Document 2qRJxmmnRQDRJpZvoy76RX4BN

FILE NAME: PPG (PPG) DATE: 1976 Oct 20 DOC#: PPG020 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Deposition of Morton Corn ERRATA SHEET to the Deposition of __________ MORTON CORN_______________ * The deponent having a right to make any changes deemed necessary hereby makes the following changes into the deposition and states the reasons for each change accordingly. PAGE NO. 6 12 32 49 52 57 62 62 63 70 73 112 124 128 133 LINE NO. CHANGE (State Reason for Change after each) 7 Department of Chemical Engineering. 10 Change ''facies" to "label" . 14 Omit 3rd word "with". 22-23 "environmental techniques to measure and control asbestos dust;" 3 Question referred to asbestos not asbestosis. 15 "showed that they... (not there) 17 Should read "I state in the final paragraph of the report Conclusions and Recommendations section that.. 18 Should read "I did not find what you state in your question..... 15-17 See deposition. 11 .... of asbestos dust. 18 Change "witness" to "question". 5 Transfer for transportation. Last line. What is the question? 11 See deposition. 16 1956 through August of 1958 2 E R R A T A S H E E T (CONTINUED) PAGE NO. 134 134 135 137 142 143 142 144 148 156 158 159 164 164 178 190 193 LINE NO. CHANGE (State Reason for Chanee after each) 12 Involved to involvement. 22 Lynch for Lane. 2nd & 3rd lines from bottom. Delete as shown. 7 Area not are. 8 Of should be or. Next to Dr. Cralley. Last line. Ditto for corrections of name. 11 1969 not 1959. 7 Add expert, as shown. 4 "Asbestosis aspects". 17 "Asbestosis" should be "asbestos". Next to Proliferation. Last line. 11 "limit" for "import". 17 "giving" for "given". 6 "substance" to "subject". Last 3 lines. See deposition. 18 Ira for Ayer. October 20* 1976 DATE "7 7 Ghm. MORTON CORN IN THE UH.ITHT STATES DISTRICT CDURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TERRS TYLER DIVISION HERMAN YANDLS, ST A1 ; V PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., ST AL, Civil Action TY-74-3-CA Was hington, D - C . Tuesday, September 21, 1975. Deposition of MORTON CORN, 'taken on behalf of 'the plain tiffs in the above-entitled action, at 'the offices of the Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N. W., Washington, D . C ., pursuant to notice, beginning at approxi mately 10:2C o 'clock a.m., before SARAH POOLS, A Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia. For the Plaintiffs: SCOTT BALDWIN, ESQ. P. C. Be:: 124 9 Marshall, Texas 75670 FREDERICK M. BARON, ESQ. 8333 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1350 Dallas, Texas 75225 TIMOTHY E. KELLEY, ESQ. 660 Dallas Federal Savings Tower Dallas, Texas 75227 u T o r the OCAv ; C. E D W M ) FOWLER, JR. , ESQ. Bailey , WLliiair.s , v?sshfall, Lae & 2001 Bryan Tower- Suita 3900 Dallas, Texas 75201 cwler For the Defendants For PPG Industries, Inc.: DAVID J. AR-ISTRONG, ESQ * Dickie, McCainsy 5 Chi 1cote 3180 U.S. Steel 3uildrng Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 JOHN 0 ;CONNOR, ESQ. For Pittsburgh Coming Corporation: WALTER T. McGOUGH, ESQ. Read, Smith, Shaw & MeClay Union Trust Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 For Coming Glass Wcrks: ROYAL H. BRUT, JR., Stras burger, Price, 1200 One Main Placa Dallas, TEXAS &@%) ESQ. Kalton, Mar-tin & Unis For North American Asbestos Corporation: RICHARD BSRHAYS, S3Q. Touchstone, Barnays & Johnston 3033 Fir3t International Building Dallas, Texas 75270 For the Uhitad States: JAMES P. KLAPPS, ESQ. Assistant Chief, Torts Section Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20530 BILL TRAIL, ESQ. U.S. Department of Justice Washing-ten, D. C. 20530 klo prssau'h: CORNELIUS DCKOGriUE, ESQ. G I L B E R T T,, R 2E U T f ESQ. Uepartoieat: of Labor Washington, D . C . 20520 WITNESS : MORTON CORN CONTENTS EXAMINATION EY PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS 5 182 186 187 191 EXHIBITS : No 1 1 -A 2, 3 & it 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 through 17 Page 10 10 21 114 114 120 150 152 153 169 5 KovGTnfoer 3 ; 1575 -- pardon me, November 11 r *75, rvr-rn Into o f f i c e ^ e c ^ ^ ---- -- * Q Shot's with the Labor Department? A Yes. it is. Q And what did von do before that? A Prior to that 1 was professor in toe Gra icuiata School of Public Health at the Univarsity of Pittsburgh, an ad junct professor at the Department of 5Jngiatf?ering of tha Unive:rsitv of Pittsburgh. Q Am o when did you leave that employment? A I have not left that employment* I am on leave of absence from the University of Pittsburgh. Q than did you go with the University of Pittsburg!.? A 1 took up an appointment there in September of IS62 , I have bean employed there on a continuous basis since, with various occasions for leave of absence frcxn the campus. 0 And where is -that located? A That is located in Oakland, in Pittsburgh. Q How do you say Oakland# in Pittsburgh? A Oakland is a community of the City of Pittsburgh. Q And what did you do before 1962? A During the years 1261 and rS2. from August of I? ?I until taking up the appointment st the Univarsity of rittsburghp I was i Nauictal Science Foundation po^t-doctoral fallow to leaden, toylaiic- and a senior: lecturer at to2 Lena on School cf fy glene, Uni v e r i t y of London. Prem 1958 through 1961, I weis a graduata student and a research associate in the Department of Industrial Hygiene and Applied Physiology of the Harvard School of Public Healthr at Harvard University, in Boston* From 1956 through 1953, I was a research engineer fer the United States Public Health Servicer at the Pobsrt A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Cantar, in Cincinnati, Ohio. From 1955 through 1956, I was a graduate student at tha Harvard School of Public Health, in Boston. And frora 1951 t r o u g h 1355, I was an cr.gir.uaring student at the Cooper Union School of lingiiie&ring in New York. That is a summary, very briefly, cf my professional in* volvement. I should mention that during the period 1962 through 1975, in addition to my university enployrnert, I spent approxi mately one day a week as an independent consultant to industry, labor, government, in the field of -industrial hygiene and environmsntcl pollution. Would you give us the dagrees that you have received, tee dates teat you received teem, and. the institutions from which you received them? A X received a Bachelor of Chemical Gagins orine? fresa tlie Cooper Uni.cn in 1955; a Master of Scianca in Philcscphv Degree in Industrial Hygiene end Smi'^ary Enginf.s.r ing frcm the Division of Applied Physics and Dugluesring of Harvard University, in 1961. Q Name scuts of the companies that you did consulting work for during the 1962-75 period that you have mentioned. A 1 have consulted for Bird Industries.. Nei-rccn, Massachusetts; Boston Radio Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts; Union Industrial Equipmart Company, Fail RiT7e r , Massachusetts; Crucible Staal Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Brooks Instrument Company, Hatboro, Pennsylvania; Ilarbison -Walker Ref rectories Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Syntex Research Corporation, Palo Alto, California; Eectcn-Dickinson Corporation, East Rutherford, New Jersey; Ferre Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; U.S. Steel Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Ohio River Barge Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Consolidated Ccal Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; DuPont Company, Wilmington; Monterey Coal Company, Carlinviile, Illinois; PPG, Pittsburgh; Pittsburgh Coming, Pittsburgh; Hanes Corporation, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Resources Research, Reston, Virginia; Baltimore Biological Lab, Cockeysville, Maryland; International Nickel Company, Huntington Alloy Products Division; Pittsburgh Metals Purifying Company, Saxonburg, Pennsylvania -- do you want me 0 x presume ycu `a reading A That is correct. Q And you own that list as a United States government-- A That would be listed under various government agencies I worked fcr. These were private firms. Q Have you consulted to the United States Department of Labor? A Mo. Q What govarsaiisntagencies have you consulted with? A Well -- Q Let me ask youthis, mayfcs we can save scna time: Are you reading from a resume? A This is nty resume, professional qualifications. Q All right. Does that include, then, a pretty compre hensive list of the people and government agencies you have consulted with? A Not the people but the government agencies and the firms. Q All right. A Yss, it does. Q Does it includa any writings? A I have a supplement to this of all publications that I have *iat is not here, but which can be made available. G Kavba it would savi sema tinca if you would let us that as an inhibit and let lor}: ah it. A Certainly - MR. BALDWIN: Ue will ask that it be marked as Exhibit 1 to the exposition of Dr* Ccrn. [Che dc cumant referred tr was. BY MR. BALDWIN: marked Exhibit 1 for identification *3 Q Doctor? Doctor, would it ba proper for me to call you A Certainly, whatever you would like to call ms is all riant. Q I a going to ask the reporter to leave a place for Exhibit 1-A and let that be the supplement that you have held its about, which includes an up-to-date bibliography of ycur writings and books; would you do that? A Yes. [The document referred to is to be marked Exhibit 1-A for icantification.] SY MR. BALDWIN: Q You^sald jyar h^d dona consulting f oy^gittshurgh Coming. Would you outline that? If von nir.eu ycur resume, let me know. I recall tbvi manner in whicn tliw consulting for Pittsburgh earning first esena about. Durinc the period 19S4 -1J. to the Industrial Hygiar.s Fomditioi:. `Thai r full-- time r "" engineer had left: and I agreed to try , within the framav/ork of the time available with my university responsibilities, to handle requests to them. Or* cf these requests frcxn Pittsburgh-Corning to the Indushrial I-Sealth Foundation cr Industrial Hygiene Foundation r brought me in contact with Fittsburgh-Ccrning. I believe that was .1964 Q And what specific project did that r3 lata to? A It related to the Pert Allegheny facilities. Q All right. Did `chat relate to the asbestos problem? A It was a survey, a very briaf lock through the en tire facility, one portion of which was a Unibashes operation. Q From the standpoint of industrial hygiene? A Yas. Q Did you make reccmirandations? A I wrote a report, yes. Q find did that relate to asbestos dust in any way? A It had certainly sections that related to the Unibastcs operation, yes. Q Did you find that they needed ifnprevamont or did you make recommendations for improvements? A I would have to-review 'those specific sections of that report to answer that question. Q plant:? Did -thac report; in anv way ralats ta the rylar \ ---- ----------- -I______ __________ _________ _______ A NO. G HcVf did you make 3cnown to any agency of the United States government or consult with any agencT7 of the United States government relating to that investigation and report that you have just described? A No, I did not, "he client in this esse was Pittsburgh-Corning, My report was submitted to Pittsburgh- C o m i n g over the facies or within the facies cf the Industrial Hygiene Foundation. As contrasted to later consulting involvement of mine, fchis was not a report from me to the client,- it was a report from the Industrial Hygiene Fondation to the client, performed by me as a part-time employes, if you will, of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation. Q Tell us what the Industrial Hygiene Foundation is. A The Industrial Hygiene Foundation, I believe it is now called the Industrial Health Foundation, is a nonprofit organization of approximately at the time I did work fer it 400 private firm members providing a variety of services to members from holding meetings on topics relevant to industrial health to providing engineering services and medical services, to clients as they request, hham. Q Titers i s i t s horns o f f i c e ? The Induskr iaI Esa3_ hh Fo-saLc. * 1 _ . > -*,,*H*i : *. '.3 *~*-*i^ Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Q And how long has it been there? A It was formed in 1937. I believe it has tsar lo cated cn a continuous basis in Pittsburgh. Q New, I presume both Pittsburgh -Coming and Pittsburgh Glass, I will call them, participate in that founda tion? MR. ARMSTRONG: Objection, leading. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Go ahead. MR. BRIN: There wasn't any question, there was just a statement. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q I presume both of those companies participated ir, that foundation; am I not correct? MR* ARMSTRONG: Objection, leading. THE WITNESS: I don't know. BY MR. EALDWIN: Q Are you caying you don't know? A I can answer questions related to my involvement with the foundation. I do not know their membership rolls. If you choose to rephrase that in a way I could answer, I would b ?. happy to. ft Do yon knew wh^thar >?PG her: ver :.^rticipatsd in the 4 Indus-rial Kygisr.3 Foundutio in any way? A I think they have r and I would have to check ny records to be sura. The only way I would know if they have is if I performed for them while I was with tham. You have my resume which lists the jobs I performed for IEF. If they are on that list, then they ware a member. Ycu can determine that quite quickly. If they axe not on that list, I do net know if they or were net. Q It shows that Pittsburgh Plata Glass is on that list. A Then `they were a mernber and I did parf rsrra a service for them. Q And it shows Pitts burgh-Corning. MR. TRAIL: Scott, I vrould ask that you identify what portion of the resume you are reading from. MR. BALDWIN: The one ha just described. MR. TRAIL: Right* but what page and what heading is it listed under? MR. BALDWIN: It is on page 7, it is under the heading "Private Non-Profit Organisations." MR. ARMSTRONG; I suggest tha list ba handed to the witness and let the witness interpret tha li3t and not counsel. BY MR. BALDWIN: ji .ilo ^ i ,,'*_*-' * >v3 mess * wr.-uicl rvzprus you "ilia1t th is is what i t r a y s - and I `third; i t w i l l save o f time w ithout me coming over to hand th is to you aver; 2 want to ask a question. A I like fir. Armstrong *s suggestion, I an this bast, or.-3 prspared -to read that. Q It is written in English, isn:t it? 55R. TRAIL: But net East Texas. THE T'TITTTESS: Tar T I psrfomGf a service for Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company through Industrial Hygiene Foundation in 1965P so they must have been a member in 1965 Blr I-3K. 3ALDWIN: According to the list you prsparad tliera? A That5s richt. Q The same would fcs true of Pitts burgh-Coming? A 1966 -- in 1966 I performed a service for Pittsburgh- Comi n g through the Industrial Health Foundation. Q All right. New, lat's go on. You said that you did private consulting work for Pittsburgh Glass. VJhat was the nature of that work? Was that the one you just describedf cr is that in another capacity? A I will have to refer to the list again to see if I performed a service for Pittsburgh Plats Glass independent of IS G Didn you 3usu :xA US that? and Coating Division of Pittsburgh Plate Glass, and in 1969 for the Plate Glass Division cf Pittsburgh Plata C-la3 s . Q Did either of tease relate to the Tylsr plant? A No. Q Now, you did conduct a survey -of what is cottar.cnly referred to around^srs as tho pini ,sf 'UnryrT- Corning? A Yes. Q And when vzas that? A That was in 1969 Q And at whose rscruesb? A At the request of the Pittsburgh-Coming Corporati on, Q was that a written request? A X believe it was a verbal request followed up by a latter from ma confirming that request. Q survey? Ana what hat did you wear when V ___ ._________,, _________________________________________________ _ _ _ _______________ you performed that A In 1968, my affiliation with the Industrial Hygiene Foundation ended, tha workload had become too heavy. I in- diluted to them that they should hire a full-time engineer.I I could no longer assist them, and al 1 consulting work sub- " > sacmeat to 1968 had r.o r<:~:1 trvi' ,i iniln 'iP . Duria? iiss psyica J.P64 ix r53 f sams ccvrsulklsig wask ha.d lu w ^ /v G o S t o l t a -e_ c / 1 y V '^ ' r ^ (JVi (L-- ^> answer lay cues^ior. : tsnd it, if ycu did, I wantad to aating whan you raafia the survey of hs 3 i ^ 13 to the Pittsburgh-Coming Carpar- ' " tfc Q In your individual capacity? A That is correct, Q And not in any capacity with 'the Industrial Hygiene Foundation? A I indicated in 1963 that capacity ondad. This sur vey was perfornr^ in ----- - Q for it? So ycu were hired to do a job. in affect, and paid A That is correct* Q And you ccr.finr.ad -this b y letter, ycu told us? A 'That is right. Q fed could wa have a copy* of:your lettor? A Th copy of the letter was1 allottar to a Mr.., Blair of the Dabartnant of Labor, which confirmed that and which can be made available. Q tfe will ask that the let-hat ba marked P-2 . ViKere is that latter? A I have a copy of that letter in tty files. 13 0 fell, where nra your files? A Here in Washington. G Well, may I see it? A I would have to go down to my office to get it* MR* BALDWIN; Well, we are gcing to call for these things and v?e may just as well -- we can do it either way, we can wait until wa get a list accumulated or we could send him to get them new, but we vrant ths letter and there are going to be other documents we want cut of his files. MR. KLAPPS: Mr. Baldwin, I do not understand why you didn't request documents before this deposition. Why can't the witness simply attach a copy? MR. 3ALDWIN: 1 didn't knew of the existence of this letter, for example. That's one good reason. So, you know, we can do this either way, how do you all want to do it? I would like to do it at your request so we can get out of here as early as possible. MR. KLAPPS: Why don't wa accumulate a list, I thnlc that would be less disruptive. MR. BALDWIN: Okay, fe will to a point, and we are going to get down hfsre to where ve are going to need some things before ws can go any further. BY MR. BALDWIN: P-2 -v/ili be ths. lettar that vou wrote to. Blair of viho? *1 A Dap of L^bor. Q Why did you writs Mr. Blair of the Department of ths Department of .Labor about; job you were ccirg for Pittsburgh-Coming? A Pittsburgh-Coming had bsax -- I was mad a aware at tha time of the verbal request: for my services that they w.ra under citation. Q And what was tha purpose of ycur employment, to help get them out from under citation? A I do not accept charges phrased in that manner. The purpose was that I do an independent survey of `these facili ties and inform them as to the condition of ths facilities frcra the point of view of the hygienic exposure of employees and the adequacy cf procedures to protect employees. Q All right. New -- A Hiat was ths purpose. Q Excuse me* had you finished? A That was the purpose. Q Mow, when you did this work in the Port Alleghany plant, was there any discussion of the Tyler plant? A No. Q Prior to the time 'that you wera contacted about this survey that yen have just described at the Tyler plant/ had there vsr basn any discussion with you by anyone of <:he Tyler plant cf Pittsburgh kerning? IO Q And V7ill you understand me in the rest cf my ques tions today when I refer -to the Tyler plant -chat I can save words by just saying the Tyler plant, but I mean the Pittsburgh-Coming plant at Tylar, Texas; will you understand that? A Pine, Yes. Q All right* So thenr if I understand it, you fcaro got this request to do the survey, ycu wrote a Mr. Blair in the Department of Labor a letter which you are going tc ob tain. And you have a file in connection with this particular consulting job, is that right? A Yes . Q And it is available here in Washington? A Yes. Q Now, you did then make a visit to the Tyler plant in May of 1967? A *69, I believe. Q Excuse me, '69. A r69 Q And ycu wrote a report? A That is correct. Q Now, would you nind cbnainiag for us a copy of that rscorfc? TRAIL: Scctt ms >LiW one rhing? a numb ar of things that you axe as! produced at the deposition, of Miguel Padilla. MU. BALDWIN: I know. And I would like at this time to request that he obtain a copy of that report or that semebody furnish me with a complete copy of that report. MR. KLAPPS: Don't you have a. copy? MR. BALDWIN: No, my copy stops at page IP. Mr. Cara, unless one of your lawyers has a copy that he is willing to give me, I v/ould ask that yon recess the deposition until you go get a copy of the report. X want the report now. MR. KELLEY: Why don't we save time and let him go gst his files, maybe it will take tan or fifteen minutes at most, and he is asIcing questions in the dark here. MR. BALDWIN: Why don't you go get your file and bring it up hare. MR. KLAPPS: All right, we will recess for fifteen minutes then. [Recess] [Documents were marked as Exhibits p-2, ?-3, and P-4 for identification.] MR. ICLAPPS: Scott, before you begin, Z would.like tc make a statement on the* record so wa proceed in an orderly manner I KouXd like khr record tc r^'X2*:'c thryb P-2 to this deposition was previously marked and identified as Exhibit 1, page 22, cf the exhibit to the deposition of Mi goel Padilla, taken on April 6 r 1976, and that is the letter from O r . Morton Corn to Mr. Blair; and Exhibit P-4, ths report by Dr. Com, v;as likewise marked as Exhibit 1 to Mr. Padilla's deposition and it comprehended pages 23 through 67 of Exhibit 1 to Mr. Padilla's deposition? X belisve that Exhibit P-3 to -bills deposition, a latter dated April 11, 1969, was likewise \ an exhibit to Mr. Padilla's deposition on pages 49)and 50 of the exhibits. Proceed. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Doctor, right now for identificaticn I will hand you what has been marked P-2 with this date and ask you if yon will look at it and identify it. A Yes, that is zny -- that is the letter X referred to indicating the written expression of the intent to perform the survey at ths Tyler facility. Q And P-3 is what? A j?i*iS was a letter that writing the May 1 1 attar to H: Blair from .*r Stout of the : P-4 is Vue is the ri3.norh that X Ev.bmitted follow! MV Pit:tsbur9h-Corning Corporatior... Q All right. Now, my copy of that report only has 19 pages, so I will ask you if you would be good enough tc examine that and tell me if that represents a complete report, complete copy of your report. A Yes, this represents the 21 pages of the report and the appendices, yes. Q Now, before you made this visit to the Tyler plant in 1969, had you ever made any visit to that plant prior to that time in any capacity? A None whatscaver. Q Had you ever discussed that plant with any person, firm or entity prior to that tins? A No. Q Had you ever read any reports or memoranda or letters writings or of any character relating to that report prior to your letter of May 1, 1969? A No. Q Now, in April of 1969, had you discussed the survey with Pittsburgh-Coming? A In April, I don't believe so. Q When is the first tin that ycu racali -- will you excuse me for standing hers right in year face, because I am . 24 A Certainly - no. Q Whan was the first: time that you discussed this Tylor plant with any official for Pitts burgh-Corning cr Pittsburgh Glass? A To the best of my memory, it was shortly before the visit. I cannot place the day. Shortly before May and shortly before I wrote to Mr. Blair, I don't recall the exact eating. Q Shortly before your letter of May 1? A That is right. I knew a Tyler plant a::i3ted and I * knew it was similar to the P o r t 'Alleghany, but that was my total knowledge of Tyler. I believe I state something like that in the latter, do I not, do I not say that? Yes. Q VEio is the first person that you talked with at the* Pittsburgh-Corning about the Tylar plant? A I believa it was discussed with savatal individuals at a meeting called to address the citation. Q And when and where was that meeting? a This is where it gets difficult. Again, it was very shortly before I wrote that lather and I believe the meeting was at the Presque Isla P.aseareh Contar of the Pittsburgh- Coming Corporation. o And who was prftsr=r& at hhs masting? A I think Mr. Eydaf whr accompanied zaa to Tylar. acknowledgement to him for his assistance in the report. Q Project engineer fcr who? A ?or Pittoburgh-Cornang. Q All righisi. Go ahead. A Mr. John II. Hyde, in che paga'21 acknowledgement. :is ras prsent. Mr. Byri Stcut, viea prsidant, 1 haliavc, 1 er manufacturing of the company, the writer cf the latter to Mr. Blair. Mr. 2olEiaaP Sandy Holman, who wa3 toe, I ballavo, vice president -- well, I an not sura of too enact title, I believe he was a vies president of the corporation at that tine. And I am just -- I an not prepared to state definitively that Dr. Grant was present, but usually whenever I was involved v?ith the Pittsburgh-Coming Company, there was close liaison with Dr. Grant. Sa may have been present, but X am not sure. Q Kow long have you known Dr. Grant? A Since 1954. Q VSiers did you first meet him? A I first met Dr. Grant in my involvsmant, X think. with toe very first involvement with toe Industrial Hygiene Foundation Q What was his capacity iz tint tire? A Eis capacity , he had recently cons to ?i :tsburgh as medical director of PPG and he was also asscci.ated with the Industrial Hygiene Pcundatr.cn, representing either PPG cr Pittsburgh-Corning or both. Q You have known him then from 864 on down through to new? A Yes Q And ycu know -chat he -- ha is a medical director ;cr PFG, is that correct? A That's correct. Q He is on thair payroll? A Yes, as far as I know. Q And has been frexa that period of time down to now, is that right? A That's right. Q Now, you state in your letter of May 1 that the first time ycu saw the latter to Mr. Elair was April 24 -- April 28, recuse me. A Yes. Q Could that have been at this meeting? A That could have been at the meeting. Q Would that, in your opinion, date the meeting that bs evasiver I simply do neb ramsnbtar if that, vas the data cf the meetingr but it could rail be, The meeting vas in close proximity to this correspondence,, C All right. Then, prior to April 23, 1*369, you had never seen the letter to Mr. Blair, which is P-3? A That is right. Q Yen have never heard or ever discussed of the Tyler plant? A That is right. Wall. I had hoard of the Tyler plant, I Joiaw the corn oration had a Tyler facility. 0. wall, ycu had never haard or discussed any problem with tiie `Tyler plant? A. No. Q And you w o t s the letter of May 1 to try to clarify this letter of April 11, didn't you? A Yes . Q And what ycu wanted to clarify was the implication that ycu had bean to the 'Tyler plant or had done som3 worlc in connection with it before May 1, isn't that true? Mil. McGCJGH: Object to the form cf the question? BY I4U. YALDTvI Q Go ahead and ar..T.'7=r Ahr-3 question* Irvxh that'ter.a? A Yss, I wrote he clarify thac lecher O In the respect, vfiat I have de3 crib ad? A I felt it caulc be inferred from reading that laths: that I had had involvement in the Tylar facility. O Prior to May 1? A That is correct, Q And yon wanted to erase any notion cf that oori.- didn't yen? MR. TRAIL: I am going to object to the question as leading. Wfell -- BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Go ahead and answer. A. I am really -- my answer is I wished to clarify the letter, particularly in reference to the rcla I serve! and I fait it could be read that I had had involvement with the Tyler facility, I had not. I stated in my letter that this is the first I heard of it and I think that speaks for itself. Q Nov/, dc you hav* a ccpy of that ronorh in front of you there? A Yes, X dc. Q Okay, vtouId you rsfsr to it? MR. S A L O O N : VV;^ Wll ~1 point. B MR. BALDWIN: Q P-4 is a report that you wrote aurr^arizing y cur visit to th Tyler plaire and findings . is this correct? A Yes. Q And who was this report written to? A Submitted to the Pittsburgh-Coming Ccrpcr&uion with a copy to Dr. Grant. Q flfoy did you send Dr. Grant a copy? A I always sent a copy to Dr. Grant cf any xverk I did for Pittsburgh-Coming. Q And where did you get that instruction? A Vte had agreed together that the proper role of the medical professionals was to communicate with each other ana he should be aware of all my involvement: with the company. Q And was -- this then was a business practice between you ar.d Dr. Grant? M R . ARMSTRGXG : Object to the form of the question. 3Y MR. BALDWIN: Q Go ahead. A It was a professional procedure that I adhered to eussion with xny counterpart professi 'jnal colleague in hh-a ccinpany. Ha vas at ti-aa, or rsloyad suIrani tc the Pittsburgh-Corning Ccrpcraiicn Q Did you also Si reports roric you did for PPG? A Yas. Q Under the same MR. ARMSTRONG: fern of the emestiou BY MR. BALDWIN u Is that corrsc* A In general, he Q Of any of your Pittsburgh Glass? A Yes. Q Yen didn't send him copies of your wcrl; cn U.S Steel? A No. Q What you are telling me is 5.f you did any work -- the understanding between you and ha was that if you did any work for any of the Pittsburgh esmpanias, either Pittsburgh- Coming or Pittsburgh Glass, ha got copies? A Of the reports. I did not kaap him apprised of all correspondence. Relevant correspondence and reports, but there is a great deal of correspondence that is not transmitted Q Ckav . Eov7, did you then keap him abreast at all times of ycur findings in Tyler? A Yes. Q And would it ha fair to say that he was informed forthwith of your findings without any substantial elapse in time? A Bs received ths reports* I don't recall if I ver bally -- I prefer to submit a report and dsalir in general he xoaka statements about the results of my work before -the report because many of the results of ary work are dependent on labora tory results that are delayed in coming. 1 would say I prob ably did not verbally transmit findings. Q Well, the point I am making is you kept him apprised of what your findings were and what you ware doing at Tyler? A Yes Q At all times, is this correct? A Yes. Q New, who went to Tyler with ycu and when did you go? A l*lr. John Hyde, Pittsburgh-Coming engineer working cut of the research canter at Presque Isle, accompanied me. and wa left, X assume, the day before and we were at the plant on M a y 7, 1969 Ks s p e n t a d a y a t t h s p l a n t copies of this report cc Dr. Grant. Hhc else did ycu send copies to? A I believe I transmitrad it to Mr. Byd2 who va* appointed the liaison for ms with the corporation on this project. Q What about any government agency? A Mo. Q Was your copy cf your report aver transmitted he any government agency? A Mo. Q Did you ever discuss your findings with any member of the United States government cr any of its agencies? A I discussed with my presence, in addition to the letter to Mr. Blair? after the survey. I confirmed vie pliena with Mr. Padilla that I Ii^d been in the faeilitv. Q Ha is with the United States government? A That is correctQ Bad you told him that you had conducted a survey? A That's correct. Q Did you tail him what you found? A As I recall the conversation? he was cuita concerned as to whether ny findings were consistent with his. I think > u2.-U *I-* nr' 4**>*(/L->J v.~wr'iTA*i^viriCtA*.j"'rU? .'.;1^w rV*--;*?' Tv7i; v,3 c f h. .or.. Again, I dcn't recall the exact wording, but X remember ths distinct imprassion of his ecuearn whether what X found was consistent with what ha found. I vary broadly stated, yes, iny findings in general sustain your technical findings. Q His technical findings of what? A His technical findings are very much related in the citation, I think wa could examine the citation. Ha spaaks about face velocities at hoods; the local exhaust is below required capacity. My report confirms those staramants in the citation. X indicated to him in a sentence or two in reply to his question, yes, my survey generallysupports his'assessments. Q Contentions? A His assessments. Q All right. Tell us generally what his assessment was that your findings supported. A That the ventilation system in this facility v;as in adequate, and I think that is the thrust of the citation th at is appended to my rsport. Q So you told him this? A , in answer to his question, I indicated that. Q And whan did you toll him this? sation G 'Wall, givo us vour bast: estimate as to how soon after ycur visit of May 7 it would have bean. A 1 wrote a letter cn June 6 to Mr. 31air indicating I performed a survey and telling teat the rsport was sub mitted to tee corporation. The phone call to Mr. Padilla would have been somewhere between confirming that I had been in the plant -- between May 7 and June 3. Q It will save us a lot of timer Dr. C o m , if ycu will make available to us ycur correspondence as it related to this Tyler plant. Would you do that? And we will look at it, not right, hew, but at a recess. MR. TRAIL: Wa can make ilia arrangement at the re cess , Scott. `EY MR. BALDWIN: Q Well, all right. Now, for the record, would you tall us his job title, not Mr. Blair, but I can't say it, Mr. Padilla. A Padilla is an industrial hygienist with, at teat time, 'with the Bureau of Labor Standards, U .S . Department of Labor, assigned to tea Tyler area. Q Okay. So then at that -time, sometime between May 7 U7.Q O V -- -- s --- -=-* o u i7ii.ru Ll.1J-Zi i-*orrsct? A That I had bean there. Q And substantially what ycu had just told us? A In response to his question, yes. Q And that is that you found that the ventilation system at ths Tyler plant was inadequate? A I indicated that I confirmed his bindings with re spect to ths ventilation systsm* I think that wording is pai: ticularly critical. Hi3 question wasr "Did ycu find what I found" H3 I -- it was phrased that way, he v?as very insecure as to a consultant coming in and differing v/ith his citation* and I recall I replied to ths effect, "Yes, I confirmed your findings*" I don't think I went any further. Q And I believe you are the man that said earlier, "I confirmed his finding that the ventilation was inadequate." A That is what ha states in the citation, yes. Q All right. A That was quite specifically addressed in the report. Ycu don't -- there are very -- the details associated with that statenant are delineated in the report. Seme of those details Mr. Padilla pointed tc, others I pointed to. y o u m e P l a i i r t i i - 'r; E x h i b i t WHS -- MR. ARMSTRONG: Your report. THE WITNESS: Ky report. BY MR. BALDWIN: But new I am ir.ierasied in what vou tala 11r. Padilla when you talked to him on the telephone. A I essentially assured him that his citation was valid. Q All right. A That is the essence of what I told him. Q And at that time did you realise then that there was a hazard at the Tyler plant, a health hazard? MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to the form of the question. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Go ahead. A I think my report states -- Q I am not asking you about your report- Doctor, I an: asking you what you realized. MR. ARMSTRONG: Just a moment. I am going to object to Mr. Baldwin's interrupting the witness' answer. Be pre sented -- MR. BALDWIN: I please, don't interrupt mc-i. He interrupted him in raid--word zxid I think thar the witness is entitled to complete his answers and than M r Baldwin, if he objects to him, can so state for ths record > THE WITNESS: My professional opinion at that time is incorporated in this report and fcr your questioning rele vant to what I thought at that time I will refer you to that report. BY MR. BMDWias Q Well, I will refer you to the report, look at the report and tell me. A Fine. If you would refar to a specific area of the report, I would be very happy to. C My question is, did you not realise that there was health hazard at the Tyler plant at that time, it is that simple. MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Baldv/in, I will object because, once again, you are interrupting the witness. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Say what you want to say. A I will read from nw report. Q Read zs p. Surma; and racornnzundaiiGEis11 -- which - thick is what: you are intersstad in, Q No, would ycu lac ms ask a cruashicn and then you answer it, pisace? And if you want to read ynur report in answering it, all right, but all I want is an answer. A X heard your question. I am choosing to read nr/ report. Q All right, now go ahead, and rny question, in order that we understand each other, is simply this -- A V7s understand each ether very clearly. Q Let me ask my question, Doctor. My question ir simply this, did you or not at the time after you made that visit at the Tyler plant in May of 1969 recognize that there was a health hazard? It is that simple. MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to 'the form of 'the question. TES WITNESS: May I continue to read from ay report? BY MR. BALDWIN: Q I just want my question answered. If you want to answer it by raading ycur report, go ahead. A That is what I wish to do* Q Go ahead. A Is that clear, for the record? MR. ARMSTRONGS Mast pago? TH3 vHIT^ESS: Pacji 3 - svHAranry ~nc. -tcr.-iidM;:- "An industrial hygiene end ventilation survey of this plant performed on May 19 1569 suggests tha asbestos fiber concentrations are nigh in worker breathing zones (Builder and Feeder Operators) and at breathing level in certain other plant locations. There are no hygienic guidelines for concentration of Amcsits fibers in air and the judgment cf excessive dustiness in this giant is referred to guidelines for Chrysotile dust. Utilization of hygienic guidelines for Chrysotile asbestos concentration in air for Amcshia asbestos fibers in air is an accepted procedure in 'lia U.S. at this 'time. The finding or excessive dustiness at 'spot* sainpling locations in the plant is con sistent with survey measurements4which revealed inadequate quantities of air at local exhaust hoods Insufficient air at local sites of dust emission was reflected in low air velocities at hood faces and low air conveying velocities in branch lines and ducts. The vanhilation system was estimated for Builder and Feeder areas to move approximately cna* sixth of the air required to vent il,a*ce these v.: ';0 processes. "In addition tc the inadequacies of the ventilation system and tha resultant areas siva du3 tiness, it was found that general housekeeping is poor in the plant. Also, during the entire day of the survey not cnc employee in the production area was observed to v?ear a respirator. "In the opinion of the author, tills short survey strongly suggests that employees at this plant are being exposed, on a daily basis, to excessive concentrations of Amo sits asbestos dust. It is recommended that efforts be immediately focused on desiyn of a complete ventilation and dust collection system at this plant. The system is rudimentary in ccncapt and is underdesigned. Efforts to 'doctor up* this system would probably lead to a less than satisfactory system and would involve expenditures in tirao and equipment equivalent to those associated with design of a new system." That is what I thought at tha time I completed the survey about conditions in the plant. BY MR. BALDWIN: A 1 answered your question. Q Wall, I don't think you did, sad I am going to ask it again. A You are using terms that health professionals do not use. Q Do you understand the word hazard? A Yes, I do. Q All right. Whet is your definition of hazard, health hazard? A A hazard is a condition that implies a threat to health. Q All right. Now, that's a goal enough definition for ms. Using that definition, tell us just whether or not in your opinion the conditions in that plant presented a health hazard to the workers. MR. ARMSTRONG: Objection. MR. TRAIL: Objection, because the question has al ready been asked and answered, about a half dozen times. BY MR. BALDV7IN: Q It has not and go ahead and answer it. A I have answered that in the phrasing of ray summary and conclusions in words that I am comfortable with. Yea are gsstsd. Great cara is "tajeen -to parade my conclusions of this professional ef foro in the proper framawork, You are asking me to make a short a:sswer he a bread question that I am net prepared to make on the basis of this survey* Q Okay. Ycu can' t make -- ycu can:t ansvsr my ques tion as to whether a heal-ih hazard existed at th3 plant? A I answered it in the bast way I knew how to in `this rv^pc u . Q Car*, ycu just tell me. "Yss, a health hazard existed, er "Ior one didn'h exist," that is all I want ycu to dc. MSI. KLAFPS .* Objection, the question has been asked * and answered repeatedly. BY MS:. BALDWIN; Q Go alisad, sir. A Cn the basis of that ens day, I could net answer uha question the way ycu i?ant ms to answer. Q X don't want you to answer it any way. A I think you do. Q All I want is the truth and not a bunch of rauroho jumbo. A I havii given ycu this in my report. .Is T 1 Q I have crch your report.. I am as;::^g you quo* now, sir. If you want ycur report. -- I d o n 't need to ask you about it, I have it. I am asking ycu as a professional man whether or not in ycur opinion there was a health hazard there. A I have answared your question. Q No, I submit ycu have not. A `Then if that is your perception of this situation, than I have not answered your question. Q All right, would you mind trying to answer it? A I have clone my b33 u* Q Would you tell me ycu can't answer? A In all good faith I believe I have answered it. Q lure ycu telling me then in language me and a jury can understand that, yes, a hazard exists? MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to the form of the question* MR. ICLAPPS: Mr. Baldwin, the question has bean asked5 perhaps ycur question is vague and ambiguous? rephrase MR. BALDWINt 1 don't think theirs is anything vague and ambiguous. BV MR. BALDWIN: I want you to answer my question, are you telling me that a hazard existed? MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to tha fora of tbs quashion. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Sir? A I era telling you that in tha opinion of `ha author this short survey strongly suggests that employees it this plant are being exposed an a daily basis tc excessive concen trations of Amosits asbestos, That is all I can say as an environmental profess ional. Q Is that a health hazard? A I do net make that judgment. They are excessive concentrations beyond a standard that I measure conformance with. You are asking me to make a professional jump to reach a medical conclusion that I an not prepared to make and it is worded as I as an engineer an prepared to state it/ and I think must read that in the sense of an engineering record. Q Than you can't tall us whether a hazard exists? MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: At that time, I certainly could not. EY MR. BALDWIN: Q Now/ you said "in tha words of tha author," who is the author? That is myself. 45 Q Ohr I S3e. No t , who was isith you down thara on this visit? A Mr. John Hyde. Q Was there anybody else? A I don:t believe there vias. Q How long did you stay? A Cue day. Q Have you been back? A I was back again, yes. Q When? A In 1972. Q At whose request was that? A At `he request of Mr. G. S. Gregory of the Pittsburgh C o m i n g Corporation. Q You didn't get my pencil a minute ago, did you? A No, I didn't. MR. McGOUGH; I 'm sorry, I didn't hear that question. May I have that question read back, please. MR. BALDWIN: I will vzithdraw the question, Mr. Earon had my pencil. MR. BARON: No, it was under his notebook, he lost it. MR. BALDWIN: Okay 15 BY I-E>. BALDWIN: Q Did you writs thisreport? A Which report* Q Eidiibit 4 hare. A 'Hie report of theTyler survey? Q Yas * A Absolutely. Who do you think wrote it? Q VialIf it referred to Dr. Cor:*: in the third person, is that the same Dr. Corn as you? It says "Dr, C o m was ac companied and assisted by John I#. Hyde ** A Yes. Q You are referring to you there? A Yes. Q In the third person? A That is a common form of expression in this type of report. Q And vrhat did you mean when ycu say "The survey was concentrated exclusively on assessment of hygienic risk"? A Where may I refer to the sentence you are referring to? Q The introduction. MR. ARMSTRONGs The bottom of the first paragraph. THE WITNESS: 1 mean that the rols of the m^irorEnaar^ specialist is to evaluate the conditions in too facilities and compare them to certain guidelines or standards which are recommended practice. That is my function. I go in, I make measurements, laboratory analysis, I reach a conclusion if the environmental conditions adhere to recommended practice or legal standards for the agent that is under question. That is what that phrase means, an assessment of hygienic risk, was to standard at that time in force tha agent asbestos being met or wasn't it. On the basis of that judgment, I make recommendations r and that brings us bade to your previous question, I don't phrase a question or answer a question as you have phrased it, I compare conditions to recommended prac tice. 3Y MR. BALDWIN: Q And you found that it did not meet the recommended standards? A As spacifisd in toe summary and conclusions, there were certain areas that did not and there were othars, as I recall, that were kind of on the borderline, yes. Q And you ware referring to Araosita asbestos dust? MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to the form of the question. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Go ahead. 48 MR. ARMSTRONG * It ecesn 11 evsn indicrra when he was referring to. THE WITNESS: The dust in this plant was Amosita asbestos dust. There were no standards fcr Amos ite asbestos dust, that was the reason for me to flag this in the summary and conclusions that I was using as a professional a commonly accepted jump, I was going to invoke the standards for Chrysotile for Amosits which the scientific community had accepted at that point in time until there was further evi dence that would differentiate any biological effects of Amos its from those of Chrysotile, and I have clearly indicated that my conclusion comparing this dust with the standards for Chrysotile was predicated cn that assumption. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Which was an accepted standard in the industry at the time? A Yes. Q Of applying Chrysotile standards to Amosita dust? A In general at that time about 97 percent of asbestc3 dust in use in the United States was Chrysotile. We were talking about a small percentage cf total utilization of asbestos and the professional community treated the 100 per cent as if it was the 97 percent. erocd p r a c t i c a , would i t :, `to a p p ly th e C h ryscrcilH sban dar: TM r% Amo3it'3 dust a---*?f in fact, you had different results iron Amesite than you had from Chrysotile? MR,* A H ylSTBCMG: Object to hhe form of taa question. 3Y 35H. BALDWIN: 0 Would that ha goad practice? A In ganar a l it would net bs good practica to apply ,-t-* ->*!t*fHlvtsU#iil":.*uu" *1V.U--'> ** 7"^ijt-. Q All right. A Wa did not have giva any basis for differ; in the intarira this practice, was used* Q You didr as an industrial hygienist, keep up with the literature in the field? A I mads ovary effort to, yes* Q Did you feel at that time that yon were reasonably abreast of the literature in 'the field? A May I ask the literature with respect to what? Q To asbastes * A I v,?as familiar to a very high degree with the assessment of asbestos and the environment techniques to measure it with control; I was familiar to a lesser extent with hhoa.'S aspects that are really r.ct in ny professional 50 perview, namely tha biological affects, hlia epidemiology. I must be candid and say I still do not completely under stand all of the methodologies of those fields, but I am familiar with those that relate to my function to evaluate, assess and engineer, Q And that includes applying these standards? A Yes. Q And you certainly wouldn ft apply a standard to Amosite if ycu felt like that Amos its had different biological properties than Chrysotile, would you? MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to the form cf the question. MR. K1 APPS: Join in that objection. THE WITNESS: It is not a good question. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q It may not ba, but answer it. A It isn't really a good question. I would not apply any standard to any other situation unless I professionally felt it had relevance. Q And you have tala us earlier, I believe, that ac cording to your knowledge and understanding of the literature in the field, there was no basis to make a distinction between Amosite and Chrysotile? MR. ARMSTRONG: I object to that. That is net what 51 he said, I cbjact to the form of that question as miostaing his testimony. BY MR. BALDV7IN: Q All right, what did you say? A stated -that the professional industrial h/giene community were working with a Chrysotil standard, that is the only standard on the books. Whan dealing with 3 percent of the asbestos in the work place, we had no standard. The pro fessional biologists, toxicologists, physicians, biochemists who put together the information leading to a standard left us without a standard for Amosits. It was a commonly accepted procedure of the industrial hygiene community to use the Chrysotils standard for situations involving other forms of asbestos. That is as clear as I can state it. Q Did you have any knowledge -that there was any differ ence in the biological effect of Amos its and Chrysotile? MR. TRAIL: Objection, he has already stated that that is outside his field of competency. BY MR. BALDWINS Q Sfell, it may or may not ba. Answer the question. A I think it is outside. I had awareness of discussions, I really had no knowledge. Q Did you have any knowledge that hh-ara was any dif- faranca in the biological properties of -these two types of csbsstosis? '."w '___L ^ A No, no, I would have to say I had no firm body of evidence in my possession, no. Q All right. You considered your measurement, then, representative cf the conditions in the plaint during the summer months, didn't ycu? A Yes, I did. Yes, I did. I might say normally I would take additional samples, but I thought from -- these ware representative, yes. Q And you felt like they would only get worse as the winter months cama? A Cn the basis of all my work with industrial facili ties in winter, windows are closed, ventilation is poorer, and I think the body of data that I have in my possession suggests winter concentrations indccrs are higher than summer concentrations; I so stated that in the report. Q Now, you found ancessive dustiness at spot sampling locations which revealed inadequate quantities of air at local exhaust hoods, didn't you? MR- TRAIL: I am going to object to the question, Mr. Baldwin is reading from the document. I would like to 53 havtf''the portion of the document that is baina r^ad frcm identified sc that the witness ecu Id relate to it, to me. THE WITNESS: Mr* Baldwin, that would ba very helpful BY MR. BALDWIN: Q I v/as paraphrasing from a statement you mads in the document on page three, if you would care to follow it. A Yes, if I could follow it. The wording of the docu ment is quite carefully arrived at, and if we could read the statement together I could elaborate on what the intent was. Wbuld you repeat, please? Q I said you found excessive dustiness at spot sampling locations which revealed inadequate quantities of air at local exhaust hcods. A That is not what I said. Q Well, that is my question. A No. Q Would you permit me to ask a question, is that all right with you if I ask a question in my own language? A But that language was an incorrect statement of this sentence. Q I didn't purport to make any statement of a sentence, I am asking you wuat you found. A Go right; ahead- sir. Go rig hr. ahsaa. Q I an asking you if it isn:t true that you found ex cessive dustiness at spot sampling locations which revealed inadequate quantities of air at local exhaust heeds? A And my answer is no. Q All right, what did you find? . A I found excessive dustiness at spot sampling loca t i o n which was consistent with survey measurements which re vealed inadequate quantities of air at local exhaust hoods? that's not the same thing, M r . Baldwin. Q It is different, I see. It may be different in your language, it is the same in mine. Did you cr net find inadequate quantities of air at local exhaust lioods? A Yes, I did. Q What dc ycu mean when you said "inadequate quantities of air at local exhaust hoods," not enough ventilation, i3 that what is meant? pound . MR. TRAIL: Object to the question as being com THE WITNESS: Thera are guidelines for the movement of air at hoods used to vantilate dusty operations in industries. I measured air at the hoods of this facility and found the amount of air was below those guide lines. That is BY I'ZTv. 3ALDV7IL7: Q 121 juGh plain old languaga of 2 layman, there wasrt enough ventilation? A 1 think I answered the question. Q Vtell, will you answer that, one I just asked? MR. XCTiAPPS: It has ncv; bssu ask3d and answsred. 3Y MR. BALDT7IN- Q Was there anough vanii iation? A X have answered the question. 0 VJas thara? A I have answerad the question, sir. Q Wall, did you tall ms -- I can't understand ycur -answer, A I think we are really going to have to gat on the same language levels here or this is going to go on all day. J. am quits precis in my language and you are not. o That I can't hsIp - I aia not as highly educated as you are, sir. A Then you are laboring under a handicap. Q I can cacrnunicats v;ith some people. Sams people -- MR. ARMSUSCNG: Scott is just as precise as h wants to be and just as wall educated as anyone within this room 56 TES WITNESS: Mr. Baldwin, w ith all respect:, I w i l l not answer these questions as you wish them answered. I will answer them in my words as I must state them because this is a professional report and th e language is quite important. You garbled the last one up to a totally incorrect meaning and I could not agree to that. MR. BALDWIN: I object to that as being not responsive. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Now, let me say to you, Dr. C o m , that I am not going to ask my questions as you would like me to ask them, I am going to ask them as I 3ee fit as a lawyer and the sooner you understand that the better off vm are going to get along. A Okay. Q Now, then, was there not enough ventilation in that plant? MR. KLAPPS: Objection, the question has been asked and answered and asksd and answered. THE WITNESS: The ventilation system was found to ba inadequate in accord with the language in this report to which I refer you. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Wouldn't that bs another way of saying thero wasn't enough ventilation? A I don't phrase ray answers that way, Mr. Ealditfin. Q You like to use those two dollar words. MR. ICLAPPS: No question pending. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Is. that right? A No comment. Q Now, what did you mean when you said that there was "insufficient air at local sites of dust amission was reflected in low air velocities at hood faces," what do you mean by that phrase? A I meant that there are guidelines for the velocity of air that should exist at local exhaust hoods. My measure ment of the velocity of air showed that there were lower than those recommended velocities. That is what that means. Q Belew the standards or the guidelines, is that what you are telling us? A That is correct, they were below the guidelines for face velocity? that is discussed in the body of the report. Q And what guidelines are you referring to? A I am referring to the guidelines of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Manual on Industrial Ventilation. Q And you continued by saying# "And lew air conveying velocities in branch lines and ducts#" wasthat substantially the same except -- A No# that is different. Q All right# explain* A The hood face velocity is the velocity at the hoed directly in front of the person working. A conveying velocity is tiie velocity to convey the dust to the collector in the duct far away frera the man. If the conveying velocity is low# the duct will plug with dust and the result of that will be a lower face velocity at the place where the man is# so you must have an ability to convey the dust to the dust collector or you are going to reduce your effectiveness where the man is. There are two different -- Q Well# did you find that to be in compliance with the guidelines or below the requirements of the guidelines? A I found that there were low conveying velocities as specified in the report. It was not in all ducts and I would have to consult the report for the specific ones. Q Well# to use your scientific language# low as com pared to what? A To the guidelines. 5S Q All right, so thsy wars balcv: the guidelines , is chat correct? A I believe that is stated in tha report* Q Now, then, the next statement you make is teat tee ventilation system was submitted for builder and feeder areas to move approximately one-sixth of the air required to ventilate' these processes* What did you mean by that? A I estimated using the guideline and the size of tee hood, the amount of air that should have been prssant, and compared, teat to -the amount of air that was present to reach tha conclusion of hex-; much additional air was needed. Q And you found that it was only ore-sixth of the re quired capacity? A Approximately. Q In other words, it was five-sixths below the required capacity? A As an estimate, teat was my conclusion. Q And thatrs the ventilation you are talking about? A That is tee ventilation for those specific areas I believe I said, yes. Q Wouldn't teat suggest to ycu that that wasn't enough ventilation for these areas? MR. TRAIL: Object to the form of the question. It GO has baen as lead and answered. THE WITNESS: I think we have answered "the same area of questions that you are interested in in different ways* I just do not subscribe to the way you ask. BY HR. BALDWIN: Q You don't like my language that that ain't enough ventilation, is that it? A I think that the report -- Q You don't subscribe, they didn't teach you that at Harvard? MR. TRAIL: Maybe this would be a good time for a break. MR. BALDWIN: Well, let's answer the question fir3t. THE WITNESS : I think I have answered the question. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q You agree with ms that there wasn't enough ventila tion in those areas, don't you? MR. TRAIL: Object to the form of the question. Also it has been asked and answered. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Sir? MR. TRAIL: Don't interrupt me. THE WITNESS: It is clearly stated in the report 61 th a t I a s t in a t s d zhah cn ss-sixth o f tha required Wcii present. New, you can phrase that conclusion any way you wish. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q That's not enough? A Enough of what? Q To meet the standard? A It is one-sixth of the amount estimated on the basis of the guidelines. MR. TRAIL: Off the record. [Discussion off the record] [Recess] BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Okay. You found then inadequacy of the ventilation system and -fche resulting excess dustiness at the plant? Again, you have to say yes or no, she can't get you when you nod. A Yes. Q And you found that general housekeeping in the plant was poor? A Yes, Q And you didn't observe any worker wearing a respirator during that entire day? MR. McGOUGH: For the record, for the sake of economy, I would like to object to ^his form of questioning in which G2 Dr. C o m is being asked to repeat what ha said the report that is put in evidence. MR. BALDWIN: I thought we had finally found a common ground where he could understand my questions, I was beginning to read them like he asked. MR. Me GOUGH: Evan I could understand your question, but it is just a waste of time. MR. BALDWIN: Part of it is, part of it isnft. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Go ahead. A I answered yes. Q And then you found that tho workers were being 3x~ posed to excessive asbestos concentrations on a daily basis, didn't you? A No, I did not. Q All right. A I found that this final paragraph, this short survey strongly suggests that employees at this plant are being ex posed on a daily basis, to an excessive concentration. I did not find that. I was not there on a daily basis, but my findings suggested that. Q Did you ever find anything to change the basis far what you just said, that suggestion? Did you ever ccma across 63 any evidence to xnaicars *cnan your sugges*cxcn was i^ccrrrs^ncJ-O A No. Q You found 'then that the system was rudimentary? A Yes. Q And that it needed a complately new dasign? A That was my recommendation* Q And that a patch-up wouldn't do it? A That was my conclusion* Q Now, when you said that the concentrations were ex cessive, what standards were ycu applying to there? A The basis for comparison is discussed at length on pages 5 through 7 of the report. At the time of th3 survey, there wara two different standards, a guideline of the American Confrence of Governmental Industrial .Hygienists which had been incorporated under the Walsh-Haley Public Contract Act and a British Occupational Society guideline. This is discussed on pages 5 to 7. By either criterion, as the report discusses, the con clusion of excessive dustiness would have been reached. Q And you recognised then, didn't you, as ycu do not, that the 'threshold limits should be u3ed as guides in the con trol of health hazards and should not be regarded as fine lines between safe and dangerous conditions? You recognized that 64 principle, didn't you? MR. McGCOGH: I object to the form of the question to the extent it incorporates the phrase "health hazards" which X do not recall the doctor talking about. THE WITNESS: I quoted and designated that statement as a quote on page 5 and referenced the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. BY MR. BALDWIN : Q And in precisely the language that I asked you, didn't you? A Yes, that is referenced in that language. Q And you used the words "health hazards" there, didn't you? A I quoted the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' use of the words "health hazards." Q Wall, it was used, wasn't it? A I don't understand your question. Q It was u3ed as a part of your report? A It is a quotation in ray report referencing those who stated it. Q Do you not recognize that as a principle? A Yes, I recognize that as a principle. Q And did you apply that principle at that time? 65 A Mfcat principle? Q That X just read to you. A I did not apply that principle. I compared measure- rents to that guideline. I did not apply that principle. I am quoting that for those who read the report to apply that principle. I am not applying it. Q You did not regard those guides as fine lines between safe and dangerous conditions, did you? A No. And X felt that those who read the report who see me comparing measurements with that guide should keep this in mind, that *s why it is in there. Q Right. It would not be proper practice according to the practice in the industry, good practice is to use those guides that you have referred to as fine lines between safe and dangerous conditions, would it? MR. ARMSTRONG: I object to the form of the question. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Go ahead. A I am not sure I understand the question. Q Wall, I said it would not be proper to use those threshold limits as fine lines between safe and dangerous con ditions . MR. ARMSTRONG: I object to the form of the question. 66 TE2 WITNESS: As an industrial hygienist, I utilized threshold limit values as guides, I do not use them as fine lines. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Between safe and dangerous conditions? A Correct. Q All right. Thank you. New, you understood what the term health hazard meant there, didn't you? A Yes, but that is an entirely different context. Thera is another portion of this which you have not read and that is tka first paragraph which is also quoted, and I think, once again, you are simplifying a fairly complicated concept. Q I am just asking a question, sir. A No. Q asked. That doesn't seem tco complicated to me, what I just A I am afraid it doesn't because you are not aware of all the information relevant to it. Q Maybe I am not. A Let me read it. Q What question did I ask? A You asked me did I not understand health hazards in that context 67 Q All right.- did ycu or net? A It is a 'stilly different cents;:-- Permit ms to in fora you why. Q All right, go ahead. A Okay. "The threshold limit values refer to airborne concentrations of substances and represent conditions under which it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, without adverse effect. Because of wide variation in in dividual susceptibility exposures of an occasional individual at cr even below the threshold limit may not prevent discomfort, aggravation of a pre-existing condition, or occupational illness." I cannot reach a firm conclusion on whether a health hazard existsd or not, because I was there only one day, hence the term "suggests." I cannot reach the conclusion as to whathar there is a- health hazard because i am not aware of the exposure day after day, x was only there for one day, and, second, I am not familiar with the medical characteristics of the persons working in the plant, in other words, the susceptibility, referred to in the concept. For ill cf these reasons, engineers avoid using the term "a health hazard exists." We deal with guidelines, standards, adherence to guidelines and standards. 68 A whole other ccmnucity of health specialists deals with arriving at the conclusion that you summarize in the question to me, "Dr. C o m , do you believe a health hazard existed," and that is why I could not answer your question. Q So you are answering that question now, are ycu? A 1 am not answering that question, X am alaborating on what a health hazard -- a concrete answer to a health hazard existing involves. Q Which one of my questions are ycu answering now? MR. TRAIL: Objection, objection, Mr. Baldwin, please refrain from badgering the witness. State the question that is pending. MR. RAIDWIN: I am trying to understand the question. MR. TRAIL: Well, rephrase your question and ask it. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q I am asking now which one of my questions are you answering. MR. TRAIL: Objection, that is clearly badgering the witness. State your question and ha will answer it, if properq THE WITNESS: I agree with that. BY HR. BALDWIN: Q Do you know which one of my questions you are 69 nsusri:ig? A I am nor, sure I know which cns of your questions I am answaring. Q Okay * A I am -rying generally to give you a very preliminary education on what health hazard at the working environment in volves . Q I appreciate it, I will use all the knowldge I can get, all the help I can get. A 2 appreciate that, Q It might keep me healthy some day if I can find out what a health hazard is. Yen are new saying that health hazard is in your field? M R . ARMSTRONG: I object to the form of the question, MR. KLAPPS: Objection. THE WITNESS: Certainly the question of health hazard is in my mind in the sense of occupational health as a field, 3Y ME. BALDWIN: Q So then now you told me that you couldn't say there is a health hazard for, as I understand it, two reasons,* one, because ycu weren't there on a daily basi3 , and the ether was you didn't knew the particular idiosvncracres c 'he 70 in d iv id u a ls in v o lv e d , i s `ilia i r i g h i ? A Thar1s corraci. MR. THAI!*: Objection in that it misstates the evi dence and tli3 testimony of the witness. MR. BALDV7IN: Vfell, he just said it is correct. THE WITNESS: I can say that -for a correct assess ment I had not the full information required to reach that, and I therefore worded what I had full information to evalu ate, that these results suggested that on the data base I had persons were being exposed to excessive concentrations. Now, that clearly lays out how I judge excessive and it clearly spells out what these tests suggest to me and there are recommendations following from those conclusions. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q So to get back to my question, you said, if I understand it, the reasons you couldn11 tell us there was a health hazard is because you didn't know what existed on a daily basis, you didn't knov? the particular susceptibilities of the individuals involved, isn't that right? A The nature of the population at risk. Q All right. New, let's assume that the hazard ex isted on a daily basi3 as they were on the day thot 70 visited the plant and that the people involved were normal People cut of a n o m r l pcpul r.trcn , vu *JS 71 sav that there was a health hazard tk t existed at the plaet that day after your visit? MR* ARMSTRONG: Not only do I object to' the form of the question but on the grounds that no proper foundation has been laid for this man to give an opinion on this subject* Indeed, he has indicated, number one, such is to be determined by an entirely different scientific community and, number t w o , he was unaware of differentiation, if any, between Chrysotile and Amos ita. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Go ahead MR. KLAPPS: I would object on the further basis that you are now asking this witness a hypothetical question of expert opinion, going beyond his factual experience and knowledge relating to the Tyler plant, and I think in all fairness to the witness he is entitled to know that you are seeking expert opinion testimony which is a matter of contract between an attorney and expert and under those circumstances this witness would bs entitled to accept or reject the tender of such a contract. MR. BALDWIN: My understanding of the Federal Rules is that a lay witness, if he wants to qualify as a lay witness, can express an opinion. BY MR.'BALDWIN: Q Now, go ahead and answer the question. MR. KLAPFS: I wculd refer you to the case of Karp v. Cooley, 493 Fed. 2nd 4G8, 424-425, Fifth Circuit, 1974, which provided an .expert witness to express an opinion outside his personal experience or knowledge only pursuant to volun tary agreement with counsel. BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Go ahead. A I would never answer that question in my role as consultant and I would not answer it hers. Q All right. Then, so to make it clear, you are re fusing to answer it? A I am not capable of answering it, it is outside ray field of expertise. G Your answer is that you are not capable of answer ing the question? A Yes. MR. ARMSTRONG: Let him answer. HR. BALDWIN: For whatever reason ha wants to say, I will listen. If you want to make a list of the reasons, you can 73 MR. ARMSTRONG: Give him time he answer whatsvar else ycu do* BY MR. BALDWIN: Q You want to add something to the list? A Mo. Q You had heard that some forms of asbestos would cause cancer, hadn't you? A I had heard that some forms of cancer -- Q Well, let's say that you are aware? A I was aware of certain reports in the scientific literature Gn this subject, yes. Q That asbestos in the rav; form could cause cancer of the lung? MR. ARMSTRONG; Object to the form of the question, it doesn't define the type of asbestos involved. MR. BALDWIN; Go ahead. MR. ARMSTRONG: Or the time frame. THE WITNESS: I answered the witness, I was aware of certain reports in the scientific literature that certain forms of asbestos could causa cancer. 3Y MR. BALDWIN: Q Did you make in your mind any distinction between the forms of asbestos that would cause cancer and the forms 74 that would not? MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to the form of the question, sines "in his mind" doesn't refer to whether he interpreted the medical investigations that have been done to mean the same applied to Ames ita or some other basis such as applica tion of his engineering ventilation sanitary principles. THE WITNESS : let as contain: my answer in that form. No, no, for purposes of assassinent of the environment and engineering controls. BY MR. BALDWIN : Q What did tha term asbestosis mean to you? MR. TRAIL: At what, time? BY MR. BALDWIN: Q At that time. A I was aware at that time of a form of fibrosis of the lung caused by asbestos dust known as asbastosis. Q You .knew that there was a progressive disease for which there was no known cure, didn't you? A I think I was familiar with the -- with the clinical picture of asbestosis, yas. Q Well, is that not in comportment with your clinical picture of asbestosis, it was a progressive, irreversible, incurable and terminal disease? MR. ARMSTRONG; Excuse m e , please read that question and answer back. [The Reporter r<2~d tea record, as requested.] BY HR. EAISWIN: Q All right. Now, teen, you discussed the various matecds for counting fibers and what was your view as to v/heteer or act to measure a fiber below 5 -- what is it, centimeters, nicrccentimsters cr microns, or whatever it is, unit of measurement you used? A I don't understand your question, sir. Q #ell, explain to sis your measurement technique for counting fibers. MR. TRAIL: Objection, in that it doesn't state any reference to what tine you are referring to. MR. BALDWIN: At that time. MR. TRAIL: At that time rafars to what? MR* BALDWIN: When he mada his survey. All of my questions refer to that. TUB WITNESS: I would refer you to pages 3 to 10 of tee report which delineates tea measurement methods, on pages 3 and 9 the fiber counting methods are described. 76 BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Wall, I am not going to accept that as an answer. A Do I have to repeat everything in the report? Q You have to answer nry questions. A But that is repeating. Q You started out by wanting to read your report every time I asked you a question, you started that. A I didn't know we were going to continue for every sentence in the report. I started to indicate it is in the report and you should refer to it. It is in tbs report clearly. I must ask if I should -- MR. KLAPPS: If that is what -- BY MR. BALDWIN: Q You read whatever you deem necessary, I am not going to cut you off. It appears to me that you can't answer a question without reading your report, so if that is the way you want to answer them, go ahead. A My report very clearly states the methodologies used in this survey, beginning onpage 8 , assessment of air-borne dust. Q New, did your method of measuring thasa fibars in clude the counting of fibers? MR. MeGOUGH: I object to the question. 3Y MR, BALDWIN: Q Measuring these concentrations , I will indues, the counting of fibers. MR. Me GOUGH: It seems to me that .he is talking about assessment of airborne dust and I think latsr on he says microscopic evaluation of fiber and dust particle concentra tions. Now, you just used the word "fibers" which is not con sistent with what is before you* BY MR. BALDWIN: Q Go ahead, sir. A I would like to read tha methodologies we are dis cussing hare* Q I don't want you to read these seven and eight pages, I want you to answer my question* A I am not prepared to tall yea of a scientific methodology which is a vary precise step-wise procedure off the cuff, and I submit pages 8 and 9 in answer to your question* Q Did you measure dust concentrations? A Yes, I measured dust concentrations Q Did you measure asbestos fiber concentrations? A Yes, I measured asbestos concentrations. Q And was the method used that of counting the asbestos 73 fibers? A A method was used of counting asbestos fibers with the aid of a microscope. Q And how long were these fibers that ycu counted? A The fibers in accordance with the procedures by J . R. Lynch and Howard E. Ayer in the article "Measurement of Asbestos Exposure" which appeared in the Journal of Occupa tional Medicine, Volume 10, January 1958, includes fibers in excess of 5 microns in length* Q Why did you not count fibers less than 5 microns in length? A The technique for fiber counting utilised by the industrial hygiene profession as applied to asbestos recognizes that asbestos breakage causes fibers to be present below fche resolution of the optical microscope, fibers which would re quire the electronic microscope to see, therefore an indicator method is used. *Ihen we count asbestos fibers, we do not presume to count all the fibers present, we use a common methodology so we are talking about the same thing when each person counts fibers. Very briefly, I adhered to that standard procedure refer enced in my former sentence* Q And the reason was it was just, in plain language r 79 with the equipment that you were using? A No, that is not correct. Q Ail right, what is correct? A I have equipment at my disposal which includes , at that time, electron microscopy, but it would have been mean ingless in terms of the commonly adopted guidelines or stand ards to make counts and compare them with the standard when the standard was based on other methodology. Q Okay. So you didn't count microns -- fibers less them 5 microns because it did not comply with the accepted standard that you were using? A I would like to -- Q As a guide, is that correct? A Prior to answering your question, I would like to put on the record I did whatever was the procedure spelled out in that reference, that is what was done as the standard method. I followed the standard method not because I couldn't count more fibers using other scientific tools, but because I v;ould be talking the same language as other people throughout the world. Q But as just plain old everyday combreud counting fibers, ycu had the tools to count fibers that ware less than rid *4 5 ] f Is 80 5 microns in lengthy didn't ycu? A Yes. Q And you didn*t do it, though, did you? A No. Q So to that extent your surveys or countings would not include asbestos fibers that were below 5 microns in length? A My expression of tea concentrations cf asbestos in tee air of tels facility would adhere to the accepted method ologies of sampling and measuring asbestos in the air. It would not include the concentrations of all sizes of asbestos fibers in the air. Q I will object to that is not being responsive. Now, my question is -- A I think that is the most complete and responsive answer 2 can give. Q vieil, unfortunately, you are not tee one to decide whether your answer is complete and responsive. HR. XLAPFS: Mr. Baldwin, your question was argu mentative, I think that is the problem. HR. BALDWIN : I haven't asked it yet. MR. KIAPFS: Ycur prior question. SI -1 #5 m i a g depo vane i-IR. BALDWIN: I am fixing to as.1; another questicn- 3Y MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q My question is. simply, I am trying to find cut, yas or no, for my own information, whether or not, for whatever reason you war-t to ascribe, your method of counting included asbestos fibers of less th&n 5 microns in length; that's all I am asking. A 1 do not believe they are included in the count for the standard method in this referenced article. Q All right? so then they are not included in the count, for whatever reason. Is that correct? MR. KLAPFS: Object to the question? it has been asked and answered. MR. BALDWIN; He is saying he didn't believe? I don't know whether they were or not. THE WITNESS: Yas, they v;ere, for purposes not directly related to the comparison with the standard. I added some extra data in this report. If you would refer to Table 2, you will see some of the numbers you 2re interested in, but they are not relevant to the professional decision of adherence to the standard. 3Y MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Are you telling me that you counted -- in Table 2, whd-2 82 you counted the fibers less than 5 microns in length? A For my own information and for the information of the clients * But in the report, the total of Columns 5 and 6 is what must be compared with the standard. Q Okay. A But Column 4 has the information you are after. But it is not -- it is not a relevant bit of information for reaching a conclusion as to excessive dustiness in terms of the existing standards. Q Well, we will let somebody else decide whether it is relevant. You are referring to that'.'Cable 2, page 12, are you? A Yes. Q All right. Now, what I am trying to find out, you then counted in Column 4 fibers that were less than 5 microns in length? A Using a phase-contrast microscope? not using an electron microscope. Q Did you or not count fibers less -than 5 microns in length? A I answered the question. I did, using a phase- /wacl-2 83 contrast microscope. Q You did, using a phase -- A Yes. Q Okay. How small did that go? A Approximately half a micron. - Q Sc*you got every fiber from half a micron up to five microns? A Approximately half a micron, up to five. Q If you had had an electron microscope , you would -- would you have seen others? A I would have seen additional fibers down tc orob- ably 100 Angstrom units, another factor of almost one thousand smaller. Q Ail right* So these -- I am not going over all your findings; thev are set out in your report, aren't they? A Yes, that 23 what I have been saying. Q Well, let's just take one, for example, so I will know how to read it; okay? A Sure. Q Let's take 5/7, 2:30, -- 11Breathing zone of Feeder Operator , Lines 1 and 2 during sweeping, feeding. 84 and just start out in the first column.there and tell me what that column represents, and how it is to be interpreted by you * MR. ICLAPPS: What page are you reading from? BY JMR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q It is on page 12, Table 2. A I will read from page 11 of the report: "Results and Discussion." Q Could you just look at that page and tell me what you mean without having to read something. Doctor Corn? A I thought long and hard about how to interpret those findings, and I v/ill not prostitute that period of thought to give you a quic3: answer. Q You can not carry it in your head? is that what you are telling me? A Absolutely not. To express it in the manner you wish it expressed, I will read my conclusions. Q I want my question answered. A It is going to be answered; it is in the report* Q Ey reading the report? A By reading the report. Q Read what you meant when you said: "Particles: 12.3+0 *611 'w c -5 85 T e ll us what yon meant by th a t, A "In the evaluation procedure, all particles and fibers in the Porton '-field of view were counted and the fibers were grouped by fiber length into three cate gories: less than five microns -- " Q I .don't want to be disrespectful, but I am going to object to this as not being responsive, and ask you to answer my question. MR. TRAIL: Scott -- THE WITNESS: The answer is coining. MR. TRAIL: Scott, that is not a proper objection. The witness is answering the question. If you want to isipcse your objection, wait until he finishes, and then pose it. MR. BALDWIN: I don't want to waste time for him to read two pages that we have all read, -- THE WITNESS: It is one paragraph. MR. BALDWIN: -- when the question doesn't call for it. MR. TRAIL: If we are here until Friday, he is going to be able to answer his question completely. MR. BALDWIN: I don't mind, I just hate to waste time.. MR- MC GOl'GH: I think it is wasting time to ask 86 questions that are in the report. MR. BALDWIN: It may be clear to you; it is not clear to m e . THE WITNESS: Have you read the relevant section of this report? MR. BALDWIN: I have read it; yes. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Not*, tell ms what that means. I have read it, and I still don't know what it means. Now you tell me what it means. MR. MC GOOGH: I feel sorry for Mr. Baldwin,, that he doesn't understand, but I don't think it is this witness's job to educate him. MR. BALDWIN: That is what we are here for, to find out-what the witness knows. That is what I am here for; you may be here for different reasons. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Go ahead. A May I interject that it is quite conceivable that this is a report that you may require the services of an industrial hygienist to understand. Q No, I am not going to hire one of you guys, pay money. Go ahead and an sw er my q u e s tio n * A Okay; I will reread: ':ln the evaluation procedure, all particles and fibers in-the Porton field of view were counted and the fibers were grouped by fiber length into three cate gories: less than five microns, five to ten microns, and larger than ten microns. This procedure was repeated for a number of randomly selected fields on the face of the filter. Because only a portion of the total filter area was evaluated by this method, it was necesary to correct the count by the ratio of the total filter area to the evaluated area. The resultant particle or fiber number was divided by the volume of the air sample to obtain dust or fiber concentration expressed as mill ions of particles per cubic foot -- MPPCF." Now, that to m= is as clear as a bell. MR. MC GOUGH: It is clear to me. MR. KELLY: I think you are lying. 3Y MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q It is all good and true, and mighty fine, too, but ain't got nothing to do With the question I asked. A Repeat it again? I will try again. 3S MR. BALDWIN: No, I am not going to rephrase it; I am going to repeat it in the identical language. 3Y MR. BALLWIN: (Resuming) Q In column 3, you have written under there: "Particles: 12.3+0.6" what did you mean? MR. TRAIL: I am going to object. First* the question is asked and answered. Second, your prior reference that you are not going to hire an industrial hygienist of your own does not permit you to request and solicit the opinions *-- expert opinions -- of this witness. MR. BALDWIN: You certainly don't suggest that I pay him for information I am getting-today, do you? MS* TRAIL: The objection is stated; go ahead. THE WITNESS: I would be happy to try to -- I thin3c your question is: what arc millions of particles per- cubic foot. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q No. What do you mean there, that you found,12 million -- or, 12.3 million particles per cubic foot? Is that what that meant? . v:hd~9 Seet let: ne make a statement to you- We ere going to have a jury some day, trying to resolve this case, and unfortunately, they-may not be as adueatad as you, and we need -- I would like to try to explain some of this in language that they can understand, and that is why I am asking you what seems to you a question that is beneath your intelligence- It may be, .but it is not mine. Now, would you just try to aid me, sir, in answer ing my question, and that is: 1 want you to interpret one cf these columns so that I and a jury can understand it, and then we can apply that knowledge, however naive it may be, to the rest of this without having to ask you about each one* A All right; let me try to do that. Let me try to do that. Q You think you could'do that? A X am not sure? I am not sure. I thought I did it, but let ms try from another angle. If you were to take one.cubic foot of air -- Q No. Now, wait a minute? what I actually want to do -- let me e::plain to you what I want to do. Maybe wo can save a lot of time. I want to takei. a representative column, which is 5/7, 2:3D PM to 2:33 PM, and go across the beard with Xoiumn 2, which is several parts -- 1, 2, 3,, 4, 5, 6 -and' 7, and have you explain to me what you meant by each of those findings, and then we can take that knowledge and apply it to the rest of that chart. A All right* Q Now, do you follow me? A Yes * Q Now, let's take Column 3-, to begin with, and just explain in plain old, common, everyday language what you meant when -- by the words in there, "12.3+0.5." Would you tell us what -chat means? A I will -- will you permit me to begin and finish, and X will tell you when I am through? Q Yes, but bear in mind: you got some guy like me, now, that does not know a lot about this, that has got to understand what you are saying. A That is what X am trying to -- MR. m c GOUGH: He is asking you not to interrupt him. EY HR. BALDWIN; (Resuming) Q All right; go ahead. A 12.3+0.6 millions of particles per cubic foot means that there are present in a cubic foot of air that number ?/wrid-ll 91 of particles ana floor3, a1.1 opaque shadows seen under the microscope. To estimate this number, a :5fiber51 is defined as a particle with a Isngth-to-width ratio of at least 3 to 1. All particles do not have that length-ho-v/idth ratio. 12.3 plus or ninus 0.G includes the uncertainty in the estimates, because only a very small portion of the cubic foot of air w^s examined to get this estimate. Therefore, we believe -- or, I believe, in this report, that the cubic foot of air in the breathi::.g zone of the Feeder operator during the time period 2:30 to 2:33 on 5/7, had 12.3 plus or minus 0.5 million particles per cubic Q Okay. Now I understand that. MR. FOWLER: That was an excellent illustration of a good question and answer. I think that was good. MR. KELLY: Shall we all cheer? MR. TRAIL: We might better break for lunch. MR. FOWLER: Why dcrrt we break for lunch? MR. BALDWIN: Let's go on while it is in-.context with the other columns, in that fashion. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) 2 What you are telling us, then -- now. let ms ask 02 12 ny q u e stio n s th e way I want to . What you are telling me is that -- because I want to clarify it for you as well as me -- MR* ARMSTRONG: He i3 now -- MR. MC GOUGH: One moment hs knows nothing, and now he is going to tell him what he means. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming). - Q Nov/,. what you are saying there is that y q u found some 12 million -- A Million. Q -- particles and fibers approximately per cubic foot of air. , MR. ARMSTRONG: Objection. That is not what he said. MR. BALDWIN: Well, is it? i HR. ARMSTRONG: He didn't even measure the whole cubic foot. MR. BALDWIN: I said "estimated." MR . ARMSTRONG: You said "found." MR. BALDWIN: I was trying to come back to it and clear it up, but you can't do it-with the way these guys object. MR - KLAPPSi You want your answer read back by the c-13 93 Reporter? MR. BALDWIN: No. MR. ARMSTRONG; His answer. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q What you are saying here is that you estimated that you found approximately 12 million particles and fibers per cubic foot of air; isn't that right? MR. ARMSTRONG: Objection. That's not what he said. TEE WITNESS: It is not quite-- BY MR. BALDWIN; (Resuming) Q How does that differ from what you said? A On the basis of an air sample in the air rone of the Feeder operator taken during the five minutes: 2:30 to 2:25 PM on 5/7/69, I estimated that the air contained 12.3, plus or minus 0.6, million particles per cubic foot, defined as specified to include particles and fibers. Q Well, I thought that's what I asked you. And I will ask you again, so I can understand it -- and I am talking now not precisely, but i n general terms -- you estimated that you found approximately 12 million particles and fibers per cubic foot of air at that particular place at that particular time; isn't that a general explanation of what 'Tou found? MR- ARMSTRONG: Object to the form of the ques tion * THE WITNESS: It is still not quite right* I knov; you think I am being excessively picky, but it is not quits right. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q All right. How is it not right? I am trying to get that predicate so I can ask you another question and further clarify it, but go ahead and tell me how I am not right. A I think you must include, on the basis of sampling a portion of the air and examining a sample, we estimate that the concentration of particles which includes particles and fibers as I defined them, in the air sample, was 12.3 plus or minus 0.5 million particles per cubic foot. Q I thought that was what I asked you? A You are not saying it quite right. Q All right. So then, what you are telEng us, basically, is that it is not an actual count? it is an estimate? A Ho. It is an actual count of a sample, with an estimate from the sample to the full area. 95 Q All right* Sc it is not an actual count of a cubic foot of air? A That is correct Q It is an estimate? A It is an estimate of the contents of a cubic foot of air on the basis of examining the particles in a smaller voliime^of air chan a cubic foot. Q All right, and on that fbasis it represents approxi mately 12 million particles and fibers? MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to the form of the question, including "fibers." BY MR. BALDWINS (Resuming) Q Is that correct, with his objection? A Yes. Q So then, what you are saying is that it is not pure fibers; your count is not pure fibers? A In Column 3, that is correct. Q It includes also particles? A Yes. Q Which may be dust or something else -- not asbetos fibers 7 is that correct? A Yes. Q All right. d-16 O: And the 0.6 is a tolerance that you have attached to it for a margin of error? A 0.6, yes. Q Excuse me? zero point six is the tolerance that you have attached to it as a margin of error, based on your experience and knowledge in the field? A No. Q Or based on the standard tliat you used? A Based on the methodology explained in the report. Q All right, then? let5s go to the next column. Column 4, and explain what you meant by the term: "3.50+0.28* just like you did the other. A I amreferring again toan estimated concentration in a cubic foot of air, but in this case it only refers to fibers less than 5 microns in length, present. The methodology cf evaluation was the same. The sample volume as a fraction of the cubic foot of air was the same, but I am expressing the concentration of fibers less than 5 microns in length estimated to be in a cubic foct of air. Q And you foundapproximately 3.6million? A Yes. rffcd-17 97 Q N o w -- A Per cubic foot. Q Per cubic foot. Allright. Did that include particles as well as fibers, or just fibers? A N o r that's just fibers less than 5 microns. Q All right. Now, that's the one you said was made for voux own use and not per any standard? A Well, I wouldn't it was not made for my own use? it was a measurement made that I and others were very interested in at the time, but it could not be used to relate to a standard. We were, in the scientific community, asking the question X think you are asking: if you have fibers greater than 5 microns in length present, what have you got less than 5 microns length? At that time, there was very little such data, aid these data were collected along with the other data. Q Now, then, in Column 5, would you tell us what that means? A It is the same type of measurement. Q And read the numbers, please, so we will have it 98 in context? A This is 0.64 plus or minus 0.12 fibers per cubic foot of air, referring to fibers between 5 and 10 microns in length, estimated on the basis of the same air sample at the same time -- 2:30 to 2:35 PM on the same day, 5/7. Q And you found that to be 0.64? A That's correct, plus or minus 0.12. Q And what is the standard? A The standard would have to combine Columns -- the sum to compare to the standard, you would have to combine Columns 5 and 6, which is done in Column 7. Q 03-:ay. Well, let's go on, then, to Column 6 before we do that. Column 6, without being -- making -- A There is an error -- MR. ARMSTRONG: Why doesn't it add up to that last column? 5 and 6 do not add up to -- THE WITNESS: That*s a typo. MR. ARMSTRONG: X Jonew you would pick it up. THE WITNESS: The others are correct. That was a typo. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q We will get back to get this in context, so someone d-19 99 trying to follow us will understand. Column 6 means -- * would interpret Column 5? is interpreted the same way you A Yesr for fibers greater than 10 microns in length. Q _ All right. And that would mean that you counted the fibers greater than 10 microns, and you excluded those below 10 microns? A Yes. Q Now, then, the total, which-would be Column 7, represents what? A The sum of -- Column 7 represents the sum of Columns 5 and 6 concentration, since the standard -or guide- line refers to fibers greater than 5 microns in length, and that would include those between 5 and 10, represented in Column 5 and those greater than 10 microns in length represen ted by Column 5. O And what should the correct answer be? A 0.73 is the correct sum for that column. The other columns are correct. Q All right, then, the 0.92 that has been struck through was a typographical error? A That was an error. I had it corrected in mine. 100 Q And if you added Column 4, you would get 4.38, vouidn:t you? A Well, that you could not compare -- if you had added 4, you could not compare it to any guideline. Q I am not talking about guidelines. A Yes, yes; you could certainly sum up to get the concentration of all observed fibers, using this phase-contras technique. Q And you would get what? A I have not added them up. Q Would you mind? A I get 4.38 as the sum. Actually, you would not just add them up. v Let rue interject here that a statistician would prevent us from doing what I have done here. You will notice my last column does not have the uncertainty figure in it. Addition of Columns 5 and 5 into my Column 7 left out the uncertainty figure. That is really a more complicated statis tical procedure than is indicated here. Q This would be an approximation? A It is an approximation. Q Would you characterize that as a fair approxima tion if you added them up that way? .d-21 101 A Yes. It is only the uncertainty that is the iffi-' cult number to pin down. Q And what is the standard now? A In terms of the guidelines, that should be compared to -- that that should be compared'to, I will refer you to Table 1, page 6 of the* report, which are the British guide lines that I was comparing:*to for Column 7, and that has -- the third table of Table 1, a less than 0.011 in Column 7 would mean negligible dust-categories. A number between 0.014 and 0.054 in Column 7 would mean a low category. A number betvzeen 0.054 anav0.28 in Column 7 would mean a medium category of dustiness, and a high category cf dustiness would be for a number in excess cf 0.28 in Column 7. Q So you had a high concentration? A That would be a high at that sample.. G Above the standard? A Yes, above the British guidelines. C And what about the American guidelines? A The American guideline would reference Column 3, the particles and fibers, and you would have to look -- remem ber, I stated in a much earlier answer that regardless of which guideline you used, you would reach 'the conclusion that there was excessive dustiness. 102 1-22 nd Tape #5 art Tape #6 Co 1 m m 3 would be compared with the American guideline at chat time, 5 million particles per cubic foot* Q That would be a little bit better than twice that? A So that one would be a little bit better than twice; that's right. Q Twice in excess of the American guidelines? A And it would be what -- approximately three times, a little Ie3S, the British guidelines. Q All right- Three times the British guideline and twice the American? A That sample, yes. Q Above, that is? A Yes. Q So then that standard, that*^ sample would be out of compliance with the American standard by twice, and the British standard by three times? Is that right? A I would not -- no? the standard refers to an 8-hour time period. Q Well, at that particular time-period. A And this is a five-minute sample. Q Assvuning it remained;constant? A If it remained constant, but that's a very big "if" in the sense of answering the question you pose; that is  /wfcd-23 I OS why I u se th e p h r a s e : nTheso r e s u l t s s u g g e s t . , . " Q All right. Well, it could be more, it could be less? A Well, that -- these results suggest that that -- to me, that would stay above; that is so .much above that they suggest that there is excessive dustiness. That is why I labelled the conclusion that way. Q Well, don't they compel that conclusion? A You might say that. To reach that conclusion and not use "suggest", I would have had to go back in here and sample 'round the clock for at least % week. Q Is there any doubt in your mind that you would have found that had you done this,`based on what you saw there? MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to the form of the* question. MR. KLAPPS: We will join that objection; it causes the witness to speculate. THE WITNESS: Professionally, even with the data I have had at hand, I would not want to jump -- BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Are you satisifed that you made these samples on a normal working day? A I believe it was a representative day; yes. i-24 104: Q Okay. Mow, ons other question about these Columns that I want to clear up in my own mind. Let's take Column 5 -- MR. KLAPPS: Mr. Baldwin, you want to take that break now? MR. BALDWIN: This is the last question I want to ask him. Let's do that. It wouldn't taka but a minute. THE WITNESS: You promised. MR. BALDWIN: I am not saying "the last question," but the last topic. It should not take long if he will try to cooperata. Off the record, please. (Discussion off the record) BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Okay; g e ttin g back to Column 5 -- you there? A Yes. Q Okay. Column 5, if I understand, it represents your estimated count of only fibers and not particles, includ ing fibers; and am I right about that? A Without -- with the proviso of fibers of 5 to 10 microns in length. Q Yes , but we are talking about now what ,we counted. A Yes Vwhd-25 105 Q Vie are talking about fibers, as distinguished from Column 3, which also includes dust particles? A Yes, but it is distinguished from Column 6, which includes fibers greater than 10 microns, Q I am talking about -- Now, we are just talking about asbestos fibers , and nothing else, regardless of length. MR. ARMSTRONG; Object to the -form of the question. The witness has previously defined fibers as being those particles whose length exceeds its diamahar hy three, and not an asbestos particle. BY MR. BALDWIN; (Resuming) Q That is what I am coming to. I want to find out what you are talking about. A We .did not perform the microscopic evaluation -- you can call it "petrographic" -- techniques that would be used to identify each fiber as asbestos. We defined fibers as I defined them, based on their morphclcgy, their shape. Q But right now we are talking about fibers as dis tinguished from particles? A Yes. Q And let's don't even be concerned about length, for V. the purpose of my question, until you can gat xe w h a m I can ICS D understand you: okay? Do you foliov; me? A I think so. Q So, then, Column 5, we are talking only about fibers? M R . ARMSTRONG: Object to the form of the question. Object to the form of the question. 3Y MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Is that right? A I would prefer you to phrase it that: in Column 5 we are talking about fibers 5 to 10 microns in length and an estimated concentration per cubic foot of air. Q All right, if you don't include in that sample, or that estimation, particles? A That is right. Q That is right -- v/hat? A We don't include particles in that estimate. Q Ai1 right; okay. Now, then, my next question is: what kind of fibers are you talking about? A There is no work in this report that would contri bute to the identity of the type of fiber. The assumption is made in the counting of fibers that they are representative of the bui2~ material used 107 Q That is, asbestos? A That is correct. As a check on thatsample, to support thatassump tion, an outdoor air sample is made -- the fourth column down -- so you can compare what outdoor air in. the vicinity of the plant contained with respect to fibers. Q So what you are tailing us is that the count in Column 5 was of fibers in excess of 5 microns in length, a*ssumed to be asbestos fibers? A In excess of 5 and less than 10 microns in length, yes. Q Now, was that by actual count -- 1, 2, 3 -- or was that by an estimation on a volume basis, or how was that done? A We did not count 12 million particles, which this number refers to; that is impossible. We estimate the 12 million particles, and that estimation procedure is spoken of in the body of the report. The number of particles counted can be derived from the standard deviation, the plus or minus. Q Well, can you tell us in just layman^ language hew that count is dona, without reading some technical lan guage? A It is one under the microscope. There is a sir ing device in the microscope that permits the microscopist to relate that fiber, that sice to a measuring device in the eyepiece so he could categorise them in the different break downs . In general, these counts are based on somewhere between, I would say, 300 and 400 fibers counted in each category. Q In other words, he will count a number of fibers in a given category, ixt a given section under his microscope, which is a measured section, and then he can compute that to the larger section; is that what you are telling me? A Yes. It is a little more -- it is more rigorous in that he goes to randomly selected fields in the microscope so that he is getting a representative sample, but ycur state ment that from this count he calculates upwards to the area is correct. Q And in other words, you modified vzhat I said by saying that he gets a random count so that he ifill have what he regards as a representative count and then multiplies it upward because of a known volume? A That is correct. Q So then, at best, those figures in Column 5 -- 1Gb well, in all these columns,, are estimates based on a sample counting? A They are estimates, but that i3 why the standard deviation is included. In other words, I feel that with 95 percent confi dence, I can say to you that the estimate of the contents of the air, on the basis of samples, is between 3.6 plus or minus .23 and -- or, rather, I can say with confidence that the con centration of fibers or fibers and particles in aix* is, with 95 percent confidence, within the limits expressed here. Q Has this actually been proven by any test methods? A Yes. There is information in the literature which would back that statement with actual comparisons. Q That there had been an actual count made at one time or another that would -- A Investigators have put this to the test by using different methods to estimate the air concentration and so on, to see if the microscopic estimating technique is reliable. Q In comparing results of other methods? A Yes. Q That have been considered to be reliable? A ??ell, this is considered to be reliable because of those comparisons. >/wild-30 id Tape #6 110 Q That's what X say; that they have compared those results with other methods that.have been considered to be reliable, and found favorable results, and therefore they attach reliability to this? A I think it is even stronger than that. I think this is considered perhaps the most reliable method, to which other methods will be compared. MR. BALDWIN: Okay. You want to take that break? (Whereupon, at 12:55 PM, the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 2:00 o'clock PM.) -- -- - d-31 in AFTERNOON SESSION 2:00 PM Whereupon, MORTON CORN the witness on the stand at the time of recess, and having been previously duly sworn by the Notary Public, resumed the stand and was further examined, testifying as follows: BY M R . BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Doctor, then to summarize, you found the ventila tion in the dust-control system in the plant there to be unsatisfactory, as expressed on page 19 of your report? A That is correct* Q Now, then, you have told us, I believe, previously that you communicated these findings in very general terms, and when I say "these findings," I mean the findings of your report, orally to Mr. Padilla, of the Government; is that correct? A No, not quite correct. Q All right. A Remember the citation that this company was facing was focused on ventilation. I was retained to perform a ventilation assessment; that was the main thrust. At the 3ame time, becauss it related to ventila tion, I did sora3 spot sampling for dust and air. The findings /vd-32 112 of dust and air and ventilation v;srs consistent. I did not call Mr. Padilla to inform him of the findings of this report; I called him to inform him that the survey had been done, a report was in preparation. In the- process of that transportation of information, he was quite concerned that the outcome of my ventilation assessment might be different than his own. I think, in retrospect, he just wanted some pro fessional colleague assurance that I found what he found, an- -- as inadequate hood face velocities, and I in general.,con firmed that his citations were in the right ballpark, with my ventilation survey. That is- an accurate statement of what transpired. Q And his citations were citations, to be specific, citations for tdi.e violation of the Walsh-Healey Act? * __^ ^ A For ventilation? Q For ventilation violations? A Yes. So what brought me into -that plant was ven tilation . Q So then he at least at that time had your knowl edge, which confirmed his findings as set forth in his cita tion as to ventilation? A Yes, I think so. Yes,, that's a fair statement. /wnd-33 113 Q Noi*77 did you find in your -- as a course of your business, that a copy of your report was furnished to the Government within 3G to 60 days of May 7th, by Pittsburgh- Coming? A A copy of the report, I assume, was furnished, becasue there is a letter requesting such a copy, from Mr* Blair, I believe* Q And what is the date of that ./Letter, and may I see a copy of it? A Well, let me see if I can find that. Pardon me? there.is a letter from me to Mr. Blair, telling him of the<: submission of the report. That is my letter to Mr. Blair, dated -June 6th. I am writing to indicate I performed an industrial hygiene and ventilation survey, and the report was submitted on May 29. I tell him that in mi le tter. Q All right, and may we have a copy of that letter, and I a3k that it be marked Plaintiff1s Exhibit No. 5 ana attached to the deposition. MR. TRAIL: June 6th? MR. ARMSTRONG: That*s June 6th, from you -- from Doctor Corn to -- THE WITNESS : Wendell Blair. And that the report .id-34 114 has bean submittad to the Corpora tlcn. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 was marked for Identification) BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Your Plaintiff's Exhibit No* 5 went to Mr. Blair, with the Government? A That is correct. 0 Indicating that you had run a survey; is that riaht? A That is right, and that the report was submitted to the Corporation. Q And you understood the very reason for your report was to give the Government a copy of it, ultimately, in due course of business in line with this citation? A No, not quits. I recall seeing a request from Mr. Blair; I thought it was in my files. Q All right. I have seen this letter. I don't know if this is in my files or not. I do not knov; if it is, but I knew that the Government had subsequently requested that report (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6 was marked for Identification) SV/whd-35 115 BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q And that is in the form of a letter that you are now looking at, which has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 6, which is dated -- A June. Q -- June 15/ 1969/ to Mr. Stout from Mr. Blair? Is that correct? A Yes. Q Did you find that the Government was, in fact, furnished a copy of your report? A No. I assumed that the Government was. I did.;not confirm that. Q You found nothing to indicate that the Government was not? A That is correct. - Q And you would assume, in the regular course of business, that it was? A I assumed that if the request was made by Mr. Blair, that Mr. Stout would supply it. Q So then, at least, on June 6th the Government knew that you had made an investigation, that it had been made the subject of a written report, and that it was in existence? 16 MR. KLAPPS: Objection. That assumes that the letter was received on the date it was sent. BY MR. BALDWINS (Resuming) Q Well, June 6th or thereabouts? A On June Sth I sent the letter. Q Okay* Now, did you -- I believe we have established earlier that you recommended a total new redesign of the ventilation system? A Yes. Q Did you make any effort to determine what Pittsburgh- Coming did in that regard? A I did not have to make any effort* Mr* John Hyde called me, indicating that he was assigned the responsi bility for this design/ and wished to work with me in a more distant relationship than we had had previously with respect to design of the Port Alleghany system v?hich 1 was involved with * Q When was this design cQmpleted and put in opera tion? A The Port Alleghany system? Q Ho*We are talking about Tyler* A The Tyler design was never put in operation. The design was completed? I could not give you a.firm date on that. Mr. Hyde worked on it through the bulk of the fall -- the stimmer and the fall. I would guess it v/as completed by the end of the year, but I can not confirm that. Q You mean design-wise? A Yes. Q But the construction wasnever putinto operation? A Mo. I would say designwascompleted in the spring o :ha following year of *70. Q But it i^as never put in operation? A Never put into operation. Q Never even begun, v/as it? A I don't think the funding of the implementation, the engineering, was ever approved. Q For whatever reason, it was never even begun, the construction of the design? A That is my understanding. Yes. Q Did you make it known to the Government -- Mr. Padilla -- that you found the ventila tion condition there to be unsatisfactory? A The only contact I had with Mr. Padilla, I have already described. Q All right. A That ona telephone c a l l . 113 33 Q Well, weald it be fair to saythat inthat tele- phone call, even though you may not haveusee the term, you left the clear impression with him that the ventilation system at tiie plant was unsatisfactory? MR. RLAPPS: Objection. The question has been answered. THE WITNESS: That is not quite right. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Okay, A I have answered that before as reliably as I can remember it. Q As you have answered before? A Yes. Q You do not wish toamplify onthat? A That is to thebest conversation, what transpired. of myability t to recall that Q Well, if it warranted a citation, would not that indicate it was unsatisfactory? A The citation was quits specific, and my remarks were focused on the specifics of the citation, rather than the whole findings in my report. Q All right. A I assured him tnt his action would hold; that was '/whd-39 119 his concern -- xvas he going to be in a position of jeopardy as an inspector making a mistake, and I assured him that my find ings will substantiate his citation. Q Now, you returned in 1972, and why and at whose request? A I returned in 1972 at the request of Mr. G. S . Gregory, Environmental Manager, or Environmental Control Manager -- I am not sure of his exact title -- for Pittsburgh- Comi n g Corporation, for the purpose of certifying the final cleanup of the facility. Q Well, that was after the plant wasdismantled? .A Yes. Q And did you make a report? Yes. Q And do you have a copy of ..that with you? A I have a copy of that with me. " Q And may I see it, please? MR. TRAIL: Scott, I might just say at this point that the report has a number of photographs in it. That is not an additional copy; that is the only copy, so if you want to attach it to the deposition, we will have to make arrange ments, because that copy has to remain in Doctor Corn's possession * MP.. KLAPPS : Niat is the date of that report? MR. BALDWIN: June 28, 1972. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) * Q I notice you got some of 3aroncs clients in here. A They were the cleanup crew that had worked as specified in the report. MR. BALDV7IN: Wa will ask that the report be marked'as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 7 and attached, and further, ask that the Government arrange to make us copies of the photo graphs, with the understanding that Doctor Corn will keep his originals. Is that satisfactory? MR. KLAPPS: You want a copy of the photographs attached, as well as the documents? M R . BALDWIN s Right. MR. TRAIL: To the original of the deposition? MR. BALDWINS Right. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 7 was marked for Identification) BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q This visit, then, Doctor, was made after the plant had ceased to operate as a going concern? 121 A Yes. Q And after it had been cleaned up, they sent you down to see if it was safe; is that it? A I had had some input into the procedures after the equipment had been removed. I had no knowledge of the pro cedures to dismantle, but I had overseen a similar cleanup in the Port Alleghany works. The purpose of this report and the work that I did, and that I verbally transmitted in the form of procedures, which are detailed in the report, was to assure that anyone that occupied that facility in the future, upon transfer to a new owner or to a new process, would not be exposed to concen trations of asbestos dust in excess of recommended * or standards. That is the purpose of that report. guidelines l> Q What, if anything, did you do about the practice of dumping the asbestos dust, in raT.* form, on land? A I had no contact, no solicitation of my opinion, involving that area of activity or dismantling of equipment. The only area of my involvement was the physical facility remaining, and its certification for a potential new client or j;-uyer of the premises. Q That certainly would not be a good hygienic proced- P /w h d -42 122 u r e f would i t -- sta c k in g i t in raw form? A I would rather not comment on that aspect of this. Q Would you recommend that? A Would I recommendwhat? Q That practice? A Which practice? Q Stockpiling raw asbestos on land, not buried or not enclosed in any fashion? MR. TRAIL: I am going to object to the questionP because it calls for an expert opinion of the witness not related to his employment in Tyler, Texas. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q You have got your object; now, will you answer my question? A I am going to stand on that objection, as expert testimony which I am not giving away here. Q Are you saying that-you are not qualified to give an-opinion as to whether that is a good practice? A I am saying that under the rules of the deposition .as related to me, I ora not to divulge -- there is no require ment that I divulge information to you that I would give as c; consultant under fee. That is an expert opinion. Q That is not my understanding of the rules, Doctor. J-43 lXr>^ A You a re c a l l i n g fo r an e x p e rt o p in io n o ver and above what 1 did in this case. I had no involvement with this. Q I am calling for an opinion; you call it whatever you xvant to, relating and relevant to the issues in this case, to which I think I am entitled to an answer, and we will join the issue on that. A I will ask my Counsel to so advise myself. M R . KliAPPS : I don11 think you have laid adequate foundation to establish that this relates to Doctor Corn's personal activities or factual knowledge at the Tyler plant, and you are seel^ing to elicit expert-opinion testimony from him as an engineering consultant. Apparently, you have chosen not tc retain a con sultant of your own, and I believe incumbent upon me to advise him that he has a right to decline to furnish such testimony. MR. BALDWIN: I don't know of any rule that so provides, and I want my question answered. THIS WITNESS: On the basis that I was not so involved at Tyler, and that this phase of the operation had no relationship to me as a consultant, I decline to answer. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Would you recommend that practice in Tyler or ary- where? 124 A I decline to -- Q 3asecj cn your background and your knowledge as an industrial hygienist eicpert that you hold yourself out to be? A I can not answer. It is not related to this work that I performed in this case, about which I am prepared to give you full infonna tion. Q This is not unrelated tc this deposition and this lawsuit that is at issue, and I am going to ask that the Court Reporter leave a blank space, and l a m going to certify this question to the Judge, and call that it be answered, and . we either have to come* back here, or you have tc come to Marshall We are going to get an answer, or the Judge is going to rule that you do not have to answer ~ one or the other. (Leave two blank lines.) BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Now, Doctor, in order than we have a good record for the Judge, you have given us your background, haven1t you? A That is correct. Q Do you hold yourself out to be an e:rpert in any 125 A No. Q All right. If X understand your testimony, you have no parti cular expertise in any field? A No. As I interpret your question, I do not claim expertise in any field, in the sense of all fields. Q Well, name one. MR. TRAIL; 1 am going to object. It is incumbent upon you, Mr. Baldx*in, to lay the foundation for his expertise, not to solicit his ovm opinion of what his expertise is. BY MR. BALDWIN; (Resuming) Q You have made your objection? now he is telling me he is not qualified in certain fields. I want to find out what fields he holds himself out to be qualified in. Tell us -- A I will be happy to tell you. I am an expert in the evaluation and assessment of occupational health and safety hazards in plants and in engineering controls of these, and I am an expert in matters of air pollution, emissions. I am not an expert in waste disposal. Q So then, you were called down there tc loo3c at the cleanup operation of this plant, to see if it met with approval, ad-46 were you not? A No* I was called down, as I indicated before, and I will repeat -- to certify, in my professional judgment, that occupants of this building, no longer involved with processing of asbestos, would not be exposed to asbestos in air over and beyond the standard cr recommended guidelines for asbestos in .air. Q Did you find asbestos stacked in raw form anywhere adjacent to that building? .A No, I did not. Q Had von found it stacked in raw form adjacent to the building or on the premises, would you say that that occu pant would be exposed to it? MR. MC GOUGE: I am going to object to the ques tion, because it goes clearly beyond the limitations of Doctor Corn's report. MR. KLAPPS: I will join in that objection, and again restate that your are -- MR. MC GOUGH: I* suggest you read Paragraph 1, the introduction.. THE WITNESS: I think' the question goes far beyond what I was involved with here. EY MR* BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q I am not limiting your questions to your report. You may want to try to limit your answers that way, if you want to or, unfortunately or fortunately for you, this lawsuit goes far beyond your report. A I appreciate that, and it goes far beyond* me, and there aro ethers involved here. I am trying very hard to make my role and my expertise come to bear on this question. Q You are refusing to answer a question and I am trying to find out the basis upon which you are refusing it, and I want to know if you feel like you are not expertise in the field, or because you feel like you are not, being paid to give the opinion. Now, which of the two is it? MR. ICLAPPS: Well, that is a totally unfair charac terization, Mr. Baldwin. MR. BALDWIN: No, it is not. That is what he has intimated. MR. KLAPPS: Shall we agree that we speak one at a time, Mr. Baldwin? MR. BALDWIN: Right, and you talk after I am finished. MR. TRAIL: The objection has been stated on the ?/whc-48 156 record by Counsel for the Department of Justice and the United States; Doctor Corn is the witness, and the attorneys repre senting him have made the objection on the record. MR. BALDWIN: Well, I understand you have made an objection on the record. I want you to have your objection, but I want my question answered for the record, too, because the Judge is going to have to pass on this. 1 THE WITNESS: Let me state quite clearly what is guiding me here. I am Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety, now. My replies and my answers to your questions are guided by the matter at hand. I do not wish to answer in a general manner questions that can be used beyond this deposi tion in any way relating to a general statement of opinion that reflects on my present position. I am therefore restricting my comments to my role in this case. That is what is guiding me. By MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Doctor, unfortunately, you got involved in this lawsuit, I did not involve you in this lawsuit -- of your own personal volition, before you became involved with the United States Department of Labor. A That is right. 12S 4 9 Q And that involvement requires you to answer certain questions relevant to this lawsuit* A And I am doing that. Q All right. Now, I deem a question relevant to thi3 lawsuit to be: do you recommend the practice of stockpiling asbestos in the raw fora in the open on land outside of any kind cf enclos ure? MR. ICLAPPS: Object. Now, let me augment my earlier objections. I object on the ground that you are now asking the witness a hypothetical question or a question -- * I thought we had an agreement, Mr. Baldwin, for a question which incorporates hypothetical circumstances, which I believe that the witness has a right to decline to answer for several reasons: first, professional reasons of his own, second, because Doctor Corn, in his present capacity, is free -- or rather, is in fact obligated not to provide consultative work to private individuals. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Who do you v7ork for, Doctor? A I work for the United States Government. Q Is not that owned by private individuals? TH2 WITNESS: That's a rhetorical question MR. TGV7LER; Off the record a moment. {Discussion off the record) BY MR. BALDWINS (Resuming) Q Well, I am going to ask that this question, this whole colloquy be submitted to the Judge for a ruling as tc whether you have to answer this question or not, because I deem it relevant, and X think I am entitled to an answer, and I am calling on you to make it, and I want to make it clear as to why you refuse. A I have made it clear. It did not involve me at the time. I am not a waste disposal expert, and thirdly, I am restricting my replies to my involvement in this case. Q Well, you accepted the money to go there to do this work dora there at the Tyler plant? A Yes, I did. Q How much were you paid? MR. TRAIL; Obj ection. Irrelevant. MR. BALDWINS It is not. MR. TRAIL; It is irrelevant. 3Y MR. BALDWIN: {Resuming) C X want you to tell ns what you were oaid for the IS I . rr work yea die down at the Tyler plant in connection v:ith Pittsburgh-Corning. MR. TRAIL: Objection on the same grounds; it is irrelevant. BY MR. BALDWIN: (Resuming) Q Go ahead. A I don't know. I would have to check my files7 No. 1. Q Check your files. A And I will not check my files because I do not think it is relevant here. Q Are you declining to answer this question? A Yes. Q All right. We have set some ground rules, gentlemen. Ware you paid? A I already answered yes. Q Or did you 'work for nothing? A I answered. Q What was your answer? A I an3v;ered yes. Q Ya3f you vers paid? Yes. / wnc-^2 d _^>e #7 MR. BALDWIN: I co not have any more questiona, but I would like to see his fila while Saron is asking what ever he wants to; I can thumb through it. MR. ICLAPPS: Well, unless Mr. Barca will be ask ing him questions pertaining to the documents. MR. BALDWIN: If he does, I will make them avail able to him. I j u s t th o u gh t we w ould sa v e some tim e . -J DW fols shc * -; 3Y MR BARON: q Dr. C o m , my name is Ered Baron, and along with Mr. Baldwin, I represent plaintiffs in this case. I have get a few- questions for you, sir. What v/as your connection with the Public Health Service when you were working V7th them? A I was a research engineer, a -- MR. BALDWIN: Give me the file that you said we could see,, THE WITNESS: I was an assistant sanitary engineer, an officer in the Public Health Service, working as a research engineer at the Taft Sanitary Engineering Center in Cincinnati. BY if u BARON: Q During what period of time was that, Dr. C o m ? A In July of 1356 through August of 1968. Q Did you duties include making inspections and surveys of various plants? A I'lOo Q What did they include? A I worked as a research officer and constructed a prototype municipal incinerator, a model at the pilot plant scale, and evaluated that for air pollutant emissions tender different conditions of firing and charging. That was the main project I worked on Q And I taka it during the pericd of your tire with the Public Health service you familiarised yourself with the general operation of the Public Health Service in Cincinnati, did you not? A X am sorry, I couldn't hear your question because I had two conversations coming my way, Q I take it during the pericd of time that you \*orked for the Public Health Service in Cincinnati, you familiarized yourself with the general structure and ongoing business of the Public Health S e r v i c e d i d you not? A ilo, not really, X had really quits a focused involved , and role in the distribution of air pollution which had been performed in 1953, and we were.literally starting the Federal role in air pollution, X was not cognizant of all activities of the Service, Q All right, Dr. C o m , has it ever been brought to your attention that the Public Health Service, subsequent to the time you worked for them, undertook to survey the asbestos industry at the various plants? A I an familiar with certain publications and the literature on concentrations of asbestos fiber in air in tex tile facilities by, I believe, Jerry Lane who was the primary officer of the Public Health Service * Q Mave you become familiar at any time with the fact the Public Health Service, in factr surveyed all 135 asiisst.cs manufacturing p-Lan s in the Uni ad States? A No. In fact that is the first time I hav ever heard that they surveyed all the facilities. I thought it was a representative sample of the facilities of the industry. Q Okay, when did you first become aware that the PubI Health Service had involved itself in such a service? A Wnen the publication by Lynch appeared, I believe, in the American Industrial Hygiene Journal, and I don't recall the year of that publication. Q Would that have been prior to the time that you visited Pittsburgh Corning in Tyler in 1969? A Yes, yes. Q And would it have been prior to the time that you began -work at Pittsburgh C o m i n g 's Port Alleghany plant? A I would say it was probably, and I 'm guessing, we can check this, it was probably pretty close to the initial involvement at Port Alleghany. It was in the mid-1960's. Q what did you understand the purpose of the government survey to be? A I thought it was a state of the arts assessment, and as I recall it was -- the report I had had eight textile plants reported cn, so you supplied me, stating all facilities had been checked -- as to what kind of engineering technology ecuId achieve In lieu cf the changing DW-4 vie\73 on what the standards should be. 136 So 1 thought rhis was a dipping into to determine where are we at and what can engineering do for us to get further. Andy in fact, it reported, as I recall, the number of plants that were meeting the current standard, that weren't meeting it, and so on. Q Did you at any time make further inquiry to attempt to gather statistics that the Government relied upon in making that survey? A No. I did not. Q Have you ever been advised by anyone that Pittsburgh Coming plant had been involved in that survey? A No. In fact, this is the first that5s ever been mentioned. Q Now, Dr. C o m , we discussed in pretty good detail your relationship with Dr. Grant, and I believe your testimony was that you first met him in 1964, is that correct? A Teat's correct. Q And what was the occasion that you had ecme into contact with Dr. Grant the first time? A I don't really remember that. But the first involvement we had together, I remember we went up to Port Alleghany together. He had joined the PPG Company, and at that tins there was perhaps one industrial '.hygienist in the company., And he had indicated he needed additional resources. 137 and hoped we cculi work together ns he proceeded to visit each of the PPG facilities which was his intention in taking over as medical director. He indicated to me he would personally visit each facility just as rapidly as he could. So h e , as I recall, put out, "as I need you, I haven't sufficient resources until I get this corporate medical are on the road, would you be available" and the first such visit we went on together was up to Port Alleghany. Q Okay, ;nd it was your understanding, was it not, Dr. C o m y that Dr. Grant had been employed by PPG Industries and was going to inspect all -their facilities? A Hot inspect, he was going -- he felt that he wanted to be familiar with each. He did not inspect, and that was not in his -- his list of responsibilities as medical director. Q And it just so happened that the Port Alleghany facility was the first one, is that correct? MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to the form cf the question, it suggests that the Port Alleghany facility was a facility of PPG. THE WITNESS: I would ilka to clarify what I said earlier. It is the first time Dr. Grant and I came together. I have no idea where it was on his list of projected mO o :2Y MU* Cv471* Q Dr. Corn, were you paid by any entity to ;I`j ycur initial investigation of the Port Alleghany plant? A in those years, I was paid through the Industrial Hygiene Foundation. PAX my billing went to the Incu Hygiene Foundation. Q Okay. A I was also in accord with that rollo appointed r. senior fellow of he Mellon Institute in which the Industrial Hygiene Foundation was located. Thi3 had decided advantages to me in my university responsibilities. It made available tc me all cf the research facilities of that institute, and was also an incentive to promote this relationship. Q All right. Hew, would it be fiar to say that the Industrial Hygiene Foundation in turn billed the various corporate entities for which they did the work? A Yes. 0 There would be reference somewhere at the Industrial Hygiene Foundation as to who was billed for your ti:ne at the Port Alleghany plant, would there not? A I would think so. Q Dr. C o m , did you learn upon visiting with Dr. Grant that the Industrial Hveriene Foundation had? in fact visited When did you become aware of that fact? A I became aware of the fact that there were prior visits to Tyler when I read Paul Brodeur's book, Expendable Americans. Q Yen mean that you as a consultant working with the Industrial Hygiene Foundation in an asbestos plant in Port Alleghany, and then again as an independent ccnsuitann m Tyler, had no information whatsoever that the Industrial Hygiene Foundation had run a survey in 1962 or S3? MR. ARMSTRONG: Objection, that is jury speech. He has answered the question. THE WITNESS: I have answered the question. 3Y MR. BARON: Q Your answer is you did not? A. That:s correct. Q After your inspection of the Port Alleghany plant, did you go to other plants with Dr. Grant? A Yes. I did work for PFG at several facilities, not always with Dr. Grant, sometimes alone. sometimes ha would join me there. Ha would attend to many of the items hs wished to attend to when we were there together. It was 140 not consistently? though, we were there together. Q Wes PPG, in fact, your biggest client, if that's the right term, during this period of time? a no. Q it took up a fair share of your time doing these inspections and investigations for PPG, did it not? MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to the relative term? MR. KLAPP3: Join in that objection. 3Y MR. BARON: Q Go ahead and answer the question. A Well, I can place it in perspective. I had roughly fifty days a year and any weekends that the university permitted me for this type of work. And you can pretty well get a feel, for I used that fully. You can get a feel for the kind cf time I could commit to this. You must recall 1 was very busy teaching graduate students, X had research going on, I was anxious to publish my findings. This was one aspect of my life that I believed was essntial, that it was teaching me what the applications of that which we were researching and teaching at tiie university were. But it was no more than, I would say, even when I was pushing it very hard, 30 per cent of my work. 1 Upen what published material did you rely when you mac.a your investigation of the Tyler plant in terms of DT-v - 5 141 criteria? A The British guidelines was published in the Journal, the Annals of Occupational Hygiene I believe in 196S. The American guidelines ware the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists threshold limit values table. I think this is an appropriate point tc indicate that at the time this work was going on while I was referring to a 5 fiber per cc limit, expressed appropriately, this was a proposal. In the asbestor work I was doing in this period I was telling people you should think in terms cx that, but I believe the 12 fiber per cc was still in effect* We could get those dates pinned down. I donft think the 5 had come in yet* Q What period of time are we talking about, Dr. Coin? A The '69 period, and the Tyler survey. Q You were advising your clients that, in fact, they had better be watching for a 5 fiber situation rather than a 12? A It had been proposed. Q And was it your feeling at that time that it was imminent that the 5 fiber standard would be adopted? A I expressed to anyone I was dealing with that in my opinion the 5 would be adopted, yes* Q also? And tha-t was sene ailin g you r e p r e s s e d do D r, h r an t r A I am sure I did, yes. Q All right. Did you rely.at all, Dr. C o m , on publications from the government concerning asbestos plants? A Not -- in answer to your question, not for the relationship to the guidelines of the standards. I have cited the major sources that I relied upon there. No, I did not. Q But you wars aware of the fact the government had done studies and was familiar with tha condition inside asbestos piant3 in the United States? MR. TRAIL: Object to the form of the question as leading. 3? MR. BARON: Q Answer the question, please. A No, I v/as not aware of all of the work. In fact, I responded earlier to your suggestion that the government had surveyed all facilities as a surprise. I knew the government wa3 probing. I also was supervising what I thought was one of the finest laboratories in -this field for microscopy in the United States, and I think It was of th.e c'oinicii that in 143 deal, so I vac act chacliing with the government, T vc checking with the procession as contrasted to the government* Q But v;ith the publication of Lynch's findings you did know that the government had undertaken to investigate the asbestos industry, is that correct? A I was aware of this report, yes, the published report Q You were aware that the government had this information in its possession? MR. KLAPPS: Objection to the form of the question and the fact that the question assumes facts not in evidence* 3Y MR. BARON: Q Go ahead and answer the question* A I have gotten mixed up with his answer. Q Dr* C o m , ycu were familiar with the fact that the government did possess information concerning the state of the asbestos industry in the United States and what was occurring inside asbestos plants? MR* KLAPPS: Sams objection. MR. TRAIL: And speculation. THd WITNESS: No, I would have to answer that no. I knew the government was doing some work-period. BY MR. BARON: Q Do you knew Dr. Crowley? A as The re two Dr. Crowleys I knew a Dr 1*421 Lester Crcvlsy more :o:as: xchange basi: acquainted with Dr. Louis Crowley. Q Did you have any contact with Dr. Louis Crowley when he was working for the government? A 130. Q After the initial inspection at the Port Alleghany plant but prior to the time you visited the Tyler plant, cid you have any discussions with Dr. Grant concerning the Tyler plant? A None whatsoever. I tried to indicate earlier that I had no contact, no focussing on the Tyler plant, until li^ Q Now, Dr. Corn, X take it that being in the are?, you were familiar with the various governmental agencies concerned with industrial hygiene, were you not, during that period of time? A I was familiar with the division of occupational health cf the United States Public Health Service that went through a whole series of name changes, so I don*t even know what to refer to it as to which year, but that is the only agency. Your question was in the plural and I am not sure what others you have in mind. Q Dr. C o m , what I have got in mind is the Pittsburgh Comi n g plant in Tyler received some nature of a citation in 1969 which initiated, apparently, your visit there did it not? Yes DV7-I3 1^5 And what was the basis or the law under which such a citation was issued? MR. ICLAPPS: I air. going to object, that question has been asked and answered several times. BY MR. BARON: Q I want him to go through it again, if ha would. A X will be glad to indicate what that citation said to me. X was aware of the Walsh-Healy Act. I knew it was administered through the Department of Labor. I at that time had no idea of the numbers of inspections or the activity of the program. It was one that X had not had contact with before,, that was the first Walsh-Healy DOL citation X had come up against. So X would 3ay that X was aware that it existed, but I had not come into contact with the Department of Labor or through the administration of that act before. Q Dp you know what became of the citation in the Tyler plant, what the resolution was? A No. Q Did you understand that the Department of Labor under the Walsh-Healy Act had the authority to close the plant if it was in violation of the act? MR. TRAIL: Objection, it calls for the -- I object, it call 3 fcr a legal conclusion on the part of the witness * BY HR. BABON: Q Go ahaad and answer it. I am asking for your understanding. I am net holding you to be an expert. MR. TRAIL: I don't care how you qualify it, it is still a legal conclusion on the part of the witness. MR. BALDWIN: You have made your objection, go ahead and answer the question. THE WITNESS: I am not sura of what the objection is. MR. BALDWIN: You don't need to be clear what the objection is. THE WITNESS: I was not aware of the enforcement actions available to the Department of Labor on the .basis of that violation, no. BY MR. BARON: Q Did anyone from Pittsburgh C o m i n g or Dr. Grant advise you that the Tyler plant was in jeapordy of being closed prior to the time of your inspection? MR. McGOUGH: I think I object to that question on the ground it assumes a fact that is not of record. MR.. KuAFPS: Could I have the question repeated, please? MR. BARON: I axa asking if anyone from Pittsburgh Comino or PPG advisea him that the Tyler plant was in jec.pordy o:: being ele sed as a result of the Labor Department D*"-15 mi citation prier to your inspection. ?HE WITNESS i Me. 3Y HR. EARON: Q MO. A The charge to me was to determine if the citation was valid or invalid. Q All right. A And assess the ventilation capability of this facility. Q Okay, did you make such a determination as to whether it was valid? A My report speaks to the ventilation system which I think it goes without saying indicates that the citation was confirmed. Q After your report had been submitted to Pittsburgh Corning, did you receive any follow up inquiry from any official of the company? A No. X next heard frcsn Mr. Hyde. Q Concerning his design? A He had been authorized by the company to proceed with the design of a new system. Q VThen you talked with Mr. Hyde, did you ask him about the outcome of the Labor Department citation? A No. Let me -- you simply don't ao a consultant c:c that 1^8 You are -- 1st me sav, I would not. I do not explore beyond the relationship between myself and the company. If the company had come back, "we disagree with your report, explain this to me fn I would have answered it, but I would not initiate, "well, what the hell did you do with that report, what fire you going to do down there-" that9s not my domain. I was called in as a ventilation and I provided my service to the company. The next contact was Hyde saying, "I am authorised \ to proceed with the ventilation design, I want you to work with me," and that9s what I did. I did not explore 'the disposition of the citation. I id not explore what was going on in Tyler. Q Subsequent to your report, were you advised or did you become a\*are of the fact that other individuals had been retained by the company to come down and make further inspections of the plant? A No. Q You know a Mr. DeStefano? A Oh, Mr. DeStefano is an industrial hygienist employed in the glass division of PPG, yes, I do know him. Q All right. Are you aware of the fact that Mr. DeStefano at a time subsequent to your report visited the Tyler plant to examine the problem doT-m there? DVT-17 MR. ARMSTRONG: O b j e c t i o n , no su ch e v id e n c e . 3Y MR. BARONi Q All right. A I do not know that.. Q Did he ever discuss the Tyler plant with you, Dr. Com? A Sever. Q Did you ever issue any report of any form, oral or written, to Mr. DeStefano concerning the Tyler plant? A No. Q Dr. Coming, when you did this consulting work for Pittsburgh Comi n g or for whomever it was in 1959, you were not working through the Industrial Health Foundation at that time, were you? A That's correct. Q And I taka it you were paid directly, were you not? A That is correct. Q Do you recall from what entity you received your check? A Pittsburgh Coming. Q DR. C o m , other than the conversations you had with Mr. Hyde subsequent to your report here, prior to the time that you went back down to look at the plant cleanup, did you have any other conversations with any official of either Pittsburgh Coming or PPG concerning the Tyler plant? 150 A :es. Q All right, who would that have been with and when? A I had a discussion with Mr. Bierar, President of the company, at his request, and you have that file which recalls the date of that conversation. MR. ARMSTRONG: What company? THE V7ITNESS: The Pittsburgh Corning Company. MR. BARON: All right, let's go ahead ana mark this thing as an exhibit. MR. BALDWIN: Let's mark everything in this file while you are at it. MR. KLAPPS: Let the -- MR. BARON: Number 8 i s a letter to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Hear th from -- it appears to be a letter and it is application for variance to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Plaintiff*3 exhibit 8 was marked for identification.) BY MR. BARON: Q Now, Dr. C o m , when vzera you contacted by Mr. Bierar concerning -this document? A It did not concern that document. Q All right, concerning the application for variance. A It did not concern the application for variance, What did it concern? Dvv- 1 9 END Tape#9 151 A Mr. Bieror wanted to discuss the entire subject of asbestos, and I spent a corning with him. Q What was the nature of your discussion? A Virtually as much as X could inform him was in the area of my expertise of the current state and knowledge of asbestos, the findings I. found, the implications of these findings. We talked at great length. Mr. Bierer had recently come to the job, I forget the period of time, he indicated that this was a nevj area for him, he dicing know asbestos. He was impressed with the concern of all parties, and he would just like to talk for awhile, so we talked. 152 Q. Do yovi remember when that. v/as, Dr. Ccrr? A You have a letter there that would fix that cate. I wrote back to him after the morning, and that would give you that date. Q. I am sorry. OK, let's call this Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 9. It appears to be a letter dated October 7,, 1969, to Mr. James H. Bisr-sr from Morton C o m . fThe document referred to wac marked Exhibit No. 9 for identification.) THE WITNESS: No, it doesn't give the date of the meeting. BY MK. BA2CN: 0. It would have been at a period within a week cr so of that letter, Dr. Corn? a. Yes, it would have been shortly before the date of this letter. & Did you discuss with Mr. Sierer your findings at the Tyler Plant? a. YeS. a Did he ask for your recommendation? A, As I recall, the decision he was searching for was ; 2 XXX whether to invest the kind of funds into this facility that the design was indicating would have to be invested. This was a temporary structure pest World War II and our effort at design, Mr. Hyde and some contact I had with Mr. Hyde, indicated a major alteration of facilities, so v;e -- What I think he was weighing, and this is conjecture, is what he was hearing from me and the investment in that facility for implementing this system. MR. BARCN: OK, would you mark this Plaintiffs* Exhibit No. 10, please? (The document referred to was marked Plaintiff*s Exhibit No. 10 for identification.) BY MR. BARON: Q. Dr. Corn, can I just come over here and show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 10 and ask you what that is? A. This exhibit is an outline of a seminar I presented to the staff of the Pittsburgh Coming Corporation Research Canter on September 25, 1969, at the suggestion of Dr. Lee Grant and the invitation of, I believe, Mr. Holman. Qt This was prior to a meeting with Mr. Bierer, was it not? 1 Yes, and perhaps this seminar was -- could have -L-4 prompted his request for the meeting - Q. Dr. Corning, what was the purpose of the seminar? A To present in a relatively brief period of an hour to an hour and a half the perspective on asbestos as a material used in industry and what the scientific community was wrestling with, its biological effects and how it was assessed, what the guidelines were. It was a broad look at asbestos. It was modeled after a lecture that I gave at the university to first-year graduate students in this field, and the topical breakdown indicates it starts with the production properties and uses, goes on to biological effects, the assessment and some additional aspects. & And this paper, was prepared by you, Dr. Corn? A That1s correct'. & Dr. Corn, was anybody else participating in this seminar in terms of giving information other than yourself? A No. 0- I take it that you did a substantial amount of medical research to come up with some of this information, did you not, Dr. Corn? A As I said, this is modeled after material that I teach to first-year graduate students, and I do teach some of the, what I call, the first layer aspects of biological 1 ^ 4' effects of agents. The students take a more probing and in-depth course in toxicology, but I think I am capable of giving them the first introductory materials on this. QL To the biological effects of asbestos? A. Yes. & This is a course that you teach at the university? A. I teach a course in industrial hygiene. Q. Which is -- As a portion of it, does it not have, Dr. Corn, the biological effects of asbestos? A. I refer to what is known, and as you can see, I have backed up, I do not presume to be an authority, I have included as the appendices the references to materials. I look at my role in that area as transmitting work of others, so there are results here with references from others that I refer to the students, in essence, repeating v/hat has appeared in the literature. Q. How long have you been teaching that course. Dr. Corn? A. Since 1967. & I take it that information on the biological effects of asbestos has been available for many years, has it not, Dr. Corn? A. Ye3, yes ar 5 1: Q. In f a c t , when yon v;ere in c o l l e g e p u rsu in g y c u r degrees this material was available, was it not? A When I was in college as a graduate student in this field the asbestos -- aspects of asbestos were known, but that was all. Subsequently the lung cancers, the mesothelioma and pluralplaques appeared. Q. This is information that was generally in the material that a student in this area would have to learn ever since you have been going to school anyway? MR. ARMSTRONG: What information? MR. BARON: The information concerning the biological effects of asbestos. MR. ARMSTRONG; VJhat information? MR. McGOUGH: VJhat kind of a student? MR. ARMSTRONG: When? MR. BARON: Let me rephrase the question. BY MR. BARON: ft Dr. Corn, it is true, is it not, that a student going through school at the time that you did in an area that would be concerned with industrial hygiene would have become aware, should have become aware, of the biological effects of asbestos? MR. ARMSTRONG: What biological effects? er 6 157 MR. 3AR0N: Just answer the question. MR. ARMSTRONG: Don't. My objection is that the witness previously testifies that when he was in school the only adverse biological effects known to him caused by asbestos was asbestcsis. Nov/, if you are willing to accept that as this question, I have no objection to its form. If you mean something else, then, man, say so. MR. BARON: You finished? * MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir. MR. BALDWIN: Maybe he has a very limited knowledge of asbestos. BY MR. BARON: Ql Can you answer the question now? A I would like, I really would like to answer. I would be pleased to answer if you could frame it a little differently. & OK, this material that you studied in college was generally available at that time to people interested in this area, was it not? MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to the form of the question. BY MR. BARON: Ql Go ahead. X I don1*;: -- Let ms answer the question even i:; it doesn't relate to the question, I will give you the answer. The material available is in the scientific literature. For the purposes of this lecture to the students, I have referenced the scientific literature. This is highly controversial literature, let me make that clear. This is not an overwhelming consensus of opinion. I clearly tell the students that, and I tell them here are the references, you can explore this, these are the different viewpoints that emerge. I can't judge them, but I am giving you a picture of the state of the art, and I don't expect you to read all this while you are here; you may read it next year, the year after when you get out. The student in graduate school gets a lot of material for future reference so what the student is going away with is a very superficial picture that it is believed, in the case of asbestosis, these are the effects. They would know that possibly there is controversy about the different forms, they would know some cf the principal investigators, they would know where the key references are. I don't think they would dig into this material in depth; they just haven't the time during that graduate year. & Dr. Corn, reflecting upon the time that you were er 8 in college, this controversial material about asbestos was being published at that time, was it not? MR. ARMSTRONG: Object to the form of that. THE WITNESS: Quite the contrary. MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, I object on the ground `that there is no time frame, the man has been in college all his life and still is, and these consequences he has also not defined. MR. McGOUGH: This literature -- incidentally, I would like to add my objection. Lcoking at Exhibit 10, it seems to me the references that Dr. Corn has in here, the earliest I can find is 1965. BY MR. BARON: Q. Dr. Corn> I am, of course, referring to the information that you were relying upon when you were in college and the material you were studying. A Permit me to differentiate. The material I learned in college on a3bestosis was not controversial, that `was medically accepted. The reason these references stem from *65 was there was a major conference on cancer, a worldwide conference in *54, that was the opportunity for many workers in this field to get together and stimulated a prolifery of work, the controversial asepcts of the biological sffacts of iso a asbestos, or carcinogenic aspects, not the asbestosis aspects. Sc what I learned as a student was not presumed in a manner of being influx of new information? what students today are learning is being presented that way. Q. OK* But the question of whether asbestos causes asbestosis among workers exposed to asbestos is not a controversial topic, is it, Doctor? MR. ARMSTRONG; Excuse me. Would you read the question back, please? (The reporter read the record as requested.) THE WITNESS: The disease state of asbestosis is not a controversial subject. It is accepted in the medical community. BY MR. BARON: & All right. And has been since you have been in college, is that correct? A. Yes. & Was Mr. Bierer present at the seminar that you gave, Dr. Corn? A NO. Q. Was that the reason for your meeting with him at a later date? A VJell, I don't know The phone call from Mr. _ierar came after the seminar requesting if I could ba available to snana some time with him. 0. After the time that you spent with M .3. in late September or early October of 1969, xvhen was the next occasion that you had contact with either Pittsburgh Corning or PPG individuals concerning the Tylar Plant? A Mr. Hyde would call me as needed as he proceeded with the design. Ho had worZcad with me on the Port design, had learned a great deal and indicated he would like to go ahead calling on ms as necessary with the Tyler design I think you have some correspondence in that regard, but there was a great deal of telephone engineering type resolution between myself and Hr. Hyde. I can't give you an idea of the frequency; it v;as fairly frequent as he came up against problems in his implementing the design. & All right. Now, other than Mr. Hyde, did you have any contact with either PCC people or PPG people concerning the Tyler Plant prior to the time that you got involved with this application for variance? A. No. & All right, how was it that you became involved with the application for variance, which is Plaintiff's 1-- W 4-- A. I am not sure if it was Mr. Stout or Mr. Holman who called from Pittsburgh Corning indicating that on the basis of what we had learned in Port could I indicate the capability of the system being designed for Tyler,and because the two production facilities were very similar, I said I probably could give a professional opinion on what is about the best we can do with the best system in another facility and also mindful of the fact that it would be a tougher design job in Tyler. Q. Did he discuss with you the fact that they were preparing an application for variance? L Yes. It was mentioned in that context, and there were several exchanges of wording. I did not see the total application for variance. I saw several wordings which I revised, and there was discussion that I felt it was possible for me to attest to, and you have in your possession that final copy. 0. Dr. Corn, did you actually read the application in its entirety prior to signing the affidavit? A. No, I did not. I only signed the affidavit that v/as with respect to my contribution. I did not see the entire application. The affidavit I signed is an attestment to the design capability that I believed cculd be achieved. 16 ar 12 Q. And it was your opinion at that time that th= revised threshold limit value for asbestos of 5 fibers per milliliter greater than 5 microns in length could not be obtained either in Port Alleghany or Tyler? A No, no. Excuse me* MR* McGOUGH: Excuse me, what time is this you are speaking of? MR. BARON; At the time that he signed the affidavit, which was August 3, 1971. MR. McGOUGH: OK, thank you. THE WITNESS: The 5 fiber per cc limit went in effect December 7, 1971. I signed this affidavit August of 1971, and the wording is quite carefully phrased, it has the follov/ing wording, in answer to your question, that "The revised threshold limit value for asbestos of 5 fibers per milliliter greater than 5 microns in length with existing dust collection systems in some areas of its Port Alleghany works and Tyler works," with existing dust collection systems. BY MR. BARON: & Now, I had understood that the dust collection system in Port Alleghany had been changed, had it not, Dr. Corn? A Yes. it had been changed. 26^- 13 ft Prior to this time? Cm Yes, it had. ft In compliance with yourracororaendation? A In compliance with thebulk of my design, ft But still it wou-ld not meet the new standards? A The maintenance aspects of the plant had a major effect on the airborne concentration independent of the-system. In other words, the system was very sensitive to the maintenance procedures hv individuals in the processing operations, far more sensitive than we had hoped, so that on occasion due to maintenance procedures, we exceed the 5 fiber import. ft OK. Prior to making this affidavit on the 3rd day of August 1971, did you reexamine the Tyler Plant to determine that this was true? A No. I expressed the opinion here that with the very best maintenance, with the very best procedures, there would still be in some areas of these plants -- I was given the opinion that you could not meet the 5 fiber. ft But you never did go back to the Tyler Plant before you made this affidavit, did you, Dr. Corn? A No, but I knew what was in Tyler, and Tyler had not been changed. ft And you had been advised that Tyler had not been er 14 changed? X Yes, I knew at this point in time it had not bean changed. Q. Ey v/hom? X By Mr- Hyde, I believe. In fact, there was some point in time where Mr. Hyde indicated the appropriation for the design had not been authorized. I don't know vihere that fell in. Q. Were you given a reason why Pittsburgh Corning was applying for a variance as to its Tyler Plant? X Was I given a reason why? Let me think about that. No. 0. Subsequent or prior to the date that you signed the affidavit, had you been advised by Mr. Hyde that his proposed system would not be implemented in Tyler? X I think I was. I think I was. I haven't got the -- no -- well, August '71, yes, it would have been before then, it would have been before then, yes. & Mr. Hyde advised you? X That it had not been funded. & Nor that -- It was not going to be funded, was that what he advised you? X No, it was nov; put in that sense. He indicated er 15 l5 the Board had mat and th e y were n o t a u th o r iz in g a t t h is tim e the construction cf the ventilation facility, of the implementation of the design. Q. And yet you signed the affidavit in support of the application for variance, did you not, Dr. Corn, with this inf ormation? MR. TRAIL: I object to the question, it states fact3 that have not been testified to and misstates his testimony, as a matter of fact. THE WITNESS: I think you could say that my affidavit appended to the variance could be viewed as supporting it. I viewed the affidavit as a statement of what conditions in the facility were and what you could ..expect at best. Oh, perhaps I viewed this wrong, but I did not view that -this was a support or nonsupport of an application for variance; it is a statement by an engineering specialist as to what you can do. BY MR. BARON: & You understood the purpose of the application, did you not, Dr. Corn? A Yes* a And you understood that your affidavit was going 167 er 16 to be appended to i t , did you n o t. Dr. Corn? A* Yes, I did. G. V7ere you aware cf the fact at that time that the Pittsburgh Corning plant in Tyler had been reinspected by the Government? X Reinspected? 0. Yes. X No No. & Dr. Corn, did you take thephotographs that are appended to this May 7,1969, report? X Yes, I did. Q. Do you knew where the originalphotographs or negatives would be? X I am not sure I have them. They were, X believe, Polaroids. Those were Polaroids. The clean-up is all 35 mm negatives, and they should be in my files, but the Polaroids were one shot, and T am not sure if I submitted them with the original report. I usually put the best material I can in with the transmitted report. They may have gone with the original. & The originalwas submitted to Pittsburgh Corning? X Yes. MR. BALDWIN; Would you look and see if you have IDO those Polaroid^? MR. ARMSTRONG: Why would you look over here? Is there something wrong with the balance of this room or something? MR. BARON: Walterf would you check and see if you can find those photographs? MR. McGOUGH: I have never seen them. THE WITNESS: I can also check my files in Pittsburgh and see if I have those. MR. McGOUGH: Did you ask Mr. Armstrong or me to do what? MR. BALDWIN: I asked you, but Mr. Armstrong answered. MR. ARMSTRONG: Oh, that's a dirty one, `let the record show. BY MR. BARON: Ql Doctor, are you a member -- strike that. Have you ever been a member of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists? A Yes. & Are you still a member of that, group? A Yes, I am. a How long have you been a member? 159 er 13 \ A Probably 10 years or so . Ql And do you receive their various publications? A Yes. MR. BARON: X have no further questions. (Plaintiff's Exhibits 11 through 17 were marked for identification.) (Recess.) 3Y MR. KELLEY: Ql Dr. Corn? as I understand it? you graduated from Harvard School of Public Health with your Ph.D. in 1961? is that correct? A No, from the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, in 1961. Qt Did you get your Ph.D. degree then? A 1961. Qi Prom Harvard? A From Harvard. The onlydifferentiation I called was the degree v/as the Division of Engineering and Applied Physics. Ql And then you went to the, I believe you said, the National Science Foundation for a year? A I had a NationalScience Foundation award which used to spend a year in London with the Medical Research er 19 170 C o u n cil end th e London Sch oo l o f H ygien e. Did yon receive any degree as a result of that study? A No. Q. And then in September of 1962 you started teaching at the University of Pittsburgh, is that correct? A Thatss correct. & And when you first started theret were you assistant professor or associate professor? Exactly what was your title? A Assistant professor. Q. Now, what is your present title at* the University of Pittsburgh? A I am a professor of occupational health in the School of Public Health and an adjunct professor of chemical engineering in the School of Engineering on leave of absence. & Are those both fullprofessorships? A Yes, they are. & Are either of themendowed professorships? A The School of Public Health is a school endowed. & By whom? A That was a Mellon grant that established the school in 1349. That is our endowment. 171 ar 20 nd Tape 9 & uust for tlie record, during the intermission I asked you to check through the Exhibits 1 through 17 which had been marked by the reporter* Were all of those exhibits, with the exception of 2:diibit 6, taken from your file which was furnished to us here? I Yes. Q. Not*, do you still have this consulting firm in Pittsburgh? X 1 never had a consulting firm. I pursue this as a professional practitioner* ? :bsp-l 172 Q Lookincr at Exhibit 17- I think -- A That is the letterhead, indicates my home address and my expertise as a professional, but I am not incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania. Q Do you do any consulting work at this time or is your work confined 3trictly to government work? A At the time I assumed this position I relinquished all affiliations with any other parties to become Assistant Secretary of Labor. Q How long is your leave of absence from the University of Pittsburgh or is it indefinite? A It is granted two years at a time, subject to renewal. I have an additional leave of two years, ending December, 1977. 0 The whether or not you return is dependent upon cir cumstances at that time, I take it? A If I would request an additional leave or return would be the procedure. The university is prepared to receive a request for extension and that v/ould be considered and acted upon. If I wished to not return and that request was denied, I would relinquish my tenure chair and everything else. Q linen did you first start arranging this seminar that  When did you first start arranging this seminar tha: was held, I believe, in September*cf 196?, approximately? A I just don't remember; I don't think it was a long period of arranging, but I don't have the date on that. Q Was it prior to or subsequent -to your visit to Tyler? A Well, we have the data on that, I think -- was it not September? * Q September is the date of the seminar, but when did you start organising it? Was it prior to or subsequent to your visit to Tyler? A Oh, it would have been subsequent, . think. We are talking about in the neighborhood of scheduling that seminar a month ahead. 0 And what was it that compelled you to conduct the seminar; did someone request you to do it, or did -you do it on. your own initiative, or what? A Dr. Grant requested that I do it. Q Whose primary benefit was the seminar, if there was any primary beneficiaries of it? A For the employees of the research center which included the middle-management and virtually everone at the center, We filled a room approximately this size. I would guess thera were 40 to 50 persons present. IJiL bsp-3 Q That is the Pittsburgh Corning Research Center in. Presque Isle? A Presque Isle. Q Yes. A Yes. 0 Where is Presque Isle? A Just east of Pittsburgh. 1 believe it is Presque Isle Drive is the street, in Monroeville. Q I see. And what, if you know, is the Pittsburgh Corning Research Canter? A It was the research wing of the corporation. There ;^/er.e naw products they were working on, much of which .was done at the center. The engineering desigrn group was at the center. I am net sure of all of the functions that were incorporated fa that canter. * . Q Okay. Do you knew if it was a separate corporation or-was it simply a branch of Pittsburgh Corning? A I always assumed it was a part of the company, not a separate corporation. Q This seminar that was given in September of 1969, was it attended only by employees of Pittsburgh C o m i n g or were other people there as well? bsA-4 175 A Pittsburgh Corning employees and Dr. Grant was present. Were there any employees of Pittsburgh Plate Glass there, as far as you knew? ;; A No, not to my knowledge.; Q Do you have a list of the people who attended the seminar or is such a list available? A. No; I did not ask for a listing of who was in attendance. It may be available. I don't have it. 8 Was it actually sponsored by Pittsburgh Corning Research Center? A It was posed at the research center. I assume it was sponsored by Hr. Holman at the suggestion of Dr. Grant. Q Let me ask you this question. Were you simply paid a fee'for conducting the semina- or did you actually make arrangements and take money from people? A I was paid a fee for conducting the seminar. Q Sy whom? A Pittsburgh Corning." Q Okay. New, I believe you told-.me that shortly after the seminar, you were called by Mr. Bierer to discuss the problems of asbestos with him and was that-- 176 A Yss. Q And w e s that discussion held in Mr- E.ierar's office'5 A Yes * Q Was there anyone else present at this discussion? A Wo. Q I believe you Indicated that you spent about half a day discussing the situation? A The bulk of the morning f as I recall? yes. Q And during that time was asbestos and the operation of asbestos the subject under discussion? A It was asbestos? it was a subject of fibers other than-asbestos. At the time the company va3 experimenting with a new process utilising mineral wool. There was some concern in the scientific community that all fibers may-: have ca'r.&ain biological activity. We discussed that state of knowledge as I was familiar with it. Again, I clearly at the time indicated this was not my strong point, but ha wab quite interested in pursuing, in addition to the engineering assess ment of the plant- the biological state of the art. I tried to the best of my ability to tell him about the evolving concerns which are still with us today for all fibrous materials and I think-he was filled in broadly on the, on the problem facing him. Indeed, it was recognized to be a 177 problem. There was some discussion on hi3 part, all of which I did not understand, of the financial picture of the product. Apparently Unibestos financial picture declined in rerant years. He was weighing- it appeared to me, the total picture of what this ba&. ers a continued involvement with this product, be it with Asbestos, b e l t with mineral wool, if the pildt operation at port vas successful, and I thought he was urine me as a ^sounding board. Q Did you make him aware, during that conference, of not only the dangers of asbestos!s and people getting csbestosi^ from breathing asbestos dust, but also the dangers, however controversial they may have been, of carcinogenic reactions to -- A Yes; I did. r MR. MC GOUGH; May I suggest that you design what kind of asbestosyou are talking about, what kind of fibers? It. may .make a difference. 3Y MR. KELLY; Q Well, the kind that was at the Tyler plant, I assurde you were discussing about the Tyler plant and the Port Ailegharr1" plant, were you not? A -,, I reviewed the indlngs of my report? I reviewed the b sp -7 178 uncertainty with other information of asbestos, why I had invoked the Chrysotile standard for Amosita. I think I went over all of these uncertainties with him. In fact, I recall thinking at the end of the conversation how he had just about extracted the bulk of my knowledge of the biological aspect of the substance. Q Would you say then that if he were fortunate enough to have total recall that he probably could keep S much know ledge as you had at the time concerning the biological effects of asbestos? A Well, no, in all fairness here, it really didn't: make that much sense to him. Remember, this is the first time this man had ever -- and he expressed this more than once -- even dealt with the kinds of words I was dealing v?ith and a lot of discussion was even going over what a lot of this meant. Q Did you make him aware of the fact that the ventila tion system at the Tyler plant was below the standards? A Oh, yes. Q And that the best levels were above the standards? A Oh, yes. Q Did you discuss with him the -- anything at all about putting in a new ventilation system that might cure these defects? 179 sp-8 A Yes. Q Is that perhaps, among others, a place cost was discussed? A I don't recall. I remember he brought up to me the financial picture for Unibsstcs over the last several years. It was a declining profits picture until it was almost a break-even picture, as I remember; and he did bring that up. I don't remember -tisre it came up, in what content, but I clearly remsmberihim introducing that subject. Q Do you recall whether or not specifically the subjac of the cost of a new ventilating system was brought :up? A Well, I certainly did speculate on that cost with him; yes. Q I believe that's all I ha.yp. Oh, one other question. I see I have got a note here. I think you mentioned -- I may be mistaken? and correct me if I am wrong -- somebody-told you that the Board of Directors of Pittsburgh C o m i n g had either acted or failed to act upon the proposal for the ventilation system. What was it you told us about that? A Mr. Hyde. iSo Q Hr. Hyde told you that the Board had declined to act on it; is that correct? A I learned of that discussion through ?<r. Hyde. Q Did you discuss with Mr. 3iarer cr did he ciscuss with you at all the dangers to the workers of conditions at the Tyler plant? A Yes. Q Tell us what you recall about that discussion. A I discussed much of the ingredients of the seminar material which I had at my disposal. I went over this as well as I gave it at the seminar? I presented it to him and the present indications of the effects of asbestos'other than asbestosis. Q Did you discuss with him the fact that the below standards of ventilation and the higher standards in dust made it more hazardous for the worker in Tyler than other -- A I think he was aware of that and the meaning I discussed, as ws recalled the meaning of the standards, as we discussed earlier today, what is a threshold limit value. MB. BALDWIN: Was that seminar written, the seminar that you had? Was there a written copy of it other than this outline? THE WITNESS: Hot worked from notes and an outline. iSl tsp-10 end 10 ^ fols MR. BALDWIN: There was no draft of it? THE WITNESS: No; I do not write cut lectures; I use an outline I distribute to participants which this is, or to students*, and then my own notes to work from this. MR. BALDWIN: Was there'a tape .recording? THE WITNESS: Nc^ not to my knowledge. MR. KELLEY: That's all. 12s HH, BPvIN: I have a couple of things, about 3C seconds - EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR TEE DEFENDANTS BY MR. BRIN: & Dr. Corn, what is the date of this resume of your professional qualifications; that is, Exhibit 1 P as best you recall? A That is part of a resume that was up to date prior to my assuming this position. This came from my file downstairs. I learned that the publications end of it is missing, and I have not looked at this since coming upon iny present position, so the date of this would-be October of last year. Ql All right, 1975? A Yes. 6 And I assume that as of that time it was complete with reference to the categories that are set out there? A To the best of ray knowledge it is complete, yes. Q, And as to any preparation or firm that is not listed therein, can we take it that you, through that date, had not performed any consultative work for them or with them? A It was my practice to add to that yearly, and I don't think I have missed any. MR.BRIN: All right, that *s all I have BY MR. ARMSTRONG: Q. Dr. Corn, in May of 1969, with respect to Amosite asbestos, was there simply insufficient data for dosage* response prediction of exposed populations? MR. BALDWIN: Just a minute. I object to that because he is either going to cut the fish or cut bait in this deposition. Now. he said he is not qualified to give a biological opinion, an opinion as to the biological effects o asbestos on humans, so I am going to object on that basis. THE WITNESS: You can answer- the question in a different way. I had only one guideline *to work with as an engineer at that point in time, the Chrysotile guideline. BY MR. ARMSTRONG: & Referring to page 6 of Exhibit 4, please, I call your attention to the next-to-the-last paragraph, the first sentence of the paragraph, and ask you to take a moment and read that to yourself. MR. KLAPPS: I am sorry, what page? MR. ARMSTRONG: Page 6. EY MR. ARMSTRONG: & Does that sentence read as follows: "The problem faced today with respect t:o mosite asbestos is that there simply is insufficient data for dosage-response prediction of exposed populations"? a. Yes. a Does it read that way? A. Yes, it reads that way. (X Did you believe that statement when you made it? A. I am quoting, and that is referenced at the bouton of the page to Herbert Stckinger, the then, and I think still, head of the Occupational Health Toxicological Laboratories of what is now the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. That, is Dr. Stokinger*s opinion as" presented in the paper referenced. It is not my opinion. & Now, on the page previous, page 5, you have quoted from another source set forth in the first two paragraphs, and on that quotation you put the statement within quotation marks, is that true? A. That's correct. Q. Now, referring back to the sentence I read on page S, that is not surrounded by quotation marks, is that correct? A* That is right. That is not a direct quote, that is a summary statement extracted from the presentation of 135 er 23 Stokin ger. Ql No w , when you put that statement in your report tc Pittsburgh Corning without quotas, did you believe, with a reasonable degree of scientific accuracy you then possessed, it to be accurate? A. In answer to your question, it is not quite a question of believing in the way I am accepting the 'view of Stokinger who I have the highest regard for and in which -- this i3 his field of expertise* Therefore, I would say I do not believe or not believe? I am referring someone who ivishes at a point in time reading from the person best qualified to give an opinion to the person who can do so. I haven11 one belief one way or the other on that statement as stated here. (Jl To your knowledge, did Dr. Stokinger*s statement accurately reflect the literature as it then existed? A. To the best of my knowledge to comprehend that literature I would say, yes, that as I said earlier, I find the epidemiological literature very difficult to comprehend. & Nov/, do you recall during Mr. Baldwin's examination you testified, and this is merely in substance, and if I misstate it, please correct me, I will not do so intentionally, that you had no firm evidence that there was a difference in 186 er24 KXX biological affects of Chrysotils and Amcsihe asbestos. Now, Dr. Corn, did you have any firm evidence that the biological effect of those two types of asbestos wore the same? A No* HR. ARMSTRONG: No further questions. THE WITNESS: No. MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. MR. BOWLER: I have a couple of questions. EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS BY MR. FOWLER: Q. Dr. C o m , may I correctly assume that you did not make available your reports concerning the Tyler plant or any information you had that was not contained in the reports* to the laborers at the Pittsburgh Corning plant in Tyler? t A That is correct. & All right. Did you make that kindofinformation available to any other person holding themselves out as being a representative of or affiliated with the Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union? A No. & Have you had anycontact whatsoeverwith anyone holding themselves out to be affiliated with the CCAW at any 187 er 25 v i 'V time concerning the Tyler plant and your work there? a. No. MR. FCWLER: That*3 allI have. EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS 3Y MR. McGOUGHs ft Dr. Corn, referring to your meeting \*ith Mr. Jim Bierer, which I think you placed as sometime shortly before your letter of October 7, 1969 -- A. Yes. ft -- statewhether or notin the course of that meeting you were informed or you discussed with Mr. Bierer the fact that following your visit there, were mandatory require ments for wearing masks at Tyler imposed, if you recall? A. No, I do not. That may very well have occurred. I don't think I have anything on record to so indicate. And X am not sure I discussed it with anyone. I think it is quite possible that that did happen. We talked after my visit -- I stressed -this absence of respirators, and I think it would be quite logical to assume respirators went into much more prevalent usage after the visit. ft And you may or may not have discussed that with Mr. Bierer? A No, I do not remember that. 188 Q. Would yen state whether or not you discussed wi rh Mr. Bierar at that meeting that following your visit there was a new program for annual chest X rays for employees set up? Were you aware that that was done, sir, or whether or not it was done? &, No. & New, I want to refer you to what the plaintiffs have introduced in evidence from your file as PX-14, a letter dated March 25, 1970, from you to Mr. Hyde, a. Yes. & Wouldyou take aminute andlook at that, particular! with respect to the second paragraph? A* Yes. Q. I want to askyou acouple ofquestions. Is it correct, Dr. Corn, that when dealing with, let's 3ay, asbestos, tha even the best ventilation system in the world may not be effective depending on how it is handled and how the operators and the people that work and run in the plant act? MR. BALDWIN: Object to that as leading. MR. McGOUGH: I am asking him to state whether or hot. That's not leading. THE WITNESS: I can give a vary broad answer on ventilation systems. 18 er 27 If you go to total enclosure, such as we go to in the radiation sector, then it is very difficult for any employee or representative of the employee or anyone to interfere with the operation of the system* This is not a total enclosure system, this utilizes local exhaust hoods and booths. That system is very subject to maintenance and work practices. BY MR. McGOUGHs Q. So that " MR. BALDWIN: I object to that as not being responsive. MR. McGOUGH: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) BY MR. McGOUGH: Ql Is it fair* to state whether or not -- Doctor, is it fair to say that regardless of how much money or time you spend on a ventilation system that is not a completely closed system, you may or may not be able to prevent, if you will, damage or injury to people working in that area? A That's a question I really can't speculate on. It's got too much ingredients on it to answer, really. MR. KELL3Y: I object to it as speculative. MR. BALDWIN: I object to it as having too many ar ingredients, distastaful. BY MR. MeGOUGH: Ql Do you still believe, as you said to Mr. Hyde on March 25f 1970, and, "The best ventilation system can be fouled up by poor housekeeping practices or procedures by operators which do not utilize the available ventilation facilities"? A Yes. i* Q. Co you know if you discussed that with Mr. Bierer X X don't recall. 5 You may or nay not have? X lie, I don't think we got into that point. The supervisory role in a plant must be exerted. This discussion has a long history relating to the Port Alleghany plant. The Port Alleghany design was implemented with some exceptions to my design, and it is one of those exceptions that led to the excursions beyond the limit. What I was saying here is if a design is implemented and supervisory control is exerted, then you could meet, in the case of asbestos -- I am on record at the Mew York Academy of Sciences reading on asbestos, you can meet 2 fibers per cc; I believe with no conventional local exhaust design, ycu can meet ig. 191 er 29 12 In tills particular facility with the kind of situation, supervisory and everything else, I thought t o were going to have a tough time with the nature of the process, the supervisory control, of meeting 5, that's what I am stating here. MR. McGOUGE: No further questions. MR. BALDWIN: That shows good discretion on your part. MR. BERNAYS: I pass. MR* BARON: I have one question here. EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS BY MR. BARON: ft I notice on your resume that you have done some v/ork for the Thermal ~ A Insulation Manufacturers Association, ft Who is that. Doctor? X That is a trade group of manufacturers producing asbestos, fiberglas.. ceramic fibers, mineral wool, and I have been doing research for them at the University of Pittsburgh right up to the time I assumed this position, and on a couple of occasions I had been asked to independently involve myself in some aspects of their operations. ft This is just a trade organisation of asbestos 192 insulation manufacturers? A. They jointly support a research project to the university, quite a large research project which they share the cost of* It is assessed among the members. ft How long have they been doing this, do you know? A At the University of Pittsburgh our first award w h 3 in '73, I believe. They have been sponsoring research since the sixties, some of it at Berkeley, I know of, some at Harvard, and v/e picked up some, Pittsburgh. ft One ether question here. Did you know Mr. McGough before today? A I thought we had met once. The name looked familiar, but when I saw him, I thought, no, we hadn*t. MR. McGOUGH; I used to wear my hair short. BY MR. BARON: ft Dr. Corn, on your resume, you list here that you have done some work for Reed, Smith, Shaw s McClay in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. What type of work was that, sir? A I appeared for them as an expert witness, I believe, in a tow boat case on the Ohio River and the Monongahela River. ft Was that the only occasion you have had to work for that law firm? er 31 A I think it was. & Was that a hygiene problem on that towboat? A I evaluated the concentrations ofDiesel fumes aboard the boat to try to determine if they were above or below standards for.those components & Was this a personal injury case? A Yes. & And you testified for the defendant in that case? A. Yes. The concentrations were less than 5 percent of the standards in all cases. Ql But you fcund what that law firm x?as contending, at any rate, in that particular case? A Yes. Ql Was Mr. McGough the lawyer you were working for in that case? A No. Ql Who was it, ifyourecall? A It wasn't Mr. McGough. Ayer was his first name. What is -- MR. McGCUGH: A retired partner now, his name is A. R. Hill, former great left-handed pitcher for the University of Pittsburgh. THE WITNESS? That's who it was. er ox 19H BY MR* BALDWIN: a One final question. Is Tony Dorsett on a Mellon endowment? A Gee -- (Discussion off the record.) (lihereupon, at 4:15 p.zn., the taking of the deposition in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) (Signature not waived.)