Document 3eq88OY1R94LxaX2K9VVznOqn
FILE NAME: Chevron (CHV) DATE: 2007 Sept 25 DOC#: CHV019 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Deposition of Stanley Dryden
1
1
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY
2
DOCKET NO.: MID-L-2068-06
3
ERNEST HORVATH,
4
Individually and as
Executor of the Estate
5
of his wife,
FRANCIS HORVATH,
6
Plaintiff,
7
vs.
8
CHEVRON USA, INC.,
9
Defendants.
9
VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION UNDER ORAL EXAMINATION
OF STANLEY DRYDEN
10
TRANSCRIPT of the deposition of the witness,
11
called for Oral Examination in the above-captioned
12
matter, said deposition being taken pursuant to
13
Superior Court Rules of Practice and Procedure by
14
and before MARC BRODY, a Notary Public and Certified
15
Shorthand Reporter of the State of New Jersey, at the
16
offices of McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP,
17
1300 Mount Kemble Avenue, Morristown, New Jersey, on
18
Tuesday, September 25, 2007, commencing at approximately
19
10:00 in the forenoon.
20
21
BRODY DEPOSITION SERVICES
22
Certified Shorthand Reporters & Videographers
23
90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 220
24
Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095
25
(732) 283-5737
2
1
APPEARANCES:
2
3
COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
4
127 Maple Avenue
5
Red Bank, New Jersey 07701
6
(732) 747-9003
7
BY: CHRISTOPHER PLACITELLA, ESQ.
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9
10
GARRITY, GRAHAM, MURPHY, GAROFALO & FLINN
11
1 Lackawanna Plaza
12
Montclair, New Jersey 07042
13
(973) 509-7500
14
BY: MICHAEL P. MCGRATH, ESQ.
15
Attorneys for Defendant, State Insulation
16
17
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
18
Met Life Building
19
200 Park Avenue
20
New York, New York 10166
21
(212) 801-9200
22
BY: WILLIAM SILVERMAN, ESQ.
23
Attorneys for Defendant, Robert A. Keasbey Co.
24
25
26
3
1
APPEARANCES
(Cont'd):
2
3
McGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C.
4
23 Vreeland Road
5
Florham Park, New Jersey 07932
6
(973) 822-1110
7
BY: NICHOLAS DEMATTHEIS, ESQ.
8
Attorneys for Defendant, Madsen & Howell
9
10
11
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
12
216 Haddon Avenue, P.O. Box 2222
13
Westmont, New Jersey 08109
14
(856) 858-7200
15
BY: CHRISTOPHER KELLEHER, ESQ.
16
Attorneys for Defendants, Central Jersey,
17
United Engineering
18
19
GREENBERG, DAUBER, EPSTEIN & TUCKER, P.C.
20
One Gateway Center, Suite 600
21
Newark, New Jersey 07102
22
(973) 643-3700
23
BY: LINDA HARVEY, ESQ.
24
Attorneys for Defendant, Grinnell Mechanical
25
26
4
1
APPEARANCES
(Cont'd):
2
3
HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, LLP
4
40 Paterson Street
5
New Brunswick, New Jersey 0801
6
(732) 545-4717
7
BY: JACOB GROUSER, ESQ.
8
Attorneys for Defendants, P&H Mining,
9
Joy Mining
10
11
WEINER LESNIAK, LLP
12
629 Parsippany Road
13
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
14
(973) 403-1100
15
BY: ALLA KOSTINSKY, ESQ.
16
Attorneys for Defendant, Manitowoc
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
1
A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd):
2
3
HARDIN, KUNDLA, McKEON & POLETTO, P.A.
4
673 Morris Avenue
5
Springfield, New Jersey 07081
6
(973) 912-5222
7
BY: MICHAEL JARDIM, ESQ.
8
Attorneys for Defendant, Calon
9
10
PICILLO, CARUSO & O'TOOLE, P.C.
11
60 Route 46 East
12
Fairfield, New Jersey 07004
13
(973) 667-6000
14
BY: HARRY ANAGNOSTOPOULOS, ESQ.
15
Attorneys for Defendant, Union Carbide
16
17
McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
18
1300 Mt. Kemble Avenue
19
Morristown, New Jersey 07962
20
(973) 425-8703
21
BY: NANCY MCDONALD, ESQ.
22
AND: JOSEPH LASALA, ESQ.
23
Attorneys for Defendant, Chevron U.S.A.
24
25
26
6
1
A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd):
2
3
McCARTER & ENGLISH
4
Gateway 4, 100 Mulberry Street
5
Newark, New Jersey 07102
6
(973) 622-4444
7
BY: MITCHELL KURTZ, ESQ.
8
Attorneys for Defendant, Wabco North America
9
10
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN
11
200 Lake Drive East, Suite 300
12
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002
13
(856) 414-6000
14
BY: NADIRA KIRKLAND, ESQ.
15
Attorneys for Defendant, D.B. Riley,
16
Henkels & McCoy
17
18
BUDD LARNER, LLP
19
150 JFK Parkway
20
Short Hills, New Jersey 07078
21
(973) 379-4800
22
BY: DAVID NOVACK, ESQ.
23
Attorneys for Defendant, Nacco Materials
24
Handling Co.
25
26
7
1
A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd):
2
3
MARIN GOODMAN, LLP
4
40 Wall Street, 67th Floor
5
New York, New York 10005
6
(212) 661-1151
7
BY: MARGARET LOTILO, ESQ.
8
Attorneys for Defendant, Fluor Daniels
9
10
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
11
502 Carnegie Center
12
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
13
(609) 919-6600
14
BY: CHRISTOPHER IANNICELLI, ESQ.
15
Attorneys for Defendants, Yarway Corporation,
16
Santa Fe Braun, Inc.
17
18
19
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Kowalczyk, Videographer
Nationwide Video
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
8
1
INDEX
2
WITNESS
3
STANLEY DRYDEN
4
Direct by Mr. Placitella
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PAGE 11
9
1
2 NO.
3 P-1
4 P-2
5 P-2A
6 P-2B
7 P-2C
8 P-2D
9 P-2E
10
11
P-2F
12 P-3
13
14
15
P-4
16 P-5
17
18 P-6
19
20
P-7
21
22
23
24
25
26
EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION
Deposition Notice
Document dated September 16, 1968
Management Newsletter, August 1972
Management Newsletter, August 1972
Management Newsletter, August 1972
Guide for Ordering Personal Safety Equipment
Guide for Ordering Personal Safety Equipment
Guide for Ordering Personal Safety Equipment
Dust Producing Operations in the Production of Petroleum Products and Associated Activities by Roy S. Bonsib
Carcinogenic Hydrocarbons and Related Compounds, A Literature
Review dated July 2, 1945 Occupational Cancer, A Challenge to the Physician
Summary of the Plant Industrial Hygiene Problems dated April 12, 1949
Appendix A To Minutes of 13th Meeting Of Medical Advisory Committee entitled Memorandum on Measures for the Control of the Hazard Associated with Carcinogenic Materials and Products In the Petroleum Industry
PAGE 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 66
87 87
87 96
10
1
2 NO.
3 P-8
4 P-9
5
6 P-10
7
8 P-11
9 P-12
10
11 P-13
12
13
P-14
14 P-15
15
16 P-16
17
18 P-17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION
Medical Advisory Committee Reports And Publications, 1943-1955
Malignant Mesothelioma of the Pleura by H.B. Eisenstadt, M.D.
Primary Malignant Mesothelioma of the Pleura by H.B. Eisenstadt, M.D. and F.W. Wilson, M.D.
Occupational and NonOccupational Exposures to Asbestos by W.C. Hueper
Shell Oil Document dated November 22, 1965, Subject: Health Hazards from Asbestos
Memorandum dated October 23, 1973, Oak Point Safety Program
Document dated November 13, 1973, Safety Audit, Oak Point Plant
Industrial Work Clothes: Their Provision and Laundering by Roy S . Bonsib, dated January 28, 1948
Article entitled, Asbestos Is Described as Killer Time Bomb Dated February 26, 1973
Memo dated February 13, 1973, Comment on articles re: Asbestos in newspapers
PAGE 99
101 103
108 113
118 127 130
135
136
11
1
S T A N L E Y DRYDEN,
2
2795 Ribera Road,
3
Carmel, California, sworn.
4
(Prior to the deposition, documents
5
P-2, P-2A, P-2B, P-2C, P-2D, P-2E, and
6
P-2F were marked for Identification.)
7
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PLACITELLA:
8
Q. Good morning. How are you?
9
A. Fine, thank you.
10
Q. I'm Chris Placitella. I'm here to take
11
your deposition in the Horvath case. I understand
12
you had your deposition taken before.
13
A. Yes, I have.
14
Q. At least two times or more than two times?
A. More than two times.
15
Q. How many times?
16
A. I would say five or six times.
17
Q. You are familiar with the rules of a deposition?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. I'll ask you questions, you respond to the
20
best of your ability. If your lawyer objects, don't
21
answer the question until we can figure out what we
22
all forgot from law school a long time ago.
23
A. Okay.
24
MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this P-1.
25
(The above document is marked as
12
1
P-1 for Identification.)
2
Q. I have a Deposition Notice in this case
3
marked P-1 for Identification. Have you seen this
4
before?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. You are the person designated by Chevron
7
as the person with the most knowledge concerning
8
Chevron that includes Standard Oil of California's
9
historic knowledge of the dangers of asbestos and
10
the steps taken to protect those people forcibly
11
exposed to asbestos as a result of asbestos
12
installed or removed from Chevron industrial
13
facilities before 1976. Do you understand that?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Have you done anything to investigate the
16
areas of inquiry designated in this deposition
17
notice?
18
A. Yes, I have.
19
Q. What have youdone?
20
A. I reviewed some depositions of myself and
21
other people regarding asbestos cases.
22
Q. What else?
23
A. I reviewed some documents that were
24
produced to you and were attached to one of those
25
depositions.
26
13
1
Q. When you say you reviewed the depositions,
2
I have been supplied with two sets of depositions.
3
The depositions of, I think, your former boss, John
4
Spence. Did you review that?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. How many of his depositions did you
7
review?
8
A. I believe just one.
9
Q. You said you reviewed your own deposition?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q. Which deposition?
12
A. In a 1991 case.
13
Q. Did you review any of the other
14
depositions you have given?
15
A. No.
16
Q. Besides Mr. Spence's deposition and your
17
deposition, have you reviewed any other depositions?
18
A. There were two by Stan Judd.
19
MR. PLACITELLA: Do you have those because
20
they weren't supplied to me?
21
MR. LaSALA: We didn't receive a
22
request for deposition transcripts. We can
23
certainly get you the transcript of Mr. Judd's
24
deposition and if they are here, we can make them
25
available today. I have to check.
26
14
1
MR. PLACITELLA: I thought the
2
depositions were part of everything he reviewed, but
3
I'll have some reading to do at lunchtime.
4
Q. Did you do anything else in order to
5
repair for today's deposition?
6
A. I had some discussions here yesterday with
7
Mr. LaSala and Miss McDonald.
8
Q. Did you speak with any current or former
9
employees of Chevron or Standard Oil?
10
A. No. Excuse me. I did speak with Matt
11
Mostis of the Chevron law department.
12
Q. I have a series of documents that were
13
produced to me by Chevron. What I want to do is
14
hand them to you and to Mr. LaSala and tell me if
15
this is the sum total of the documents you reviewed.
16
From what I can tell, this is the only thing I was
17
given.
18
If you need more time you can do it over a
19
break or Mr. LaSala or Miss McDonald can take a look
20
at it. What I have been given are essentially these
21
documents marked P-2 A thru F.
22
MR. PLACITELLA: Maybe during the break
23
you can go over them and see if I'm missing
24
anything, but I don't think I am?
25
MR. LaSALA: Sure.
26
15
1
A. Excuse me. When I mentioned deposition,
2
did I mention a deposition by Dan Barber?
3
Q . You didn't .
4
A. I want to make the record clear on that.
5
Q. Since I had not been provided the
6
depositions, what, if any, significance to you was
7
the deposition that you reviewed of Stanley Judd in
8
terms of responding to this notice?
9
A. As I recall it was just background
10
information. Nothing specific about this case.
11
Background in terms of what Chevron's practices
12
were.
13
Q. What was significant about what you read
14
in Mr. Judd's deposition about Chevron's practices?
15
A. Nothing significant. Just added to my
16
general understanding or helped me remember my own
17
experience.
18
Q. And Mr. Barber, what, if any, significance
19
was there to you when you reviewed Mr. Barber's
20
deposition?
21
A. Mr. Barber said some things I didn't
22
remember myself.
23
Q. Would was Mr. Barber's position, if you
24
recall?
25
A. He was manager of the safety division of
26
16
1
Chevron Corporation or Standard Oil Company of
2
California, which became Chevron Corporation.
3
Q. Do you know what period of time?
4
A. From the time I joined the company and
5
before until sometime in the early '80s.
6
Q. What was the thing you remembered that he
7
remembered that -
8
A. When asbestos insulation was removed in
9
the field that it was wetted before removal.
10
Q. At what point in time?
11
A. He said from when he was -- even before he
12
was manager of corporate safety he was safety
13
manager at El Segundo and they were doing it at that
14
time.
15
Q. Am I correct each refinery was operated
16
autonomously?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. And the practice of one refinery did not
19
necessarily mean that the same practice was used at
20
another refinery?
21
A. That's correct.
22
Q. Did Mr. Barber have any information as it
23
related to the Chevron facility or Standard Oil
24
facility in Perth Amboy?
25
A. I'm sure did he but I don't recall seeing
26
17
1
anything like that in the deposition.
2
Q. What about Mr. Judd, what was his
3
responsibility?
4
A. When I joined the company he was senior
5
industrial hygienist and he gave me work direction
6
in the first few years of my career at Chevron.
7
Q. Did you review any documents related to
8
Chevron's membership in the National Safety Counsel?
9
A. No.
10
Q. Had you ever seen any documents to that
11
effect in preparation for any of your prior
12
depositions or during the course of your work
13
history at Chevron?
14
A. When you say documents about Chevron's
15
membership, what do you mean?
16
Q. You were aware, I think you testified,
17
that Chevron was a member of the National Safety
18
Counsel, correct?
19
A. I believe I did, yes.
20
Q. When you worked as an industrial hygienist
21
for Chevron were you ever provided information given
22
to Chevron by the National Safety Counsel related to
23
the dangers of asbestos?
24
A. I don't recall seeing anything like that.
25
Q. Chevron was a member of the American
26
18
1
Petroleum Institute?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. And you yourself attended meetings of the
4
American Petroleum Institute on behalf of Chevron,
5
correct?
6
A. Yes.
7
Q. Information on the dangers of asbestos was
8
shared between oil companies at the API meetings,
9
correct?
10
A. I believe so, yes.
11
Q. Did you review any documents related to
12
the American Petroleum Institute in preparation for
13
your deposition today?
14
A. No.
15
Q. Do you know whether Chevron or its
16
attorneys have in their possession documents related
17
to the American Petroleum Institute and Chevron's
18
involvement?
19
A. At this time I don't.
20
Q. When you say at this time, what do you
21
mean by that?
22
A. Whether they have those documents at this
23
time.
24
Q. Had you ever seen documents during the
25
course of your historical career pertaining to
26
19
1
Chevron's involvement with the American Petroleum
2
Institute?
3
A. Yes .
4
Q. What documents did you see and when did
5
you see them?
6
A. That's a very difficult question to
7
answer. There are documents on noise control, there
8
were documents -- I can't remember all the
9
documents.
10
Q. Where were those documents kept, if you
11
recall?
12
A. At Chevron?
13
Q. Yes .
14
A. Mostly in the files of the industrial
15
hygiene department.
16
Q. Where was that?
17
A. San Francisco, most of the time.
18
Q. Was a request made of the industrial
19
hygiene department for any of those documents in
20
preparation for today's deposition to your
21
knowledge?
22
A. I don't know.
23
Q. Who is the custodian of those documents,
24
if you know?
25
A. Presently?
26
20
1
Q. Yes .
2
A. I don't know.
3
Q. Who was it when you were there?
4
A. It was me as long as I was an industrial
5
hygienist
6
Q. You were the custodian of the API
7
documents in the possession of Chevron for as long
8
as you were there?
9
A. I'm not sure what you mean by custodian.
10
I had ultimate responsibility for the group and
11
virtually all of its belongings.
12
Q. Did that file contain historical documents
13
pertaining to Chevron's involvement with the
14
American Petroleum Institute?
15
A. I believe so, but I'm not sure.
16
Q. Did you consult with any people involved
17
currently in industrial hygiene or the Chevron
18
medical department in preparing for your deposition
19
today?
20
A. No.
21
Q. Did you review any hygiene surveys that
22
Chevron conducted related to asbestos in preparation
23
for your deposition today?
24
A. No.
25
Q. You are aware such surveys exist, correct?
26
21
1
A. I'm aware such surveys existed. I don't
2
know what their current state is.
3
Q. You were asked about them in other
4
deposition, were you not?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. And they were produced at other
7
depositions, were they not? You went over them,
8
actually had your name on them.
9
A. I don't remember.
10
MR. PLACITELLA: Is there some reason
11
why those surveys were not turned over as part of the
12
document production?
13
MR. LaSALA: They were never turned
14
over to us.
15
MR. PLACITELLA: I'm not pointing
16
fingers at you.
17
MR. LaSALA: I understand. We have
18
requested that information and requested it
19
specifically as of yesterday when we learned of it.
20
We have been told it has not been found, but
21
that was certainly something that was on the list
22
from very early on. These exhibits were from one of
23
the depositions and they are the only exhibits from
24
the deposition we have.
25
MR. PLACITELLA: I would ask that
26
22
1
Chevron, as a company, turn over all of the
2
industrial hygiene information that they have in
3
their possession or their lawyers have in their
4
possession. I understand you don't have it.
5
MR. LaSALA: The other caveat would
6
be the Special Master's recommendations in terms of
7
these surveys, it would be limited to Perth Amboy
8
for a certain period of time.
9
MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. I'm not sure,
10
but we will move on.
11
MR. LaSALA: We can look at that at
12
the break
13
MR. PLACITELLA: Right.
14
Q Have you reviewed any Workers Compensation
15
files related to asbestos and Chevron or Standard
16
Oil of California?
17
A
In preparation for today?
18
Q Yes .
19
A
No .
20
Q Had you ever reviewed such documents
21
during the course of your consultancy or employment?
22
A
I can't recall that I did.
23
Q
In addition to the documents that you were
24
provided by Chevron's counsel, did you ask to look
25
at any documents that you knew existed in
26
23
1
preparation for your deposition that weren't
2
otherwise provided to you?
3
A. I asked to look at a deposition I gave in
4
a different case and I asked if they had it and I
5
asked if they had access to a summary of industrial
6
hygiene monitoring data which they have not been
7
able to find.
8
Q. Is that related to the Oak Point facility
9
or Oakwood?
10
A. The deposition is related to the Oak Point
11
facility, yes.
12
Q. And the summary of hygiene information
13
related to things you did at that facility?
14
A. No. It was a summary across Chevron's
15
facility.
16
Q. Who prepared that summary?
17
A. I was involved in that.
18
Q. Who else?
19
A. I don't recall.
20
Q. When is the last time you saw that
21
summary?
22
A. I don't recall.
23
Q. Did you see it at any of your prior
24
depositions?
25
A. I don't remember whether I did or not.
26
24
1
Q. Have you ever testified at trial on behalf
2
of Chevron?
3
A. No.
4
Q. How long did you meet in preparation for
5
today's deposition?
6
A. Most of the day yesterday.
7
Q. And were any facts disclosed to you by
8
your lawyers not connected with legal advice as it
9
relates to Chevron?
10
MR. LaSALA: Do you understand that
11
question?
12
A. No.
13
Q. Did the attorneys provide you with any
14
facts that you would rely upon as the basis for your
15
historical knowledge that were not connected to
16
legal advice? They weren't giving you legal advise,
17
they were giving you factual information?
18
MR. LaSALA: I'll direct him not to
19
answer. Our discussions would be in the context of
20
an attorney/client relationship and representation.
21
If it relates to this case, we are providing him
22
with advice on this particular case.
23
Q. Have you been supplied with anything as it
24
relates to your testimony today that didn't come
25
from Chevron lawyers?
26
25
1
A. No.
2
Q. Everything that you are going to testify
3
about today came directly from you to you from
4
Chevron's attorneys?
5
A. Or from my own memory.
6
Q. Fair enough. I'm talking about
7
documentary evidence.
8
A. Right.
9
Q. Do you believe that you made a good faith
10
effort to investigate all the information available
11
to the company concerning the subject matter of this
12
deposition?
13
A. Yes.
14
Q. So you didn't think there was any other
15
information you needed in order to prepare yourself
16
adequately to talk about what Chevron's historical
17
knowledge of the dangers of asbestos are?
18
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
19
You can answer.
20
A. No, I don't believe there was anything
21
else I needed.
22
Q. You obtained a Masters in industrial
23
hygiene from Harvard in 1964?
24
A. Yes.
25
Q. You joined Chevron as an industrial
26
26
1
hygienist in '68?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. You left in 1993?
4
A. That's correct.
5
Q. And have you been paid as a consultant by
6
Chevron after that?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. At what rate?
9
A. Differing rates depending on the jobs I
10
was doing.
11
Q. What is the rate you are being paid for
12
this testimony today?
13
A. We haven't set on a specific rate.
14
Q. What is the rate you got paid the last
15
time you testified on behalf of Chevron?
16
A. $150 an hour.
17
Q. Does that include your travel time and so
18
forth?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. What happens at the end of this, you send
21
them a bill and they pay it?
22
A. I hope so.
23
Q. The group you worked for was the
24
industrial hygiene and toxicology group when you
25
first got there?
26
27
1
A. There was a lot of name changes. I have a
2
hard time sorting them all out. It was something
3
like that.
4
Q. The head of your group when you got there
5
was Jack Spence?
6
A. Yes.
7
Q. Jack or John? I don't want to -
8
A. He went by Jack.
9
Q. The name of the company when you started
10
was Standard Oil of California, correct?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. You eventually became the manager of
13
industrial hygiene and health surveillance?
14
A. No.
15
Q. What was your final title?
16
A. I don't know what my final title was. I
17
first became manager of industrial hygiene. Later I
18
became manager of health surveillance. I was no
19
longer manager of industrial hygiene at that time.
20
Q. Had you ever had the occasion to visit the
21
Chevron facility in Perth Amboy?
22
A. I believe I did visit it briefly a couple
23
of times.
24
Q. What was the purpose of your visit?
25
A. I don't recall. I think it was primarily
26
28
1
a social call on the safety engineer there.
2
Q. Were you familiar with the industrial
3
hygiene practice at Chevron Perth Amboy?
4
A. I would not say I was.
5
Q. Did you ever conduct any hygiene surveys
6
safety audits of the Chevron Perth Amboy facilities?
7
A. No.
8
Q. Had you ever reviewed any industrial
9
hygiene or safety audits conducted by others of the
10
Chevron Perth Amboy facility?
11
A. I don't recall doing that.
12
Q. To your knowledge was the Chevron Perth
13
Amboy facility similar in what it produced to other
14
refineries owned by Chevron?
15
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
16
You can answer.
17
A. I believe the products were essentially
18
the same.
19
Q. Was it your understanding that the Chevron
20
facility also had an asphalt plant?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q. Was it also your understanding that
23
asbestos-containing products were manufactured at
24
Chevron asphalt plants?
25
A. They were manufactured at some asphalt
26
29
1
plants, but not all.
2
Q. Do you know whether asbestos-containing
3
products were manufactured at the Perth Amboy
4
asphalt plant?
5
A. To the best of my knowledge no, they were
6
not.
7
Q. Who would know that for sure?
8
A. Somebody that knows about products and
9
where they were manufactured. I don't know who that
10
would b e .
11
Q. I think you told me before that each
12
refinery was operated autonomously. Am I correct
13
that it was up to each refinery to determine how it
14
was going to handle asbestos within the refinery?
15
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
16
A. Ultimately that's true.
17
Q. There was no corporate wide policy
18
concerning when each refinery would stop using
19
asbestos, correct?
20
A. That is correct, as far as I remember.
21
Q. Now, are there basic principles of health
22
safety adhered to by corporate industrial hygienists
23
in terms of protecting worker health?
24
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
25
You can answer.
26
30
1
A. I don't understand the question.
2
Q. As an industrial hygienist were there
3
basic principles you would adhere to in order to
4
protect worker health?
5
A. I would say yes, there were.
6
Q. Would you agree that corporate
7
responsibility means ensuring sound policies,
8
practices or programs that address environmental
9
health and safety?
10
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
11
That may call for a legal conclusion. You can
12
answer.
13
MR. PLACITELLA: I took it right off
14
the Chevron website.
15
MR. LaSALA: I have a right to
16
obj ect.
17
A. If that's what Chevron says, I would have
18
to agree with that.
19
Q. And would you agree Chevron has the
20
responsibility to transmit what it knew about the
21
dangers produced by the Chevron working environment
22
to its employees?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. Would you agree that Chevron employees
25
working with or near asbestos should have been told
26
31
1
whatever Chevron knew about the dangers of asbestos?
2
A. I wouldn't say everything because that can
3
get into very complicated medical and scientific
4
data. I don't think that's an effective way to
5
communicate with employees.
6
Q. What kind of information do you think
7
Chevron or Standard Oil was entitled to withhold
8
from workers and not tell them?
9
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
10
A. I think they were entitled to basic
11
information on what kind of health effects could
12
happen, but not necessarily detailed information and
13
medical terminology or highly scientific terminology
14
which would confuse them.
15
Q. So it was Chevron's determination then as
16
to what would be confusing not confusing to workers
17
in terms of protecting their health and safety?
18
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
19
A. In terms of effectively communicating the
20
hazards, yes. If there were other inquiries for
21
deeper information, that would have been provided.
22
Q. Would you agree Chevron had a
23
responsibility to ensure the health of family
24
members of Chevron employees to make sure they were
25
not placed at risk as a result of the Chevron
26
32
1
employee working environment?
2
MR. LaSALA: Same objection as before
3
as to legal conclusion, but you can answer.
4
A. Repeat the question.
5
Q. Would you agree Chevron had a
6
responsibility to ensure the health of family
7
members of Chevron employees were not placed at risk
8
as a result of the Chevron's employee work
9
environment?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q. Would you agree a company should never
12
withhold information about environmental dangers
13
from its employees and potentially affect family
14
members?
15
A. I need you to read that one back, too.
16
Q. Would you agree a company should never
17
withhold information about environmental dangers
18
from its employees and potentially affected family
19
members inside its refineries?
20
A. I don't think I would agree Chevron had a
21
responsibility to communicate directly with family
22
members.
23
Q. You think Chevron had no responsibility to
24
ensure that toxic substances were not transported
25
home by employees to their family members?
26
33
1
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
2
A. I don't think that's what I said.
3
Q. Do you believe Chevron had a
4
responsibility to make sure that toxic substances
5
were not transported home to family members of
6
Chevron employees?
7
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
8
A. When you say make sure, that's awfully
9
difficult. That requires a level of control over
10
employees that Chevron didn't have.
11
Q. We will get into that. Would you agree
12
that a company should never put profits before
13
worker health safety?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Would you agree the greater the danger
16
inherent in the employee work environment the
17
stronger the warning necessary to protect the
18
employee?
19
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. Would you agree a Chevron employee working
22
with or around asbestos-containing products had the
23
right to know about the potential hazards of
24
asbestos as soon as Chevron knew it?
25
A. Yes. If there were actual hazards.
26
34
1
Q. If Chevron learned knew information about
2
the hazards of asbestos would you agree it was
3
Chevron's duty to pass that information on to its
4
employees so the employees could protect themselves
5
and others who might be exposed as a result of the
6
employee working with or near asbestos?
7
A. Seems like I'm being asked a lot of
8
questions that are legal in nature.
9
Q. I'm asking you as an industrial hygienist
10
who was charged with protecting the health safety of
11
the people working in the refineries.
12
A. When you use the term duty, that implies
13
to me there's a legal requirement.
14
Q. Does the word responsibilities make you
15
more comfortable?
16
MR. LaSALA: You can phrase the
17
questions in whatever way you determine appropriate
18
and I'll object or he will answer.
19
A. That's fine.
20
Q. As Chevron learned new asbestos
21
information about the hazards of asbestos, would you
22
agree it was Chevron's responsibility to pass that
23
information on to its employees so the employee
24
could protect himself or others who might be exposed
25
as a result of the employee working with or near
26
35
1
asbestos?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. Would you agree it was appropriate for
4
Chevron's employees to rely upon Chevron for the
5
whole truth about the hazards of the products
6
Chevron used in its operations?
7
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
8
That clearly calls for a legal conclusion. You can
9
try to answer it, if you can.
10
A. I'll have to have you read the question
11
begin.
12
Q. Would you agree that it was appropriate
13
for Chevron's employees to rely upon Chevron for the
14
whole truth about the hazards of the products
15
Chevron's used in its operations?
16
MR. LaSALA: Objection.
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. Would you agree that it was Chevron's
19
responsibility to inform employees about a potential
20
exposure to poisons without regard to the
21
concentration of the poison?
22
MR. LaSALA: Objection. That may
23
call for a legal conclusion depending on whether or
24
not there were standards -- I don't want to make
25
speeches. That would call for a legal conclusion.
26
36
1
You can answer.
2
A. I think I would answer no to that
3
question.
4
MR. PLACITELLA: Why don't we stop here
5
and we will take a break and set up the video.
6
(Recess taken)
7
8
BY MR. PLACITELLA:
9
10
Q. Before we took a break I asked you a
11
question about Chevron's responsibilities to inform
12
employees about potential exposure without regard to
13
concentration. You said you didn't agree with that.
14
Do you recall that?
15
A. I don't remember that is the wording of
16
your question. Something like that.
17
Q. I put up on the screen an excerpt from
18
Mr. Spence's deposition that you reviewed in
19
preparation for today's deposition, correct?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. And it starts on page 291 and the question
22
was -- if you want to show him the deposition that's
23
fine. Was it Chevron's policy to tell its own
24
employees about the potential for exposure to
25
poisons in its plant without regard to the
26
37
1
concentration of that toxic material?
2
Mr. Spence's says, "We certainly -- if there was a
3
potential for danger, yes. That becomes a point
4
when there's insufficient anything or anything to be
5
"hazardous", so obviously when there was a hazard or
6
a potential hazard certainly we wanted people to
7
know it. After all, we were trying to protect their
8
health.
9
Do you agree with that statement by your
10
former boss?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. Were the outside contractors hired by
13
Chevron required to follow the Chevron safety rules?
14
A. I don't recall to what extent they were.
15
Q. I'm going to show you another excerpt from
16
Mr. Spence's deposition. The question is, I see
17
that the distinction -- I'm sorry I didn't follow it
18
originally. Your recollection is that during all of
19
these years that the rule was that contractors were
20
required to follow the Chevron safety rules and
21
safety plant program when the contractor worked in a
22
Chevron plant?
23
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form
24
You put plant before --
25
MR. PLACITELLA: I can't read it.
26
38
1
Q. Answer yes. That was the case I'm thinking
2
that the safety engineers did at least inspect for
3
compliance with the Chevron safety rules. Answer
4
um-hum, yes.
5
Does that refreshes your recollection as
6
to what the Chevron policy was as it related to
7
outside contractors?
8
A. There were different kinds of outside
9
contractors. There were independent contractors and
10
there were contractors who worked in the plant
11
regularly. I think they were treated differently,
12
but I don't know. I didn't work in the plants. I
13
think that's a generally true statement, but not
14
necessarily all the time.
15
Q. What is the difference between an outside
16
contractor and a contractor that worked regularly?
17
A. Maybe I should have used independent
18
contractor. Independent contractor was somebody
19
given a job to do, came in and did the whole job
20
versus the other contractors I was referring to were
21
what I would call workforce contractors. These were
22
people who were supplied, not Chevron employees, but
23
working in Chevron plants working on behalf of
24
Chevron.
25
Independent contractors would be given a
26
39
1
job, maybe a shutdown, for example. The whole plant
2
is shut down. Essentially turned over to that
3
contractor and that contractor has its own safety
4
rules and regulations and there was some -- I don't
5
recall exactly or I never knew exactly what the
6
relationship was between those rules and Chevron's
7
rules.
8
Q. Would there be any reason why the rules
9
for an independent contractor should be less
10
stringent than the rules that Chevron enforced?
11
A. No, and I don't believe they were.
12
Q. These workforce contractors, they would be
13
somebody that would come in and insulate a whole
14
section of steam lines, that kind of thing?
15
A. No. They would work basically as
16
Chevron's maintenance staff.
17
Q. They would be governed by Chevron's safety
18
rules?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. Would you agree that the industrial
21
hygiene department had a responsibility to keep
22
current on occupational health literature?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. And would you agree that part of assessing
25
a potential hazard in a plant was to consult with
26
40
1
the experience of other companies?
2
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
3
A. Not necessarily.
4
Q. What do you mean not necessarily?
5
A. It may not be necessary to consult with
6
other people if you have enough information in hand.
7
Q. But it was something that was done?
8
A. Oh, it was done. I think the question was
9
whether it was a requirement of the job. No, it
10
wasn't.
11
Q. You wouldn't take issue with Mr. Spence's
12
testimony where he says I think the medical director
13
got some viewpoints from the American Petroleum
14
Institute?
15
MR. LaSALA: Do we have a page?
16
MR. PLACITELLA: Thirty-five.
17
Q. The association with other companies
18
already had programs under way?
19
A. What is your question?
20
Q. You would agree with this testimony?
21
That's all I'm asking.
22
A. Oh, yes.
23
Q. Now, Chevron, in addition to manufacturing
24
petroleum products, was also an asbestos products
25
manufacturer. True?
26
41
1
A. I wouldn't call them an asbestos products
2
manufacturer.
3
Q. You manufactured products with asbestos in
4
them?
5
A. Yes .
6
Q. And Manville, for instance, manufactured
7
products with asbestos in it, right?
8
A. They are not comparable.
9
Q. Did Manville manufacture products with
10
asbestos?
11
A. Yes .
12
Q. You manufactured products with asbestos?
13
A. Yes .
14
Q. So in the sense of being an
15
asbestos containing product manufacturer, you are no
16
different than Manville?
17
MR. LaSALA: I direct him not to
18
answer. Argumentative. That's argumentative.
19
Q. What is the difference between you and
20
Manville in terms of being a manufacturer of
21
asbestos containing products?
22
A. The nature of the products was totally
23
different.
24
Q. And the nature of your products was what?
25
A. The asbestos was totally encapsulated
26
42
1
within the product that we sold
2
Q. Those products when --
3
A. It was a liquid product basically.
4
Q. Some of the products were products known
5
as Walk Top?
6
A. Yes .
7
Q. What was that used for?
8
A. As the name suggests, it was used, I
9
believe, for walking surfaces.
10
Q. Lakehold, was that an asbestos-containing
11
product?
12
A. Yes .
13
Q. What was that used for?
14
A. I believe it was mainly used for tennis
15
courts and sports courts
16
Q. How was that used?
17
A. It was taken in drums, I believe, to the
18
site and spread on the -- it was a thick liquid
19
material spread on the surface cold and I never saw
20
the application. It was squeegeed out.
21
Q. You are aware tennis courts, for example,
22
are resurfaced, right?
23
A. Yes .
24
Q. In your common experience. when they are
25
resurfaced, the top layer is often removed?
26
43
1
A. I don't know.
2
Q. You are aware that tennis courts and
3
walking surfaces are often upset or jack hammered
4
when they are removed, correct?
5
A. That would be my assumption.
6
Q. When that procedure would occur there
7
would be the potential for the asbestos that was
8
used in the Chevron product to be released into the
9
atmosphere?
10
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
11
Q. True?
12
A. In some amount, could be possible.
13
Q. Now, did you, Chevron, ever tell any of
14
your employees that they were working in an asbestos
15
products manufacturing plant?
16
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
17
A. I don't know if we ever used that
18
language.
19
Q. What steps did you take, Chevron, to
20
prevent the inhalation of asbestos for the people
21
who were manufacturing your asbestos-containing
22
products?
23
A. We took a close look at that operation and
24
recommended several controls that were installed to
25
minimize exposure and keep it below the recommended
26
44
1
standards.
2
Q. When was the first time you did that?
3
A. I don't recall.
4
Q. Was it done before 1972?
5
A. I don't recall. I don't think so.
6
Q. So up until 1972 there were no controls in
7
the plants operated by Chevron that manufactured
8
asbestos-containing products to control the
9
inhalation of asbestos fiber?
10
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
11
A. I don't know if that's correct.
12
Q. Who would know that? You are the guy with
13
the most knowledge.
14
A. I don't know who would know that. I'm not
15
even sure those products were made before 1972. I
16
don't know.
17
Q. You are not aware that Chevron made
18
asbestos-containing products going back to the
19
1940s?
20
A. I don't know that they made Lakehold. I
21
don't know when they started making Walk Top and
22
Lakehold. I don't know what controls were in place
23
before we got involved with that.
24
Q. When is the first time to your knowledge
25
that Chevron going into the business of
26
45
1
manufacturing asbestos-containing products?
2
A. I don't know.
3
Q. Was it before you got there?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. When you got there what controls were in
6
place to prevent the people who were working with
7
asbestos in the asbestos-containing product
8
manufacturing plants from enhaling the asbestos?
9
MR. LaSALA: Objections to the form.
10
A. I didn't see those particular operations.
11
Q. You toured asbestos-containing asphalt
12
plants, did you not?
13
A. I looked at the ones where they were
14
making Lakehold and Walk Top. I didn't . . .
15
I don't recall ever going to the one where they made
16
other products, which were started earlier.
17
Q. When you looked at the Lakehold and Walk
18
Top asbestos-containing product plants, when you
19
first went in there were no controls in place to
20
protect the workers from exposure to asbestos, true?
21
A. I don't know if that's true or not. I
22
don't remember.
23
Q. You had no controls in place before 1972,
24
true?
25
A. I don't know.
26
46
1
Q. I guess no one in the company knows since
2
you are the guy with the most knowledge.
3
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
4
Argumentative.
5
Q. Now, when you were at Harvard as part of
6
your training, did you obtain any information
7
concerning the potential dangers of asbestos?
8
A. Yes.
9
Q. What information did you obtain?
10
A. I don't know in detail, but I remember
11
hearing about asbestosis. It was talked about. I
12
recall in the general area of pneumoconiosis.
13
Q. Was that part of a course?
14
A. I'm sure it was.
15
Q. In the context of preventing
16
pneumoconiosis, did you discuss principles of
17
industrial hygiene to prevent pneumoconiosis related
18
injuries when you were at Harvard?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. Were those principles of industrial
21
hygiene around for many, many years?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. Those principles of industrial hygiene
24
included respiratory protection, correct?
25
A. Yes .
26
47
1
Q. They included ventilation?
2
A. They could.
3
Q. For pneumoconiosis producing dust, true?
4
A. You are lumping all those producing dust
5
in one category and they were all different. They
6
were all handled different. The manufacturer's
7
process was different about them. I wouldn't
8
generalize, they always indicated that.
9
Q. Was it a recognized principle of
10
industrial hygiene that you were taught when you
11
went to school that one of the ways of preventing
12
asbestos-related disease was through the use of
13
respirators?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. When you were at Harvard one of the ways
16
you were taught to prevent asbestos-related disease
17
would be through adequate ventilation, true?
18
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. These were principles that were known for
21
decades, true?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. The substitution of less hazardous
24
materials, was that a principle of industrial
25
hygiene that you were taught while you were at
26
48
1
Harvard studying to become an industrial hygienist?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. You were aware before you ever started at
4
Chevron that one of the ways to prevent asbestosis
5
was to use non-asbestos related materials, true?
6
A. No. I don't believe I was.
7
Q. When did you figure that out?
8
A. Well, what I was taught at Harvard had to
9
do with asbestos mining, asbestos milling,
10
insulation with pure asbestos materials and things
11
like that. That didn't really relate to what I
12
found when I went to Chevron.
13
14
(Video record begins.)
15
16
Q. You are the person designated as a person
17
with the most knowledge about Chevron and Standard
18
Oil of California's historical knowledge about the
19
dangers of asbestos and what Chevron did with that
20
information in terms of protecting its employees,
21
correct?
22
A. Among the people who are still alive and
23
able to travel, yes.
24
Q. In reviewing all the material you told us
25
you reviewed, did Chevron make any mistakes in
26
49
1
protecting their workers and their families from
2
asbestos exposure?
3
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
4
Any mistakes.
5
MR. PLACITELLA: Yes.
6
A. I can't think of any.
7
Q. Did Chevron make any mistakes in relaying
8
what it knew about the dangers of asbestos to those
9
foreseeably exposed to asbestos in its plants?
10
MR. LaSALA: Same objection.
11
A. There's nothing I would consider that I
12
can recall that I would consider a mistake.
13
Q. So if no mistakes were made, then the way
14
asbestos was handled in the Chevron plants was
15
intentional. Would you agree with that?
16
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
17
Argumentative.
18
A. I don't know how to answer that question.
19
Q. Everything you did was deliberate.
20
There were no mistakes made. What you did is what
21
you did and there's no apologies for it, correct?
22
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
23
argumentative. Can we take the argumentative
24
portion out of that, please --
25
MR. PLACITELLA: Sure.
26
50
1
Q. Everything that was done with asbestos was
2
done consciously and deliberately?
3
A. I wouldn't necessarily say that. When you
4
say there was no mistakes made, I'm not aware of
5
mistakes. Individuals could have made mistakes.
6
Q. Because you are not even aware of what
7
went on at the Chevron Perth Amboy facility as you
8
sit here today despite all the information that you
9
reviewed, correct?
10
A. I'm not aware of what went on on a day-to-day
11
basis at any facility.
12
Q. And you don't really have any
13
understanding about what Chevron did or didn't do to
14
protect the employees and their families at the
15
Chevron Perth Amboy facility from asbestos exposure,
16
true?
17
A. I have a general sense of what they did,
18
but I don't know details of what they did.
19
Q. Now, you would agree that Chevron had the
20
money and the resources to protect employees in
21
their plants from unsafe working conditions?
22
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
23
Q. True?
24
A. They had the resources insofar as
25
information that was currently available, but as you
26
51
1
know, that information at times got updated with new
2
information.
3
Q. Sure, and Chevron was really up to date on
4
all the information concerning the dangers of the
5
products that were used in its operations. Would
6
you agree with that?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. And Chevron had the money and the
9
resources to ensure that any toxic or unsafe
10
material used or generated in its plants would not
11
be carried home to the workers' families, true?
12
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
13
A. Certainly had the resources and money,
14
yes .
15
Q. And you are familiar with Standard Oil of
16
New Jersey?
17
A. I know who that was, yes.
18
Q. They were not anymore capable of
19
protecting employees than Standard Oil of
20
California, were they?
21
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
22
A. I believe that's true.
23
Q. Chevron had basically the same resources
24
for protecting employee health and safety that would
25
have been available to Standard oil of New Jersey,
26
52
1
right?
2
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
3
A. Standard Oil of New Jersey got into the
4
industrial hygiene field before Chevron did.
5
Q. Well, you both had the same parent, didn't
6
you, Standard Oil of California and Standard Oil of
7
New Jersey?
8
A. Going back many, many years, yes.
9
Q. In fact, would this accurately reflect the
10
lineage, this slide accurately reflects the lineage
11
of --
12
A. No .
13
Q. It would not?
14
A. I don't believe so. You have Chevron at
15
the top. We are not -- Chevron is not the father of
16
all these companies.
17
Q. It was Standard Oil that broke up to be -
18
Standard oil of California and Standard Oil of New
19
Jersey. It was broken up into two different --
20
A. No. I believe it was broken up into more
21
companies. Standard Oil of New York
22
Q. Exactly.
23
A. And other companies.
24
Q. And one became BP and one became Exxon and
25
one become AMOCO, correct?
26
53
1
A. Not exactly, but BP bought one of the
2
companies.
3
Q. When I ask you whether you had the same
4
parent, that is Chevron and Exxon, the answer is
5
what?
6
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
7
Are you asking him if they had the same parent?
8
Q. You had the same parent?
9
A. Well, yes. In a very general, general
10
sense we had the same parent.
11
Q. I put a slide up here. Have you ever seen
12
a picture or an overhead of the Chevron refinery in
13
Perth Amboy?
14
A. I don't recall I have.
15
Q. Do you know how far away it was located
16
from the Bayway or Exxon Bayway refinery?
17
A. No, I don't.
18
Q. Did you know it was less than a few miles
19
away?
20
A. I don't know what you mean by a few miles,
21
but I knew they were in the same general area.
22
Q. Do you recognize this as a picture of the
23
Chevron Perth Amboy plant?
24
A. By the caption on it, yes.
25
Q. You recall the plant was near a large body
26
54
1
of water, do you recall that?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. And you recall there were prevailing winds
4
that would come off that body of water?
5
A. No.
6
Q. If there were prevailing winds that would
7
come off a body of water, would that have a
8
significance to you in terms of your profession as
9
an industrial hygienist in assessing health and
10
safety in a plant?
11
A. I don't think I would pay much attention
12
to that.
13
Q. Did you conduct research to determine when
14
is the first time that Standard Oil of California
15
was aware of the potential dangers of asbestos
16
exposure?
17
A. No, I didn't.
18
Q. Wasn't that part of your charge for this
19
deposition?
20
A. Not that I understand.
21
Q. Do you know when Chevron first became
22
aware of the potential dangers of asbestos exposure?
23
A. No, I don't.
24
Q. Do you know when Chevron firstbecame
25
aware that asbestos was potentially related to
26
55
1
contracting cancers?
2
A. I have a pretty good sense of that.
3
Q. When was that?
4
A. Sometime shortly before the asbestos
5
standard came out.
6
Q. You are not aware of information in the
7
possession of Chevron going back to the 1940's and
8
'50s indicating an association between asbestos and
9
cancer?
10
A. I'm not aware of that.
11
Q. And you had not been provided that
12
information by Chevron in preparations for today's
13
deposition?
14
A. No, I haven't.
15
Q. Knowledge of dangers of products used in
16
Chevron plants would come from multiple sources.
17
Would you agree with that?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. Some would include academic training?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. Medical, open medical literature?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. Would Chevron have available to it the
24
means to research medical literature historically?
25
A. Yes .
26
56
1
Q. Would another means be professional
2
organizations?
3
A. Yes.
4
Q. Consultation with other oil companies?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. In fact, you, yourself corresponded with
7
the industrial hygienist at Exxon Jim Hammond, to
8
discuss asbestos health issues, correct?
9
A. I don't recall that.
10
Q. You don't recall testifying to that?
11
A. No, I don't.
12
Q. You corresponded with Jim Hammond? You
13
never did that?
14
A. I wouldn't say I didn't do it. I don't
15
remember doing it.
16
Q. Would you say that another source would be
17
through mergers and acquisitions, that is if a
18
company took over another company, you would absorb
19
the information that that company had as well?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. Another source of information on the
22
dangers of products used in the plants would be
23
symposiums, true?
24
A. Yes.
25
Q. National Safety Counsel?
26
57
1
A. To some extent, yes.
2
Q. The American Petroleum Institute?
3
A. Yes.
4
Q. Am I correct that Chevron did nothing to
5
protect the workers in its plants from exposure to
6
asbestos until the federal government made them do
7
it?
8
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
9
A. No.
10
Q. What did you do before 1972 to protect
11
workers from exposure to asbestos in the Chevron
12
plants?
13
A. My understanding is that there were
14
respirators required for asbestos removal work or
15
insulation removal work where that involved
16
asbestos.
17
Q. When was that first required, sir?
18
A. I don't know when it was first required.
19
it was well before my time.
20
Q. Well before you start in 1968?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q. And what is the source of that
23
information?
24
A. Dan Barber's deposition.
25
Q. Is Mr. Barber still alive?
26
58
1
A. Yes.
2
Q. Did you have an opportunity to discuss
3
that with him?
4
A. No, I didn't.
5
Q. Do you know whether those respirators were
6
supplied -- did you say respirators were required
7
for asbestos removal?
8
A. Yes.
9
Q. And what plant was Mr. Barber responsible
10
for?
11
A. He was responsible for El Segundo refinery
12
and for the a short period of time Richmond
13
refinery.
14
Q. And would that have been going back to the
15
1950s?
16
A. I believe so, yes.
17
Q. What other methods was Chevron doing to
18
protect the health of people exposed to asbestos in
19
in plants, other than requiring respirators?
20
A. According to Mr. Barber's testimony, they
21
were also wetting down the insulation before
22
removing it.
23
Q. And what was the purpose of that?
24
A. To reduce the release of dry dust.
25
Q. And when would that have started?
26
59
1
A. I don't know when. Probably also early.
2
In the '50s or maybe before.
3
Q. The '50's or before?
4
A. Or before.
5
Q. Do you have any evidence that those
6
practices were used to protect the people who worked
7
in the Chevron refinery in Perth Amboy?
8
A. Do I personally have evidence, no, I
9
don't .
10
Q. Have you reviewed anything, any
11
information that you can point to as evidence that
12
the procedures of wet down and use of respirators
13
were used in the Chevron Perth Amboy refinery before
14
1972?
15
A. I don't personally have that evidence.
16
Q. Have you seen any evidence whatsoever to
17
indicate that, whether you had it personally or not?
18
A. I have not seen it, no.
19
Q. In that information existed would you have
20
hoped it was provided to you?
21
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
22
You can answer.
23
A. I didn't have any particular conception of
24
what I would be provided.
25
Q. When is there first time, and these
26
60
1
procedures you are discussing to protect people from
2
exposure to asbestos, I take it one of the reasons
3
they did wet down was to protect not only the person
4
removing the asbestos, but people in the vicinity?
5
A. I don't know what the rationale for that
6
was .
7
Q. As an industrial hygienist is it your
8
understanding that the reason that you wet down
9
asbestos-containing insulation before removing it is
10
to protect both the person removing it plus people
11
in the vicinity?
12
A. It would accomplish that goal, yes.
13
Q. You understood that as a general principle
14
of industrial hygiene, correct?
15
A. I wouldn't call it that, but I guess -- I
16
wouldn't argue with the practice either.
17
Q. Would it have been good practice to
18
protect the people in the vicinity of the removal of
19
asbestos?
20
A. Yes. If they were potentially exposed.
21
Q. And when you say potentially exposed, what
22
do you mean by that?
23
A. If they were potentially exposed to
24
hazardous concentrations of asbestos fibers over a
25
period of time.
26
61
1
Q. Would you agree that a general principle
2
of industrial hygiene is that if you can see
3
variable asbestos-containing dust, that protection
4
should be afforded the worker or the people in the
5
vicinity?
6
A. Repeat that, please.
7
Q. Would you agree that as an accepted
8
principle of industrial hygiene that if you can
9
see visible dust that the people working in the
10
vicinity should get protection?
11
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
12
A. It depends on whether that dust is in the
13
form that can be inhaled.
14
Q. What do you mean by that?
15
A. If you saw insulation that contains
16
asbestos, the type of insulation that contains
17
asbestos, there will be dust produced which drops
18
directly to the ground. It is not becoming
19
airborne. It is not getting into the -- as long as
20
it is falling it is not respirable. It is not
21
something people can breathe.
22
Q. Well, in your training as an industrial
23
hygienist were you ever trained in the principle of
24
reentrainment?
25
A. Yes .
26
62
1
Q. What is that?
2
A. Reentrainment means things that land on
3
the ground and gets stirred and back up into the
4
air .
5
Q. And that's something that happened with
6
asbestos-containing dust, correct?
7
A. It could happen, yes.
8
Q. So the mere fact that asbestos may fall to
9
the ground is no solace to the people working in the
10
area that they won't be exposed, true?
11
A. True.
12
Q. When was the first time that Chevron took
13
any steps to make sure that asbestos-containing dust
14
or debris was not transported home by workers to
15
their families?
16
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
17
A. I can't answer that question. I don't
18
know.
19
Q. Did it ever happen during the time you
20
worked for Chevron?
21
A. It could have.
22
Q. You were aware at some point in time that
23
there were procedures that the federal government
24
required to make sure that asbestos-containing dust
25
was not transported home to families, correct?
26
63
1
A. Yes. I believe as part of the asbestos
2
standard, it was required.
3
Q. And before the federal government made
4
Chevron follow those procedures, there were no
5
procedures in place at Chevron refineries to protect
6
the health and safety of family members, true?
7
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
8
A. That I don't know. I know many refineries
9
had issued coveralls for people to work and those
10
coveralls were laundered on site. I don't know a
11
lot of detail about that procedure.
12
Q. Let's talk about that a little bit. Some
13
of the refineries you are aware of actually had
14
coveralls given to the employees?
15
A. Coveralls or some sort of protective
16
clothing.
17
Q. Those coveralls were then laundered
18
on-site?
19
A. I don't believe they were laundered
20
on-site. They could have been on-site or sent to an
21
outside laundry.
22
Q. Okay. Fair enough. But the employee did
23
not take those coveralls home to their family to
24
wash?
25
A. That's my understanding.
26
64
1
Q. Did some of the refineries have showers to
2
make sure any toxic substances were not transported
3
home on the workers' person to the family?
4
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
5
You can answer.
6
A. I believe they did.
7
Q. Do you know what refineries had that
8
practice?
9
A. No.
10
Q. Why was it important that in your opinion
11
as an industrial hygienist to give the workers
12
coveralls that would be laundered by Chevron and not
13
by the workers' families?
14
A. I'm sorry. Give me that question again.
15 (Record read)
16
17
A. Some workers could take toxic substances
18
home and spread them around within their home.
19
Q. Did the practice of giving coveralls to
20
workers in some of these refineries predate your
21
come to go Chevron?
22
A. I believe so.
23
Q. Did the practice of supplying showering
24
facilities in some of these refineries predate your
25
coming to Chevron?
26
65
1
A. I believe so.
2
Q. Did these practices actually in fact date
3
back to the 1950s and possibly before?
4
A. I believe so.
5
Q. Do you know why these practices weren't in
6
place in the Perth Amboy Chevron facility?
7
A. No.
8
Q. As an industrial hygienist would these be
9
practices that you would have recommended be in the
10
Perth Amboy facility had you had some influence over
11
that?
12
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
13
A. I don't know -- without having seen the
14
operations, no.
15
Q. Well, it was a refinery just like
16
El Segundo?
17
A. Um hum?
18
Q. What was different about the Perth Amboy
19
refinery from El Segundo that meant that those
20
people required less protection than the El Segundo
21
people?
22
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
23
A. I'm not suggesting that they did require
24
less protection.
25
Q. A human being working in El Segundo was no
26
66
1
different than a human being working in Perth Amboy.
2
MR. LaSALA: Objection. Argumentative.
3
A. Absolutely.
4
Q. And a human being working in El Segundo
5
had the same right to be protected, the same way -
6
strike that.
7
A human being in Perth Amboy had the right
8
to be protected the same way an employee had the
9
right to be protected in El Segundo, true?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q. So if coveralls were given to employees in
12
El Segundo, they should have been given to employees
13
in Perth Amboy. Would you agree with that?
14
A. If there was a hazard.
15
Q. Were the hazards different in Perth Amboy
16
than from El Segundo to your knowledge?
17
A. I don't know.
18
MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this P-3.
19
(The above document is marked as
20
P-3 for Identification.)
21
Q. Mr. Dryden, we are making good progress.
22
I want to show you what's been marked P-3 for
23
Identification and ask you if you have ever seen
24
this document before?
25
A. I do recognize it. I saw it.
26
67
1
MR. LaSALA: Wait for a question.
2
Q. When have you seen it?
3
A. As far as I can recall the first time I
4
saw it was in the last two days.
5
Q. What were the circumstances under which
6
you saw this document?
7
A. Preparing for this deposition. It was one
8
of the -- it was attached to one of the depositions.
9
It was an exhibit of one of the depositions.
10
Q. Did you have a chance to review the
11
document?
12
A. I reviewed it briefly.
13
Q. I'm just going to ask you some things.
14
The first time you saw it is when it was shown to
15
you by counsel for Chevron?
16
A. They sent it to me. I think I read it,
17
looked at it on the airplane.
18
MR. PLACITELLA: There is some reason
19
why it wasn't produced as part of the materials?
20
MR. LaSALA: Only reason is
21
inadvertence on our part. I apologize.
22
Q. What, if any, significance did you attach
23
to this document when you reviewed it?
24
A. None, really.
25
Q. This is a document entitled, Dust Producing
26
68
1
Operations in the Petroleum Products and
2
Associated Activities by a Roy Bonsib?
3
A. You left a couple of words out, but, yes
4
Q. I'm trying to get you on your plane. He
5
was the chief safety inspector for Standard Oil
6
Company of New Jersey, correct?
7
A. That's what it says.
8
Q. Right down the street from the Perth Amboy
9
refinery, remember?
10
A. Not necessarily. I don't know if their
11
headquarters was at that refinery or not.
12
Q. This survey was done of the Bayway
13
refinery in New Jersey, correct?
14
A. I don't recall. I don't know. I didn't
15
look at it that carefully.
16
Q. The first paragraph says in the forward
17
says, Because it is the duty of industry to protect
18
its employees and because no comprehensive survey
19
of the hazards incident to occupational dust
20
problems has yet been made, it was felt that here
21
was an opportunity to render a service to the
22
petroleum industry and its employees by making such
23
a survey.
24
Did I read that correctly?
25
A. Yes, except they misspelled service.
26
69
1
Q. Was this document ever shared with you by
2
anyone at Chevron while you were there?
3
A. To the best of my recollection we had this
4
document in our files, but whether it was shared
5
with me personally, no, I don't think so.
6
Q. Okay. Now --
7
A. When I say I saw it for the first time, I
8
may have seen it at Chevron, but I just don't
9
recall.
10
Q. Go to page 3, please.
11
A. Okay.
12
Q. See under the second full paragraph there
13
are five distinct types of reaction.
14
A. You are looking at a different page
15
three.
16
Q. Past the index into the body of the
17
report.
18
A. Here we go.
19
Q. It says there are five distinct types of
20
reaction produced in a man as the result of in
21
inhalation, inhaling dust. Do you see that?
22
A. Yes .
23
Q. What is the date of this document?
24
A. 1937 .
25
Q. These reactions may be broadly classified,
26
70
1
but based on the primary cause as follows: A, those
2
which result in lung fibrosis, commonly referred to
3
as pneumoconiosis. These dusts contain free silica,
4
asbestos, etc. However, it is not necessary for
5
fibrous tissue to be formed in order for the
6
disease to be classified as pneumoconiosis. Do you
7
see that?
8
A. Yes .
9
Q. Is this information that was also known to
10
Chevron historically?
11
A. Yes .
12
Q. Could you go to page 7, please.
13
A. Yes .
14
Q. If I'm going through this and you think
15
there's something you want to point out or if you
16
take a break and you want to come back and say
17
something about it, it is okay. I'm trying to move
18
through it.
19
A. Okay.
20
Q. There is a section that says asbestosis.
21
Do you see that?
22
A. Yes .
23
Q. According to authorities cited by Drinker
24
and Hatch in their book, Industrial Dusts, the
25
pathology produced by asbestos is not like that of
26
71
1
silicosis.
2
It has a whole paragraph on asbestosis,
3
correct?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. Go to page 9, please. Do you see the
6
second paragraph from the bottom, it says, as pointed
7
out by Drinker and Hatch, Industrial Dust 1936, it
8
is unfortunately impossible to evaluate dust
9
exposures with the arithmetical nicety that we would
10
have liked, yet it is commonly claimed by laymen
11
that prolonged exposure to low concentrations is
12
just as serious as short exposures to heavy
13
concentrations. Did I read that correctly?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. This claim is contrary to a fundamental
16
law of physiology. When you were being trained as
17
an industrial hygienist, did you have courses in
18
physiology?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. In discussing the subject, Clark and
21
Drinker, Industrial Medicine 1935, remarked that a
22
sub-threshold stimulus, (dust inhalation) for a
23
long time produces no reaction whereas a relatively
24
brief super threshold stimulus may cause a reaction.
25
Did I read that correctly?
26
72
1
A. Yes.
2
Q. Is that something you understood to be
3
true?
4
A. For some substances, yes.
5
Q. If workers are exposed to sudden heavy
6
concentrations, the threshold value suggested
7
previously would be correspondingly lowered. Did
8
you understand that as a principle of industrial
9
hygiene when you were studying it at Harvard?
10
A. Yes, but I don't think this paragraph was
11
specifically related to asbestos, so I wouldn't have
12
necessarily understood that as relating to asbestos.
13
Q. We are going to move on. See if we can
14
tie it up later. Go to page 27.
15
A. All right.
16
Q. Do you see where it says, this is entitled,
17
Insulating Operations, correct?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. Do you see where it says what
20
physiological reactions are provoked by insulating
21
materials?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. According to Dr. Leroy Gardner, there's a
24
citation to an article, asbestos dust with its
25
fibrous particles does not seem to be readily
26
73
1
handled by the protective mechanism of the lung,
2
correct?
3
A. Yes.
4
Q. Then a little further down under section B
5
there's a question. What are the principal
6
insulating operations and how much dust is produced
7
during such operations. Do you see that?
8
A. Yes.
9
Q. And the first thing it says is insulating
10
steam lines, correct?
11
A. 12 inch steam lines, yes.
12
Q. Is that something that happened at Chevron
13
facilities?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. And when they did dust counts they found
16
considerable dust as high as 18 million particles of
17
less than ten microns per cubic foot?
18
A. That's what this says.
19
Q. That happens just from tapping insulation
20
blocks into place, true?
21
A. That's what it says.
22
Q. It also says that samples taken while
23
applying asbestos sponge felt to a 12 inch steam line
24
had a dust concentration as high as 23,788,800
25
hundred particles of 10 microns or less, correct,
26
74
1
and that the average was 12,000 plus?
2
A. Yes. I'm not familiar with the term
3
asbestos sponge felt.
4
Q. The next section talks about insulating
5
cracking coil accumulators. Did that happen at the
6
the Chevron facilities?
7
A. I don't know what that device is.
8
Q. The next section talks about insulating
9
treating plant acid suction lines. Do you know what
10
they are?
11
A. No, I don't know specifically what
12
that is.
13
Q. The next talks about insulating a cracking
14
coil. Do you know what a cracking coil is?
15
A. I don't know what a cracking coil is,
16
no.
17
Q. Isn't the cracking coil kind of the
18
essence of how petroleum gets refined?
19
A. When I was working there was
20
something called the fluid Catalytic cracker. I
21
don't know if it is a coil. It had a big reactor.
22
Q. Do you see where it says a carpenter's
23
handsaw for insulating hot oil lines produced dust
24
in excess of 7 million particles?
25
A. Where are you? Under the cracking coil?
26
75
1
Q. Yes.
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. Underneath it says dismantling or removing
4
old insulation. That is something that happened in
5
every Chevron refinery, correct?
6
A. Yes.
7
Q. And it says as a general rule the
8
dismantling or removal of old insulation is a more
9
dusty operation than the application of new
10
insulation. The old insulation is chopped or cut
11
with a hatchet or a small hand axe and pried loose
12
and pulled off with the hands.
13
Do you see that?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Is that a practice you understood to
16
happen in Chevron facilities?
17
A. No. I don't remember that.
18
Q. Would you agree that Chevron was aware
19
that as a general rule the dismantling or removal of
20
old insulation is a more dusty operation than the
21
application of new insulation?
22
A. That was my understanding, although it is
23
interesting the numbers they show are lower than the
24
numbers they showed for the installation.
25
Q. I'm sorry?
26
76
1
A. The numbers he showed for the exposures
2
were lower in this paragraph than they were when he
3
was describing installation.
4
Q. How did they compare to the numbers you
5
found when did you your hygiene surveys?
6
A. I never used this technique for measuring
7
asbestos.
8
Q. Now, if we can go to page 73, it says part
9
three, measures for reductions of the dust hazard.
10
Do you see that?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. The question is how can the dust hazard be
13
reduced? Do you see that?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Suppression of dust near its origin by the
16
use of exhaust, dust traps or water. It goes on to
17
explain that. Do you see that?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. These were principles of industrial
20
hygiene known to Chevron going back to the 1930s,
21
correct?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. And it says proper ventilation?
24
A. Excuse me. I don't know when Chevron
25
received this document.
26
77
1
Q. Was it known as a principle of industrial
2
hygiene as part of your study going back to before
3
the '50s that one of the ways you protect from
4
exposure to dust is to suppress the dust?
5
A. Yes. Whether it was known to Chevron, I
6
cannot tell you.
7
Q. And it says proper ventilation in
8
connection. Is that something that was known as a
9
principle of industrial hygiene to protect against
10
dust hazards?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. And it says masks should be an ideal
13
preventive measure, but unfortunately most of the
14
masks stopping the dust also stop the respiration,
15
thus necessitating their frequent removal.
16
Did you understand that to be the case?
17
A. By the time I got involved with the field
18
I don't recall that being a problem anymore.
19
Technology improved by then.
20
Q. Did you understand that to be a problem
21
historically?
22
A. I never remember hearing that particular
23
thing.
24
Q. A little further down it talks about dust
25
respirators and air masks. Respirators and masks
26
78
1
of various types have been used since the days of
2
the alchemists and are mentioned by Agricola, Ramazzini
3
and others. You know who Ramazzini is, correct?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. How long ago did Ramazzini live?
6
A. Long, long time ago centuries ago.
7
Q. He was one of the fathers of industrial
8
hygiene, correct?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. That is something you learned about in
11
your training at Harvard, correct?
12
A. Yes.
13
Q. And as far as back as Ramazzini, if you
14
wanted to prevent people from getting dust related
15
disease, one of the things that was known was to
16
give them respiratory protection, correct?
17
A. That was one of the things that was done,
18
yes .
19
Q. Now, can you go to 74, please?
20
A. All right.
21
Q. It says under the section A, design plant
22
for dust control. It says much can be accomplished
23
through design of new built -- I can't read that
24
word.
25
A. I can't either.
26
79
1
Q. Or when old buildings are to be remodeled.
2
For instance, structural projections and ledges may
3
be minimized to prevent the accumulation of dust
4
that might later be released into the atmosphere or
5
by air currents or building vibration caused by
6
traveling cranes, vibrating machinery and
7
equipment that have large reciprocating parts.
8
Did you understand that to be a general
9
principle of industrial hygiene when you were at
10
Harvard?
11
A. No, I never remember hearing about that.
12
Q. Is the prevention of stirring up dust into
13
the atmosphere from machinery something that Chevron
14
was concerned about while you worked there?
15
A. I would say yes.
16
Q. And how far back had they been concerned
17
about that?
18
A. Good housekeeping was a concern probably
19
as long they had operating plants.
20
Q. That would include dust created when huge
21
cranes would go over areas where insulation dropped
22
off?
23
A. I don't have any knowledge of that.
24
Q. Do you know in this case that Mr. Horvath
25
was a crane operator?
26
80
1
A. I was told he was a crane operator.
2
Q. Do you know what Chevron did to protect
3
Mr. Horvath from stirring up asbestos dust that he
4
drove his crane over?
5
A. No, I don't.
6
Q. A little further down it says, store dusty
7
materials in dust tight bins. Do you remember see
8
that?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. Was that an understood principle of
11
industrial hygiene by Chevron?
12
A. Depending on the materials, yes.
13
Q. Does thin include asbestos-containing
14
materials?
15
A. Not as insulation-containing asbestos, no.
16
Q. I don't understand.
17
A. Not insulation that contained small
18
amounts of asbestos. It was not stored in dust
19
tight bins as far as I know.
20
Q. What about insulation that was knocked off
21
and in pieces?
22
A. I don't know what the practice of that
23
was. I believe they bagged it.
24
Q. How far back were they bagging it?
25
A. I have no idea.
26
81
1
Q. Why would you bag it?
2
A. So you wouldn't stir the dust around as
3
you were moving this disposed material to whatever.
4
Q. Do you know whether that was done in the
5
Perth Amboy facility?
6
A. I don't know.
7
Q. Should it have been done in your opinion?
8
A. I don't have an opinion on that.
9
Q. It says isolate dusty processes. Where
10
possible several or all dusty processes may be
11
isolated from the rest of the plant.
12
Did you understand that to be a principle
13
of industrial hygiene going back to the 1930s?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Can you tell me did Chevron isolate dusty
16
processes inside its refineries to protect employees
17
who may be exposed to asbestos-containing dust?
18
A. I don't know to what extent they did that.
19
Q. When would you use an air purifying
20
respirator versus a regular respirator?
21
A. When exposures were more likely to be
22
hazardous.
23
Q. Did you ever recommend air purifying
24
respirators to protect people from exposure to
25
asbestos?
26
82
1
A. Personally?
2
Q. Yes .
3
A. Air purifying respirators?
4
Q. Yes .
5
A. I believe I did.
6
Q. And when did you first start doing that?
7
A. I don't recall.
8
Q. Was it before or after 1972?
9
A. Personally I don' t recall dealing with
10
asbestos much before 1972.
11
Q. And do you know when air purifying type
12
respirators were first available to workers to
13
protect them from asbestos in Chevron refineries?
14
A. No.
15
Q. Can you go to page 81, please.
16
A. All right.
17
Q. Jumping to the conclusion. Last paragraph
18
says, one common sense answer is that any atmosphere
19
in which dust is visible to the naked eye is
20
certainly too dusty to be breathed with safety by
21
human beings and the wise, farsighted, human employer
22
will immediately start to decrease the dust
23
content in any atmosphere where dust is
24
visible.
25
Did you understand that to be a principle
26
83
1
of industrial hygiene going back to the 1930s?
2
A. No.
3
Q. Do you agree with this?
4
A. No, I don't think I do.
5
Q. Will you agree with me that dust may be
6
invisible and still be harmful? Asbestos-containing
7
dust may be invisible and still be harmful?
8
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
9
A. It may be.
10
Q. Now, just flip to the last page, 82,
11
please. Do you see all these people at the bottom?
12
A. Yes.
13
Q. One is Mr. Yant, director of research and
14
development for Mine Safety Appliances Company. Do
15
you see that?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. Mine Safety Appliances supplied respirators
18
to Chevron, didn't they?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. Chevron had access to this individual if
21
they wanted to, didn't they?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. Then there's a Dr. R.R. Sayers, senior
24
surgeon of the U.S. Public Health Service. Do you
25
know who he is?
26
84
1
A. Other than his title printed here, no, I
2
don't remember the name.
3
Q. Would there have been anything to preclude
4
Chevron from consulting with the U.S. Public Health
5
Service about how to protect employees and their
6
families?
7
A. No.
8
Q. The next is Mr. Daniel Harrington, Chief,
9
Health and Safety Division, U.S. Bureau of Mines.
10
Anything that would prevent Chevron from consulting
11
with this man in 1937 if they wanted to know more
12
about protecting worker health and safety?
13
A. Probably not.
14
Q. The last man is H.N. Blakeslee, Department
15
of Accident Prevention, American Petroleum
16
Institute. Do you see that?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. At some point in time Chevron actually
19
became a member of that institute, correct?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. Do you know when it first became a member?
22
A. No.
23
Q. Do you know what I mean when I say maximum
24
allowable concentration?
25
A. Yes .
26
85
1
Q. What does that mean?
2
A. That is the term that was used by the
3
American Conference of Environmental Hygienists
4
before they adopted the term threshold limit value
5
Q. Maximum allowable doesn't mean a weighted
6
average, it means the maximum you could go to,
7
correct?
8
A. No, I don't believe it does. I believe it
9
was -- it meant the time weighted average. As far
10
as -- my recollection is that. When they changed
11
the name to threshold limit value, it was only a
12
name change
13
Q. Maximum meaning you shouldn't go above
14
that?
15
A. That was the terminology used.
16
Q. And Chevron used the term maximum
17
allowable concentrations as acceptable level of
18
contaminants in their refineries, including
19
asbestos, true?
20
A. It used that term as a commonly used term.
21
Q. Going back to the 1950s, correct?
22
A. Probably.
23
Q. The maximum allowable concentration for
24
asbestos dust in the '50s was 5 million particles
25
per cubic foot, right?
26
86
1
A. That's my understanding.
2
Q. Meaning that you shouldn't go above that?
3
A. Shouldn't have time weighted average
4
exposure above that.
5
Q. But it was not an assurances that
6
exposures below that were going to absolutely
7
protect you, right?
8
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
9
A. That's true. That is one of the
10
principles of the threshold limit values.
11
Q. One of the things you learned as being
12
trained in industrial hygiene is there may be
13
people -- that should protect most people, but there
14
may be people exposed under the threshold limit
15
that could still be injured, true?
16
A. That's in the preamble of the threshold
17
limit values, yes.
18
Q. I put up on the screen a photograph of a
19
book by Dr. Hueper. Do you know who Dr. Hueper was?
20
A. No, I don't. I guess it has his title
21
there, but I don't know who he was.
22
Q. Are you aware or have you been shown by
23
Chevron any of the writings of Dr. Hueper as it
24
relates to asbestos and cancer?
25
A. I remember hearing his name before. I
26
87
1
don't remember ever using his materials while I was
2
working for Chevron.
3
Q. Are you aware that as early as 1942
4
Dr. Hueper wrote in his textbook about asbestos and
5
cancer?
6
A. I believe I heard that before.
7
Q. You are aware that your boss, along with
8
the Chevron medical director, attended meetings of
9
the American Petroleum Institute and Medical
10
Advisory Committee, correct?
11
A. Some organization called that or something
12
else, yes.
13
Q. In fact, that was in his deposition,
14
correct?
15
A. I believe so, yes.
16
MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark these P-4,
17
P-5 and P-6.
18
(The above documents are marked as P-4,
19
P-5 and P-6 for Identification.)
20
Q. I put before you what's been marked P-4,
21
which is a July 2, 1945 report entitled Carcinogenic
22
Hydrocarbons and Related Compounds, a Literature
23
Review. On the top, for information only, not for
24
publication. A contribution of information to the
25
members of the API Medical Advisory Committee.
26
88
1
Have you ever seen this document before?
2
A. I don't recall ever seeing this document.
3
Q. Can you turn to the first page, second
4
full paragraph says, "while carcinogenic properties
5
are generally associated with certain polynuclear
6
aromatics and their derivatives, there are many
7
substance entirely unrelated to these compounds
8
which have been reported as having similar
9
cancer-producing ability "
10
Do you see that?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. It says, "among these may be mentioned
13
asbestos." Do you see that?
14
A. Yes. I see that.
15
Q. Was this information ever related to you
16
by anyone at Chevron, that as far back as 1945 there
17
were reports given to the American Petroleum
18
Institute about asbestos and cancer from another
19
manufacturer?
20
A. I don't recall that, no.
21
Q. Was this information ever provided to you
22
by Chevron as part of your research in preparation
23
for today's deposition?
24
A. No.
25
Q. I'm going to move through this quickly.
26
89
1
If you don't know about it, fine.
2
I put up an excerpt from Hueper, the same
3
Hueper in 1948 entitled Environmental and
4
Occupational Cancer.
5
There's a section on asbestos.
6
Do you see that?
7
A. I see it is up there, yes.
8
Q. Were you ever shown this information by
9
Chevron during the time that you worked for them?
10
A. Not that I recall.
11
Q. Were you ever shown this information in
12
preparation for your deposition today?
13
A. No.
14
Q. Do you know what the American Public
15
Health Association is?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. Were you ever a member?
18
A. No.
19
Q. I'll move to the next one.
20
Did you know that Chevron was a member of
21
the API Safety Committee board of directors as far
22
back as 1948?
23
A. That doesn't surprise me.
24
Q. Have you seen this document before?
25
A. I don't recall ever seeing this document,
26
90
1
no.
2
Q. Was this document ever shared with you
3
while you were employed by Chevron?
4
A. Not that I recall.
5
Q. This is a document Entitled Occupational
6
Cancer, a Challenge to the Physician, sponsored by
7
the Medical Society of the State of New York
8
A. I see that.
9
Q. Could you turn to page five of the
10
document?
11
A. Okay.
12
Q. Do you see where it says the New York
13
State Occupational Cancer Committee, an unofficial
14
agency with the following membership. Do you see
15
that?
16
A. Yes .
17
Q. And do you see that the American Petroleum
18
Institute was a member of that committee?
19
A. I see that, yes.
20
Q. And at this point in time Standard Oil of
21
California was already a member of the American
22
Petroleum Institute, wasn't it?
23
A. I don't know what the date of this
24
document is.
25
Q. 1949.
26
91
1
A. Okay. I believe so, yes.
2
Q. And do you see that Dr. Hueper, the person
3
who wrote the book, is also sitting on the same
4
committee?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. Could you flip to page 14. Do you see
7
where it lists asbestos as a potential cancer agent
8
for the respiratory system?
9
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
10
A. I see asbestos is listed on here. It is
11
hard to read the title.
12
Q. In fact, one of the things that was being
13
monitored by this committee way back in 1949 was
14
mesothelioma, true?
15
A. I don't see that on here.
16
Q. Look at this page here. Flip a few pages.
17
A. I see it is listed here.
18
Q. Terms and pathological diagnoses included
19
under cancer and other malignant tumors and
20
mesothelioma is listed, correct?
21
A. I see that, yes.
22
Q. Now, this particular document, were you
23
aware, it was circulated widely within the American
24
Petroleum Institute?
25
A. No, I'm not aware of that.
26
92
1
MR. PLACITELLA: We have to change the
2
tape.
3
(Recess taken)
4
5
Q. You have in front of you an April 12, 1949
6
report entitled Summary of the Plant Industrial
7
Hygiene Problems by Berry, Hammonda, Bonsib and
8
Hendricks. The medical Department Research Section
9
Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. Do you see
10
that?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. Have you ever seen this document before?
13
A. I don't recall seeing this document.
14
Q. This was never shared with you by Exxon -
15
I mean by Chevron?
16
A. I don't recall.
17
Q. This man Hammond, you knew him, correct?
18
A. I knew him a little bit, yes.
19
Q. You saw him at API meetings?
20
A. I saw him occasionally at API meetings.
21
He was kind of going out about the time I was coming
22
23
Q. And this is also authored by the same
24
Mr. Bonsib who authored the 1937 report 12 years
25
earlier, correct?
26
93
1
A. Yes.
2
Q. By this time the knowledge concerning the
3
dangers of asbestos had progressed. Would you
4
agree?
5
A. According to the things you showed me
6
earlier. There's some more information, yes.
7
Q. Now, I tried to put little stickers to
8
make it easy. If you go to the first sticker, you
9
see a page 4?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q. Just to be clear, there's multiple phases
12
to this report and the section of this report is by
13
Hammond, the same man. If you go back a few pages
14
so we are on the same page, page 1?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. It is industrial hygiene problems observed
17
in the Bayway refinery, right?
18
A. Baytown refinery.
19
Q. Do you know where that is?
20
A. Texas, I believe.
21
Q. And if you go back to page 4 -- let me
22
shortcut to the section. Go to the last tab here.
23
A. Last tab?
24
Q. Last tobacco. We will stay with cancer
25
for a second.
26
94
1
Do you see where it says this is part of
2
an appendix summary of preliminary industrial
3
hygiene survey at Baytown?
4
A. Yes .
5
Q. And under the section says material or
6
condition, silica and asbestos?
7
A. Okay.
8
Q. Do you see that?
9
A. Yes .
10
Q. It says potential diseases, silicosis,
11
fibrosis erythema and cancer of the lung?
12
A. Yes .
13
Q. And what occupations does it say are at
14
risk for cancer of the lung?
15
A. Brick masons and helpers, insulators,
16
laborers and pipe benders.
17
Q. These aren't people who just applied
18
insulation, correct?
19
A. Some of them are not.
20
Q. Can you tell me at what point in time
21
Chevron or Standard Oil of California warned brick
22
mason's, helpers, laborers or pipe benders that they
23
might be able to get cancer from working with or
24
around asbestos?
25
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
26
95
1
A. I don't think all of these people were
2
necessarily exposed or at risk due to asbestos.
3
Some of them may have been at risk due to silica,
4
according to the authors.
5
Q. But it is clear that at least Exxon
6
recognized there was a risk for getting lung cancer
7
from asbestos by 1949, correct?
8
A. According to this, yes.
9
Q. Is there any reason to believe that
10
Chevron would have less knowledge?
11
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
12
A. I can't say that they had less or more
13
knowledge.
14
Q. That's fair. Now, would you agree with me
15
that a company such as Standard Oil Company of
16
California or Chevron had a morale responsibility to
17
prevent workers from getting cancer?
18
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
19
That calls for a legal conclusion and I think it is
20
very hypothetical.
21
If you are able to handle that, you
22
can answer it.
23
MR. LaSALA: I don't want it to be
24
hypothetical.
25
MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this
26
96
1
P-7 .
2
(The above document is marked as
3
P-7 for Identification.)
4
Q. Have you ever seen this document before?
5
A. What is the date of the document?
6
Q. 1951. April 12, 1951.
7
A. I don't recall seeing this document.
8
Q. This document refers to the moral
9
responsibility of preventing occupational disease,
10
including cancers, correct?
11
A. You are referring to the bottom of the
12
page.
13
Q. Yes, sir.
14
A. It is kind of a double negative in here.
15
I think it speaks for itself.
16
Q. And this was something that was recognized
17
from at least the early 1950s by the organization
18
that your company was a part of?
19
A. Without carefully reading the whole
20
document, I couldn't come to that conclusion.
21
Q. Are you aware of the 1955 monograph by
22
Mr. Hueper or Dr. Hueper concerning environmental
23
causes of cancer of the lung?
24
A. I'm not specifically.
25
Q. You are aware, I assume, that your boss
26
97
1
started at Chevron in the early 1950s?
2
A. 1955.
3
Q. And the very year that he started working
4
at Chevron he was aware of the relationship between
5
asbestos and cancer. You are aware of that,
6
correct?
7
A. I don't know that that's true.
8
Q. He never told you during the entire time
9
you worked there that he knew about the dangers of
10
asbestos and cancer from the very first day he
11
walked on the job?
12
A. No, he never did.
13
Q. I want to show you -- see if this helps
14
refresh your memory, Mr. Spencer's testimony -
15
A. Spencer?
16
Q. Spence. Sorry, I did this late at night.
17
Page 131, do you have it, counsel?
18
MR. LaSALA: I do, thank you.
19
Q. And he is asked, "And by 1955 you had
20
learned that asbestos or asbestosis were suspected
21
of being causally connected with certain forms of
22
cancer. Isn't that true? Yes, I think Hueper was
23
one of the people who put that on his list."
24
Did I read that correctly?
25
A. Yes .
26
98
1
Q. Does that refresh your memory as to when
2
your boss first had information concerning the
3
association between asbestos and cancer?
4
A. I think someplace in this transcript it
5
refers to the fact he may not have learned it at
6
that point, but learned it much later when he was
7
preparing for a deposition of his own, but I'm not
8
sure.
9
Q. You think he recanted this testimony
10
somewhere?
11
A. He may have. It is a recollection that
12
I have.
13
Q. The problem is he never told you about
14
what he knew about asbestos and cancer, did he?
15
A. He never told me what knew. He never said
16
there was a relationship to me. Never told me that
17
specifically.
18
Q. As somebody who dedicated their life to
19
protecting the health and safety of workers, isn't
20
that something you would have liked to know if your
21
boss knew it?
22
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. He also said he went to the API Medical
25
Committee meeting with the Chevron Medical Director,
26
99
1
or Standard Oil Medical Director. Do you remember
2
that testimony?
3
A. Yes.
4
MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this P-8.
5
(The above document is marked as
6
P-8 for Identification.)
7
Q. P-8 is a 1955 Medical Advisory Committee
8
Report and Publications listing. Do you see that?
9
A. Yes, I do.
10
Q. Were you ever shown this document during
11
the course of your work at Chevron or Standard Oil?
12
A. I don't remember seeing it.
13
Q. Were you ever shown this by Chevron in
14
preparation for your deposition?
15
A. I don't recall that I did.
16
Q. Turn to the page Bates marked 07814. Do
17
you see that?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. Do you see number 7, the carcinogencity of
20
bituminous compounds?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q. Is that the document we looked at before?
23
A. I don't think it is.
24
Q. We will go back during the break. The
25
next one says some selected chemicals employed in
26
100
1
the petroleum industry, their uses and necessary
2
precautionary safeguards by Bonsib, 1946. Was that
3
ever shared with you?
4
A. I don't remember seeing that document.
5
Q. Number 9 is Environmental and Occupational
6
Cancer, W.C. Hueper, Public Health Reports. Do you
7
see that?
8
A. Yes .
9
Q. That is the one I put up there before
10
that. You were never shown, right?
11
A. Yes .
12
Q. The next one is 10, Industrial Work
13
Clothes , Their Provision and Laundering by Roy S.
14
Bonsib. Do you see that?
15
A. I see that.
16
Q. Were you ever given that?
17
A. I don't remember ever seeing anything like
18
that.
19
Q. And number 12 is Occupational Cancer, a
20
Challenge to the Physician, New York State
21
Occupational Cancer Committee.
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. Do you recall seeing that?
24
A. Saw that.
25
Q. That is a document we went over before,
26
101
1
correct?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. So all these publications were available
4
to Chevron from the first day your boss set foot on
5
on Standard Oil property, correct?
6
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
7
A. I don't know it was available on the first
8
day.
9
Q. In the first year?
10
A. I don't know when this was published, so I
11
can't say that.
12
Q. It is a listing up to 1955 sir.
13
A. Right.
14
MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this P-9.
15
(The above document is marked as
16
P-9 for Identification.)
17
Q. Now, Mr. Dryden, this is an article
18
published from Diseases of the Chest in 1956. Are
19
you aware of that publication? Of the publication
20
generally, not the article.
21
A. I have a vague recollection of that as a
22
journal, I guess.
23
Q. And the title of this article is Malignant
24
Mesothelioma of the Pleura, H.B. Eisenstadt, M.D.,
25
Port Arthur, Texas. Do you see that?
26
102
1
A. Yes.
2
Q. Have you ever seen this document before?
3
A. I don't have a recollection of seeing it.
4
Q. This is not something that was given to
5
you by Chevron to familiarize you of the potential
6
hazards of people working in a refinery, correct?
7
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
8
A. In this case?
9
Q. No. At any time.
10
A. At any time. I don't recall ever seeing
11
it.
12
Q. Now, this was in the open medical
13
literature and therefore available to Chevron with
14
all its resources as we discussed, correct?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. And could you go to page 3, please.
17
Do you see where it talks about who is being
18
reported on?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. This is not somebody who applied
21
insulation, this is a refinery foreman, correct?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. It is a refinery foreman who developed
24
mesothelioma, correct?
25
A. Yes .
26
103
1
Q. And this was known by virtue of this
2
document that people who did not work -
3
A. Excuse me. I'm not picking up this was
4
about mesothelioma specifically. It was a refinery
5
foreman.
6
Q. The whole article is about mesothelioma
7
and what they found in this foreman.
8
A. Okay.
9
Q. If during lunch you want to take a look at
10
it and you think I'm mischaracterizing, we will go
11
back to it.
12
A. I'm not suggesting you are.
13
Q. And Chevron never told you, or Standard
14
Oil never told you that as early as 1956 there were
15
people, just foremen that coming down with
16
mesothelioma who worked in refineries?
17
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
18
Q. Did they?
19
A. I'm sorry. I need to have the question
20
refreshed.
21
Q. I'll withdraw the question.
22
MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this P-10 .
23
(The above document is marked as
24
P-10 for Identification.)
25
Q. I've given you an article from
26
104
1
November 1960 entitled Primary Malignant
2
Mesothelioma of the Pleura by the same Eisenstadt
3
and now an additional Dr. Wilson. Do you see that?
4
A. Yes .
5
Q. Also out of Port Arthur, Texas.
6
A. Yes .
7
Q. Do you understand they had refineries in
8
Port Arthur, Texas?
9
A. Yes .
10
Q. And is this the first time you have ever
11
seen this document?
12
A. I can't say for sure.
13
Q. If you look under where it says case
14
reports on the first page, do you see that?
15
A. Yes .
16
Q. And it talks about case number 1?
17
A. Yes .
18
Q. A 57 year old refinery foreman noticed a
19
diffuse pain in his upper chest and upper abdomen
20
which gradually increased in intensity. The onset
21
very insidious and his initial discomfort was at
22
first not clearly separated from a previously
23
present angina pectoris in spite of the fact that
24
the chest pain had changed in character and
25
persistence and no longer responded to vasodilating
26
105
1
remedies. Do you see that?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. This is the same foreman from the earlier
4
article, isn't it?
5
A. It appears to be.
6
Q. Go to the next page, please. The second
7
page talks now about an additional oil refinery
8
foreman with mesothelioma, doesn't it?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. Please go to page 514, the last paragraph.
11
Do you see where it says our second case is
12
particularly interesting because of the history -
13
A. Okay, now I got it.
14
Q. Of long-time exposure to asbestos and the
15
discovery of asbestos bodies in the lung biopsy
16
specimen. The etiologic association of asbestos and
17
malignant mesothelioma has been repeatedly discussed
18
in the literature. Not all investigators agree
19
that exposure to asbestos predisposes to malignancy
20
of the pleura. However, such history alerted the
21
suspicions of the authors in the second case, and
22
they talk about his autopsy. Do you see that?
23
A. I see that.
24
Q. Was this information ever transmitted to
25
you by Standard Oil Company of California or Chevron
26
106
1
in apprising you of the potential risks of people
2
who work in refineries?
3
A. Not that I recall.
4
Q. Typically refinery foremen, sir, aren't
5
people who physically handle asbestos, correct?
6
A. I'm not sure.
7
Q. Their job is usually to walk around and
8
see what people do. Would you agree with that?
9
A. Some foremen may be actually working
10
foremen.
11
Q. Now, you are aware that by 1960 the state
12
of medical knowledge had changed again and that
13
people who never worked with asbestos were being
14
found to have mesothelioma? Are you aware of that?
15
A. I can't draw that conclusion from these
16
papers .
17
Q. So up to this point in time that's not
18
something that you are aware of from anything
19
you reviewed?
20
A. What is not?
21
Q. That people non-occupationally exposed to
22
asbestos were getting mesothelioma as early as 1960.
23
A. I didn't have any knowledge of that.
24
Q. Sir, were you ever made aware of the study
25
by Wagner in 1960 that related to household and
26
107
1
environmental exposures?
2
A. I don't recall this either.
3
Q. You were aware of Dr. Selikoff as an
4
expert in asbestos-related disease, correct?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. In fact, you personally attended symposium
7
by Dr. Selikoff on asbestos?
8
A. I don't recall that, but if I testified to
9
that before, I would not recant that testimony.
10
Q. That's fine. And as part of your research
11
were you ever given materials from the 1964
12
conference on the biological effects of asbestos
13
hosted by Dr. Selikoff?
14
A. I don't recall. I don't know whether I
15
did or not.
16
Q. You just don't recall as you sit here
17
today?
18
A. I don't recall. I didn't in preparation
19
for this, but I don't recall whether I did before
20
this .
21
Q. Are you aware of a conference in New York
22
where many companies attended that was hosted by Dr.
23
Selikoff where he published extensively in a book
24
about the dangers of asbestos?
25
A. I have a recollection, faint recollection
26
108
1
of that.
2
Q. And are you familiar with the fact that
3
Dr. Hueper, the same Dr. Hueper who was an advisor
4
to the API, presented at that conference?
5
A. Am I aware of what?
6
Q. That Dr. Hueper presented at that
7
conference?
8
A. No.
9
MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this P-11.
10
(The above document is marked as
11
P-11 for Identification.)
12
Q. I put up in front of you P-11, which is
13
entitled Occupational and Non-Occupational Exposure
14
to Asbestos, W.C. Hueper of the National Cancer
15
Institute. Have you ever seen this document before?
16
A. I don't recall seeing it.
17
Q. Do you recall whether this information in
18
this document was ever shared by Chevron or Standard
19
Oil Company of California with you?
20
A. I haven't seen the document and I don't
21
recall anyone sharing the information.
22
Q. It says on the first page that since 1935
23
an increasing amount of epidemiologic, clinical and
24
pathologic evidence moreover incriminates this
25
health hazard as one of the environmental sources of
26
109
1
cancer of the lung and more recently also of
2
mesothelioma of the pleura and peritoneum, although
3
some commercially interested parties and their
4
medical guardians and protectors still prefer for
5
their own reasons and motives to deny the existence
6
of the dangerous and usually fatal sequelae of a
7
respiratory contact with asbestos dust. Did I read
8
that correctly.
9
A. Well done.
10
Q. Was that something that Chevron was still
11
denying in 1964?
12
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
13
A. I don't know that Chevron was denying it.
14
I don't know what Chevron's knowledge was.
15
Q. When you started there and got trained in
16
1968, did they ever tell you that non-occupationally
17
exposed people could get mesothelioma?
18
A. No.
19
Q. Could you flip over to page 188. Do you
20
see down where it says population groups with
21
occupational and environment exposure to asbestos?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. Do you see on the right hand side where it
24
says non-occupational groups?
25
A. Yes .
26
110
1
Q. It says residents in vicinity of asbestos
2
processing and textile mills inhaling plant
3
effluents polluted with asbestos dust and
4
individuals living and working along roads on which
5
asbestos is trucked; and inhabitants of houses with
6
asbestos insulation. Did I read that correctly?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. At this point in time can you tell me what
9
Chevron was doing in its facilities where it was
10
making asbestos-containing products to prevent the
11
asbestos from being released into the atmosphere?
12
A. Tell me again the date of this?
13
Q. 1964.
14
A. No, I can't. I wasn't there.
15
Q. Do you see on that same page, sir, where
16
it talks about occupational groups at risk?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. And it includes carpenters?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. And construction workers, right?
21
A. Okay.
22
Q. That is different from people who are
23
installing the asbestos, that's listed separately,
24
correct?
25
A. Yes .
26
111
1
Q. Were you made aware when you started with
2
Chevron or Standard Oil in 1968 that there was
3
respected public literature that carpenters and
4
construction workers were at risk of getting
5
mesothelioma?
6
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
7
A. No, I was not aware of that.
8
Q. Go to the top of 189, please. It says,
9
therefore, air polluted with asbestos dust
10
(repairmen, maintenance men, engineers, mechanics,
11
laboratory technicians, office workers, medical
12
personnel, truckers, railroad workers, yardmen,
13
construction workers, shipyard workers, automobile
14
plant and garage employees.)
15
Do you see that?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. All people that this author from the
18
National Cancer Institute and advisor to the API say
19
were at risk for getting asbestos disease, correct?
20
A. Yes, I believe these are the same. I
21
didn't looked at it carefully. Basically the same
22
professions.
23
Q. Now, that even included homes that were
24
insulated with asbestos, right?
25
A. Yes .
26
112
1
Q. Sir, I'm not going to go through this one
2
in detail. Were you ever shown this document by
3
Newhouse and Thompson on the Epidemiology of
4
Mesothelioma Tumors in the London area published in
5
1965?
6
A. I don't recall this article.
7
Q. So you have no knowledge about what that
8
article talks about when it talks about domestic
9
exposure?
10
A. Other than what is highlighted here no.
11
Q. You are aware my client, Mrs. Horvath,
12
died of mesothelioma and her exposure was domestic,
13
correct?
14
A. That's my understanding.
15
Q. And based on this information that I have
16
shown you, Chevron had the opportunity to tell
17
Mr. Horvath how to protect his wife, correct?
18
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
19
A. Chevron had the opportunity to tell
20
Mr. Horvath -
21
Q. About mesothelioma and asbestos and how to
22
how to protect his wife.
23
MR. LaSALA: Same objection.
24
A. I think that is a stretch from what I've
25
seen.
26
113
1
Q. Okay. You are entitled to your opinion.
2
Now, can you tell me why a company would
3
do a cancer study of its own workers and then agree
4
to keep that information confidential and silent and
5
not tell anybody?
6
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
7
A. No.
8
Q. Is that something that you would condone
9
as somone who has dedicated their life to protecting
10
the public health?
11
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
12
A. If it showed there were hazards, I would,
13
yes, I would object to that.
14
MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this P-12.
15
(The above document is marked as
16
P-12 for Identification.)
17
Q. Have you had time to look at it?
18
A. I looked at the first paragraph.
19
Q. Have you ever seen this document before?
20
A. I don't recall seeing this document, at
21
least not the cover letter.
22
Q. And it is a November 22, 1965 document on
23
Shell Oil Company letterhead?
24
A. Yes .
25
Q. The first paragraph says, there has
26
114
1
been considerable discussion in medical circles in
2
recent years concerning the possibility of harmful
3
effects to insulators from long term exposure to
4
asbestos. This matter has been a recent subject of
5
an investigation by the API Central Committee on
6
Medicine and Health. Attached is a report which
7
summarizes the current status of the study which was
8
presented at the mid-year API meeting of the Central
9
Committee.
10
Your boss was on that committee at this
11
point in time, wasn't he?
12
A. I'm not familiar with the term Central
13
Committee, but I think so.
14
Q. It includes a summary of the finding from
15
a recent survey of workers in the petroleum industry
16
to determine if there was any potential problems
17
from exposure to asbestos. Do you see that?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. And then the next page talks about the
20
health of refinerymen applying asbestos insulation?
21
Do you see that?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. It starts out by saying recent reports
24
describing a high incidence of pulmonary
25
neoplasms -- that's cancer, right?
26
115
1
A. Yes.
2
Q. -- among asbestos workers has focused
3
attention on the health of refinery craftsmen
4
engaged in insulation activities. To obtain
5
information relative to the experience of petroleum
6
companies with the help of their insulators, members
7
of the medical and health committee were polled
8
inviting them to contribute personnel
9
information on this subject to a common pool. I
10
read that correctly?
11
A. Personal information.
12
Q. Personal. Assurances were offered that
13
the identity of the donor and the source of the
14
information would not be revealed to preserve their
15
confidentiality. Do you see that?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. Before presenting an analysis of the
18
available information on petroleum company
19
experience, a brief history of asbestos as an
20
industrial hazard is appropriate. Do you see that?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q. Now, why, as someone involved in public
23
health, would a condition for doing a study be not
24
to tell anybody what the results were?
25
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
26
116
1
Q. Or who contributed them?
2
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
3
A. Mainly, I think, this was to avoid other
4
oil companies to know what was contributed by the oil
5
companies that had done the study.
6
Q. Well, the problem is at this point in time
7
Chevron really had nothing to contribute to this study
8
because they weren't following the health of their
9
employees, true?
10
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
11
A. I don't agree they weren't following the
12
health of their employees.
13
Q. They weren't taking x-rays of the
14
employees at this point who were exposed to
15
asbestos, right? That didn't happen until 1972.
16
A. They were doing periodic physicals of all
17
employees regardless of their occupation.
18
Q. So, to your knowledge did Chevron
19
contribute to this study?
20
A. I don't know.
21
Q. You're eventually in charge of industrial
22
hygiene. Was the results of this study ever made
23
known to you?
24
A. I don't know because this is a preliminary
25
audit. I don't know what the final results would
26
117
1
look like.
2
Q. Was any internal study made of the
3
American Petroleum Industry results made known to
4
you?
5
A. I don't recall.
6
Q. Do you think that was something --
7
A. You are talking about when I was -- early
8
stages of my career?
9
Q. At any point in time.
10
A. Any point in time. Yes. I remember
11
hearing about some epidemiology study. This is an
12
exposure study.
13
Q. And if you just go to the last page, page
14
4, the author says that based upon personal
15
observations, it is his opinion that the inhalation
16
exposure to asbestos among refinery insulators is
17
neither minimal nor insignificant and I urge the
18
medical and health committee to continue studying
19
this potential health problem. Did I read that
20
correct?
21
A. Yes .
22
Q. Do you know whether the medical and health
23
committee continued to study this problem?
24
A. I don't .
25
Q. Were you ever given the results of any
26
118
1
study conducted by the medical and health committee
2
of the American Petroleum Institute of insulation
3
exposure inside refineries?
4
A. I don't recall whether I was.
5
6
(LUNCHEON RECESS)
7
8
MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this P-13.
9
(The above document is marked
10
as P-13 for Identification.)
11
Q. Mr. Dryden, over lunch did you have the
12
opportunity to look at any of the documents you went
13
through to see if there were any corrections you
14
wanted to make?
15
A. No.
16
Q. Am I correct, that as hard as you tried
17
to make the refinery safe, even after OSHA was
18
passed, the Chevron refineries had a terrible safety
19
record?
20
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
21
A. I wouldn't say that.
22
Q. Just so we want to be clear, when you say
23
you wouldn't say that, you are saying that you don't
24
believe they had a terrible safety record, not that
25
you didn't try hard?
26
119
1
A. Yes.
2
Q. I want the record to be clear.
3
A. I will not say I wasn't trying hard.
4
Q. Can you tell me who J.D. Moore is?
5
A. Jim Moore was the manager of the Oak Point
6
plant, I believe, at that time.
7
Q. You have in front of you a memo from J.D.
8
Moore to all supervisors, correct?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. You have seen this before, correct?
11
A. I don't recall seeing this memo.
12
Q. You weren't shown this? You didn't see
13
this in your 1997 deposition?
14
A. Oh, I may have. I don't remember.
15
Q. It says to all supervisors. "As you know,
16
our safety record at Oak Point is terrible."
17
Correct?
18
A. Yes. that's what it says.
19
Q. Now, can you tell me. In the upper
20
right hand corner, do you know whose handwriting that
21
22
A. I see TTH on there, but I don't know. I
23
think that meant he wrote it. That would be Tim
24
Hubbard.
25
Q. Who was he?
26
120
1
A. At the time he would have been the safety
2
supervisor or engineer for Chevron Chemical's home
3
office.
4
Q. Can you tell me why they would keep track
5
of who returned this memo after it was distributed?
6
Was that normal practice?
7
A. No.
8
Q. Somebody distributes a memo on safety and
9
somebody in the corporate office tries to get them
10
all back? Was that normal practice?
11
A. No, I don't think it was normal practice,
12
but I think it was probably because of the first
13
sentence.
14
Q. Because they didn't want it to get out
15
their the plant manager felt there was a terrible
16
safety record so they tried to collect them all
17
back?
18
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
19
Q. Isn't that what that says?
20
A. I think it is probably because they didn't
21
want it to show up in 2007.
22
Q. Unfortunately it has.
23
A. It has.
24
Q. Okay. Now, Chevron never developed a
25
program to follow workers potentially exposed to
26
121
1
asbestos and their health, correct?
2
A. No, I don't think that's correct. I have.
3
Q. I put up on the screen an excerpt from
4
Mr. Spence's deposition. He is asked, did your
5
company, Chevron, ever develop such a program to
6
follow workers potentially exposed to asbestos or
7
the development of occupational disease. Answer,
8
not to my knowledge. As I say, I never heard
9
anything about it from them.
10
Do you see that?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. He would be in a position to know,
13
wouldn't he?
14
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
15
A. No, I don't think he would. He had some
16
job changes that kind of took him into other areas
17
and particularly in 1993 I wouldn't necessarily know
18
that he would remember it that well.
19
Q. When is it your recollection that Chevron
20
first started following people exposed to asbestos
21
to see if they got sick?
22
A. To see if they got sick?
23
Q. Yes.
24
A. That is a different subject, but I don't
25
know if they did specifically do morbidity studies
26
122
1
on asbestos workers or insulation workers.
2
Q. You don't remember?
3
A. I don't remember.
4
Q. Would you agree that the appropriate
5
response of an industrial hygienist witnessing
6
asbestos-containing visible dust would be to make a
7
study of it and ensure adequate controls for
8
employee safety?
9
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
10
A. I need you to repeat that.
11
Q. Would you agree that the appropriate
12
response of an industrial hygienist witnessing
13
asbestos-containing visible dust in the plant would
14
be to make a study and ensure adequate controls for
15
employee safety, if necessary?
16
A. I think that would be a reasonable
17
approach.
18
Q. Chevron had the capability of doing
19
airborne dust sampling by the mid '50s. Do you
20
agree?
21
A. They had very primitive means of doing it
22
at that time.
23
Q. But they did have it?
24
A. Yes, they were able to do something.
25
Q. But Chevron, until sometime in the '70's,
26
123
1
never monitored for asbestos dust in the air, true?
2
A. I don't know. Actually, I think that is
3
not true.
4
Q. Do you know what a turnaround is?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. What is a turnaround?
7
A. A turnaround is basically a complete
8
shutdown of a processing unit to rebuild it,
9
reconstruct it, whatever.
10
Q. One of the things they do as part of the
11
furnace around is strip the insulation off the unit
12
and put it back on, correct?
13
A. They don't necessarily do a complete
14
insulation removal and replacement, but certainly
15
any parts they have to work on or remove or change.
16
Q. There's a lot taken on and off?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. And that would require the removal of a
19
lot of asbestos-containing products. Would you
20
agree?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q. Knowing that, Chevron never did any
23
testing or dust monitoring during that process?
24
A. Chevron probably wouldn't do it then
25
because at that point that part of the facility is
26
124
1
turned over to the outside contractor and they would
2
be responsible for that themselves.
3
Q. At that point Chevron's position was we
4
don't have to worry about it, it is the outside
5
contractor?
6
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
7
A. Chevron had little or no personnel in the
8
area during a turnaround.
9
Q. How did you stop, for instance, when there
10
was a refinery near the water and the wind was
11
blowing, how did you stop the insulation, the dust
12
from blowing to other parts of the plant during the
13
turnaround?
14
A. I don't know.
15
Q. Chevron really never had any idea about
16
how much asbestos was released during the
17
turnaround, true?
18
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
19
You can answer.
20
A. May have had a general idea, no
21
specifics.
22
Q. When you say general, what do you mean?
23
A. There would be some released during that
24
kind of work.
25
Q. But since no test was done, no one knows
26
125
1
how much?
2
A. I don't know for sure no tests were done.
3
I 'm not aware of any.
4
Q. This is Mr. Spence. He says, the question
5
is, and the reason for that is that you know of no
6
measurements of dust done in Chevron plants during a
7
shutdown or turnaround, and he interrupts and says I
8
don't know whether measurements were made, and he
9
says he was no longer involved.
10
How about you? Do you know if they were
11
done?
12
A. I don't know if they were done, except
13
after the OSHA standard was put in place. Then it
14
would have been up to the outside contractor to take
15
care of that.
16
Q. Up until the federal government made it
17
happen, it didn't happen?
18
A. As far as I know, that's true. But I
19
don't know for sure
20
Q. Now, the first surveys that were done for
21
release of asbestos in any Chevron plant were not
22
until 1972, correct?
23
A. I don't know.
24
Q. I put up on an interrogatory answer from
25
Chevron in another litigation and listed on than the
26
126
1
right side, it is not that clear, but I don't see
2
anything before 1972. You don't know one way or
3
the other?
4
A. I don't know one way or the other.
5
Q. The first precautions for asbestos in
6
Chevron refineries really didn't happen until the
7
late 1970s, true?
8
A. First precautions for --
9
Q. Asbestos in Chevron didn't happen until
10
the late 1970s.
11
To be fair to you, do you know this man
12
Vandivort?
13
A. No .
14
Q. He was a safety inspector in the Chevron
15
facility You don't know who he is?
16
A. In Perth Amboy?
17
Q. No. I don't think he was -- El Segundo
18
maybe.
19
A. I don't know the name.
20
Q. I'll move past that.
21
In 1973, there was a safety audit. The
22
first ever safety audit was conducted in a Chevron
23
facility, correct?
24
A. I don't have that knowledge.
25
MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this P-14.
26
127
1
(The above document is marked as
2
P-14 for Identification.)
3
Q. For the record, you have in front of a
4
November 13, 1973 memo to Mr. J.D. Moore entitled
5
Safety Audit Oak Point Plant?
6
A. Yes.
7
Q. Correct. It was from a Mr. Blair?
8
A. Yes.
9
Q. That's the Mr. Blair whose deposition you
10
said you read or a different person? Different
11
person?
12
A. Blair? It could be.
13
Q. I'm sorry. Do you know who Mr. Blair
14
was?
15
A. Yes. Human resources personnel manager for
16
Chevron Chemical Company.
17
Q. The whole company?
18
A. Chevron Chemical Company.
19
Q. And did that include refineries?
20
A. No.
21
Q. What did it include?
22
A. The chemical facilities in 1973 were
23
pesticide plants, fertilizer plants, Oak Point
24
additives plant.
25
Q. Wasn't there a refinery at Oak Point as
26
128
1
well?
2
A. No. That may have been somebody else's
3
refinery. Not a Chevron refinery.
4
Q. It says safety auditor, Oak Point, first
5
ever in SOCAL. Does that refresh your recollection as
6
to whether this was first -- SOCAL stands for what?
7
A. Standard Oil Company of California. I don't
8
know who wrote that on there, so I don't know.
9
Q. And can we go to appendix A?
10
A. Okay.
11
MR. LaSALA: Now that you are
12
getting specific, I'm not going to direct him
13
not to answer, but I'm objecting to any questions
14
concerning any studies or dust counts that pertain
15
to any plant other than Perth Amboy as directed -
16
as recommended by the Special Master.
17
MR. PLACITELLA: I don't think I was
18
precluded from asking questions. You may not have
19
to give me anything, which is pretty clear I didn't
20
get it all.
21
So I had to do some of my own homework.
22
MR. LaSALA: There's been no
23
direction not to answer.
24
MR. PLACITELLA: I understand.
25
Q. Now, there's a form to fill out called
26
129
1
loss prevention program. Do you see that?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. And go to page 3 for work area protection.
4
Rating was poor to fair, correct?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. And for personal protective equipment the
7
rating was fair which meant partial, but
8
inadequate or ineffective provision, distribution
9
and use of personal protective equipment?
10
A. Specifically described along the right hand
11
border there.
12
Q. Talks about respirators and safety
13
showers, correct?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. And the next page, when it talks about
16
environmental health, it is fair again. It says aware
17
of environmental hazards, but little evaluation of
18
the work environment to determine extent and degree
19
of possible employee exposure. Right?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. Over to the right it talks about asbestos
22
and dust sampling not being done, right, way too
23
slow?
24
A. Yes.
25
Q. We are in the early 1970s and Chevron is
26
130
1
struggling with dealing with the new OSHA standards.
2
Is that a fair statement?
3
A. Yes, I think that would be a fair
4
statement.
5
Q. Now, if we dial back to the 1940s Chevron
6
was told specifically how to protect people like
7
Mrs. Horvath, true?
8
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
9
A. Chevron was told specifically, no, I don't
10
believe so.
11
Q. You agree with me that way back in the
12
1940s Chevron was told they needed to make sure the
13
workers didn't carry carcinogenic materials home on
14
their clothing?
15
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
16
A. I can't attest to what Chevron was told
17
back in the '40s.
18
MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this P-15, please.
19
(The above document is marked as
20
P-15 for Identification.)
21
Q. You have before you a January 28, 1948
22
report for information to members of the API Medical
23
Advisory Committee, not for publication. Do you see
24
that?
25
A. I see that.
26
131
1
Q. We established before that at this point
2
in time Chevron was a member of the API Medical
3
Advisory Committee, correct?
4
A. I think we did. I don't remember for
5
sure.
6
Q. And you recall I put it up there on a
7
screen to refresh your memory, that one of the
8
reports that was distributed throughout the API as
9
listed here was in fact this very report, correct?
10
Do you see it by title number 10?
11
A. I can barely make it out.
12
Q. Industrial work clothing, their provision
13
and laundering. We went over that before.
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. And this was authored by the same
16
Mr. Bonsib who authored the other reports we went
17
over this morning, correct?
18
A. Yes. As far as I know.
19
Q. The report starts out by saying modern
20
petroleum technology in the production of synthetic
21
hydrocarbon materials have introduced a number of
22
compounds and processes which may adversely affect
23
the health of workers unless certain precautionary
24
measures are practiced. Among these precautionary
25
measures which are receiving ever increasing
26
132
1
consideration at the present time is the issuance of
2
industrial work clothing to employees and the
3
installation of plant laundry facilities to ensure
4
that such clothing is properly cleaned and
5
maintained.
6
Did I read that correctly?
7
A. Looks right to me.
8
Q. Appropriate work clothes properly fitted
9
and maintained play a prominent part in an
10
industrial worker's health and safety. This is
11
especially true when persons are working with more
12
or less toxic or carcinogenic materials or where
13
cleanliness is a factor in the maintenance of
14
product quality? Do you see that?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. Remember we went through the articles by
17
Hueper at this point in time that were also included
18
on that first sheet about asbestos and cancer. Do
19
you remember that?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. We can skip over to, I think it is page 6.
22
A. I don't -- I guess it is that six.
23
Q. I was having a hard time.
24
A. Same as what you are showing on the
25
screen.
26
133
1
Q. It talks about what the laundry procedures
2
should be. Do you see that?
3
A. Yes.
4
Q. It says according to -- on the bottom,
5
total cost of laundering work close. According to
6
Mr. A.C. Pease, general superintendent of the
7
Bound Brook plant laundry, the total cost, including
8
labor, materials, rent, light, steam, water,
9
interest and amortization of laundry work clothes
10
is. 03 per pound of dry clothes. Do you see that?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. The cost of labor and materials alone is
13
only .016 per pound of dry clothes. Do you see
14
that?
15
A. In dollars, yes.
16
Q. The best price that could be obtained from
17
an outside local laundry was .08 per pound of dry
18
clothes, correct?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. So back in the 1940s Mrs. Horvath could
21
have been protected for less than a nickel a day,
22
according to this particular document?
23
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
24
Q. True?
25
A. I don't know how much a pound of dry
26
134
1
clothes is.
2
Q. Well, it is certainly more than what one
3
man wears, isn't it? Let's say a dime. Cost a dime
4
a day to protect her?
5
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
6
A. You could draw that conclusion from this
7
article.
8
Q. Because it was known that -
9
Now, sir, you recall we went through the
10
articles this morning about what was published in
11
the medal literature some 20 plus years later about
12
people, non occupationally exposed to asbestos
13
getting mesothelioma. Do you remember that?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Including housewives and residents, right?
16
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
17
A. Whatever it says on that report.
18
Q. In fact, there was information that
19
actually made it to the popular press in the early
20
'70s, correct?
21
MR. LaSALA: Can I have that
22
question read back?
23
Q. I'll restate it. There was information
24
that actually made it into the popular press in the
25
early 1970 about housewives washing workers clothing
26
135
1
that could get cancer, right?
2
A. Well, it is hard to read that, but I'll
3
take your word.
4
Q. I don't want you to take my word.
5
While I'm getting the document, one of your
6
jobs was to respond to this kind of information on
7
behalf of Chevron, right?
8
A. If asked, yes.
9
MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this P-16
10
(The above document is marked as
11
P-16 for Identification.)
12
Q. Do you see the paragraph that says
13
Relatives and Neighbors?
14
A. Yes .
15
Q. Can you read that for the record, sir?
16
A. Relative and neighbors may be exposed to
17
airborne fibers carried home on the workers clothing
18
he said, and people living in the vicinity of
19
asbestos factories are exposed.
20
Q. One of your jobs was to respond to this
21
article, right?
22
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
23
A. What do you mean respond? Write a
24
rebuttal?
25
Q. To respond to employee questions about
26
136
1
what was appearing in the newspapers.
2
A. My responsibility would be to help the
3
local facilities deal with questions they may get
4
from an article like this.
5
Q. That's fair, but the problem was that when
6
you had to do that job, you had to do it with one
7
arm tied behind your back?
8
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
9
Argumentative.
10
Q. Right?
11
A. Why are you saying that?
12
Q. I'm saying that because no one ever told
13
you about mesothelioma and low level exposures that
14
we went over this morning, no one ever told about
15
asbestos and cancer. Your boss never even told you
16
what he knew. So you had to respond to questions
17
about cancer without full information.
18
A. In 1973?
19
Q. Yes.
20
A. No. Asbestos standards came out in 1972.
21
The literature that supported it.
22
MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this P-17, please.
23
(The above document is marked as
24
P-17 for Identification.)
25
Q. You have in front of you, sir, a February
26
137
1
13, 1973 memo. Do you see that?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. Who is that person requested by?
4
A. John Dotter. He was the president of
5
Chevron Asphalt Company.
6
Q. Who is SLD?
7
A. That's me.
8
Q. Have you ever seen this document before?
9
A. I wrote it.
10
Q. You wrote it?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. Do you have any idea why this document
13
wasn't turned over to me as part of the production
14
from Chevron on its historical knowledge of the
15
dangers of asbestos?
16
A. No, I have no idea.
17
Q. It was certainly something you were asked
18
about in the prior deposition in 1997, correct?
19
A. This document?
20
Q. Right.
21
A. I don't remember.
22
Q. Certainly Chevron must have had its in its
23
possession if I got a copy of it.
24
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
25
Q. Now, there were serious concerns by some
26
138
1
employees about what was being published, right, and
2
in fact, who, whose handwriting in this comment on
3
asbestos in newspapers?
4
A. I wrote this whole top sheet.
5
Q. Your job was to comment on articles on
6
asbestos in newspapers?
7
A. I was requested. In the shorthand of this
8
note, I was requested to comment on the articles on
9
asbestos. Probably that article you just showed me.
10
Q. And one of the things you wrote was an
11
article called, Is Asbestos a Killer? right?
12
A. I don't know, did I?
13
Q. Flip three pages.
14
A. I don't think I wrote this article.
15
Q. This article is attached to your memo.
16
It says the information in the newspaper was
17
misleading and alarmist.
18
Can you tell me what was misleading and
19
alarmist about that paragraph up there on the screen
20
for people who needed to be protected?
21
A. I think what it meant was that it painted
22
a very broad brush that anybody exposed to the
23
slightest amount of asbestos could be subject to a
24
killer time bomb. I consider that language
25
misleading and alarmist.
26
139
1
Q. So it was alarmist for somebody to be
2
informed that if they washed their husband's work
3
clothing they could get mesothelioma?
4
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
5
A. I think the language of the newspaper
6
article was intended to be alarmist.
7
Q. What information did you provide to
8
workers in order to tell them that their families
9
were at risk of getting cancer if they washed their
10
clothing that was warn in the Chevron facility that
11
would not be an alarmist language?
12
A. I don't know what I wrote or would have
13
written at the time.
14
Q. What did Chevron tell its employees about
15
how to protect their family members from getting
16
cancer if they washed the employees asbestos laden
17
clothing?
18
A. I don't remember what these things you say
19
are attached to my memo. I just don't remember
20
which of these things actually went to employees, if
21
any, or which ones were drafts, which ones were
22
replaced.
23
Q. What was -
24
A. It is not clear to me.
25
Q. Let's skip down. You see under, Is
26
140
1
Asbestos a Killer? there's a question. I presume
2
this is supposed to somehow anticipate what an
3
employee might ask.
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. It says I've heard that exposure to
6
asbestos fibers, even for a short time, can cause
7
lung cancer. Is that true? Sir, without reading
8
what the response was, what was the truth in 1973?
9
A. To that question?
10
Q. Yes. I am asking you not to read.
11
A. I'm not reading. I am reading the
12
question again.
13
I would probably answer that that is not
14
true.
15
Q. It is not true?
16
A. Not true.
17
Q. That you that can't get mesothelioma from
18
short term exposure?
19
A. You are asking me to testify in an area
20
that I'm really not qualified to testify in. My
21
understanding of the information was, I'm not an
22
expert witness in this case, that my understanding
23
is that probably not.
24
Q. The response, however, itself is very
25
misleading, is it not?
26
141
1
A. I haven't read the response.
2
Q. The response says, I put it up on the
3
screen, one scientist noted that asbestos fibers can
4
cause lung cancer, but that it may not be detected
5
until 20 or 40 years. The disease is called
6
asbestosis. That's not cancer, is it?
7
A. No.
8
Q. Caused by the accumulation of asbestos
9
fibers in the lung which results in scarring.
10
Effects may be more severe for people who smoke,
11
have respiratory disease or are in generally poor
12
physical condition. Do you see that?
13
A. Yes.
14
Q. Does that answer the question as to
15
whether short term exposure can cause cancer?
16
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
17
A. I don't think it answers the question, but
18
I don't know what this document was ever used for.
19
Q. If this document was given to employees,
20
that would be misleading, wouldn't it?
21
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
22
A. It would be incorrect.
23
Q. Can you read for me your handwriting on
24
the front page, please?
25
A. Comment on articles re: asbestos in
26
142
1
newspapers. That was the request from Mr. Dotter.
2
RWA, first draft. Give to Bill Jones for
3
professional writing. Dave Atchison drafted
4
bituminal progress insert. Vetoed by JHD, that would
5
John Dotter. Wants bulletin board release. D.A.
6
re-drafted. SLD rewrote part and returned to D.A.
7
Q. Is this the draft -
8
A. I can't tell.
9
Q. What does it say on the last page?
10
A. I can't read it.
11
Q. Do you know whose handwriting that is?
12
A. No. It says key points.
13
Q. When the articles were appearing in the
14
press about -
15
A. Actually, to the best of my ability that
16
looks like my handwriting, but I don't know what it
17
says .
18
Q. When the articles were appearing in the
19
press about housewives getting cancer from washing
20
their husbands' clothing, as you sit here today can
21
you tell us what steps you took to confirm or deny
22
that information to the workers and their families?
23
A. I don't recall what steps I took to
24
confirm or deny that information.
25
Q. As a man who dedicated his career to
26
143
1
protecting the public health, what information, like
2
you saw this morning about people non-occupationally
3
exposed to asbestos getting cancer, was made known
4
to Chevron, what should Chevron have done with that
5
information in terms of communicating it to their
6
employees and their families?
7
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
8
A. You are presuming that information was
9
made known to Chevron. I don't think I've agreed
10
that took place. There's always in the literature,
11
there's anecdotal evidence of things happening that
12
does not constitute scientific studies.
13
Q. But it certainly constitutes reason for
14
looking further, true?
15
A. It can.
16
Q. And when Chevron found out, for instance,
17
that there were refinery foremen in the '50s getting
18
mesothelioma, can you tell me as you sit here today
19
what Chevron did to follow up on that information?
20
A. I don't know when Chevron got that
21
information.
22
Q. It was published in the open medical
23
literature, correct?
24
A. It was published.
25
Q. It was available to Chevron because, as
26
144
1
you told me in the beginning of this deposition,
2
they have the money and the resources to know what
3
was in the open medical literature?
4
MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.
5
Q. Correct?
6
A. I still don't know when Chevron actually
7
got that information.
8
Q. When we started here this morning you
9
didn't know that Chevron knew about asbestos and
10
cancer and today is there first day you ever found
11
that out before 1972, correct?
12
A. State that again?
13
Q. I'll withdraw the question.
14 (SHORT RECESS)
15
16
Q. As you sit here today having reviewed all
17
the information that Chevron has provided you, plus
18
your own recollection, do you have any evidence that
19
you can point to to show that Chevron warned the
20
employees at the Perth Amboy refinery that bringing
21
home asbestos on their clothing could cause members
22
of their family to get cancer and die?
23
A. I do not have any evidence.
24
Q. You have been extremely cooperative and
25
I'm going to hold to my word, although I have about
26
145
1
four other pages worth of stuff.
2
A. Thank you.
3
Q. I'll try to get you to your plane.
4
A. Thank you.
5
Q. I left three minutes for any other
6
lawyers who had any questions, as I promised I would
7
get done by 2 o'clock.
8
MR. LaSALA: Anyone else? Is that
9
it?
10
Just one housekeeping item. The
11
exhibits you showed him and he answered questions
12
about that you didn't mark, can we have copies.
13
MR. PLACITELLA: I'll make copies of
14
the slides.
15
(The deposition is adjourned at 1:35 p.m.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
146
1
CERTIFICATE
2
3
I, MARC BRODY, Notary Public and
4
Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State
5
of New Jersey, do hereby certify that prior
6
to the commencement of the examination
7
STANLEY DRYDEN
8
was duly sworn by me to testify the truth,
9
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
10
I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the
11
foregoing is a true and accurate transcript
12
of the testimony as taken stenographically
13
by and before me at the time, place and on
14
the date hereinbefore set forth.
15
I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither
16
a relative of nor employee nor attorney nor
17
counsel for any of the parties to this
18
action, and that I am neither a relative
19
nor employee of such attorney or counsel,
20
and that I am not financially interested in
21
the action.
22
23
Notary Public of the State of New Jersey
24
25
26