Document 6boqxDBna92r2YzozJRJKXdo

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT CHV-550 CAUSE NO. 12902*BH00 ODIS BRYANT WITHERS, ETUX VS. GAF CORPORATION, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS 23rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO: Plaintiff, ODIS WITHERS, by and through his attorney ofRecord, Mr. William K. Tapscott, Jr., BARON & BUDD, 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75213 COMES NOW, CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., one ofthe Defendants in the above styled cause, and makes and files its Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Request for Production propounded to CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. Respectfully submitted, State Bar No. 12109400 Michael T. Bridwell State Bar No. 02979600 14th Floor, San Jacinto Building Beaumont, Texas 77701-3255 (409)981-1000 (409)981-1010 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. DNO/25108/190467 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This will verify that a true and correct copy of CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.'S Objections and Response to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Request For Production has been furnished to counsel forplaintiff, bycertified mail, return receipt requested, and to all other known counsel ofrecord by regular U.S. Mail, on this 31" day ofJanuary, 2001. David W. Ledyard DNO/25108/190467 2 CAUSE NO. 12902*BH00 ODIS BRYANT WITHERS, ETUX VS. GAF CORPORATION, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS 23rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF FILING This is to certify that on January 31,2001, Defendant served the following to Plaintiff: CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND INTERROGATORIES. Respectfully submitted, STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON, BISSELL & LEDYARD, L.L.P. David W. Ledyard f/ State Bar No. 12109400 Michael T. Bridwell 02979600 14th Floor, San Jacinto Building 595 Orleans Street Beaumont, Texas 77701-3255 (409)981-1000 (409) 981-1010 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. DNO/25106/191143 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This will verify that a true and correct copy of Chevron U.S.A., Inc.'s Notice of Filing has been furnished to counsel for plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, and to all other known counsel ofrecord by regular U.S. Mail, on this 31" day ofJanuary, 2001. DNO/25106/191143 A. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DEFINITIONS 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "Defendant", "you", "your", and "your company". To the extent the terms can be read to refer to Defendant's attorneys, any interrogatory, request for admissions or request for production utilizing any.ofthese terms necessarily invades the work product privilege in violation ofRule 192.5 ofthe Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure andRule 503 ofthe Texas Rules ofEvidence. To the extent the terms are defined to include predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates, as well as present and former officers, directors, agents, employees and other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of the corporate defendant, any interrogatory, request for admission or request for production utilizing these terms is so overly broad, and over burdensome as to make any request or interrogatory utilizing the term virtually impossible to answer. Further, to the extent the definition is defined to include any merged, consolidated, or acquired predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries, foreign subsidiaries of predecessors, and/or affiliates, any interrogatory, request for admission or request for production utilizing any of these terms is necessarily overly broad, over burdensome, and calls for material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to Plaintiffs apparent attempt to place upon Defendant the burden to seek information from former officers, directors, agents and employees over whom Defendant no longer has dominion or control. Any interrogatory, request for admission or request for production utilizing any of these terms is a "fishing expedition" in violation of Texas law as concerns discovery. 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition ofthe terms "document", "documents", "written materials", or "printed matter" as the definition of those terms renders any interrogatory, request for admission or request for production utilizing any of these terms overly broad, over burdensome, harassing, and reduces any such interrogatory, request for admission or request for production to a "fishing expedition" in violation of Texas law concerning discovery. Defendant further objects to the definition of these terms as calling for the production ofmaterial or information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to the definition of these terms to the extent it purports to include an obligation to locate and produce information or documentation which is no longer in the possession or control of this Defendant or from entities who are not parties to this cause of action. 3. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the words "meeting" or "meetings" as any interrogatory, request for admission or request for production utilizing those terms is overly broad, and over burdensome in that it purports to require documentation or information concerning any casual or coincidental meeting, 4. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the term "years at issue" as the definition assumes that Plaintiffworked on the premises of Defendant for the entire period reflected DNO/25108/190467 3 in the definition, which is denied. Plaintiff only alleges premises exposure during years 1963-1971. Any interrogatory, request for admission or production utilizing this term is overly broad, burdensome and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. 5. Defendant objects to the stated definition ofthe terms "products containing asbestos fiber", "asbestos containing products" and "asbestos products" on the grounds it is overly broad, vague and not limited to the matters made the basis of this lawsuit and therefore, seeks disclosure ofinformation and/or the production of documentation wholly irrelevant to any material issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 6. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "describe" or "description" as it is vague, ambiguous and requires Defendant to speculate on what identification rises to the level of sufficient particularity so as to enable one to "fully comprehend" or understand the place, thing or occurrence described. 7. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition ofthe term "medical advisorycapacity" in that the definitionrenders any interrogatory, request for admission orrequest forproduction utilizing the term overly broad, over burdensome, harassing and calling for information or material which is neither relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The definition ofthe term utilizes the term "Defendant" which is, itself, defined in Plaintiffs definition No. 1. Please refer to Defendant's objection to Plaintiffs definition ofthe term "Defendant" which is incorporated herein the same as iffully set forth at length. 8. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition of the terms "medical department" and "safety department" in that the definition renders any interrogatory, request for admission or request for production utilizing the term overly broad, over burdensome, harassing and calling for information or material which is neither relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. The definition ofthe term utilizes the term "Defendant" which is, itself defined in Plaintiffs definition No. 1. Please refer to Defendant's objection to Plaintiffs definition ofthe term "Defendant" which is incorporated herein the same as if fully set forth at length. 9. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs definition ofthe terms "potential health hazards" or "health hazards" in that any interrogatory, request for admission or request for production utilizing these terms is vague and ambiguous in that issues exists and minds differ with respect to impairments or disabilities and their associations with exposures to asbestos dust and fibers, if any. DNO/25108/190467 4 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories, state the name, address, job title, length oftime employed by Defendant, and a year-by-year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discoveryprovided by TRCP 192.5. Without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant responds as follows: These responses were prepared based on information gathered by defense counsel along with assistance of in-house counsel and other legal staff. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that Defendant ordered, purchased or otherwise acquired asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products, and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, subject to multiple interpretations and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on this Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, it is admitted that Defendant purchased certain asbestos-containing products at certain times and for use in certain locations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Ifyou denythe foregoing request, in whole or inpart, produce all documents supporting your denial. DNO/25108/190467 5 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as it purports to place the burden on Defendant to prove a negative, which is impossible. Without waiving the foregoing objections, not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that asbestos-containing products, asbestos-containing friction products, and/or machinery requiring the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing products were utilized on Defendant's Premises during the years at issue. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and overly broad and to the extent it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffwas allegedly on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffwas allegedly present, nor the area(s)within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly present Defendant objects to this request as the term "utilized" is vague, ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations in the context of this snit Defendant further objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Withoutwaiving the foregoing objections, itis admitted thatDefendant utilized certain asbestos containing products at certain locations and at certain times. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: If you admit the foregoing request, please list all asbestos-containing products used at Defendant's Premises and for each product state the following: a. What these products were used for b. From whom these products were purchased c. Where these products were installed d. Specific persons or contractors who install these products e. The first year each product was no longer purchased and installed on Defendant's premises. DNO/25108/190467 6 ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff has not provide Defendant with sufficient information to enable Defendant to respond to this interrogatory for the years Plaintiffalleges heworked on Defendant's premises and for the locations Plaintiff alleges he worked. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce all ordering and sales documents pertaining to the purchase or acquisition ofsuch asbestos-containing products for use at Defendant's Premises, including but not limited to invoices, price quotations, purchase orders, requisitions, bills oflading, andotherpurchasing and/or shipping documents ofthe similar nature. RESPONSE: 'V Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly was present on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly was present, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present Defendant further objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objection. Defendant has not located such documents. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that during the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, it was foreseeable that asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises would or could be removed, stripped, replaced or repaired at some time after installation. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for DNO/25108/! 90467 7 information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects because this request is vague, ambiguous and argumentative because the request assumes Plaintiff was an employee ofDefendant Further, this request is overly broad in that it is not limited to any area within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked and, therefore, is not relevant Defendant further objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant denies this request as Plaintiff was not an employee of this Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please state whether any asbestos-containing products in place or in use at Defendant's Premises have been abated at any time. a. Ifso, list each person or companythat performed such abatement services (including address and telephone number) b. State the dates and locations of each abatement procedure; c. State which asbestos-containing products were abated. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further, Defendant objects to this interrogatory as the term "in use" is vague, ambiguous and subject to the multiple interpretations in the context of this suit REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Produce all documents that in any way pertain to abatement ofasbestos-containing materials on Defendant's Premises, including but not limited to a removal plan or organized written criteria or schedule for the removal ofasbestos at Defendant's Premises, and in operation and maintenance plan. DNO/25108/190467 8 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the extent this request is not limited to premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked nor to the areas within Defendant's premises Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further Defendant objects to the phrase Operation and maintenance plan" as vague, ambiguous and, as such, renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. Further this interrogatory is overly broad in that it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims are based. Defendant further objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that Plaintiffworked onpremises owned by Defendant orby a predecessor-in-interest ofDefendant. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the extent this request is not limited to premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked nor to the areas within Defendant's premises Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further Defendant objects to the word "worked" as vague, ambiguous and, as such, renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. To the extent this request is intended to encompass all areas of Defendant's premises, including those where Plaintiff did not work, this request is overly broad and irrelevant. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: If you deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, DNO/25108/190467 9 harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant farther objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as it purports to place the burden on Defendant to prove a negative, which is impossible. Without waiving the foregoing objections, not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. S: If you admit the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your admission that Plaintiff was on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Without waiving the foregoing objections, not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO 6: Produce all records identifying contractors and/or the employees ofcontractors who were on your premises during the years at issue, including but not limited to sign-in-logs, gate records, visitor's logs, identification badge logs and procedures, and other documents of a similar nature. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor any alleged employer of plaintiff. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objection, Defendant has been unable to locate any such records from 1963-1971. DNO/25108/190467 10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce all records pertaining to the methods and manner of identification of individuals entering and/or leaving your facilities, during the years at issue, including but not limited to fingerprinting or other methods of identifying contractor employees at your premises, and specifically including any fingerprinting or other records identifying the Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Withoutwaiving the foregoing objection, Defendant has been unable to locate any such records from 1963-1971. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identifythe contractors who worked on yourpremises during the years at issue, and for each, state: a. The type ofwork performed by the contractor b. The dates such work was performed; c. Identify your employee responsible for monitoring, verifying, or instructing concerning these services to be performed by such contractors. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor tiie area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate information to answer this interrogatory. DNO/25108/19O467 11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Produce the contract documents pertaining to the contractors who performed services on Defendant's Premises during the years at issue, including but not limited to invitations to bid, requests for proposals, bids, proposals, scope of work, specifications, blueprints, plans, acceptances, contracts, amendments, addenda, change orders, and other contract documents of a similar nature. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term defendant". Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Withoutwaiving the foregoing objection, Defendant has been unable to locate any such records from 1963-1971. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify each employee who was responsible for allowing contractor employees access to Defendant's Premises during the years at issue. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". DNO/25108/190467 12 Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information to answer this interrogatory at this time. Discovery is continuing and if Defendant locates this information, Defendant will supplement this interrogatory. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that Plaintiff worked on Defendant's Premises where Defendant used or applied asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the extent this request is not limited to premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked nor to the areas within Defendant's premises Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further Defendant objects to the word "worked" as vague, ambiguous and, as such, renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. To the extent this request is intended to encompass all areas of Defendant's premises, including those where Plaintiff did not work, this request is overly broad and irrelevant Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of die term "Defendant". Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny at this time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Ifyou deny the foregoing request in whole or inpart produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE; Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous. To the extent the request is intended to encompass all areas ofDefendant's premises, including those where Plaintiff did not work, the request is overly broad and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, not applicable. DNO/25108/190467 13 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Do you contend that Plaintiffwas not exposed to asbestos while working at the Defendant's Premise(s)? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. .ANSWER:, Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further Defendant objects to the word "working" as vague, ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations in the context of this suit Without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff has not provided Defendant with sufficient information to enable Defendant to respond to this interrogatory for the years Plaintiff alleges he worked on Defendant's premises. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Plaintiff, in the course and scope ofhis work as an employee of an independent contractor, worked around Defendant's employees who were using and/orapplying asbestoscontaining products. RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects because the terms "work around", "his work" and "employee of an independent contractor" are vague and ambiguous in the context of this case. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. DNO/25108/190467 14 Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Ifyou denythe foregoing request, inwhole or in part, produce all documents supportingyour denial. RESPONSE: Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and Virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term ``Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Plaintiffworked on and/or around Defendant's Premises in areas where asbestoscontaining products wore installed, used, prepared for use, replaced or repaired, stored or loaded, unloaded or transported. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and overly broad and subject to multiple of interpretations. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects because the phrase "Plaintiff worked" is vague and ambiguous in the context of tills case. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that in 1964 Defendant was aware that airborne asbestos dust created a potential health hazard to those who breathed such dust. DNO/25108/190467 15 BBsamsfc Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request in that it is vague and ambiguous in that the phrase "health hazard" as defined in Plaintiff's definitions is so overly broad that Defendant does not know which health hazard is being referred and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthis phrase. Since "health hazards" often are dependenton the quantity ofexposure, this request is vague and ambiguous because the quantity ofexposure had not been defined. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant answers that it is impossible to know in an organization the size of this Defendant exactly what year it would have obtained this kind of information through the knowledge of its employees. Therefore, Defendant cannot admit or deny this request at this time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RE&EQMS& Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as it purports to place the burden on Defendant to prove a negative, which is impossible. Without waiving the foregoing objections, not applicable. DNO/25108/190467 16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO, 9: Admit that Defendant was aware of the presence of and/or use of asbestos-containing products on Defendant's Premises during the time period Plaintiff was working on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises. Defendant objects that Plaintiffhas not sufficiently identified the periods of time or the location^) within Plaintiffs facility where Plaintiff is alleging to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request because the phrase "was working" is vague and ambiguous. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overlybroad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant admits that it was aware that certain asbestos-containing products were used at certain locations during certain periods of time. Plaintiff has not provided Defendant with sufficient information to enable Defendant respond to this request for the years Plaintiffalleges to have worked on Defendant's premises. Therefore, Defendant is unable to admit or denythis request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Produce anyand all photographs or videographic depictions or films depicting the use byyou or your employees ofany safety precautions (such as containment areas, warning signs, etc.) taken to protect bystanders from the hazards of airborne asbestos resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products by your employees at any locations. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to the word "hazards" as vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiff's definition of the terms "you" and "your," and as such the burden of discovery outweighs its benefits. DNO/25108/190467 17 Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant has not located any relevant documents responsive to this request INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify any and all warnings ever given by Defendant, ifany, to Plaintiffs regarding the hazards ofasbestos and the dangers inherent in the inhalation of asbestos fibers. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited to any area within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked and, therefore, is not relevant. Defendant further objects to the terms "hazards" and "dangers ofasbestos and the dangers inherent inhalation" as vague and ambiguous and response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that Plaintiff was not an employee of this Defendant and Plaintiff has not sufficiently established when he was on Defendant's premises. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Produce all such warnings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises. Defendant objects the Plaintiff has not sufficiently identified the periods of time or locations in question. Defendant objects that the request is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked nor to the specific areas on any particular premises where Plaintiff is alleged to have worked, and therefore is not relevant In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery outweighs its DNO/25108/190467 18 benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". Withoutwaiving the foregoing objection. Defendant has been unable to locate any such records from 1963-1971. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that Defendant did not distribute any literature or warnings of any kind to its employees during the period oftime Plaintiffworked on Defendant's Premises regarding the potential health hazards to those who breathe airborne asbestos dust. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited to any area within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked and, therefore, is not relevant Defendant further objects because it assumes Plaintiff worked at Defendant's premises. Defendant further objects because the phrases "worked on Defendant's premises", "health hazards" are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "utilization". In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny at this time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: If you deny the foregoing, produce all such warnings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff DNO/25108/190467 19 claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Without waiving the forgoing objections, not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe Defendant's safety policy as it relates to the use ofasbestos-containing materials at job-sites where Defendant's employees were performing services. In your answer, please state: a. when, ifever, Defendant's employees were first warned about the hazards ofasbestos exposure; and b. what instructions, ifany, were given to Defendant's employees on the identification ofmaterials which might or did contain asbestos. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous in that the terms "hazards" and "safety policy" are not defined and so overly broad that Defendant does not know which "hazards" or "safety policy"are being referred and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. In addition. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it implies that Plaintiff was an employee ofthis Defendant and assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this interrogatory. DNO/2510S/190467 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. IS: Produce all such safety policies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Plaintiffhas notsufficiently identified the periods oftime or locations in question. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous in that the term "safety policy" is not defined and so overly broad that Defendant does not know which "safety policy" is being referred and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Without waiving die foregoing objections, Defendant has not located information responsive to this request for the years 1963-1971. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that Defendant consciously decided not to warn its employees of the dangers of asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. DNO/25108/190467 21 Further Defendant objects to this reqnest as it is argumentative. In addition, Defendant objects to the term "dangers" as vague and ambiguous. Without waiving these objectives, Defendant denies this request INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do you contend that Defendant specifically warned Plaintiff about the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products? Ifthe answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous in that the term "hazards"is not defined and so overly broad that Defendant does not know which "hazards" are being referred and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Describe all safety precautions taken by you or your employees (such as containment areas, warning signs, ventilation systems, evacuating the premises, etc.) for the protection of bystanders (including but not limited to Plaintiffs) from the hazards resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products by your employees at any locations. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad and overly burdensome, as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". This interrogatory calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, DNO/25108/190467 22 nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. To the extent this interrogatory seeks information unrelated to the subject matter of this lawsuit, the information sought is irrelevant. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous in that the terms "hazards" and "safety precautions" are not defined and so overly broad that Defendant does not know which "hazards" or "safety precautions" are being referred and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. In addition, Defendant objects to this interrogatory as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "you", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Have you ever provided safety equipment to persons working on Defendant's Premises? If so, please list the safety equipment provided and indicate: a. when the equipment was first provided b. to whom the equipment was provided c. under what circumstances the equipment was provided d. Further, identify the person with the most knowledge of your "safety equipment" policies. MS-WER; Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. To the extent this interrogatory seeks information unrelated to the subject matter of this lawsuit, the information sought is irrelevant. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "You" and "Defendant". Further, Defendant objects as the term "working" is vague, ambiguous and subject to the multiple interpretations in the context of this suit Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971. DNO/25108/190467 23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that Defendant did not continuously provide face masks to contract employees working with or around asbestos from 1964-1987 for the purpose of protecting these employees from inhaling asbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request insofar as it assumes Defendant had a duty to provide equipment to Plaintiffwho worked at Defendant's premises as an expert in the field of asbestos insulation, and its qualities and characteristics. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to the facility on which Plaintiffclaims to have worked nor to the areas on the facility on which Plaintiffclaims to have worked nor to the contractor or contractors for whom Plaintiff claims to have worked during the periods oftime he allegedly worked at any Defendant's facility. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request INTERROGATORY NO. 12: si State in detail what tests have been conducted with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing asbestos-containing products in any of your facilities. Please state where and when these tests were conducted, by whom these tests were conducted, and the results of any such test. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on DNO/25108/190467 24 Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the terms "tests", "working" and "using" are not defined and so overly broad and Defendant does not know which "tests" is being referred and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of this phrase. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant responds that it does not have detailed knowledge of all tests conducted at the facilities over the years. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Do you contend that Defendant, Defendant's representatives, insurance carriers and/oragents performed any measurements and/or studies prior to 1970 to determine the quantity of asbestos fibers in the air at Defendant's facility? If the answer is anything other than"no", identity each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: Defendant objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is not limited to the premises on which Plaintiffallegedly worked and that the information soughtis neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For instance, this objection refers to, bnt is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such general terms as "studies." To the extent this interrogatory seeks information unrelated to the subject matter of this lawsuit, the information sought is irrelevant TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discoveryprovided byTRCP 192.5. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please state each time any regulatory agency or other governing body has inspected the Defendant's premises to determine if health and safety regulations governing exposure to asbestos were being followed. Include in your response the date and results of each inspection, and state whether a written report was generated. DNO/25108/190467 25 MS-WER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant farther objects to the phases "regulatory agency" and "governing body" as vague and ambiguous in that they are not defined and so overly broad that Defendant does not know which "regulations" is being referred and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of these phrases. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that you did not erect containment barriers to prevent emission ofasbestos dust at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiff worked. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiffclaims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODIICTION NO. 16: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. DNO/25108/190467 26 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiffalleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs* definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admitthat you didnot utilize engineering controls such as isolation orenclosure at the work sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work sites where Plaintiffworked. RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiffclaims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the term "utilize" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossiblewithout speculation as to the meaning of the term. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. DNO/25108/190467 27 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome as It constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the term "utilize" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiffalleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that you did not utilize ventilation or exhaust systems to divert dust at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiffworked. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the term "utilize" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does DNO/25108/190467 28 not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Ifyou denythe foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome as it constitutes a non-specific"fishing expedition". Defendantfurther objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant farther objects to this request to the extent that the term "utilize" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible withoutspeculation as to the meaning ofthe term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiffalleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "you", and as such tiie burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that you did not utilize dust collection engineering controls to trap airborne asbestos dust at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiffworked. DNO/25108/190467 29 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiffclaims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the term "utilize" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular requestunintelligible, and renders a response impossiblewithout speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiffalleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Ifyou denythe foregoing request, in whole or inpart, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent that the term "utilize" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "you", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, not applicable. DNO/25108/190467 30 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that you did not require your employees to handle, mix, apply, remove, cut or score asbestos-containing products in a wet state to prevent emission of airborne asbestos fibers at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiffworked. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiffclaims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "you", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiffalleges he worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of DNO/25108/190467 31 the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that you did not evacuate the premises prior to the utilization of asbestos-containing materials at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiffwas present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiffclaims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "utilization". In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIONNO. 21: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or inpart, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information DNO/25108/190467 32 which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further Plaintiffdoes not identify the work sites where he alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term"utilization". In addition, this request is harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving said objection, not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. IS: Have you ever warned workers on Defendant's Premises of the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products? If so, describe in detail the methods of such warnings, who you warned and when. Please include in your response a description ofanywritten warnings relating to the hazards ofasbestos in place atDefendant's Premises and state whenthe written warnings were installed, how many were installed, and whether they have been removed. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is not limited to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to this interrogatory the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiff's use of such terms as "in place" and/or "hazards" relating to asbestos. Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant". Without waiving the foregoing objection. Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Have you ever had a policy requiring workers on Defendant's premises to use respirators? If so, please: DNO/25108/190467 33 a. state when this policy was implemented; b. describe this policy in detail; c. state to whom it applied (i.e. Defendant employees and contractor employees); d. and describe what types and brand names ofrespirators were required by you. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked, is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that the information sought is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such general terms as "policy." To the extent this interrogatory seeks information unrelated to the subject matter of this lawsuit, the information sought is irrelevant. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly was present on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly was present, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly was present. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant". Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information from 1963-1971; however, see attached bate numbers CCCB 00001 through CCCB 00016. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that you did not post warning, caution or hazard signs prior to the utilization of asbestos-containing materials by your employees at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiff was present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have DNO/25108/190467 34 worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "utilization" and "hazards". In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22; 9 Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "utilization". In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery outweighs its benefits. TRCP 192.4. Without waving the foregoing objections, not applicable. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that you did not issue any warnings to others at the work-sites where your employees were using asbestos-containing materials, including the work-sites where Plaintiff was present. DNO/25108/190467 35 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "using". In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request as written. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have worked. Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the term "using". In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden ofdiscovery outweighs its benefits. TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, not applicable. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Produce all documents reflecting payments made to contractors during the years at issue, including Plaintiffs employer, including but not limited to invoices, bills, check requests, 0N0/25108/190467 36 requisitions, canceled checks, or other documents ofa similar nature reflecting payment for services rendered by Plaintiffs employer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it Is not limited to the facilities at which Plaintiff claims to have been present nor to Plaintiffs employer. As such, this request is overly broad and overly burdensome and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Admit that the use of asbestos-containing materials on Defendant's Premises created a substantial risk ofinjury. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiffclaims to have been present nor to the specific areas within the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have been present Defendant further objects to this request as it is vague and ambiguous and calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it does not identify the work sites where Plaintiff alleges he worked. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as respects to the terms "use" and "substantial risk of injury. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections. Denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that during the years at issue, Defendant had the to power to control Defendant's Premises. DNO/25108/190467 37 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad to the extent it is not limited in time or scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. 1 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad to the extent it is not limited in time or scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. DNO/25108/190467 38 Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to manage the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: * Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad to the extent it is not limited in time or scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to manage the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because DNO/25108/190467 39 independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad to the extent it is not limited in time or scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to manage the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". DNO/25108/190467 40 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to direct the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to direct the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Ifyou deny the foregoingrequest, inwhole orin part, produce all documents supporting your denial. DNO/25108/190467 41 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to directthe use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to superintend the use or conditions ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power DNO/25108/190467 42 to superintend the use or conditions of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonably inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or inpart, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to superintend the use or conditions of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various DNO/25108/190467 43 fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admitthat, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to restrict the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to restrict the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant DNO/25108/190467 44 anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to regulate the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". DNO/25108/190467 45 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to regulate the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to die discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to regulate the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details oftheir work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Ifyou deny the foregoingrequest, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. DNO/25108/190467 46 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and overly broad and subject to multiple ofinterpretations. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to regulate the use or condition of Defendant's premises is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. The request call for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to govern the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. DNO/25108/190467 47 Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to govern the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Ifyou denythe foregoing request, inwhole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to govern the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various DNO/25108/190467 48 activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to oversee the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to oversee the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. This request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant DNO/25108/190467 49 anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Ifyou denythe foregoing request, in whole or inpart, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to oversee the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". DNO/25108/190467 50 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant had the power to administer the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "power to administer the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or inpart, produce all documents supporting your denial. DNO/25108/190467 51 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "power to administer the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31: Admit that during the years at issue. Defendant controlled Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. DNO/25108/190467 52 Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "controlled Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible withoutspeculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discover out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safetywould come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "controlled Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on DNO/25108/190467 53 the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant managed the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "managed the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, DNO/25108/190467 54 if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Ifyou denythe foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request forproduction to the extent that the phrase "managed the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". DNO/25108/190467 55 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant directed the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "directed the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. DNO/25108/190467 56 JBBSEQMSB; Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "directed the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant superintended the use or conditions of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. DNO/25108/190467 57 Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "superintended the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as It is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Ifyou denythe foregoing request, in whole or inpart, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "superintended the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various DNO/25108/190467 58 activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant restricted the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent thatthe phrase "restricted the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, DNO/25108/190467 59 if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Ifyou deny the foregoing request in whole or inpart, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "restricted the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant regulatedthe use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. DNO/25108/190467 60 RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request In that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "regulated the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that DNO/25108/190467 61 it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "regulated the use or condition of Defendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant governed the useor condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "governed the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to DNO/25108/190467 62 answer given Plaintiffs* definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring. Independentcontractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Ifyou denythe foregoingrequest, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiffallegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that thephrase"governed the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given DNO/25108/190467 63 Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". > REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant oversaw the use or condition ofDefendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "oversaw the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request DNO/25108/190467 64 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Ifyoudenythe foregoingrequest, in whole or inpart, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "oversaw the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39: Admit that, during the years at issue, Defendant administered the use or condition of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on DNO/25108/190467 65 Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "administered the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that the phrase "administered the use or condition ofDefendant's premises" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request DNO/25108/190467 66 calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admit that Defendant retained some control over the maimer in which Plaintiffs work was performed. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked and worked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiffs work" vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "retained some control" is vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, DNO/25108/190467 67 TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition." Independent contractors were retained byDefendantto perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, ifnot all, advice and the control ofthe contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer present Without waiving the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Ifyou denythe foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked and worked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiff's work" vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "retained some control" is vague, ambiguous and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. The request calls for a legal conclusion. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details oftheir work was left to DNO/25108/190467 68 their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and the control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer, present In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Do you contend that at no time during the years at issue. Defendant did not have the right to advise or, if necessary, control the activities of employees of contractors, working on the premises on Defendant's Premises, who were engaged in activities which could be potentially hazardous to either themselves or to the employees ofDefendant? Ifthe answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory in that this interrogatory calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to the word "hazardous" as vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this interrogatory the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such terms as "hazardous". Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that the term "advise" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossiblewithout speculation as to the meaning ofthe term. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that the term "control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what activities were allegedly engaged in, thereby making the phrase "engaged in activities" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossiblewithoutspeculation DNO/25108/190467 69 as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant respond as follows: Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on theirpremises because independent contractors were experts In the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details ofthe work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendantanticipated that most, ifnot all, advice and control ofcontractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractors' employer. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41: Admit that Defendant retained some control over the manner in which Plaintiffs employer performed the work requested by the Defendant. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "Plaintiffs employer" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "retained some control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition." Independent contractors DNO/25108/190467 70 were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work was left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen, and Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and the control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer present Without waiving the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FORPRODUCTIONNO. 44: Ifyou denythe foregoing request, inwhole or inpart, produce all documents supportingyour denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant farther objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limitedjn time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for production to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "Plaintiff's employer" vague, ambiguous, and overlybroad, which renders this particular requestunintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe phrase. Defendant further objects to this request to die extent that the phrase "retained some control" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in die various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Farther, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of DNO/25108/190467 71 the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42: Admit that Plaintiffwas not entirely free to do the work on Defendant's Premises in his own way. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work he allegedly performed on Defendant's premises, thereby making the phrase "entirely free do the work on Defendant's premises in his own way" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiff's definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery outweighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Independent contractors were retained by Defendantto performvarious activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. DNO/25108/190467 72 1 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work he allegedly performed on Defendant's premises, thereby making the phrase "entirely free do the work on Defendant's premises in his own way" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and the control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protectthe workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, ifnot all, advice and control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiff's definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery outweighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43: Admit that Plaintiffs employer was not entirely free to do the work requested by Defendant on Defendant's Premises in its own way. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and overly broad and subject to multiple ofinterpretations. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent DNO/25108/190467 73 that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiffs work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify his employer or what work Defendant requested his employer perform, thereby making the phrases "do the work requested" and "entirely free do the work on Defendant's premises in his own way" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrases. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiff's definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery outweighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, ifnot all, advice and the control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify what work was performed, thereby making the phrase "plaintiffs work" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff DNO/25108/190467 74 allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify his employer or what work Defendant requested his employer perform, thereby making the phrases "do the work requested" and "entirely free do the work on Defendant's premises in his own way" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning ofthe phrases. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, if not all, advice and the control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44: Admit that asbestos-containing gaskets were installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, it is admitted that asbestos-containing gaskets were installed at certain locations and at certain times. DNO/25108/190467 1 75 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, inwhole orinpart, produce all documents supporting your denial. t- RBSEQMSB: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45: Admit that asbestos-containing pipe covering was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, it is admitted that asbestos containing pipe covering was installed at certain locations and at certain times. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Ifyou denythe foregoing request, in whole or inpart, produce all documents supporting your denial. DNO/25108/190467 76 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admit that asbestos-containing boilers were installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waivingthe foregoing objections, it is admittedthat asbestos containing boilers were installed at certain locations and at certain times. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or inpart, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within DNO/25108/190467 77 any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47: Admit that asbestos-containing fireproofing was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: !> Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, it is admitted that asbestos containing fire proofing was installed at certain locations and at certain times. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. SO: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". DNO/25108/190467 78 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48: Admit that asbestos-containing joint compound was installed at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, it is admitted that asbestos containingjoint compound was installed at certain locations and at certain times. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49: Admit that asbestos-containing insulation was installed at Defendant's Premises. DNO/25108/190467 79 RESPONSE: Defendantobjects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing, it is admitted that asbestos containing insulation was installed at certain locations and at certain times. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any ofDefendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50: Admit that such installation was done under your direction, supervision, and/or control. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on DNO/25108/190467 80 Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "such installation" and "your direction, supervision and/or control" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. S3: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial, including but not limited to all documents identifying the entities or individuals who directed, supervised, and/or controlled such installation activities. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and subject to multiple interpretations. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope either to time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises, to the premises on which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "such installation" and "direction, supervision and/or control" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "your", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. DNO/25108/190467 81 INTERROGATORY NO, 18; Please state the first year you learned that persons could suffer physical injury through the inhalation ofasbestos fibers and how Defendant became aware of the existence ofasbestos hazards. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to the term "hazards" as vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this interrogatory the extent that many ofthe terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use ofsuch terms as "inhalation", "hazards", and/or "injury" and/or "physical injury" relating to asbestos. Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (Le. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant". Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous in that the "physical injury" Plaintiff is inquiring about is not defined and is subject to multiple interpretations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Produce all documents that indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health ofhuman beings. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that DNO/25108/190467 82 it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. In addition, this request includes terms used therein which are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the terms. Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests. Defendant objects to the term "hazardous" as vague and ambiguous. This request constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition in violation of Texas law. Defendant further objects that documents responsive to this request are already in Plaintiff's counsel's possession or are in the public domain to which Plaintiff has equal access. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. SI: Admit that you supervised the health and safety procedures implemented by contractors working on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s).within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify which contractor was his employer or what work was performed by that contractor, thereby making the phrases "health and safety practices" and "implemented by contractors" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrases. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the term "supervised" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, this DNO/25108/190467 83 request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details of their work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the workmen. Defendant anticipated thatmost, ifnot all, advice and the control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52: Admit that you supervised the health and safety practices implemented by Plaintiffs employer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that Plaintiff does not specify his employer or what work was performed by his employer, thereby making the phrase phrases "health and safety practices" and "implemented by Plaintiffs employer" vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the phrase. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "you supervised" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Independent contractors were retained by Defendant to perform various activities on the premises because independent contractors were experts in the various fields in which they were DNO/25108/190467 84 retained. The contractors were independent and control over the details oftheir work were left to their expertise. Further, each independent contractor agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protectthe workmen. Defendant anticipated that most, ifnot all, advice and the control of the contractors' day to day activities regarding safety would come from the contractor employer. Without waiving the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53: Admit that you did not protect the Plaintiff from exposure to asbestos on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiffallegedlyworked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to request for admission to the extent that the term "protect" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Further, this request is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Produce all documents supporting the legal theories and factual bases of your defenses set forth in your response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194.2, subparagraph (c). DNO/25108/'. 90467 85 SBSEPMSB: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition" which is impermissible under Texas law. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant does not yet have enough information to finalize its possible defenses, and is unable to respond at this time. Discovery is continuing. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Do you contend that Plaintiffs exposure to asbestos at Defendant's Premises was not a substantial contributing factor in causing his asbestos-related injury? If the answer is anything other than "no", identify each and every fact which supports this contention. ANS-WER; Defendant objects to this interrogatory insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises and that he was exposed to asbestos, which is denied. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, this interrogatory is harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing. Defendant objects to the phrase "substantial contributing factor" as vague and ambiguous and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. Without waiving the foregoing objections, yes. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54: Admit that Plaintiffs exposure to asbestos at Defendant's Premises was a substantial contributing factor in causing his asbestos-related injury. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that the phrases "Plaintiffs exposure" and "substantial contributing factor" and "asbestos-related injury" are vague, indefinite and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is DNO/25108/190467 86 not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and harassing. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. S6: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, inwhole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that the phrases "Plaintiff's exposure" and "substantial contributing factor" and "asbestos-related injury" are vague, indefinite and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe terms "you" and "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55: Admit that Defendant did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk of asbestos-related injury. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. DNO/25108/190467 87 Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises and was known to be subjected to the risk of asbestos related injury which is denied. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. It is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have been present, nor to the specific areas where Plaintiffclaims to have been present Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk ofasbestos-related injury" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe terms "you" and "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56: Admit that Defendant did not reduce or eliminate the unreasonable risk ofharm posed by the use ofasbestos-containing products at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for Information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discoveiy of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises and was subjected to an unreasonable risk of harm posed by the use of asbestos products, which is denied. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. It is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have been present, nor to the specific areas where Plaintiff claims to have been present Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "reduce or eliminate the unreasonable risk of harm posed by the use of asbestos-containing products" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this DNO/25108/190467 88 request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request in that this request calls for information and material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in that it is not limited in time nor scope to time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises, nor limited to the premises at which Plaintiff allegedly worked, nor the area(s) within any of Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. It is not limited to any applicable time period nor in scope to the premises upon which Plaintiff claims to have been present, nor to the specific areas where Plaintiff claims to have been present Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the terms "unreasonable risk of harm" and "use" are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57: Admit that Defendant's failure to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm to Plaintiff was a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiffs asbestos-related injury. DNO/25108/190467 89 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises that he was exposed to asbestos and that Plaintiff has an asbestos related injury, which is denied. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. Defendant further objects to this request for admission to the extent that the phrase "reduce or eliminate the risk of harm to Plaintiff was a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiffs asbestosrelated injury" is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders this particular request unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Ifyou deny the foregoing request, in whole or in part, produce all documents supporting your denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiff worked on Defendant's premises, that he was exposed to asbestos, that plaintiff has an asbestos related injury, and that Defendant failed to reduce or eliminate the risk ofharm, all of which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiff is inquiring. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non specific "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Ifyou contend thatwhile at the premises onwhich you or your employees were working with asbestos-containing materials. Plaintiffwas not exposed to sufficient quantities of asbestos dust to produce the disease(s) complained of, produce all documents supporting your contention. DNO/25108/190467 90 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises, which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Plaintiffhas not identified any specific work site or time periods in which he worked on Defendant's premises and; therefore, Defendant is unable to respond at this time. Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and overly burdensome. Defendant further objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises, that he was exposed to asbestos, that plaintiff has an asbestos related injury, and that Defendant failed to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm, all of which is subject to question. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term (<you or your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Discovery is continuing. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: If you contend that Plaintiff is suffering from an asbestos disease as a result of exposures other than asbestos dust at the premises on which you or your employees were working with asbestos-containing materials, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request insofar as it assumes Plaintiffworked on Defendant's premises, which is subject to question. Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. At this time, Defendant does not contend that Mr. Withers has an asbestos-related injury and discovery is continuing as to what asbestos exposures he may have had on other premises. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "you", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Discovery is continuing. Without waiving the foregoing objections, see Plaintiffs testimony, work history, medical records and expert testimony. DNO/25108/190467 91 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Ifyou contend that Plaintiffdoes not suffer from the asbestos-related disease(s) complained of, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and calls for medical literature already in possession of Plaintiffs attorney. ' t* Without waiving the foregoing objections, defendant has not yet have enough information to finalize contentions. Discovery is continuing. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: Ifyou contend that Plaintiffwas not exposed to asbestos dust at die premises on which you oryour employees were working with asbestos-containingmaterials, produce all documents supporting your contention. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify the specific task, work site, time period, or activity about which Plaintiffis inquiring. Plaintiffhas not identified any specific work site or time periods in which he worked on Defendant's premises and; therefore, Defendant are unable to respond at this time. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the terms "you" and "your", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". Discovery is continuing. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Produce all documents used, referred to or relied upon in answering any Interrogatories. RESPONSE: Defendant further objects to this request as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and constitutes a non-specific "fishing expedition". DNO/25108/190467 92 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: Produce any and all documents and other tangible things which refer to the document retention (and/or destruction) policy of Defendant, including the following: a. Any document retention and/or destruction policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. b. Any record retention and/or destruction, dumping, or purging policies for Defendant that pertain to documents and records created, maintained or stored by electronic and/or magnetic means, including but not limited to records that have been microfilmed, microfiched, imaged, scanned, or stored on tapes, disks, diskettes, CDrom, databases, etc. or on or within any computer hardware, backup system, download system, file dumping orother system ofinformation management, whether on-site or off-site, including but not limited to supplements, addenda, memoranda, operating bulletins, revisions, or any other superseding instructions that referred to the stopping, suspending or resuming of such retention or destruction policies. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous. It is not limited by time or location and constitutes a "fishing expedition". It calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: Produce any and all documentation, including but not limited to lists, inventories, indices, databases or print-outs thereof, archives, storage inventories, logs, or other search aids that refer or relate to the existence, extent, type, organization, filing system, method ofaccess or retrieval, and/or location ofDefendant's documents (maintained or stored on-site or off-site) described in the preceding paragraphs. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous. It is not limited by time or location and constitutes a "fishing expedition". DNO/25108'190467 93 It calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials ofanykind or characterthatwould indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so, identify the individuals who received, maintained, reviewed, or disseminated the information contained in such written materials. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous. It is not limited by time or location and constitutes a "fishing expedition". It calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the term "hazardous" as vague and ambiguous. In addition, this interrogatory is harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: Produce the written materials referred to in the interrogatory above. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous. Further, Defendant objects to this request as the term "hazardous"is vague, ambiguous and subject to the multiple interpretations in the context ofthis suit It is not limited by time or location and constitutes a "fishing expedition". It calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant" is ambiguous. DNO/25108/190467 94 REOUEST-FOR ADMISSION NO. 58: Admit that Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant within two (2) years of the date of discovering his asbestos-related condition or the existence ofany asbestos-related causes of action. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant further objects as argumentative and in that this request assumes Plaintiff has an asbestos related illness. Defendant further objects to this request as calling for a legal conclusion. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEgTF_QR ADMISSION MCLSS; Admit that Defendant is liable for Plaintiffs asbestos related illness. RESPONSE: Defendant further objects to this request as it calls for a legal conclusion, is argumentative, and assumes Plaintiff has or had an asbestos -related illness. Defendant further objects to this request as harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, denied. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60: Admit that asbestos is still in use and/or in place on Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a time period of the specific work site location about which Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery DNO/25108/190467 95 of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the phrase "in use and/or in place" is vague and ambiguous. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny. REQUEST FOR.ADMISSION NO. 61: Admit that Defendant no longer uses asbestos on its Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Defendant further objects becausetheterm "asbestos" is vague and ambiguous. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 62: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1972. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos- DNO/25108/190467 96 containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years ofplaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 63: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1973. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years ofplaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 64: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1974. DNO/25108/190467 97 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years ofplaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 65: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1975. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years ofplaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request DNO/25108/190467 98 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 66: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1976. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years ofplaintiff's alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 67: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1977. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the DNO/25108/190467 99 years ofplaintiff's alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 68: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1978. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years ofplaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 69: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1979. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos- DNO/25108/190467 100 containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery outweighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiff's alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR ABMISSmMCL7Qi Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1980. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years ofplaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REOI JEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 71: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1, 1981. DNO/25108/190467 101 Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiff's alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 72; Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1982. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiff's allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiff's alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. DNO/25108/190467 102 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 73: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1983. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years ofplaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry. Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after Jammy 1, 1984. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the DNO/25108/190467 i 103 years ofplaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 75: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1985. RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden ofdiscovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 76: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1986. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location about which Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestos- DNO/25108/190467 104 containing materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs* definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years ofplaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1987. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendantobjects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years ofplaintiffs alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78: Admit that asbestos-containing materials were in-place on Defendant's Premises after January 1,1988 (i DNO/25108/I90467 105 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad, burdensome, vague and ambiguous in that the request does not specify a the time period or specific work site location aboutwhich Plaintiffis inquiring, TRCP 192.3(a). Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects because the term "asbestoscontaining materials" is vague and ambiguous. This request is overly broad in that Plaintiff has not provided any discovery responses and it is impossible to know Plaintiffs allegations. In addition, Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years ofplaintiff's alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Without waiving the foregoing objections, after reasonable inquiry, Defendant is unable to admit or deny this request REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67: Produce all documents that reflect, indicate or in anywayrelate to communications between you and any manufacturer of asbestos-containing products concerning or related to the asbestos contained in such products. RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this requests for production to the extent that it is overly broad, vague, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and not limited to the facilities where Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to this requests for production to the extent it seeks information, the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney/client privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. In addition. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant", and as such the burden of discovery out weighs its benefits, TRCP 192.4. Defendant objects that the request is not limited in time to the years of plaintiff's alleged exposures or the locations where Plaintiff allegedly worked. DNO/25108/190467 106 Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971; however, see attached bate numbers CCCB 00017- CCCB 00025. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68: f Produce all documents disseminated or published by any trade association that contain information relating to the hazards of asbestos and all documents which refer to such documents. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or materialwhich is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based, and it is not limited to the facilities where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such terms as "hazards" & "trade association". Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type ofhealth injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to the production of documents which are protected by the attorney/client or other privilege. Defendant further objects as this request constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition". Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69: Produce all documents, that relate to any inspections by any regulatory agency for the purpose ofascertaining whether health or safety regulations were being followed or adhered to at any of your plants. This request specifically seeks any and all such documentation referring to dust hazards, including but not limited to asbestos in your plants. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information ormaterial which is neither relevant nor DNO/25108/190467 107 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based, and it is not limited to the facilities where Plaintiff worked. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Defendant also objects to this request in that it is not limited to health and safety regulations dealing with asbestos. In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information which is a matter ofpublic record or otherwise available to Plaintiff without imposing a burden on Defendant Defendant objects to the extent this request seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. Defendant objects to the term "hazards" as vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "your". Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: Produce all safety meeting minutes or other documents, that refer to the dangers ofasbestos safety measures to be used in the vicinity of asbestos at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant".Defendant objects to the extent this request seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. DNO/25108/190467 108 Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it is in the process of searching for documents responsive to this request To the extent documents responsive to this request exist these will be made available to Plaintiff's counsel at a time and date* convenient to all parties at the offices of Defendant's counsel in Beaumont Texas. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71: Produce all contracts, or other documents that relate to abatement ofasbestos at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, irrelevant unduly burdensome, and calls for information or materialwhich is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). I Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant".n addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it is in the process of searching for documents responsive to this request To the extent documents responsive to this request exist these will be made available to Plaintiff's counsel at a time and date convenient to all parties at the offices of Defendant's counsel in Beaumont Texas. REQUEST FOR PROD! ICTION NO. 72: Produce all contracts, or other documents that relate to the installation ofasbestos products at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, irrelevant unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor DNO/25108/190467 109 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant^ harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendantf'.In addition. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963*1971. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73: Produce all documents that in any way reflect a removal plan or organized written criteria or schedule for the removal of asbestos at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or materialwhich is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are based. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74: Produce all documents related to the medical condition of Plaintiff at anytime during his work at Defendant's Premises. This request specifically includes any and all x-rays, x-ray reports, medical, notes and/or medical records of any kind, annual physical forms, and employment records relating to Plaintiffs health. DNO/25108/190467 110 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. Without waiving the foregoing objections, none. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75: Produce Plaintiffs entire personnel file from Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant has no personnel file on Plaintiff. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76: Produce all documents that reflect the layout ofDefendant's Premises, including the location and dimensions of all buildings and the location and placement of asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term ``Defendant". Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary information and/or trade secrets. In addition, this request seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. Without waiving the foregoing objections, see bate numbers CCCB 00026 through CCCB 00033. DNO/25108/190467 111 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77: Produce all documents containing anywarnings concerning thepossibilityofinjuryresulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos. RmPpNSE; Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such terms as "exposure" and/or "injury" or "possibility of injury" relating to asbestos. Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78: Produce all photographs ofasbestos products in place or asbestos-containingproducts being fabricated or utilized at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: * Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiffallegedlyworked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant further objects to this requests for production to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary information and/or trade secrets. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971. DNO/25108/190467 112 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79: Produce all photographs ofwarning signs or warning statements which are or have been in place at Defendant's Premises in the vicinity ofasbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant". Defendant objects to this requests for production to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or proprietary information and/or trade secrets. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: Produce all documents relating to any individuals claimed injury as a result of exposure to asbestos at Defendant's Premises, including, but not limited to, workers compensation claims. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities at which Plaintiffallegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. DNO/25108/190467 113 Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81: Produce all documents, including but not limited to, corporate minutes, which mention the hazards or potential hazards ofasbestos. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiffallegedly worked or was present nor to the time period when Plaintiff allegedly worked there. In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiff's use of such terms as "hazards", and/or "potential hazards" relating to asbestos. Plaintifffails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests. TRCP 192.3(a). In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilegeor immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. Without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82: Produce all documents, including invoices, shipping receipts, bills of lading and purchase orders, related to the purchase of asbestos-containing products for use at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked DNO/25108/190467 114 on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Without waiving the foregoing objections. Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83: Produce all documents relating to inspections by labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company or hired by your company, that included the taking or measuring of "dust counts". RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "your". In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject ofwhich is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963-1971. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84: In the event that Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts or measurements of any of its plants or industrial facilities with respect to asbestos dust, produce any documents, memoranda, or other writings that in any way reflect the results of such studies or counts and actions taken as a result of such counts or studies. DNO/25108/190467 115 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Further, Defendantobjects to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant". In addition, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information the subject ofwhich is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege, the attorney/client privilege, the investigative privilege, the party communication privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery provided by TRCP 192.5. Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has been unable to locate any information responsive to this request from 1963*1971. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 85: Produce all reports, writings (whetherpublished orunpublished) and/or otherdocumentation written, created and/or edited by any ofyour experts that in any way pertain to asbestos and the hazards and/or diseases that may result therefrom. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answergiven Plaintiffs' definition of the term "your". Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such terms as "hazards" and/or "diseases" relating to asbestos. Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). DNO/25108/190467 116 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86: Produce all documents which will be used at the time oftrial, including all potential exhibits and those documents which may be used to cross-examine other witnesses or in rebuttal, and which you contend are relevant to any of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's most recently filed Answer. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it is overly broad and burdensome and seeks information, the subject of which is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product privilege. Defendant will identify witnesses and trial exhibits at such time as the court may require. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 87: Produce documents between Defendant and any of its worker's compensation carriers regarding the hazards of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE; Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based, and it is not limited to the facilities where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs* definition ofthe term"your". Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiffs use of such terms as "hazards" relating to asbestos. Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type of health injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88: Produce a copy ofall regulations, orders, rules and/or policies which have been used relating to the safety ofthe Defendant's Premises. DNO/25108/190467 117 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Defendant also objects to this request in that it is not limited to health and safety regulations dealing with asbestos. Defendant objects to the production of documents which are protected by the attorney/client self audit/self critical analysis, or other privilege. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89: Produce all documents which contain complaints by employees ofthe Defendant's Premises regarding safety conditions and work place conditions at the Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are based. Defendant also objects to this request ini that it is not limited to health and safety regulations dealing with asbestos. Defendant objects to the production of documents which are protected by the attorney/client self audit/self critical analysis, or other privilege. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 90: Produce all documents which contain complaints by Union representatives of Defendant's Premises regarding safety conditions andwork place conditions at the Defendant's Premises. DNO/25108/190467 118 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are based. Defendant also objects to this request in that it is not limited to health and safety regulations dealing with asbestos. Defendant objects to the production of documents which are protected by the attorney/client self audit/self critical analysis, or other privilege. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 91: Produce all documents, organizational charts or rosters which identify the members of the management at the Defendant's Premises and their areas of responsibility during the time period of Plaintiffs work at Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises norto the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Plaintiffhas not formally indicated the time period he claims to have been present at Defendant' facilities. To the extent documents responsive to this request exist, they will be made available to Plaintiff's counsel at a time and date convenient to all parties at the offices of Defendant's counsel in Beaumont, Texas. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 92: Produce all documents which evidence Defendant's, net worth, including but not limited to all "10-K" forms filed for the last five (5) years. DNO/25108/190467 119 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, vague, and unduly burdensome with which to comply. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it is not limited to the facilities Plaintiff allegedly worked. TRCP 192.3(a). Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce responsive documents to this request for inspection and copying at the offices of this Defendant's counsel at a mutually convenient time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 93: Produce all documents which evidence Defendant's purchase, acquisition, sale, or transfer ofownership of Defendant's Premises. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, undulyburdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 94: Produce all indemnityagreements, assignments ofliability, subrogation agreements and other similar documents relating to Defendant's Premises and liabilities arising from said ownership. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this DNO/2S108/190467 120 request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has not located any documents responsive to this request to date regarding the claims made the basis of this suit. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 95: Produce all contracts pertaining to work done by contractors at Defendant's facility. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence TRCP 192.3(a). Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based. Defendant also objects to this request in that it is not limited to contractors dealing with asbestos. Defendant further objects to this request as it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant objects to the production of documents which are protected by the attorney/client self audit/self critical analysis, or other privilege. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 96: Please produce any printed material produced or published by Defendant containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products or exposure to asbestos? RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, vague, irrelevant and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to this request for production because it seeks information for time periods other than those upon which Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are based, and it is not limited to the facilities where Plaintiff worked. Defendant objects to the production of documents which are protected by the attorney/client or other privilege. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent that many of the terms used therein are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, which renders particular questions unintelligible, and renders a response impossible DNO/25108/190467 121 without speculation as to the meaning of the term. For instance, this objection refers to, but is not limited to Plaintiff's use of such terms as "warnings" or "possibility of injury" relating to asbestos. Plaintiff fails to reference any specific use, exposure condition (i.e. concentration) or type ofhealth injury in their requests TRCP 192.3(a). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 97; Produce all documents and other tangible things relating to the Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request for production as overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for information or material which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiffallegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiff allegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition ofthe term "Defendant". Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition". REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 98: If you content that you did not own or control the facilities) during any time period that Plaintiffworked (orbelieves heworked) at the facilities), pleaseproduce all documentation that supports your contention, including but not limited to documentation pertaining to the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment ofcorporations, subsidiaries, divisions, or other corporate entities or assets that include the purchase, sale, acquisition, merger, or divestment ofthe facilities); such documentation to include, by way of example and not limitation, purchase or sale agreements, minutes, resolutions, annual reports, 1 OK reports or other state or federal agency filings, or deposition, trial testimony or affidavits of your corporate representatives who are the most knowledgeable individuals with respect to such matters. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the request as overly broad, irrelevant and the terms "own or control" as vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects because this request is not limited to a relevant time period. Defendant further objects because the request is outside the scope of TRCP 192.3 and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request s it is not limited in scope to the time periods when Plaintiff allegedly worked on Defendant's premises nor to the DNO/25107/190269 122 areas within Defendant's premises where Plaintiffallegedly worked. Defendant objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, harassing, and virtually impossible to answer given Plaintiffs' definition of the term "Defendant". Defendant further objects to this request as it constitutes an impermissible "fishing expedition". DNO/25107/190269 123 PRESSURE-DEMAND HOSELINE UNIT wiTh Egress emergency air supply v This apparatus is to be worn when entering confined spaces which contain toxic or oxygen deficient atmospheres. INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Inventory the equipment. 1 high pressure regulator (to be set at 350 psi).1 1 50* ft. high pressure supply hose. 1 harness with 5 minute cylinder and breathing air regulator attached. 1 breathing air mask with a flexible tube attached (the mask should always be cleaned after use and stored in a plastic baggie). 2. Attach the high pressure regulator to a 220 cu. ft. breathing air cylinder and connect the 50* high pressure hose to it (there are many 220 cu. ft. breathing air cylinders throughout the plant being used for low pressure, demand, hoseline masks. These cylinders should be used, but not the low pressure regulators, hoselines or masks). 3. After you have checked the emergency egress cylinder for proper pressure, don the harness. 4. Be sure that the pressure-demand regulator (on the left side of your chest) is in the "off" position, then couple-up to the 50* supply hose (a rush of air will occur while you are making-up the coupling). 5. Put on the mask as follows: a. Adjust the head straps to a full outward position. b. Hold the head harness out of the way with one hand or back over the lens. c. Place the facepiece on the face with chin properly located in the chin pocket. d. Pull the head harness over the head and tighten the neck straps by pulling on the two appropriate tabs. e. Stroke the head harness down to the back using one or both hands. f. Tighten the two temple straps. g. Tighten the top strap only if necessary. h. Check the seal by closing the end of the tube with your thumb and slowly inhaling. 6. Connect the flexible breathing tube to the pressure-demand regulator and only then switch the "on-off'* lever to the "on" position (this lever should remain in the "on" position during use but should be switched "off" just prior to removing the mask). Withers CCCB 00001 7. At any time your air supply fails or, you must uncouple from the supply hose, then and only then reach behind your back with the right hand and open the valve on the "Egress Emergency" cylinder. This will provide three to five minutes of breathing air and allow you to escape through the nearest exit. Always clean' and properly store the equipment before returning it to the tool room or stores. INSTRUCTION FOR CLEANING AND STORAGE: 1. The facepiece and hoses should be washed with warm soapy water and air dried after use, 2. The facepiece should always be in a special plastic baggie when not in use (these may be obtained from stores).' 3. Place all the equipment in its container neatly, being sure it is not distorted or packed into the container. 4. Return units #1,2,3,and 4 to the Brown & Root tool room and units #5,6, 7 and 8 to stores. 5. The tool room or stores personnel should not allow these units to be returned unless they are in good clean condition with no parts missing. If there are any questions about the equipment or if repairs are needed contact the Safety Supervisor. Withers CCCB 00002 Withers CCCB 00003 CEDAR BAYOU CHEMICAL PLANT POLICIES & PROCEDURES MANUAL RESPIRATORY PROTECTION I. GENERAL A. This procedure shall serve as a guide for the proper selection, use and care of respiratory protective equipment in the Cedar Bayou Plant. B. `Respiratory protective equipment shall be used whenever processes, environment, or chemicals are encountered in a manner capable of harming the body through inhalation. H. EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITY A. Employees shall use the protective equipment provided in accordance with instructions and training received. B. Employees shall report any malfunction of the equipment to their supervisor. C. Employees who are performing routine tasks shall not borrow emergency respiratory protective equipment which is permanently assigned to a specific location without special permission of the supervisor in charge of the area in which the emergency equipment is kept. III. SELECTION OF RESPIRATORY PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT A. General 1. Supervisors shall become familiar with the various types of respiratory protective equipment and their limitations, as the conditions encountered may range from nuisance odors or irritation to those which are immediately dangerous to life. Withers CCCB 00004 B. Nature of the hazard The following is a general guide. 1. Oxygen-deficient atmospheres Only self-contained breathing apparatus or supplied-air-masks shall be used in any atmosphere that is deficient in oxygen. 2. Immediately hazardous atmospheres Only self-contained breathing apparatus, or supplied air masks shall be used in atmospheres where gases or vapors are present in concentra tions that would rapidly endanger a person. 3. Not immediately hazardous atmospheres Mechanical filter respirators shall be worn as protection against particulate matter, such as fibers, dust or fumes. C. Work requirements and conditions The selection of appropriate respiratory protective equipment can only be made after it has been determined what work must be performed, what length of time it will require and under what conditions. For example, emergency repairs requiring a short period of time in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere and with normal access would permit the use of either a self-contained breathing apparatus or a supplied-air mask. However, lengthy tasks or confined areas may permit the use of a supplied-air mask only. Additionally, some contaminants may be absorbed through or irritate the skin upon contact. Consideration must be given to providing the wearer total protection if conditions warrant. USE OF RESPIRATORY PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT A. Restrictions 1. In areas where the user, with failure of the respiratory protective equipment, could be overcome by a toxic or oxygen-deficient atmosphere: Withers CCCB 00005 a. The user shall have a lifeline attached. b. At least one additional person shall be present as an observer. c. Communications, either visual, or voice, shall be maintained, between user and observer and between observer and the control -room by radio. d. Planning shall be such that at least one individual will be unaffected by any likely incident and have the proper rescue equipment to be able to assist in case of emergency. 2. .Respiratory protective equipment shall not be worn when conditions prevent a good face seal such as a growth of beard, absence of dentures, temple pieces on glasses, etc. Also, to assure proper protection, the facepiece fit shall be checked by the user each time he puts on the equipment. B. Training 1. For the safe use of any respiratory protective equipment! it is essential that the user be properly instructed in its selection, use and maintenance. 2. Users shall receive fitting instruction which include: a. Demonstrations and practice in how the respiratory protective equipment should be worn. b. How to adjust the equipment. c. How to determine If it fits properly. d. Wearing it in normal air and in a test atmosphere for familiarity purposes. 3. Employees shall be made aware of the capabilities and limitations of respiratory protective equipment that they will be required to use, including how to determine when equipment is expended. 4. After initial training in the use of respiratory protective equipment, supervisors shall periodically evaluate their personnel's ability to use that equipment and arrange for refresher training if required. Withers CCCB 00006 C. Types of respiratory protective equipment 1. Dust, fume, fiber and mist respirators (3M paper filter, Dustfoe 77) a. Mechanical filter respirators offer protection against airborne particulate matter including dust, mists, metal fumes, fibers and smoke. b. Mechanical filter respirators do not provide protection against gases, vapors or oxygen-deficiency. 2. Canister respirator (MSA chin type) a. The canister respirator is a standard MSA facepiece with a canister attached at the chin so that intake air passes through it. b. It provides contact protection for the face and respiratory protection against vaporsi dust and mist. c. Masks and organic vapor canisters are provided for emergencies and authorized short term exposures to organic vapors (such as cleaning up spills of aromatics that may contain benzene, or Dimethylformamide). d. Canister masks should never be used to enter a confined space , or an oxygen deficient atmosphere, or where the atmosphere is believed to contain a heavy concentration of vapors. 3. 5-Minute mask (Seigler) a. The 5-minute escape mask consist of a clear hood supplied with breathing air from a tube-coil attached to it. b. The 5-minute escape mask will provide protection in any atmosphere regardless of the degree of contamination or oxygen deficiency. Other protection may be required for skin, depending on circumstances. . c. The 5-minute escape mask should never be used to enter a confined space which contains an oxygen deficient or contaminated atmosphere. It should be taken into possible hazardous areas as an escape device only. 4. Air line respirator (Portable breathing air hose line carts) Withers CCCB 00007 a. me air nne respirator consists of a mask supplied with breathing air from a large breathing air cylinder (never from plant air). b. The air line respirator will provide protection in any atmosphere regardless of the degree of contamination or oxygen deficiency. Other proctection may be required for the skin, depending on circumstances. c. Whenever an air line respirator is to be used in a confined space. Egress emergency air supply unit must be obtained from stores and used. Then a rope shall be attached to the user and a standby man or ~ men shall be present in a safe location with suitable rescue equipment. A confined space is never to be entered using an air line respirator \ until these conditions are met. d, care must De exercised to prevent damage to the hose and regulator while in use, and the assembly shall be stored in such a way that damage will be avoided. Cylinder typed self-contained breathing apparatus (Scott Air Pac) a. This self-contained breathing apparatus utilizes compressed breathing air and will provide protection in any atmosphere regardless of contamination or oxygen deficiency. Other protection may be required for the skin, depending on circumstances. b. When anticipating the use of this apparatus, consideration shall be given to the service life of the cylinders. Although this equipment should provide breathing air for approximately 30 minutes, extreme exertion or emotional strain will reduce the rated time. c. Users of this equipment shall immediately begin exiting the hazardous atmosphere when the low pressure alarm sounds. d. Whenever compressed air apparatus is used in a confined space a lifeline shall.be attached to the person using the apparatus and a standby man or men shall be present in a safe location with suitable rescue equipment. Withers CCCB 00008 6. Oxygen resusitator a. This apparatus utilizes' compressed breathing oxygen to enrich the blood of a breathing or non-breathing victim. b. Non-breathing victims should be aspirated immediately upon discovery never hesitate - the resusitator may be subsituted for alternate methods when it arrives. c. Breathing victims who have been exposed to toxic substances or are experiencing a respiratory problem due to physical conditions (such as heart attack) the resusitator may be used as a demand inhalator. d. Operation 1. Turn the knob on the oxygen cylinder counterclockwise and note cylinder pressure (when not in use cylinder pressure should be checked periodically and replaced with a full one when necessary). 2. Verify that there is no obstruction in the patients throat or mouth. 3. With.one hand under the patients chin, tilt the head back and place the mask over the victims nose and mouth. (Hold the mask in place with the thumb, forefinger, and middle finger while using the rest of the fingers to tilt the victims head back). 4. Using the other hand to hold the demand valve and mask in place, depress the manual control button until the victims chest rises, then release the button. Repeat, pressing and releasing the ... manual control button at a rate of 12 times per minute. MAINTENANCE AND CARE OF RESPIRATORY PROTECTION EQUIPMENT A. Inspection for defects 1. All respiratory protective equipment shall be inspected routinely before and after each use by the user. 2. Breathing air cylinder shall be maintained at a minimum or 1800 pounds pressure except while being depleted during use. The regulator and any Withers CCCB 00009 warning device shall be tested during inspections to determine if they function properly. 3. Inspection of equipment shall include a check of the tightness of connections and the condition of the facepieces, headbands, valves connecting tubes, hoses and regulators. Rubber or elastometer parts shall be inspected for pliability and signs of deterioration. 4. Equipment that is not routinely used but is kept ready for emergency use shall be inspected after each use and at least monthly to assure that it is in satisfactory working condition. Respiratory Protective Equipment Monthly Inspection Report, shall be completed by each department, and a copy shall be forwarded to the safety supervisor. Accident Prevention personnel shall also make random inspections. B. Cleaning of respiratory protective equipment 1. Masks used by more than one person shall be cleaned and disinfected after each use by the user. Cleaning and disinfecting shall consist of scrubbing in warm soapy water, rinse, spray with disinfectant, rinse again and dry. 2. Respiratory protective equipment shall be stored so that the facepiece and exhalation valve will rest in a normal position and function will not be impaired by the elastometer becoming set in an abnormal position. 3. Respiratory protective equipment shall always be stored in plastic "baggies" which are provided expressly for this purpose. To insure an effective respiratory protective program, the safety supervisor will monitor and evaluate various operations to assure that respiratory protective equipment is properly selected, used cleaned and maintained. Anyone desiring assistance with this procedure should contact the safety supervisor. Withers CCCB 00010 I received Respiratory equipment training at the Cedar Bayou Chemical Plant on. This training included demonstration and explanation of all types of respiratory equipment used in the plant. 1. Mechanical filter respirator 2. 5-Mintue escape mask 3. Air line respirator 4. Cylinder type self-contained breathing appartus 5. Oxygen resuscitator I then was required to prove I could don #3 and #4 and accomplish a perfect seal of the facepiece in a test atmosphere. UNIT NAME JOB CLASSIFICATION Withers CCCB 00011 DEFINITION OF TERMS 1. DUSTS - Solid particles generated by handling, crushing, grinding, rapid impact, detonation, and decrepitation of organic or inorganic materials, such as rock, ore, metal, coal, wood, and grain. Dust may enter the air from various sources. It may be dispersed when a dusty material is handled, such as when lead oxide is dumped into a mixer or a product is dusted with talc. When solid materials are reduced to small sizes in processes such as grinding, crushing, blasting, shaking, and drilling, the mechanical action of the grinding or shaking device supplies a source of energy to disperse the dust formed. 2. FUMES -Solid particles generated by condensation from the gaseous state, generally after volatilization from molten metals, this physical change is often accompanied by a chemical reaction, such as oxidation. 3. SMOKE - Carbon or soot particles less than 0.1 m in size which result from the incomplete combustion or carbonaceous materials such as coal or oil. Smoke generally contains droplets as well as dry particles. 4. MISTS - Suspended liquid droplets generated by condensation from the gaseous to the liquid state or by breaking up a liquid into a dispersed state, such as by splashing, foaming, or atomizing. Mist is formed when a finely divided liquid is suspended in the atmosphere. Examples are the oil mist produced during cutting and grinding operations, acid mists from electroplating, acid or alkali mists from pickling operations, paint spray mist from spraying operations and the condensation of water vapor to form a fog or rain. 5". GASES - Normally formless fluids which occupy the space or enclosure and which can be changed to the liquid or solid state only by the combined effect of increased pressure and decreased temperature. Examples are welding gases internal combustion engine exhaust gases, and air. 6. VAPORS -The gaseous form of substances which are normally in the solid or liquid state (at room temperature and pressure). Evaporation is the process by which a liquid is changed into the vapor state and mixed with the surrounding atmosphere. Solvents with low boiling points will volatilize readily. * Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene, Edited by Julian B. Ollshifski, P.E., and Frank E. McElroy, P.E., Copyright 1971-National Safety Council. Withers CCCB 00012 Z88.2 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD PRACTICES be given full consideration. In oxygen-deficient atmospheres with no toxic materials, inward leakage is normally not a problem unless the leakage exceeds a few percent. It is essential that, in highly toxic atmospheres, inward leak age, if any, be minute. See 6.3.2.1 and 7.3 for use of respirators in immediately dangerous at mospheres. 6.3.2.1 Respirators Recommended for Im mediately Dangerous Atmospheres. Yhe U. S. bureau of Mines and responsible industrial hy giene and safety organizations recommend the following .respirators, listed in decreasing order with regard to the protection they offer the wearer, for use in atmospheres immediately dan gerous to life or health. These atmospheres in clude those which are oxygen deficient or where high concentrations of gases or vapors exist: (1) pressure-demand open-circuit or pres sure-type closed-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus (2) combination pressure-demand air-line res pirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply (3) combination constant-flow air-line res pirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply Table 5 Color Code for Gas-Mask Canisters (ANSI K13.1-1967) Atmospheric Contaminants to be Protected Against Acid gases Hydrocyanic acid gas Chlorine gas Organic vapors Ammonia gas Colors Assigned* White White with Vi-inch green stripe completely around the canister near the bottom White with Vi-inch yellow stripe completely around the canister near the bottom Black Green Acid gases and ammonia gas Carbon monoxide Acid gases and organic vapors Hydrocyanic acid gas and chloropicrin vapor Acid gases, organic vapors, and ammonia gases Green with %-inch white stripe completely around the canister near the bottom Blue Yellow Yellow with Vi*inch blue stripe completely around the canister near the bottom Brown Radioactive materials, except ing tritium and noble gases Particulates (dusts, fumes, mists, fogs, or smokes) in combination with any of the above gases or vapors All of the above atmospheric contaminants Purple (Magenta) Canister color for contaminant, as designated above, with Vi-inch gray stripe completely around the canister near the top Red with Vi-inch gray stripe completely around the canister near the top 'Cray shall not be assigned as the main color for a canister designed to remove acids or vapors. NOTE: Orange shall be used as a complete body, or stripe color to represent gases not included in this table. The user will need to refer to the canister label to determine the degree of protection the canister will afford. 18 Withers CCCB 00013 FOR RESPIRATORY PROTECTION Z88.2 piration shall be of high purity. Oxygen shall meet the requirements of the United States Pharmacopoeia for medical or breathing oxygen. Breathing air shall meet at least the require ments of the specification for Grade D breathing air as described in Compressed Gas Association Commodity Specification G-7.1-1966. Compressed oxygen shall not be used in supplied-air respirators or in open-circuit selfcontained breathing apparatus that have pre viously used compressed air. Compressed air might contain low concentrations of oil.. When high-pressure oxygen passes through an oil- or grease-coated orifice, an explosion or fire may occur. Breathing air may be supplied to respirators from cylinders or air compressors. Cylinders shall be tested and maintained in accordance with applicable Department of Transportation or Interstate Commerce Commission Specifica tions for shipping containers. Compressors shall be constructed and situated so as to avoid entry of contaminated air into the system and suitable in-line air purifying sorbent beds and filters installed to further assure breathing air quality. A receiver of sufficient capacity to enable the respirator wearer to escape from a contaminated atmosphere in event of compressor failure, and alarms to indicate compressor failure and over heating shall be installed in the system (see 6.3.2). Air-line couplings shall be incompatible with outlets for other gas systems to prevent inadvertent servicing of air-line respirators with nonrespirable gases or oxygen. Breathing-gas containers shall be marked in accordance with American National Standard Method of Marking Portable Compressed Gas Containers to Identify the Material Contained, Z48.1-1954; Federal Specification BB-A-1034a, June 21, 1968, Air, Compressed for Breathing Purposes; or Interim Federal Specification GGB-00675b, April 27,1965, Breathing Apparatus, Self-Contained. Further details on sources of compressed air and its safe use will be found in Compressed Gas Association Pamphlet G-71968. 6. Selection of Respirators 6.1 Approved or Accepted Respirators. When ever possible, approved or accepted respirators shall be used. Respirator approval and accept ance tests and listings and selection of other than approved or accepted respirators are dis cussed in the Appendix. 6.2 General Considerations. The multiplicity of hazards that may exist in a given operation requires careful and intelligent respirator selec tion. This selection is made even more complex by the many types of respirators available. Each type has its limitations, areas of application, and operational and maintenance requirements. The selection of a proper respirator for any given situation requires consideration of the following factors: 1) nature of the hazard (see Section 4); 2) extent of the hazard: 3) work re quirements and conditions; and 4) characteris tics and limitations of available respirators (see Section 5). Table 6 is a quick reference guide for the selection of respiratory protection appropriate to the type and degree of hazard. The Table provides minimal guidance, however, and shall be used along with other information, such as that given in this standard and in directions provided by respirator manufacturers. When there is doubt about the concentration of oxygen or hazardous material present in the atmosphere, only those respirators listed as suitable for respiratory protection against oxy gen deficiency shall be used. Any erring in the selection of respirators shall be on the safe side. 6.3 Nature of the Hazard. The chemical and physical properties, toxicity, and concentration of the hazardous material shall be considered in respirator selection (see Section 4 for classifica tions and discussion of respiratory hazards). 6.3JL Oxygen-Deficient Atmospheres. Only respirators that provide an independent, respira ble atmosphere shall be used in oxygen-deficient atmospheres. Normally, a self-contained breath ing apparatus, hose mask with blower, or air line respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply is used for this purpose. Air-line respirators without auxiliary air supply shall be used only with the precautions outlined in 6.3.2. An attendant shall be standing by at the entrance to the oxygen-deficient atmosphere at all times with proper communications and res cue equipment in case of an emergency. See 7.3 for use of respirators in oxygen-deficient atmo spheres. 6.3.2 Immediately Dangerous Atmospheres. If it is probable that atmospheres immediately dangerous to life or health may occur, then both the normally expected inward leakage (see 6.3.3) and the reliability of the respirator shall 13 Withers CCCB 00014 FOR RESPIRATORY PROTECTION (4) demand-flow open-circuit or closed-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus (where there may be a negative pressure In the breathing system at any time) (5) combination demand-flow air-line res pirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply (6) hose mask with blower When self-contained breathing apparatus or hose masks with blowers are used in atmo spheres immediately dangerous to life or health, standby men must be present with suitable res cue equipment. 6.3.2.2 Other Respirators Which May Be Used under Certain Conditions in Atmospheres Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health. Air line respirators are not approved or recom mended for use in immediately dangerous atjnospheres because no respiratory protection is provided if the air supply fails. However, if Z88.2 routine protection or operational designs pre clude use of the recommended types of respira tors which workers should wear, the following air-line respirators may be considered, provided an adequate flow of respirable air is maintained. These are listed in decreasing order with regard to the protection they provide for the wearer. (1) pressure-demand air-line respirator with full facepiece (2) continuous-flow air-line respirator with full facepiece, helmet, hood, or suit (3) demand-flow air-line respirator with full facepiece (4) pressure-demand air-line respirator with half-mask facepiece (only for atmospheres that do not cause eye irritation or injury) (5) continuous-flow air-line respirator with half-mask facepiece (only for atmospheres that do not cause eye irritation or injury) Table 6 Guide for Selection of Respirators , Hazard Respirator (See Note 1.) Oxygtn Deficiency Self-contained breathing apparatus. Hose mask with blower. Combination alr-llna respirator with auxiliary sslt-containsd air supply or an air-storage receiver with alarm. Gas and Vapor Contaminants Immediately dangerous to life or health. (See Not* 2.) Self-contained breathing apparatus. Hose mask with blower. Alr-purlfylng, full facepiece respirator with chemical canister (gas mask). Self-rescue mouthpiece respirator (for escape only). Combination alr-line respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply or an air-storage receiver with alarm. Not immediately dangerous to Alr-llna respirator. < iif# or health. Hose mask without blower. Air-purifying, half-mask or mouthpiece respirator with chemical cartridge. Particulate Contaminants Immediately dangerous to life or health. (Sea Not* 2.) Self-contained breathing apparatus. Hose mask with blower. Air-purifying, full facepiece respirator with appropriate filter. Self-rescue mouthpiece respirator (for escape only). Combination alr-llne respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply or an air-storage receiver with alarm. Not immediately dangerous to Ilfs or health. Combination gas, vapor, and particulate contaminants Immediately dangerous to life or health. (See Note Z) A!r-purlfylng, half-mask or mouthpiece respirator with filter pad or cartridge. Alr-lina respirator. Air-lint abrasive-blasting respirator. Hose mask without blower. Self-contained breathing apparatus. Hose mask with blower. Air-purifying, full facepiece respirator with chemical canister and appropriate filter (gas mask with filter). Self-rescue mouthpiece respirator (for escape only). Combination slr-llne respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply or an air-storage receiver with alarm. Not immediataly dangerous to life or health. Alr-llne respirator. Hose mask without blower. Air-purifying, half-mask or mouthpiece respirator with chemical cartridge and appro priate filter. NOTE 1: For details on descriptions, capabilities, and limitations of respirators, refer to Tables 3 and 4. NOTE 2: For details on use of respirators In hazardous atmospheres, see 6.3.2 and 7.3. 19 Withers CCCB 00015 288.2 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD PRACTICES (6) demand-flow air-line respirator with half mask facepiece (only for atmospheres that do not cause eye irritation or injury) Pressure-demand or continuous-flow air-line respirators with full facepiece provide the wearer with a degree of respiratory protection equal to that afforded by a positive pressure self-con tained breathing apparatus as long as an ade quate flow of respirable air is maintained. Also, a demand-flow air-line respirator with full facepiece would be equivalent to a demand-flow open-circuit or closed-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus as long as an adequate supply of respirable air is maintained. Persons using air-line respirators In atmo spheres immediately hazardous to life or health shall be equipped with safety harnesses and safety lines for lifting or removing persons from hazardous atmospheres or other and equivalent provisions for the rescue of persons from haz ardous atmospheres shall be used. A standby man or men with suitable self-contained breath ing apparatus shall be at the nearest fresh air base for emergency rescue. Before a person is permitted to wear an air line respirator in a hazardous atmosphere, an industrial hygiene, health physics, or safety en gineering department representative or a qual ified industrial hygienist, health physicist, or safety engineer shall be responsible for com pliance with the following: (1) Air-line hose from a compressor or cylin der air supply shall be protected from damage, including cutting, kinking, crushing, or burning. In some cases an armored hose shall be used. Hose couplings shall be protected against dis connection. Trailing air-line hose shall be ar ranged to minimize tripping and to permit ready escape. (2) The cylinder containing the air supply for an air-line respirator shall be tested for oxy gen concentration and carbon monoxide content and shall be respirable. All air shall meet the minimum specification for Type I, Grade D gaseous air of the Compressed Gas Association Commodity Specification for Air, G-7.1-1966. The air supply in the cylinder shall be adequate for completion of the work and escape. Oxygen must never be used with air-line respirators. (3) The compressor for supplying air shall be equipped with necessary safety and standby devices. A breathing air-type compressor shall be used. An air-storage receiver shall also be provided to furnish the wearer with an adequate supply of escape air if the compressor fails to operate. A compressor shutoff alarm and nec essary aerosol and vapor and gas filters shall also be incorporated into the system. If an oil-lubricated compressor is used, it shall have a high-temperature or carbon monox ide alarm, or both. If only a high-temperature alarm is used, the air from the compressor shall be frequently tested for carbon monoxide to in sure that it meets the specifications in 6.3.2.2 (2). (4) The wearer shall be properly trained in the use of the air-line respirator and shall be well-informed of the hazard. A standard operat ing procedure shall be prepared for each situa tion for which air-line respirators are employed in atmospheres immediately hazardous to life or health, and air-line respirator users shall be thoroughly familiar with this procedure. (5) Continuous-flow air-line respirators are designed for maximum comfort with a minimum airflow that will adequately protect the wearer in a non-hazardous atmosphere. However, they are capable of providing adequate airflow to protect the wearer in a hazardous atmosphere. This adequate airflow is obtained when the air flow control valve is fully open. The recommended minimum airflows for use of air-line respirators in hazardous atmospheres are five cubic feet per minute to tight fitting facepieces and seven cubic feet per minute to loose fitting hoods or helmets. Persons wearing supplied-air suits shall follow the manufacturer's instructions concerning minimum airflow. For further information on furnishing com pressed air to air-line respirators, refer to Com pressed Gas Association Pamphlet G-7-1968. See 7.3 concerning safe procedures during use of respirators in atmospheres immediately danger ous to life or health. 6.3.3 Not Immediately Dangerous Atmo spheres. If immediately dangerous atmospheres are not present or will not occur, then the con sequences of respirator failure are lessened and emphasis can be placed on other factors such as long term protection, convenience, cost, com fort, and wearer acceptance. These factors should be weighed one against another since they are not always compatible. However, long term protection should be given priority over all other factors. 20 Withers CCCB 00016 , _____ l&RVINd HOME AND INDUSTRY OPEN MONOA'--ATUROAY JMBER DEER PARK LUMBER CO. INC. (713 ) 479-2326 1600 CENTER BOX 430 DEER PARK, TEXAS 77536 GENE P. HOUGH MANAGER Withers CCCB 00017 CeZT ' v J> " U (e , oo> 7.4 / Int .Jm A! Dp AOAS INrERMriOUAI. PflOOUCTS 5600 Hochelaga, Montreal. Qu4bc KIN 1W1 1-600-361-4962 Corrugated "400 Asbestos-Cement Roofing and Siding rs M h.'V. *\,; .-V'. v j'' v-SV;^"' -.^' V v:'^- | Withers CCCB 00018 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AI8P Corrugated "400" is an economical, low maintenance roofing and siding product intended for use on industrial, commercial and institutional buildings. It is composed of non-combustible Portland Cement and Asbestos Fiber which are formed under high pressure into a dense, strong corrugated sheet. The product will not burn, smoke, yield toxic gasses or contribute to combustion when exposed to flame or high temperatures. Because of its base materials and dense formation. Corrugated "400" has excellent durability, weathering qualities, resistance to alkalis and chemical fumes, and will not rot, corrode or be affected by insects or vermin. Special erection and application techniques are some times required for unusual application conditions. Special application details are needed whenever Corrugated "400" is to be applied over furnaces, boilers, refractories, and other high-temperature installations. CORRUGATED SHEETS Corrugated "400" is normally supplied in lengths of 1 to 12 feet, graduated in increments of 6 inches (see Table 1). However, custom cut sheets are available to meet the particular length requirements of the job. Cor rugated "400" sheet corrugations have a 4.2-inch pitch and depth of 1% inches. They are approximately %-inch thick at crests and vales and 5/ 16-inch thick at flanks. Sheets are furnished 42 inches (ten corrugations) wide (see Table 2). To determine the number of sheets required per course, divide the length in feet by 3.15. Corrugated "400" meets Federal Specification SS-B755A-Type A and ASTM Specification C221, Type B. COLORED CORRUGATED "400" Pebble-Textured, Plasti-Clad Coated Corrugated "400" Is a colorful, factory finished product which gives in creased weathering and chemical resistant qualities. The Plasti-Clad finish also resists water penetration and dirt accumulation. The Plasti-Clad treatment is a double coated, baked acrylic finish integrally bonded to the asbestos-cement substrate. Withers CCCB 00019 7.4/lnt Tha wida range of Plasti-Clad colors provides an op portunity to design color and good appearance into industrial as wall as commercial buildings. Six standard colors are available as shown on back cover. Additional colors are also available on special order. Asbestoscement accessaries are available in either natural cement gray or matching Plasti-Clad colors. ARCHITECTURAL SPECIFICATIONS Side Walls and roofs shall be corrugated "400" as manufactured by International Building Products. All sheets shall be 42" in width and of suitable length so that ail end laps shall fall over purlin or grit. Corrugation pitch shall be 4.2" and thickness of corrugation shall be a nominal H" at crests and vales and a nominal 5/16" at flanks. Overall sheet depth shall be 1V4". Uncrated weight shall be approximately 4 lbs. per sq. ft. Surface shall be smooth, asbestos-cement gray; or textured and prefinished color shall be . Installation shall be In accordance with manufacturer's instructions. ESTIMATING AND ENGINEERING SERVICE Franchised applicators, highly skilled in all the uses of IBP Corrugated "400", are always ready to serve your needs whether It be a cost estimate of standard applica tion or a custom-engineered installation. Contact us for the name of the approved applicator in your area. ACCESSORY SOURCES Fastsrtsrs and Side-Lap Sealant Construction Fasteners, Inc., Box 6326 Wyomissing, PA 19610 21S-376-5751 Atlas Bolt and Scraw Southwest Inc. 3126 National Circle Or. Garland, TX 75041 214-271-5491 Rubber Closure Strips Rubatex (Main Office), Railroad Avenue, Bedford, VA 24523 703-586-2611 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION TABLE t. SHEET SIZES AVAILABLE FROM STOCK iMpt U S*. ft. hr hr iMftfc K 9W< WMtateJ UMtlfLl W ft. hr Urnt kmm. Wt P*f MM AM 1 3.SO 14 1% 2 6.25 21 7.00 28 2% 8.75 35 3 10.50 42 3% 12.25 49 4 14.00 55 4% 15.75 63 5 17.50 70 5% 19.25 77 6 21.00 84 8% 22.75 91 7 24.50 7% 26.25 8 28.00 8% 29.75 9 31.50 8% 33.25 10 35.00 1110% 36.75 38.50 11% 40,25 12 42.00 98 105 112 119 126 133 140 147 154 161 168 TABLE 2. PRODUCT INFORMATION Pitch........................................... 4.2" center to center Width.............................................,...................... 42" Length....................................... 1 to 12 (see Table 1) Weight..........................approximately 4 Ibe. per sq. ft. Color.............Plasti-Clad Colors or natural cement-gray Thlcknsss.......................approximately %" at creat and vales; 6/1Qf' at flanks Depth of corrugation................................................ 1%" TABLE 3. APPLICATION SPECIFICATIONS Minimum roof slope....................................3" rise to 12" 'Recommended maximum purlin ......... 4'6" 'Recommended maximum girt.....................................5'9'' Minimum aide lap .......................................1 corrugation Minimum end lap ........................................................ 6" Maximum raxe overhang ..........................2 corrugations Maximum eave overhang ................................ 9" Weight sheets per net square ............ ................ 500 lbs. Weight fasteners per net square ............................8 lbs. TABLE 4. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Section Modulus........................... 0.904 in. VH. ol width Moment of inertia ..........................0.678 In. `/ft. ol width Modulus of Rupture (dry) .................................. 4150 psl Modulus of Rupture (saturated)..............................3120 psl Modulusoi Sastlctty (dry) .................................. 2x10* Modulus of Elasticity (saturated) ...................... 1.6 x 10* Compressive Strength (parallel to corrugations) ............ 9200 Ibs./sq. In. avg. Tensile Strength ..................................... .......... 2000 psi Rockwall Hardness Approximately 57, F seals, 1/16" ball, 60 Kg. load Oensity ......................... 110 lb*./cu. ft. at 15% moisture 'If greater spacing is needed, please call plant for special materials availability. Withers CCCB 00020 APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS IBP ASBESTOS CEMENT FLAT SHEETS A. DESCRIPTION General Mineral Fiber Flat Sheets are made essentially by combin ing asbestos fibers and Portland cement with water and forming this mixture, under pressure, Into dense sheets which are then cured. The asbestos fibers impart strength and flexibility to the product. Flat Sheets possess many properties that make them highly suitable as a finish mate rial. The sheets are very durable and virtually maintenance free. They have high compressive strength and will not burn, They cannot be harmed by termites, other insects or bacteria. The flat sheets are available unfinished, preprimed and in a variety of prefinished colors. Batten strips of the same material are available in standard widths of 3 in. and 4 in., in thicknesses of X, in. and V, in. and in lengths of 8 ft. Sheets are available in two types, "F" and "U", IBP Pliaflex and Permaboard respectively. Type F (Flexible) Pllaflex sheets are suitable for exterior and interior use, where a board having the higher strength and density, smoother surface, greater flexibility and lower moisture absorption is desired. They are identified by a yellow mark ing on each end. Type U (Utility) Permaboard sheets are suitable for exterior and interior use and have sufficient strength for general utility and construc tion purposes where maximum flexibility is not required. They are identified by a blue marking on each end. Specifications Flat sheets are manufactured to meet or exceed the require ments of currently applicable Federal Specification SS-B-755, "Building Board, Asbestos-Cement; Flat" and ASTM C 220, "Flat Asbestos-Cement Sheets." B. ACCESSORY MATERIALS 1. Fasteners a. Nails shall be nonstaihing and noncorrodible when used in areas of high humidity or on exterior applications. Colored nails are available for prefinished colored sheets. Other types include galvanized, stainless steel or aluminum. Nail head diameter shall be Y%" for ceil ings and for side walls and of sufficient length to penetrate the wood framing a minimum 1". b. Wood screws shall be oval or truss head and of suffi cient length to penetrate wood Screws for metal studs shall be oval or truss head type S for 25 ga. or type S-12 for 20 ga. or heavier. On exterior construc tion screws shall be treated to prevent corrosion and staining. c. Adhesive -- MC, 3M CTA-11 or 12. (refer to Curtainwall System bulletin no. 8-8012 for adhesive application) 2. Underlayment Use a No. 15 or heavier asphalt saturated felt or breather type aluminum foil on exterior work over wood sheathing, open frame construction or as required by local codes. 3. Caulking Compound Shall be nonshrinking butyl type conforming to interim Federal Specification TT-S-001657. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES -IBP FLAT SHEETS Property Density lb./eu /It. Modulus of Elasticity, psi Compressive Strength, psi Tensile Strength, psi Thermal Expansion in/in/-P Thermal Conductivity HkM Moisture Extension in/in Shrinkage 50% RH to dry Expansion 50% RH to 90% RH Expansion dry to saturated Water Absorption. % dry weight Modulus of Rupture psi Type U TypeF TypeF Normal Cure Autoclaved 90 1.7 x 104 12,000 2,000 S x 10-6 4 95 2.2 x 10* 12,000 2,000 5 x 10-6 * 95 2,0 x 10` 12,000 2,000 5 x 10-6 4 .0020 .0005 .0028 30 max. 3,700 .0018 .0005 .0026 25 max. 5,000 .0009 .0003 .0013 25 max. 5,000 Flexural Strength (Ibs./S" width) Type U Type F Thickness (In.) 1/6" 3/16*' 1/4" -- 35 55 20 50 90 3/8" 1/2" 145 260 190 360 FLAT SHEET DATA PUAFUEX PERMABOARD else 4' X8' , 10'. 12' 4' X 8* , 10', 12' Ihlekneea IfceJaq. ft minimum bending radlut longitudinal transverse 1/8" 3/16" 1.2 1.8 2' - 4`* 3' - 8" 3'- 0" 5'- 3" 1/4" 3/8" 2.4 3.6 5'-3" 8' -6" 6'-11" 10'- 3" 1/2" 4.6' 3/16" 1.8 5-3" 7'- 0" 1/4" 2.4 V - 0" 10'- 5" 3/6" 3.6 10' *5" 13'- 0" 1/2" 4.6 Withers CCCB 00021 4. Trim >- Shall be wood, mineral fiber or metal of varying shapes as specified for the particular application. C. STORAGE AND HANDLING . Keep sheets clean and dry. Pile evenly on a solid, flat surface raised at least 4" above the ground and com pletely covered. Prefinished sheets should be stacked face to face with the provided slip sheets between. Pick sheets up by reaching in along the long sides as far as possible, not by the comers. Handle prefinished sheets carefully to prevent marring the colored surface D. INSTALLATION 1. Framing Wood a. Align 2x4 floor and ceiling plates to assure plumb wall. Secure with suitable fasteners. Double top plate shall be installed for load-bearing partitions. Plates shall be caulked to seal all voids behind plates. b. Install 2x4 studs, cut to length between plates and spaced (16", 24") o.c. Double studs shall be located adjacent to door and window frames, partitions, inter sections and corners. Studs shall be firmly nailed to top and bottom plates. 2. Metal Studs,25 Ga. Interior or 20 Ga.Curtainwall Stud a. Align floor and ceiling tracks to assure plumb wall. Secure track with suitable fasteners at a maximum of 24" o.c. Caulk at perimeter where track or studs abut exterior walls, columns, ceilings or other construction. Position studs in track at (16". 24") o.c. by rotating into place for a friction fit. Secure studs located adja cent to door and window frames, partition intersections and corners by self-drilling pan head screws through both flanges of studs and tracks. 3. Sheathing or Backerboard On exterior walls H", 4x8 gypsum sheathing, plywood or wood sheathing should be used as a backing for A/C Panels. Gypsum board on interior walls. a. Metal Studs -- install 4x8 gypsum sheathing and ply wood vertically with 1" type S or S-12 screws spaced 12" o.c. Sheathing edges shall be brought in contact without forcing. b. Wood Studs -- Install same as 3a using 1)4* wood screws 12" o.c. or 1)4'. X" head 11 ga. galvanized roofing nails spaced 4" o.c. .around the perimeter, 8" o.c. at intermediate studs. NOTE: When wood is uud as a eheathlng material, a No. IS or haavtar asphalt saturated (alt or a braathar type aluminum (oil should be applied prior to the A/C Sheet. E. APPLICATION A/C PANELS, PLAIN, PRIMED OR PREFINISHED 1. Adhesive Batten Application Method a. Laminate the panels to the gypsum sheathing with MC Adhesive or (special, cold-weather adhesive No. M6358, Uniroyal) (3M CTA 12) (No. 4599 St. Claire Co.). During cold weather MC and 3M CTA 12 Adhesive must be stored at 70"F. tor a minimum of 24 hours before use, and maintained at that temperature during use. When temperature at the construction site falls below 40'F., one of the special, cold-weather adhesives must be used. b. Apply adhesive to the unfinished side of the panel in diameter beads spaced 12" o.c. and one bead around the perimeter of the sheet 2" from the edge. c. A minimum ov .' space must be left between the top or edges of panels and structural concrete in order to allow for structural movement and prevent wicking. Make provisions to support bottom of panels until ad hesive has sufficient shear strength. Also allow !'" spacing between panels to allow for possible expansion. d. Caulk all joints before applying battens. e. Apply No. 1910 Snap-On Batten and No. 2066 Aluminum Snap-On Corner Battens over the panel joints and in the field of the panel 24" o.c. If intermediate battens are not desirable, use prefinished truss head screws spaced a maximum of 16" o.c. to intermediate framing members. The galvanized steel retainer for aluminum battens is aligned over the vertical panel joint and screwed through the gypsum sheathing into the screw studs with type S-12 screws of proper length spaced 9" o.c. maximum. The aluminum batten is then snapped onto the retainer. 2. Mechanical Fasteners (Nails, Screws) a. Underlayment -- Shall be lapped 6* at head and side. b. Corners -- Use 8" wide strip of 45 lb. felt under panel. c. Cutting -- Panels may be cut by scoring deeply with a carbide tipped scoring tool and then breaking along the scored line over the edge of a board. Use a wood rasp to dress rough edges. A tungsten carbide tipped masonry blade on a power saw is another method. d. Apply panels over sheathing using felt or aluminum breathing type-foil where required. Nail into wood fram ing 16" o.c. with 1 *4" aluminum, galvanized or stainless steel nails spaced 8' o.c. along the perimeter and 16" o.c. on intermediate studs. When colored nails are used, place a/'Lixie" cap on claw hammer. Flat sheets or more in thickness should be pre-drilled for nailing. Nail ing should be !}" from edge of sheet. e. Screw application shall be oval or truss head type and penetrate the wood at least X". Use metal Type S or S-12 for 20 ga. metal studs. On exterior construction use corrosion treated screws. Attach 12" o.c. around the perimeter and 16" o.c. in the field. Where prefinished panels are used, touch up screw heads only to match panel color. 3. Utility Construction a. Where no backing is used for panels, their thickness should be at least X' for studs 16* o.c. b. Underlayment must be used on exterior walls. c. Framing must be complete with blocking where neces sary to give complete support for nail or screw attach ment. NOTICE The aebeatoe (Iberi In till* aebeatoe cement product art em bedded and permanently bonded In Portland Cemant nd will not craata dual durins normal handling and uaaga. In fabricating or Inatatllng operation* avoid craatlng duat by (coring and (napping whanavar poaalbla. Cartaln math- ode ol cutting, drilling or aandlng may produce duat. It la than raoommandad althar that aqulpmant with approved duat oollactora ba uaad or that operatora and nearby perion- net be provided with approved reeplrator. In accordance with government regulation! the following notloa la provided: 0 WAIglNf SoWswAftlmHWudu--wifrfWwCrWE1tll--Um1--APmWXKiVwQnMUBaHremeam mxawmmwiwmw*wwWarnrwwwa>iinawi 1tmtw--o*1#1mEUEmatTM4MAM**Ttw Withers CCCB 00022 ' over sheet joints behind battens. Stagier nails throu(h battens on 4 in. centers, straddling the sheet joints. backer strip over sheet joints behind corner boards. Fi|rs 2 -- MOULDINGS - To prevent "drumming", add lice nailing or adhesive to these mouldings. Figml--DIRECTLY TO STUDS--Use W in. Mineral Tiber Flat Sheets with maximum stud spacing of 16 in. on center; uae % in. sheets for studs 24 in. an center. Use a No. 30 Asphalt Saturated Felt underlayment on all except utility construction. at right angles. Secure with two nails at each member. Form joints over furring strips. Withers CCCB 00023 Withers CCCB 00024 IBP INTERNATIONAL BUILDING PRODUCTS 5300 TCHOUPITOULAS ST., NEW ORLEANS, LA. 70115 TOLL FREE 1-600-535-7986 FLAT SHEET BUILDING PANELS U.L. APPROVED FABRICATION Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. has approved mineral fiber flat 3heets as a non-combustible building material (walls, partitions, ceilings, soffits, canopies, etc.) U.L. tests show IBP Mineral Fiber Flat Sheets are fireproof and have a Class "A" rating. "0" Flame Spread "O'* Fuel Contributed "0" Smoke Development MINERAL FIBER BOARD IS: made of asbestos and Portland cement light yet tough and durable easily handled and flexible rot, rodent, and termite proof unaffected by moisture and temperature extremes suitable for, but does not require, painting economical environmentally safe. PLIA-F-LEX is the trademark for premium grade flat sheets made with select mineral fibers. These fibers, acting like reinforcing bars in concrete, impart tensile strength and flexibility to the product. The "F* in this product's name, in fact, stands for flexibility and indicates compliance with Federal Specification SS-B-755-A Type F and ASTM C220 Type F. Plia-F-Lex will safely bend around a radius almost half the limiting radius for bending utility board (Permaboard). Plia-F-Lex is recommended not only for curved surfaces but as a substrate for exposed aggregate or spray-on textured coatings. PERMABOARD is the trademark for the standard utility type rigid board. It covers large, flat areas quickly and economically. It is widely used for board and batten application on homes and as a permanent siding for industrial and farm buildings, and can be painted if desired. Permaboard complies with Federal Specification SS-B-755-ATypeU and ASTM C220 Type U. Although predrilling is preferred, nails can be driven through all fiat sheets up to Vi" thickness without predrilling. CURVED CUTS Size URGE HOLES Weight Thickness per Sheet Piiaflex 4< x 8n,, 1/8" 3/18" 1/4" 3/8" 40 lbs. 60 lbs. 80 lbs. 120 lbs. 4' x 3'** Permaboard 3/16" 1/4" 3/8" 1/2" 60 lbs. 80 lbs. 120 lbs. 160 lbs. **4' x 4` and other sizes available on special order NOTICE The asbestos libers In this sstasstot cement product ars ambaddsd and permanently bonded In Portland Cement and will not create duet during normal handling and uaaga. In fabricating or inatalllng operation* avoid creating dual by scoring and enapplng whenever poealblt. Certain methode of cutting, drilling, or sanding may produce duet. It la than recommended either that equipment with approved duet collectors be used or that operators and nearby personnel be provided with approved respirator. In accordance with government regulations, the following notice Is' provided: WAKNINQ Contains aabeato* fibers locked In (cement) matrix Breathing asbestos can be hazardous to your health Avoid creating and breathing dust Follow recommended work practices guide supplied by the manufacturer Failure to do eo may releaae excessive asbestos fibers Smoking greatly Increase* risk of ssrious bodily harm Do not use abrasive disc sew JQL ATLAS INTERVATloriXi. BUILDING PRODUCTS 5600 Hochelaga, Montreal, Qudbac H1N 1W1 1-800-361 -4962 Withers CCCB 00025 Withers CCCB 00026 v- c Jf Withers CCCB 00028 T.... ,T*^ Withers CCCB 00029 *-U i i 111H iI S * s I !<ii; PRESSURE-DEMAND HOSELINE UNIT WITH EGkfeSS EMERGENCY AIR SUPPLY .This apparatus is to be worn when entering confined spaces which contain toxic or oxygen deficient atmospheres. INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Inventory the equipment. 1 high pressure regulator (to be set at 350 psi). 1 50' ft. high pressure supply hose. 1 harness with 5 minute cylinder and breathing air regulator attached. 1 breathing air mask with a flexible tube attached (the mask should always be cleaned after use and stored in a plastic baggie). 2. Attach the high pressure regulator to a 220 cu. ft. breathing air cylinder and connect the 50' high pressure hose to it (there are many 220 cu. ft. breathing air cylinders throughout the plant being used for low pressure, demand, hoseline masks. These cylinders should be used, but not the low pressure regulators, hoselines or masks). 3. After you have checked the emergency egress cylinder for proper pressure, don the harness. 4. Be sure that the pressure-demand regulator (on the left side of your chest) is in the "off" position, then couple-up to the 50' supply hose (a rush of air will occur while you are making-up the coupling). 5. Put on the mask as follows: a. Adjust the head straps to a full outward position. b. Hold the head harness out of the way with one hand or back over the lens. c. Place the facepiece on the face with chin properly located in the chin pocket. d. Pull the head harness over the head and tighten the nefck straps by pulling on the two appropriate tabs. e. Stroke the head harness down to the back using one or both hands. f. Tighten the two temple straps. g. Tighten the top strap only if necessary. h. Check the seal by closing the end of the tube with your thumb and slowly inhaling. 6. Connect the flexible breathing tube to the pressure-demand regulator and only then switch the "on-off" lever to the "on" position (this lever should remain in the "on" position during use but should be switched "off" just prior to removing the mask). Withers CCCB 00001 Con't Page 2 7. At any time your air supply fails or, you must uncouple from the supply hose, then and only then reach behind your back with the right hand and open the valve on the "Egress Emergency" cylinder. This will provide three to five minutes of breathing air and allow you to escape through the nearest exit. Always clean' and properly store the equipment before returning it to the tool room or stores. INSTRUCTION FOR CLEANING AND STORAGE: 1. The facepiece and hoses should be washed with warm soapy water and air dried after use, 2. The facepiece should always be in a special plastic baggie when not in use (these may be obtained from stores).' 3. Place all the equipment in its container neatly, being sure it is not distorted or packed into the container. 4. Return units #1,2,3,and 4 to the Brown & Root tool room and units #5,6, 7 and 8 to stores. 5. The tool room or stores personnel should not allow these units to be returned unless they are in good clean condition with no parts missing. If there are any questions about the equipment or if repairs are needed contact the Safety Supervisor, Withers CCCB 00002 .Q-i 56^-ar #' 1 wV ' 1 1 wr . %SB& J j 3gl n it a **} Withers CCCB 00003 CEDAR BAYOU CHEMICAL PLANT POLICIES & PROCEDURES MANUAL RESPIRATORY PROTECTION I. GENERAL A. This procedure shall serve as a guide for the proper selection, use and care of respiratory protective equipment in the Cedar Bayou Plant. B. 'Respiratory protective equipment shall be used whenever processes, environment, or chemicals are encountered in a manner capable of harming t the body through inhalation. H. EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITY A. Employees shall use the protective equipment provided in accordance with instructions and training received. B. Employees shall report any malfunction of the equipment to their supervisor. C. Employees who are performing routine tasks shall not borrow emergency respiratory protective equipment which is permanently assigned to a specific location without special permission of the supervisor in charge of the area in which the emergency equipment is kept. >* * III. SELECTION'OF RESPIRATORY PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT A. General 1. Supervisors shall become familiar with the various types of respiratory protective equipment and their limitations, as the conditions encountered may range from nuisance odors or irritation to those which are immediately dangerous to life. Withers CCCB 00004 B. Nature of the hazard The following is a general guide. 1. Oxygen-deficient atmospheres Only self-contained breathing apparatus or supplied-air-masks shall be used in any atmosphere that is deficient in oxygen. 2. Immediately hazardous atmospheres Only self-contained breathing apparatus, or supplied air masks shall be used in atmospheres where gases or vapors are present in concentra tions that would rapidly endanger a person. 3. Not immediately hazardous atmospheres Mechanical filter respirators shall be worn as protection against particulate matter, such as fibers, dust or fumes. C. Work requirements and conditions The selection of appropriate respiratory protective equipment can only be made after it has been determined what work must be performed, what length of time it will require and under what conditions. For example, emergency repairs requiring a short period of time in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere and with normal access would permit the use of either a self-contained breathing apparatus or a supplied-air mask. However, lengthy tasks or confined areas may permit the use of* supplied-air mask only. Additionally, some contaminants may be absorbed through or irritate the skin upon contact. Consideration must be given to providing the wearer total protection if conditions warrant. USE OF RESPIRATORY PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT A. Restrictions 1. In areas where the user, with failure of the respiratory protective equipment, could be overcome by a toxic or oxygen-deficient atmosphere: , Withers CCCB 00005 a. The user shall have a lifeline attached. b. At least one additional person shall be present as an observer. c. Communications, either visual, or voice, shall be maintained, between user and observer and between observer and the control) -room by radio. d. Planning shall be such that at least one individual will be unaffected by any likely incident and have the proper rescue equipment to be able to assist in case of emergency. 2. .Respiratory protective equipment shall not be worn when conditions prevent a good face seal such as a growth of beard, absence of dentures, temple pieces on glasses, etc. Also, to assure proper protection, the facepiece fit shall be checked by the user each time he puts on the equipment. B. Training 1. For the safe use of any respiratory protective equipment^ it is essential that the user be properly instructed in its selection, use and maintenance. 2. Users shall receive fitting instruction which include: a. Demonstrations and practice in how the respiratory protective equipment should be worn. b. How to adjust the equipment. c. How to determine if it fits properly. d. Wearing it in normal air and in a test atmosphere for familiarity purposes. 3. Employees shall be made aware of the capabilities and limitations of respiratory protective equipment that they will be required to use, including how to determine when equipment is expended. 4. After initial training in the use of respiratory protective equipment, supervisors shall periodically evaluate their personnel's ability to use that equipment and arrange for refresher training if required. Withers CCCB 00006 Types of respiratory protective equipment 1. Dust, fume, fiber and mist respirators (3M paper filter, Dustfoe 77) a. Mechanical filter respirators offer protection against airborne particulate matter including dust, mists, metal fumes, fibers and smoke. b. Mechanical filter respirators do not provide protection against gases, vapors or oxygen-deficiency. 2. Canister respirator (MSA chin type) a. The canister respirator is a standard MSA facepiece with a canister attached at the chin so that intake air passes through it. b. It provides contact protection for the face and respiratory protection against vaporsi dust and mist. c. Masks and organic vapor canisters are provided for emergencies and authorized short term exposures to organic vapors (such as cleaning up spills of aromatics that may contain benzene, or Dimethylformamide). d. Canister masks should never be used to enter a confined'space , or an oxygen deficient atmosphere, or where the atmosphere is believed to contain a heavy concentration of vapors. 3. 5-Minute mask (Seigler) a. The 5-minute escape mask consist of a clear hood supplied with breathing air from a tube-coil attached to it. b. The 5-minute escape mask will provide protection in any atmosphere regardless of the degree of contamination or oxygen deficiency. Other protection may be required for skin, depending on circumstances. . c. The 5-minute escape mask should never be used to enter a confined space which contains an oxygen deficient or contaminated atmosphere. It should be taken into possible hazardous areas as an escape device only. 4. Air line respirator (Portable breathing air hose line carts) Withers CCCB 00007 a. The air line respirator consists of a mask supplied with breathing air from a large breathing air cylinder (never from plant air). b. The air line respirator will provide protection in any atmosphere regardless of the degree of contamination or oxygen deficiency. Other projection may be required for the skin, depending on circumstances. c. Whenever an air line respirator is to be used in a confined space, an'N Egress emergency air supply unit must be obtained from stores and used. Then a rope shall be attached to the user and a standby man or - men shall be present in a safe location with suitable rescue equipment. A confined space is never to be entered using an air line respirator until these conditions are met. ____ d. Hare must oe exercised to prevent damage to the hose and regulator while in use, and the assembly shall be stored in such a way that damage will be avoided. Cylinder typed self-contained breathing apparatus (Scott Air Pac) a. This self-contained breathing apparatus utilizes compressed breathing air and will provide protection in any atmosphere regardless of contamination or oxygen deficiency. Other protection may be required for the skin, depending on circumstances. ,,b. When anticipating the use of this apparatus, consideration shall be % given to the service life of the cylinders. Although this equipment should provide breathing air for approximately 30 minutes, extreme exertion or emotional strain will reduce the rated time. c. Users of this equipment shall immediately begin exiting the hazardous atmosphere when the low pressure alarm sounds. d. Whenever compressed air apparatus is used in a confined space a lifeline shall be attached to the person using the apparatus and a standby man or men shall be present in a safe location with suitable rescue equipment. Withers CCCB 00008 6. Oxygen resusitator a. This apparatus utilizes compressed breathing oxygen to enrich the blood of a breathing or non-breathing victim. b. Non-breathing victims should be aspirated immediately upon discovery never hesitate - the resusitator may be subsituted for alternate methods when it arrives. c. Breathing victims who have been exposed to toxic substances or are experiencing a respiratory problem due to physical conditions (such as heart attack) the resusltator may be used as a demand inhalator. d. Operation 1. Turn the knob on the oxygen cylinder counterclockwise and note cylinder pressure (when not in use cylinder pressure should be checked periodically and replaced with a full one when necessary). 2. Verify that there is no obstruction in the patients throat or mouth. 3. W.itb..ooe hand under the patients chin, tilt the head back and place the mask over the victims nose and mouth. (Hold the mask in place with the thumb, forefinger, and middle finger while using the rest of the fingers to tilt the victims head back). 4. Using the other hand to hold the demand valve and mask in place, <% depress the manual control button until the victims chest rises, then release the button. Repeat, pressing and releasing the manual control button at a rate of 12 times per minute. MAINTENANCE AND CARE OF RESPIRATORY PROTECTION EQUIPMENT A. : Inspection for defects 1. All respiratory protective equipment shall be inspected routinely before and after each use by the user. 2. Breathing air cylinder shall be maintained at a minimum or 1800 pounds pressure except while being depleted during use. The regulator and any Withers CCCB 00009 warning device shall be tested during inspections to determine if they function properly. 3. Inspection of equipment shall include a check of the tightness of connections and the condition of the facepieces, headbands, valves connecting tubes, hoses and regulators. Rubber or elastometer parts shall be inspected for pliability and signs of deterioration. 4. Equipment that is not routinely used but is kept ready for emergency use shall be Inspected after each use and at least monthly to assure that it is in satisfactory working condition. Respiratory Protective Equipment Monthly Inspection Report, shall be completed by each department, and a copy shall be forwarded to the safety supervisor. Accident Prevention personnel shall also make random inspections.' B. Cleaning of respiratory protective equipment 1. Masks used by more than one person shall be cleaned and disinfected after each use by the user. Cleaning and disinfecting shall consist of scrubbing in warm soapy water, rinse, spray with disinfectant, rinse again and dry. 2. Respiratory protective equipment shall be stored so that the facepiece and exhalation valve will rest in a normal position and function will not be impaired by the elastometer becoming set in an abnormal position 3. Respiratory protective equipment shall always be stored in plastic "baggies" which are provided expressly for this purpose. To insure an effective respiratory protective program, the safety supervisor will monitor and evaluate various operations to assure that respiratory protective equipment is properly selected, used cleaned and maintained. Anyone desiring assistance with this procedure should contact the safety supervisor. Withers CCCB 00010 I received Respiratory equipment training at the Cedar Bayou Chemical Plant on. This training included demonstration and explanation of all types of respiratory equipment used in the plant. 1. Mechanical filter respirator 2. 5-Mintue escape mask 3. Air line respirator 4. Cylinder type self-contained breathing appartus 5. Oxygen resuscitator I then was required to prove I could don #3 and #4 and accomplish a perfect seal of the facepiece in a test atmosphere. UNIT NAME JOB CLASSIFICATION Withers CCCB 00011 DEFINITION OF TERMS 1. DUSTS - Solid particles generated by handling, crushing, grinding, rapid impact, detonation, and decrepitation of organic or inorganic materials, such as rock, ore, metal, coal, wood, and grain. Dust nay enter the air from various sources. It may be dispersed when a dusty material is handled, such as when lead oxide is dumped into a mixer or a product is dusted with talc. When solid materials are reduced to small sizes in processes such as grinding, crushing, blasting, shaking, and drilling, the mechanical action of the grinding or shaking device supplies a source of energy to disperse the dust formed. 2. FUMES -Solid particles generated by condensation from the gaseous state, generally after volatilization from molten metals, this physical change is often accompanied by a chemical reaction, such as oxidation. 3. SMOKE - Carbon or soot particles less than 0.1 m in size which result from the incomplete combustion or carbonaceous materials such as coal or oil. Smoke generally contains droplets as well as dry particles. 4. MISTS - Suspended liquid droplets generated by condensation from the gaseous to the liquid state or by breaking up a liquid into a dispersed state, such as by splashing, foaming, or atomizing. Mist is formed when a finely divided liquid is suspended in the atmosphere. Examples are the oil mist produced during cutting and grinding operations, acid mists from electroplating, acid or alkali mists from pickling operations-, paint spray mist from spraying operations and the condensation of water vapor to form a fog or rain. 5_. GASES - Normally formless fluids which occupy the space or enclosure and which can be changed to the liquid or solid state only by the combined effect of increased pressure and decreased temperature. Examples are welding gases internal combustion engine exhaust gases, and air. 6. VAPORS -The gaseous form of substances which are normally in the solid or liquid state (at room temperature and pressure). Evaporation is the process by which a liquid is,changed into the vapor state and mixed with the surrounding atmosphere. Solvents with low boiling points will volatilize readily. Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene, Edited by Julian B. Olishifski, P.E., and Frank E. McElroy, P.E., Copyright 1971-National Safety Council. Withers CCCB 00012 Z88.2 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD PRACTICES be given full consideration. In oxygen-deficient atmospheres with no toxic materials, inward leakage is normally not a problem unless the leakage exceeds a few percent. It is essential that, in highly toxic atmospheres, inward leak age, if any, be minute. See 6.3.2.1 and 7.3 for use of respirators in immediately dangerous at mospheres. 6.3.2.1 Respirators Recommended for Im mediately Dangerous Atmospheres. The U. S. Bureau of Mines and responsible industrial hy giene and safety organizations recommend the following .respirators, listed in decreasing order with regard to the protection they offer the wearer, for use in atmospheres immediately dan gerous to life or health. These atmospheres in clude those which are oxygen deficient or where high concentrations of gases or vapors exist: (1) pressure-demand open-circuit or pres sure-type closed-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus (2) combination pressure-demand air-line res pirator"with auxiliary self-contained air supply- (3) combination constant-flow air-line res pirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply Table 5 Color Code for Gas-Mask Canisters (ANSI K13.1-1967) Atmospheric Contaminant! to be Protected Against Acid gases Hydrocyanic acid gas Colors Assigned* White White with %-inch green stripe completely around the canister near the bottom Chlorine gas Organic vapors White with Vi-inch yellow stripe completely around the canister near the bottom Black Ammonia gas Green Acid gases and ammonia gas Carbon monoxide Acid gases and organic vapors Hydrocyanic acid gas and chloropicrin vapor Green with %-inch white stripe completely around the canister near the bottom Blue Yellow Yellow with V*ioch blue stripe completely around the canister near the bottom Acid gases, organic vapors, and ammonia gaaea Brown Radioactive materials, except ing tritium and noble gases Purple (Magenta) Particulates (dusts, fumes, mists, fogs, or smokes) in combination with any of the above gases or vapors All of the above atmospheric contaminants Canister color for contaminant, as designated above, with %-i"ch gray stripe completely around the canister near the top Red with %*inch gray stripe completely around the canister near the top *Gry shill not be assigned as the main color for a canister designed to remove acids or vapors. NOTE: Orange shall be used as a complete body, or stripe color to represent gases not included in this table. The user will need to refer to the canister label to determine the degree of protection the canister will afford. 18 Withers CCCB FOR RESPIRATORY PROTECTION Z8S.2 piration shall be of high purity. Oxygen shall meet the requirements of the United States Pharmacopoeia for medical or breathing oxygen. Breathing air shall meet at least the require ments of the specification for Grade D breathing air as described in Compressed Gas Association Commodity Specification G-7.1-1966. Compressed oxygen shall not be used in supplied-air respirators or in open-circuit selfcontained breathing apparatus that have pre viously used compressed air. Compressed air might contain low concentrations of oil.. When high-pressure oxygen passes through an oil- or grease-coated orifice, an explosion or fire may occur. Breathing air may be supplied to respirators from cylinders or air compressors. Cylinders shall be tested and maintained in accordance with applicable Department of Transportation or Interstate Commerce Commission Specifica tions for shipping containers. Compressors shall be constructed and situated so as to avoid entry of contaminated air into the system and suitable in-line air purifying sorbent beds and filters installed to further assure breathing air quality. A receiver of sufficient capacity to enable the respirator wearer to escape from a contaminated atmosphere in event of compressor failure, and alarms to indicate compressor failure and over heating shall be installed in the system (see 6.3.2). Air-line couplings shall be incompatible with outlets for other gas systems to prevent inadvertent servicing of air-line respirators with nonrespirable gases or oxygen. Breathing-gas containers shall be marked in accordance with American National Standard Method of Marking Portable Compressed Gas Containers to Identify the Material Contained, Z48.1-1954; Federal Specification BB-A-l034a, June 21, 1968, Air, Compressed for Breathing Purposes; or Interim Federal Specification GGB-00675b, April 27,1965, Breathing Apparatus, Self-Contained. Further details on sources of compressed air and its safe use will be found in Compressed Gas Association Pamphlet G-71968. 6. Selection of Respirators 6.1 Approved or Accepted Respirators. When ever possible, approved or accepted respirators shall be used. Respirator approval and accept ance tests and listings and selection of other than approved or accepted respirators are dis cussed in the Appendix. 6.2 General Considerations. The multiplicity of hazards that may exist in a given operation requires careful and intelligent respirator selec tion. This selection is made even more complex by the many types of respirators available. Each type has its limitations, areas of application, and operational and maintenance requirements. The selection of a proper respirator for any given situation requires consideration of the following factors: 1) nature of the hazard (see Section 4); 2) extent of the hazard; 3) work re quirements and conditions; and 4) characteris tics and limitations of available respirators (see Section 5). Table 6 is a quick reference guide for the selection of respiratory protection appropriate to the type and degree of hazard. The Table provides minimal guidance, however, and shall be used along with other information, such as that given in this standard and in directions provided by respirator manufacturers. When there is doubt about the concentration of oxygen or hazardous material present in the atmosphere, only those respirators listed as suitable for respiratory protection against oxy gen deficiency shall be used. Any erring in the selection of respirators shall be on the safe side. 6.3 Nature of the Hazard. The chemical and physical properties, toxicity, and concentration of the hazardous material shall be considered in respirator selection (see Section 4 for classifica tions and discussion of respiratory hazards). 6.3.1 Oxygen-Deficient Atmospheres. Only respirators that provide an independent, respira ble atmosphere shall be used in oxygen-deficient atmospheres. Normally, a self-contained breath ing apparatus, hose mask with blower, or air line respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply is used for this purpose. Air-line respirators without auxiliary air supply shall be used only with the precautions outlined in 6.3.2. An attendant shall be standing by at the entrance to the oxygen-deficient atmosphere at all times with proper communications and res cue equipment in case of an emergency. See 7.3 for use of respirators in oxygen-deficient atmo spheres. 6.3.2 Immediately Dangerous Atmospheres. If it is probable that atmospheres immediately dangerous to life or health may occur, then both the normally expected inward leakage (see 6.3.3) and the reliability of the respirator shall 13 Withers CCCB 00014 FOR RESPIRATORY PROTECTION (4) demand-flow open-circuit or closed-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus (where there may be a negative pressure in the breathing system at any time) (5) combination demand-flow air-line res pirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply (6) hose mask with blower When self-contained breathing apparatus or hose masks with blowers are used in atmo spheres immediately dangerous to life or health, standby men must be present with suitable res cue equipment. 6.S.2.2 Other Respirators Which May Be Used under Certain Conditions in Atmospheres Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health. Air line respirators are not approved or recom mended for use in immediately dangerous atjnospheres because no respiratory protection is provided if the air supply fails. However, if Z88.2 routine protection or operational designs pre clude use of the recommended types of respira tors which workers should wear, the following air-line respirators may be considered, provided an adequate flow of respirable air is maintained. These are listed in decreasing order with regard to the protection they provide for the wearer. (1) pressure-demand air-line respirator with full facepiece (2) continuous-flow air-line respirator with full facepiece, helmet, hood, or suit . (3) demand-flow air-line respirator with full facepiece (4) pressure-demand air-line respirator with half-mask facepiece (only for atmospheres that do not cause eye irritation or injury) (5) continuous-flow air-line respirator with half-mask facepiece (only for atmospheres that do not cause eye irritation or injury) Table 6 Guide for Selection of Respirators Hazard Oxygan Deflcltncy Respirator (See Note 1.) Self-contained breathing apparatus. Hose mask with blower. Combination air-line respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply or an air-storage receiver with alarm. Gat and Vapor Contaminants Immediately dangerous to life or health. (See Note 2.) Self-contained breathing apparatus. Hose mask with blower. Air-purifying, full facepiece respirator with chemical canister (gas mask). Self-rescue mouthpiece respirator (for escape only). Combination alr-line respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply or an air-storage receiver with alarm. Not Immediately dangerous to life or health. Air-line respirator. Hose mask without blower. Air-purifying, half-maak or mouthpiece respirator with chemical cartridge. Particulate Contaminants Immediately dangerous to life or health. (See Note 2.) Self-contained breathing apparatus. Hose mask with blower. Air-purifying, full facepiece respirator with appropriate filter. Self-rescue mouthpiece respiratox (for escape only). Combination alr-lina respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply or an air-storage receiver with alarm. Not immediately dangerous to life or health. Alr-purlfylng, half-mask or mouthpiece respirator with filter pad or cartridge. Air-line respirator. Air-line abrasive-blasting respirator. Hose mask without blower. Combination gat, vapor, and particulate contaminants Immediately dangerous to life or health. (See Note 2.) Self-contained breathing apparatus. Hose mask with blower. Alr-purlfylng, full facepiece respirator with chemical canister and appropriate filter (gas mask with filter). Self-rescue mouthpiece respirator (for escape only). Combination air-line respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply or an air-storage receiver with alarm. Not Immediately dangerous to life or health. Alr-llne respirator. Hose mask without blower. Alr-purlfylng, half-mask or mouthpiece respirator with chemical cartridge and appro priate filter. NOTE 1: For details on descriptions, capabilities, and limitations of respirators, refer to Tables 3 and 4. NOTE 2: For details on use of respirators in hazardous- atmospheres, see 6.35 and 7.3. 19 CCCB Withers 000A5 Z88.2 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD PRACTICES (6) demand-flow air-line respirator with half mask facepiece (only for atmospheres that do not cause eye irritation or injury) Pressure-demand or continuous-flow air-line respirators with full facepiece provide the wearer with a degree of respiratory protection equal to that afforded by a positive pressure self-con tained breathing apparatus as long as an ade quate flow of respirable air is maintained. Also, a demand-flow air-line respirator with full facepiece would be equivalent to a demand-flow open-circuit or closed-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus as long as an adequate supply of respirable air is maintained. Persons using air-line respirators 'in atmo spheres immediately hazardous to life or health shall be equipped with safety harnesses and safety lines for lifting or removing persons from hazardous atmospheres or other and equivalent provisions for the rescue of persons from haz ardous atmospheres shall be used. A standby man or men with suitable self-contained breath ing apparatus shall be at the nearest fresh air base for emergency rescue. Before a person is permitted to wear an air line respirator in a hazardous atmosphere, an industrial hygiene, health physics, or safety en gineering department representative or a qual ified industrial hygienist, health physicist, or safety engineer shall be responsible for com pliance with the following: (1) Air-line hose from a compressor or cylin der air supply shall be protected from damage, including cutting, kinking, crushing, or burning. In some cases an armored hose shall be used. Hose couplings shall be protected against dis connection. Trailing air-line hose shall be ar ranged to minimize tripping and to permit ready escape. (2) The cylinder containing the air supply for an air-line respirator shall be tested for oxy gen concentration and carbon monoxide content and shall be respirable. All air shall meet the minimum specification for Type I, Grade D gaseous air of the Compressed Gas Association Commodity Specification for Air, G-7.1-1966. The air supply in the cylinder shall be adequate for completion of the work and escape. Oxygen must never be used with air-line respirators. (3) The compressor for supplying air shall be equipped with necessary safety and standby devices. A breathing air-type compressor shall be used. An air-storage receiver shall also be provided to furnish the wearer with an adequate supply of escape air if the compressor fails to operate. A compressor shutoff alarm and nec essary ^aerosol and vapor and gas filters shall also be incorporated into the system. If an oil-lubricated compressor is used, it shall have a high-temperature or carbon monox ide alarm, or both. If only a high-temperature alarm is used, the air from the compressor shall be frequently tested for carbon monoxide to in sure that it meets the specifications in 6.3,2.2 (2). (4) The wearer shall be properly trained in the use of the air-line respirator and shall be well-informed of the hazard. A standard operat ing procedure shall be prepared for each situa tion for which air-line respirators are employed in atmospheres immediately hazardous to life or health, and air-line respirator users shall be thoroughly familiar with this procedure. (5) Continuous-flow air-line respirators are designed for maximum comfort with a minimum airflow that will adequately protect the wearer in a non-hazardous atmosphere. However, they are capable of providing adequate airflow to protect the wearer in a hazardous atmosphere. This adequate airflow is obtained when the air flow control valve is fully open. The recommended minimum airflows for use of air-line respirators in hazardous atmospheres are five cubic feet per minute to tight fitting facepieces and seven cubic feet per minute to loose fitting hoods or helmets. Persons wearing supplied-air suits shall follow the manufacturer's instructions concerning minimum airflow. For further information on furnishing com pressed air to air-line respirators, refer to Com pressed Gas Association Pamphlet G-7-1968. See 7.3 concerning safe procedures during use of respirators in atmospheres immediately danger ous to life or health. 6.3.3 Not Immediately Dangerous Atmo spheres. If immediately dangerous atmospheres are not present or will not occur, then the con sequences of respirator failure are lessened and emphasis can be placed on other factors such as long term protection, convenience, cost, com fort, and wearer acceptance. These factors should be weighed one against another since they are not always compatible. However, long term protection should be given priority over all other factors. 20 Withers CCCB 00016 % >' .. -A-WINO HOME ANO INOUSTAY OPEN MONOA---ATUHOAY JMBER DEER PARK LUMBER CO. INC. (713) 479-2326 1800 CENTER BOX 430 OEER PARK, TEXAS 77536 GENE P. HOUGH MANAGER Withers CCCB 00017 7A /fnt oz o 41 Amp <75 q3 O AO/*S MfCANAhONACBUlOXNO MOOUCTS 5600 Hochelag*. Montreal, Qu4bc H1N IWl 1-500-361-4962 Corrugated `"400" Asbestos-Cement Roofing and Siding si> GENERAL DESCRIPTION AISP Corrugated "400" is an economical, low maintenance roofing and siding product intended for use on industrial, commercial and institutional buildings. It is composed of non-combustible Portland Cement and Asbestos Fiber which are formed under high pressure into a dense, strong corrugated sheet. The product will not burn, smoke, yield toxic gasses or contribute to combustion when exposed to flame or high temperatures. Because of its base materials and dense formstion, Corrugated "400" has excellent durability, weathering qualities, resistance to alkalis and chemical fumes, and will not rot, corrode or be affected by insects or vermin. Special erection and application techniques are some times required for unusual application conditions. Special application details are needed whenever Corrugated "400" is to be applied over furnaces, boilers, refractories, and other high-temperature installations. CORRUGATED SHEETS Corrugated "400" Is normally supplied in lengths of 1 to 12 feet graduated in increments of 6 inches (see Table 1). However, custom cut sheets are available to meet the particular length requirements of the job. Cor rugated "400" sheet corrugations have a 4.2-inch pitch and depth of 1% inches. They are approximately %-inch thick at crests snd vales and 5/16-inch thick at flanks. Sheets are furnished 42 inches (ten corrugations) wide (see Table 2). To determine the number of sheets required per course, divide the length in feet by 3.15. Corrugated "400" meets Federal Specification SS-B755A*TVp A and ASTM Specification C221, Type B. COLORED CORRUGATED "400" Pebble-Textured, Plasti-Clad Coated Corrugated "400" is a colorful, factory finished product Which gives in creased weathering and chemical resistant qualities. The Plasti-Clad finish also resists water penetration and dirt accumulation. The Plasti-Clad treatment is a double coated, baked acrylic finish integrally bonded to the asbestoe-cement substrate. Withers CCCB 00019 7.4/lnt The wide range of Plasti-Clad colors provides an op portunity to design color and good appearance into industrial as well as commercial buildings. Six standard colors are available as shown on back cover. Additional colors are also available on special order. Asbestoscement accessories are available in either natural cement gray or matching Plasti-Clad colors. ARCHITECTURAL SPECIFICATIONS Side Walls and roofs shall be corrugated "400" as manufactured by International Building Products. All sheets shall be 42" in width and of suitable length so that all end laps shall fall over purlin or grit. Corrugation pitch shall be 4.2" and thickness of corrugation shall be a nominal %" at crests and vales and a nominal 5/16" at flanks. Overall sheet depth shall be 1 Vi". Uncrated weight shall ba approximately 4 lbs. per aq. ft. Surface shall be smooth, asbestos-cement gray; or textured and preflnishad color shall be . Installation shall be In accordance with manufacturer's instructions. ESTIMATING AND ENGINEERING SERVICE Franchised applicators, highly skilled in all the uses of IBP Corrugated "400", are always ready to serve your needs whether it be a cost estimate of standard applica tion or a custom-engineered installation. Contact us for the name of the approved applicator in your area. ACCESSORY SOURCES Fastenera and Side-Lip Saalant Construction Fasteners, Inc.. Box 6326 Wyomiising, PA 18610 215-376-5751 Atlaa Bolt and Screw Southwest Inc. 3126 National Circle Or. Garland, TX 75041 214-271-5491 Rubber Closure Strips Rubatsx (Main Office), Railroad Avenue, Bedford, VA 24523 703-586-2611 PROOUCT DESCRIPTION TABU 1. SHEET SIZES AVAILABLE FROM STOCK Affrtiu Wt SIMMUftgdi't to. Ft tu Mr SkMt (Ft.) StoMlltoJ Stott (Ft.) to. ft Aftrn. Wt- toFHtft ttMNt fUto.) 1 3.50 14 7 24.50 98 1% 2 6.25 21 7.00 28 7)4 26.25 8 28.00 105 112 2)4 8.75 35 8)4 29.75 119 3 10.50 42 9 31.50 126 3)4 12.25 49 9)4 33.25 133 4 4)4 14.00 16.75 56 63 s 10 10)4 35.00 36.75 140 147 5 17.60 70 11 38.50 154 5)4 6 19.25 21.00 77 84 11)4 40.25 161 12 42.00 168 6)4 22.75 91 TABLE 2. PROOUCT INFORMATION Pitch.............................................. 4.2" center to center Width.................................................................... 42" Length.......................................... f to 12' (see Teble 1) Weight................. .. approximately 4 Ibe. per *q. ft. Color..............Plaiti-Clad Colors or natural cement-gray Thicknaas........................ approximately %" at craat and valaa; 5/16" at flanks Depth of corrugation................................................ 1)4" TABLE 3.APPLICATION SPECIFICATIONS Minimum roof slope................. 'Recommended maximum purlin 'Racommended maximum girt .. Minimum aide lap .................... Minimum and lap .................... Maximum rake ovarhang ...... Maximum eava overhang......... Weight sheets per net square .. Weight fasteners per net square . 3" rise to 12" .................4'6" .................5'9" .1 corrugation 6................................. " 2 corrugations ................... 9" ......... 500 lbs. ............... 8 lbs. TABLE 4. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Section Modulus ........................... 0.904 in. Vft. of width Moment of Inertia ......................... 0.678 in. Vft. of width Modulut of Ruptura (dry) .................................. 4150 psi Modulus of Ruptura (saturated)......................... 3120 psi Modulus of Elasticity (dry) ...........................................2x10* Modulus of Elasticity (saturated) ...................... 1.6 x 10* Compress)v# Strength (parallel to corrugations) ............ 9200 Ibs./sq. In. avg. Tensile Strength ..................................... ........... 2000 psi Rockwell Hardness Approximately 57, F scale, 1/16" ball, 60 Kg. load Density ......................... 110 Ibs./cu. ft. at 15% moisture *lf greater spacing is needed, please call plant for special materials availability. Withers CCCB 00020 APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS A. DESCRIPTION General Mineral Fiber Flat Sheets are made essentially by combin ing asbestos fibers and portland cement with water and forming this mixture, under pressure, into dense sheets which are then cured. The asbestos fibers impart strength and flexibility to the product. Flat Sheets possess many properties that make them highly suitable as a finish mate rial. The sheets are very durable and virtually maintenance free. They have high compressive strength and will not burn. They cannot be harmed by termites, other insects or bacteria. The flat sheets are available unfinished, preprimed and in a variety of prefinished colors. Batten strips of the same material are available in standard widths of 3 in. and 4 in., in thicknesses of in. and 'A in. and in lengths of 8 ft. Sheets are available in two types, "F" and "U'MBP Pliaflex and Permaboard respectively. Type F (Flexible) Pllaflex sheets are suitable for exterior and interior use. where a board having the higher strength and density, smoother surface, greater flexibility and lower moisture absorption is desired. They are identified by a yellow mark ing on each end. Type U (Utility) Permaboard sheets are suitable for exterior and interior use and have sufficient strength for general utility and construc tion purposes where maximum flexibility is not required. They are identified by a blue marking on each end. Specifications Flat sheets are manufactured to meet or exceed the require ments of currently applicable Federal Specification SS-B-755, "Building Board, Asbestos-Cement; Flat" and ASTM C 220, "Flat Asbestos-Cement Sheets." B. ACCESSORY MATERIALS 1. Fasteners a. Nails shall be nonstaining and noncorrodible when used in areas of high humidity or on exterior applications. Colored nails are available for prefinished colored sheets. Other types include galvanized, stainless steel or aluminum. Nail head diameter shall be X" for ceil ings and X," for side walls and of sufficient length to penetrate the wood framing a minimum 1*. b. Wood screws shall be oval or truss head and of suffi cient length to penetrate wood V,". Screws for metal studs shall be oval or truss head type S for 25 ga. or type S-12 for 20 ga. or heavier. On exterior construc tion screws shall be treated to prevent corrosion and staining. c. Adhesive-MC, 3M CTA-11 or 12. (refer to Curtainwall System bulletin no. 8-8012 for adhesive application) 2. Underlayment Use a No. 15 or heavier asphalt saturated felt or breather type aluminum foil on exterior work over wood sheathing, open frame construction or as required by local codes. 3. Caulking Compound Shall be nonshrinking butyl type conforming to interim Federal Specification TT-S-001657. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES -IBP FLAT SHEETS Property Oensity Ibs./cuVft. Modulus of Elasticity, psi Compressive Strength, psi Tensile Strength, pst Thermal Expansion in/in/*F Thermal Conductivity ',k" Moisture Extension in/in Shrinkagt 50% RH to dry Expansion 50% RH to 90% RH Expansion dry to saturated Water Absorption, % dry weight Modulus of Rupture psi TypU TypF Typ*F Normal Cur* Auloeliv.d 90 1.7 x 10* 12,000 2.0QQ 5x10-6 4 95 2.2 x 10* 12,000 2,000 5 x 10-6 4 95 2.0 x 10* 12,000 2,000 5 x 10-6 4 0020 .0005 .0028 30 max. 3,700 .0018 .0005 .0025 25 max. 5,000 .0009 .0003 .0013 25 max. 5.000 Fluural Strength (ibs./O" width) Type U Typa F Thiokntu (In.) 1/8" 0/16" 1/4" -- 35 65 20 50 90 3/8" 145 190 t/r 260 360- FLAT SHEET DATA PUAFLEX PERMABOARD size 4* xB' , 10*. 12* 10''x, 812` ' . thfekneea fba^aq. ft minimum bending radius i/a- 3/16" 1/4" 3/8" 1/2" longitudinal transverse 1.2 r - 4" 3'- O'* 61.8 3'-6" 5'- 3" 2.4 *. 3" 6*-1 r 3.6 a'-a** 10*- 3" 4.8' 3/1S" 1.8 5*-3" 7'. 0" 1/4" 2.4 7'- 0* 10'- 5* 3/8" 3.5 10'- 5" 13* - O'* 1/2" 4.8 Withers CCCB 00021 4. Trim - Shall be wood, mineral fiber or metal of varying shapes as specified for the particular application. C. STORAGE AND HANDLING . Keep sheets clean and dry. Pile evenly on a solid, flat surface raised at least 4" above the ground and com pletely covered. Prefinished sheets should be stacked face to face with the provided slip sheets between. Pick sheets up by reaching in along the long sides as far as possible, not by the corners. Handle prefinished sheets carefully to prevent marring the colored surface D. INSTALLATION 1. Framing Wood a. Align 2x4 floor and ceiling plates lo assure plumb wall. Secure with suitable fasteners.. Double top plate shall be installed for load-bearing partitions. Plates shall be caulked to seal all voids behind plates. b. Install 2x4 studs, cut to length between plates and spaced (16", 24") o.c. Oouble studs shall be located adjacent to door and window frames, partitions, inter sections and corners. Studs shall be firmly nailed to top and bottom plates. 2. Metal Studs, 25 Ga. Interior or 20 Ga. Curtainwall Stud a. Align floor and ceiling tracks to assure plumb wall. Secure track with suitable fasteners at a maximum of 24" o.c. Caulk at perimeter where track or studs abut exterior walls, columns, ceilings or other construction. Position studs in track at (16*. 24") o.c. by rotating into place for a friction fit. Secure studs located adja cent to door and window frames, partition intersections and corners by self-drilling pan head screws through both flanges of studs and tracks. 3. Sheathing or Backerboard On exterior walls K\ 4x8 gypsum sheathing, plywood or wood sheathing should be used as a backing for A/C Panels. Gypsum board on interior walls. a. Metal Studs - install 4x8 gypsum sheathing and ply wood vertically with 1" type S or S-12 screws spaced 12" o.c. Sheathing edges shall be brought in contact without forcing. b. Wood Studs -- Install same as 3a using IK" wood screws 12" o.c. or IK", K" head 11 ga. galvanized roofing nails spaced 4" o.c. around the perimeter, 8" o.c. at intermediate studs. NOTE: When wood Is used as a sheathing malarial, a No. IS or haavlar asphalt saturated (all or a braathar typa aluminum foil should ba applied prior to the A1C Shaat. E. APPLICATION A/C PANELS, PLAIN, PRIMED OR PREFINISHED 1. Adhesive Batten Application Method a. Laminate the panels to the gypsum sheathing with MC Adhesive or (special, cold-weather adhesive No. M6358, Uniroyal),(3M CTA 12) (No. 4599 St. Claire Co.j. During cold weather MC and 3M CTA 12 Adhesive must be stored at 70"F. for a minimum of 24 hours before use. and maintained at that temperature during use. When temperature at the construction site falls below 40'F., one of the special, cold-weather adhesives must be used. b. Apply adhesive to the unfinished side of the pane! in V diameter beads spaced 12" o.c. and one bead around the perimeter of the sheet 2" from the edge. c. A minimum c.^ .' space must be left between the top or edges of panels and structural concrete in order to allow for structural movement and prevent wicking. Make provisions to support bottom of panels until ad hesive has sufficient shear strength. Also allow V," spacing between panels to allow far possible expansion. d. Caulk all joints before applying battens. e. Apply No. 1910 Snap-On Batten and No. 2066 Aluminum Snap-On Corner Battens over the panel joints and in the field of the panel 24" o.c. If intermediate battens are not desirable, use preiinished truss head screws spaced a maximum of 16" o.c. to intermediate framing members. The galvanized steel retainer for aluminum battens is aligned over the vertical panel joint and screwed through the gypsum sheathing into the screw studs with type S-12 screws of proper length spaced 9" o.c. maximum. The aluminum batten is then snapped onto the retainer. 2. Mechanical Fasteners (Nails, Screws) a. Underlayment -- Shall be lapped 6" at head and side. b. Corners - Use 8" wide strip of 45 lb. felt under panel. c. Cutting -- Panels may be cut by scoring deeply with a carbide tipped scoring tool and then breaking along the scored line over the edge of a board. Use a wood rasp to dress rough edges. A tungsten carbide tipped masonry blade on a power saw is another method. d. Apply panels over sheathing using felt or aluminum breathing type'toil where required. Nail into wood fram ing 16" o,c. with IV aluminum, galvanized or stainless steel nails spaced 8" o.c. along the perimeter and 16" o.c. on intermediate studs. When colored nails are used, place a "Lixie" cap on claw hammer. Flat sheets K" or more in thickness should be pre-drilled for nailing. Nail ing should be K" from edge of sheet. e. Screw application shall be oval or truss head type and penetrate the wood at least V. Use metal Type S or S-12 for 20 ga. metal studs. On exterior construction use corrosion treated screws. Attach 12" o.c. around the perimeter and 16" o.c. in the field. Where prefinished panels are used, touch up screw heads only to match panel color. 3. Utility Construction a. Where no backing is used for panels, their thickness should be at least 'A" for studs 16" o.c. b. Underlayment must be used on exterior walls. c. Framing must be complete with blocking where neces sary to give complete support for nail cr screw attach ment. NOTICE Tha aabaatoa libera In (hi* aabealoe cement product nr* em bedded tnd permanently bonded In Portland Cement tnd will not crtata dual during normal handling and uaaga. In fabricating or Installing oparatlona avoid craatlng dual by aeoring and mapping whanavar poaalbla. Cartaln mathoda of cutting, drilling or aanding may produca duat. It la than raoommandad althar that equipment with aporovad duat eollaotora ba uaad or that oparatora and naarby paraonnal ba provided with approved reaplrator. In accordance with government regulatlona the following nolle# la provided: wMiiaa eewfAMisaeamenMnueKw w tewcmuatwi WUnaiMI AEMmeOMMtaUAMMUl HSM.n* swi aesAEAn.yiNOEUMSwsNePWweumoE.THAAM Withers CCCB 00022 over sheet joints behind batteas. Stagger mils through battens oe 4 in. centers. straddling the sheet joints. backer strip over sheet joints behind corner boards, Figure2 -- MOULDINGS -To prevent "drumming", add face nailing or adhesive to these mouldings. stud spacing of IS in. on center-, use 44 in. sheets for studs 24 in. on canter. Use a No. 30 Asphalt Saturated Felt underlayment on all except utility construction. Withers CCCB 00023 Withers CCCB 00024 IBP INTERNATIONAL BUILDING PRODUCTS 5300 TCHOUPITOULAS ST., NEW ORLEANS, LA. 70115 TOLL FREE 1-SOO-535-798S iwasi FLAT SHEET BUILDING PANELS U.L. APPROVED FABRICATION Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. has approved mineral fiber flat sheets as a non-combustible building material (walls, partitions, ceilings, soffits, canopies, etc.) U.L. tests show IBP Mineral Fiber Flat Sheets are fireproof and have a Class "A" rating. "0" Flame Spread "0" Fuel Contributed "0" Smoke Development MINERAL FIBER BOARD IS: made of asbestos and Portland cement light yet tough and durable easily handled and flexible rot, rodent, and termite proof unaffected by moisture and temperature extremes suitable for, but does not require, painting economical environmentally safe. PLIA-F-LEX is the trademark for premium grade flat sheets made with select mineral fibers. These fibers, acting like reinforcing bars in concrete, impart tensile strength and flexibility to the product. The "F" in this product's name, In fact, stands for flexibility and indicates compliance with Federal Specification SS-B-755-A Type F and ASTM C220 Type F, Piia-F-Lex will safely bend around a radius almost half the limiting radius for bending utility board (Permaboard). Ptia-F-Lex is recommended not only for curved surfaces but as a substrate for exposed aggregate or spray-on textured coatings. PERMABOARD is the trademark for the standard utility type rigid board. It covers large, flat areas quickly and economically. It is widely used for board and batten application on homes and as a permanent siding for Industrial and farm buildings, and can be painted if desired. Permaboard complies with Federal Specification SS-B-755-A Type U and ASTM C220 Type U. Although predrilling is preferred, nails can be driven through all flat sheets up to '/*" thickness without predrilling. Pliafiex Size Weight Thickness per Sheet 4` x 81** 1/8" 3/16" 1/4" 3/8" 40 tbs. 60 lbs, 80 ibs. 120 lbs. 4* X S'** Permaboard 3/16" 1/4" 3/8" 1/2" 60 Ibs. 00 Ibs. 120 Ibs. 160 Ibs. **4' x 4' and other sizes available on special order NOTICE The asbestos fibers in this asbsatos cement product art ambaddad and permanently bondad In Portland Cement and will not create duat during normal-Handling and uaage. In fabricating or Inatalllng oparationa avoid creating duat by acoring and mapping whanavar poaaibla. Certain mathoda of cutting, drilling, or sanding may produce duat It la than recommended either that equipment with approved dual eollaotora be uaad or that operatora and nearby personnel be provided with approved respirator. In accordance with government regulations, the following notice Is provided: WARNING Contains asbestos libera locked in (cement) matrix Breathing aabaatoa can be hazardous to your health Avoid creating and breathing duat Follow recommanded work practices guide supplied by the manufacturer Failure to do eo may release excessive aabaatoa fibers Smoking greatly Increases risk of serious bodily harm Oo not use abrasive disc saw 2G2L ATLAS INTERNATIONAL 9UIL0ING PRODUCTS 5600 Hochelaga, Montrial, Quebec H1N1W1 1 -600-361-4962 Withers CCCB 00025 Withers CCCB 00026