document into evidence. Improper 22 cross-examination. 23 A Yes, what you read is what's on the page. 24 Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. And would you agree with 25 that, sir, that if you can see the dust -- WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 153 whether it's in 1935 or 1975 -- you know you've got a significant hazard? MR. GONZALEZ: Object on the basis that the question is vague as to what kind of dust. MR. ERWIN: Join. A Well, the answer is not necessarily because I've seen some where you could see the dust and it didn't -- and the standard was below the TLV. Q Okay. A I assume you're not talking about asbest , you're talking dust. You said dust. Q Fair enough. A Okay. Q Let me show you what's been marked as ARO-2, which is the State of Ohio legal requirements for the prevention and control of industrial public health hazards dated 1946. Now, firstly, was ARMCO headquarters, corporate headquarters, in Ohio? A Yes. MR. ERWIN: 1936? MR. WATERS: '46. MR. ERWIN: 1946. Q (By Mr. Waters) Were you aware, sir, that in 1946 WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 156 deposition, but -MR. WATERS: It's -- you haven't waived anything. The objection is there. Q (By Mr. Waters) Were you also familiar with the fact that ARMCO was a member of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation? Did you become aware of that fact? A I don't recall that. Q I want you to assume that Mr. Simpson has testified in his capacity as an industrial hyg nist that the Industrial Hygiene Digest and the Industrial Hygiene abstracts were routinely received and reviewed by safety professionals for ARMCO within the corporation. Can you assume that fact for me? A Sure. Q All right. I'd like you to look at the Industrial Hygiene Digest for June of 1953 and in particular down here, an abstract for an article entitled "Lung^. Carcinoma Caused By Asbestos Inhalation. " First of all, just from the standpoint of the terminology, what is meant by lung carcinoma? A Cancer of the lung. Q Okay. All right. Let me show you another one, WOMACR REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 157 Industrial Hygiene Digest, September, 1955, an article abstract entitled, "Mortality from Lung Cancer in Asbestos Workers," by Dr. Doll in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine. Mortality, that's death, isn't it, sir? A Yeah, I suppose so. Q Okay. So that if ARMCO were to have read this abstract or this article back in 1955, they would have understood that persons exposed to asbestos can get lung cancer and -- which can result in mortality or death? A A lot of speculation, I assume, but, yeah. Q Okay. That was ARO-106. Let me show you the Industrial Hygiene Digest from February of 1956 and in particular an abstract indicating asbestosis and pulmonary carcinoma in an asbestos spinner, notes on the induction of lung cancer by asbestos fibers. With respect to your own training and experience, do_ you think it would have been that . early 1975 NIOSH course where you first learned that asbestos fibers could cause lung cancer? A That's the first time? Q Yes, sir. A I assume so. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 160 that you take him on cross-examination and clarify to the extent you wish to -- MR. MARKS: Well, I object to the form of the question to the extent that you are using a term this witness is not familiar with, and to the extent that it injects misleading testimony into the record, we object to it. Q (By Mr. Waters) All right. And here's one: "Are silicosis and Asbestosis Predisposing Causes of Cancer of the Tang," from -- again, from March, 1960. Did you all use silica out there, as well? Was there silica dust as a result of your operations? A Yes, there was. Q Okay. Did you consider silica dust to be a hazard -- A Yes. Q -- when you worked out there? Okay. Let's go back to ARO-191, which is another National Safety Counsel publication from 1961 where the National Safety Counsel indicates, "We know that asbestos dust causes a serious lung disease called asbestosis." WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 162 A No, I don't know what that means. Q All right. Fair enough. Did you ever hear of the name Dr. Irving Selikoff as being a physician involved with researching the hazards of asbestos and diseases caused by asbestos? A No. Q Doesn't ring a bell? A No. Q Now, Mr. Simpson told us that he started working for ARMCO in '64 or '65 and that in that capacity he began to review Industrial Hygiene Digest materials; that is to say they would collect in his in box, he would review them, he would pass them on to someone else. Is that a similar-type procedure that you recall concerning circulation of articles of interest? A I just know what he sent to me. I don't know how he went about deciding what to send. Q Okay. Did he just send those to you in the Houston plant-or would those types of articles about asbestos and cancer and other issues have been sent to Mr. Hueber, as well, or some of the other folks? A I don't recall. Q Okay. Let me show you this one that Mr. Simpson WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 165 1 The reference, there's a discussion about 2 occupational health and the construction industry 3 and the reference indicates, "Articles appear 4 from time to time in the American literature on a 5 specific health hazard such as lung cancer and 6 asbestos insulators." 7 Did you understand that asbestos 8 insulators, people who worked day in and day out 9 with asbestos products were at a significant risk 10 of developing cancer when you first got to ARMCO 11 or within a few months of getting to ARMCO? 12 A I'd have to say I don't know. 13 Q Okay. Let's look at the next page. And for the 14 record, this is Page 22 talking about health 15 hazards. "The equipment operator is not alone in 16 facing these hazards. The recent replacement of 17 the plasterer's conventional trowel with a spray 18 nozzle has introduced serious hearing loss 19 problems." Okay. "Further, the gun application 20 of asbestos-contained fireproof coatings 21 continues without control and without concern. 22 Yet data coming in regularly from studies of men 23 working around asbestos dust leave very little 24 doubt that the gun operator and other craftsmen 25 in the area are being subjected to the risks of WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 166 1 the asbestosis and lung cancer." 2 Now, my specific question is: If you 3 recognized in 1974, 1975, that it wasn't just 4 insulators or working --- people working hands-on 5 with asbestos who were at risk but that the dust 6 could travel and migrate and that bystanders or 7 people in the area who were exposed to it could 8 be equally at risk? 9 MS. ALVARADO: Objection to the 10 document. Objection to foundation, 11 authenticity and objection to relevancy. 12 MR. GONZALEZ: Objection to the 13 side-bar. 14 MR. MARKS: Join in the objection. 15 MR. ERWIN: Join. 16 MS. KUGLER: Join. 17 MR. WATERS: You can answer it. 18 A I guess the answer is I don't recall. 19 MR. WATERS: All right. Do you have 2 0 a lot rof redirect? ; 21 MR. ERWIN: No. Can we take two 22 minutes? 23 MR. WATERS: Well, I'm not -- I'm not 24 finished yet. 25 MR. ERWIN: No, I don't want to go WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 167 off the record either, but just let me step out for one second and let's see what his flight situation is. We really didn't get a handle on that, I don't think. MR. WATERS: Oh, on timing or -- MR. ERWIN: Just so he'll know, I mean, and if we need to make plans. We've got about -- I assume you have ten more minutes? MR. WATERS: Yeah, give or take. It's 1:18 right now. MR. ERWIN: I understand. (At this time Mr. Erwin left the deposition room. Upon his return the proceedings resumed as follows:) MR. ERWIN: Okay. I'm back. Andy. MR. WATERS: Okay. And what -- and do you know anything different or -- MR. ERWIN: Yeah. He would need to leave at 2:00. MR. WATERS: Okay. That's fine. I'm trying to find -- oh, here it is. Q (By Mr. Waters) I think you told us earlier that Mr. Hueber would probably be -- would probably have been in a better position to assess how WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 168 ARMCO was addressing or dealing with the asbestos hazards or the potential asbestos hazard at the Houston facility? A He was there longer and had access to some people more than I did. So I'd have to assume, yes. Q Did you have any -- or do you recall having any discussions with Mr. Hueber where y'all talked about the fact that the asbestos situation at the plant was a potential problem? A I just don't recall any conversation. Q Okay. Would you agree with me, sir, tha ARMCO was a sufficiently large and sophisticated company that would be able at all relevant times to know and understand the potential hazards in its plant? MR. ERWIN: Objection. Calls for speculation, overly broad, vague. A Well, we had a good expertise, I felt like, of assessing what our hazards were in the plant, if -that answers your question. Q (By Mr. Waters) All right. Would you agree with Mr. Hueber that in addition to housekeeping being sloppy at the plant that storage was also hazardous? MR. ERWIN: Objection. Misstates the WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 169 1 facts in evidence. 2 A Again, that's a very general statement. I don't -- 3 I don't really agree that housekeeping was always 4 sloppy and that -- what was the other -- storage 5 was hazardous? 6 Q Hazardous, yeah. 7 A Again, I don't know what he's talking about 8 there. 9 Q Okay. You said just now that you don't agree 10 that housekeeping was always sloppy, but I take 11 it .rom that that there were times when in your 12 walk-throughs of the plant you recognized and 13 were concerned that housekeeping was not what it 14 should be? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And Mr. Hueber has told us in a document that the 17 jury will have seen that his concerns about 18 housekeeping and storage, that those -- and I 19 quote -- "give you an indication of their safety 20 attitude and ^effort because these are two of the..,, 21 first things a safety-conscious management 22 attends to." 23 Do you agree with Mr. Hueber that 24 housekeeping and storage are two of the first 25 things that a safety-conscious management attends WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 170 to? A It's important in a safety program, sure. Q Are you aware of the fact that ARMCO made efforts to combat government requirements or recommendations for health and safety or water those downs? MR. ERWIN: Objection. Calls for speculation, misstates the facts in evidence. MR. GONZALEZ: Argumentative. A I'm not aware of that, no. Q (By Mr. Waters) Did you have any involvement personally with the lobbying process concerning the implementation of federal or state regulations? A No. Q Would you have been at the plant on October 2nd, 1974? I mean, had you started working there by then? A Yes, I had started working there by then. . Q Were you familiar with the fact that there was an OSHA inspection at that time? A Since you told me I guess I do know, but I wouldn't have recalled it, no. Q All right. Do you recall that there was a WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 171 problem indicated with workers breathing -- and I quote -- "excessive amounts of dust" -- end quote? Do you have any recollection of that? A No. No. Q Let's talk a little bit about medical examinations. Are you aware that the -- that in general the regulations require medical examinations of persons exposed to asbestos? A Yeah, I think that was part of the standard. Q And that was to be done on an annual ora routine-type 1isis? A Again, I'd suppose^so. I don't recall the standard specifically. Q Okay. Let's see. Were you aware that ARMCO was advised in 1970's -- July of 1976 and acknowledged that insulation materials in its plants could exceed OSHA limits? MR. ERWIN: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Mischaracterizes the evidence. A I don't recall. Is it a document or something? I-- Q (By Mr. Waters) Yeah, let me show you. Let's see. It's from Mr. Simpson. It's ARO-36, July 14, 1976. And Mr. Simpson is sending it to the WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 172 1 industrial hygiene mailing list. Would that 2 include you -- would that have included you? 3 A I would think so. 4 Q Okay. Then at the bottom he indicates a couple 5 of other people, Mr. Howard, Mr. Claibore and Mr. 6 Tranter? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Were they also at the Houston plant? 9 A No. They were at corporate. 10 MR. WATERS: Okay. And for the 11 record, th?:'s 36. 12 Q (By Mr. Waters) Does it sound about right that 13 the baghouse work that you discussed the incident 14 took place on August 19, 1976? 15 A If that's what the document says, then I would -- 16 I would go with that, yes. 17 Q And do you recall the results of some of the 18 sampling? Do you recall that some of the levels 19 were in excess of the OSHA permissible limits? 20 A I believe thev^were. 21 Q Okay. 22 A And the samples were taken outside of the 23 protective clothing. 24 MR. WATERS: Okay. Let me object to 25 the nonresponsive portion. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 173 Q (By Mr. Waters) Were you still there in May -- on or about May 25th of 1978? A Working for ARMCO? Q Yes, sir. A Yes. Q And were you still in your capacity as industrial hygienist? A That's real close. Q Is it? A That's about the time I transferred. Now, I don't remember the exact date of when I moved from safety to labor relations. Q We'll take a look at the specific document. Okay. Did Mr. -- did the ARMCO lawyer show you a document, which I've got marked as ARO-45, from yourself to Mr. McWhirt? A I have seen this. Q Did you see it recently? A Yeah. Q Okay. Let me,just ask you a question or two about that. A Oh, sure. Q This has to do with asbestos sampling at the wide flange substation in May of 1978; is that correct? WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 174 1 A I don't know if that's when the sampling took 2 place. That's when the letter was written. 3 Q All right. Fair enough. And it goes on to state 4 it's the results of a survey that you apparently 5 did. "In all cases but two, the shops 6 electricians' exposure exceeded the OSHA 7 standard." 8 Do you have an independent recollection 9 that, in fact, in all of the samples except for 10 these two, that you had excessive levels? 11 A I knew there was some that were. You know, 12 without reading the letter or looking at the -- 13 Q The result? 14 A -- report, yeah. It's just been 20-something 15 years ago. 16 Q Do you recall it says, "In one case the 17 employees' exposure was almost 20 times the 18 standard." Do you see that? 19 A Yes. 2 0 Q All right. Is_that something that gave you cause 21 for concern? 22 A That was one of the reasons why we did the 23 precautions that we did when they were doing the 24 baghouse sampling or baghouse removal of the 25 asbestos by putting on the protective clothing WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 175 1 and the respirator. 2 MR. WATERS: Objection. 3 Nonresponsive. 4 Q (By Mr. Waters) My specific question is if you 5 recall at this time being concerned that 6 electricians were being exposed to almost 20 7 times the standard? 8 A Yes. 9 Q You also stated that, "Also, before this job is 10 done again, I would like to know if it is 11 economically feasible for this job to be done by 12 a contractor." 13 Do you recall being concerned or being 14 interested in that recommendation? 15 A I wrote it, yes. 16 Q Do you recall, sir, that these individuals who 17 were exposed, as well as the people who were 18 exposed to the baghouse, were actually never 19 given their medical monitoring examinations? Do 2 0. you realize that? 21 MR. ERWIN: Objection. Assumes facts 22 not in evidence. Calls for speculation. 23 A I don't know that that is a fact. 24 Q Do you recall a concern about the cost of medical 25 monitoring; that is to say, X-ray examinations WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 176 for employees who were exposed to asbestos in the plant? A No. Q Were you involved when a hazardous materials committee was finally appointed in 1979 to review procedures for limiting exposures to asbestos and other toxic substances? Would you have been out of the loop by then? A I would have been out of the loop. Q All right. Let me show you what has been marked ARO-47, a memo from Mr. Hueber to Mr. H- lin, September 20, 1979. Who was Mr. Hardin? A He was the assistant to the works manager -- Q Okay. A -- which is equivalent to the personnel manager. Q All right. And the subject here is problem areas, 1980, and how to copy with them. Was this something Mr. Hueber would do at the end of each year, is sort of provide a checklist of things we need to work ...on or problems that we have? Do you recall that? A I don't know why he wrote that, no. Q Okay. I want to direct your attention to Page 4 of the memorandum, and it discusses asbestos as one of the problem areas for 1980. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 177 "As asbestos materials are replaced, we will need to begin exposure monitoring on all tear-out operations. This will be an extremely time-consuming task and as a result has only been done on a few occasions in the past. Now, I take it from your earlier testimony that if monitoring had been done on tear-out work, it was not something that you would have been involved with, at least that you can recall? A I don't recall doing any, no. Q 01 /. And you've not been shown or had an opportunity to review any records that would indicate that any sampling or monitoring was ever done around asbestos pipe covering or asbestos thermal insulation operations, whether it be new installation or tear-out work? A Some of the documents I was shown I think had some asbestos monitoring, but I -- Scott did, but I don't -- I don't know what he was sampling. Again, I wasn_'_t a firsthand party to that. Q All right. Let me show you ARO-56 and ask you to take a second look at that. A (Witness complying) Q Just a brief question about it: Were you aware, sir, that in 1983 it was confirmed that one of WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 178 the ARMCO employees had developed asbestosis as a result of his employment at the facility? A No, I don't think I knew this. Q Okay. All right. Would you agree with me, sir, that this document from ARMCO confirms that there were sufficient exposures at the plant for employees such as this gentleman to develop asbestos disease? A I don't think I could make that speculation because I don't know what Mr. Sally's years of service or what his prior exposures were at some other location or on his off hours. I mean-- Q Okay. A -- not from that document I couldn't, no. Q All right. When was the Houston ARMCO facility closed? A I think in early '84. Q Okay. A I don't know the exact date. I'd already left - the company at^that time? . Q All right. Were you aware, sir, that an asbestos survey was completed of the plant in November and December of 1986? A No. Q Okay. Let's take a look briefly at this -- what WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 180 1 MS. KUGLER: Same objection. Also 2 assumes facts not in evidence. 3 MR. ERWIN: Join. 4 A I wasn't involved with any of -- anything dealing 5 with either safety or health in that respect 6 after really about '78. 7 Q (By Mr. Waters) All right, sir. 8 A I don't know if that answers your question. 9 Q Was it your understanding as of '83 that asbestos 10 materials, to the extent possible, had been 11 substituted a: i non -- I'm sorry -- that 12 nonasbestos materials had been substituted for 13 asbestos materials? 14 A In 1983? 15 Q Yes, sir. 16 A No. I'm not aware. 17 Q Okay. As far as you knew in 1983, asbestos 18 materials were still being utilized at the 19 facility? 20 A I have no knowledge that they were or weren't. 21 Q Okay. Now, you mentioned an earlier storage 22 facility of some sort. I think we were talking 23 about some equipment. Were there facilities or 24 warehouses at the plant where materials were 25 retained for future use that were used in the WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 181 1 operations of the plant and maintenance? 2 A There was a purchasing -- 3 Q Warehouse? 4 A -- department, stores, yeah. 5 Q All right. Well, let's take a look at Page 14 6 where this asbestos survey under "warehouse," 7 they indicate: "The warehouse contains several 8 boxes of precast Johns-Manville Thermobestos pipe 9 insulation. ARMCO employees believe this to be 10 nonasbestos; however, it appears to be the same 11 material that was sampled in the operations area 12 and found to be asbestos." 13 My question to you, sir, is if you have any 14 opinion as to whether or not workers should be 15 told that a material is nonasbestos when, in 16 fact, it contains asbestos? 17 MR. ERWIN: Objection. Assumes facts 18 not in evidence. Mischaracterizes the 19 evidence. Calls for speculation. 20 A I guess to answer your question, yeah, if someone 21 is going to be exposed to something and if they 22 have that knowledge, it should be shared with 23 them, sure. 24 Q Right. And certainly you'd agree with me that it 25 would be entirely inappropriate to tell an WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 182 employee -- specifically tell him that the materials were nonasbestos when, in fact, they contained asbestos? MR. ERWIN: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Calls for speculation. Mischaracterizes the evidence. A If that were the case, then, yes. Q (By Mr. Waters) All right, sir. On Page 15 under "blast furnace maintenance shop," it indicates, "Cartons of Johns-Manville Thermo 12 are scattered south of the building. Since these cartons are in list on following page, it must be considered as containing asbestos." Can you think of any reason why asbestos insulation materials would have been scattered on the outside of the blast furnace maintenance shop in 1986? A I would have no knowledge of why it would. Q As an industrial hygienist and a person trained in industrial .safety, sir, would that be a matter of concern to you that as late as 1986 these materials were still available and apparently were available for potential use at the facility? MR. ERWIN: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Calls for speculation WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 183 and mischaracterizes the evidence. There's been no testimony that those were available for use or being used. You said 1986, two years after the plant shuts down. MR. WATERS: You can answer, sir. A Okay. If I understand the question, my answer would be no because it's not being used and there were no employees basically left at that point. Q (By Mr. Waters) Okay. Were you aware that that particular product, Johns-Manville Thermo 12 and Thermobestos insulation were no longer manufactured after 1972 because Manville had come up with an asbestos-free replacement? A No. I'm not familiar with Johns-Mansville's products at all. Q In the context of your substitution efforts, did you become aware of that or have any knowledge that Johns-Manville was substituting nonasbestos products in the early '70's? A No, I don't recall. Q How actively were you involved with this substitution process that ARMCO was interested in doing? A To the effect the one example I can think of is WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 186 MR. WATERS: Let me just look over my notes, Mr. Schmidt. MS. KUGLER: I'm sorry. Have we messed up your order? MR. BRADY: I'm trying to remember where they go here. MR. WATERS: I'll pass the witness. MR. ERWIN: You guys have any questions? MR. GONZALEZ: I have some questions for Mr. Schmidt. EXAMINATION BY MR. GONZALEZ: Q Mr. Schmidt, my name is Juan Gonzalez. I'm an attorney for two of the defendants in this case. Do you have or are you aware of any facts, evidence or information that any products manufactured,^produced by or distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation that may have contained asbestos was present anywhere in the ARMCO plant we've been talking about? A I have knowledge -- no.knowledge of it. Q Do you have or are you aware of any facts. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 190 1 EXAMINATION 2 3 BY MR. MARKS: 4 Q Mr. Schmidt, my name is Alan Marks. I represent 5 Brown & Root, U.S.A. I have a few questions to 6 ask you. 7 The work that Brown & Root did out at the 8 plant. Brown & Root used their own personnel and 9 their own supervision to perform those tasks? io A As far as I know, yes. 11 Q ARMCO people, ARMCO personnel -- for e: aple, an 12 electrician or motor inspector -- would not work 13 on Brown & Root jobs? 14 A I have no knowledge of it, no. 15 Q Okay. ARMCO people would not work under 16 Brown & Root supervision, would they? 17 A I have no knowledge of doing that and it would 18 not be consistent with the plant, no. 19 Q Okay. ARMCO had its own maintenance department, 20 did it not? . _ 21 A Oh, yes. 22 Q About how many people were in that maintenance 23 department? 24 A I think at one time at the peek of employment it 25 was around 1,500. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 191 1 Q Brown & Root did construction repair work on real 2 property, fixtures like equipment, machinery and 3 buildings. Is that your recollection? 4 A Again, construction was, you know, and some 5 maintenance, I suppose, is what they did. I 6 didn't really usually follow up with what exactly 7 they did, yeah. 8 Q They built things, they installed machinery? 9 A Right. 10 Q Laid foundations? 11 A Ye . 12 Q Did dirt work? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Okay. Brown & Root had it's own safety 15 department? 16 A As far as I know, yeah. 17 Q And they took care of their employees? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And you were part of ARMCO's safety department? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q And your responsibility was the ARMCO employees? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q And if an ARMCO employee had a safety concern, 24 they would go to ARMCO safety personnel? 25 A Hopefully. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 194 you wrote in this letter about your inquiry as to whether it would be economically feasible for a contractor to do their job in the future, what did you mean by that, sir? A Well, as with anything, this was not our specialty. Some of the employees themselves were not happy about doing this job and this was not something that they normally did and we're not very familiar with. And there were a lot of concerns about the asbestos which were, you know, something they expressed to me. So I -- I'd put it in the letter that maybe we could have a contractor do it, which is people who have done on this many occasions who are familiar with the hazards and take the precautions and are used to it. Q Okay. Some questions were -- or we've discussed earlier monthly safety meetings, and you were telling us about the management-level meetings. A Yes. - Q Are you aware of regular-scheduled worker safety meetings, as well, that took place out at the plant? A Yes. Q Okay. And were those, as well, on a monthly WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 195 basis? A Yes. Each supervisor in every area which, you know, again, it was at least 50 departments. I don't know how many supervisors there were. I think at one time there was like 300 or 400 supervisors. They were required to do monthly safety meetings. Q You responded to one of Mr. Waters' questions that asbestos was given a limited focus at the Houston Works while you were there. Can you explain to th 2 jury why? = A There were many other air, I guess, dust problems that we were looking at. The biggest one was the Coke oven emissions. It was getting a lot of attention from the federal government and they were changing the standard and we wanted to make sure that we were in compliance. There was a number of employees down in the Coke ovens that were exposed to Coke oven emissions so that we wanted to make_sure that we had all of that under control. Q Other than the baghouse situation that we've talked about, were you aware of any other people at ARMCO Houston Works facility who were exposed on a regular basis to asbestos-containing WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 198 was because I think Mr. Waters asked you some questions where -- and, again, the word "insurance" came up -- as to when you recall taking that correspondence course. Okay? A Okay. Q Are you with me? A Sure. Q All right. Mr. Schmidt, after you started work at ARMCO, did you undergo any training in the area of industrial hygiene? A Yes. Q And where? A I took a correspondence course. I took a NIOSH 550 course and then also a course offered by Texas Safety Association. Q And when did the correspondence course, when did you take that? A That was almost immediately after my employ at ARMCO. MR,.ERWIN: Okay. I believe that's all the questions I have. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE - (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 199 1 FURTHER EXAMINATION 2 3 BY MR. WATERS: 4 Q Just a couple of follow-ups. You were asked some 5 questions about some products and whether or not 6 you had any recollection of the products being 7 used at the facility. First of all, you wouldn't 8 have any knowledge about what was used at the 9 facility prior to 1974 under any circumstances, 10 would you? 11 A No. 12 Q Okay. And your job title and your job 13 description, you weren't in a position to. 14 discover one way or another what products may 15 have been used at the plant or may have been 16 purchased for use at the plant prior to your 17 arrival? 18 A Not unless I just saw a document to that effect. 19 Q Okay. You were asked some questions about the 20 steel girders.or the steel structures of the 21 buildings and specifically as to whether or not 22 there was material on some of the steel or 23 insulation on some of the steel. As you sit 24 here, is it a fair statement that you are not 25 able to recall whether there may or may not have WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 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 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 200 been some steel materials, steel structures that contained insulation or had insulation placed on them at some point in time? MS. KUGLER: I'm going to object. It misstates prior testimony. MR. GONZALEZ: I join in that objection. A I don't -- I don't recall seeing any. Q (By Mr. Waters) You're not saying there wasn't; you're saying you don't recall seeing any? MS. KUGLER: Same objection. A It's a big plant. I don't recall seeing any. And I've been through a lot of plant since then to where I wouldn't want to confusion the two. Q (By Mr. Waters) All right. Fair enough. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Hueber the fact that he felt asbestos to be a problem area, but from your perspective it was a low priority? A Not in that context, no. MR, WATERS: All right. Thanks. No . further questions. MR. ERWIN: Are we done? That's it. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The deposition is concluded at 1:36 p.m. WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 DEPOSITION OF RICHARD SCHMIDT 202 1 THE STATE OF TEXAS : 2 COUNTY OF HARRIS : 3 4 I, Karen A. Russell, a Certified Shorthand 5 Reporter for the State of Texas, do hereby certify 6 that this deposition transcript is a true record of 7 the testimony given by the witness named herein, 8 after said witness was duly sworn by me. 9 I further certify that I am neither attorney nor 10 counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the 11 parties to the action in which this testimony was 12 taken. Further, I am not a relative or employee of 13 any attorney of record in this cause, nor do I have a 14 financial interest in the action. 15 Further certification requirements pursuant to 16 the Rules will be certified to in the supplemental 17 certificate after they have occurred. 18 Certified to on this, the _________ day of , 19 1997. 20 21 Ka^fen A. Russell, CSR 22 Certification No. 4241 Expiration Date: 122--331-97 23 Notary Expiration Date: 5-26-98 24 801 Travis, Suite 2020 Houston, Texas 77002 25 WOMACK REPORTING SERVICE (713) 227-3443 Page Line j LAWYER'S NOTES Establishment Search Results - armco http://www.osha.gov/cgi-bin/est/eL 31 &vio=V&str 1 =&str2=&xtr 1 =&x t r2= The United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration Details for the inspections listed below may be obtained in two ways. The first method is simply following the inspection activity number link. The second method is marking the check boxes for selected inspections and pressing the Get Detail button. Information relevent to the selected cases will be returned and may then be browsed or printed. For information on the data elements displayed below, see definitions. Please note that inspections which are known to be incomplete will have the identifying Activity Nr shown in italic. Information for these open cases is especially dynamic, e.g., violations may be added or deleted. Search Options Establishment Date Range RID State Limits Include Exclude armco 1972-07-01 1979-12-31 All All 300/25001 1 of 7 Get Detail | - I All | Reset Found 242 -- Processed 242 -- Selected 242 -- Displayed 242 <Activity Nr :n DatejReport ID St Tp SIC Vio Establishment Name 1 214690885 1979-12-07 0522000 OH G 3312 Armco Steel Corp 2 017361825 1979-11-30 0728500 MO A 3312 Armco Steel Corp 3 214619637. 1979-11-29 0522000 OH H 1623 2 Armco Inc Metal Products Divis 4 017369828 1979-11-15 0728500 MO B 3312 Armco Steel D 5 017361775 1979-11-14 0728500 MO B 3312 Armco Steel Coip 6 013967518 1979-11-06 0420600 FL H 3498 3 Armco Steel Corp 7 214600405 1979-11-01 0522000 OH B 3312 Armco Inc 8 016841546 1979-10-31 0626600 TX B 3312 Armco Steel Corporation-Hou 9 016814204 1979-10-16 0626600 TX A 3312 4 Armco Steel Corporation-Hou G 10 016855801 1979-10-15 0626600 TX F 3312 Armco Steel Corp C 11 014560155 1979-10-04 0522000 OH G 3312 1 Armco Steel Corp 12 016774697 1979-08-02 0626600' TX B 3312 2 Armco Steel Corporation-Hou 13 016767113 1979-08-02 0626600 TX B 3312 2 Armco Steel Corp 14 016774689 1979-07-30 0626600 TX A 3312 3 Armco Steel Corp G 15 017307174 1979-07-27 0728500 MO F 3312 Armco Steel Corp G 16 014545313 1979-07-12 0522000 OH F 3312 Armco Steel Corp Middletown G 17 214675738 1979-06-25 0522000 OH B 3312 Armco Inc G 18 013S46217 1979-06-22 0436200 AL H 3089 4 Armco Inc G 19 214639197 1979-06-12 0522000 OH B 3312 3 Armco Steel Corp G 20 013836457 1979-06-11 0436200 AL H 3089 5 Corban Armco Steel Corp G 21 016813693 1979-04-19 0626600 TX B 3312 2 Armco Steel Corp Housto 22 017323346 1979-04-16 0728500 MO F 3312 Armco Steel Corp 23 017021205 1979-04-06 0637200 OK B 3312 Armco Steel Corp M 9/18/97 1:08 PM Establishment Search Results - armco http://www.osha.gov/cgi-bin/est/es. 31 &v io~V&str 1=&str2=&xtr 1 =&\tr3 - 24 017323320 11979-03-19 0728500 MO A 3312 1 Armco Steel Corp 25 016845760 1979-03-14 0626600 TX F 3312 1 Armco Steel Corp ! 26 016845752 1979-03-06 0626600 TX H 3312 11 Armco Steel Corp Housto 27 016813545 1979-02-13 0626600 TX B 3312 10 Armco Steel Corporation-Hou 28 016845737 1979-02-13 0626600 TX B 3312 1 Armco Steel Corporation-Hou 29 214683567 1978-12-18 0522000 OH B 3312 1 Armco Steel Corp D 30 017011123 1978-12-11 0637200 OK F 3312 Armco Inc 31 01277836! j1978-12-06 0317500 PA B 1623 5 Armco Steel Corp Metal D 32 016766834 1978-12-01 0626600 TX H 3312 Armco Steel Corp 33 013996731 1978-11-28 0420600 FL B 3317 Armco Steel Corp 34 017041500 1978-11-20 0637200 OK A 3312 4 ArmcoInc 35 012801924 1978-11-08 0317500 PA F 3317 Armco Inc 36 017360744 1978-10-12 0728500 MO A 3312 Armco Steel Corp 37 016469140 1978-10-03 0626300 TX F 3499 Armco Inc G 38 016421976 1978-09-28 0626300 TX H 3499 Armco Inc 39 012801783 1978-09-06 0317500 PA A 3317 2 Armco Inc n 40 016416034 1978-08-21 0626300 TX H 3499 7 Armco Inc i--: UJ 41 013886221 1978-08-14 0436200 AL B 3089 42 016812885 1978-07-06 0626600 TX F 3312 Corban Armco Steel Coip Armco Steel Corp 43 013519913 1978-06-14 0419400 MS H 1623 5 Armco Steel Corporation-Met 44 013804521 1978-05-17 0436200 AL B 3089 1 Corban Armco Steel Corp D 45 214573032 1978-05-12 0522000 OH H 3312 Armco Steel Corp Middletown D 46 017113101 1978-04-28 0637400 TX H 3448 3 Armco Steel Corp G 47 014082929 1978-04-25 0420600 FL B 3317 2 Armco Steel Corp Advanced Mate G 48 012844791 1978-04-18 0317500 PA B 3312 Armco Steel Corp 49 013800529 1978-03-30 0436200 AL H 3089 Corban Armco Steel Corp G 50 017318312 1978-03-28 0728500 MO B 3490 Armco Steel Corp G 51 010642445 1978-03-23 0112600 MA H 1791 3 Armco Steel Corp G 52 010642437 1978-03-23 0112600 MA H 1541 Armco Systems Contracting-Div G 53 016815334 1978-03-08 0626600 TX B 3312 3 Armco Steel Corp G 54 014101430 1978-02-09 0420600 FL F 2679 Cor Ban Industries Inc-Armco G 55 017297268 1978-01-24 0728500 MO B 3490 Armco Steel Corp C 56 012951240 1978-01-16 0317500 PA F 3442 Armcor Industries Inc G 57 014153381 1978-01-09 0436300 GA H 1623 Armco Steel Corp G 58 014118954 1978-01-09 0436300 GA H 1623 5 Armco Steel Corp G 59 214599763 1977-12-14 0522000 OH F 3312 Armco Steel Corp Middletown G 60 014268056 1977-11-09 0436400 GA H 1791 1 Armco Steel Co Inc n 61 012776852 1977-10-12 0317500 PA A 1791 1 Armco Steel Erection : of 7 9'18/97 1:08 PM Establishment Search Results - armeo lutp://www.osha.gov/cgi-bin/est/es... iI&vio=V&slrl-&str2-&xtr) --&xtr2= 62 017297045 1977-08-31 0728500 MO F 33J2 Armeo Steel Corp 63 016828956 1977-08-30 0626600 TX B 3312 1 Armeo Steel Corp 64 016314965 1977-08-25 0636800 LA H 5051 Armeo Steel Corp Union 65 014101232 1977-08-24 0420600 FL B 2679 4 Cor Ban Industries Inc-Annco 66 016842643 1977-08-17 0626600 TX B 3312 Armeo Steel Corp 67 017296989 1977-08-04 0728500 MO F 3490 Armeo Steel Corp Union Wire Ro 68 012950663 1977-07-11 0317500 PA H 3442 10 Armcor Industries Inc 69 012924734 1977-06-15 0317500 PA B 3312 Armeo Steel Corp 70 012910139 1977-06-09 0317500 PA F 3312 Armeo Steel Corp G 71 016785180 1977-06-03 0626600 TX B 3312 Armeo Steel Corp-Houston Works 72 017012105 1977-05-25 0637200 OK B 3312 1 Armeo Steel Corp Send S 73 014259113 1977-05-10 0436400 GA H 1791 Armeo Steel Corp 74 011981339 1977-05-04 0215800 NY F 1791 Armeo Steel Corp Metal 75 011981081 1977-04-18 02158^0 NY A 1791 2 Armeo Steel Corp Metal 76 017009689 1977-03-24 06372 ) OK F 3312 Armeo Steel Corp 77 012924510 1977-03-18 0317500 PA H 3312 7 Armeo Steel Corp 78 017009655 1977-03-14 0637200 OK F 3312 Armeo Steel Corp Sand S 79 016819690 1977-03-03 0626600 TX B 3312 Armeo Steel Corp 80 013796255 1977-03-01 0419000 KY F 3321 Armeo Steel Corp 81 016793721 1977-02-24 0626600 TX B 3312 Armeo Steel Corp D 82 017058959 1977-02-18 0637200 OK B 3312 2 Armeo Steel Corporation-San 83 217447739 1977-01-12 0728500 MO B 3312 Armeo Steel Corp G 84 014523740 1977-01-06 0522000 OH B 3312 2 Armeo Steel Corp Middletown G 85 014523732 1977-01-05 0522000 OH B 1541 1 Armeo Steel Corp Metal G 86 016793663 1977-01-03 0626600 TX B 3312 G 87 016793309 1976-12-03 0626600 TX B 3312 Armeo Steel Corp Armeo Steel Corp G 88 014135560 1976-11-10 0436300' GA F 1791 Armeo Steel Co G 89 016738569 1976-11-04 0626600 TX H 3444 3 Aramco Inc G 90 217447655 1976-11-03 0728500 MO F 3312 Armeo Steel Corp G 91 013843024 1976-10-27 0436200 AL A 3.089 Armeo Steel Corp G 92 014135537 1976-10-14 0436300 GA B 1791 1 Aimco Steel Co G 93 017293614 1976-10-08 0728900 NE A 1623 1 Armeo Steel Corp Metal G 94 215363821 1976-10-08 0523100 IN B 1623 12 Armeo Steel Corp Metal G 95 013867452 1976-09-13 0436200 AL H 1791 Armeo Steel Corp G 96 017072505 1976-09-13 0637200 OK B 3312 1 .Armeo Steel Corp Sand S G 97 217447622 1976-09-02 0728500 MO F 3312 Armeo Steel Corp G 98 013727136 1976-08-17 0419700 FL H 3444 Armeo Steel Corp Metal Product G 99 014011746 1976-08-16 0420600 FL H 1771 1 Armeo Steel Corp 3 ot 7 9/18/97 1:08 PM Establishment Search Results - armco http://www.osha.gov/cgi-bin/est7e. .-31&vio=V&strl=&str2=&xtrl=&\tr2- 100 015550171 1976-07-23 0523400 WI H 1791 5 Armco Steel Corp 101 014100796 1976-07-22 0420600 FL H 3317 Armco Steel Corp n 102 214616906 1976-07-21 0522000 OH B 3312 10 Armco Steel Corp Middletown 103 016561227 1976-07-13 0626300 TX F 3499 National Supply Co Div Armco S 104 217462134 1976-06-21 0728500 MO B 3312 26 Armco Steel Corp 105 217447580 1976-06-18 0728500 MO B 3312 56 Armco Steel Corp 106 016499261 1976-06-16 0626300 TX F 3499 National Supply Co Div Armco S 107 214642969 1976-06-10 0522000 OH B 3312 Armco Steel Corp Middletown 108 014570899 1976-06-09 0522000 OH H 1799 3 Armco Erection Central 109 214616823 1976-05-20 0522000 OH B 3312 3 Armco Steel Corp 110 016819096 1976-05-18 0626600 TX A 3312 4 Armco Steel Corp 111 015981848 1976-05-06 0524700 OH H 1791 3 Armco-Steel Corp 112 016561169 1976-05-05 0626300 TX H 3499 38 National Supply Co Div Armco S 113 017299439 1976-05-04 0728500 MO A 3490 Armco Steel Corp 114 012552071 1976-04-21 0316700 ?/ B 3021 1 Armco Steel Corporation-Met c 115 016737967 1976-04-20 0626600 TX B 3312 3 Armco Steel Corp 116 013139357 1976-04-08 0418100 GA H 1623 Armco Steel Corp Const 117 016868234 1976-04-06 0626600 TX B 3312 1 Armco Steel Corp 118 214582496 1976-03-31 0522000 OH B 3312 Armco Steel Corp Middletown 119 016890105 1976-03-24 0627700 OK H 3444 11 Armco Steel Corp Metal D 120 013610159 1976-03-19 0419700 FL H 1623 1 Armco Steel Corp Metal 121 214645863 1976-03-11 0522000 OH A 3312 4 Armco Steel Corp n 122 014285001 1976-02-23 0436400 GA H 1520 Armco Steel Corp Metal Product 123 016513814 1976-02-19 0626300 TX B 3499 National Supply Co Div Armco S "n 124 016749178 1976-02-10 0626600 TX B 3312 2 Armco Steel Corp 125 214764045 1976-01-26 0536600 IL H 1520 1 Armco Metal Products Co 126 012311056 1976-01-06 0316400- WV H 4520 7 Aeromech Lnc 127 01701S763 1975-12-09 0637200 OK B 3312 Armco Steel Corp D 128 017358839 1975-12-04 0728500 MO H 1520 Armco Steel Corp Metal Product D 129 015659337 1975-11-20 0524500 IL H 3021 5 Armco Steel Corp 130 016747917 1975-11-06 0626600 TX B 3312 Armco Steel Corp 131 017261165 1975-11-06 0728900 MO H 4491 Armco Steel 132 214781734 1975-10-30 0522300 OH H 1799 Armco Steel Metal Products Div 133 214616443 1975-10-28 0522000 OH B 3312 D 134 016794133 1975-10-23 0626600 TX F 1623 Armco Steel Corp Middletown Armco Steel Corp Metal Product D 135 016980922 1975-10-16 0627400 TX H 3533 3 Armco National Supply Co Odess D 136 012842613 1975-09-23 0317500 PA H 3312 7 .Armco Steel Corp Butler n 137 214768947 1975-09-11 0536600 IL H 3949 10 Armac Enterprises Inc 4 of 7 9/] 8y97 1:08 PM Establishment Search Results - armco http://www.osha.gov/cgi bia'est/es. _-3 l&vio=V&strl=&str2-&xtrl--&xtr2- 5 of 7 138 016799462 1975-09-09] 0626600 TX H 3312 1 ] Armco Steel Corp 139 012711875 1975-09-09 0317000 PA B 1623 Armco Steel Corp ! 140 010594059 1975-08-25 0112600 MA H 3316 10 Armco Steel Corp 141 214616377 1975-08-15 0522000 OH B 3312 3 Armco Steel Corp Middletown 142 017058298 1975-08-15 0637200 OK B 3312 Armco Steel Corp 143 016836272 1975-08-05 0626600 TX F 1623 Armco Steel Corp Metal 144 013205513 1975-07-22 0418300 * AL H 1623 3 Armco Steel Corp 145 016799249 1975-07-22 0626600 TX H 3312 Armco Steel Corp D 146 016793960 1975-07-18 0626600 TX H 1623 i Armco Steel Corp Metal 147 016836181 1975-07-17 0626600 TX H 1623 10 Armco Steel Corporation-Met 148 217747716 1975-07-01 0830100 MT F 5082 Armco Steel Corp Nation 149 016806861 1975-06-30 0626600 TX B 3312 1 Armco Steel Corporation-Hou 150 016806689 1975-05-28 0626600 TX B 3312 1 Armco Steel Corporation-Hou D 151 017259953 1975-05-21 0728900 MO H 4491 Armco Steel Corp 152 016771123 1975-05-08 0626600 TX A 3312 Armco Steel Corp D 153 215033333 1975-05-08 0522500 OH H 1794 4 Armco Steel Corp Metal Product D 154 017029620 1975-05-06 0637200 OK F 3312 Armco Steel Corp 155 016835787 1975-04-03 0626600 TX H 1791 .Armco Steel'Corp Metal Product 156 012430989 1975-03-27 0335900 VA H 1623 2 Armco Steel Corp 157 016513095 1975-03-19 0626300 TX H 2299 6 Airmec Corp 158 017213042 1975-03-13 0737500 NE H 1520 1 Armco Steel Corp 159 016357279 1975-03-13 0636800 LA H 3494 8 Armco Steel Corp Nation 160 016791493 1975-03-10 0626600 TX H 3317 Armco Steel Corp Advanced G 161 012898300 1975-03-07 0317500 PA H 3312 16 Armco Steel Corp 162 013572979 1975-03-05 0419400 MS H 1794 4 Armco Steel Inc 163 218321131 1975-02-26 1032500 ID H 3444 Armco Steel Corp Metal Product c 164 017212929 1975-02-20 0737500- NE H 1520 Armco Steel Corp 165 214616005 1975-01-30 0522000 OH B 3312 6 Armco Steel Corp Middletown g 166 014569487 1975-01-21 0522000 OH H 1520 4 Armco Systems Contracting G 167 217776103 1975-01-16 0830100 MT H 5082 9 Armco Steel Corp Nation D 168 017060203 1975-01-09 0637200 OK A 3312 Armco Steel Corp 169 012377032 1975-01-07 0335700 DE H 1741 1 Armco Construction Co G 170 016426595 1974-12-27 0626300 TX F 3533 National Supply Co Div Armco S G 171 214615411 1974-11-18 0522000 OH B 3312 27 Armco Steel Corp Middletown G 172 215062191 1974-11-13 0522500 OH H 3449 1 Armco Steel Corp Metal Product G 173 012934006 1974-11-06 0317500 PA B 3324 Armco Steel Corp Butler G 174 014021786 1974-11-05 0420600 FL B 3317 6 Armco Steel Corp G 175 016805566 1974-10-02 0626600 TX B 3312 6 Armco Steel Corp l3\ 9/18/97 1:08 PM Establishment Search Results - armco http://www.osha.gov/cgi-bin/est/es. -31&vio=V&strl=&str2=i:xtrl=&xir2- 6 of 7 D 176 013032123 1974-09-26 0418100 GA H 3317 5 Armco Steel Corp Metal j 177 016770174 1974-09-20 0626600 TX H 1623 Armco Metal Products Div j 178 013839048 1974-09-20 0436200 AL H 3021 4 Armco Steel Corp i D 179 214852063 1974-09-05 0522300 OH H 1799 Armco Steel Co Metal D 180 017217597 1974-08-30 0737500 NE F 1791 1 Armco Steel Corp j 181 012859609 1974-08-27 0317500 PA H 3498 4 Armco Steel Metal Products Div D 182 016805418 1974-08-22 0626600 TX B 3312 Armco Steel Corp 183 013137443 1974-08-15 0418100 GA H 1623 1 Armco Steel Corp 184 016978405 1974-08-01 0627400 TX H 5084 2 Armco Steel Corp Machin ] 185 017217464 1974-07-31 0737500 NE H 1791 2 Armco Steel Corp 186 012905089 1974-06-25 0317500 PA B 3312 Armco Steel Corp 187 012948477 1974-06-25 0317500 PA B 3317 4 Armco Steel Corp D 188 217459908 1974-06-12 0728500 MO B 3490 1 Armco Steel Corp Kansas D 189 011740164 1974-06-10 0215000 NY H 2542 6 . Armico Mfg Corp D 190 215065475 1974-06-07 0522500 OH F 3317 ; Armco Steel Corp D 191 215051152 1974-05-17 0522500 OH H 3317 - Armco Steel Corp D 192 012357133 1974-05-08 0316400 WV F 1623 Armco Steel Corp Metal 193 016458663 1974-05-06 0626300 TX F 1791 Armco Steel Corp 194 013668454 1974-05-02 0419700 FL B 3312 8 Armco Steel Corp D 195 016458085 1974-04-30 0626300 TX H 1791 3 Armco Steel Corp C 196 012357042 1974-04-19 0316400 WV H 1623 5 Armco Steel Corp Metal 197 017044058 1974-04-04 0637200 OK B 3312 Armco Steel Corp D 198 215064601 1974-03-26 0522500 OH H 3317 3 Armco Steel Corp 199 017257221 1974-03-20 0728900 NE H 3317 3 Armco Steel Corp 200 214609356 1974-03-18 0522000 OH H 3312 4 Armco Steel Corp Middletown C 201 014527253 1974-03-18 0522000 OH H 3312 91 Armco Steel Corp Middletown D 202 016769499 1974-03-08 0626600 TX F 1623 Armco Metal Products Div D 203 016769432 1974-02-26 0626600 TX H 1623 204 012943874 1974-01-31 0317500 PA B 3312 Armco Metal Products Div Armco Steel Corp Butler j ; 205 016789885 1974-01-24 0626600 TX B 3312 Armco Steel Corp 206 013794102 1974-01-24 0419000 KY F 3312 1 Armco Steel Corp D 207 016455180 1974-01-24 0626300 TX F 3449 Armco Steel Corp Southwest Ste D 208 016455024 1974-01-09 0626300 TX H 3449 3 Armco Steel Corp Southwest Ste C 209 217379189 1973-12-14 0728500 KS H 3449 5 Armco Steel Corp c 210 016325433 1973-11-27 0636800 LA H 3443 10 Armco Steel Corp Metal 211 012896718 1973-11-15 0317500 PA H 3021 Armco Steel Corp Metal 212 015438682 1973-11-12 0523400 WI H 3444 1 Armco Steel Corp Metal G 213 016454571 1973-10-26 0626300 TX F 1623 Armco Steel Corp Steel in 9.'IS'97 1:08 PM Lstablishment Search Results - armco h!tp://www.osha.gov/cgi-bm/est/es.. 3!&vio=V&strl=&str2=&xtrl=&xtr2- |214 015503717 [1973-10-25 0523400 W1 H 3317 6 Armco Steel Corp Metal Product |215 017264136 1973-10-25 0728900 NE F 4490 Armco Steel Corp 216 217764844 1973-10-25 0830100 MT H 5050 7 Armco Steel Corp Metal g 217 015607757 1973-10-25 0523700 MN H 3317 2 Armco Steel Corp 218 013101407 1973-10-23 0418100 GA F 1623 Armco Steel Corp Metal 219 013101399 1973-10-19 0418100 GA H 1623 3 Armco Steel Corp Metal 220 016454233 1973-10-10 0626300 TX H 1623 4 Armco Steel Corp Steel 221 013793484 1973-09-05 0419000 KY F 3317 1 Armco Steel Corp Metal Product c 222 016802639 1973-08-28 0626600 TX B 3312 2 Armco Steel Corp G 223 017037813 1973-08-09 0637200 AR H 1623 3 Armco Steel Corp 224 215364506 1973-08-07 0523100 IN F 3490 Bathey Mfg Armco Plant 225 017263161 1973-08-02 0728900 NE H 4490 Armco Steel Corp 226 218267383 1973-07-17 0931800 CA H 3441 G 227 017247016 1973-07-13 0728900 NE H 1623 Armco Steel Corp Armco Steel Inc G 228 013792288 1973-07-10 0419000. KY H 3317 2 Armco Steel Corp Metal Product G 229 215344342 1973-06-15 0523100 IN B 3490 11 Bathey Mfg Armco Plant G 230 016745747 1973-06-05 0626600 TX B 3312 1 Armco Steel Corp 231 214585630 1973-05-17 0522000. OH B 3316 3 Armco Steel Cotp 232 016755589 1973-04-11 0626600 TX B 3312 4 .Armco Steel Corp 233 214646812 1972-12-21 0522000 OH B 3312 Armco Steel Corp G 234 217458710 1972-12-14 0728500 MO F 3315 1 Armco Steel Corp O 235 214646770 1972-12-05 0522000 OH A 3312 Armco Steel Corp O 236 017069071 1972-12-05 0637200 OK B 3312 8 Armco Steel Corp G 237 217421825 1972-11-02 0728500 MO A 3315 G 238 217919497 1972-09-14 0830700 UT H 3444 Armco Steel Corp Armco Steel Corp C 239 214768269 1972-08-04 0536600 IL A 2430 13 Armac Enterprises Inc 240 214768251 1972-08-03 0536600- IL H 2430 39 Armac Enterprises Inc G 241 013779327 1972-07-18 0419000 KY H 3312 1 Armco Steel Corp G 242 215059296 1972-07-13 0522500 jOH H 3312 12 Armco Steel Corp ( Comments &. Info j OSHA Home Pace 1 OSHA-OC1S | US POL Web Site j Disclaimer ] gv 7 of 7 9/18/97 1:08 PM Establishment Search Inspection Detail hu,./www.osha.gov/cgi-bm/estyest 1 \p'm2 1 7462 13- The United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration Establishment Search Inspection Detail Definitions Inspection 217462134 - Armco Steel Corp Inspection Information Nr: 217462134 ReportID:072 8500 Open: 1976-06-21 Armco Steel Corp 7000 Roberts Road Kansas City, MO 64123 SIC: 3312/Blast Furnaces Steel Mills Nr Employees: 4200 Nr Controlled: 4200 Union Status: Union LWDI Rate: Inspection Type: Complaint Scope: Complete Ownership: Safety/Health: Health Employees Covered: 42r Advance Notice: Hours Spent: Close Conference: 1976-07-13 Close Case: 19S2-09-17 r Violation Summary Serious)WillfuIlRepeat Other jUnc assjTota) Nr Violations 1 .! 26 ! |26 Penalty Amount' | j 400.00! 1400.00 FTA Amount.) 1 i L_ J _ [ 1 of 2 y/iS/9'7 2:34 PM Establishment Search Inspection Detail htil,.<AV\vw.osha.gov/cgi-bin/est/estlxp?i=21 74621 34 Violation Items ID Type Standard Issuance Abate CurrS InitS FtaS Contest Evt 1 01001 Other 19100022 1976-07-21 1978-07-25 P 2 01003 Other 19100094 D09VIII 1976-07-21 1976-08-23 3 01004 Other 19100094 D10 1976-07-21 1976-08-23 30.00 30.00 4 01005 Other 19100095 1976-07-21 1982-07-14 1979-08-15 P 5 01006 Other 19100096D01 1976-07-21 1976-07-24 30.00 30.00 1979-08-15 6 01008 Other 19100096 E02 1976-07-21 1976-08-23 1979-08-15 O oo sO Other 19100096 E03 II 1976-07-21 1976-09-06 35.00 35.00 1979-08-15 8 01010 Other 19100134 B 1976-07-21 1976-09-04 1979-08-15 P 9 01011 Other 19100134 E01 1976-07-21 1976-08-23 1979-08-15 10 01012 Other 19100134 E05 1976-07-21 1976-08-23 1979-08-15 11 01013 Other 19100134 E05 I 1976-07-2! 1976-08-05 1979-08-15 12 01014 Other 19100134 E03 1976-07-21 1976-09-G4 -- - 1979-08-15 P 13 01015 Other 19100141 boi n 1976-07-21 1976-09-22 30.00 30.00 1979-08-15 P 14 01016 ther 19100141 B02 II 1976-07-2! 1976-08-23 1979-08-15 15 01017 alter 19100i51C 1976-07-2! 1976- 0S-23 35.00 35.00 1979-08-15 16 0101s Other 1910015!C 1976-07-21 1976-08-05 1979-08-15 17 01019 Other 19100252 F02 II 1976-07-21 1976-09-06 30.00 30.00 1979-08-15 18 01020 Other 19101001 F01 1975-07-21 1976-07-24 30.00 30.00 1979-08-15 - 19 01021A Other 19101001 F02 I 1976-07-21 T976-07-24 35.00 35.00 1979-08-15 20 0102IB Other 19101001 F02 II 1976-07-21 1976-08-23 1979-08-15 21 01022 Other 19101001 G02 1976-07-21 1976-08-05 1979-08-15 22 01023 Other 19101 CO! H02 1976-07-21 1976-08-05 1979-08-15 23 01024 Other 1910100! F01 1976-07-21 1976-09-22 35.00 35.00 1979-08-15 P 24 0200! Other 19100141 G02 1976-08-02 1976-03-05 30.00 30.00 1979-08-15 25 02002 Other 19101000 A01 1976-08-02 1976-08-05 30.00 30.00 1979-08-15 26 02003 Other 191010C0 B01 27 02004 Other 19100022 A01 1976-08-02 1977-02-02 50.00 50.00 1976-08-16 1976-09-13 1979-08-15 1979-08-15 [ Comments & Info | OSHA Home Page | QSHA-OCIS | US DPI, Web Site | Disclaimer ] 2 of 2 9/18/97 2:34 PM Establishment Search Inspection Detail http://www.osha.gov/cgi-bin/est/estlxp7i-214639197 The United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration Establishment Search Inspection Detail Definitions Inspection 214639197 - Armco Steel Corp Inspection Information Nr: 214639197 Report ID: 0522000 Open: 1979-06-12 Armco Steel Corp Middletown Works Middletown, OH 45042 SIC: 3312/Blast Furnaces Steel Mills Nr Employees: 6900 Nr Controlled: 6900 "" Union Status: Union LWDI Rate: pectionType: Complaint Scope: Partial Ownership: Safety/Health: Health - Employees Covered: 11 Advance Notice: Hours Spent: Close Conference: 1979-06-13 Close Case: 1981-03-16 Related Activity: Type ID Date Safety Health Complaint 321115453 1979-06-07 Violation Summary |Serious Willful Repeat Other UnclassjTotal Nr Violations) 1 2P Penalty Amount|640.00 |640.00 FTA Amount] J Violation Items ID Type Standard Issuance Abate CurrS InitS FtaS Contest Evt 1 01001 Serious 19101001 F01 1979-07-23 1979-07-26 640.00 640.00 2 02001 Other 19100134 B11 1979-06-29 1979-07-02 3 02002 Other 19101001 G01 I 1979-07-23 1979-07-26 [ Comments & Info | OSIIA Home Pace | OSHA-OC1S | US POL Web Site | Disclaimer ] 1 of 1 9/18/97 2:23 PM