Document 5kR9QYBrGLwjDG2r81L7dq7p4
FILE NAME: RT Vanderbilt (RTV) DATE: 2006 Mar 30 DOC#: RTV228 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Deposition John Kelse with Exhibit
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT
Page 1
LOLKE LLOYD HAANSTRA, P la in tiff,
VS
ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED,
D efendant.
)
) CASE NO.
)
BC 3 3 8 1 5 8
DEPOSITION OF: JOHN KELSE
DATE:
MARCH 3 0 , 2 0 0 6
HELD AT:
R . T . VANDERBILT, CO., INC. 30 WINFIELD STREET NORWALK, CONNECTICUT 0 6 8 5 5
R e p o r t e r : J a n e t A. O r f i t e l l i , LSR #08 BRANDON SMITH REPORTING SERVICE
44 C a p i t o l A venue H artford, Connecticut
06106 {860} 5 4 9 -1 8 5 0
Six Landmark Square 4th Floor
S t a m f o r d , CT 0 6 9 0 1 {203} 316-8591 {800} 8 5 2-4589
i. . . . . . M
.............."T " : .................................
:
Brandon Smith
--- . .
.............
......................... . r
* .
Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 2
Page 4 |
1 APPEARANCES:
2
REPRESENTING THE PLAINTIFF (VIA TELEPHO NE)
3
LOLKE LLOYD HAANSTRA:
4
LEV IN SIM ES & KA ISER, L.L.P.
One Bush Street, I4th Floor
5
San Francisco, California 94104
By: W ILLIAM LEV IN , Esq.
6
7
REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANT, (VIA TELEPHONE)
ELEM ENTIS CHEM ICALS, INC. 8
Acker, Kowalick & W hipple
9
888 W est Sixth Street, N inth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
10
By: Caroline Van Oosterom , Esq.
11
REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANT, (VIA TELEPHONE)
12
H ILL BROTH ERS CHEM ICAL CORPORATION:
13
Lynberg & W atkins
888 South Figueroa Street, 16th Floor
14
Los Angeles, California 90017
By: R uth Segal, Esq.
15
16
REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANT, (VIA TELEPHONE)
SO C O W EST, INC.:
17
Sedgwick, Detert, M oran & Amok!
18
O ne M arket Plaza
S te u art T o w er, 8th Floor
19
San Francisco, California 94105
By: Charles M urrin, Esq.
20
21
REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANT,
R.T. VANDERBILT, COMPANY:
22
Haw kins & Parnell, L.L.P,
2 3
4000 Suntm st Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, N .E.
2 4
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3243
By: J. B ruce W elch, Esq.
25
1
INDEX
J
WITNESS NAME: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS j
3 JOHN KELSE: 4 By Mr. Levin: 6
By Mr. Welch: 5
6
7
EXHIBITS: 8
PAGE:
9 1The Notice of Deposition...................... 7 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(Exhibits retained by: Attorney Welch)
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3
Page 5
1
STIPULATIONS
9
3
It is stipulated by counsel for the parties
4 that all objections are reserved until the time of
5 trial, except those objections as are directed to the
6 form of the question.
7
8
It is stipulated and agreed between counsel
9 for the parties that the proof of the authority of the
10 Commissioner before whom this deposition is taken is
11 waived.
12
13
It is further stipulated that any defects in
1 4 the notice are waived.
15
16
It is further stipulated that the reading and
17 signing of the deposition transcript by the witness may
18 not be signed before any Notary Public.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
(Deposition commenced at 1:20 P.M.)
Z9
3
MR. WELCH: And before we get started,
4 this is Bruce Welch. Ijust want to put on the
5 record that were are producing Mr. Kelse today in
6 response to your notice. We've filed certain
7 objections to the notice and to the material
8 sought and we are not waiving any of those by
9 going forward in the deposition today.
10
MR. LEVIN: I have a question with
11 relation to that, because I've raised - this is
12 the thing that I'm a little bit concerned about
13 after what you said. Basically we asked for
14 documents in different categories, and you made
15 objections and I have no problem to you reserving
16 the right to assert those objections later, but
17 you also did produce documents, and I'm assuming
18 that you produced the documents that are
19 responsive to the request and didn't hold back
2 0 any relying on your objections because if you were
21 to do that later, I would have no way of knowing
2 2 that the documents that you've produced are not
2 3 complete in response to this notice.
2 4
MR. WELCH: I think that is a fair
2 5 statement, unless noted otherwise in the response
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b81iM0a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 6
Page 8
1 or in the objection.
2
MR. LEVIN: Okay.
3
(At which point the deponent left the room.)
4
MR. WELCH: And Mr. Kelse has gone for
5 coffee, and as soon as he returns I'll let you
6 know and we can get started.
7
(THE DEPOSITION OFF THE RECORD.)
8
MR. WELCH: Mr. Kelse has just returned.
9
MR. LEVIN: Great.
10
11
JOHN KELSE, Deponent, having been first
12
duly sworn by Janet A. Orfitelli, LSR, a
13
Notary Public in and for the State of
14
Connecticut, was examined and testified as
15
follows:
16
17
DIRECT EXAMINATION
18
19 BY MR. LEVIN:
20 Q Okay. Sir, my name is Bill Levin. I
21 represent Mr. Haanstra. Can you state your name?
22 A John Kelse, K-E-L-S-E.
23 Q Okay. This deposition is being taken
24 pursuant to the notice of the person most acknowledge
25 and custodian of records of Vanderbilt, and I sent a
1 that I have, categories of areas of inquiry for person 2 most knowledgeable, is that it? 3 Q Yes. 4 A Okay. 5 Q And I just want you to tell me whichever is 6 easier, either the ones that you believe you are the 7 person most acknowledge pertaining to those or 8 A Okay. 9 Q --you're not. Ijust want to-10 A I see. I see. These are linked - these are 11 linked to the response to request numbers. I got you. 12 Q Exactly, 13 A I'll have to go through here. I -- when I 14 did take a quick look at this when it came in this 15 morning, the earlier response for request, anything 16 having to do with sales records, who sold what to whom, 17 what year and how much and all of that sort of thing, I 18 am certainly not the person for that. 19 Q Okay. Well, tell me which ones you are the 20 person for, because I don't want to ask you 21 A Okay. I see my name listed here, so I want 22 to see who volunteered me for what. 23 Q Okay. 24 A Okay. Let's see. Number five: All 25 documents containing information relating to the mining
Page 7
Page 9
1 copy of the notice. Do you have it there?
2 A Yes, we do.
3 Q Okay. Have you seen that notice?
4 A I reviewed it.
5 Q Okay, good. I'd like to mark that as Exhibit
6 1.
7
(PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 1 FOR
8
IDENTIFICATION, The Notice of
9
Deposition, RECEIVED AND MARKED.)
10 BY MR. LEVIN:
11 Q Okay. With respect to the categories that
12 begin on page six, categories one through twenty-one,
13 sir, if you could look at those and tell me whether you
14 agree that you are the person most acknowledge at
15 Vanderbilt with respect to those subjects, and if there
16 are any that you wish to exclude because you don't feel
17 that you are the person most knowledgeable, let me
18 know.
19 A Okay. Well, I've turned to page six and on
20 page six of the copy that I have, the first request
21 number is request number ten, is that the right page?
22 Q No - well, if you skim through the document
23 then you will have a heading that says persons most
24 acknowledge.
25 A Oh, I see. Yes, on page ten of the document
1 of talc. All documents you supplied between 1960 and
2 1985. Well, I -- if I took that literally, all
3 documents, what do you mean by that?
4 Q Well, I'm not looking at the documents part.
5 I'm looking at this part that lists subjects.
6 A Right. I'mjust looking at the first -
7 under categories of area of inquiry. I see my name is
8 listed for the first one which is inquiry number five.
9 Q Yeah, I don't - I don't know. Somebody must
10 have prepared something for you where they listed your
11 name, because the list we sent out didn't list
12 anybody's name.
13 A Well, somebody did.
14 Q Well, can we attach the document you're
15 looking at as Exhibit 2?
16
MR. WELCH: Bill, I'll tell you what
17 that is. That is our objections that was filed.
18
MR. LEVIN: Oh.
19
MR. WELCH: I handed him the wrong
20 thing. I've got the notice, too.
21
THE WITNESS: Oh, good. I'm not
22 hallucinating.
23 BY MR. LEVIN:
24 Q Why don't we go with the notice first.
25 A Oh, dear.
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
P a g e 10
Page 12 j
1 Q And I'm thinking if we have the same thing it
2 should be on page six.
3
MR. WELCH: Okay. Page six.
4 A Oh, is this it?
5
MR. WELCH: Of the notice now.
6 A Person most knowledgeable.
7 Q There should be numbers one through
8 twenty-one.
9 A Okay.
10 Q And what I'm trying to do is, I don't want to
11 spend any time on the areas that you don't feel that
12 you are the person most knowledgeable. I do want to
13 zero in on the ones that you do.
14 A Okay. You want me to just quickly run down
15 the list and tell you?
16 Q I think that would be the most convenient
17 way.
18 A Probably the most comprehensive. Talc you
19 sold, I can't tell you anything about what was sold or
20 didn't sell.
21 Q Okay. You can just give me the number. You
22 don't even need to read the thing.
23 A I'm not the guy for one, not for two, not for
24 three, not for four, not for five, not for six,
25 although six. Six is where you mine the talc you
1 was always in these fifty-five pound bags.
!
2 Q Okay.
3 A But you have to remember I started working at
4 Vanderbilt in 1985 so -
5 Q Okay.
6 A Warnings about the hazards associated with
7 asbestos exposure, blah, blah, blah, yeah, I can speak
8 to that.
9 Q Okay.
10 A Your acknowledge of hazards associated with
11 asbestos exposure, well, I was an industrial hygienist,
12 so I can speak to that. When you first learned about
13 the hazards associated - as a hygienist, I can speak
14 to that as a general category. Comp claims relating to
15 asbestos disease, yeah, I can speak to that. When you
16 first received a Workmen's Comp claim relating to
17 asbestos disease, same as above. Membership in any
18 organization that discussed the hazards associates with
19 asbestos exposure, in general, yeah.
20
Your contention, if you're so content to
21 contend that Lloyd did not suffer exposure to asbestos
22 with his work with talc that you supplied, yeah, I can
2 3 speak to why I would not think that would be the case.
24 Your corporate history, I'm probably not the best
25 person for that.
P age 11
P a g e 13
1 supplied between the years 1960 and'85. I certainly
2 would defer that to a mining engineer, to a
3 mineralogist, you know, familiar with the mining, but I
4 know the operation and the talc that we supplied
5 between 1960 and 1985 certainly would have only come
6 from two sources, known as the -
7
MR WELCH: Okay. That's good. He can
8 question you.
9
THE WITNESS: He can question me?
10
MR. WELCH: He's not acknowledge about
11 that area.
12
THE WITNESS: I can tell you something
13 about that.
14 BY MR. LEVIN:
15 Q Okay.
16 A Seven, distributors, no, I don't know. The
17 sale, you know, the business stuff, system of
18 distribution of your talc, business, I don't know about
19 that. Composition of the talc you sold between the
20 years 1960 and '85,1certainly can comment on that.
21 Ten, asbestos content in the talc you sold, well, there
22 isn't any, but yeah, I can comment. The tremolite
23 content in the talc you sold, yeah, I can tell you
24 that. Packaging your talc came in between the years
25 '60 and '85,1can speak to that. I think everything
1
MR. WELCH: No, Mr. Vanderbilt was
2 offered for that.
3 Q Okay. Thank you.
4 A And your document retention policy, I'm not,
5 but -
6
MR. WELCH: Mr. Vanderbilt was also
7
offered for that.
8 Q Okay. All right. Now, there's also a
9 document request --
10 A Uh-huh.
11 Q - with that notice, and let's focus for the
12 time being on categories that relate to the ones that
13 you're the person most knowledgeable on, which they're
14 identical. We're talking - we would be talking about
15 starting at category number nine all the way through.
16
But before we get to that, there's a stack of
17 documents that I have that counsel produced, Hawkins &
18 Parnell produced to me. Do you have those there?
19 A Yeah. They have little yellow tags, and I -
2 0 they start -
21
MR. WELCH: No, no, not that. That's a
22 different group. He's talking about the ones that
23 we served yesterday -
24
THE WITNESS: Oh.
25
MR. WELCH: - that you and Peter went
4 {Pages 10 to 13)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819~40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
P a g e 14
Page 16 i
1 through.
2
THE WITNESS: There's a couple missing
3 that I requested be sent, but --
4
MR. LEVIN: Okay.
5
MR. WELCH: --he does have the majority
6 of those, and I'm not sure my copy was complete
7 because it came in e-mail and you know how that
8 goes?
9
MR. LEVIN: All right. Well, we'll try
10 and sort that now.
11 BY MR. LEVIN:
12 Q Let me ask this question: You're being
13 produced today also as die custodian of records for
14 Vanderbilt with respect to these categories of
15 documents, do you understand that?
16 A I'm certainly the custodian of all the health
17 and mineralogical data that pertains to the talc. All
18 other documents I would not --1don't think I'd be
19 viewed as a custodian, but certainly for the
20 occupational health aspect of the tremolitic talc, the
21 whole histoiy of it, all the health studies, all the
22 mineral studies, all of that, I'm it.
23 Q Okay. So you are the custodian of records
24 for the health and mineralogic documents pertaining to
25 talc for Vanderbilt?
1 is the risk, corporate risk manager, so I'm 2 responsible for occupational health and safety, 3 for environmental, for product risk, so I have a 4 department, and so to die extent that issues 5 concerning New York State tremolitic talc are 6 linked to occupational health issues and 7 mineralogical issues, all of those types of 8 documents, I am the primary keeper of and I'm 9 probably most familiar with. 10 BY MR. LEVIN: 11 Q Okay. 12 A Sales records and who sold what to who, and 13 maybe early correspondence, you know, prior to my time, 14 I couldn't --I'm not really sure. I probably have 15 seen most of the key documents or correspondence that, 16 you know, over the years people have raised and brought 17 to the table -- 18 Q Okay. 19 A --so I'm somewhat familiar with most 20 everything, but my main thing is health, safety, 21 environmental and the mineral stuff. 22 Q Okay. Let's turn then to category number 23 nine, okay? 24 A Okay. 25 Q And that asks for all documents containing
Page 15
P a g e 17
1 A That's right.
2 Q Okay. First question: The documents that
3 were produced by counsel --and counsel if you want to
4 agree to this, it's fine. Are they all documents that
5 were within the files of R.T. Vanderbilt and are
6 business records for the purposes of authentication
7 purposes?
8
MR. WELCH: They are records that were
9 contained within the files of Vanderbilt. Some of
10 them, as you know, are copies of articles from the
11 medical and scientific literature. And I mean, to
12 the best of my knowledge, they are accurate
13 copies, but they were not produced by Vanderbilt
14 in the course of their business, if that's what
15 you're asking.
16
MR. LEVIN: I'm not so much concerned
17 about those. I'm more concerned about him being
18 the custodian for the actual Vanderbilt records
19 that they either generated or received in the
20 course of doing business, and not having any
21 issues in terms of the admissibility of those
22 documents, at least for authentication purposes.
23
THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. Well it's -
24 maybe this will help you. I mean, I do make a
25 distinction in that, you know, in that myjob here
1 information relating to the composition of the talc you
2 sold, meaning Vanderbilt sold, between the years 1960
3 and 1985. Let me ask you this: As the custodian for
4 the health and mineralogic documents produced today,
5 have you produced today to me all such documents that
6 Vanderbilt has in its possession?
7 A My answer is, I don't know. I suggested that
8 the entire, you know, chronology of all the -
9
MR. WELCH: We were limiting it from '60
10
to '85.
11 Q Can I have the rest of his answer, please?
12 A Well, we have a - 1have a complete
13 chronology, you know, by date, you know, from the -
14 current all the way back, of every document that's
15 linked to mineralogical analysis of our talc, at least
16 that I've ever seen or was able to have seen, and I
17 always recommend that always be provided.
18 Q Okay. And where are those documents located?
19 A Well, I have them in a file, but I believe
20 they're also in electronic form.
21 Q Okay. And where is the physical file?
22 A The physical file is in my office.
23 Q Okay. And in connection with this document
24 production request, did you yourself go through that
25 file and pull out all of the documents containing
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
P a g e 18
1 information relating to the composition of the talc
2 that Vanderbilt sold between 1960 and 1985?
3 A Well, I'm familiar with the --with the
4 analytical reports. They're all --
5 Q That's not my question. My question is, did
6 you yourself, Mr. Kelse, go through that file and pull
7 out production all of the documents containing
8 information relating to the composition of the talc
9 Vanderbilt sold between 1960 and 1985?
10 A No.
11 Q Okay. I have some documents that have been
12 produced that relate to category nine to that subject.
13 Do you know who it is that compiled those documents?
14 A It would be --
15
MR. WELCH: Those were prepared by the
16 attorneys in consultation with Mr. Kelse. Which
17 documents are you referring to?
18 Q Well, I've - we've asked for documents for
19 category nine. I have a stack of documents, some of
2 0 which are arguably responsive to category nine, but
21 based on Mr. Kelse's answers to these questions, I
2 2 don't think that I have all of them. But I'mjust
2 3 hying to fmd out who it is that selected the
2 4 documents that I have.
25 A Oh, okay. I see. I'm looking at the
Page 19
1 documents now. I notice that they, you know, they date
2 from '85 back.
3
MR. WELCH: And you did provide those
4 documents to us?
5 A Yes.
6
MR. WELCH: Okay.
7 Q While you're looking through those documents,
8 keep in mind this question that I'm going to ask you so
9 you don't have to do it twice. I want to know if these
10 are all the documents from your file that you told us
11 you have related to request number nine, which asks for
12 information related to talc that you sold, that
13 Vanderbilt sold between 1960 and 1985, and whether
14 there are more contained in your file?
15 A There are -- there are other reports I think
16 that predate'85.
17
MR. WELCH: We have --we asked him to
18 provide us with a ~ the documents that were
19 responsive to that request that dealt with the
2 0 content, the talc - content of the talc sold
21 between '80 - between '60 and '85, and those
2 2 documents are certainly responsive to that.
23 Q Okay. I'd like to see the other documents
2 4 that haven't been produced. Let me ask you some
2 5 foundational questions.
Page 20
1
How many documents, in your estimation, are
2 there in your file relating to the composition of the
3 talc sold by Vanderbilt between 1960 and 1985, the
4 minralogie composition?
5 A Oh, I think that's - the lion's share of the
6 analysis actually has been done in more recent years,
7 the last ten or fifteen years. I mean, they're - a
8 really heavy duty good analysis has been done in those
9 years, and the earlier reports are not, you know, as
10 thorough or as complete. These reports that you do
11 have from Dr. Wylie actually are pretty good reports,
12 in the sense that they describe very correctly the
13 actual composition of this complex talc, this complex
14 mineral mix, and it also -- also these reports, which
15 were recommended by me to be sent to you go to some
16 length to explain why this talc is so often confused by
17 laboratories, what the problems are, what the issues
18 are, what the analytical criteria difficulties have
19 been. I generally am in favor of giving, you know, all
20 of the stuff.
21 Q Okay. Well, So am I, which is why I asked
2 2 for all of this stuff, and the stuff that we have may
23 or may not be fairly representative or helpful, but
2 4 that's not really my point.
25
A sa lawyer representing Mr. Haanstra, I'd
P a g e 21
1 like to look at all of the stuff in that file, so I'd
2 like it produced. And we can do whatever we need to,
3 convenience wise, to make that happen, but can I
4 have -- since you are the custodian of records, can I
5 have your agreement to produce the file, the whole file
6 that you yourself say you recommended must be produced?
7
MR. WELCH: You file what you think you
8 need to file, and the lawyers will determine his
9 answer to that question.
10
MR. LEVIN: I don't understand that
11 answer. I've already filed, and as far -- we're
12 sitting here for a deposition of the custodian of
13 the records. I've asked for documents. This is
14 the first category I've inquired about. He's told
15 me there's no documents responsive to this
16 request and that he has recommended that the whole
17 file be produced, and that we do not have a
18 comprehensive set of those records, so I'm asking
19 you if you will agree to produce those records
2 0 since we're entitled to them and we've asked for
21 them and he has them?
22
MR. WELCH; All right. I'll review that
2 3 and get back to you on it.
2 4
MR. LEVIN: What does that mean?
2 5
MR. WELCH: Just exactly what I said. I
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 22
P ag e 24
1 will review that file when I can and see if we can
2 provide that to you.
3
MR. LEVIN: And see if you can?
4
MR. WELCH: Yes.
5
MR. LEVIN: Is there some reason that
6 you wouldn't be able to?
7
MR. WELCH: I have not seen the entire
8 file and I don't know.
9
MR. LEVIN: Well, why don't you have a
10 look through the file and see if you think there's
11 anything that for some reason shouldn't be
12 produced. I have no problem with that, but
13 assuming the documents are of the character that
14 he is describing and he's recommended that they be
15 produced, we'd like to see them and we'd like to
16 see them pretty fast. Can you tell me when it is
17 you'll have a chance to look through those?
18
MR. WELCH: By next week.
19
MR. LEVIN: All right. You know,
20 hopefully I won't have to go to the judge for
21 this, but next week is kind of vague. Can you
22 pick a date by which you will have those
23 documents?
24
MR. WELCH: A week from today.
25
MR. LEVIN: All right. Now I'm going to
1 remember telling me that? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Okay. It strikes me, though, as a 4 mineralogist that some of the documents and the 5 analysis that were done after 1985 still might be 6 pertinent to the composition of the talc sold between 7 '60 and '85. For example, you might have subsequently, 8 after 1985, analyzed talc that was still vintage circa 9 prior to 1985 that was sitting around somewhere, and 10 you also might conclude as a mineralogist that since it 11 came from the same mine, same vein and same geological 12 area, that the mineralogic analysis that you've done 13 after 1985, it does provide pertinent information 14 relating to the composition of the talc sold prior to 15 1985. Are you with me on that? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Okay. Do you believe that you have 18 documents, that although dated after 1985, contain 19 information which you believe is relevant to the 20 composition of the talc that you sold, Vanderbilt sold 21 between 1960 and 1985? 22 A Absolutely. 23 Q Okay. Can you include those documents also 24 in the documents that you provide to counsel, which he 25 is going to review and provide to me within a week?
Page 23
Page 25
1 reserve the right to continue his deposition on 2 the subject of those documents when I get them. 3 BY MR. LEVIN: 4 Q Number ten, all documents containing 5 information relating to the asbestos content in the 6 talc Vanderbilt sold between the years '60 and '85. Do 7 you have documents like that as part of the universe of 8 records that you are the custodian of as the custodian 9 of health an mineralogic documents? 10 A Well, the analytical documents that I have, 11 you know, are, for the most part, addressing the issue 12 as to whether or not there's asbestos in this talc or 13 not. 14 Q So that would be the same as we just 15 discussed? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Okay. Now, there's one thing that you said 18 that I need to follow up on. The dates here were 19 selected because these are the years between '60 and 20 1985 that the plaintiff claims to have been exposed to 21 Vanderbilt talc. But you've told me that there are 22 documents, and you think actually better documents, 23 superior documents, however you put it, also that are 24 dated, the documents and the analyses themselves are 25 dated after 1985. That's just a preface. Do you
1
MR. WELCH: I will be happy to look at
2 those, too.
3 Q And just for the record, why it is that the
4 documents that may have been authored after 1985
5 provide relevant information relating to the
6 composition of the talc sold by Vanderbilt between 1960
7 and 1985?
8
MR. WELCH: He didn't say it did. He
9 said it may have.
10 Q Okay. Tell me why it may have?
11 A I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
12 Q Okay. Tell me why it is that documents
13 authored after 1985 may still contain information that
14 may be relevant to the composition of the talc
15 Vanderbilt sold between 1960 and 1985?
16 A Yeah, well, certainly in a couple of cases
17 there was analysis of talc samples that had been used
18 and animal studies that were done prior to 1985. Those
19 samples have been around and are still, you know, some
20 of them are still available. They've been analyzed,
21 and there are some samples that probably predate '85,
22 but the key thing is that - is that the product
23 itself, the tremolitic talc that's state mined in
24 upstate New York has a unique mineral blend that has
25 been consistent over the years; otherwise, it wouldn't
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 26
Page 28
1 be --you know, be able to be used for the same 2 purposes, so we have quality control programs and 3 parameters, like oil absorption and other parameters, 4 that if they changed, the mineral composition would 5 have to change. And so to the extent that these 6 products have provided the same characteristics, they 7 are the same mineral blends. 8 Q Okay. So talc --Vanderbilt talc coming from 9 the same two sources analyzed after 1985 would have the 10 same mineralogic characteristics as Vanderbilt talc 11 coming from those same two sources prior to 1985? 12 A Yes. The talc is very unique. It's been 13 described as an unmistakable fingerprint. No other 14 talc is like it, and it's been that way since it was -- 15 to the best of my knowledge, since we began mining, 16 Vanderbilt began mining. 17 Q Okay. And if I looked under a microscope, 18 what would - what would the characteristics of that 19 unique fingerprint be that would separate the 20 Vanderbilt talc from the rest? 21 A Well, do you have a copy of our material 22 safety data sheet? 23 Q Yes. 24 A Okay. It's essentially as described. At one 25 time we actually had a composite material safety data
1 are things contained within that sheet that are 2 emblematic signatures, if you will, of Vanderbilt talc 3 that distinguishes it from other talc. And could you 4 just direct me to which part of the material safety 5 data sheet that is? 6 A Actually, I was just looking through some of 7 the documents that Bruce brought with him this morning 8 that I guess were sent to you. There is a -- it says 9 an old material safety data sheet and it has a date of 10 May 1, 1975. 11 Q I see it. 12 A You see it? 13 Q Yeah. 14 A Okay. And there's another one, 1981. 15 Q I see '81 and '83 -16 A Right. 17 Q -- and '80. I see four. 18 A Rigjit. Okay. Well, you notice, and again 19 these are before my time, but this is still the case to 20 this day, if you look at the four components listed 21 there, you see the percentages? 22 Q Yes. 23 A Okay. You see that these -- these are 24 actually composite material safety data sheets, so for 25 like the one for '81, Nytal 99, 100, 100HR, and then
Page 27
Page 29
1 sheet for all of our talc grades because they all had
2 the same mineral blend --
3 Q Uh-huh.
4 A -- the only difference is that in some cases
5 there may be a little more talc then there is amphibole
6 material. In other cases, the particle size is a
7 little larger or smaller. So, for example, a product
8 called Nytal 100 is the same, essentially, as Nytal
9 400, except 400 is a finer line, you know, finer
10 particle grind.
11 Q Okay.
12 A And so --
13 Q Are you telling me, though, like, for
14 example, if I look at the material data sheet under the
15 ingredients section for one of those talcs, let's say
16 Nytal 100, that with reference to the percentage range
17 of the various mineralogic constituents listed in the
18 ingredients, that I can then identify that talc as
19 Vanderbilt talc and that no other commercial talc would
20 have exactly that mix?
21
MR. WELCH: I object to the form of
22 the question. He can't tell you what he can
23 identify.
24 Q All right. But you're telling me that with
25 reference to the material safety data sheet, that there
1 there's, you know, another one for '80. You see a 2 range of percent -- 3 Q Yes. 4 A -- and to this day, that's ~ that's pretty 5 much the range of all the talc products that we sell, 6 so we always give the composition as being talc, twenty 7 to forty percent, and it can vary in that twenty to 8 forty percent; non-asbestiform tremolite, you know, 9 amphibole cleavage material, forty to sixty percent; 10 serpentine, which is in this case antigorite-lizardite, 11 A-N-T-I-G-O-R-I-T-E dash L-I-Z-A-R-D-I-T-E 12 Q Uh-huh. 13 A --fifteen to thirty percent -14 Q Uh-huh. 15 A ~ non-asbestiform anthophyllite cleavage 16 material amphibole, one to five percent and very little 17 quartz; one percent if it can be detected at all. 18 Typically it's veiy hard to detect. 19 Q Okay. 20 A And that is it. I mean, all of our grades of 21 talc that are in those ranges. 22 Q Okay. That's what I was trying to ask you. 23 So it's with reference to section two that a person can 24 identify the constituent ingredients by percentages 25 that are unique to Vanderbilt talc?
8 {Pages 26 to 29)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e8'1
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 30
Page 32
1 A Yes. And to my knowledge, there's no other 2 talc with that combination. 3 Q Okay. Now, are there other material data -- 4 material safety data sheets within your records, other 5 than the five that have been produced to me? 6 A Those five are obviously the material safety 7 data sheets that would have been in --out there at -8 you know, prior to 1985. Subsequent to that, you know, 9 after 1985, we have, you know, changed our --updated 10 our material safety data sheet. We have a specific 11 MSDS for each individual talc grade now, and - you 12 know, so that's about the only change we've made. But 13 essentially, they're veiy similar. You know, the key 14 items are similar, the same. 15 Q Now, in the quality control process, is there 16 testing, mineralogic testing performed to determine 17 whether the talc that's coming out of the facility 18 there sort of has this constituent component profile? 19 A Well typically, you know, in a mining 2 0 operation like this - I mean, obviously we will do 21 what is known as a bore sample, where geologists will 22 go and try to determine the mineral composition in 23 various areas of the mine, and essentially we're trying 24 to find these blends. We'll find areas where there's 2 5 more talc, areas where there's more amphibole material
1 Q And for the record, the name of the 2 underground mine is? 3 A We call itjust Mine One. 4 Q Okay. And the Arnold Pit and Mine One are 5 adjacent to each other, separated by what, a half a 6 mile? 7 A Yeah, if that, and most of the ore --and in 8 1995, we closed the underground mine and are now just 9 all above ground -- 10 Q Okay. 11 A --and it's all part of the same ore body. 12 Q What county are they in? 13 A That's in --1don't know, what is it? Is it 14 Jefferson or - no, that's right, it's St. Lawrence. 15 It's the one to the north. 16 Q St. Lawrence County? 17 A Hold on, let me make sure I get it correct, 18 because it's important. We are in -- let's see. We 19 are in St. Lawrence County. 20 Q Okay. So we have the two mines in St. 21 Lawrence County, Arnold Pit and Mine Number One. And 2 2 during the mining operations we take what are known as 2 3 bore samples to -- on the spot trying to determine of 24 the various sort of geographic options within the -2 5 within the vein there, what comes closest to the
Page 31
Page 33
1 and so forth. And these are mined and put in separate
2 hoppers or boxes, if you will, and then these hoppers
3 or boxes are drawn from at certain percentage range --
4 let's see if you want talc at twenty or forty, you take
5 ore that has more talc in it and you blend it with for
6 amphibole, and then --or more serpentine, and all of
7 that then is put through mills and ground to certain
8 sizes; dictated, you know, by that product that we're
9 trying to make in regard to the percent of each mineral
10 component and particle size.
11
And once it's ground, it is taken to a
12 quality control lab and it's tested for certain things.
13 The main one is oil absorption. And if you don't have
14 the proper blend of minerals and the proper size, you
15 will not meet the specs, you know, for oil absorption
16 and color and there's a couple other criteria.
17 Q Okay. Let's back up a second here. There
18 are two mines, correct?
19 A Vanderbilt opened in 1948 with an underground
2 0 mine and operated only out of that mine until 1974, and
21 then it acquired International Talc and then drew ore
2 2 from, and to this day draws ore from a mine known as
23 the Arnold Pit, which is adjacent to the underground
2 4 mine. We're talking maybe about a half a mile to the
2 5 west.
1 company's specifications for extraction, correct? 2 A Yes, except these bore samples are not taken, 3 you know, at the time or at the spot. These bore 4 samples sometimes have been taken, you know, years 5 before and used by the geologist to plot the ore 6 deposit. 7 Q Okay. 8 A So they sort of have a map, you know, almost 9 like they go down under the ground that already lays 10 out where the ore deposit is, and that would -- some of 11 that was established, you know, in the '40s and '50s, 12 even earlier than that. 13 Q So they do like some sort of geologic 14 mineralogic survey initially and sort of map out where 15 the most appropriate bore samples sort of came from and 16 they use that sort of as the design for where to mine? 17 A Yes, exactly. 18 Q Okay. And this -- you say it's all from the 19 same ore vein. Is there a name for that particular 2 0 vein there? 21 A Yes, there is, but I would defer that, you 2 2 know, to a geologist. And there is a history, I think, 2 3 written on that region and there are different ore -2 4 ore sections and veins. It's not one homogeneous rock, 2 5 that's for sure.
9 {Pages 30 to 33)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
P a g e 34
Page 3 6 |
1 Q Okay. And are these bore samples maintained
2 as records somewhere within Vanderbilt?
3 A Some are kept at the mine. I don't believe
4 we keep any in Norwalk.
5 Q Okay. That's where your office is, in
6 Norwalk?
7 A Yes.
8 Q But - so there may be a record, vis-a-vis
9 the bore samples taken from these two mines at the mine
10 facilities themselves?
11 A There could be. I can't say for certain.
12 Q Okay. And if there are, those would be
13 documents that would be responsive to my request nine
14 and ten?
15 A Well, bore samples.
16
MR. WELCH: We object to that on the
17 grounds that he would not be exposed to the ore
18 on the site or at the mine or in the mill.
19 Q Well, that might run to the weight, but this
20 would still give us some information relating to the
21 composition of the talc.
22 A W ell-
23 Q Sir?
24 A Well, you know what a bore sample is, right?
25 Q Sort of, yes.
1 A Well, it's the Gouvemeur Talc Company. 2 Gouvemeur, G-O-U-V-E-R-N-E-U-R. 3 Q And these would be geologic surveys of the 4 area where the two mines are located? 5 A Yeah, and I think there's some published 6 papers on that. 7 Q Okay. Do you know the person there that's 8 the custodian of documents there? 9 A Well, the ultimate responsibility would be 10 the plant manager, and his name is Dana Putnam, 11 P-U-T-N-A-M, D-A-N-A, Dana. 12 Q And do you know where he resides? 13 A Yes, he's in - at the mine in upstate New 14 York, Gouvemeur, New York. 15 Q Have you spoken to him in connection with 16 your efforts to become the person most knowledgeable at 17 Vanderbilt with respect to categories nine and ten? 18 A I've spoken to him about records that pertain 19 to the geology and history and that sort of thing. To 20 that extent, I have, yes. 21 Q Okay. And based on those conversations, 22 would you agree with me that there are or may be 23 documents at the Gouvemeur Talc Company in the custody 24 of Mr. Putnam which relate to the composition of talc 25 sold by the Vanderbilt mines between '60 and '85?
Page 35
P a g e 37
1 A Yeah. Sort of like - 1guess if you can 2 picture, you know, you just take like a pipe and you 3 stick it down in the earth and then you pull the pipe 4 out and then you take that cylindrical material out of 5 that pipe and, you know, the distance down and then you 6 see tihe various layers, you know, the geologic layers 7 and you can determine the mineral composition by taking 8 like bulk samples or samples of some of those layers. 9 There is that 10 Q Okay. 11 A There is that. 12 Q Well, that's what I'm asking. Why wouldn't 13 that be information relating to the composition of the 14 talc sold by Vanderbilt? 15 A Well, it's a little bit more of a QC, and I'm 16 not so sure - like, for example, the analysis mayjust 17 be identified like serpentine versus amphibole. 18 Q Well, we don't know because you don't have 19 the records, neither do I. 20 A Yeah. 21 Q Who has the records? 22 A Well, the facility would have the geologic 23 records of the survey, the survey records, that type of 24 thing. 25 Q What's the name of that facility?
1 A What they would relate to is the ore body, 2 which is not necessarily the product as it goes out the 3 door. 4 Q No, I understand that. I understand. We're 5 going to get to that in a second, but it is a building 6 block in understanding the nature of the composition of 7 the talc sold by Vanderbilt between '60 and '85, the 8 nature of the ore body it came from. 9 A Yeah, depending on how you go at it. I mean, 10 from my advantage point, the key analysis would be of 11 the product, final product itself as it's sold. 12 Q Okay. Now, the bore samples go to some 13 quality control place? 14 A No, the bore samples just help direct the 15 mining -- 16 Q Okay. 17 A - and then the product as it's processed, 18 you know, through the plant, the mill, samples are 19 taken and those samples before they're bagged - it's 20 bagged and given a product label are taken to the 21 the QC lab for some very basic tests, make sure that 22 they meet the quality parameters such as oil absorption 23 as a key one that I mentioned before. 24 Q Okay. So backing up. So the mine is ored, 25 and other than these bore samples, there's no other
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
P age 38
Page 40
1 sampling done at the mine? 2 A Well, there's certainly a lot of --for 3 occupational health purposes, there's myriad air 4 samples that are taken by myself, by mine safety and 5 health administration, you know, by groups that have 6 studied that mine over the years. There's lots of 7 data. It's probably the most studied mine in the 8 world. 9 Q And where would the documents with respect to 10 the air sampling at those two mine facilities be 11 located? 12 A They would actually be part of what I refer 13 to as the mineral, you know, analysis and 14 characterization of the talc, all of that data. 15 Q And physically would that be with you or at 16 the facility under the direction of Mr. Putnam? 17 A That would be with me. 18 Q Okay. And do you have records reflecting air 19 sampling done at the mine itself? 20 A Yes. It's all part of that whole package. 21 Q Okay. And does that air sampling tell you 22 the level of talc; tremolite and fosilite and 2 3 serpentine, in the air samples taken at the mine? 24 A The samples, air samples have been taken 25 historically over the years and continue to be taken on
1 know I'm sure by NIOSH, who has taken samples. The New I
2 York State Health Department way back when, I think
3 it's probably taken some samples. AH of this,
|
4 whatever material we have I keep, and I never discard
1
5 it.
1
6 Q Okay. And I think that those air sample
7 records are relevant.
8 A Oh, I do, too.
9 Q Okay.
10
MR. WELCH: I'll object. Wait. Wait a
11 minute. Wait a minute. Let me put an objection
12 on the record.
13
MR. LEVIN: Sure.
14
MR. WELCH: I believe that they are
15 irrelevant to this case. There is evidence that
16 Mr. Haanstra was ever present at any facility
17 where air monitoring was done, therefore the
18 records are totally irrelevant to whatever --
19 Q Au --
20
MR. WELCH: -- exposure that Mr.
21 Haanstra claims.
22 Q Au contraire. It's your contention, and I
23 think the witness' contention that the ore that came
24 from those mines contains no asbestiform fibers.
25 A No, no, the ore that comes from those mines
Page 39
Page 41
1 and off, cover the following areas: Total dust, that's
2 everything --
3 Q Okay.
4 A -- respirable dust, that's all the dust
5 that's less than ten micrometers in size --
6 Q Okay.
7 A - whatever it is. Crystalline and silica,
8 whenever we're able to find it --
9 Q Okay.
10 A -- in an air sample, and there have been what
11 you call probably getting fiber samples, which are
12 simply samples that collect on an open-face filter, and
13 then you just measure the particle lengths and widths.
14 And those are generally expressed. The others are
15 expressed in gravimetric milligrams per cubic meter,
16 you know, total dust, respirable dust, crystalline and
17 silica. Fiber samples are expressed in fibers per CC,
18 cubic centimeters of air.
19
There have been -- all of the air samples are
20 not, you know, to determine whether there's asbestos
21 there or not, but there certainly has been a lot of the
22 sampling done, some by myself, some by -- most by mine,
23 safety and health administration, which is the agency
24 that regulates all mines including our own. They
25 periodically take samples. We've had studies, as you
1 contains no asbestos.
2 Q Fine. And that contention would be either
3 supported or refuted by the air sampling documents, and
4 to that extent they're relevant.
5
MR. WELCH: What does that have to do
6 with what Mr. Haanstra was exposed to?
7 Q Au contraire. Vanderbilt is contending that
8 their ore contains no asbestiform fibers and then the
9 witness said no, we're not, we're claiming they contain
10 no asbestos. And I said that --and I'll say it again
11 maybe a little differently, that either way, those air
12 sampling samples are relevant because they either
13 support or refiite the position of Vanderbilt with
14 respect to the asbestos and asbestiform content of its
15 ore and I would ask that they be produced. So, sir, is
16 there some reason as the custodian of records that you
17 can't produce those records?
18
MR. WELCH: On advise of counsel he
19 will not.
20
MR. LEVIN: He won't? So you're
21 refusing --
22
MR. WELCH: Not until I've had a
23 opportunity to review this.
24
MR. LEVIN: Excuse me?
25
MR. WELCH: Not until I've had an
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
P age 42
P a g e 44
1 opportunity to review this.
2
MR. LEVIN: Well, I would ask those
3 records be provided to counsel as among the
4 records that he's going to review and produce to
5 me, assuming that there's not an issue with any
6 particular document next week, is that agreeable?
7
MR. WELCH: I will attempt to do that.
8 I have no idea what volume of stuff we're talking
9 about. This was not included in the materials you
10 sought, anything to deal with air samples, air
11 monitoring or anything -
12
MR. LEVIN: Let me point out -
13
MR. WELCH: Let me finish my objection.
14
MR. LEVIN: Sure. I didn't know you
15 weren't finished.
16
MR. WELCH: It was not asked that we
17 produce this. We produced the materials that were
18 relevant to the notice to production which you
19 filed. There was no indication that you were
20 seeking any recovery for exposure that Mr.
21 Haanstra may have had at any location where
22 Vanderbilt has done air monitoring or air
23 sampling.
24
MR. LEVIN: Okay. Counsel is smart
25 enough to know that I'm not claiming that
1 the notice was served in January.
2
MR. WELCH: Well, I respectfully
3 disagree with you.
4
MR. LEVIN: Well, all right.
5 BY MR. LEVIN:
6 Q Sir, can you tell me when it is that you went
7 through the documents in your document repository with
8 respect to the health and mineralogic documents and
9 attempted to ascertain which documents were located
10 there that were responsive to this document request
11 that was served on January 27,2006?
12 A Well, I discussed or I got a call and
13 discussed with our attorneys what documents were going
14 to be sent, and I made recommendations, and I think I
15 pretty much articulated, you know, what my
1 6 recommendation was before.
17
MR. WELCH: I'm going to object to any
18 further inquiry along these lines as being
19 attomey/client privilege.
20
MR. LEVIN: Well, you've tendered him as
21 an expert, if you may have noticed, so you waive
22 that.
23 BY MR. LEVIN:
24 Q My question was when this happened, sir?
25 A Well, it was yesterday.
Page 43
Page 45
1 Mr. Haanstra was exposed at the mine, and counsel
2 is also smart enough to know that the air sampling
3 records do speak to the issue of the mineralogic
4 content of the Vanderbilt talc, and as such, are
5 relevant.
6
I would like to point out and make a
7 record, and I have not been jumping up and down
8 about this, but I did serve a document request
9 over --I guess we're coming on --February,
10 March --coming on two months ago on January
11 27th, 2006. I received late last night a stack
12 that is no more than an inch of documents that
13 somebody has abstracted from the universe of
14 documents that this records custodian, as the
15 custodian of health and mineralogic documents for
16 Vanderbilt has.
17
I am learning through the simple ABC's
18 of going through the document request, and we've
19 done only two categories here, that there are a
20 number of documents that have not been produced
21 pursuant to this notice and that I am entitled to.
22 And I'm hearing the complaint that now, at this
23 moment, counsel doesn't know how long it will take
24 to review all those documents, and that, I would
25 submit, is a process that should have began when
1 Q Okay. So yesterday was the first time you
2 yourself endeavored to determine which documents, among
3 the health and mineralogic documents for which you are
4 the custodian, were responsive to this document
5 request?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Okay.
8
MR. WELCH: That was in respect to this
9 case.
10 Q And you made a recommendation to counsel as
11 to which documents to produce, correct?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And what was your recommendation?
14 A Well, I feel that our - the science base is
15 significantly --you know, is very significant and is
16 very strong, and I generally tend to want to provide
17 everything.
18 Q You wanted to provide all the documents,
19 correct?
20 A Well, certainly those that pertain to health
21 studies on this talc and those that pertain to the
22 mineralogy of that talc.
23 Q And-
24 A Oh, dear.
25 Q Hello?
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 46
Page 48
1 A Hello? Can you hear me? 2 Q Yeah, I can now. 3 A Okay. 4 Q But we did not get all the documents that you 5 recommended that be produced, correct? 6 A Well, I think on advisement of counsel, there 7 was an issue of cutoff dates. I think that's 8 that's --that's - that's their call. 9 Q But we didn't get all the documents that were 10 relevant to health and mineralogical issues that were 11 authored between '60 and '85, did we? 12 A I only saw - 1only saw two health studies 13 that were not in the package that I feel were 14 pertinent, so I think that was complete. 15 Q Hello? 16 A Hello? Can you hear me? 17 Q Yeah. I don't know why that's happening. 18 Okay. So there were two studies pertinent to health 19 issues that were not produced? 20 A In my - in my view, yes. 21 Q Okay. And which were those? 22 A Well -- and this is good because maybe you 23 did get them and wejust didn't get a copy. The one 24 that I think that is most important, is the most 25 up-to-date, most complete mortality studies of our
1 health studies, you know, I always put these things in 2 categories. The top of my category list is health 3 studies that are specific to Vanderbilt talc. The two 4 that I just gave you deal specifically with Vanderbilt 5 talc or components of Vanderbilt talc. 6 Q Okay. 7 A There's a -- the next study in terms of 8 chronology was published in 1992, which I believe you 9 have a copy of, and that's the case control study by 10 Gamble, G-A-M-B-L-E. 11 Q Okay. 12 A Do you have that 13 Q Well, right now I'm interested in the 14 documents that you guys produced, and I'll skim through 15 it. 16 A That was produced, I believe, okay? 17 Q Let me pull it. First document is just the 18 material data safety sheets, couple interoffice 19 memorandum, and a sort of a thing that Vanderbilt wrote 20 about talc. Okay. Goon. I'm going to skim through 21 while you talk. 22 A Okay. You should have a copy of a paper 23 by - it's called Similarities in Lung Cancer and 24 Respiratory Disease Mortality of Vermont and New York 25 State Talc Workers -
Page 47
Page 49
1 miners and millers, and that was - that was entitled 2 Mortality Among Workers at a Talc Mining and Milling 3 Facility, Honda, H-O-N-D-A, Annals of Occupational 4 Hygiene, volume 46, number seven, pages 575 through 5 585,2002. That's - -1think that's important because 6 it's the most complete study there is. And there is a 7 cell study entitled Mineralogical Features Associated 8 with Cytotoxic and Proliferative Affects of Fibrous 9 Talc and Asbestos on Rodent Tracheal Epithelial and 10 Plural Mesothelial Cells. That's authored by Wylie, 11 Mossman, Skinner and Marsh, and that appeared in 12 Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 147; article 13 number T0978276, 1997. 14 Q I don't immediately recognize those, but I'm 15 going to ask that those be produced and that I reserve 16 the right to ask questions about them when I get to see 17 them. 18 A Okay.
19 Q But I do have this question. You seem to 2 0 like those two articles and they may be fine articles. 21 Are there any other health-related documents in the 2 2 depository for which you are the custodian, related to 2 3 health and mineralogic issues that have not been 2 4 produced that I'm looking at today? 25 A Well, in terms of the -- in terms of the
1 Q I think I have that. 2 A --by Lamm. 3 Q Yeah, I've seen that. I have that. 4 A Okay. You have that? There is a second 5 paper by Lamm entitled Analysis of Excess Lung Cancer 6 Risk in Short-Term Employees. 7 Q Okay. 8 A You have that? 9 Q I think I may have. 10 A You have that? 11 Q Okay. I got Gamble. 12 A Yeah. 13 Q Got Lamm. 14 A Yeah. 15 Q Go on. 16 A Okay. There is a another one by - well, The 17 Mortality Experience of Upstate New York Talc Workers 18 by -19 Q Are you just identifying the ones that are in 2 0 our stack now? 21 A Yeah, the ones that I believe you got. 22 Q No, I'm going to go through the ones that are 23 in our stack. What I'm trying to find out, what are 2 4 those things that you haven't produced that you're 25 aware of? And you told me about two.
13 (Pages 46 to 49
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 50
P a g e 52
1 A Yeah. So far, as far as the human health
2 studies, that's what we're talking about right now.
3 Q Okay. Go on.
4 A And then this one by Stille and Tabershaw
5 called The Mortality Experience of New York State Talc
6 Workers, dated 1982.
7 Q Thafs in the stack that you produced?
8 A Yes, I believe so.
9 Q All right.
10 A You might want to check it.
11
MR. WELCH: Should be anyway.
12 A Should be.
13 Q I'm happy with the stuff that's in this
14 stack. I'm trying to find out what's not there.
15 A So am I, so --
16 Q So you've identified two human health studies
17 that you believe that are not in the documents produced
18 today. Are there any other --
19 A Let me clarify that. Let me finish.
20 Q Sure.
21 A The first human health study is the Honda
22 study, okay?
23 Q Yeah.
24 A The second human health study is the Gamble
25 study. Put Wylie and Mossman aside for the moment.
1 Q Okay. 2 A And then the second animal study that's 3 pertinent to Vanderbilt Talc is a study, the famous 4 study by Stanton. 5 Q That's the same hypothesis document? 6 A Exactly. Actually, that's dated -- you know, 7 he wrote several, but the one that I'm looking at is 8 1981. 9 Q Okay. I have that. 10 A You have that? And attached to that is an 11 affidavit from Professor Wylie from the University of 12 Maryland. 13 Q Yeah, I've seen that. 14 A Okay. And the reason that's attached is to 15 identify talc six and seven. 16 Q Okay. 17 A Okay. So that's the two animal studies 18 that's specific to Vanderbilt Talc, okay? 19 Q Yes. 20 A Now, the other study that I did not see in 21 the pack is a cell study, and that's the one that I 22 gave you, Wylie and Mossman and Marsh. 23 Q Okay. 24 A And that is --that is, to the best of my 25 knowledge, the only health studies; human, animal, cell
Page 51
Page 53
1 The third and fourth are two Lamm studies. Then 2 there's Stille and Tabershaw, right? 3 Q Okay. 4 A Okay. And then not in the package there is a 5 NIOSH technical report -6 Q Okay. 7 A -- that's dated 1980 8 Q Okay. 9 A -- which I would expect you would have 10 already. 11 Q Okay. 12 A And that's it for the human health studies, 13 okay? Now, the next category of health studies are 14 animal studies. 15 Q Okay. 16 A And there are two animal studies that dealt 17 specifically with Vanderbilt talc. 18 Q Okay. Were they produced in the stack? 19 A Yes, they were. The first one of those is a 20 study by William Smith. 21 Q Okay. Now, you've seen those in the stack so 22 these are the ones that you have. 23 A I have the William Smith. I think I saw a 24 couple of his -- it's actually talking about one study, 25 okay?
1 that are specific to Vanderbilt in regard to -- well,
2 human are in terms of mortality.
3 Q Okay. And that document wasn't produced.
4 A Which one? The cell study wasn't and the
5 first and the most up-to-date mortality was not, I
6 don't think, unless you have it and we just did not get
7 it here.
8 Q Okay. And you would agree with me that these
9 are documents that are pertinent to the issue of
10 Vanderbilt talc and health?
11 A Yeah. I think all documents are. I think
12 everything that's been produced on this issue is
13 pertinent.
14 Q Okay. So could you, in the documents that
15 you give to counsel, produce those as well?
16 A Well, you have them all except for those two
17 that I mentioned.
18 Q I'm talking about those two.
19
MR. WELCH: Yeah, we'll give you those.
20 Q Thank you. And I'm reserving the right to
21 ask you questions about them.
22
You said something earlier I want to follow
23 up on. You said that it was Vanderbilt's position that
24 the talc from the talc mines do not contain asbestiform
25 fibers, and you corrected me and said that they do not
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 54
Page 56
1 contain asbestos, do you remember that? 2 A Yes, I do. 3 Q Okay. Tell me what you meant by that? 4 A Well, the easiest way for me to do that -- 5 you do have a copy of a report. It's called Reported 6 Investigation by N. Wylie, dated 1983. 7 Q Yes. 8 A You probably have not had a chance to read 9 through the report. 10 Q Well, no, last night I tried to the best I 11 could. 12 A Okay. It's thick and it's complicated. 13 Q Well, I read everything to some extent. 14 A All right. Okay. Well, I'm calling your 15 attention to this one for a reason. One of the reasons 16 I'm calling your attention to this one, it's one of the 17 more detailed analytical reports on this talc. 18 Q All right. Let me see if I can find it while 19 you talk. I'm listening. 20 A And this report goes to some length to 21 discuss the various mineral compositions, you know, the 2 2 various components, the amphibole, the serpentine, the 2 3 talc, talc fiber, all the components in this talc. And 24 it describes -- it shows pictures of them, it shows how 25 you distinguish these things, and it --it - it gives
1 they're actually elongated.
2 Q The fibrous talc?
3 A Yeah, and that's why they're called fibrous
4 talc. Some of the fibrous talc, not all of it, but
5 some of it, and this is explained in this paper that
6 you have, are inter growths, what's known as
7 transitional or - or some mineralogists have called
8 them biopyriboles. And there's some discussion about
9 what the correct terminology for these should be, and
10 it's somewhat of a mysteiy to this day how these mixed
11 particles actually evolved, you know, geologically, so
12 they are - have been described as sort of a
13 mineralogical curiosity that a lot of mineral
14 scientists like -- like to look at because they tell
15 them something about the way minerals are formed, you
16 know, over thousands of years and so forth.
17
So, you know this is one of the reasons why
18 this talc is so heavily studied. But --and some of
19 these --some of these transitionals -- actually --
2 0 actually more than with pure talc than the
21 transitionals, some of them have what appear to be some
2 2 bundling, where it looks almost like a bundle of
2 3 fibers. And that crystal growth habit is described by
2 4 mineralogists as asbestiform. That is unique crystal
2 5 growth habit.
Page 55
Page 57
1 you one of the best descriptions of the actual 2 composition of this talc. And this description has not 3 changed, you know, to this day, and it --it - you 4 know, I can --we will provide all - lots of other 5 reports that - some of them are more detailed in terms 6 of transmission electron microscopy. We've had7 there's been lots of research projects done on this to 8 even, you know, even look at this stuff more 9 thoroughly. But at the end of the day, I think you'll 10 find when you do see all these documents that this 11 one - this paper, in 1993 -- 12 Q From the University of Maryland? 13 A Yes -- you'll find it's pretty dam accurate, 14 so when you ask me my question, you know, the answer to 15 the question is, in the -- in the talc composition, in 16 the twenty to forty, thirty percent talc that I told 17 you about -- 18 Q Yeah. 19 A --there's a few percent of what's known as 2 0 talc fibers. These are pretty rare, but they're rare. 21 In fact, they're probably more present in our talc than 2 2 any other talc, although Professor Wylie says if you 2 3 look hard and long enough in any talc, you can usually 2 4 find one or two of them. And they're the mineral talc, 2 5 but they are actually --you know, they're not plated,
1
Most minerals form in random fashion, and
2 when you crush them up you can get some that are sort
3 of vesicular and long, but they're really -- you know,
4 not really true fibers, they're just chunks of
5 different sizes. But true asbestiform mineral fiber is
6 very rare, so we have, you know, very, very tiny
7 amounts of these that can be found in the talc. But
8 they're not any of the six minerals that are regulated
9 as asbestos. In fact, they're something like a hundred
10 minerals that can form that way. Some of them are
11 water soluble. Some of them are -- like aryonite, for
12 example, has been shown to pose the same health risk as
13 asbestos and others have not. So the term
14 "asbestiform" is not a synonym for asbestos. Asbestos
15 is a generic or commercial term that's applied to these
16 six minerals that are regulated as asbestos, because
17 these six are the ones that have shown as the health
18 risks.
19
And so you don't use these words
20 interchangeably. They don't mean the same thing. All
21 the six regulated minerals, all of them are asbestiform
2 2 and they have to be in order to be asbestos. But
2 3 everything that's asbestiform is not asbestos. And
2 4 that's a long-winded description, but it's nothing that
2 5 you can't read in this paper that you have already.
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
P age 58
P a g e 60
1 Q I got it. I understand the two. What
1 Workers' Compensation claims that Vanderbilt may have
2 percentage that a few percent of the talc fibers, what
2 received relating to claims of asbestos-related
3 percentage of the Vanderbilt talc is fibrous talc
3 disease --
4 asbestiform fibrous talc of the type that you just
4
MR. WELCH: We did not produce any,
5 described?
5 since, during the time Same, there are none.
6 A Uh-huh. Well, you know, there's somewhat of
6 Q This is not related to any time frame, and
7 a range, and the range would be anywhere from somewhere 7 I've heard there are some, so I'd like to ask him about
8 non-existent. It usually averages out to about one
8 it.
9 percent and of that one percent, about maybe .05 or
9
MR. WELCH: No, we're not going into
10 something like that, you know, might fit into that
10 that. It's outside the time frame. It's not
11 category of asbestiform.
11 going to show notice of any condition.
12 Q .05?
12
MR. LEVIN: Well, it may or may not,
I
13 A Something like that, yeah. It varies a
13 depending on what the claims say and what evidence
14 little bit, and you can - I have never been able to
14 is within the claimed documents themselves,
15 find any of them on air filters, they're rare, but you
15 vis-a-vis the issues we've been talking about
16 can find them in the bulk material.
16 having to do with talc content and ability to
17 Q Okay. So just so we're clear, in the
17 cause asbestos-related disease.
18 range --on average, one percent of the talc has
18
And let me give you an example. If you
|
19 this - has this fibrous talc on it?
19 happen to have a talc worker, talc miner that had
|
20 A Yeah, and some of that, it's not all the
20 no other employment and it was proven that they
1
21 same. Some of the talc fiber is - it looks like a
21 had no other employment, and that person got
22 ribbon.
22 mesothelioma, and they did a lung analysis and
23 Q Okay.
2 3 found asbestiform talc and tremolite and all of
24 A Some of like, it looks like a ribbon.
24 rest of that in there, that would be relevant -
25 Q Okay.
25
MR. WELCH: No.
Page 59
P a g e 61
1 A Some of it looks like a rod -- 2 Q Okay. 3 A --and some of it -- some of it, you can see 4 pictures of it in that report that I directed you to in 5 '83. 6 Q Okay. 7 A And she - she goes to some length to explain 8 this because they are extremely unusual. They're not 9 things that, you know, the average lab ever sees. 10 Q Right. They're probably so unusual that the 11 health affects of them haven't been studied in any long 12 term epidemiological studies? 13 A Well, Ijust told you that we had like five 14 mortality studies of our talc workers. I don't know of 15 too many work populations that have had that many 16 health studies done on them, so I would disagree with 17 you. 18 Q Okay. We'll get to that in a second. .05 19 percent of the fibrous talc is, in your view, 20 asbestiform? 21 A Well, I told you it was a range. It's a low 22 percentage. 23 Q Okay. Let me skip to another category here 24 for a second. If you could look at categories sixteen 25 and seventeen, which ask you for documents relating to
1
MR. LEVIN: - so, I don't agree --
2
MR. WELCH: I respectfully disagree with
1
3 that.
4
MR. LEVIN: That stuff is not relevant
5 and I'm going to ask that it be produced.
6
MR. WELCH: Well, I'm afraid that one is
7 going to ask for a court order.
8
MR. LEVIN: And whether some things are
9 not admissible or not are a separate question, but
10 we're entitled to conduct discovery.
11 BY MR. LEVIN:
12 Q So sir, let me ask you this: Were there
13 Workers' Comp claims filed against Vanderbilt claiming
14 that Vanderbilt workers were suffering from asbestos
15 related disease?
16
MR. WELCH: No, don't answer that. I'm
17 going to instruct him not to answer on this. If
18 you're going to get into that, you'll have to have
19 a court order.
20
MR. LEVIN: Okay. We'll certify that
21 question.
22 A I will tell you that, in the mortality
23 studies, which you either have or will get, there are
24 two mesotheliomas reported in the mortality data, and
25 the mortality data goes up through 1990, and neither of j
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 62
P a g e 64
1 those mesotheliomas are considered linked to exposure
2 to the talc by the authors of the study for different
3 reasons. In one case, the latency was too short, and
4 the other case the individual worked for about a week
5 in 1948 and tore boilers out for the rest of his life.
6 Q Are those the only two mesotheliomas that
7 you're aware of from talc workers working in these New
8 York State mines?
9
MR. WELCH: Again, we're not going to
10 let him discuss that.
11
MR. LEVIN: Why is that, other than it's
12 not helpful to your case. Is there a legal
13 reason?
14
MR. WELCH: I believe that it has to do
15 with the time frame that the claims were sought
1 6 in, and I believe that it has to do with whether
17 or not whatever happened would have put Vanderbilt
18 on notice of any condition.
19
MR. LEVTN: I'm not talking about only
2 0 notice. People go off on notice.
2 1 BY MR. LEVIN:
2 2 Q Sir, do you have the expert designation?
2 3 You've been designated as an expert in this case, are
24 you aware of that?
25
MR. WELCH: He's being presented here
1 questions.
2 BY MR. LEVIN:
3 Q All right. One of the things that you're
4 designated on as an expert is that you're going to
5 testify that there's no none association or connection
6 between Vanderbilt Talc and any asbestos-related
7 disease. Okay, sir, that's one of the subjects.
8 A Yes.
9 Q Okay. And can you tell me all of the cases
10 of mesothelioma that you know that are alleged to have
11 occurred in Vanderbilt miners or millers?
12
MR. WELCH: Are you going to limit that
13 to the '60 to '85 range?
14
MR. LEVIN: No, I'm not limiting it to
15 that, because it runs to whether or not this talc
1 6 can cause mesothelioma, number one, which is
17 independent of time frame. He's told us the
18 mineralogic characteristics are the same. And
19 number two, it runs to the foundation and my
20 ability to cross-examine about his opinions that
21 there's known association between Vanderbilt talc
22 and asbestos-related disease. And I think I'm
2 3 entitled to know how many mesotheliomas have been
24 claimed to occur in Vanderbilt miners or millers.
25
MR. WELCH: He is not here prepared to
Page 63
P a g e 65
1 today as the PMK regarding the issues sought.
2
MR. LEVIN: Are you withdrawing him as
3 an expert, or are we going to have a separate
4 deposition as an expert?
5
MR. WELCH: I guess we can do that.
6
MR. LEVIN: A separate deposition?
7 Well, that will save some time. Are we going -
8 he's one of your experts, and he's been listed as
9 expert member agent, and a bunch of things he's
10 asked, he's going to be asked to give opinions on,
11 and everything that he's read and reviewed is
12 pertinent to those opinions, so I want to know if
13 he's being withdrawn as an expert, or are you
14 going to offer him at another time in that
15 capacity?
16
MR. WELCH: No, I'm not withdrawing him
17 as an expert.
18
MR. LEVIN: Are you going to offer him
19 at another time in that capacity or am I going to
20 be ask him questions in that capacity today?
21
MR. WELCH: You may ask him questions in
2 2 that capacity today; however, he is not being
2 3 presented as an expert dealing with Workers' Comp
24 claims.
25
MR. LEVTN: That's not the focus of my
1 testify about that information today. I have told
2 you I am instructing him not to answer further
3 questions on that ground.
4
MR. LEVIN: All right. Well, we'll see
5 the judge on that.
6 BY MR. LEVIN:
7 Q Is that information contained within your
8 health and mineralogic documents?
9
MR. WELCH: Is what information?
10
MR. LEVIN: Information with respect to
11 claims by people that worked for Vanderbilt that
12 they contracted mesothelioma as miners or millers
13 working with their talc. Is that information in
14 the body of health and mineralogic documents that
15 you have?
16
MR. WELCH: I'm going to instruct him
17 not to answer that question.
18 BY MR. LEVIN:
19 Q Sir, are you going to give me an answer to
20 that or not?
21
MR. WELCH: On advice-
22
MR. LEVIN: You can't instruct an
2 3 expert, under California rules not to answer.
24 You cannot instruct an expert not to answer. You
25 can object to their questions, but you can't
17 (Pages 62 to 65}
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 66
P a g e 68
1 instruct them not to answer, so can I have an
2 answer, sir?
3
THE WITNESS: No, I think I'll listen to
4 my counsel.
5
MR. LEVIN: You're refusing to answer?
6
THE WITNESS: Well, you know -
7
MR. WELCH: He was not prepared to
8 testify on this area of questioning today.
9
MR. LEVIN: You are being offered as an
10 independent expert, and for that you have no
11 counsel and you have no right to refuse to answer,
12 and I just want to know if you're refusing to
13 answer. That's a yes or no question.
14
THE WITNESS: Well, yes, I know.
15
M R LEVIN: I'm going to move
16 accordingly in front of the court to strike you as
17 an expert.
18 BY MR. LEVIN:
19 Q Do you know what the background rate of
20 mesothelioma is?
21
MR. WELCH: Where?
22 A Where? Well, in general.
23 Q In North America.
24 A In North America? Well, there is a range
25 depending upon who you talk to. I think it's something
1 In subject sixteen and seventeen on the last page,
2 seven, it asks the following: How many - and this is
3 the -- one of the subjects that you said you were - - 1
4 can't remember whether you said you were the person
5 most knowledgeable on this. But they have to do with
6 how many Workers' Compensation claims you received
7 relating to asbestos-related disease and when you first
8 received a Workers' Compensation claim relating to an
9 asbestos disease. Do you remember those topics?
10 A Yeah. They're listed.
11
MR. WELCH: And as I said at the
12 beginning of the deposition, we're relying on the
13 earlier objections filed, and that is one of the
14 ones that we are relying on.
15 Q Okay. I just want to know if subject to that
16 objection, whether you're the right person for these
17 questions, if counsel --if you were to decide to
18 answer them or someone were to order you to answer
19 them?
20
MR. WELCH: During what time period?
21 Q During all the time periods.
22
MR. WELCH: I'll let him respond to
23 that.
24 A I believe I would be.
25 Q Okay. Now, turning to this mortality study
P a g e 67
Page 69
1 like - -1don't know for sure. I think it's one in
2 several thousand.
3 Q One per million?
4 A Well no, more like one in -- per ten thousand
5 or something like that.
6 Q Well, I think we're diverging on the
7 difference between annual risk or lifetime risk.
8 A That's probably true. It's probably best
9 left to, you know, the people who publish on it.
10 Q Okay. Do you know how many people live in
11 St. Lawrence County?
12 A No, I don't.
13 Q Okay.
14
MR. WELCH: Again, he is not being
15 offered as an expert in that area.
16
M R LEVfN: I'mjust wondering if he
17 knows how many people live in St. Lawrence County.
18
MR. WELCH: Can we take a little break?
19 I need a cup of coffee.
20
MR. LEVIN: Sure.
21
(THE DEPOSITION OFF THE RECORD.)
22
M R LEVIN: I want to go back on the
23 record.
24 BY MR. LEVIN:
25 Q All right. Let's go back to the notice here.
1 by Honda.
2 A Yes.
3 Q Is this study all deaths among all employees
4 of Vanderbilt working at the talc mining and milling
5 facilities between '48 and '89?
6 A That's right.
7 Q Between '48 and '89. And was this study done
8 in 2001?
9 A It was published in 2002.
10 Q Okay. When was it done?
11 A I think it was completed in 1994 or '95
12 and --but the -- some of the preliminary reports were
13 available, I think, as early as 1990, '91.
14 Q And do you know how - do you know who it was
15 that asked the authors of this study to do this study?
16 A Of course. Vanderbilt commissioned the study
17 to be done.
18 Q Okay. And Vanderbilt paid for it?
19 A Of course.
20 Q Well, why do you say "of course"?
21 A Well, because the inference is that if a
22 company pays for a study, it's biased and
23 inappropriate, which makes me sick.
1
24 Q Okay. I'm all confused.
B
25 A Well, there's a scientific standard that says
|
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 70
Page 72
1 a study is good or poor no matter who pays for it. 2 Q Okay. And this was paid for by Vanderbilt? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And in your view, a study that's paid for by 5 Vanderbilt is biased? 6 A I didn't say that. I saidjust the opposite. 7 There's a scientific standard that decides whether a 8 study is good or poor, not who pays for it. 9 Q Oh, no, but didn't you say - what makes you 10 sick? 11 A The fact that when people ask questions about 12 who paid for something, the inference is that typically 13 that if a company pays for a study, the study is biased 14 or inappropriate. 15 Q No, that's only -- that's one possible 16 inference. 17 A Sure, it is. Everybody's biased 18 unfortunately. 19 Q Well, let me ask you something: When was 20 the -- the first worker who was employed by Vanderbilt 21 that was included in this study, the start date is 22 1948, right? 23 A Yes, the study included everyone that ever 24 worked at Vanderbilt Talc from 1948 through 1989 for 25 any period of time.
1 A Yeah. As I mentioned, there's a preliminary 2 report. And actually, the preliminary report has a 3 better breakdown, and I could give you that. 4 Q Are those in your files? 5 A Sure. Same stuff. 6 Q I'd like to have that produced also. 7 A Actually, there's a --1think there's a 8 table in preliminary data that breaks each case down. 9 Q Are you aware from your work in this area 10 what the --die -- about the long latency for the 11 development of the disease mesothelioma? 12 A Certainly. 13 Q Okay. And in view of that latency period, 14 why did the people who did this study decide to cut it 15 off at 1989, which was only forty years when the -16 according to Doll and Peto, the risk goes up 17 logarithmically, so you have to find more and more 18 mesotheliomas between the fortieth and fiftieth years 19 out? 20 A Well, we contracted to have the study done, I 21 believe it was in the mid '80s; '85, '86, maybe '87, 22 something around that time, so the duration of the 23 study was predicated on when we asked for it. There 24 had been, I think, four or five prior mortality studies 25 of this same cohort, and we were just bringing it up to
Page 71
Page 73
1 Q Okay. And is there a description of the 2 distribution of people as between those years? 3 A Yes, there is. In fact, the tenure or length 4 of time was a factor in our questioning some 5 preliminary results by NIOSH as to whether or not the 6 cancer, lung cancer rate that was noted among those 7 miners and millers was associated with exposure to the 8 talc, whatever it is. 9 Q Well, my question is, can you tell from 10 looking at that study, how many people began in '48 and 11 how many people began in '60 and so on? 12 A I'm not sure. I would have to look at it. 13 You certainly can tell from the study the duration of 14 employment You can tell that. 15 Q And where would I find that? 16 A (Indicating.) Well, I --on - on this 17 published report, the closest to that, I believe would 18 be reflected on table four, I think on page 579 up at 19 the top. You'll see a column for years since hired 20 then years worked. 21 Q On page four, I don't see any table. 22 A I'm sorry, on page --the page would be 579 23 in the study itself. 24 Q I only have like -- okay. Is there 25 unpublished material relating to this study?
1 date, you know, as of the time that we did this, 2 because we had some questions about the lung cancer 3 rates. 4 Q Did you have the - do you have the prior 5 mortality studies, too? 6 A Yeah, and they're provided to you. The ones 7 I mentioned to you earlier. 8 Q Okay. 9 A And this is just the most up to date. 10 Q Okay. Have you gone back and tried to 11 determine how many Vanderbilt employees have contracted 12 mesothelioma between 1989 and 2001 --or 2006? 13 A Well, that would require another mortality 14 study. 15 Q Well, it wouldn't, because if they filed 16 claims against you, you would know about them. 17 A Well, what happens is, I think they call them 18 nosologists, that have to review like death 19 certificates. It's not just like the comp claims. 20 People can claim anything on the comp claim. It has to 21 be verified. 22 Q That runs to whether or not the -- how much 23 weight you would want to give to the information that 24 you learned or ascertained as to mesothelioma deaths 25 alleged to have occurred between '89 and 2006. What
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 74
1 I'm asking is, as a --do you still work for 2 Vanderbilt? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Okay. As a person entrusted with health and 5 safety issues at Vanderbilt, have you endeavored to go 6 back and ask the question as to how many people who 7 were Vanderbilt employees contracted mesothelioma 8 between 1989 and 2006, a seventeen-year period after 9 the study was concluded? 10 A I wouldn't do that I would have to retain 11 an epidemiologist to do that. 12 Q Well, does every 13 A But I can tell you that, you know, the main 14 thrust of these mortality studies was to look at the 15 lung cancer to the extent that they reported 16 mesothelioma. In deaths that occurred up to 1989, 17 that's what they reported, and as I mentioned to you 18 earlier, there were two that were reported, and both 19 were dismissed by the authors as not likely linked to 2 0 exposure to the talc for -- and they gave their 21 reasons. 22 Q What were their reasons? 23 A Well, in the one case, which was originally, 24 I think it was a death that occurred in 1975 or 76, 2 5 which covered the study span of the NIOSH effort, the
Page 75
1 first mortality study. The latency was too short for
2 it to be associated with the talc, and in the view of
3 MOSH, and the second one, I think, was a death, it
4 was, I believe, in 1960 -- 1987 or '86, and it involved
5 an individual that had worked as a surveyor above
6 ground in 1948 for a few weeks, and then he opened a
7 business where he removed boilers, furnaces for thirty
8 or forty years. So the authors did not attribute that
9 mesothelioma to exposure to talc. And those are the
10 only two reflected. The other issue in terms of -
11 Q Wait,wait. Goon.
12 A The other issue in terms of plural, in terms
13 of my responsibility as a health professional, is we
14 did test this talc in one animal study that we
15 contracted with, and then we found that there was
16 another animal study that was done, unbeknownst to us,
17 by Merle Stanton at the National Cancer Institute that
18 used our talc.
19
Both of these studies involved one, an
2 0 injection, and one a plural implantation of our product
21 as it is off the shelf into the pleura of rodents. In
22 the case of Smith, I think they were injections, and in
2 3 the case of Stanton it was implantation in a gel.
2 4
In the case of the Smith study, he tested the
2 5 product as a whole, and he also broke it down into the
Page 76
1 component parts; mainly, the amphibole component parts
2 or tremolite, pure from our materials, and he tested it
3 against tremolite asbestos, and of course Stanton had a
4 lot of asbestos samples in his 72 experiments.
5
So, you know, he had essentially the talc put
6 right on the pleura in two different animal studies,
7 which is generally considered the most sensitive study
8 you can do. And we didn't see any tumors, not any, not
9 one, not even background in either study, and all the
10 components of the talc were certainly present in both
11 of these product samples. And the cell study was an
12 effort to look at the talc fiber itself, and because we
13 wondered, well, what if it was more of it? What if it
14 was concentrated, would that produce an affect in
15 mesothelioma cells similar to what would be seen with
16 asbestos fibers?
17
It certainly was a sample that is not
18 representative of any product or sample that anybody is
19 exposed to. But nevertheless, we did that to test that
2 0 hypothesis, and these samples, the asbestos samples
21 acted differently in these - in these mesothelial
2 2 tracheal - mesothelial cells than did the talc fiber,
2 3 you know, in equal amounts.
24 Q You said differently?
25 A Differently, yeah. There were no -- like the
P a g e 77
1 proliferative affects were not there with the talc 2 fibers in the asbestos. 3 Q All right. I want to come back to this. 4 First of all, who commissioned the animal study other 5 than --not the Stanton one, the other one? 6 A The Smith study. That was - Vanderbilt did 7 that. 8 Q And how about the cell study? 9 A The cell study. We commissioned that as 10 well. 11 Q All right. Let m e--1want to ask you about 12 this conclusion that this mesothelioma contracted in 13 1975 or 1976 was --should be dismissed because it was 14 too short for the latency period for mesothelioma, and 15 ask you when that person first started working at the 16 talc mine and facilities? 17 A I - offhand, I don't know the date, but I 18 think the latency was fourteen or fifteen years. 19 Q He had been working for fourteen or fifteen 2 0 years? 21 A That - 1think that was the latency, yes. 22 Q For him? Well 23 A Yeah, for - when he first started working 2 4 for Vanderbilt and his --and his death, I believe that 2 5 was the latency.
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
P age 78
1 Q Okay. So you believe that he started working
2 somewhere around -- in the early '60s?
3 A Yeah, subtract fifteen from whenever it was.
4 I'd have to look at it and find the date. I believe
5 because it was reported by NIOSH and their vital status
6 cutoff I think was 1978, so it obviously would have had
7 to predate that, so I think it was 76 or something
8 like that, so --
9 Q Okay. And for - on what basis did people
10 conclude that fifteen years was too short of a latency
11 period to develop mesothelioma?
12 A Well, that's what the -- that's what the
13 researchers, both NIOSH and the University of Alabama
14 concluded. I realize that --that, you know, people
15 have different spans and low ends and high ends. I
16 know that the average span is typically thirty, forty,
17 sometimes fifty years.
18 Q And you would agree with me that - how many
19 workers are we talking about that worked at Vanderbilt
20 at any given time?
21 A We generally had --
22
MR. WELCH: In what area?
23 Q In the mines and mills.
24 A The total company.
2 5
MR. WELCH: Now, wait a minute. I want
Page 79
1 to make sure we're on the same page here. When
2 you say the mines and mills, you're talking about
3 up at Gouvemeur Talc Company, not in Norwalk and
4 not in other locations?
5
MR. LEVIN: Well, any location where
6 they're exposed to talc is really what I'm trying
7 to get at. I don't want to include people that
8 wouldn't have any talc exposure.
9 A Well, the work population varied. I can give
10 you - 1can give you basics. I know after 1974
11 through about 1984, say ten years, I think probably
1 2 we're talking about maybe a hundred and twenty or a
13 hundred and thirty. From about 1985 through around
14 1995 or 1998, the highest we would go is usually about
15 a hundred and seventy some. And since 1997 or '98,1
16 think we now have close to --I think it's just a
17 hundred. Prior to 1974, I'm not certain, but it would
18 have to have been probably seventy maybe eighty --
19 seventy to ninety, you know, if that. That's a
2 0 rough --a rough range.
21 Q Okay. So the number of people working in the
22 mines and mills that would have been exposed to talc in
2 3 the pre-1974 years, would be in the sort of seventy to
2 4 ninety range; from 74 to '84, it would be like a
2 5 hundred and twenty to a hundred and thirty people. And
P ag e 80
1 from '85 to '95, the highest it would get would be a 2 hundred and seventy, and thereafter, about a hundred 3 would be a ballpark number? 4 A Yeah, in those ranges. I mean, we're not 5 talking about lower than fifty or more than a thousand 6 or anything. 7 Q So you're talking about the --the entire 8 time that we're talking about, from 1948 forward to the 9 present date, there'd be sort of, on the low end, 10 maybe, you know, seventy people working in the mines 11 and mills that are exposed to talc, and the high end 12 maybe a hundred and seventy, something of that order of 13 magnitude? 14 A Yeah, actually, and since you have the Honda 15 paper -16 Q Yes. 17 A --1think that the, you know, the study 1 8 population and they lost very few to follow up. It was 19 very few people they lost, and I think the cohort was 2 0 eight hundred and eighteen, so, that, you know, eight 21 hundred and eighteen people that worked for Vanderbilt 2 2 Talc from 1948 through 1989 for any period of time. 23 Q Right. And clearly from the numbers you just 2 4 gave me, some of those people must have worked there 25 for a short period of time and then left?
Page 81
1 A Yeah. And that was one of the reasons why we
2 kept doing the update study because we did see excess
3 lung cancer, you know, as the studies say, and that
4 excess lung cancer, about two and a half times what you
5 would expect to see, persisted in every single study.
6 And, of course, that is a concern, but the issue was
7 that excess lung cancer associated with exposure to the
8 talc, or was it associated with some other etiology.
9
For example, smoking is a usual one, you
1 0 know, that you have to look at closely. And one of the
1 1 reasons why we asked that question was that we found
1 2 that the excess lung cancer that was - kept being
1 3 reflected in each of these mortality studies, was
1 4 always among the people who worked for the least amount
15 of time. In fact, over fifty percent of the lung
1 6 cancer cases are people who worked for less than a
17 year. Some, you know, one day, four days, seven days,
1 8 eighteen days, versus people who were there up to, you
19 know, for years, up to twenty-some years. They were
2 0 not the ones who were showing the excess lung cancer,
21 and that runs contrary to what you would expect.
2 2
And so that's why we kept - that's why we
2 3 kept doing the update studies to see what was going on.
2 4 That's why we did the case control to figure out
25 whether smoking was playing a role or not. We had to
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 82
Page 84
1 do that to figure that out.
2 Q Okay. And what did you conclude?
3 A Well, it turned out that the more plausible
4 explanation for the excess lung cancer was, in fact,
5 smoking. It turned out that we do, unfortunately, have
6 twice the rate of smoking, you know, in that work
7 population than in the white male population in the
8 U.S. And we also ~ the Honda study is important
9 because we -- we -- and correctly so. We used to be
10 criticized that, well, you know, tenure, you know, the
11 time duration that you're on the j ob was used as a
12 surrogate for exposure. But, you know, that's not the
13 best exposure indicator. The actual dust levels are
14 the best level indicators. And, you know, if you don't
15 have dust exposure data that -- to cover all the years
16 on the job, tenure is your next best bet.
17
And so, when we pointed out that we had this
18 problem, where, why were we seeing the excess among the
19 people who seemed the least exposed in terms of time,
2 0 some researchers would say, well, maybe that's because
21 the people that were there for the shortest time seemed
22 to have a big exposure; they just had more of an
2 3 exposure. Their lungs couldn't clear the dust as
2 4 rapidly because the exposure concentration was greater,
2 5 and so maybe that's the explanation because it does run
1 be 2 Q You would agree -- excuse me? 3 A I'm saying you should see - they should go 4 in tandem. 5 Q Okay. 6 A You shouldn't see a difference there. 7 Q Did any of these studies, the Honda being the 8 most recent, look specifically for the disease 9 mesothelioma? 10 A Well, it was a mortality study, so they 11 listed every cause of death, including mesothelioma. 12 Q So they had to rely - they relied 13 essentially on the death certificate, whatever they 14 said? 15 A Yeah, and I'm not an epidemiologist, but my 16 understanding is that, you know, the thing is - what 17 happens is you obviously have to get all the records 18 from the company for everybody that ever worked there, 19 and then you have to figure out, you know, where they 2 0 are, because a large group of them have, you know, have 21 moved away or retired, and so forth. And then you have 22 to figure out their vital status, alive or dead, and 2 3 where did they die, and then you have to send off and 2 4 get their death certificates from all these different 25 jurisdictions.
Page 83
Page 85
1 contrary to what you see in asbestos-exposed
1
This is why it's not something you do, you
2 populations. So that's -- that's why we did the update
2 know, a company does that. That's why you hire people
3 study. One of the reasons we did the final update
3 to do this because it's a huge project.
4 study was to try to get an actual exposure in terms of
4 Q You don't know whether anybody specifically
5 dust to see whether there was a correlation between
5 in this study looked at the pathology to determine
6 those who were exposed to the most dust and lung cancer 6 whether thirty-one punitive lung cancer deaths were
7 or not.
7 actual lung cancers?
8
And that's why the Honda study is important,
8 A No, they would have to rely on the death
9 because as it turned out, the excess lung cancer or the
9 certificates, and they were - 1think they were
10 people with lung cancer was actually thirty-three -
10 reviewed by someone known as a nosologist, who sort of
11 thirty-one, thirty-two percent less exposed to dust
11 looks at the death certificate to see whether there's
12 than the people who were not. And once again, that's
12 any reference to whether it's a primary or underlying
13 totally opposite in what you see in asbestos exposed
13 cause, you know, that type of information.
14 populations.
14 Q Okay. And you haven't gone to the local
15 Q The lung cancer?
15 hospitals and coroners and that sort of facilities that
16 A Yeah, for lung cancer. And also we noticed
16 maintain records of death in the counties, from St.
17 that for non-malignant respiratory disease, or, you
17 Lawrence County, to determine how many mesothelioma
18 know, pneumoconiosis, which can happen with exposure to 18 deaths there were in Vanderbilt workers after 1989?
19 any mineral dust, including our talc or anybody's talc
19 A No.
20 or any mineral dust, it was opposite, in that the
20 Q Okay.
21 people who were there the longest and were exposed the 21 A We do medical surveillance, but that's for
22 most, tended to - we saw a higher prevalence of
2 2 morbidity.
23 pneumoconiosis ortalcosis.
23 Q Was there any other reason for rejecting this
2 4 Q You would agree with me that -
2 4 mesothelioma that occurred in '74, '75, other than the
E
25 A It should be the same. You know, it should
2 5 latency issue? Was he believed to have worked
|
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 86
1 somewhere else where he was exposed to asbestos like 2 you talked about with the second person? 3 A Not to my knowledge, I don't know whether he 4 did or didn't. 5 Q Okay. Is that underlying -- is the 6 underlying -- we talked about it. Would that be in the 7 underlying data that you have in your files? 8 A No, that would not be in that detail. I just 9 have a little more detail on the actual thirty - - 1 10 think it was thirty-one cases in the last - of lung 11 cancer. I just had a little more detail in the 12 individual cases in my file than is reflected in the 13 report that you have, but nothing beyond that. 14 Q Do you know how the company got involved with 15 Dr. Honda in Japan to do this study? 16 A Well, actually, we contracted with the head 17 of the epidemiology department there, I believe was 18 Elizabeth Delzell, D-E-L-Z-E-L-L, 19 Q Uh-huh. 20 A And all the preliminary reports were done by 21 Elizabeth Delzell and Yasushi Honda was, I believe, a 2 2 grad student. And I don't know why he ended up being 23 the primary author, but really the study - the bulk of 24 the work was done by Elizabeth. 25 Q You would agree with me, based on your prior
Page 87
1 testimony, that Vanderbilt Talc workers do get
2 interstitial fibrosis?
3
MR. WELCH: Would you repeat that?
4 I didn't hear the first part of your question.
5 Q You would agree with me, that based upon your
6 prior testimony that you gave recently, that Vanderbilt
7 Talc workers do get interstitial fibrosis?
8 A Well, yeah. Any talc worker is overexposed,
9 whether it's our talc, Vermont talc, Texas or anywhere
10 else. If they're overexposed, it is possible to get
11 talcosis, which is a pneumoconiosis. It looks
12 radiographically similar to what you see with
13 asbestosis or kaolinosis or any of the minerals, and in
14 our workers, we look at them every two years, actually
15 for that. And I can tell you, and I can provide this
16 as well, as we're sitting here today, about sixty
17 percent of our guys have worked for twenty years or
18 more, and we only have one individual in that entire
19 work group that shows any even modest signs of any
2 0 interstitial fibrosis at all, and that individual came
21 to us from -- in 1974, another talc operation.
22 Q And when did you -- and do you attribute that
23 to improved industrial hygiene at the mines and mills?
24 A Well, the Vanderbilt mine, and there's some
2 5 studies by the New York Health Department in which they
P a g e 88
1 reflect dust data. In those days, back in the '50s, 2 '40s and '60s, they reported it in particle counts, you 3 know, million particles per cubic foot. And there are 4 these published data out by the New York State Health 5 Department that compares some of these dust levels at 6 the various mines in that region at the time 7 Q Uh-huh. 8 A --and they're something on the order of ten 9 to a hundred times greater than whatever was reported 10 at Vanderbilt. I mean, as a hygienist, I always feel 11 that the dust could always be lower and lower, but 12 compared to the other talc operations in that region 13 that are all gone now, it is significantly less. 14 Q When did Vanderbilt first begin to take 15 industrial hygiene measures in its mines and mills to 16 keep the dust levels down? 17 A Well, to begin with, the mine and the mill, 18 the mill in particular, was designed in 1948. I mean, 19 now it's not modem, but it was considered modem dust 2 0 control technology, in that the mill was kept sort of 21 under a positive pressure, or rather a negative - you 22 know, positive pressure. 23 Q Yeah, I know what you mean. 2 4 A So that, you know, when the ore was moved in 2 5 the various ducts and so forth, the air would go into
Page 89
1 the ducts rather than come out. And that -- that 2 that was a major improvement in the mine. The company 3 always used what's known as wet drilling, where you 4 spray water, you know, as you drill 5 Q Uh-huh. 6 A --and that was always done at Vanderbilt, 7 whereas in the other regional mines, that was never 8 done. 9 Q Okay. 10 A And these two things - these two - -1mean, 11 there's many others, but, I mean, these two 12 technologies, wet drilling, positive, you know, 13 pressure mill, closure of the ore movement and so 14 forth, basically made the Vanderbilt mine and mill 15 significantly less dusty, you know, than the other 16 ones. 17 Q Okay. But 18 A And then we continue to take air samples to 19 be sure that the dust levels are kept, you know, at a 2 0 reasonable level and try to make them as low as we can 21 get them. 22 Q Okay. So let me just - there's always been 2 3 positive pressure at the mine and mill? 2 4 A At the mill. In the mine, it's use of water. 25 Q Okay.
23 (Pages 86 to 89)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819~40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
P a g e 90
1 A You know, sort of -- 2 Q Water 3 A -- water like when you drill, which is one of 4 the dustier activities. 5 Q Right. Wet drilling. Okay. 6 A Yeah. And that suppresses the dust levels. 7 Q And that's always been the case, to keep the 8 dust levels down? 9 A Yeah. 10 Q And how long have they been taking air 11 samples there? 12 A Well, the different groups took them over a 13 period of years. As I mentioned, the New York State 14 Health Department has some data that - that would be 15 from Vanderbilt, you know, that dates back, I think, 16 the early '50s, you know, '51 or '52. And then there's 17 some data from the Mine Safety and Health 18 Administration. I think that may date back, certainly 19 into the 70s, and I've been taking air samples there 2 0 myself, even before I started working for Vanderbilt in 21 1985, around 1982, in terms of total respirable dust, 22 that sort of thing. 23 Q Okay. So -- 24 A So there's quite a bit - there's quite a bit 25 of dust data, and I must say it's stayed pretty -- it's
Page 91
1 pretty --over the years, it's gone down over time in
2 the mill, and it's stayed pretty much the same in the
3 mine, because you can do more engineering in the mill.
4
At one time, the mill's dust levels were
5 about the same as the mine, in some cases higher. Then
6 as time has gone on, they've been lower in the mill and
7 a little higher in the mine.
8 Q Okay. But your view, certainly going back to
9 the '50s, '60s, 70s and '80s, Vanderbilt has always
10 been concerned with keeping the dust levels down and
11 has had some industrial hygiene program in place to do
12 that?
13 A Yeah. I mean, the standard that I usually
14 apply is I like to keep the levels no higher than two
15 milligrams per cubic meter of total respirable dust,
16 and usually they - the highest will remain around one
17 for packing and activities like that.
18 Q Okay. And did Vanderbilt provide any masks
19 to its employees in the mines and the mills?
20 A Oh, they always did, but I think religious
21 use of them, as is typical in most of industry, and if
22 I were to say people would use them religiously, I
2 3 would say that probably started in the early '80s
2 4 maybe.
2 5
But they were always made available, you
P a g e 92
1 know, earlier, and the reports that I've heard is that 2 more people at Vanderbilt tended to us respiratory 3 protection than did employees at other, you know, area 4 talc mines. 5 Q Okay. So masks were always provided to the 6 Vanderbilt employees in the mine and the mill, and 7 although they weren't used universally, it's your view 8 that more people used them there than at comparable 9 facilities? 10 A Yeah, yes, and -- and I wouldsay, you know, 11 as part of the -- as part of the original1980 N10SH 12 study, you know, they did mortality but they also did 13 morbidity -14 Q Uh-huh. 15 A - and because they were doing a study, like 16 in the late 70s, they included a lot of workers that 17 we brought in, you know, from like International Talc, 18 which was another operation that we purchased, because 19 you tend to bring in miners who are experienced 20 Q Uh-huh. 21 A - but also you bring in miners that have had 2 2 exposure to a lot more dust, unfortunately. So 2 3 nowadays we sort of reached the point where we're just 2 4 dealing with workers who only had exposure to 2 5 Vanderbilt Talc. And what we're seeing in our medical
P ag e 93
1 surveillance is excellent. But we did see people who
2 showed, you know, signs of pneumoconiosis in the 70s
3 and '80s, and almost invariably these were people who
4 had exposures to these very high dust levels elsewhere.
5 Q Other than positive pressure, the wet
6 drilling, providing masks to your employees, what other
7 things did Vanderbilt do to keep the dust down during
8 the time periods we've been talking about, '50s, '60s,
9 70s and '80s?
10 A Well, those are certainly the key ones, but
11 there was always - there's -- all of the typical
12 controls include housekeeping, where you, you know, you
13 try to remove the dust from rafters and from the
14 floors, you know, so it's not regenerated when fork
15 lifts roll over them or the vibration of the equipment
16 regenerates the settled dust, so you try to vacuum, you
17 know, that material so it does not become entrained
18 again in the air. And more recent years, last ten
19 years or so, we've provided like operator booths in the
2 0 mills, where -- where the controls are in a secluded
21 room where an operator can, you know, push the buttons
2 2 and monitor the equipment without being actually out on
2 3 the --out on the mill floor. That's a big control.
2 4
One of the biggest dust areas that any mine
25 is concerned about is the packing area, as you can
24 (Pages 90 to 93 )
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
P a g e 94
Page 96
1 imagine. And so, you know, there are local exhaust
2 systems at those packing stations to, you know, to tty
3 to control the dust at the source. Those are the
4 typical, you know, dust controls, controls that you
5 see.
6 Q Okay. And how far back was Vanderbilt aware
7 that there were health hazards associated with exposure
8 to excessive amounts of dust at its talc mines and
9 mills?
10 A Well, I can't speak for, you know, Vanderbilt
11 as if it were, you know, one entity. I can tell you
12 that my -- you know, I can assume that - when I came
13 to Vanderbilt or when I did work for them, when I
14 worked for an insurance company, I did contract work
15 for the company taking air samples and industrial
16 hygiene. They certainly seemed to be aware that you
17 wanted to keep dust levels low and that overexposure to
18 talc dust or any mineral dust could be, you know,
19 hazardous to a person's health.
2 0
(THE DEPOSITION OFF THE RECORD.)
21
MR. LEVIN: Okay. I'll be back in a
22 second then.
23 BY MR. LEVIN:
24 Q When did you work for them for an insurance
2 5 company?
1 A No, it was just a service that the insurance 2 company provided. I would do that for many companies. 3 Q Okay. And going back to this time when you 4 were working with Vanderbilt on behalf of Hartford, it 5 was clear to you that they were concerned about keeping 6 the dust levels down? 7 A Yes, yes, it was - - 1 was pretty impressed by 8 the efforts they made. 9 Q Okay. And in your capacity as the custodian 10 of the mineralogie and health documents, which you've 11 reviewed on occasion and in your capacity now and over 12 the years with the company, was it clear to you that 13 the concern of Vanderbilt, in terms of keeping the dust 14 levels down, predated your association with them when 15 you worked at Hartford? 16 A I would say so, yes. 17 Q Okay. And without pushing you into an area 18 that you're not not uncomfortable --that you're 19 uncomfortable with, how far back, is it clear to you, 2 0 based on the documents you've seen and everything 21 you've learned working through Vanderbilt, was it that 2 2 Vanderbilt first exhibited this concern about keeping 23 the dust levels down in the mines and the mills? 24 A Well, you know, it's --1don't know if I 2 5 would characterize it as first exhibited concern. I
Page 95
P a g e 97
1 A It was in the early '80s, I would say, from,
1 think it --it would - from looking at the dust data
2 say, 1981 or'82 until 1985 when I worked for them
2 that the New York State Health Department had
3 permanently.
3 published, it looked --you know, I could see the
4 Q What kind of insurance company?
4 disparity in the overall dust levels of that operation,
5 A Well, I worked for Hartford Insurance
5 of the Vanderbilt operation in comparison to the other
6 Company.
6 talc operations in that region, so I would --I
7 Q That one of its insurers?
7 would - I think it's reasonable to assume from that
8 A At the time it was, yes.
8 comparison that, you know, some thought went into
9 Q And so what -- in what capacity were the
9 building the mill and the wet -- using wet technology
10 insurers involved through you with health issues?
10 so they - you know, it would seem that they were
11 A Well, the Hartford covered Vanderbilt for
11 concerned about that and interested in keeping dust
12 Workmen's Comp, among other coverages, I think auto
12 levels down from the get go.
13 liability and third-party product liability and so
13 Q Okay. And how far does New York - was the
14 forth. And I worked out of the New York office as a
14 New York State Department of Health air monitoring
15 hygienist and risk reviewer. And I was asked by the
15 stuff earlier than mine safety? Which is the earliest?
16 individual that was, what they call servicing the
16 A I believe it would be the New York State
17 Vanderbilt account, if I would go to the various
17 Health Department.
18 Vanderbilt locations, not only the talc mine but
18 Q Okay. The New York State Health Department
19 others, and do industrial hygiene monitoring and
19 air sampling goes back to -- well, dust levels goes
20 provide reports to the company and make recommendations 2 0 back to what date?
21 as to how to improve dust and chemical exposures and so 21 A Well, there are --there's some tables that
22 forth.
2 2 reflect data into the '40s.
23 Q Was that because Hartford was concerned about 23 Q Okay. So in - and you have those tables?
2 4 receiving claims or because they had already received
24 A Yes.
2 5 claims?
25 Q And are those among the materials you've
u iu i
.m .L uujijJL i m u
w ji
25 (Pages 94 to 97)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
P a g e 98
Page 100 i
1 produced to me?
2 A No, they're not.
3 Q Could you produce those to counsel so he can
4 review them?
5 A Send you the tables?
6 Q Well, the whole New York State dust air level
7 monitoring and mine safety air monitoring, all that
8 stuff, I'd like to see it.
9 A (Indicating.)
10
MR. WELCH: Again, I'm reserving the
11 objection on that, depending on what it shows or
12 whether or not it seems to be pertinent.
13
MR. LEVIN: I just want to get to first
14 base so that he gives it to you so that if you
15 have a problem with it you can tell me, and if not
16 you'll produce it.
17
MR. WELCH: Okay.
18
MR. LEVIN: All right. Thank you.
19 BY MR. LEVIN:
20 Q So as early as the 1940's, Vanderbilt, in
21 conjunction with the New York State Health Department,
22 was measuring dust levels in its air, in its mines and
23 mills in New York State?
24 A Well, the New York State Health Department
25 published dust data; whether Vanderbilt asked them to
1 exposure to talc dust?
2 A Well, based on what I've seen in the
3 historical files, copies of which I think I saw in
4 documents that you provided to me --in fact, I'm
5 looking for one now. Oh, it would be - it would be on
6 the -- I'm looking at the - the -- the old MSDS's that
7 you sent.
8 Q Uh-huh.
9 A Now 75 and so forth.
10 Q Yeah.
11 A And I look at the section, special precaution
12 section --
13 Q Uh-huh.
14 A - 5, avoid breathing dust, use respirators
15 in TLV exceeded, and then they give the TLVs at the
16 time that existed for these mineral components.
17 Q Uh-huh.
18 A And actually, for 1975, you know, that's --
19 that's not bad. I mean, obviously now it's a whole lot
20 more exhaustive, but in those days, veiy few companies
21 even produced material safety data sheets. In fact, I
22 don't think they were even required to do that until
23 the '80s.
24
So they warn people about breathing dust, and
25 they tell them not to breath excessive dust, and
Page 99
Page 101
1 take it or how that was done, I don't know. 2 Q Okay. You don't know who initiated the 3 monitoring of the dust data at Vanderbilt mines that 4 the New York State Department of Health did in the 5 '40s? 6 A No, I don't know. I don't know whether that 7 was a routine or a special project, I don't know how 8 that worked. 9 Q Okay. And do you know who initiated the 10 Bureau of Mine Safety air monitoring -11 A Well, that would be the mine act, which tells 12 the Mine Safety and Health Administration that they 13 must, you know, visit each mining facility. If it's an 14 above-ground mine, twice a year, if it's an underground 15 mine, four times a year, and part of those visits 16 include, on occasion, dust sampling. 17 Q And when did that begin? 18 A Well, off and on, probably --I think I've 19 seen MSHA data certainly back into the early '80s. 20 There may be some in the late 70s. I don't think MSHA 21 was in existence prior to 75. I'd have to check, but 22 I think that's true. 23 Q Okay. And could you tell me upon what date 24 Vanderbilt Talc first began to warn its customers about 25 the risk, health risks associated with excessive
1 excessive would be dust that exceeded the established
2 threshold limit values, which at the time were
3 reflected on the material safety data sheets, so as a
4 hygienist, that's what I would use to determine whether
5 or not the dust was risky or not.
6 Q Okay. So at least as early as the 75
7 material data safety sheet, you're pointing to this
8 language in section 5, special precautions -
9 A That's all I have to look at sure.
10 Q --right? Do you know if it was contained in
11 any earlier material safety data sheets?
12 A I don't know when the earliest material
13 safety data sheet was produced for talc. I thought it
14 might be maybe 1972, which may be a couple years
15 earlier. They all look the same or very similar.
16 Q Do you have those?
17 A I can check. I don't know that I can find
18 one that is -
19
MR. WELCH: I thought we gave him the
20 ones we could find.
21 A Oh, okay. I know we did a whole -
22 Q There's one that I can barely read that says
23 oldest pre 74 --
24 A That's probably right.
25 Q --but it's blank.
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 102
Page 104
1
MR. WELCH: We're not picking on you. I
2 can't read it either.
3 Q But it doesn't seem to have a section 5.
4 A Yeah, it may not. I mean, I'd have to look
5 but I -- as I said, it wasn't common for companies to
6 even produce material safety data sheets in the 70s. I
7 think the --the OSHA Hazcom standard, I think, took
8 effect in the early -- in the mid '80s or something. I
9 think that required all companies to produce them up to
10 a certain standard, as stipulated in the Hazcom
11 standard.
12 Q Okay. In the earliest -- what is the
13 earliest date that there was a caution label, or
14 warning label put on the actual bags of talc sold,
15 health warning?
16 A Health warning in the sense of what? Do not
17 breath excessive dust or something like that?
18 Q Yeah.
19 A I don't know. I --I think I've seen, in the
20 70s for sure. Earlier, I'm not certain. I'd have to
21 check. I would to have look.
22 Q Okay. Well, let me direct your attention to
23 a document that you've produced to me -
24 A Uh-huh.
25 Q --interoffice memorandum, date, January 19,
1 Q Yeah. And in the 18th --let's go to the
2 18th then. It says Hal Harvey is forwarding you copies
3 of this letter dated January 18th, 1978. On the
4 subject of talc labeling, when you start this program,
5 you will be hand testing the bags, and it's probably
6 not possible to apply the caution label to every bag.
7
And there there's a bunch more language, but
8 would this, in your mind, mean that the first labels
9 warning customers, labels on the packaging, talc
10 packaging warning customers about health hazards began
11 in 1978?
12
MR. WELCH: If you know.
13 A If I know? I don't know for sure. It would
14 suggest it.
15 Q Okay. So you would agree with me that based
16 on at least this letter, the suggestion is that
17 Vanderbilt first began putting a health warning on its
18 talc packaging sometime around January 18th, 1978?
19 A That's what the memo suggests. Whether it's
20 true or not, I don't know.
21 Q Okay. And then -- all right. Have you
22 looked through -- one of the things I asked about was
23 warnings on packages. Have you looked through your
24 documents to determine whether there are any other
25 documents on the subject of -- warnings on packages and
Page 103
Page 105
1 1978 to Mr. Streitmatter from Mr. Erdman. Copies to
2 Vanderbilt, Noland, Harvey, Thompson and Niehaus.
3 A What number is that? I'm sorry.
4 Q What -- say that again?
5 A Do you have the number?
6
MR. WELCH: This is the ones we sent
7 him.
8 A Oh, the ones you sent him.
9
MR. WELCH: I showed you that.
10 A That's the health stuff.
11
MR. WELCH: I think that's what he's
12 talking about.
13 Q I'll read it to you while you're looking for
14 it.
15 A Yeah, I think I can find it.
16 Q Okay.
17 A Okay. Yeah. It's dated January 18th, 78?
18 Q 19th.
19 A 19thor 18th? Thissays 18th. Amlwrong?
20
MR. WELCH: This one says 18th.
21 Q Really? Well -
22
MR. WELCH: Well, there's two.
23 Q There's one, if you turn the page.
24
MR. WELCH: Yeah, there's one on the
25 18th, one on the 19th.
1 health warnings to customers in the Vanderbilt records, 2 other than the ones that have been produced to me? 3 A I believe that these -- this is actually --1 4 believe that this is probably the earliest references 5 that I could find. It's not to say that there might be 6 others in the archives someplace that I didn't see or 7 didn't find, but I think these are -- if you ask me, 8 these are the earliest ones I could find. 9 Q Okay. My question is, are these the only 10 ones, because sometimes when there's -11 A Right. 12 Q Yeah. Sometimes a company does subsequent 13 discussion and modifications of the warning and 14 packaging as time goes on. Is there a file somewhere 15 or set of documents that relate to the package warning 16 that you're aware of? 17 A Yeah. I would have to say that I really - 1 18 don't feel comfortable answering this. I mean, it's 19 way before my time, and obviously my focus is what 20 happens once I'm here and how good things are and not 21 what happened, you know, years and years earlier. 22 Q Well, in your capacity as the person most 23 knowledgeable for Vanderbilt produced on the issues of 24 packaging and warnings between -25 A Right.
27 (Pages 102 to 105)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 106
Page 108
1 Q -- '60 and 1985, have to spoken to anyone to 2 inform yourself as to things that you may not have been 3 aware of that may have proceeded you? 4 A Well, I have a file that I believe was a 5 historical record of labels and MSDS's, and the 6 documents that you have, the MSDS's that you have, 7 these two letters came from that file. 8 Q Okay. Well, could you produce that file to 9 counsel so I can see the rest of it? 10 A I can look at it. I'm not sure that you 11 don't pretty much have it, but -12 Q Well, that's what I'd like you to do. My 13 earlier question was whether you've spoken to anybody 14 at the company about the warnings and packaging, 15 vis-a-vis health, in order to better inform yourself in 16 your capacity as the person most knowledgeable in 17 preparation for this deposition? 18 A I've spoken to, you know, Vanderbilt 19 employees about historical labeling. I wouldn't say I 20 did it in preparation for this deposition. Just out of 21 curiosity and understanding, I have done that. I 22 particularly, you know, as it pertains to these -- 23 these issues on, you know, the mineralogy in the 24 confusion and so forth, I kind of wanted to know the 25 history of that a little bit.
1 can do."
2
And that's from Mr. Streitmatter, from
3 Erdman, CC Vanderbilt, Noland, Harvey, Thompson and
4 Niehaus. You see that?
5 A Yeah.
6 Q Do you know what they meant, that it was the
7 best they could do?
8 A No. It could mean any number of things.
9 Sometimes I know that labeling issues that we have now,
10 veiy often it's the size of the letters and how they're
11 going to fit on the bag, you know, issues like that.
12 Q Okay.
13 A How they are going to get on the bag. Is it
14 going - do we have to stencil them on, can we have the
15 bags preprinted, you know, there's issues of that sort,
16 so I really don't know in what way they meant this.
17 Q Okay. You know what it means when they say
18 the labels are not real good?
19 A That's what I mean, I don't really know what
20 the meant by that.
21 Q Hopefully they're better than the copy I
22 have.
23 A Hopefully they are, yeah. I think that these
24 two --I think they probably - it looks like they say
25 the same thing, don't you think?
Page 107
Page 109
1 Q Okay. Okay. Have you gone back through the 2 records, particularly that file, to see if these are, 3 in fact, the only documents pertaining to the history 4 of packaging and warning, vis-a-vis health hazards of 5 Vanderbilt? 6 A I'll look again. I think they are, but I'll 7 look again. 8 Q Well, when did you last look at them? 9 A Well, I probably --within a year, I would 10 say. 11 Q Did you - but you didn't look at them 12 specifically -- 13 A For this case? 14 Q - with respect to the requests that have 15 been made in this notice and production of documents in 16 this case? 17 A No. 18 Q In fact, the first time you did anything with 19 respect to the notice and request for documents in this 20 case was yesterday, correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q All right. Turning to January 19th. I can't 23 read the caution label, but I can read the text above 24 it, and it says "We are the first one to admit that 25 these labels are not real good, but it's the best we
1 Q I'm assuming that, too. 2 A Yeah. 3 Q Now, who were these people that were copied 4 on this -5 A Okay. 6 Q - office memorandum within the company? 7 A Well, it was two -- let's see, the one on 8 19 -- January 1978, Vem Steitmatter. 9 Q Uh-huh. 10 A You have --if my memory serves me correctly, 11 it's -- the Streitmatter was sort of the - like the 12 vice president in charge of production. He oversaw the 13 production facility, the chemical plant and the 14 mines -- 15 Q Uh-huh. 16 A - okay? And he was an engineer. George 17 Erdman, who was writing, you know, to Mr. 18 Steitmatter -- 19 Q Uh-huh. 20 A --George Erdman is a mining engineer, and he 21 was the general manager for Gouvemeur Talc. 22 Q Okay. 23 A Now, you want to know about the CC or XC or 24 whatever it is there? 25 Q Yeah.
28 (Pages 106 to 109)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 110
Page 112
1 A Well, obviously H.B. Vanderbilt is -- was the 2 CEO of the company. 3 Q Uh-huh. 4 A T.T. Noland was the vice president, 5 administrative, you know, chief executive officer. 6 Q Uh-huh. 7 A A.M. Harvey was in some ways my predecessor. 8 Q Uh-huh. 9 A C.S. Noland is actually a --Dr. Thompson, he 10 is a mineralogist -- 11 Q Uh-huh. 12 A --and was in charge of research and 13 development, minerals. And J.P. Niehaus was the 14 director of research and development. 15 Q Okay. 16 A Okay. 17 Q Is Mr, Harvey still alive? 18 A I believe so. 19 Q When you say he was sort of your predecessor, 20 what do you mean? 21 A If-- well, he -- he --I think he was called 22 the director of environmental affairs, who oversaw the 23 production, the original production and material safety 24 data sheets and had a lot to do with product 25 registration issues.
1 Q Okay. 2 A And did I say - - 1don't know the status of 3 Mr. Niehaus. 4 Q Are these the same Vanderbilts, the famous 5 Vanderbilts in New York? You can visit their mansions 6 and stuff like that? 7 A I wish it were. No, it's not. 8 Q All right. 9 A No, I don't think they're related. 10 Q Okay. On the animal study that Vanderbilt 11 commissioned, did they inject the asbestiform fibrous 12 talc into the animals? 13 A To the extent it's present in the product, 14 yes. 15 Q But they didn't separately do that, look for 16 it? 17 A No. There was separation. It was the 18 product as is. The only thing they separated was the 19 tremolite, you know, the amphibole cleavage fragment 20 tremolite from our ore. The non-asbestiform variety, 21 chiysotile variety, and they tested that against the 22 tremolite variety from Korea, you know, the actual, the 23 real thing. 24 Q Well, how many samples did they take, because 2 5 based on the rareness of this fibrous talc only being
Page 111
Page 113
1
A woman worked for him who was an attorney
2 that did patents, and when issues arose over, you know,
3 asbestos definitions and regulations and so forth,
4 beginning with the, you know, first OSHA standard in
5 1972, he was given the assignment to basically, you
6 know, monitor that, and whether or not it pertained to
7 Vanderbilt, and if it did and how and so forth.
8 Q Do you know where he lives?
9 A He lives in Wilton, I believe, Wilton,
10 Connecticut.
11 Q When was the last time you talked to him?
12 A I think I saw him about --it had to be maybe
13 seven or eight months ago.
14 Q Okay. Who else on this memo is still alive?
15 A Well, on the January 18th -- I'm sorry, you
16 mean the January 19th?
17 Q Yes.
18 A Dr. Thompson is.
19 Q And where does he live?
20 A He lives in Norwalk, Connecticut here.
21 Q Okay.
22 A And I don't know - I know, you know,
23 Mr. Vanderbilt is deceased; Mr. Noland is deceased;
24 Mr. Streitmatter is deceased; Mr. Erdman is still
25 alive. He is retired. He lives in North Carolina.
1 in one percent of the talc, I'm curious as to whether
2 that could have been missed?
3 A Well, I don't know. I think that sample was
4 characterized - I'm hying to think. I know the
5 Stanton samples were characterized, looked at by
6 Dr. Wylie. I'm not sure if the samples that were used
7 by Smith were. There is another --it was a --
8 Q Well, is there any way you could tell whether
9 any of the material injected into the animals in
10 either --
11 A Well, for certain in the Stanton.
12 Q Okay. And did it have fibrous talc or not?
13 A It definitely did, but he actually
14 reported - you know, as you said, his classic study
15 was the idea that, you know, long, thin - you know,
16 the samples that contained the highest proportion of
17 long, thin durable fibers would -- his theory was that
18 they would be the most carcinogenic, and that's what he
19 was testing, so each sample that he tested he carefully
20 measured all the, you know, the particulate in terms of
21 length and width to see whether that hypothesis held
22 true, and in general it did. There were some
2 3 exceptions.
24
And the Vanderbilt Talc samples was one of
25 the exceptions, because he actually had a lot of
29 (Pages 110 to 113)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 114
P a g e 116 j
1 numbered fibers that met his critical dimension, which
1 maybe --in some cases maybe fifteen, twenty miles.
2 is less than a half --quarter micrometer in width and
2 Q And do they all sharefthe same vein, so to
3 longer than, I think it was -- what was it, eighteen or
3 speak?
4 twenty, something like that. And that sample, based on
4 A No, I don't believe so. I think there is
5 his hypothesis should have produced something like
5 some literature on the geology of the area, and they
6 thirty, forty percent tumors, and it produced none.
6 refer to different deposits with some different names.
7 And that's the only material -- you know, talc fiber is
7 We mine in one deposit, some other talc operation
8 the only thing that would have those dimensions, so
8 operated in other areas.
9 obviously they were present in the sample.
9 Q Okay. And it says the hub of this industry
10 Q And what did he find with respect to fibrous
10 was Gouvemeur, home of several talc mines, one of
11 talc?
11 which is still operational. Is Gouvemeur where your
12 A Well, I just said they were present in the
12 talc mine is?
13 sample, so whatever they were, you know, that's what he 13 A Yeah. The -- Gouvemeur is a town, and our
14 got, and the sample was representative of the product.
14 talc mine and mill is roughly about five miles, you
15 Q But how do we know that the sample contains
15 know, to the east.
16 fibrous talc, that's what I'm trying to find out?
16 Q And how many talc mines are there in
17 A Oh, because there is a --a --a -- I'll send
17 Gouvemeur?
18 you this, too. It's a study that --that looked at the
18 A Well, there are none in Gouvemeur. As of
19 relationship between fiber width and tumor promotion
19 1974, the only talc operation in that region has been
20 across a number of studies, animal studies, of which
20 Vanderbilt.
21 Stanton was one of many. And in order to do that
21 Q What's the closest --other than Vanderbilt,
22 study, the authors wanted, one of which I was an
22 to Gouvemeur?
23 author, had samples that were available from some of
23 A Well, there are no more in operation.
24 these studies analyzed and measured, and the samples
24 Q How about historically?
25 that were used by Stanton were the samples that were
25 A Probably have to - 1think there are
Page 115
Page 117
1 analyzed and measured and characterized, and in that 2 study there is a description of those - of those 3 samples, and it specifically relays, you know, talc 4 fiber components. 5 Q All right. Now, are you familiar with the 6 2002 Hall, Abraham and Case article called Mesothelioma 7 Among Workers in Asbestiform Fiber Bearing Talc Mines 8 in New York State? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And those are mines in -- are these talc 11 mines that they referred to in St. Lawrence County, the 12 Vanderbilt Talc mines or are there other talc mines 13 there? 14 A I believe his reference was to all talc mines 15 in that region, so it would have includedjust that, 16 all talc mines in that region, which would have 17 included Vanderbilt and any number of others. 18 Q Okay. How many talc mines are there there? 19 A Well, that was interesting enough. That 20 region was the area for the first talc mine in the 21 United States, and I think it was somewhere in the area 22 of maybe - at least, I would say, ten, probably there 23 may be more. 24 Q But how close to each other were they? 25 A It varied. I would say within a radius of
1 references to that. I don't have them in front of me, 2 but I think they could be gotten to you. 3 Q All right. Now, in the article -- do you 4 know who Dr. Case is? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Okay. And you know Dr. Abraham? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And Dr. Hall? 9 A I think Dr. Hall was a grad -- graduate 10 student working for -- 11 Q Okay. And this is published in American 12 Occupational Hygiene? 13 A A sa supplement, yes. 14 Q Yes. And you said that why? 15 A Because it was not a peer reviewed -- full 16 peer reviewed paper. 17 Q Okay. Is this the most recent paper on this 18 subject of talc and disease? 19 A Well, it's a case study. 20 Q Well, whatever it is, is it the most recent 21 one that you're aware of? 22 A I believe so. 23 Q Okay. Now, they say that - that one of the 24 two counties is among the ten highest counties in terms 25 of mesothelioma mortality up until 1981. Do you see
30 (Pages 114 to 117)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 118
Page 120
1 that? 2 A Yes. I believe it was the county to the 3 south of St. Lawrence. I think was Jefferson County. 4 Q Jefferson County? 5 A That's right. 6 Q And - and --and -- and - and what would 7 your hypothesis be for why that is? 8 A I don't know. All die talc mines were 9 located in St. Lawrence. 10 Q Okay. Does everybody who works in the St. 11 Lawrence talc mines live in St. Lawrence? 12 A I don't know. My guess is there may be a 13 few, but that would be a guess. 14 Q All right. 15 A Oh, no. It would be the other way around. 16 Likely more would live in the county where the talc 17 mines are than in the county where the talc mines are 18 not. 19 Q Okay. But this is an article about talc 20 miners and millers not just people, correct? 21 A Well, he -- he uses - he uses the mortality, 22 you know, the mesothelioma rates in New York State as a 23 support. He uses it as an indicator, suggestive 24 indicator, and I think he says it with some 25 qualification that the elevated mesothelioma rate in --
1 Q Sounds like the --do you have histology 2 slides for your Honda study? 3 A Well, the Honda study isjust a straight 4 forward epidemiologic mortality study. They wouldn't 5 be doing pathology, you know, to confirm or deny, you 6 know, a diagnosis. They have to rely on the death 7 certificates. 8 Q They didn't use histology slides? 9 A No, you would be --it would be -- no, it's 10 just a straight forward classic epidemiologic mortality 11 study that relies upon death certificates that are 12 confirmed and gone over by a nosologist. 13 Q Okay. So they didn't use histology slides in 14 the Honda or in the Abraham study, correct? 15 A Or in the Abraham study? 16 Q Correct. 17 A No. He did have -- he did have slides or 18 tissue samples for, I think it was three of the cases. 19 I believe that -- 20 Q Okay. So why are you quibbling with the 21 absence of histology slides, I'm trying to get at? 22 A Well, you asked me about the Honda study. 2 3 The Honda study is a mortality study that operates off 24 of death certificates. 2 5 Q I understand that. But you were willing to
Page 119
Page 121
1 what is the county to the south, Jefferson? 2 Q Yes. 3 A He suggests that that could be due to an 4 environmental exposure prompted by talc operations. 5 And he doesn't say --he can't say that for an absolute 6 certainty, he just says it's suggestive. 7 Q All right. It says eight talc miners have 8 been previously identified in other studies as having 9 mesothelioma. You see that? 10 A Uh-huh, yes. 11 Q And now they find five new cases of 12 mesothelioma among talc workers, you see that? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Now we're talking about fourteen cases of 15 mesothelioma among talc workers, is that right? 16 A I don't think so. I think your arithmetic is 17 probably off. He basically talks about -18 Q Thirteen. Thirteen. 19 A He basically talks about what he refers to as 20 five new cases -- 21 Q Yeah. 22 A --of which there's only histology slides 23 available, I think, for three. The other -- the other 24 two were there because they showed up either on a comp 25 record or on a death certificate.
1 accept the death certificates in the Honda study as
2 showing --
3 A What?
4 Q -- no increase in mesothelioma?
5 A No, they reported to.
6 Q But you're requiring histology slides in the
7 other paper, I'm trying to figure out why?
8 A Well, these are two very different types of
9 studies.
10 Q I understand that, they're different in many
11 ways, but the one way they're common is that neither
12 one relied on histology.
13 A Well, you know, look --
14 Q Partially.
15 A First of all, to tty to compare, you know,
16 a ~ a lung-burdened case study with an epidemiologic
17 study is problematic to begin with. Secondly, you
18 know, part of the - one of the reasons it's
19 problematic is because you really don't have, in the
20 whole study, really a good work history on any of
21 these -- any of these cases or controls. You don't
22 have good descriptions of why the - you know, the
23 controls were picked. He had some forty some to look
24 for, why did he pick thirteen? What prompted that?
25
What about why --there's lots of issues,
31 (Pages 118 to 121)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 122
Page 124
1 lots of issues about the comparison between what's
2 found in the various lung tissues and whether or not
3 the use of SEM selected electronmycroscopy is
4 sufficiently sensitive to pick up what Hull refers to
5 as commercial asbestos. Most mineralogists and
6 analysts will tell you it is not sensitive enough for
7 that.
8 Q You could - sir -
9 A There's a lot of issues.
10 Q - you could always find flaws in every
11 paper, and I can find many in lots of papers, but
12 wouldn't the responsible thing be to do when you have a
13 finding -
14 A Yeah.
15 Q - that says, you know, there's -- there's
16 mesothelioma occurring in talc workers, and
17 mesothelioma is a disease that occurs in one per
18 million in the general population per year and only one
19 per ten thousand lifetime risk.
20
Now, there could be a lot of explanations for
21 this having to do with other employment and whatnot,
22 but one of the possible explanations is that something
23 about talc mining is causing mesothelioma and I've got
24 to look at this further. Wouldn't that be the
25 responsible way to approach this?
1 who are actually exposed to asbestos do show these
2 diseases, and other human studies of people who are
3 exposed to, let's say, amphibole cleavage fragments as
4 a group, like home stake mining, reserve mining, they
5 do not show excess cancer associated with those types
6 of exposures.
7
So, you know, when -- you have to look at the
8 totality of the evidence. Not one study -- because
9 you're right, every study has strengths and every study
10 has weaknesses, but you can't hang your hat on a single
11 study. You have to look at the totality of the
12 evidence.
13 Q The problem is that no study can be large
14 enough to capture much of an excess incidence of a
15 disease that only occurs in one per million. You
16 should be able to go centuries without getting a
17 mesothelioma -- single mesothelioma in a talc worker,
18 and if you got one, it would be one of those background
19 cases, but you should never get two. And you have more
20 than two. You have - you have the comp claims, which
21 you're refusing to produce; you have the two in Honda
22 study, which you want to discount, and we have
23 potentially all the people that have been diagnosed
24 with it after 1989 that the Honda study doesn't cover.
25 A Well, I don't know what to say to that.
Page 123
Page 125
1 A If you didn't have any animal data that
2 suggests otherwise; if you didn't have epidemiologic
3 work that suggests otherwise; if you didn't have
4 morbidity studies and medical surveillance programs or
5 you look at the lung disease guides every couple years
6 and compare them against what is seen in true asbestos
7 exposed populations for similarities, that would be the
8 case, but that's not the case -
9 Q Well -
10 A --a lot more is known about this.
11 Q --in almost every case involving chrysotile
12 products, including the counsel representing
13 Vanderbilt, come up against the issue of animal
14 studies, their response is animal studies are not
15 reliable, because they show chrysotile causes
16 mesothelioma in animals, and we can't rely on animal
17 studies, so let's throw that out.
18 A Well, when you take tremolite asbestos, for
19 example, and you put it right on the pleura ofjust
20 about any animal, and you take the non-asbestiform
21 variety of the tremolite and put it in the same place
22 under the same test conditions, every single time you
23 see totally different results. That's pretty
24 consistent.
25
And you know from human studies that people
1
MR. WELCH: Was that a question?
2
MR. LEVIN: Just an observation.
3
MR. WELCH: Well, he's not going to
4 respond to an observation.
5
MR. LEVIN: I don't expect you to.
6
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I have a
7 problem with the whole paper, and I've asked
8 people to review it for me who have more knowledge
9 in pathology and statistics and mineralogy than I
10 do, and I've been advised that this is a terrible
11 paper, terrible in the sense of poor science.
12 BY MR. LEVIN:
13 Q Well, are you disputing that the five people
14 got mesothelioma?
15 A There's only - I think that there are
16 only --1think that there are pathologists who would
17 tell you that the --that the staining techniques in
18 some of the work that was done, not on all five, but on
19 some of them was insufficient to make that diagnosis.
20 On a couple others they might say it was. But I think
21 that --
22 Q What would you say to me -
23 A --that's an issue that has to be taken up by
24 people who are more expert on pathology and statistics
25 in comparison to myself.
[
32 (Pages 122 to 125)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
P a g e 126
1 Q All right. Let me ask you this: You're also 2 tendered as an expert. Let'sjust assume that the five 3 people, in fact, got mesothelioma, and, in fact, were 4 talc miners. And in fact, that was their only 5 employment. Would you agree with me that that's too 6 many mesotheliomas in talc workers to allow you to 7 continue to conclude that talc exposure doesn't cause 8 mesothelioma? 9 A If I had all those ifs and ands, it would 10 concern me, but we do have all those ifs and ands and 11 we do have other data that -- that, you know, that 12 sometimes people don't have, and if I didn't have the 13 other data, yes, I would be more concerned. 14 Q Would you also be concerned to learn that 15 even in the Honda study, the person who got 16 mesothelioma in 1976 was well within the accepted 17 latency for contracting mesothelioma and had no other 18 exposure to asbestos other than working in the talc 19 mines? 20 A Well, I don't know if that's true or not, 21 that he had no other exposure, and I'm not sure that 2 2 fifteen years is really a reasonable lower end. 23 Q That's outside your area of expertise, right? 2 4 A It is, and what I've read, I've heard people 2 5 argue all over the place on that.
Page 127
1 Q Okay. Well, if the latency period for 2 contracting mesothelioma is longer than fifteen years, 3 you would agree with me that that's one of the flaws in 4 the Honda study, in that they stopped in 1989, and many 5 of the workers did not have exposure commencing in 6 1948? 7 A Many did not, you know, but interestingly, as 8 I mentioned to you earlier, we do do medical 9 surveillance, and as we sit here, it's over sixty 10 percent of that work population today has more than 11 twenty years of exposure. 12 Q What is the nature of this surveillance? 13 A Well, you know, like most companies, we do 14 chest X-rays of our workers every couple years. We 15 have to do hearing tests every year, part of the law 16 for noise exposure. We do pulmonary function testing. 17 We have the X-rays immediately read at the hospital by 18 a radiologist, and then I also have a pulmonary 19 specialist from the University of North Carolina review 2 0 them, you know, several weeks later, because he's a 21 specialist in occupational pulmonary medicine. 22 Q Okay. And from the beginning of time up 2 3 until the present date with your surveillance 2 4 operation, how many Vanderbilt employees have 2 5 contracted mesothelioma, that you know of?
Page 128
1 A That I know of?
2 Q Yes. That you have information concerning.
3 A I --I would only really --you know, I don't
4 even feel comfortable talking about the two in the
5 mortality studies. I don't even know if that diagnosis
6 was correct.
7
MR. WELCH: And he is not offered as an
8 expert in the diagnosis of mesothelioma.
9 Q Okay. If the - if the - if the standard is
10 going to be that anyone who has mesothelioma -- and we
11 don't really know if they really have it. I understand
12 that. But what I'm trying to ask you is something
13 different.
14
If from the beginning of time, how many
15 Vanderbilt former employees or current employees are
16 you aware of that have allegedly contracted
17 mesothelioma? I'm not asking you to confirm their
18 diagnosis, but where somebody believes they had
19 mesothelioma?
20
MR. WELCH: Well-
21 A I don't know. 1don't know who believes they
22 do.
23 Q Well, is it more than twenty?
2 4
MR. WELCH: Oh, come on.
25 A Oh, come on. Oh, heavens no.
Page 129
1 Q More than fifty?
2 A Well, if it's not more than twenty it
3 certainly cannot be more than fifty.
4 Q Okay. Is it more than fifteen?
5 A Oh, look, Ijust -- I'm not in a position to
6 answer that.
7
MR. WELCH: This is outside the scope of
8 what he's being offered for.
9 Q Ifs actually not, and ifs very pertinent to
10 all the answers he's given, so ifs actually within the
11 scope of the PMK and with his -- in the scope of the
12 area he's being offered for as an expert and actually
13 within the scope of his testimony.
14
Well, what's the minimum number you feel
15 comfortable saying of Vanderbilt employees who are
16 alleged to have had mesothelioma?
17
MR. WELCH: None.
18 A Well, I - 1don't know how many allege. I
19 mean, I can - 1know about the two in the report. I
2 0 don't know who in the whole paper worked for Vanderbilt
21 or not. I don't know whether any of them did. Maybe
2 2 some did -
23 Q But -
24 A --some didn't. I don't know. There's no
2 5 work history. I have no way to tell.
33 (Pages 126 to 129)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 130
1 Q Well, but you know who Vanderbilt employees
1
2 are, and you know which ones have filed claims and
2
3 which ones are in your house surveillance, and in which
3
4 ones in your files are alleged to have gotten
4
5 mesothelioma and which ones have sued you.
5
6 A We have seen no evidence in our medical
6
1 surveillance of mesothelioma.
7
8 Q Okay. How about in claims made against the
8
9 company?
9
10
MR. WELCH: Now, there we go again.
10
11 We're not getting into Workers' Comp cases.
11
12 Q Okay. Well, then I think it's fair to assume
12
13 that there's lots of people who work for Vanderbilt who
13
14 have got mesothelioma.
14
15
MR. WELCH: That is not a question. I
15
16 object to it.
16
17
MR. LEVIN: I think it's fair to assume
17
18 that.
18
19
MR. WELCH: Do what you will, but it is
19
20 not a proper question.
20
21
MR. LEVIN: Because I know that most
21
22 companies, if they had exonerating evidence would
22
23 produce it. And I think the witness knows the
23
24 answer and you know the answer.
24
25
THE WITNESS: Well, I don't think you'd
25
Page 131
1 accept exonerating information. You don't accept
1
2 the -- the - those two cases. You're ready to
2
3 jump on those as though those are associated and
3
4 they're so shaky ifs almost laughable.
4
5
MR. LEVIN: I didn't jump on the two
5
6 cases. I jumped on one of the cases because I
6
7 thought the reason you gave was ridiculous, okay?
7
8
THE WITNESS: Well, fifteen years -
8
9
MR. LEVIN: The second --
9
10
THE WITNESS: --well, I disagree.
10
11
MR. LEVIN: The second one where you say
11
12 that he worked for years around boilers, I
12
13 thought was, you know --I didn't critique that
13
14 one, I critiqued the other one.
14
15
MR. WELCH: All right. Let's quit
15
16 debating the testimony.
16
17
MR. LEVIN: All right. I've got to take
17
18 a short break here.
18
19
MR. WELCH: Bill, let me ask you this:
19
20 How much longer do you think you'll be?
20
21
MR. LEVIN: It could be many hours. You
21
22 know, I don't really want to wear you or the
22
23 witness out, and I think in fairness to everybody,
23
24 it's clear to me that when you produced this other
24
25 stuff, there's going to be another installment in
25
Page 132
this, so why don't you guys talk over what you want to do. I'm flexible.
MR. WELCH: All right. And you're going to take a little break now?
MR. LEVIN: I'm going to take like a five-minute break, because my law partner called a minute ago and told me to call immediately, all right?
MR. WELCH: Yes. THE WITNESS: All right.
(RECESS TAKEN.) MR. WELCH: We're going to try to get you the additional documentation. It's obvious from the questions you have done so far that there will be more to come. It's now approaching five o'clock on the east coast, and R.S. Vanderbilt has a policy of closing down for security reasons at 4:45, and we need to vacate, and the court reporter has plans for 5:00, so I suggest wejust stop now. I'll get you the information. I won't promise you I'll give you all of it, but I'll get you a good portion of what you have asked for, and we can continue it at a later time. MR LEVIN: Okay. Let me just say it's fine for me to continue. It's clear that we might
Page 133
not finish today, even if we had the additional documents, and since we don't have the additional documents, we definitely won't finish today and we'll have to resume anyway.
And I have no need to wish to inconvenience everybody to go late today when we have to find another day to do this anyway. I am reserving my right to ask all the questions that I need to ask, both what I would have asked today and new questions arising from the documents. And more important than that, I mean, I do expect that the witness and counsel will take seriously their obligation to look for all the things that we've discussed today that is in the possession of Vanderbilt and defendant counsel, for him to look at it and presumably forward it to me without extracting anything, or at least identifying for me the issues he may have with particular documents in terms of production, and resume after I've had those documents in my possession to review, and we can then conclude the deposition based on all the questions I have and will have based on reading those documents.
MR. WELCH: All right. MR. LEVIN: So does anybody want to take |
34 (Pages 130 to 133)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation John Kelse
Page 134
1 a shot at picking another date, or do you want to
2 see how this whole document retrieval and review
3 goes?
4
MR. WELCH: Let's let that play out a
5 little bit and then pick one after you've seen it.
6 You probably will have a little bit better feel
7 about how long it will be -
8
MR. LEVIN: Okay.
9
MR. WELCH: -- and to try to pick a time
10 convenient to everyone.
11
MR. LEVIN: Okay.
12 (THE DEPOSITION WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:05 P.M.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 135
21
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
3
I, JA N ET A. O R FITELLI, a Licensed Shorthand
R eporter/C oram issioner w ithin and for the State o f
4 Connecticut, do hereby certify that I took the
deposition o f JO H N K ELSE on M A R C H 3 0 ,2 0 0 6 , at the 5 o ffices o f R.T. V A N D ER B IL T, CO ., IN C., 30 W IN FIELD
6 STREET, NORW ALK, CONNECTICUT.
I further certify that the above-nam ed deponent 7 w as by m e first duly sw orn to testify to the truth, the
w hole truth, and nothing b u t the truth concerning his 8 know ledge in the m atter o fth e case o f LO LK E LLO YD
H A A N STRA VS A SBESTO S C O RPO RA TIO N LIM ITED, E T AL, now 9 pending in the State o f C alifornia, County o f Los
10 A ngeles. 1 I further certify that the w ithin testim ony w as
1 taken by m e stenographically and reduced to typewritten form under m y direction b y m eans o f CO M PU TER ASSISTED
12 TR A N SC R IPTIO N ; and I further certify that said
d e p o s itio n is a tru e re c o rd o f t h e te s tim o n y g iv en by
13 said witness.
14
I further certify th at I am neither counsel for,
related to, nor em ployed by any o f the parties to the
15 action in w hich this deposition is taken; and further,
that I am not a relative or em ployee o f any attorney or
1 6 counsel em ployed by the parties hereto, nor financially
or otherw ise interested in the outcom e o f the action. 17
W ITN ESS m y hand and affixed m y seal this 5th day
18 o f April, 2006. 19
20
ian e t Orfiteili, LSR
2221
C om m issioner
M y com m ission expires
2 3 July 31,2007 24
25
1
B randon Sm ith R eporting Services
44 C apitol A venue
2
H artford, C onnecticut 06106
(860) 549-1850
3
4
65 A p ril 5 ,2 0 0 6
7 In re:
LOLKE LLOYD HAANSTRA v. ASBESTOS
C O R PO R A TIO N LIM ITED, E T AL
8 D eposition of: JO H N K ELSE
D ate:
M A RCH 30,2006
9
10
T he follow ing item s checked pertain to the above
1 1 captioned case:
1 2 X O R IG IN A L T R A N SC R IPT enclosed in protective,
sealed w hite envelope,
13
E X H IB ITS attached to O R IG IN A L TR A N SC R IPT.
14
X REA D IN G /SIG N IN G W A IV ED
N O T W A IV ED
15
16
W hen you receive the notarized JU R A T and ER R A TA SHEETS
1 7 from the deponent, D O N O T open the sealed envelope.
Just attach the notarized sheets to the outside o f said
1 8 envelope and properly retain for the Court.
19
2 0
Signed
Janet A . O rfiteili
21
B randon Sm ith R eporting
22
D ate sealed
23
24
25
35 {Pages 134 to 136)
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
5c790704-b819-40a3-bf5a-aca7a4cf5e81
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 1
A
ABC's 43:17 ability 60:16 64:20 able 17:16 22:6
26:1 39:8 58:14 124:16 above-ground 99:14 above-named 135:6 Abraham 115:6 117:6 120:14,15 absence 120:21 absolute 119:5 Absolutely 24:22 absorption 26:3 31:13,15 37:22 abstracted 43:13 accept 121:1 131:1 131:1 accepted 126:16 account95:17 accurate 15:12 55:13 Acker 2:8 acknowledge 6:24 7:14,24 8:7 11:10 12:10 acquired 31:21 act 99:11 acted 76:21 action 135:15,16 activities 90:4 91:17 actual 15:18 20:13 55:1 82:13 83:4 85:7 86:9 102:14 112:22 additional 132:13 133:1,2 addressing 23:11 adjacent 31:23 32:5 ADJOURNED
134:12 administration
38:5 39:23 90:18 99:12 administrative 110:5 admissibility 15:21 admissible 61:9 admit 107:24 advantage 37:10 advice 65:21 advise41:18 advised 125:10 advisement 46:6 affairs 110:22 affect 76:14 affidavit 52:11 affixed 135:17 afraid 61:6 agency 39:23 agent 63:9 ago43:10 111:13 132:7 agree 7:14 15:4 21:19 36:22 53:8 61:1 78:18 83:24 84:2 86:25 87:5 104:15 126:5 127:3 agreeable 42:6 agreed 3:8 agreement 21:5 air 38:3,10,18,21 38:23,24 39:10,18 39:19 40:6,17 41:3,11 42:10,10 42:22,22 43:2 58:15 88:25 89:18 90:10,19 93:18 94:15 97:14,19 98:6,7,22 99:10 AL 135:8 136:7 Alabama 78:13 alive 84:22 110:17
111:14,25 allege 129:18 alleged 64:10 73:25
129:16 130:4 allegedly 128:16 allow 126:6 America 66:23,24 American 117:11 amount81:14 amounts 57:7
76:23 94:8 amphibole 27:5
29:9,16 30:25 31:6 35:17 54:22 76:1 112:19 124:3 analyses 23:24 analysis 17:15 20:6 20:8 24:5,12 25:17 35:16 37:10 38:13 49:5 60:22 analysts 122:6 analytical 18:4 20:18 23:10 54:17 analyzed 24:8 25:20 26:9 114:24 115:1 ands 126:9,10 Angeles 2:9,14 135:9 animal 25:18 51:14 51:16 52:2,17,25 75:14,16 76:6 77:4 112:10 114:20 123:1,13 123:14,16,20 animals 112:12 113:9 123:16 Annals 47:3 annual 67:7 answer 17:7,11 21:9,11 55:14 61:16,17 65:2,17 65:19,23,24 66:1 66:2,5,11,13
68:18,18 129:6 130:24,24 answering 105:18 answers 18:21 129:10 anthophyllite 29:15 antigorite-Iizardite 29:10 anybody 76:18 85:4 106:13 133:25 anybody's 9:12 83:19 anyway 50:11 133:4,7 appear 56:21 APPEARANCES 2:1 appeared 47:11 applied 47:12 57:15 apply91:14 104:6 approach 122:25 approaching 132:15 appropriate 33:15 April 135:18 136:5 archives 105:6 area 9:7 11:11 24:12 36:4 66:8 67:15 72:9 78:22 92:3 93:25 96:17 115:20,21 116:5 126:23 129:12 areas 8:1 10:11 30:23,24,25 39:1 93:24 116:8 arguably 18:20 argue 126:25 arising 133:10 arithmetic 119:16 Arnold 2:17 31:23 32:4,21
arose 111:2
article47:12 115:6
117:3 118:19
articles 15:10 47:20
47:20
articulated 44:15
aryonite57:ll
asbestiform 40:24
41:8,14 53:24
56:24 57:5,14,21
57:23 58:4,11
59:20 60:23
112:11 115:7
asbestos 1:7 11:21
12:7,11,15,17,19
12:21 23:5,12
39:2041:1,10,14
47:9 54:1 57:9,13
57:14,14,16,22,23
61:14 68:9 76:3,4
76:16,20 77:2
83:13 86:1 111:3
122:5 123:6,18
124:1 126:18
135:8 136:7
1
asbestosis 87:13
asbestos-exposed
83:1
asbestos-related
60:2,17 64:6,22
68:7
ascertain 44:9
ascertained 73:24
aside 50:25
asked 5:13 18:18
19:1720:21 21:13
21:20 42:16 63:10
63:10 69:15 72:23
81:11 95:15 98:25
104:22 120:22
125:7 132:22
133:9
asking 15:15 21:18
35:12 74:1 128:17
Kijuflaaraa1.1 im m
w ai
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 2
asks 16:25 19:11 68:2
aspect 14:20 assert 5:16 assignment 111:5 ASSISTED 135:11 associated 12:6,10
12:13 47:7 71:7 75:2 81:7,8 94:7 99:25 124:5 131:3 associates 12:18 association 64:5,21 96:14 assume 94:12 97:7 126:2 130:12,17 assuming5:17 22:13 42:5 109:1 Atlanta 2:24 attach 9:14 136:17 attached 52:10,14 136:13 attempt 42:7 attempted 44:9 attention 54:15,16 102:22 attorney 4:20 111:1 135:15 attorneys 18:16 44:13 attorney/client 44:19 attribute 75:8 87:22 Au 40:19,22 41:7 authentication 15:6,22 author 86:23 114:23 authored 25:4,13 46:11 47:10 authority 3:9 authors 62:2 69:15 74:19 75:8 114:22 auto 95:12
available 25:20 69:13 91:25 114:23 119:23
Avenue 1:23 136:1 average 58:18 59:9
78:16 averages 58:8 avoid 100:14 aware 49:25 62:7
62:24 72:9 94:6 94:16 105:16 106:3 117:21 128:16 A-N-T-I-G-O-R-... 29:11 A.M 110:7
_______ B
back 5:19 17:14 19:221:23 31:17 40:2 67:22,25 73:10 74:6 77:3 88:1 90:15,18 91:8 94:6,21 96:3 96:19 97:19,20 99:19 107:1
background 66:19 76:9 124:18
backing 37:24 bad 100:19 bag 104:6 108:11
108:13 bagged 37:19,20 bags 12:1 102:14
104:5 108:15 ballpark 80:3 barely 101:22 base45:14 98:14 based 18:21 36:21
86:25 87:5 96:20 100:2 104:15 112:25 114:4 133:22,23 basic 37:21 basically 5:13
89:14 111:5 119:17,19 basics 79:10 basis 78:9 BC 1:5 Bearing 115:7 began 26:15,16 43:25 71:10,11 99:24 104:10,17 beginning 68:12 111:4 127:22 128:14 behalf 96:4 believe 8:6 17:19 24:17,19 34:3 40:14 48:8,16 49:21 50:8,17 62:14,16 68:24 71:17 72:21 75:4 77:24 78:1,4 86:17,21 97:16 105:3,4 106:4 110:18 111:9 115:14 116:4 117:22 118:2 120:19 believed 85:25 believes 128:18,21 best 12:24 15:12 26:15 52:24 54:10 55:1 67:8 82:13 82:14,16 107:25 108:7 bet 82:16 better 23:22 72:3 106:15 108:21 134:6 beyond 86:13 biased 69:22 70:5 70:13,17 big 82:22 93:23 biggest 93:24 Bill 6:20 9:16 131:19
biopyriboles 56:8 bit 5:12 35:15
58:14 90:24,24 106:25 134:5,6 blah 12:7,7,7 blank 101:25 blend25:24 27:2 31:5,14 blends 26:7 30:24 block 37:6 body 32:11 37:1,8 65:14 boilers 62:5 75:7 131:12 booths 93:19 bore 30:21 32:23 33:2,3,15 34:1,9 34:15,24 37:12,14 37:25 boxes 31:2,3 Brandon 1:21 136:1,21 break 67:18 131:18 132:4,6 breakdown 72:3 breaks 72:8 breath 100:25 102:17 breathing 100:14 100:24 bring 92:19,21 bringing 72:25 broke 75:25 BROTHERS 2:12 brought 16:16 28:7 92:17 Bruce 2:24 5:4 28:7 building 37:5 97:9 bulk35:8 58:16 86:23 bunch 63:9 104:7 bundle 56:22 bundling 56:22 Bureau 99:10
Bush 2:4 business 11:17,18
15:6,14,20 75:7 buttons 93:21
C_______
California 1:1 2:5 2:9,14,19 65:23 135:9
call32:3 39:11 44:1246:8 73:17 95:16 132:7
called27:8 48:23 50:5 54:5 56:3,7 110:21 115:6 132:6
calling 54:14,16 cancer 48:23 49:5
71:6,6 73:2 74:15 75:17 81:3,4,7,12 81:16,20 82:4 83:6,9,10,15,16 85:6 86:11 124:5 cancers 85:7 capacity 63:15,19 63:20,22 95:9 96:9,11 105:22 106:16 Capitol 1:23 136:1 captioned 136:11 capture 124:14 carcinogenic 113:18 carefully 113:19 Carolina 111:25 127:19 Caroline 2:10 case 1:5 12:23 28:1929:1040:15 45:9 48:9 62:3,4 62:12,23 72:8 74:23 75:22,23,24 81:24 90:7 107:13 107:16,20 115:6 117:4,19 121:16
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 3
123:8,8,11 135:8 136:11 cases 25:16 27:4,6 64:9 81:16 86:10 86:1291:5 116:1 119:11,14,20 120:18 121:21 124:19 130:11 131:2,6,6 categories 5:14 7:11,12 8:1 9:7 13:12 14:14 36:17 43:19 48:2 59:24 category 12:14 13:15 16:22 18:12 18:19,2021:14 48:2 51:13 58:11 59:23 cause 60:17 64:16 84:11 85:13 126:7 causes 123:15 causing 122:23 caution 102:13 104:6 107:23 CC39:17 108:3 109:23 cell47:7 52:21,25 53:4 76:11 77:8,9 cells 47:10 76:15,22 centimeters 39:18 centuries 124:16 CEO 110:2 certain 5:6 31:3,7 31:12 34:11 79:17 102:10,20 113:11 certainly 8:18 11:1 11:5,20 14:16,19 19:22 25:16 38:2 39:21 45:20 71:13 72:12 76:10,17 90:18 91:8 93:10 94:16 99:19 129:3 certainty 119:6 certificate 84:13
85:11 119:25 certificates 73:19
84:24 85:9 120:7 120:11,24 121:1 certify 61:20 135:4 135:6,10,12,14 chance22:17 54:8 change26:5 30:12 changed26:4 30:9 55:3 character 22:13 characteristics 26:6,10,18 64:18 characterization 38:14 characterize 96:25 characterized 113:4,5 115:1 charge 109:12 110:12 Charles 2:19 check 50:10 99:21 101:17 102:21 checked 136:10 chemical 2:12 95:21 109:13 CHEMICALS 2:7 chest 127:14 chief 110:5 chronology 17:8,13 48:8 chrysotile 112:21 123:11,15 chunks 57:4 circa 24:8 claim 12:16 68:8 73:20,20 claimed 60:14 64:24 claiming 41:9 42:25 61:13 claims 12:14 23:20 40:21 60:1,2,13 61:13 62:15 63:24
65:11 68:6 73:16 73:19 95:24,25 124:20 130:2,8 clarify 50:19 classic 113:14 120:10 clear 58:17 82:23 96:5,12,19 131:24 132:25 clearly 80:23 cleavage 29:9,15 112:19 124:3 close 79:16 115:24 closed 32:8 closely 81:10 closest32:25 71:17 116:21 closing 132:17 closure 89:13 coast 132:16 coffee 6:5 67:19 cohort 72:25 80:19 collect 39:12 color 31:16 column71:19 combination 30:2 come 11:5 77:3 89:1 123:13 128:24,25 132:15 comes 32:25 40:25 comfortable 105:18 128:4 129:15 coming 26:8,11 30:1743:9,10 commenced 5:1 commencing 127:5 comment 11:20,22 commercial27:19 57:15 122:5 commission 135:22 commissioned 69:16 77:4,9 112:11 Commissioner 3:10
135:21 common 102:5
121:11 comp 12:14,16
61:13 63:23 73:19 73:20 95:12 119:24 124:20 130:11 companies 96:2 100:20 102:5,9 127:13 130:22 company2:21 36:1 36:23 69:22 70:13 78:24 79:3 84:18 85:2 86:14 89:2 94:14,15,25 95:4 95:6,20 96:2,12 105:12 106:14 109:6 110:2 130:9 company's 33:1 comparable 92:8 compare 121:15 123:6 compared 88:12 compares 88:5 comparison 97:5,8 122:1 125:25 Compensation 60:1 68:6,8 compiled 18:13 complaint 43:22 complete 5:23 14:6 17:12 20:1046:14 46:25 47:6 completed 69:11 complex 20:13,13 complicated 54:12 component 30:18 31:1076:1,1 components 28:20 48:5 54:22,23 76:10 100:16 115:4 composite 26:25
28:24 composition 11:19
17:1 18:1,8 20:2,4 20:13 24:6,14,20 25:6,14 26:4 29:6 30:22 34:21 35:7 35:13 36:24 37:6 55:2,15 compositions 54:21 comprehensive 10:1821:18 COMPUTER 135:11 concentrated 76:14 concentration 82:24 concern 81:6 96:13 96:22,25 126:10 concerned 5:12 15:16,1791:10 93:25 95:23 96:5 97:11 126:13,14 concerning 16:5 128:2 135:7 conclude 24:10 78:10 82:2 126:7 133:21 concluded 74:9 78:14 conclusion 77:12 condition 60:11 62:18 conditions 123:22 conduct 61:10 confirm 120:5 128:17 confirmed 120:12 confused 20:16 69:24 confusion 106:24 conjunction 98:21 Connecticut 1:17 1:23 6:14 111:10 111:20 135:1,4,5
rffirrjfrnmifirra--
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 4
136:2 connection 17:23
36:15 64:5 considered 62:1
76:7 88:19 consistent25:25
123:24 constituent 29:24
30:18 constituents 27:17 consultation 18:16 contain 24:18
25:13 41:9 53:24 54:1 contained 15:9 19:14 28:1 65:7 101:10 113:16 containing 8:25 16:25 17:25 18:7 23:4 contains 40:24 41:1 41:8 114:15 contend 12:21 contending 41:7 content 11:21,23 12:20 19:20,20 23:541:1443:4 60:16 contention 12:20 40:22,23 41:2 continue 23:1 38:25 89:18 126:7 132:23,25 contract 94:14 contracted 65:12 72:20 73:11 74:7 75:15 77:12 86:16 127:25 128:16 contracting 126:17 127:2 contraire 40:22 41:7 contrary 81:21 83:1
control26:2 30:15 31:12 37:13 48:9 81:24 88:20 93:23 94:3
controls 93:12,20 94:4,4 121:21,23
convenience21:3 convenient 10:16
134:10 conversations
36:21 copied 109:3 copies 15:10,13
100:3 103:1 104:2 copy 7:1,20 14:6
26:21 46:23 48:9 48:22 54:5 108:21 coroners 85:15 corporate 12:24 16:1 CORPORATION 1:72:12 135:8 136:7 correct31:18 32:17 33:1 45:11,19 46:5 56:9 107:20 118:20 120:14,16 128:6 corrected 53:25 correctly 20:12 82:9 109:10 correlation 83:5 correspondence 16:13,15 counsel3:3,8 13:17 15:3,3 24:24 41:18 42:3,24 43:1,23 45:10 46:6 53:15 66:4 66:11 68:17 98:3 106:9 123:12 133:12,15 135:14 135:16 counties 85:16
117:24,24 counts 88:2 county 32:12,16,19
32:21 67:11,17 85:17 115:11 118:2,3,4,16,17 119:1 135:9 couple 14:2 25:16 31:1648:18 51:24 101:14 123:5 125:20 127:14 course 15:14,20 69:16,19,20 76:3 81:6 court 1:1 61:7,19 66:16 132:18 136:18 cover 39:1 82:15 124:24 coverages 95:12 covered 74:25 95:11 criteria 20:18 31:16 critical 114:1 criticized 82:10 critique 131:13 critiqued 131:14 CROSS 4:2 cross-examine 64:20 crush 57:2 crystal 56:23,24 crystalline 39:7,16 CT 1:24 cubic39:15,18 88:3 91:15 cup 67:19 curiosity 56:13 106:21 curious 113:1 current 17:14 128:15 custodian 6:25
14:13,16,19,23 15:18 17:3 21:4 21:12 23:8,8 36:8 41:1643:14,15 45:4 47:22 96:9 custody 36:23 customers 99:24 104:9,10 105:1 cut 72:14 cutoff46:7 78:6 cylindrical 35:4 Cytotoxic 47:8 C.S 110:9
D
D4:l Dana 36:10,11 darn 55:13 dash 29:11 data 14:17 26:22
26:25 27:14,25 28:5,9,24 30:3,4,7 30:10 38:7,14 48:18 61:24,25 72:8 82:15 86:7 88:1,4 90:14,17 90:25 97:1,22 98:25 99:3,19 100:21 101:3,7,11 101:13 102:6 110:24 123:1 126:11,13 date 1:15 17:13 19:1 22:22 28:9 70:21 73:1,9 77:17 78:4 80:9 90:18 97:20 99:23 102:13,25 127:23 134:1 136:8,22 dated 23:24,25 24:18 50:6 51:7 52:6 54:6 103:17 104:3 dates 23:18 46:7 90:15
day 28:20 29:4 31:22 55:3,9 56:10 81:17 133:7 135:17
days 81:17,17,18 88:1 100:20
dead 84:22 deal 42:10 48:4 dealing 63:23 92:24 dealt 19:1951:16 dear 9:25 45:24 death 73:18 74:24 1
75:3 77:24 84:11 84:13,24 85:8,11 85:16 119:25 120:6,11,24 121:1 deaths 69:3 73:24 74:16 85:6,18 debating 131:16 deceased 111:23,23 111:24 decide 68:17 72:14 decides 70:7 defects 3:13 defendant 1:8 2:7 2:11,16,21 133:15 defer 11:2 33:21 definitely 113:13 133:3 definitions 111:3 Delzell 86:18,21 deny 120:5 department 16:4 40:2 86:17 87:25 88:5 90:14 97:2 97:14,17,18 98:21 98:24 99:4 depending 37:9 60:13 66:25 98:11 deponent 6:3,11 135:6 136:17 deposit33:6,10 116:7 deposition 1:14
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 5
3:10,17 4:9 5:1,9 6:7,23 7:9 21:12 23:1 63:4,6 67:21 68:12 94:20 106:17,20 133:21 134:12 135:4,12 135:15 136:8 depository 47:22 deposits 116:6 describe 20:12 described 26:13,24 56:12,23 58:5 describes 54:24 describing 22:14 description 55:2 57:24 71:1 115:2 descriptions 55:1 121:22 design 33:16 designated 62:23 64:4 designation 62:22 designed 88:18 detail 86:8,9,11 detailed 54:17 55:5 detect 29:18 detected 29:17 determine 21:8 30:16,22 32:23 35:7 39:20 45:2 73:11 85:5,17 101:4 104:24 Detert2:17 develop 78:11 development 72:11 110:13,14 diagnosed 124:23 diagnosis 120:6 125:19 128:5,8,18 dictated 31:8 die 84:23 difference 27:4 67:7 84:6 different 5:14
13:22 33:23 57:5 62:2 76:6 78:15 84:24 90:12 116:6 116:6 121:8,10 123:23 128:13 differently 41:11 76:21,24,25 difficulties 20:18 dimension 114:1 dimensions 114:8 direct4:2 6:17 28:4 37:14 102:22 directed 3:5 59:4 direction38:16 135:11 director 110:14,22 disagree 44:3 59:16 61:2 131:10 discard 40:4 discount 124:22 discovery 61:10 discuss 54:21 62:10 discussed 12:18 23:15 44:12,13 133:14 discussion 56:8 105:13 disease 12:15,17 48:24 60:3,17 61:15 64:7,22 68:7,9 72:11 83:17 84:8 117:18 122:17 123:5 124:15 diseases 124:2 dismissed 74:19 77:13 disparity 97:4 disputing 125:13 distance 35:5 distinction 15:25 distinguish 54:25 distinguishes 28:3 distribution 11:18
71:2 distributors 11:16 diverging 67:6 document 7:22,25
9:14 13:4,9 17:14 17:23 42:6 43:8 43:18 44:7,10 45:4 48:17 52:5 53:3 102:23 134:2 documentation 132:13 documents 5:14,17 5:18,22 8:25 9:1,3 9:4 13:17 14:15 14:18,24 15:2,4 15:22 16:8,15,25 17:4,5,18,25 18:7 18:11,13,17,18,19 18:24 19:1,4,7,10 19:18,22,23 20:1 21:13,1522:13,23 23:2,4,7,9,10,22 23:22,23,24 24:4 24:18,23,24 25:4 25:12 28:7 34:13 36:8,23 38:9 41:3 43:12,14,15,20,24 44:7,8,9,13 45:2,3 45:11,18 46:4,9 47:21 48:14 50:17 53:9,11,14 55:10 59:25 60:14 65:8 65:14 96:10,20 100:4 104:24,25 105:15 106:6 107:3,15,19 133:2 133:3,10,19,20,23 doing 15:20 81:2 81:23 92:15 120:5 Doll 72:16 door 37:3 Dr 20:11 86:15 110:9 111:18 113:6 117:4,6,8,9
drawn 31:3 draws 31:22 drew 31:21 drill 89:4 90:3 drilling 89:3,12
90:5 93:6 ducts 88:25 89:1 due 119:3 duly 6:12 135:7 durable 113:17 duration 71:13
72:22 82:11 dust39:l,4,4,16,16
82:13,15,23 83:5 83:6,11,19,20 88:1,5,11,16,19 89:19 90:6,8,21 90:25 91:4,10,15 92:22 93:4,7,13 93:16,24 94:3,4,8 94:17,18,18 95:21 96:6,13,23 97:1,4 97:11,19 98:6,22 98:25 99:3,16 100:1,14,24,25 101:1,5 102:17 dustier 90:4 dusty 89:15 duty 20:8 D-A-N-A36:l 1 D-E-L-Z-E-L-L 86:18
________ E________
E4:l
earlier 8:15 20:9 33:12 53:22 68:13 73:7 74:18 92:1 97:15 101:11,15 102:20 105:21 106:13 127:8
earliest 97:15 101:12 102:12,13 105:4,8
early 16:13 69:13
78:2 90:16 91:23 95:1 98:20 99:19 101:6 102:8 earth 35:3 easier 8:6 easiest 54:4 east 116:15 132:16 effect 102:8 effort 74:25 76:12 efforts 36:16 96:8 eight 80:20,20 111:13 119:7 eighteen 80:20,21 81:18 114:3 eighty 79:18 either 8:6 15:19 41:2,11,12 61:23 76:9 102:2 113:10 119:24 electron 55:6 electronic 17:20 electronmycrosc... 122:3 ELEMENTIS2:7 elevated 118:25 Elizabeth 86:18,21 86:24 elongated 56:1 emblematic 28:2 employed 70:20 135:14,16 employee 135:15 employees 49:6 69:3 73:11 74:7 91:19 92:3,6 93:6 106:19 127:24 128:15,15 129:15 130:1 employment 60:20 ] 60:21 71:14 122:21 126:5 enclosed 136:12 endeavored 45:2 74:5
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 6
ended 86:22 ends 78:15,15 engineer 11:2
109:16,20 engineering 91:3 entire 17:8 22:7
80:7 87:18 entitled 21:20
43:2147:1,7 49:5 61:10 64:23 entity 94:11 entrained 93:17 entrusted 74:4 envelope 136:12,17 136:18 environmental 16:3,21 110:22 119:4 epidemiologic 120:4,10 121:16 123:2 epidemiological 59:12 epidemiologist 74:11 84:15 epidemiology 86:17 Epithelial 47:9 equal 76:23 equipment 93:15 93:22 Erdman 103:1 108:3 109:17,20 111:24 ERRATA 136:16 Esq 2:5,10,14,19,24 essentially 26:24 27:8 30:13,23 76:5 84:13 established 33:11
101:1 estimation 20:1 ET 135:8 136:7 etiology 81:8
everybody 84:18 118:10 131:23 133:6
Everybody's 70:17 evidence 40:15
60:13 124:8,12 130:6,22 evolved 56:11 exactly 8:12 21:25 27:20 33:17 52:6 EXAMINATION 6:17 examined 6:14 example 24:7 27:7 27:14 35:16 57:12 60:18 81:9 123:19 exceeded 100:15 101:1 excellent 93:1 exceptions 113:23 113:25 excess 49:5 81:2,4,7 81:12,20 82:4,18 83:9 124:5,14 excessive 94:8 99:25 100:25 101:1 102:17 exclude 7:16 excuse 41:24 84:2 executive 110:5 exhaust 94:1 exhaustive 100:20 Exhibit 7:5,7 9:15 exhibited 96:22,25 Exhibits 4:7,20 136:13 existed 100:16 existence 99:21 exonerating 130:22
131:1 expect 51:9 81:5,21
125:5 133:11 Experience 49:17
50:5
experienced 92:19 experiments 76:4 expert 44:21 62:22
62:23 63:3,4,9,13 63:17,23 64:4 65:23,24 66:10,17 67:15 125:24 126:2 128:8 129:12 expertise 126:23 experts 63:8 expires 135:22 explain 20:16 59:7 explained 56:5 explanation 82:4 82:25 explanations 122:20,22 exposed 23:20 34:17 41:6 43:1 76:19 79:6,22 80:11 82:19 83:6 83:11,13,21 86:1 123:7 124:1,3 exposure 12:7,11 12:19,2140:20 42:20 62:1 71:7 74:20 75:9 79:8 81:7 82:12,13,15 82:22,23,24 83:4 83:18 92:22,24 94:7 100:1 119:4 126:7,18,21 127:5 127:11,16 exposures 93:4 95:21 124:6 expressed 39:14,15 39:17 extent 16:4 26:5 36:2041:4 54:13 74:15 112:13 extracting 133:17 extraction 33:1 extremely 59:8
e-mail 14:7
F
facilities 34:10 38:10 69:5 77:16 85:15 92:9
facility 30:17 35:22 35:25 38:16 40:16 47:3 99:13 109:13
fact 55:21 57:9 70:11 71:3 81:15 82:4 100:4,21 107:3,18 126:3,3 126:4
factor 71:4 fair 5:24 130:12,17 fairly 20:23 fairness 131:23 familiar 11:3 16:9
16:19 18:3 115:5 famous 52:3 112:4 far 21:11 50:1,1
94:6 96:19 97:13 132:14 fashion 57:1 fast 22:16 favor 20:19 Features 47:7 February 43:9 feel 7:16 10:11 45:14 46:13 88:10 105:18 128:4 129:14 134:6 fiber 39:11,17 54:23 57:5 58:21 76:12,22 114:7,19 115:4,7 fibers 39:17 40:24 41:8 53:25 55:20 56:23 57:4 58:2 76:16 77:2 113:17 114:1 fibrosis 87:2,7,20 fibrous 47:8 56:2,3 56:4 58:3,4,19
59:19 112:11,25 113:12 114:10,16 fifteen 20:7 29:13 77:18,1978:3,10 116:1 126:22 127:2 129:4 131:8 fiftieth 72:18 fifty 78:17 80:5 81:15 129:1,3 fifty-five 12:1 Figueroa 2:13 figure 81:24 82:1 84:19,22 121:7 file 17:19,21,22,25 18:6 19:10,14 20:2 21:1,5,5,7,8 21:1722:1,8,10 86:12 105:14 106:4,7,8 107:2 filed 5:6 9:17 21:11 42:1961:13 68:13 73:15 130:2 files 15:5,9 72:4 86:7 100:3 130:4 filter 39:12 filters 58:15 final 37:11 83:3 financially 135:16 find 18:23 30:24,24 39:8 49:23 50:14 54:18 55:10,13,24 58:15,16 71:15 72:17 78:4 101:17 101:20 103:15 105:5,7,8 114:10 114:16 119:11 122:10,11 133:7 finding 122:13 fine 15:4 41:2 47:20 132:25 finer 27:9,9 fingerprint 26:13 26:19 finish 42:13 50:19
-- T T M V T 'r w iM iin n i Tin - w in 1irm iin rn
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 7
133:1,3 finished 42:15 first 6:11 7:20 9:6,8
9:24 12:12,16 15:221:1445:1 48:17 50:21 51:19 53:5 68:7 70:20 75:1 77:4,15,23 87:4 88:14 96:22 96:25 98:13 99:24 104:8,17 107:18 107:24 111:4 115:20 121:15 135:7 fit 58:10 108:11 five 8:24 9:8 10:24 29:16 30:5,6 59:13 72:24 116:14 119:11,20 125:13,18 126:2 132:15 five-minute 132:6 flaws 122:10 127:3 flexible 132:2 floor 1:23 2:4,9,13 2:18 93:23 floors 93:14 focus 13:11 63:25 105:19 follow23:18 53:22 80:18 following 39:1 68:2 136:10 follows 6:15 foot 88:3 fork 93:14 form 3:6 17:20 27:21 57:1,10 135:11 formed 56:15 former 128:15 forth 31:1 56:16 84:21 88:25 89:14 95:14,22 100:9
106:24 111:3,7 fortieth 72:18 forty 29:7,8,9 31:4
55:16 72:15 75:8 78:16 114:6 121:23 forward 5:9 80:8 120:4,10 133:16 forwarding 104:2 fosilite 38:22 found 57:7 60:23 75:15 81:11 122:2 foundation 64:19 foundational 19:25 four 10:24 28:17,20 71:18,21 72:24 81:1799:15 fourteen 77:18,19 119:14 fourth 51:1 fragment 112:19 fragments 124:3 frame60:5,6,10 62:15 64:17 Erancisco2:5,19 front 66:16 117:1 full 117:15 function 127:16 furnaces 75:7 further 3:13,16 44:18 65:2 122:24 135:6,10,12,14,15
G
Gamble 48:10 49:11 50:24
gel 75:23 general 12:14,19
66:22 109:21 113:22 122:18 generally 20:19 39:14 45:16 76:7 78:21 generated 15:19 generic57:15
geographic 32:24 geologic33:13 35:6
35:22 36:3 geological 24:11 geologically 56:11 geologist 33:5,22 geologists 30:21 geology 36:19
116:5 George 109:16,20 Georgia 2:24 getting 39:11
124:16 130:11 give 10:21 29:6
34:20 53:15,19 60:18 63:10 65:19 72:3 73:23 79:9 79:10 100:15 132:21 given 37:20 78:20 111:5 129:10 135:12 gives 54:25 98:14 giving 20:19 go 8:13 9:24 17:24 18:6 20:15 22:20 30:22 33:9 37:9 37:12 48:20 49:15 49:22 50:3 62:20 67:22,25 74:5 75:11 79:14 84:3 88:25 95:17 97:12 104:1 124:16 130:10 133:6 goes 14:8 37:2 54:20 59:7 61:25 72:16 97:19,19 105:14 134:3 going 5:9 19:8 22:25 24:25 37:5 42:4 43:18 44:13 44:17 47:15 48:20 49:22 60:9,11 61:5,7,17,18 62:9
63:3,7,10,14,18 63:19 64:4,12 65:16,19 66:15 81:23 91:8 96:3 108:11,13,14 125:3 128:10 131:25 132:3,5,12 good 7:5 9:21 11:7 20:8,1146:22 70:1,8 105:20 107:25 108:18 121:20,22 132:22 gotten 117:2 130:4 Gouverneur 36:1,2 36:14,23 79:3 109:21 116:10,11 116:13,17,18,22 grad 86:22 117:9 grade 30:11 grades 27:1 29:20 graduate 117:9 gravimetric 39:15 Great 6:9 greater 82:24 88:9 grind 27:10 ground 31:7,11 32:9 33:9 65:3 75:6 grounds 34:17 group 13:22 84:20 87:19 124:4 groups 38:5 90:12 growth 56:23,25 growths 56:6 guess28:8 35:1 43:9 63:5 118:12 118:13 guides 123:5 guy 10:23 guys 48:14 87:17 132:1 G-A-M-B-L-E 48:10 G-O-U-V-E-R-N...
36:2
H
Haanstra 1:5 2:3 6:21 20:25 40:16 40:21 41:6 42:21 43:1 135:8 136:7
habit 56:23,25 Hai 104:2 half 31:24 32:5
81:4 114:2 Hall 115:6 117:8,9 hallucinating 9:22 hand 104:5 135:17 handed 9:19 hang 124:10 happen21:3 60:19
83:18 happened 44:24
62:17 105:21 happening 46:17 happens 73:17
84:17 105:20 happy 25:1 50:13 hard29:18 55:23 Hartford 1:23 95:5
95:11,23 96:4,15 136:2 Harvey 103:2 104:2 108:3 110:7 110:17 hat 124:10 Hawkins 2:22 13:17 hazardous 94:19 hazards 12:6,10,13 12:18 94:7 104:10 107:4 Hazcom 102:7,10 head 86:16 heading 7:23 health 14:16,20,21 14:24 16:2,6,20 17:4 23:9 38:3,5 39:23 40:2 43:15
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 8
44:8 45:3,20 46:10,12,18 47:23 48:1,2 50:1,16,21 50:24 51:12,13 52:25 53:10 57:12 57:17 59:11,16 65:8,14 74:4 75:13 87:25 88:4 90:14,17 94:7,19 95:10 96:10 97:2 97:14,17,18 98:21 98:24 99:4,12,25 102:15,16 103:10 104:10,17 105:1 106:15 107:4 health-related 47:21 hear 46:1,16 87:4 heard 60:7 92:1 126:24 hearing 43:22 127:15 heavens 128:25 heavily 56:18 heavy 20:8 held 1:16 113:21 Hello 45:25 46:1,15 46:16 help 15:24 37:14 helpful 20:23 62:12 hereto 135:16 high 78:15 80:11 93:4 higher 83:22 91:5,7 91:14 highest 79:14 80:1 91:16 113:16 117:24 HILL 2:12 hire 85:2 hired 71:19 histology 119:22 120:1,8,13,21 121:6,12
historical 100:3 106:5,19
historically 38:25 116:24
history 12:24 14:21 33:22 36:19 106:25 107:3 121:20 129:25
hold5:19 32:17 home 116:10 124:4 homogeneous
33:24 Honda 47:3 50:21
69:1 80:14 82:8 83:8 84:7 86:15 86:21 120:2,3,14 120:22,23 121:1 124:21,24 126:15 127:4 hopefully 22:20 108:21,23 hoppers 31:2,2 hospital 127:17 hospitals 85:15 hours 131:21 house 130:3 housekeeping 93:12 hub 116:9 huge 85:3 Hull 122:4 human 50:1,16,21 50:24 51:12 52:25 53:2 123:25 124:2 hundred 57:9 79:12,13,15,17,25 79:25 80:2,2,12 80:20,21 88:9 hygiene47:4 87:23 88:15 91:11 94:16 95:19 117:12 hygienist 12:11,13 88:10 95:15 101:4 hypothesis 52:5
76:20 113:21 114:5 118:7 H-O-N-D-A 47:3 H.B 110:1
I
idea 42:8 113:15 identical 13:14 IDENTIFICATI...
7:8 identified 35:17
50:16 119:8 identify 27:18,23
29:24 52:15 identifying 49:19
133:17 ifs 126:9,10 imagine 94:1 immediately 47:14
127:17 132:7 implantation 75:20
75:23 important 32:18
46:24 47:5 82:8 83:8 133:11 impressed 96:7 improve 95:21 improved 87:23 improvement 89:2 inappropriate 69:23 70:14 inch 43:12 incidence 124:14 include 24:23 79:7 93:12 99:16 included 42:9 70:21,23 92:16 115:15,17 including 39:24 83:19 84:11 123:12 inconvenience 133:6 increase 121:4 independent 64:17
66:10 Indicating 71:16
98:9 indication 42:19 indicator 82:13
118:23,24 indicators 82:14 individual 30:11
62:4 75:5 86:12 87:18,20 95:16 industrial 12:11 87:23 88:15 91:11 94:15 95:19 industry 91:21 116:9 inference 69:21 70:12,16 inform 106:2,15 information 8:25 17:1 18:1,8 19:12 23:5 24:13,19 25:5,13 34:20 35:13 65:1,7,9,10 65:13 73:23 85:13 128:2 131:1 132:20 ingredients 27:15 27:18 29:24 initially 33:14 initiated 99:2,9 inject 112:11 injected 113:9 injection 75:20 injections 75:22 inquired 21:14 inquiry 8:1 9:7,8 44:18 installment 131:25 Institute 75:17 instruct 61:17 65:16,22,24 66:1 instructing 65:2 insufficient 125:19 insurance 94:14,24
95:4,5 96:1
1
insurers 95:7,10
inter 56:6
interchangeably
57:20
interested 48:13 E
97:11 135:16
interesting 115:19
interestingly 127:7
International
31:21 92:17
interoffice 48:18
102:25
interstitial 87:2,7
87:20
invariably 93:3
Investigation 54:6
involved 75:4,19
86:14 95:10
involving 123:11
irrelevant 40:15,18
issue 23:11 42:5
43:3 46:7 53:9,12
75:10,12 81:6
85:25 123:13
125:23
issues 15:21 16:4,6
16:7 20:17 46:10
46:1947:23 60:15
63:1 74:5 95:10
105:23 106:23
108:9,11,15
110:25 111:2
121:25 122:1,9
133:18
items 30:14 136:10
J
J2:24 Janet 1:20 6:12
135:3,20 136:20 January 43:10 44:1
44:11 102:25 103:17 104:3,18 107:22 109:8
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 9
111:15,16 Japan 86:15 Jefferson 32:14
118:3,4 119:1 job 15:25 82:11,16 John 1:14 4:3 6:11
6:22 135:4 136:8 judge 22:20 65:5 July 135:23 jump 131:3,5 jumped 131:6 jumping 43:7 JURAT 136:16 jurisdictions 84:25 J.P 110:13
K
KAISER 2:4 kaolinosis 87:13 keep 19:8 34:4 40:4
88:1690:791:14 93:7 94:17 keeper 16:8 keeping 91:10 96:5 96:13,22 97:11 Kelse 1:14 4:3 5:5 6:4,8,11,22 18:6 18:16 135:4 136:8 Kelse's 18:21 kept 34:3 81:2,12 81:22,23 88:20 89:19 key 16:15 25:22 30:13 37:10,23 93:10 kind 22:21 95:4 106:24 know6:6 7:18 9:9 11:3,4,16,17,18 14:7 15:10,25 16:13,16 17:7,8 17:13,13 18:13 19:1,9 20:9,19 22:8,1923:11 25:1926:1 27:9
29:1,8 30:8,8,9,12 30:13,19 31:8,15 32:13 33:3,4,8,11 33:22 34:24 35:2 35:5,6,18 36:7,12 37:18 38:5,13 39:16,20 40:1 42:14,25 43:2,23 44:15 45:15 46:17 48:1 52:6 54:21 55:3,4,8,14,25 56:11,16,17 57:3 57:6 58:6,10 59:9 59:14 63:12 64:10 64:23 66:6,12,14 66:19 67:1,9,10 68:15 69:14,14 73:1,16 74:13 76:5,23 77:17 78:14,16 79:10,19 80:10,17,20 81:3 81:10,17,19 82:6 82:10,10,12,14 83:18,25 84:16,19 84:20 85:2,4,13 86:3,14,22 88:3 88:22,23,24 89:4 89:12,15,19 90:1 90:15,16 92:1,3 92:10,12,17 93:2 93:12,14,17,21 94:1,2,4,10,11,12 94:18 96:24,24 97:3,8,10 99:1,2,6 99:6,7,9,13 100:18 101:10,12 101:17,21 102:19 104:12,13,13,20 105:21 106:18,22 106:23,24 108:6,9 108:11,15,16,17 108:19 109:17,23 110:5 111:2,4,6,8 111:22,22,22
112:2,19,22 113:3 113:4,14,15,15,20 114:7,13,15 115:3 116:15 117:4,6 118:8,12,22 120:5 120:6 121:13,15 121:18,22 122:15 123:25 124:7,25 126:11,20 127:7 127:13,20,25 128:1,3,5,11,21 128:21 129:18,19 129:20,21,24 130:1,2,21,24 131:13,22 knowing 5:21 knowledge 15:12 26:15 30:1 52:25 86:3 125:8 135:8 knowledgeable 7:17 8:2 10:6,12 13:13 36:16 68:5 105:23 106:16 known 11:6 30:21 31:22 32:22 55:19 56:6 64:21 85:10 89:3 123:10 knows 67:17 130:23 Korea 112:22 Kowalick2:8 K-E-L-S-E 6:22
L
L3:l lab31:12 37:21
59:9 label 37:20 102:13
102:14 104:6 107:23 labeling 104:4 106:19 108:9 labels 104:8,9 106:5 107:25 108:18
laboratories 20:17 Lamm 49:2,5,13
51:1 Landmark 1:23 language 101:8
104:7 large 84:20 124:13 larger 27:7 late 43:11 92:16
99:20 133:6 latency 62:3 72:10
72:13 75:1 77:14 77:18,21,25 78:10 85:25 126:17 127:1 laughable 131:4 law 127:15 132:6 Lawrence 32:14,16 32:19,21 67:11,17 85:17 115:11 118:3,9,11,11 lawyer 20:25 lawyers 21:8 layers 35:6,6,8 lays 33:9 learn 126:14 learned 12:12 73:24 96:21 learning 43:17 left 6:3 67:9 80:25 legal 62:12 length 20:16 54:20 59:771:3 113:21 lengths 39:13 letter 104:3,16 letters 106:7 108:10 let's 8:24 13:11 16:22 27:15 31:4 31:17 32:18 67:25 104:1 109:7 123:17 124:3 126:2 131:15 134:4
level38:22 82:14 89:20 98:6
levels 82:13 88:5,16 89:19 90:6,8 91:4 91:10,14 93:4 94:17 96:6,14,23 97:4,12,19 98:22
Levin 2:4,5 4:4 5:10 6:2,9,19,20 7:10 9:18,23 11:14 14:4,9,11 15:16 16:1021:10 21:24 22:3,5,9,19 22:25 23:3 40:13 41:20,24 42:2,12 42:14,24 44:4,5 44:20,23 60:12 61:1,4,8,11,20 62:11,19,21 63:2 63:6,18,25 64:2 64:14 65:4,6,10 65:18,22 66:5,9 66:15,18 67:16,20 67:22,24 79:5 94:21,23 98:13,18 98:19 125:2,5,12 130:17,21 131:5,9 131:11,17,21 132:5,24 133:25 134:8,11
liability 95:13,13 Licensed 135:3 life 62:5 lifetime 67:7
122:19 lifts 93:15 limit 64:12 101:2 LIMITED 1:8
135:8 136:7 limiting 17:9 64:14 line 27:9 lines 44:18 linked 8:10,11 16:6
17:15 62:1 74:19
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 10
lion's 20:5 list 9:11,11 10:15
48:2 listed 8:21 9:8,10
27:17 28:20 63:8 68:10 84:11 listen 66:3 listening 54:19 lists 9:5 literally 9:2 literature 15:11 116:5 little 5:12 13:19 27:5,7 29:16 35:15 41:11 58:14 67:18 86:9,11 91:7 106:25 132:4 134:5,6 live 67:10,17 111:19 118:11,16 lives 111:8,9,20,25 Lloyd 1:5 2:3 12:21 135:8 136:7 local 85:14 94:1 located 17:18 36:4 38:11 44:9 118:9 location 42:21 79:5 locations 79:4 95:18 logarithmically 72:17 LOLKE 1:5 2:3 135:8 136:7 long43:23 55:23 57:3 59:11 72:10 90:10 113:15,17 134:7 longer 114:3 127:2 131:20 longest 83:21 long-winded 57:24 look7:13 8:1421:1 22:10,17 25:1 27:14 28:20 55:8
55:23 56:14 59:24 71:12 74:14 76:12 78:4 81:10 84:8 87:14 100:11 101:9,15 102:4,21 106:10 107:6,7,8 107:11 112:15 121:13,23 122:24 123:5 124:7,11 129:5 133:13,15 looked 26:17 85:5 97:3 104:22,23 113:5 114:18 looking9:4,5,6,15 18:25 19:7 28:6 47:24 52:7 71:10 97:1 100:5,6 103:13 looks 56:22 58:21 58:24 59:1 85:11 87:11 108:24 Los2:9,14 135:9 lost 80:18,19 lot38:2 39:21 56:13 76:4 92:16 92:22 100:19 110:24 113:25 122:9,20 123:10 lots 38:6 55:4,7 121:25 122:1,11 130:13 low 59:21 78:15 80:9 89:20 94:17 lower 80:5 88:11 88:11 91:6 126:22 LSR 1:20 6:12 135:20 lung48:23 49:5 60:22 71:6 73:2 74:15 81:3,4,7,12 81:15,20 82:4 83:6,9,10,15,16 85:6,7 86:10 122:2 123:5
lungs 82:23 lung-burdened
121:16 Lynberg2:13 L-I-Z-A-R-D-I-T...
29:11 L.L.P 2:4,22
M_______
magnitude 80:13 main 16:20 31:13
74:13 maintain 85:16 maintained 34:1 major 89:2 majority 14:5 male 82:7 manager 16:1
36:10 109:21 mansions 112:5 map 33:8,14 March 1:15 43:10
135:4 136:8 mark 7:5 MARKED 7:9 Market 2:18 Marsh 47:11 52:22 Maryland 52:12
55:12 masks 91:18 92:5
93:6 material 5:7 26:21
26:25 27:6,14,25 28:4,9,24 29:9,16 30:3,4,6,10,25 35:4 40:4 48:18 58:16 71:25 93:17 100:21 101:3,7,11 101:12 102:6 110:23 113:9 114:7 materials 42:9,17 76:2 97:25 matter 70:1 135:8 mean 9:3 15:11,24
20:7 21:24 29:20 30:20 37:9 57:20 80:4 88:10,18,23 89:10,11 91:13 100:19 102:4 104:8 105:18 108:8,19 110:20 111:16 129:19 133:11 meaning 17:2 means 108:17 135:11 meant54:3 108:6 108:16,20 measure 39:13 measured 113:20 114:24 115:1 measures 88:15 measuring 98:22 medical 15:11 85:21 92:25 123:4 127:8 130:6 medicine 127:21 meet 31:15 37:22 member 63:9 Membership 12:17 memo 104:19 111:14 memorandum 48:19 102:25 109:6 memory 109:10 mentioned 37:23 53:17 72:1 73:7 74:17 90:13 127:8 Merle 75:17 mesothelial47:10 76:21,22 mesothelioma 60:22 64:10,16 65:12 66:20 72:11 73:12,24 74:7,16 75:9 76:15 77:12 77:14 78:11 84:9
84:11 85:17,24 115:6 117:25 118:22,25 119:9 119:12,15 121:4 122:16,17,23 123:16 124:17,17 125:14 126:3,8,16 126:17 127:2,25 128:8,10,17,19 129:16 130:5,7,14 mesotheliomas 61:24 62:1,6 64:23 72:18 126:6 met 114:1 meter 39:15 91:15 micrometer 114:2 micrometers 39:5 microscope 26:17 microscopy 55:6 mid 72:21 102:8 mile 31:24 32:6 miles 116:1,14 mill 34:18 37:18 88:17,18,20 89:13 89:14,23,24 91:2 91:3,6 92:6 93:23 97:9 116:14 millers 47:1 64:11 64:24 65:12 71:7 118:20 milligrams 39:15 91:15 milling 47:2 69:4 million 67:3 88:3 122:18 124:15 mills31:7 78:23 79:2,22 80:11 87:23 88:15 91:19 93:20 94:9 96:23 98:23 mill's 91:4 mind 19:8 104:8 mine 10:25 24:11 30:23 31:20,20,22
il W I'J I n
.j u j i t u u - u .m u .M j O a u B J JJ
-U A -UU-IUS!
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 11
31:24 32:2,3,4,8 32:21 33:16 34:3 34:9,18 36:13 37:24 38:1,4,6,7 38:10,19,23 39:22 43:1 77:16 87:24 88:17 89:2,14,23 89:24 90:17 91:3 91:5,7 92:6 93:24 95:18 97:15 98:7 99:10,11,12,14,15 115:20 116:7,12 116:14 mined25:23 31:1 miner 60:19 mineral 14:22 16:21 20:14 25:24 26:4,7 27:2 30:22 31:9 35:7 38:13 54:21 55:24 56:13 57:5 83:19,20 94:18 100:16 mineralogie 14:24 17:4 20:4 23:9 24:12 26:10 27:17 30:16 33:1443:3 43:15 44:8 45:3 47:23 64:18 65:8 65:14 96:10 mineralogical 14:17 16:7 17:15 46:10 47:7 56:13 mineralogist 11:3 24:4,10 110:10 mineralogists 56:7 56:24 122:5 mineralogy 45:22 106:23 125:9 minerals31:14 56:15 57:1,8,10 57:16,21 87:13 110:13 miners 47:1 64:11 64:24 65:12 71:7
92:19,21 118:20 119:7 126:4 mines 31:18 32:20 34:9 36:4,25 39:24 40:24,25 53:24 62:8 78:23 79:2,22 80:10 87:23 88:6,15 89:7 91:19 92:4 94:8 96:23 98:22 99:3 109:14 115:7 115:10,11,12,12 115:14,16,18 116:10,16 118:8 118:11,17,17 126:19 minimum 129:14 mining 8:25 11:2,3 26:15,16 30:19 32:22 37:15 47:2 69:4 99:13 109:20 122:23 124:4,4 minute 40:11,11 78:25 132:7 missed 113:2 missing 14:2 mix 20:14 27:20 mixed 56:10 modern 88:19,19 modest 87:19 modifications 105:13 moment 43:23 50:25 monitor 93:22 111:6 monitoring 40:17 42:11,22 95:19 97:14 98:7,7 99:3 99:10 months 43:10 111:13 Moran 2:17 morbidity 85:22
92:13 123:4 morning 8:15 28:7 mortality 46:25
47:2 48:24 49:17 50:5 53:2,5 59:14 61:22,24,25 68:25 72:24 73:5,13 74:14 75:1 81:13 84:10 92:12 117:25 118:21 120:4,10,23 128:5 Mossman 47:11 50:25 52:22 move 66:15 moved 84:21 88:24 movement 89:13 MSDS 30:11 MSDS's 100:6 106:5,6 MSHA 99:19,20 Murrin2:19 myriad 38:3 mystery 56:10
N
N 3:1 4:1 54:6 name4:2 6:20,21
8:21 9:7,11,12 32:1 33:19 35:25 36:10 names 116:6 National 75:17 nature 37:6,8 127:12 necessarily 37:2 need 10:22 21:2,8 23:18 67:19 132:18 133:5,9 negative 88:21 neither 35:19 61:25 121:11 135:14 never 40:4 58:14 89:7 124:19 nevertheless 76:19 new 16:5 25:24
36:13,1440:1 48:24 49:17 50:5 62:7 87:25 88:4 90:13 95:14 97:2 97:13,14,16,18 98:6,21,23,24 99:4 112:5 115:8 118:22 119:11,20 133:10 Niehaus 103:2 108:4 110:13 112:3 night 43:11 54:10 nine 13:15 16:23 18:12,19,20 19:11 34:13 36:17 ninety 79:19,24 Ninth 2:9 NIOSH40:! 51:5 71:5 74:25 75:3 78:5,13 92:11 noise 127:16 Noland 103:2 108:3 110:4,9 111:23 non-asbestiform 29:8,15 112:20 123:20 non-existent 58:8 non-malignant 83:17 north 32:15 66:23 66:24 111:25 127:19 Norwalk 1:17 34:4 34:6 79:3 111:20 135:5 nosologist 85:10 120:12 nosologists 73:18 notarized 136:16 136:17 Notary 3:18 6:13 noted 5:25 71:6 notice3:14 4:9 5:6
5:7,23 6:24 7:1,3 7:8 9:20,24 10:5 13:11 19:1 28:18 42:18 43:21 44:1 60:11 62:18,20,20 67:25 107:15,19 noticed 44:21 83:16 nowadays 92:23 number 7:21,21 8:24 9:8 10:21 13:15 16:22 19:11 23:4 32:21 43:20 47:4,13 64:16,19 79:21 80:3 103:3 103:5 108:8 114:20 115:17 129:14 numbered 114:1 numbers 8:11 10:7 80:23 Nytal 27:8,8,16 28:25 N.E 2:23
O
03:1 object27:21 34:16
40:10 44:17 65:25 130:16 objection 6:1 40:11 42:13 68:16 98:11 objections 3:4,5 5:7 5:15,16,20 9:17 68:13 obligation 133:13 observation 125:2 125:4 obvious 132:13 obviously 30:6,20 78:6 84:17 100:19 105:19 110:1 114:9 occasion 96:11 99:16 occupational 14:20
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 12
16:2,6 38:3 47:3 117:12 127:21 occur 64:24 occurred 64:11 73:25 74:16,24 85:24 occurring 122:16 occurs 122:17 124:15 offer 63:14,18 offered 13:2,7 66:9 67:15 128:7 129:8 129:12 offhand 77:17 office 17:22 34:5 95:14 109:6 officer 110:5 offices 135:5 Oh 7:25 9:18,21,25 10:4 13:24 15:23 18:25 20:5 40:8 45:24 70:9 91:20 100:5 101:21 103:8 114:17 118:15 128:24,25 128:25 129:5 oil26:3 31:13,15 37:22 okay 6:2,20,23 7:3 7:5,11,19 8:4,8,19 8:21,23,24 10:3,9 10:14,21 11:7,15 12:2,5,9 13:3,8 14:4,23 15:2,23 16:11,18,22,23,24 17:18,21,23 18:11 18:25 19:6,23 20:2123:17 24:3 24:17,23 25:10,12 26:8,17,24 27:11 28:14,18,23 29:19 29:22 30:3 31:17 32:4,10,20 33:7 33:18 34:1,5,12
35:10 36:7,21 37:12,16,24 38:18 38:21 39:3,6,9 40:6,9 42:24 45:1 45:7 46:3,18,21 47:18 48:6,11,16 48:20,22 49:4,7 49:11,16 50:3,22 51:3,4,6,8,11,13 51:15,18,21,25 52:1,9,14,16,17 52:18,23 53:3,8 53:14 54:3,12,14 58:17,23,25 59:2 59:6,18,23 61:20 64:7,9 67:10,13 68:15,25 69:10,18 69:24 70:2 71:1 71:24 72:13 73:8 73:10 74:4 78:1,9 79:21 82:2 84:5 85:14,20 86:5 89:9,17,22,25 90:5,23 91:8,18 92:5 94:6,21 96:3 96:9,17 97:13,18 97:23 98:17 99:2 99:9,23 101:6,21 102:12,22 103:16 103:17 104:15,21 105:9 106:8 107:1 107:1 108:12,17 109:5,16,22 110:15,16 111:14 111:21 112: 1,10 113:12 115:18 116:9 117:6,11,17 117:23 118:10,19 120:13,20 127:1 127:22 128:9 129:4 130:8,12 131:7 132:24 134:8,11 old 28:9 100:6
oldest 101:23 once31:ll 83:12
105:20 ones 8:6,19 10:13
13:12,22 49:19,21 49:22 51:22 57:17 68:14 73:6 81:20 89:16 93:10 101:20 103:6,8 105:2,8,10 130:2 130:3,4,5 Oosterom2:10 open 136:17 opened 31:19 75:6 open-face 39:12 operated 31:20 116:8 operates 120:23 operation 11:4 30:20 87:21 92:18 97:4,5 116:7,19 116:23 127:24 operational 116:11 operations 32:22 88:12 97:6 119:4 operator 93:19,21 opinions 63:10,12 64:20 opportunity 41:23 42:1 opposite70:6 83:13 83:20 options 32:24 order 57:22 61:7 61:1968:18 80:12 88:8 106:15 114:21 ore31:5,21,22 32:7 32:11 33:5,10,19 33:23,24 34:17 37:1,8 40:23,25 41:8,15 88:24 89:13 112:20 ored 37:24
Orfitelli 1:20 6:12 135:3,20 136:20
organization 12:18 original 92:11
110:23 136:12,13 originally 74:23 OSHA 102:7 111:4 outcome 135:16 outside 60:10
126:23 129:7 136:17 overall 97:4 overexposed 87:8 87:10 overexposure 94:17 oversaw 109:12 110:22 o'clock 132:16
P3:l pack 52:21 package 38:20
46:13 51:4 105:15 packages 104:23,25 packaging 11:24
104:9,10,18 105:14,24 106:14 107:4 packing 91:17 93:25 94:2 page 4:7 7:12,19,20 7:21,25 10:2,3 68:1 71:18,21,22 71:22 79:1 103:23 pages 47:4 paid 69:18 70:2,4 70:12 paper 48:22 49:5 55:11 56:5 57:25 80:15 117:16,17 121:7 122:11 125:7,11 129:20 papers 36:6 122:11
parameters 26:3,3 37:22
Parnell 2:22 13:18 part9:4,5 23:7,11
28:4 32:11 38:12 38:20 87:4 92:11 92:11 99:15 121:18 127:15 Partially 121:14 particle 27:6,10 31:1039:13 88:2 particles 56:11 88:3 particular 33:19 42:6 88:18 133:18 particularly 106:22 107:2 particulate 113:20 parties 3:3,9 135:14,16 partner 132:6 parts 76:1,1 patents 111:2 pathologists 125:16 pathology 85:5 120:5 125:9,24 pays 69:22 70:1,8 70:13 Peachtree 2:23 peer 117:15,16 pending 135:9 people 16:16 62:20 65:11 67:9,10,17 70:11 71:2,10,11 72:14 73:20 74:6 78:9,14 79:7,21 79:25 80:10,19,21 80:24 81:14,16,18 82:19,21 83:10,12 83:21 85:2 91:22 92:2,8 93:1,3 100:24 109:3 118:20 123:25 124:2,23 125:8,13
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 13
125:24 126:3,12 126:24 130:13 percent 29:2,7,8,9 29:13,16,1731:9 55:16,19 58:2,9,9 58:18 59:19 81:15 83:11 87:17 113:1 114:6 127:10 percentage 27:16 31:3 58:2,3 59:22 percentages 28:21 29:24 performed 30:16 period 68:20 70:25 72:13 74:8 77:14 78:11 80:22,25 90:13 127:1 periodically 39:25 periods 68:21 93:8 permanently 95:3 persisted 81:5 person 6:24 7:14 7:17 8:1,7,18,20 10:6,12 12:25 13:13 29:23 36:7 36:16 60:21 68:4 68:16 74:4 77:15 86:2 105:22 106:16 126:15 persons 7:23 person's 94:19 pertain 36:18 45:20 45:21 136:10 pertained 111:6 pertaining 8:7 14:24 107:3 pertains 14:17 106:22 pertinent24:6,13 46:14,18 52:3 53:9,13 63:12 98:12 129:9 Peter 13:25 Peto 72:16
Pharmacology 47:12
physical 17:21,22 physically 38:15 pick 22:22 121:24
122:4 134:5,9 picked 121:23 picking 102:1
134:1 picture 35:2 pictures 54:24 59:4 pipe 35:2,3,5 Pit 31:23 32:4,21 place37:13 91:11
123:21 126:25 plaintiff 1:5 2:2
23:20 PLAINTIFFS 7:7 plans 132:19 plant36:10 37:18
109:13 plated 55:25 plausible 82:3 play 134:4 playing 81:25 Plaza 2:18,23 please 17:11 pleura 75:21 76:6
123:19 plot 33:5 plural47:10 75:12
75:20 PMK 63:1 129:11 pneumoconiosis
83:18,23 87:11 93:2 point 6:3 20:24 37:10 42:12 43:6 92:23 pointed 82:17 pointing 101:7 policy 13:4 132:17 poor 70:1,8 125:11 population 79:9
80:18 82:7,7 122:18 127:10 populations 59:15 83:2,14 123:7 portion 132:22 pose 57:12 position 41:13 53:23 129:5 positive 88:21,22 89:12,23 93:5 possession 17:6 133:14,20 possible 70:15 87:10 104:6 122:22 potentially 124:23 pound 12:1 pre 101:23 precaution 100:11 precautions 101:8 predate 19:16 25:21 78:7 predated 96:14 predecessor 110:7 110:19 predicated 72:23 preface 23:25 preliminary 69:12 71:5 72:1,2,8 86:20 preparation 106:17 106:20 prepared 9:10 18:15 64:25 66:7 preprinted 108:15 present 40:16 55:21 76:10 80:9 112:13 114:9,12 127:23 presented 62:25 63:23 president 109:12 110:4 pressure 88:21,22
89:13,23 93:5 presumably 133:16 pretty 20:11 22:16
29:4 44:15 55:13 55:20 90:25 91:1 91:2 96:7 106:11 123:23 prevalence 83:22 previously 119:8 pre-1974 79:23 primary 16:8 85:12 86:23 prior 16:13 24:9,14 25:18 26:11 30:8 72:24 73:4 79:17 86:25 87:6 99:21 privilege 44:19 probably 10:18 12:24 16:9,14 25:21 38:7 39:11 40:3 54:8 55:21 59:10 67:8,8 79:11,1891:23 99:18 101:24 104:5 105:4 107:9 108:24 115:22 116:25 119:17 134:6 problem 5:15 22:12 82:18 98:15 124:13 125:7 problematic 121:17 121:19 problems 20:17 proceeded 106:3 process 30:15 43:25 processed 37:17 produce5:17 21:5 21:1941:1742:4 42:17 45:11 53:15 60:4 76:14 98:3 98:16 102:6,9 106:8 124:21
130:23 produced 5:18,22
13:17,18 14:13 15:3,13 17:4,5 18:12 19:2421:2 21:6,17 22:12,15 30:5 41:15 42:17 43:20 46:5,19 47:15,24 48:14,16 49:24 50:7,17 51:18 53:3,12 61:5 72:6 98:1 100:21 101:13 102:23 105:2,23 114:5,6 131:24 producing 5:5 product 16:3 25:22 27:7 31:8 37:2,11 37:11,17,20 75:20 75:25 76:11,18 95:13 110:24 112:13,18 114:14 production 17:24 18:7 42:18 107:15 109:12,13 110:23 110:23 133:19 products 26:6 29:5 123:12 professional 75:13 Professor 52:11 55:22 profile 30:18 program 91:11 104:4 programs 26:2 123:4 project 85:3 99:7 projects 55:7 proliferative 47:8 77:1 promise 132:21 promotion 114:19 prompted 119:4 121:24
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 14
proof3:9 proper31:14,14
130:20 properly 136:18 proportion 113:16 protection 92:3 protective 136:12 proven 60:20 provide 19:3,18
22:2 24:13,24,25 25:5 45:16,18 55:4 87:15 91:18 95:20 provided 17:17 26:6 42:3 73:6 92:5 93:19 96:2 100:4 providing 93:6 Public3:18 6:13 publish 67:9 published 36:5 48:8 69:9 71:17 88:4 97:3 98:25 117:11 pull 17:25 18:6 35:3 48:17 pulmonary 127:16 127:18,21 punitive 85:6 purchased 92:18 pure 56:20 76:2 purposes 15:6,7,22 26:2 38:3 pursuant 6:24 43:21 push 93:21 pushing 96:17 put 5:4 23:23 31:1 31:7 40:11 48:1 50:25 62:17 76:5 102:14 123:19,21 Putnam 36:10,24 38:16 putting 104:17
P-U-T-N-A-M 36:11
P.M5:1 134:12
________ Q ___ _
QC35:15 37:21 qualification
118:25 quality 26:2 30:15
31:12 37:13,22 quarter 114:2 quartz29:17 question 3:6 5:10
11:8,9 14:12 15:2 18:5,5 19:8 21:9 25:11 27:22 44:24 47:19 55:14,15 61:9,21 65:17 66:13 71:9 74:6 81:11 87:4 105:9 106:13 125:1 130:15,20 questioning 66:8 71:4 questions 18:21 19:25 47:16 53:21 63:20,21 64:1 65:3,25 68:17 70:11 73:2 132:14 133:8,10,22 quibbiing 120:20 quick 8:14 quickly 10:14 quit 131:15 quite 90:24,24
_______ R radiographically
87:12 radiologist 127:18 radius 115:25 rafters 93:13 raised 5:11 16:16 random 57:1 range 27:16 29:2,5
31:3 58:7,7,18 59:21 64:13 66:24 79:20,24 ranges 29:21 80:4 rapidly 82:24 rare 55:20,20 57:6 58:15 rareness 112:25 rate 66:19 71:6 82:6 118:25 rates 73:3 118:22 reached 92:23 read 10:22 54:8,13 57:25 63:11 101:22 102:2 103:13 107:23,23 126:24 127:17 reading3:16 133:23 READING/SIG... 136:14 ready 131:2 real 107:25 108:18 112:23 realize 78:14 really 16:14 20:8 20:24 57:3,4 79:6 86:23 103:21 105:17 108:16,19 121:19,20 126:22 128:3,11,11 131:22 reason 22:5,11 41:16 52:14 54:15 62:13 85:23 131:7 reasonable 89:20 97:7 126:22 reasons 54:15 56:17 62:3 74:21 74:22 81:1,11 83:3 121:18 132:17 receive 136:16 received 7:9 12:16
15:19 43:11 60:2 68:6,8 95:24 receiving 95:24 RECESS 132:11 recognize 47:14 recommend 17:17 recommendation 44:1645:10,13 recommendations 44:14 95:20 recommended 20:15 21:6,16 22:14 46:5 record 5:5 6:7 25:3 32:1 34:8 40:12 43:7 67:21,23 94:20 106:5 119:25 135:12 records 6:25 8:16 14:13,23 15:6,8 15:18 16:1221:4 21:13,18,1923:8 30:4 34:2 35:19 35:21,23,23 36:18 38:18 40:7,18 41:16,1742:3,4 43:3,14 84:17 85:16 105:1 107:2 recovery 42:20 RECROSS 4:2 REDIRECT 4:2 reduced 135:11 refer 38:12 116:6 reference 27:16,25 29:23 85:12 115:14 references 105:4 117:11 referred 115:11 referring 18:17 refers 119:19 122:4 reflect 88:1 97:22 reflected 71:18 75:10 81:13 86:12
101:3 reflecting 38:18 refuse 66:11 refusing41:21 66:5
66:12 124:21 refute 41:13 refuted 41:3 regard 31:9 53:1 regarding 63:1 regenerated 93:14 regenerates 93:16 region 33:23 88:6
88:12 97:6 115:15 115:16,20 116:19 regional 89:7 registration 110:25 regulated 57:8,16 57:21 regulates 39:24 regulations 111:3 rejecting 85:23 relate 13:12 18:12 36:24 37:1 105:15 related 19:11,12 1 47:22 60:6 61:15 112:9 135:14 relating 8:25 12:14 12:16 17:1 18:1,8 20:2 23:5 24:14 25:5 34:20 35:13 59:25 60:2 68:7,8 71:25 relation 5:11 relationship 114:19 relative 135:15 relays 115:3 relevant 24:19 25:5 25:1440:741:4 41:12 42:1843:5 46:10 60:24 61:4 reliable 123:15 relied 84:12 121:12 relies 120:11 religious 91:20
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 15
religiously 91:22 rely 84:12 85:8
120:6 123:16 relying 5:20 68:12
68:14 remain 91:16 remember 12:3
24:1 54:1 68:4,9 remove 93:13 removed 75:7 repeat25:l 1 87:3 report 51:5 54:5,9
54:20 59:4 71:17 72:2,2 86:13 129:19 reported 54:5 61:24 74:15,17,18 78:5 88:2,9 113:14 121:5 reporter 1:20 132:19 Reporter/Commi... 135:3 Reporting 1:21 136:1,21 reports 18:4 19:15 20:9,10,11,14 54:17 55:5 69:12 86:20 92:1 95:20 repository 44:7 represent 6:21 representative 20:23 76:18 114:14 representing 2:2,7 2:11,16,21 20:25 123:12 request 5:19 7:20 7:21 8:11,15 13:9 17:24 19:11,19 21:16 34:13 43:8 43:18 44:10 45:5 107:19 requested 14:3
requests 107:14 require 73:13 required 100:22
102:9 requiring 121:6 research 55:7
110:12,14 researchers 78:13
82:20 reserve 23:1 47:15
124:4 reserved 3:4 reserving 5:15
53:20 98:10 133:8 resides 36:12 respect7:ll,15
14:14 36:17 38:9 41:14 44:8 45:8 65:10 107:14,19 114:10 respectfully 44:2 61:2 respirable 39:4,16 90:21 91:15 respirators 100:14 respiratory 48:24 83:17 92:2 respond 68:22 125:4 response 5:6,23,25 8:11,15 123:14 responsibility 36:9 75:13 responsible 16:2 122:12,25 responsive 5:19 18:20 19:19,22 21:15 34:13 44:10 45:4 rest 17:11 26:20 60:24 62:5 106:9 results 71:5 123:23 resume 133:4,19 retain 74:10 136:18
retained 4:20 retention 13:4 retired 84:21
111:25 retrieval 134:2 returned 6:8 returns 6:5 review 21:22 22:1
24:25 41:23 42:1 42:4 43:24 73:18 98:4 125:8 127:19 133:21 134:2 reviewed 7:4 63:11 85:10 96:11 117:15,16 reviewer 95:15 ribbon 58:22,24 ridiculous 131:7 right5:16 7:21 9:6 13:8 14:9 15:1 21:22 22:19,25 23:1 27:24 28:16 28:18 32:14 34:24 44:4 47:16 48:13 50:2,9 51:2 53:20 54:14,18 59:10 64:3 65:4 66:11 67:25 68:16 69:6 70:22 76:6 77:3 77:11 80:23 90:5 98:18 101:10,24 104:21 105:11,25 107:22 112:8 115:5 117:3 118:5 118:14 119:7,15 123:19 124:9 126:1,23 131:15 131:17 132:3,8,10 133:8,24 risk 16:1,1,3 49:6 57:12 67:7,7 72:16 95:15 99:25 122:19 risks 57:18 99:25
Brandon Smith Reporting
risky 101:5 rock 33:24 rod 59:1 Rodent 47:9 rodents 75:21 role 81:25 roll 93:15 room 6:3 93:21 rough 79:20,20 roughly 116:14 routine 99:7 rules 65:23 run 10:14 34:19
82:25 runs 64:15,19
73:22 81:21 Ruth 2:14 R.S 132:16 R.T 1:16 2:21 15:5
135:5
S
S3:l,l safety 16:2,20
26:22,25 27:25 28:4,9,24 30:4,6 30:10 38:4 39:23 48:18 74:5 90:17 97:15 98:7 99:10 99:12 100:21 101:3,7,11,13 102:6 110:23 sale 11:17 sales 8:16 16:12 sample 30:21 34:24 39:10 40:6 76:17 76:18 113:3,19 114:4,9,13,14,15 samples 25:17,19 25:21 32:23 33:2 33:4,15 34:1,9,15 35:8,8 37:12,14 37:18,19,25 38:4 38:23,24,24 39:11 39:12,17,19,25
40:1,3 41:12
42:10 76:4,11,20
76:20 89:18 90:11
90:19 94:15
112:24 113:5,6,16
113:24 114:23,24
114:25 115:3
120:18
sampling38:l,10
38:19,21 39:22
41:3,12 42:23
43:2 97:19 99:16
San 2:5,19
save 63:7
saw 46:12,12 51:23
83:22 100:3
111:12
saying 84:3 129:15
says 7:23 28:8
55:22 69:25
101:22 103:19,20
104:2 107:24
116:9 118:24
119:6,7 122:15
science 45:14
125:11
scientific 15:11
69:25 70:7
scientists 56:14
scope 129:7,11,11
129:13
seal 135:17
sealed 136:12,17,22
secluded 93:20
second 31:17 37:5
49:4 50:24 52:2
59:18,24 75:3
86:2 94:22 131:9
131:11
Secondly 121:17
section 27:15 29:23
100:11,12 101:8
102:3
I sections 33:24
[
Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 16
security 132:17 Sedgwick 2:17 see 7:25 8:10,10,21
8:22,24 9:7 18:25 19:23 22:1,3,10 22:15,16 28:11,12 28:15,17,21,23 29:1 31:4 32:18 35:6 47:16 52:20 54:18 55:10 59:3 65:4 71:19,21 76:8 81:2,5,23 83:1,5,13 84:3,6 85:11 87:12 93:1 94:5 97:3 98:8 105:6 106:9 107:2 108:4 109:7 113:21 117:25 119:9,12 123:23 134:2 seeing 82:18 92:25 seeking 42:20 seen 7:3 16:15 17:16,1622:7 49:3 51:21 52:13 76:15 96:20 99:19 100:2 102:19 123:6 130:6 134:5 sees 59:9 Segal 2:14 selected 18:23 23:19 122:3 sell 10:20 29:5 SEM 122:3 send 84:23 98:5 114:17 sense 20:12 102:16 125:11 sensitive 76:7 122:4 122:6 sent 6:25 9:11 14:3 20:15 28:8 44:14 100:7 103:6,8 separate 26:19 31:1
61:9 63:3,6 separated 32:5
112:18 separately 112:15 separation 112:17 seriously 133:12 serpentine 29:10
31:6 35:17 38:23 54:22 serve 43:8 served 13:23 44:1 44:11 serves 109:10 service 1:21 96:1 Services 136:1 servicing 95:16 set 21:18 105:15 settled 93:16 seven 11:16 47:4 52:15 68:2 81:17 111:13 seventeen 59:25 68:1 seventeen-year 74:8 seventy 79:15,18 79:19,23 80:2,10 80:12 shaky 131:4 share 20:5 116:2 sheet 26:22 27:1,14 27:25 28:1,5,9 30:10 101:7,13 sheets 28:24 30:4,7 48:18 100:21 101:3,11 102:6 110:24 136:16,17 shelf75:21 short 62:3 75:1 77:14 78:10 80:25 131:18 shortest 82:21 Shorthand 135:3 Short-Term 49:6
shot 134:1 show 60:11 123:15
124:1,5 showed 93:2 103:9
119:24 showing 81:20
121:2 shown 57:12,17 shows 54:24,24
87:19 98:11 sick 69:23 70:10 signatures 28:2 signed 3:18 136:20 significant 45:15 significantly 45:15
88:13 89:15 signing3:17 signs 87:19 93:2 silica 39:7,17 SIMES2:4 similar 30:13,14
76:15 87:12 101:15 similarities 48:23 123:7 simple 43:17 simply 39:12 single81:5 123:22 124:10,17 sir 6:20 7:13 34:23 41:15 44:6,24 61:12 62:22 64:7 65:19 66:2 122:8 sit 127:9 site 34:18 sitting21:12 24:9 87:16 six 1:23 7:12,19,20 10:2,3,24,25,25 52:15 57:8,16,17 57:21 sixteen 59:24 68:1 Sixth 2:9 sixty 29:9 87:16
127:9 size27:6 31:10,14
39:5 108:10 sizes 31:8 57:5 skim 7:22 48:14,20 Skinner 47:11 skip 59:23 slides 119:22 120:2
120:8,13,17,21 121:6 smaller 27:7 smart42:24 43:2 Smith 1:21 51:20 51:23 75:22,24 77:6 113:7 136:1 136:21 smoking 81:9,25 82:5,6 S0C02:16 sold 8:16 10:19,19 11:19,21,23 16:12 17:2,2 18:2,9 19:12,13,20 20:3 23:6 24:6,14,20 24:20 25:6,15 35:14 36:25 37:7 37:11 102:14 soluble 57:11 somebody 9:9,13 43:13 128:18 someplace 105:6 somewhat 16:19 56:10 58:6 soon 6:5 sorry 25:11 7l':22 103:3 111:15 125:6 sort 8:17 14:10 30:18 32:24 33:8 33:13,14,15,16 34:25 35:1 36:19 48:19 56:12 57:2 79:23 80:9 85:10 85:15 88:20 90:1
90:22 92:23 108:15 109:11 110:19 sought 5:8 42:10 62:15 63:1 Sounds 120:1 source 94:3 sources 11:6 26:9 26:11 south 2:13 118:3 119:1 span 74:25 78:16 spans 78:15 speak 11:25 12:7 12:12,13,15,23 43:3 94:10 116:3 special 99:7 100:11 101:8 specialist 127:19,21 specific 30:10 48:3 52:18 53:1 specifically 48:4 51:17 84:8 85:4 107:12 115:3 specifications 33:1 specs 31:15 spend 10:11 spoken 36:15,18 106:1,13,18 spot32:23 33:3 spray 89:4 Square 1:23 St 32:14,16,19,20 67:11,17 85:16 115:11 118:3,9,10 118:11 stack 13:16 18:19 43:11 49:20,23 50:7,14 51:18,21 staining 125:17 stake 124:4 Stamford 1:24 standard 69:25 70:7 91:13 102:7
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 17
102:10,11 111:4 128:9 Stanton 52:4 75:17 75:23 76:3 77:5 113:5,11 114:21 114:25 start 13:20 70:21 104:4 started 5:3 6:6 12:3 77:15,23 78:1 90:20 91:23 starting 13:15 state 1:1 6:13,21 16:5 25:23 40:2 48:25 50:5 62:8 88:4 90:13 97:2 97:14,16,18 98:6 98:21,23,24 99:4 115:8 118:22 135:1,3,9 statement 5:25 States 115:21 stations 94:2 statistics 125:9,24 status 78:5 84:22 112:2 stayed 90:25 91:2 Steitmatter 109:8 109:18 stencil 108:14 stenographically 135:11 Steuart2:18 stick 35:3
Stille 50:4 51:2 stipulated 3:3,8,13
3:16 102:10 stop 132:20 stopped 127:4 straight 120:3,10 Street 1:16 2:4,9,13
2:23 135:5 Streitmatter 103:1
108:2 109:11
111:24 strengths 124:9 strike 66:16 strikes 24:3 strong 45:16 student 86:22
117:10 studied 38:6,7
56:18 59:11 studies 14:21,22
25:18 39:25 45:21 46:12,18,25 48:1 48:3 50:2,16 51:1 51:12,13,14,16 52:17,25 59:12,14 59:16 61:23 72:24 73:5 74:14 75:19 76:6 81:3,13,23 84:7 87:25 114:20 114:20,24 119:8 121:9 123:4,14,14 123:17,25 124:2 128:5 study 47:6,7 48:7,9 50:21,22,24,25 51:20,24 52:2,3,4 52:20,21 53:4 62:2 68:25 69:3,7 69:15,15,16,22 70:1,4,8,13,13,21 70:23 71:10,13,23 71:25 72:14,20,23 73:14 74:9,25 75:1,14,16,24 76:7,9,11 77:4,6,8 77:9 80:17 81:2,5 82:8 83:3,4,8 84:10 85:5 86:15 86:23 92:12,15 112:10 113:14 114:18,22 115:2 117:19 120:2,3,4 120:11,14,15,22 120:23,23 121:1
121:16,17,20 124:8,9,9,11,13 124:22,24 126:15 127:4 stuff 11:17 16:21 20:20,22,22 21:1 42:8 50:13 55:8 61:4 72:5 97:15 98:8 103:10 112:6 131:25 subject 18:12 23:2 68:1,15 104:4,25 117:18 subjects 7:15 9:5 64:7 68:3 submit 43:25 subsequent 30:8 105:12 subsequently 24:7 subtract 78:3 sued 130:5 suffer 12:21 suffering 61:14 sufficiently 122:4 suggest 104:14 132:19 suggested 17:7 suggestion 104:16 suggestive 118:23 119:6 suggests 104:19 119:3 123:2,3 Suntrust2:23 superior 1:1 23:23 supplement 117:13 supplied 9:1 11:1,4 12:22 support41:13 118:23 supported 41:3 suppresses 90:6 sure 14:6 16:14 32:17 33:25 35:16 37:21 40:1,13
42:14 50:20 67:1 67:20 70:17 71:12 72:5 79:1 89:19 101:9 102:20 104:13 106:10 113:6 126:21 surrogate 82:12 surveillance 85:21 93:1 123:4 127:9 127:12,23 130:3,7 survey 33:14 35:23 35:23 surveyor 75:5 surveys 36:3 sworn 6:12 135:7 synonym 57:14 system 11:17 systems 94:2
T 3 :l,l Tabershaw 50:4
51:2 table 16:17 71:18
71:21 72:8 tables 97:21,23
98:5 tags 13:19 take8:14 31:4
32:22 35:2,4 39:25 43:23 67:18 88:14 89:18 99:1 112:24 123:18,20 131:17 132:4,5 133:12,25 taken 3:10 6:23 31:11 33:2,4 34:9 37:19,20 38:4,23 38:24,25 40:1,3 125:23 132:11 135:11,15 talc 9:1 10:18,25 11:4,18,19,21,23 11:24 12:22 14:17 14:20,25 16:5
17:1,15 18:1,8 19:12,20,20 20:3 20:13,16 23:6,12 23:21 24:6,8,14 24:20 25:6,14,17 25:23 26:8,8,10 26:12,14,20 27:1 27:5,18,19,19 28:2,3 29:5,6,21 29:25 30:2,11,17 30:25 31:4,5,21 34:21 35:14 36:1 36:23,24 37:7 38:14,22 43:4 45:21,22 47:2,9 48:3,5,5,20,25 49:17 50:5 51:17 52:3,15,18 53:10 53:24,24 54:17,23 54:23,23 55:2,15 55:16,20,21,22,23 55:24 56:2,4,4,18 56:20 57:7 58:2,3 58:3,4,18,19,21 59:14,1960:16,19 60:19,23 62:2,7 64:6,15,21 65:13 69:4 70:24 71:8 74:20 75:2,9,14 75:18 76:5,10,12 76:22 77:1,16 79:3,6,8,22 80:11 80:22 81:8 83:19 83:19 87:1,7,8,9,9 87:21 88:12 92:4 92:17,25 94:8,18 95:18 97:6 99:24 100:1 101:13 102:14 104:4,9,18 109:21 112:12,25 113:1,12,24 114:7 114:11,16 115:3,7 115:10,12,12,14 115:16,18,20
Brandon Smith Reporting , Service LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 18
116:7,10,12,14,16 116:19 117:18 118:8,11,16,17,19 119:4,7,12,15 122:16,23 124:17 126:4,6,7,18 talcosis 83:23 87:11 talcs 27:15 talk 48:21 54:19 66:25 132:1 talked 86:2,6 111:11 talking 13:14,14,22 31:24 42:8 50:2 51:24 53:18 60:15 62:19 78:19 79:2 79:12 80:5,7,8 93:8 103:12 119:14 128:4 talks 119:17,19 tandem 84:4 technical 51:5 techniques 125:17 technologies 89:12 technology 88:20 97:9 TELEPHONE 2:2 2:7,11,16 tell 7:13 8:5,19 9:16 10:15,19 11:12,23 22:16 25:10,12 27:22 38:2144:6 54:3 56:14 61:22 64:9 71:9,13,14 74:13 87:15 94:11 98:15 99:23 100:25 113:8 122:6 125:17 129:25 telling 24:1 27:13 27:24 tells 99:11 ten 7:21,25 11:21 20:7 23:4 34:14
36:17 39:5 67:4 79:11 88:8 93:18 115:22 117:24 122:19 tend 45:16 92:19 tended 83:22 92:2 tendered 44:20 126:2 tenure71:3 82:10 82:16 term 57:13,15 59:12 terminology 56:9 terms 15:21 47:25 47:25 48:7 53:2 55:5 75:10,12,12 82:19 83:4 90:21 96:13 113:20 117:24 133:19 terrible 125:10,11 test 75:14 76:19 123:22 tested 31:12 75:24 76:2 112:21 113:19 testified 6:14 testify 64:5 65:1 66:8 135:7 testimony 87:1,6 129:13 131:16 135:10,12 testing30:16,16 104:5 113:19 127:16 tests 37:21 127:15 Texas 87:9 text 107:23 Thank 13:3 53:20 98:18 theory 113:17 thick 54:12 thin 113:15,17 thing 5:12 8:17 9:20 10:1,22
16:20 23:17 25:22 35:24 36:19 48:19 57:20 84:16 90:22 108:25 112:18,23 114:8 122:12 things 28:1 31:12 48:149:24 54:25 59:9 61:8 63:9 64:3 89:10 93:7 104:22 105:20 106:2 108:8 133:13 think5:24 10:16 11:25 12:23 14:18 18:22 19:15 20:5 21:7 22:10 23:22 33:22 36:5 40:2,6 40:23 44:14 46:6 46:7,14,24 47:5 49:1,9 51:23 53:6 53:11,11 55:9 64:22 66:3,25 67:1,6 69:11,13 71:18 72:7,24 73:17 74:24 75:3 75:22 77:18,21 78:6,7 79:11,16 79:16 80:17,19 85:9 86:10 90:15 90:18 91:20 95:12 97:1,7 99:18,20 99:22 100:3,22 102:7,7,9,19 103:11,15 105:7 107:6 108:23,24 108:25 110:21 111:12 112:9 113:3,4 114:3 115:21 116:4,25 117:2,9 118:3,24 119:16,16,23 120:18 125:15,16 125:20 130:12,17 130:23,25 131:20
131:23 thinking 10:1 third 51:1 third-party 95:13 thirteen 119:18,18
121:24 thirty 29:13 55:16
75:7 78:16 79:13 79:25 86:9 114:6 thirty-one 83:11 85:6 86:10 thirty-three 83:10 thirty-two 83:11 Thompson 103:2 108:3 110:9 111:18 thorough 20:10 thoroughly 55:9 thought 97:8 101:13,19 131:7 131:13 thousand 67:2,4 80:5 122:19 thousands 56:16 three 10:24 119:23 120:18 threshold 101:2 throw 123:17 thrust 74:14 time3:4 10:11 13:12 16:13 26:25 28:19 33:3 45:1 60:5,6,10 62:15 63:7,14,19 64:17 68:20,21 70:25 71:4 72:22 73:1 78:20 80:8,22,25 81:15 82:11,19,21 88:6 91:1,4,6 93:8 95:8 96:3 100:16 101:2 105:14,19 107:18 111:11 123:22 127:22 128:14 132:23
134:9
times 81:4 88:9
99:15
tiny 57:6
tissue 120:18
tissues 122:2
TLV 100:15
TLV's 100:15
today 5:5,9 14:13
17:4,5 22:24
47:24 50:18 63:1
63:20,22 65:1
66:8 87:16 127:10
133:1,3,6,9,14
told 19:1021:14
23:21 49:25 55:16
59:13,21 64:17
65:1 132:7
top 48:2 71:19
topics 68:9
tore 62:5
total39:l,16 78:24
90:21 91:15
totality 124:8,11
totally 40:18 83:13
123:23
Tower 2:18
town 116:13
Toxicology 47:12
tracheal 47:9 76:22
transcript 3:17
136:12,13
TRANSCRIPTI...
135:12
transitional 56:7
transitionals 56:19
56:21
transmission 55:6
tremolite 11:22
29:8 38:22 60:23
76:2,3 112:19,20 I
112:22 123:18,21 |
tremolitic 14:20 I
16:5 25:23
I
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 19
trial 3:5 tried 54:10 73:10 true 57:4,5 67:8
99:22 104:20 113:22 123:6 126:20 135:12 truth 135:7,7,7 try 14:9 30:22 83:4 89:20 93:13,16 94:2 121:15 132:12 134:9 trying 10:10 18:23 29:22 30:23 31:9 32:23 49:23 50:14 79:6 113:4 114:16 120:21 121:7 128:12 tumor 114:19 tumors 76:8 114:6 turn 16:22 103:23 turned 7:19 82:3,5 83:9 turning 68:25 107:22 twenty 29:6,7 31:4 55:16 79:12,25 87:17 114:4 116:1 127:11 128:23 129:2 twenty-one 7:12 10:8 twenty-some 81:19 twice 19:9 82:6 99:14 two 10:23 11:6 26:9 26:11 29:23 31:18 32:20 34:9 36:4 38:1043:10,19 46:12,18 47:20 48:3 49:25 50:16 51:1,16 52:17 53:16,18 55:24 58:1 61:24 62:6 64:19 74:18 75:10
76:6 81:4 87:14 89:10,10,11 91:14 103:22 106:7 108:24 109:7 117:24 119:24 121:8 124:19,20 124:21 128:4 129:19 131:2,5 type35:23 58:4 85:13 types 16:7 121:8 124:5 typewritten 135:11 typical 91:21 93:11 94:4 typically 29:18 30:19 70:12 78:16 T.T 110:4 T0978276 47:13
_______ U U 3:1 Uh-huh 13:10 27:3
29:12,14 58:6 86:19 88:7 89:5 92:14,20 100:8,13 100:17 102:24 109:9,15,19 110:3 110:6,8,11 119:10 ultimate 36:9 unbeknownst 75:16 uncomfortable 96:18,19 underground 31:19,23 32:2,8 99:14 underlying 85:12 86:5,6,7 understand 14:15 21:10 37:4,4 58:1 120:25 121:10 128:11 understanding 37:6 84:16 106:21
unfortunately 70:18 82:5 92:22
unique 25:24 26:12 26:19 29:25 56:24
United 115:21 universally 92:7 universe23:7 43:13 University 52:11
55:12 78:13 127:19 unmistakable 26:13 unpublished 71:25 unusual 59:8,10 update 81:2,23 83:2,3 updated 30:9 upstate 25:24 36:13 49:17 up-to-date 46:25 53:5 use33:16 57:19 89:24 91:21,22 100:14 101:4 120:8,13 122:3 uses 118:21,21,23 usual 81:9 usually 55:23 58:8 79:14 91:13,16 U.S 82:8
_______ V
v 136:7 vacate 132:18 vacuum 93:16 vague 22:21 values 101:2 Van 2:10 Vanderbilt 1:16
2:21 6:25 7:15 12:4 13:1,6 14:14 14:25 15:5,9,13 15:18 17:2,6 18:2 18:9 19:13 20:3 23:6,21 24:20
,| THJillT"" w i n n w M W iiu im u .M m 'a m M
Brandon Smith Reporting
25:6,15 26:8,10 26:16,20 27:19 28:2 29:25 31:19 34:2 35:14 36:17 36:25 37:7 41:7 41:13 42:22 43:4 43:16 48:3,4,5,19 51:17 52:3,18 53:1,10 58:3 60:1 61:13,14 62:17 64:6,11,21,24 65:11 69:4,16,18 70:2,5,20,24 73:11 74:2,5,7 77:6,24 78:19 80:21 85:18 87:1 87:6,24 88:10,14 89:6,14 90:15,20 91:9,18 92:2,6,25 93:7 94:6,10,13 95:11,17,18 96:4 96:13,21,22 97:5 98:20,25 99:3,24 103:2 104:17 105:1,23 106:18 107:5 108:3 110:1 111:7,23 112:10 113:24 115:12,17 116:20,21 123:13 127:24 128:15 129:15,20 130:1 130:13 132:16 133:15 135:5 Vanderbilts 112:4 112:5 Vanderbilt's 53:23 varied 79:9 115:25 varies 58:13 variety 112:20,21 112:22 123:21 various 27:17 30:23 32:24 35:6 54:21,22 88:6,25 95:17 122:2
vary 29:7 vein 24:11 32:25
33:19,20 116:2 veins 33:24 verified 73:21 Vermont 48:24
87:9 Vern 109:8 versus35:17 81:18 vesicular 57:3 vibration 93:15 vice 109:12 110:4 view 46:20 59:19
70:4 72:13 75:2 91:8 92:7 viewed 14:19 vintage 24:8 visit 99:13 112:5 visits 99:15 vis-a-vis 34:8 60:15 106:15 107:4 vital 78:5 84:22 volume42:8 47:4 volunteered 8:22 VS 1:6 135:8
W
wait 40:10,10,11 75:11,11 78:25
waive 44:21 waived 3:11,14
136:14,14 waiving 5:8 want 5:4 8:5,9,20
8:21 10:10,12,14 15:3 19:931:4 45:16 50:10 53:22 63:12 66:12 67:22 68:15 73:23 77:3 77:11 78:25 79:7 98:13 109:23 124:22 131:22 132:2 133:25 134:1 wanted 45:18 94:17
Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 20
106:24 114:22 warn 99:24 100:24 warning 102:14,15
102:16 104:9,10 104:17 105:13,15 107:4 warnings 12:6 104:23,25 105:1 105:24 106:14 wasn't 53:3,4 102:5 water 57:11 89:4 89:24 90:2,3 Watkins 2:13 way5:21 10:17 13:15 17:1426:14 40:2 41:11 54:4 56:15 57:10 105:19 108:16 113:8 118:15 121:11 122:25 129:25 ways 110:7 121:11 weaknesses 124:10 wear 131:22 week 22:18,21,24 24:25 42:6 62:4 weeks 75:6 127:20 weight 34:19 73:23 Welch 2:24 4:4,20 5:3,4,24 6:4,8 9:16,19 10:3,5 11:7,10 13:1,6,21 13:25 14:5 15:8 17:9 18:15 19:3,6 19:17 21:7,22,25 22:4,7,18,24 25:1 25:8 27:21 34:16 40:10,14,20 41:5 41:18,22,25 42:7 42:13,16 44:2,17 45:8 50:11 53:19 60:4,9,25 61:2,6 61:16 62:9,14,25 63:5,16,21 64:12
64:25 65:9,16,21 66:7,21 67:14,18 68:11,20,22 78:22 78:25 87:3 98:10 98:17 101:19 102:1 103:6,9,11 103:20,22,24 104:12 125:1,3 128:7,20,24 129:7 129:17 130:10,15 130:19 131:15,19 132:3,9,12 133:24 134:4,9 went 13:25 44:6 97:8 weren't42:15 92:7 west2:9,16 31:25 wet 89:3,12 90:5 93:5 97:9,9 we'll 14:9 30:24 53:19 59:18 61:20 65:4 133:4 we're 13:14 21:11 21:20 30:23 31:8 31:24 37:4 39:8 41:9,9 42:8 43:9 50:2 58:17 60:9 61:10 62:9 67:6 68:12 79:1,12 80:4,8 87:16 92:23,25 102:1 119:14 130:11 132:12 we've 5:6 18:18 21:20 30:12 39:25 43:18 55:6 60:15 93:8,19 133:13 whatnot 122:21 whichever 8:5 Whipple 2:8 white 82:7 136:12 width 113:21 114:2 114:19 widths 39:13
William 2:5 51:20 51:23
willing 120:25 Wilton 111:9,9 WINFIELD 1:16
135:5 wise 21:3 wish 7:16 112:7
133:5 withdrawing 63:2
63:16 withdrawn 63:13 witness 3:17 4:2
9:21 11:9,12 13:24 14:2 15:23 40:23 41:9 66:3,6 66:14 125:6 130:23,25 131:8 131:10,23 132:10 133:12 135:13,17 woman 111:1 wondered 76:13 wondering 67:16 words 57:19 work 12:22 59:15 72:9 74:1 79:9 82:6 86:24 87:19 94:13,14,24 121:20 123:3 125:18 127:10 129:25 130:13 worked 62:4 65:11 70:24 71:20 75:5 78:19 80:21,24 81:14,16 84:18 85:25 87:17 94:14 95:2,5,14 96:15 99:8 111:1 129:20 131:12 worker 60:19 70:20 87:8 124:17 workers47:2 48:25 49:17 50:6 59:14 60:1 61:13,14
62:7 63:23 68:6,8 78:19 85:18 87:1 87:7,14 92:16,24 115:7 119:12,15 122:16 126:6 127:5,14 130:11 working 12:3 62:7 65:13 69:4 77:15 77:19,23 78:1 79:21 80:10 90:20 96:4,21 117:10 126:18 Workmen's 12:16 95:12 works 118:10 world 38:8 wouldn't 22:6 25:25 35:12 73:15 74:10 79:8 106:19 120:4 122:12,24 writing 109:17 written 33:23 wrong 9:19 103:19 wrote48:19 52:7 Wylie 20:11 47:10 50:25 52:11,22 54:6 55:22 113:6
_______ X X4:l 136:12,14 XC 109:23 X-rays 127:14,17
_______ Y Yasushi 86:21 yeah 9:9 11:22,23
12:7,15,19,22 13:1925:1628:13 32:7 35:1,20 36:5 37:9 46:2,17 49:3 49:12,14,21 50:1 50:23 52:13 53:11 53:19 55:18 56:3 58:13,20 68:10 72:1 73:6 76:25
77:23 78:3 80:4 80:14 81:1 83:16 84:15 87:8 88:23 90:6,9 91:13 92:10 100:10 102:4,18 103:15 103:17,24 104:1 105:12,17 108:5 108:23 109:2,25 116:13 119:21 122:14 year8:17 81:17 99:14,15 107:9 122:18 127:15 years 11:1,20,24 16:16 17:2 20:6,7 20:9 23:6,19 25:25 33:4 38:6 38:25 56:16 71:2 71:19,20 72:15,18 75:8 77:18,20 78:10,1779:11,23 81:19,19 82:15 87:14,17 90:13 91:1 93:18,19 96:12 101:14 105:21,21 123:5 126:22 127:2,11 127:14 131:8,12 yellow 13:19 yesterday 13:23 44:25 45:1 107:20 York 16:5 25:24 36:14,14 40:2 48:24 49:17 50:5 62:8 87:25 88:4 90:13 95:14 97:2 97:13,14,16,18 98:6,21,23,24 99:4 112:5 115:8 118:22
_______ Z
zero 10:13
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC
3/30/2006
Haanstra v. Asbestos Corporation
John Kelse
Page 21
#
#081:20
0
05 58:9,12 59:18 06106 1 24 136:2 06855 1 17 06901 1 24
1
14:9 7:6,7 28:10 1:205:1 10027:8,16 28:25 100HR 28:25 14th 2:4 14747:12 16th 2:13 18th 103:17,19,19
103:20,25 104:1,2 104:3,18 111:15 19 102:25 109:8 19th 103:18,19,25 107:22 111:16 1940's 98:20 194831:19 62:5 70:22,24 75:6 80:8,22 88:18 127:6 1960 9:1 11:1,5,20 17:2 18:2,9 19:13 20:3 24:21 25:6 25:15 75:4 1972 101:14 111:5 197431:20 79:10 79:17 87:21 116:19 197528:10 74:24 77:13 100:18 197677:13 126:16 197878:6 103:1 104:3,11,18 109:8 1980 51:7 92:11 1981 28:14 52:8 95:2 117:25
1982 50:6 90:21 1983 54:6 198479:11 1985 9:2 11:5 12:4
17:3 18:2,9 19:13 20:3 23:20,25 24:5,8,9,13,15,18 24:21 25:4,7,13 25:15,18 26:9,11 30:8,9 79:13 90:21 95:2 106:1 1987 75:4 1989 70:24 72:15 73:12 74:8,16 80:22 85:18 124:24 127:4 199061:25 69:13 199248:8 1993 55:11 1994 69:11 199532:8 79:14 199747:13 79:15 199879:14
2 9:15 200169:8 73:12 200247:5 69:9
115:6 20061:1543:11
44:11 73:12,25 74:8 135:4,18 136:5,8 2007135:23 203 1:24 2744:11 27th 43:11
30 1:15,16 135:4,5 136:8
3032:23 30308-3243 2:24 31135:23 316-8591 1:24
3381581:5
4th 1:23 4:45132:18 40s 33:11 88:2
97:22 99:5 40027:9,9 40002:23 441:23 136:1 4647:4 4869:5,7 71:10
5100:14 101:8 102:3 136:5
5th 135:17 5:00132:19 5:05 134:12 50s 33:11 88:1
90:16 91:9 93:8 5190:16 52 90:16 549-18501:24
136:2 57547 4 579 71 18,22 58547 5
101:23 75 85:24 99:21
100:9 101:6 76 74:24 78:7 78 103:17
8
8th 2:18 8019:21 28:17 29:1 80s 72:21 91:9,23
93:3,9 95:1 99:19 100:23 102:8 8001:25 8128:15,25 82 95:2 83 28:15 59:5 84 79:24 8511:1,20,25 17:10 19:2,16,21 23:6 24:7 25:21 36:25 37:7 46:11 64:13 72:21 80:1 852-4589 1:25 8672:21 75:4 8601:24 136:2 87 72:21 8882:9,13 89 69:5,7 73:25
64:4 6011:25 17:9 19:21
23:6,19 24:7 36:25 37:7 46:11 64:13 71:11 106:1 60s 78:2 88:2 91:9 93:8
900172:9,14 9169:13 941042:5 941052:19 95 69:11 80:1 98 79:15 9928:25
7 4:9 70s 90:19 91:9
92:16 93:2,9 99:20 102:6,20 72 76:4 74 79:24 85:24
Brandon Smith Reporting Service, LLC