Document 8p17Lb9g3mVynqLjYmw6M3Ek

0001 1 2 NO. 2002-28497 3 GEORGIA CAROLE DAVIS, individually THE DISTRICT 4 and as representative of the Estate : :IN COURT OF 5 of VICTOR DAVIS, Deceased, and JOHN 6 ROBINSON and BARBARA ROBINSON, 7 Plaintiffs, HARRIS COUNTY, : : : 8 TEXAS : 9 VS. 10 : : 11 GARLOCK INC., et al., 113TH JUDICIAL : 12 DISTRICT 13 Defendants : : 14 15 16 --- This is the Deposition of DR. ERIC J. CHATFIELD, taken 17 before me, Lisa Baker, a Chartered Shorthand Reporter, at 18 Novotel Hotel, 3670 Hurontario Street, L5B 1P3, 19 Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, on Monday, the 15th day of 20 September, 2003. 21 22 23 24 25 0002 1 APPEARANCES: 2 For the Plaintiffs 3 Singley 4 334-4300 5 6 For the Defendant 7 A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY JEFF MUNDY Mundy & Tel.: (512) JOHN J. KUROWSKI 8 and appearing witness Tel.: (618)277-5500 9 10 GUARDLINE AMY ST. PE 11 Dogan x X Wilkinson 12 Tel. : (228)762-2272 13 14 GARLOCK INC. PETER STRELLITZ 15 Segal, McCambridge, 16 Siuger & Mahoney 17 Tel. : (512)476-7834 18 19 CRANE COMPANY LARRY ADAMS 20 Dunn Kacal 21 Tel (713)529-3992 22 23 DANA CORPORATION MARK WATERS 24 Powers & Frost 25 Tel.:(713)767-1555 0003 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS: 4 DR. ERIC J. CHATFIELD; Affirmed. .............. 5 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MUNDY: ........................ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0004 1 ---Upon Commencing at 11:00 a.m. 2 DR. ERIC J. CHATFIELD; Affirme' 3 EXAMINATION BY MR. MUNDY: 4 Q. Good morning, Dr. Chatfield. My name 5 is Jeff Mundy, I am the attorney for the plaintiffs in 6 this case, you understand that? 7 A. Yes, I do. 8 Q. Okay. If you would please state your 9 full name? 10 A. My name is Eric John Chatfield. 11 Q. And what is your business address? 12 A. 2071 Dickson Road, Mississauga, 13 Ontario, L5B 1Y8 and the company name is Chatfield 14 Technical Consulting Limited. 15 Q. And do you go by Dr. Chatfield or 16 Mr. Chatfield? 17 A. Doctor. 18 Q. Okay. Dr. Chatfield, if you would, 19 tell us just in very general terms what type of expert you 20 are? What areas do you believe you have expertise in? 21 A. Physics, some areas of chemistry. 22 Microscopy, both scanning optical and electron microscopy 23 and asbestos. 24 Q. And with respect to asbestos, what 25 aspects do you believe you are an expert on? What subject 0005 1 matters? 2 A. Mineralogy, air sampling and that kind 3 of, that kind of area. 4 Q. Do you believe yourself to be an expert 5 in issues related to medicine? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Okay. Howabout epidemiology? 8 A. No. 9 Q. How about industrial hygiene issues? 10 A. Uh, no. 11 Q. Do you feel like it is within your area 12 of expertise to render opinions on causation of a 13 particular person's mesophilioma? 14 A. No. 15 Q. And, Dr.Chatfield, let me say I don't 16 think this will be terribly long today but the A.W. 17 Chesterton Company has informed us that they intend to 18 call you live as a witness. Have they informed you of 19 such a thing? 20 A. Live as awitness, sorry? I didn't get 21 the second word. 22 Q. Have you been informed that you will be 23 called as a witness to testify in a trial in Houston, 24 Texas in approximately three to four weeks? 25 A. Uh, I have not yet been informed. 0006 1 Q. Okay. And are you available to testify 2 as a witness at trial in say approximately the second to 3 third week of October? 4 A. I believe so. 5 Q. What is your understanding about why 6 you are here today? 7 A. My understanding is to attend a 8 deposition and for you to ask me questions regarding 9 presumably an affidavit that I have issued and any other 10 technical matters relating to asbestos measurement. 11 Q. Okay. But no one had discussed 12 potentially appearing at trial as a witness? 13 A. Not as yet, no. 14 Q. All right. And what is your 15 understanding of which companies you are appearing on 16 behalf of in this matter? 17 A. My understanding is A.W. Chesterton 18 represented by Mr . Kurowski. 19 Q. Have you been provided a subpoena duces 20 tecum? A depostion -- the subpoena duces tecum, it lists 21 several matters of documents that you have been requested 22 to produce? 23 A. Yes, I am being shown it this moment. 24 Q. Okay. Have you brought any documents 25 with you which would be responsive? 0007 1 A. I have brought a copy of an affidavit 2 which I issued, I don't recall the date... Issued on the 3 -- sworn on the 23rd of August 2003. And there is a CV 4 attached to that which is current at the 20th of August, 5 2002. 6 I have two papers which I have authored. 7 One of which is entitled, The Correlated Measurements of 8 Airborne Asbestos Containing Particles and Surface Dust, 9 published in 2000 in ASTM Special Technical Publication 10 1342. 11 And a second paper from that same published 12 book, International Organization For Standardization 13 Methods For Determination of Asbestos in Air. 14 I, I also have here a Powerpoint 15 presentation with a number of slides on it, photographs 16 and also video, sections of videos from Dr. Longo's 17 videos. 18 And also a video entitled Ultrasonication 19 of 7M Chrysotile by Fred Boelter and Eric Chatfield, 20 produced on October 19, 2001. 21 Q. All right. And are those copies that 22 you are going to leave with the court reporter so that she 23 can forward them to us? 24 MR. KUROWSKI: Yes, Jeff. Those are 25 extras, I will get them to you in any fashion you desire 0008 1 after we finish. 2 MR. MUNDY: Okay. I would ask you to go 3 ahead and Fed Ex them to my office, if you would. 4 MR. KUROWSKI: That would be fine . 5 MR. MUNDY: Super. 6 BY MR. MUNDY: 7 Q. Do you have anyother studies upon 8 which you are relying to form your opinions which you have 9 not brought with you today? 10 A. Not that I can think of at this time. 11 Q. Have you ever performed - actually I 12 know the answer. If I can break that down for you. 13 You have performed materials type testing 14 on any different asbestos sample and asbestos containg 15 materials through the years, correct? 16 A. Only the test which I refer to in the 17 published paper and in the ASTM book. 18 Q. Okay. Well I don't have that in front 19 of me, so I am going to have to ask you. 20 What materials have you tested through the 21 years for anything to do with asbestos? 22 MR. KUROWSKI: Object to the form. It is 23 kind of broad but go ahead. 24 BY MR. MUNDY: 25 Q. Dr. Chatfield, you have tested 0009 1 materials through the years to determine whether they have 2 asbestos in them, correct? 3 A. Over a large number of years I have 4 done bulk sample analysis and routine analysis for 5 building owners and others, yes. 6 Q. And you've also been sent samples by 7 lawyers and companies in connection with litigation to do 8 testing also, correct? 9 A. In a number of cases, yes. 10 Q. Okay. Let me ask you if you have ever II tested a product for any of the following companies. Have 12 you ever tested any Garlock products? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Have you ever tested any A.W. 15 Chesterton products? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Have you ever tested any Mundet Corp. 18 Company products? 19 A. What was the company? 20 Q. M-U-N-D-E-T. They made pipe covers, 21 blocks and cement. 22 A. Not that it was ever identified to me, 23 no. 24 Q. Okay. But you may have tested pipe 25 covers, block and cement through the years and just not 0010 1 known what brand it was? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. All right. 4 A. When you say test, it would have been 5 an analysis of the product itself as opposed to doing 6 anything with it? 7 Q. Correct, right. Have you ever tested 8 any Victor gaskets? 9 A. No. 10 Q. How about guardline glove? Asbestos 11 gloves, have you ever tested those? 12 A. No. 13 Q. All right. You have tested some raw 14 asbestos fiber samples through the years, correct? 15 A. Some what? 16 Q. Raw asbestos. 17 A. Yes, I have done that with Fred 18 Boelter. 19 Q. All right. Do you know the sources of 20 the raw fiber that you have tested? 21 A. Well there was only one, it was 22 referred to as 7M Chrysotile. I don't know personally 23 where it came from 24 Q. Do you know if you would have tested 25 Calidria asbestos before? 0011 1 A. I have worked with Calidria asbestos, 2 yes . 3 Q. And when you -- how many times have you 4 tested Calidria asbestos? 5 A. Well, I have been using Calidria 6 asbestos as a water standard, standard for asbestos in 7 water since the mid '70s. 8 Q. And is -- do you take your specimens 9 from a single sample that you received or have you 10 received multiple samples through the years of Calidria 11 asbestos? 12 A. First sample of Calidria asbestos I 13 ever received was in the mid '70s. It was provided to me 14 by a man by the name of Kuldip Chopra who used to work at 15 Union Carbide in Niagara Falls and it was provided in 16 connection with activities on an ASTM working group for me 17 to prepare standards to be issued to the members of that 18 working group. 19 Since then, I have received s amples of 20 Calidria, I think three or four different grades, over the 21 years. 22 Q. When was the most recent sample that 23 you received? 24 A. I believe it was last year. 25 Q. And who sent that to you? 0012 1 A. It came directly from the King City 2 mine at my request. 3 Q. All right. Had you ever found any 4 amphibole form fiber in any Calidria sample? 5 A. I personally have, have not tested it. 6 Q. You have not tested to make that 7 determination? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Okay. Would it be accurate to say then 10 that you do not have an opinion of your own personal 11 knowledge about whether Calidria fiber does or does not 12 contain amphibole form asbestos? 13 A. I have not tested for amphibole 14 asbestos in Calidria Chrysotile. So on that basis, I 15 don't know. 16 Q. All right. Do you have an opinion 17 about whether Calidria at any point in time has ever 18 contained amphibole form asbestos? 19 A. Again, I don't know. 20 Q. Okay. Have you ever tested any of the 21 asbestos from any of the other asbestos mines, say in 22 Canada or Arizona? 23 A. I am in the process of doing some 24 measurements, but they are not complete. 25 Q. And what would be the source of that 0013 1 fiber? 2 A. UICC. 3 Q. Okay. Do you have an opinion about 4 whether or not Chrysotile sources, from wherever they may 5 originate, contain any amphibole form fiber? 6 A. I am sorry, I didn't understand your 7 question. 8 Q. Okay. Is it -- I am asking -- some 9 experts testify that they believe certain mines do have 10 amphibole form asbestos and others do not. Is that an 11 area within your expertise or no? 12 A. When I finish my work it will be. 13 Q. As we sit here today, do you have an 14 opinion on that? 15 A. Well we have -- the only thing I can 16 say is we have detected tremolite in UICCB chrysotile but 17 that is as far as we have got. 18 Q. Okay. And do you have any 19 quantification of the amount of tremolite in the UICCB? 20 A. Not at this time. 21 Q. Do you know which mine the UICCB sample 22 came from? 23 A. Well I don't recall the actual year of 24 production, but the UICC Canadian, UICCB chrysotile was 25 formulated from asbestos from a number of Canadian mines 0014 1 and the amount into the mixture was in proportion to the 2 production in that year. 3 Q. Okay. Tell me what studies you have 4 performed either with or at the request of Fred Boelter? 5 A. Well there is a study which was the 6 disintegration of 7M chrysotile in water under ultrasonic 7 treatment, which I did mention. 8 Q. Have you done any other studies or work 9 either with or for Mr. Boelter. 10 A. I did receive a series of bulk samples 11 to analyze. I can't remember the date now, but it was 12 sometime this year. 13 Q. Would it have been in the spring 14 sometime? 15 A. Probably. 16 Q. All right. And what was, what task 17 were you asked to perform with respect to those bulk 18 samples? 19 A. Routine bulk analysis to determine the, 20 the type of asbestos and the amount of asbestos in each of 21 the samples. 22 Q. And do you recall your findings, in 23 general terms? 24 A. Well, in general terms, I recall there 25 being amosite and crocidolite present, but I can't recall 0015 1 the results in detail. 2 Q. Would it be fair to say that there were 3 approximately ten different samples? 4 A. Again, I really can't remember. It was 5 a number. 6 Q. Okay. And do you have a memory that 7 most of the samples contained crocidolite? 8 A. No. I could say some of them did, but 9 I wouldn't want to make that -- that would be speculation 10 if I said anything else. 11 Q. All right. Do you have a copy of your 12 findings from that work with you? 13 A. Not with me, no. 14 Q. All right. I am going to ask you if 15 you would please provide a copy of that to Mr. Kurowski so 16 he can forward that to us, okay? 17 MR. KUROWSKI: Well will take it under 18 consideration, but I don't think, frankly, it is going to 19 be a problem. 20 MR. MUNDY: Okay, that would be great. 21 And, John. Let me say, Segal McCambridge has forwarded 22 Fred Boelter's studies that came from that. 23 MR. KUROWSKI: I amgenerally aware of it, 24 Jeff. And, as I said, I need to look at what we are 25 talking about, but that is fine. 0016 1 MR. MUNDY: Okay. 2 BY MR. MUNDy: 3 Q. You have named two different studies or 4 tasks that you have performed either with or for 5 Mr. Boelter, are there any others, Dr. Chatfield? 6 A. I don't believe so. 7 Q. Okay. Have you ever met Mr Boelter? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. How many times? 10 A. Probably no more than four, I would II think. 12 Q. And what were the circumstances of 13 those meetings ? 14 A. Well the very first time I met 15 Mr. Boelter was, and I apologize I cannot remember the 16 date here, but there was an instance of contamination by 17 asbestos of a shopping mall in Denver, Colorado and it was 18 a situation where a renovation project had started and it 19 was later found that the material actually contained 20 asbestos when they didn't think it did initially. 21 And the question arose as to what to do 22 about all the clothing that byn that time that had 23 accumulated some dust in this shopping mall. 24 Q. The ones that were in inventory you are 25 talking about? 0017 1 A. The ones that were hanging up on the 2 racks in the stores. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. So I was actually approached by EPA at 5 that point to go to Chicago to meet with Mr. Boelter and 6 TM analyst, who had done some work on the clothing, to 7 give some advice on the methodology to EPA as to whether 8 or not these measurements were, were reviable in the sense 9 of appropriate measurement methods. 10 And I flew to Chicago and met with 11 Mr. Boelter then and with the analyst who we had been 12 using to do the work. 13 Q. And what did you conclude? Was there a 14 methodology found or no? 15 A. Well in that case the methodology 16 itself was sound enough, but the problem was it was not 17 capable of producing the level of sensitivity which was 18 needed. 19 Q. All right. And when is the next time 20 you worked either with or had a meeting with Mr. Boelter? 21 A. I am trying to think of what came 22 first. I think possibly the next meeting was a lunch 23 meeting which during a visit on a conference in Chicago 24 Mr. Boelter asked if I could meet with him. We had a 25 meeting over lunch. 0018 1 Q. What was the subject matter of the 2 meeting? 3 A. To be honest, I don't recall. I think 4 it was basically discussing analytical matters. 5 Q. And your next meeting with Mr. Boelter? 6 A. I believe the next one would have been 7 at the Johnson conference in Vermont. I don't recall, I 8 think actually the next one might have been the meeting in 9 Chicago to prepare the video that I have referred to and 10 then the Johnson conference may have come after that. 11 Q. What is the Johnson conference? 12 A. The Johnson conference is a conference 13 at which people can -- it is organized by ASTM, and on 14 that occasion the topic was asbestos analytical methods 15 and specifically relating, this particular year, to the 16 World Trade Centre measurements, how to analyze talc 17 samples and also how to analyze vermiculite. And I 18 believe those were the three topics in that particular 19 year. Mr. Boelter was at that conference. 20 Q. And any other meetings? 21 A. Only the one to prepare the video which 22 I referred to. 23 Q. Okay. And I have not seen the video. 24 If you would tell me what the video shows? 25 A. Well it shows what happens to fragments 0019 1 of 7M chrysotile when it is placed in water and then 2 subjected to ultrasonic treatment. 3 Q. And what happens? 4 A. It disintegrates. 5 Q. Okay. And is that in some way 6 significant? What is the significance of that? 7 A. Well it illustrates the effect of 8 ultrasonic treatment on aggregated chrysotile and is 9 relevant in terms of using an indirect TM specimen 10 preparation. 11 Q. So the bottom line is that would go 12 towards the way in which a study was performed but not 13 necessarily of any significance with respect to its effect 14 in the human body? 15 A. I am not sure I understand that 16 question. 17 Q. Does that have any significance beyond 18 the manner in which you prepare an asbestos sample? 19 A. It has significance in that non 20 respirable fragments or aggregates of asbestos that might 21 be on a filter will disintegrate and give rise to large 22 numbers of fibers in an indirect specimen preparation. 23 So we have a situation where a fragment of 24 material which is too big to be respirable is then in an 25 indirect preparation converted into fibers which are of 0020 1 respirable dimensions. 2 Q. What, in your opinion, is the size of a 3 fiber that is respirable? 4 A. The usual definition is anything less 5 than three micrometers in diameter. 6 Q. And what about length? 7 A. Length it doesn't make -- it is almost 8 independent of length. 9 Q. All right. Do you have an opinion 10 about which length of asbestos fibers are the most 11 significant in their biologic potential to cause cancer? 12 A. No, that is not my area of expertise. 13 Q. Do you have any opinions about the 14 various fiber types and their relative potency in the 15 production of cancer? 16 A. Only in the sense that I have read what 17 other people have said about it. I don't have any basis 18 for an opinion of my own? 19 Q. All right. And what is it that you 20 have read? 21 A. Well over the years the standards for 22 asbestos in some countries, including Canada, have rated 23 the asbestos varieties with different airborne standards 24 and chrysotile being the least -- the highest airborne 25 standard, the amosite being the second highest and 0021 1 crocidolite being the lowest? 2 Q. Meaning that on a spectrum, chrysotile 3 being one end of the spectrum, amosite would be a more 4 potent carcinogen, crocidolite would be a more potent 5 carcinogen yet again? 6 A. I don't know that it is necessary 7 carcinogen, but that is the way the occupational standard 8 used to be here in Ontario. 9 Q. Do you believe that asbestos is a human 10 carcinogen? 11 A. That is not my area of expertise? 12 Q. I am asking do you have an opinion on 13 it? 14 A. Well, I have seen the biological 15 studies and the answer is yes. 16 Q. Okay. Do you believe that each fiber 17 type is capable of causing cancer in human beings? 18 A. I have seen information regarding 19 amosite and crocidolite and I believe that the chrysotile 20 question is not resolved. But that is, again, my reading 21 of other people's work. 22 Q. All right. Do you have your own 23 personal opinion on that subject? 24 MR. KUROWSKI: Object to form, repetitious. 25 BY THE DEPONENT: 0022 1 A. Well, frankly, with chrysotile -- I 2 have an opinion with crocidolite and amosite, but I really 3 don't know about chrysotile. 4 Q. All right. Have you ever tested any 5 gaskets for fiber type analysis, even though you didn't 6 know the brand name? Have you analyzed just a generic 7 gasket for fiber type? 8 A. I have to say I really don't know. The 9 samples that I would normally receive would be something 10 in a plastic bag and it wouldn't be identified as to what 11 the functional purpose of the material was. 12 So it is entirely possible that something 13 has gone through my lab and was a gasket, but I wouldn't 14 necessarily know that. 15 Q. You couldn't identify just some flat 16 sheetlike material and figure out that was a gasket? 17 A. No. A flat sheetlike material wouldn't 18 necessarily be a gasket. 19 So, as I say, something which came in a 20 plastic bag to me for analysis, I wouldn't necessarily 21 know. 22 Q. Okay. So just let me restate it in a 23 clear manner. 24 You cannot affirmatively say to your 25 knowledge that you have ever tested an asbestos containing 0023 1 gasket. Is that an accurate statement? 2 A. That is fair, I just don't know. 3 Q. Okay. Have you, to your knowledge, 4 ever tested asbestos textile materials? 5 A. As a routine bulk analysis sample, yes. 6 Q. Okay. Do you recall if an analyzing 7 the asbestos textile material you found any amphibole form 8 asbestos fiber? 9 A. Well certainly we would not have 10 reported -- I am quite sure that we never reported 11 amphibole in a textile material, but I do have to say that 12 the testing procedures that we would normally use for a 13 routine sample analysis to confirm to a client that it 14 contained asbestos or didn't contain asbestos would 15 generally not be sensitive enough to even find it if it 16 was there. 17 Q. Okay. So maybe it was there, maybe it 18 wasn't there. It is just you did not do the type of 19 testing necessary to make that determination? 20 A. That is correct. 21 Q. All right. When you were doing just 22 non-litigation type consultation, you have done bulk 23 sampling. Do you normally do fiber type analysis? 24 A. In bulk analysis? 25 Q. Yes, sir. 0024 1 A. Umm, yes. Yes, we do. 2 Q. And is there sometimes when you do it 3 versus sometimes when you don't? 4 A. No, we always do. 5 Q. Always do? 6 A. We always report the fiber type. 7 Q. All right. Is that something that you 8 have only begun in later years? 9 A. No, we have always done that. 10 Q. Since the 1970s? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Then I guess I need to back up because 13 I am a little unclear as to why you would say on the 14 textile that you had not done that type of testing? 15 A. Umm, I did say that I had analyzed 16 textiles. 17 Q. Okay. Well the same for asbestos fiber 18 types? 19 A. Yes. And we would have reported it as 20 it was. 21 Q. Okay. I must have misunderstood 22 because I thought you were saying you didn't do the type 23 of tests that was necessary to make that determination? 24 A. No, what I said was that I didn't do 25 testing sufficiently sensitive to find tremolite if it was 0025 1 there. 2 Q. Okay. You've tested materials which 3 you could identify as being a thermal insulation product, 4 correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. And of the thermal insulation 7 product samples did you do fiber type analysis on any of 8 those? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And did you find amphibole form fibers 11 in any of those thermal insulation products? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did you find it in all of the thermal 14 insulation products? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Okay. Can you quantity for me, if you 17 will, what percentage or number of the thermal insulation 18 products you found amphibole form asbestos? 19 A. You mean how many times? 20 Q. Well, let's say if you tested ten 21 different types of pipe coverings through the years, did 22 you find amphibole form in nine out of the ten? Ten out 23 of the ten? 24 A. I can't quantify that. There are 25 specific varieties of -- we are taking pipe or block 0026 1 insulation? 2 Q. Yes, sir. 3 A. Well there are specific varieties some 4 of which contain chrysotile, only some of which contain 5 amosite and chrysotile, some contain amosite on its own. 6 Q. All right. 7 A. And some evencontain all three. 8 Q. All right. Well let's break it down. 9 You are familiar with the 85 percent 10 magnesia variety? 11 A. I am familiar with it, yes. 12 Q. All right. Did you find any amphibole 13 form fiber in the 85 percent magnesia? 14 A. Umm, I am not sure I can answer that. 15 I think the answer is yes. 16 Q. All right. Would it have been all 17 amphibole or a blend? 18 A. The most common one that we see would 19 be a mixture of amosite with chrysotile. 20 Q. Can you give us the approximate 21 percentages of each? 22 A. Well almost by definition it would add 23 up to 15 percent total. 24 Q. Right. 25 A. Usually it is lower chrysotile than 0027 1 amosite. 2 Q. Okay. Say 12 percent amosite, three 3 percent chrysotile. Is that a fairly typical blend? 4 A. It could be. We never report numbers 5 that precisely because the only way you can get precise 6 numbers is to do a precise graphometric analysis. And 7 generally the question being asked is does it contain 8 asbestos and if so how much and what kind? 9 Our results are always reported in ranges, 10 so an analysis like that will be reported as amosite ten 11 to 20 and chrysotile one to five. 12 Q. Okay. Why don't we just - this will 13 probably help me speed up on a few of the other questions. 14 Explain to me your reporting. What method 15 you are using when you give those ranges? 16 A. Well, it is a visual estimate based on, 17 partially based on experience. In the very early days 18 people would report such a material as containing a good 19 deal more asbestos than it really does. 20 An analyst can be convinced that the 21 results that we now report are correct by doing a simple 22 acid dissolution. It would have been, certain labs would 23 report it to 70 to 80 percent in the past. So one way of 24 convincing oneself that your visual estimates are 25 over-estimates is to, as I say, take a sample, do the 0028 1 visual estimate and then take another sample of the 2 material, dissolve it in acid and weigh what is left and 3 you will find that the total is more or less 15 percent 4 for the residue. 5 Q. All right. What type of acid are you 6 doing that disillusion? 7 A. Hydrochloric. 8 Q. What concentration? 9 A. Around ten percent. 10 Q. Does that have any impact on chrysotile 11 fiber? 12 A. Umm, yes. 13 Q. It will dissolve chrysotile fiber at 14 that strength? 15 A. At that strength and cold. It will 16 occasion as small change in or reduction in the refractive 17 entities of the chrysotile but virtually no weight change. 18 Q. How would you -- what precautions would 19 you have to take when you have done that to make sure you 20 are accurately assessing the chrysotile component? 21 A. Well you wouldn't take any precautions 22 other than limiting the exposure to about 15 minutes and 23 keeping the concentration of the acid down to ten percent. 24 Q. Anything beyond that time range or that 25 strength would tend to lower the amount of chrysotile 0029 1 remaining in the sample? 2 A. Well it will effect it more and more. 3 If you increase the time and if you also, if you were to 4 boil it, then over a period of about an hour there will be 5 no chrysotile left. 6 Q. Now in this most recent set of samples 7 that Mr. Boelter sent you in the spring, were you 8 instructed to specifically look for crocidolite in those 9 samples? 10 A. I was -- I did receive an instruction 11 that there was possibly crocidolite present and they would 12 like me to confirm it. 13 Q. Okay. And you did find crocidolite in 14 some number of the samples? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Do you remember what other instructions 17 or information was given with respect to those samples 18 that were sent to you? 19 A. I believe, you know I am thinking back 20 now. I think the only other instruction I received was to 21 use whatever methods I felt necessary to do the analysis. 22 Q. Okay. I think there was crocidolite in 23 it? 24 A. Well basically no. To use any method 25 that I felt was necessary to produce a reliable analysis. 0030 1 Q. All right. The primary focus of the 2 analysis was to determine whether or not crocidolite was 3 present? 4 A. I don't know. I was -5 Q. As it was your instructions that was 6 the primary instruction or focus? 7 MR. KUROWSKI: Object to form repetitious. 8 Go ahead? 9 BY THE DEPONENT: 10 A. No. I was simply told that there was a 11 suspicion that there was crocidolite present and they 12 would like me to do the analysis by the most reliable 13 methods I had to produce analysis. 14 But not -- I was not told specifically to 15 concentrate on any particular variety. 16 Q. All right. And when you are doing an 17 analysis do you have a choice in using your own discretion 18 about methods you used to perform your testing? 19 A. Umm, if I am not given the discretion 20 then I will not do the analysis. 21 Q. Right. Okay. So now when you are 22 operating your own discretion, what are the various 23 manners or methods in which you can analyse a sample? 24 A. Well, polarize light microscopy is the 25 standard method. If that gives sufficient information 0031 1 that is the end of it. 2 There are certain specific types of samples 3 which I will want to go further than that. 4 Q. Okay. What would make you decide, 5 okay, I have enough information, no need to do anything 6 further? Or I need to go to the next step? 7 A. Well if I have got a confident 8 identification of the species present and sufficient of 9 the asbestos species present such that it not likely to 10 make any difference to a decision, if I am going to be 11 reporting to a building owner, for example, that something 12 has 20 percent chrysotile in it, such a building owner is 13 not going to want me to spend a lot of money telling him 14 that it is 15.5 percent rather than just making my best 15 estimate of 20. 16 Q. Okay. Just getting into a general 17 range would be adequate for most purposes? 18 A. For most purposes. The usual 19 requirement is to be able to demonstrate it is either 20 significantly less than one percent, not detected. And 21 usually people don't care if it is demonstrably well above 22 one percent. 23 Q. Okay. Whether it is five, 15, 20, the 24 real threshold issue is whether it is less than one or 25 not? 0032 1 A. That is correct. 2 Q. All right. So what would be the 3 circumstance in which you would have performed the 4 polarized light microscopy and say this didn't really give 5 me all the answers I needed, I am going to go to the next 6 step? 7 A. Well, one area would be floor tiles 8 where I wouldn't even do the polarized light microscopy, I 9 would immediately go to transmission -- well chemistry 10 plus transmission, electron microscopy. 11 There are other types of samples where it's 12 difficult to make the identification that asbestos is 13 present. You may have a suspicion, but you are not able 14 to prove it by optical microscopy in which case you would 15 go to transmission of electron microscopy to make the 16 identification of the asbestos. 17 Q. All right. And so what would the TEM 18 be able to do for you that is different than analyzing 19 that sample? 20 A. Well if the fiber is too small or they 21 are coated, where it is not possible to get a confident 22 identification by optical microscopy by PLM, I would then 23 move to TEM to identify a suspect asbestos or I might use 24 TEM to confirm that there is no asbestos in it. 25 Q. All right. And is there ever a 0033 1 circumstance in which that doesn't answer the questions in 2 your mind and you will take other steps? 3 A. Uh, yes. 4 Q. And what would you do next? 5 A. Well in those kinds of samples - 6 sorry. I may have misunderstood you there. 7 But the other circumstance which would 8 cause me to take other steps is things like plaster 9 samples where you might have concentrations very close to 10 one percent and a decision has to be made one way or the 11 other. So you're looking for accurate work in the 12 vicinity of one percent and that requires a procedure 13 which is the subject of another paper I put into the ASTM 14 STP 1342 which was a means of analyzing low concentrations 15 of asbestos in plasters. 16 Q. All right. And just in short, what is 17 the methodology used in that circumstance? 18 A. Of plasters? 19 Q. Yes, sir. 20 A. It's rather straightforward. It is to 21 take a weighed amount of material. Generally a few grams 22 because the asbestos is not very homogeneously distributed 23 in such materials. 24 To ash the sample at 485 centigrade to burn 25 off any organic fibers such as cellulose or hair and 0034 1 confusing materials such as spider webs, which have the 2 same optical characteristics as chrysotile. 3 Q. Spider webs do? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Hmm, okay. 6 A. So that removes all of those confusing 7 materials and then we dissolve again in hydrochloric acid, 8 ten percent, and stir it well during 15 minutes. And we 9 then sediment the suspension because the sand falls down 10 to the bottom a lot faster than chrysotile does, so you 11 can do a separation of most of the sand. 12 That leaves you with - something with a 13 brown coat plaster will leave you something about four 14 percent residue, which contains pretty well all of the 15 chrysotile. 16 And then we use a size sensitive point 17 counting method to quantify the amount of chrysotile and 18 it is always chrysotile in this kind of sample. 19 Q. Um-hmm. 20 A. Quantify it by apoint counting 21 procedure. 22 Q. Would you be able to detect the 23 presence of an amphibole form asbestos fiber in this 24 scenario? 25 A. Uh, yes. 0035 1 Q. Okay. Are there any other 2 methodologies you use? 3 A. By methodologies there are special 4 methodologies for vermiculite. 5 Q. Something where you know it is 6 vermiculite going into it or once you are into the 7 analysis then you start detecting the presence of 8 vermiculite? 9 A. No, you know the vermiculite is there 10 before you start. 11 Q Okay. And what would you do in that 12 circumstance? 13 A. In that circumstance, again I would, 14 perhaps depending on the cleanliness of the material, I 15 would put it through a muffle furnace and burn off any 16 organic materials. I would then float the vermiculite on 17 water and remove the floating fraction and just look at 18 the material that is sedimented. 19 I might go, depending on the nature of the 20 sample, I might use a heavy liquid separation method which 21 is a technique where you, you put in the water sediment 22 material after you have tried it, you put it into a heavy 23 liquid which has a density such that amphibole particles 24 sink and other materials float. 25 There are other things as well as the 0036 1 amphibole that sink, but it allows you to get a further 2 separation so that the amphiboles become more concentrated 3 in the sample that you are going to be looking at with a 4 microscope. 5 Q. Let me ask you this once we are talking 6 about vermiculite. Do you believe that vermiculite can be 7 an asbestos form fiber? 8 A. Not vermiculite itself, no. 9 Q. Okay. It can contain asbestos form 10 fibers so some other thing like tremolite or containment? 11 A. It can be associated with a 12 contaminant, yes. 13 Q. Has Mr. Boelter ever sent to you the 14 collected samples from air studies for analysis? 15 A. No. That is the only analysis I have 16 done for Mr. Boelter. 17 Q. Okay. Have you ever performed analysis 18 of collected air samples for asbestos? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And have you ever done that at the 21 request of parties engaged in litigation or would they be 22 non litigation? 23 A. I have done them for both. I do 24 analysis of air samples, I don't generally go out and 25 collect air samples myself. 0037 1 Q. Correct. The collected sample is sent 2 to you for analysis? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. When a sample is sent to you, 5 all you know is here is the sample and you can tell a 6 person the fiber type, and the fiber quantity, all the 7 rest of the calculations would be dependent on information 8 they collected on their end; the amount of time the sample 9 was running, things of that nature, correct? 10 A. Umm, I can answer that by saying a II routine sample would come in to me with the air volume and 12 we would issue a report saying what the air concentration 13 was of different types of asbestos or what the detection 14 limit is that we are working to. It would be a full 15 report giving all details of the analysis of those 16 filters. 17 In other situations I have been present at 18 air sampling, particularly in litigation environments in 19 the US, and I have brought the samples home with me and 20 done the analysis and issued the report in which I may 21 have gone further in calculating average concentration for 22 the building. 23 Q. Have you ever been present when gasket 24 materials were tested? 25 A. No. 0038 1 Q. Have you ever been -- let me ask you 2 this. For litigation related matters what types of 3 products were tested when you were present? 4 A. I don't think I have ever been present 5 in a situation where products were being tested for 6 litigation purposes with me present. 7 The only example I think I have of that is 8 the video which we prepared with Mr. Boelter. 9 Q. What does that video show? 10 A. It shows the disintegration of 7M 11 chrysotile in water with ultrasonic treatment. 12 Q. All right. And that one was, to your 13 understanding when you were doing it, being conducted in 14 conjunction with litigation related activities? 15 A. Yes, that was my understanding. 16 Q. Were any attorneys present during that 17 testing? 18 A. No . 19 Q. Do you know who commissioned that work? 20 A. Umm, I didn't know at the time. I 21 believe it was Mr. Ray Harris, but I didn't know that at 22 the time the tests were being done. 23 Q. On behalf of Garlock companies? 24 A. Again I don't think I knew that at the 25 time the tests were being done. 0039 1 Q. But as we are sitting here today, you 2 do know that to be for Garlock Companies? 3 A. I believe that was for Garlock. 4 Q. Now in a non-litigation setting, have 5 you ever been present to see a specific product tested? 6 A. Not that I can recall. 7 Q. All right. You certainly have been out 8 into a just a normal work site or job site and watched air 9 samples being taken in that scenario, correct? 10 A. Umm, not as a job site. I mean I don't 11 know what kind of job site you are referring to . 12 Q. Okay. Well tell me. Tell me the 13 circumstances in which you have been out in which air 14 sampling was performed to detect the presence of asbestos? 15 A. I have been present at air sampling on 16 a remediation site in Scarborough, Ontario, which is just 17 the other side of the city, which was a disposal area for 18 the Johns Manville asbestos cement pipeline which was 19 being renovated as a development for housing development. 20 I was present for some of the air sampling there. 21 I did have a contract before I left Ontario 22 Research Foundation in 1986, sometime before that I had 23 received the contract from Johns Manville at the time who 24 were under a court order from EPA to conduct air sampling 25 at the Waukegan plant site in Northern -- I think it is 0040 1 either -- Waukegan is either Illinois, Wisconsin. I don't 2 know which. 3 MR. KUROWSKI: Illinois. 4 BY THE DEPONENT: 5 A. It is Illinois, okay. 6 And we collected air samples there and 7 submitted a report to Johns Manville in fulfillment of 8 that court order. 9 I have, in the very early days of schools 10 building abatement in Ontario, been out to one school and 11 took air samples to just reassure the people in the 12 building that there was no asbestos in the air. 13 But I don't recall any others specifically 14 other than litigation related visits in the US where a 15 company called Intec, and that was one company, another 16 company I was involved with was Hunter, would take air 17 samples and they would take the samples of locations that 18 I specified. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. And I would do the analysis. 21 Q. All right. Now let me ask, when I 22 started off you said you don't consider yourself an expert 23 in the area of industrial hygiene. What would you be 24 doing on site in the performance of these air samples? 25 What is it you are doing that is different than what a 0041 1 hygienist would do? 2 A. Well hygienist normally would be 3 interested in personal samples. Everything I did was area 4 samples and measurements really, in the accordance with 5 the Ahera(ph) method, which I was part of the committee 6 that wrote the method. And that would be a question of 7 determining whether or not there was any asbestos in the 8 air of a building in terms of responding to litigation or 9 defending the defendant in that case. 10 What we are looking at basically is indoor 11 samples and outdoor samples. I personally would always 12 take -- like to get samples in the return air system if I 13 could in order to get the best average for the building 14 that it was possible to get. 15 Q. All right. So you, you would -- I am 16 trying to put it in simple terms here. 17 You would make the decision about where 18 those general area samples should be taken from? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Would it be fair to say that you can 21 have dust concentrations that vary widely, even within one 22 area of a room, can be high in one area and very low in 23 another in the same area of a room? 24 A. It can be. But the measurements we 25 were making were all so low I wouldn't want to make that 0042 1 kind of determination. 2 Q. Okay. I guess what I am trying not to 3 get you to say is high or low in a particular area but 4 there can be a wide variance on the dust concentration 5 even in a single room? 6 MR. KUROWSKI: Object to the form. 7 BY MR. MUNDY: 8 Q. Is that correct, Dr. Chatfield? 9 A. Well it would depend on the size of a 10 room to a large extent. I don't want to get into 11 ventilation questions because that is not my area. But it 12 would be possible to generate a high concentration in one 13 corner of a room and it would be sometime, perhaps, before 14 it spread elsewhere, but it depends on the individual 15 circumstances. 16 Q. Okay. Just, and I think these are self 17 evident but I just want to double check. 18 You may have a circumstance in which a 19 product has a high concentration of asbestos but if no one 20 is disturbing it, it may not emit fiber? That would be 21 one potential scenario, correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And then you could have the other where 24 a product may have a low concentration of asbestos, and we 25 will say five percent as an example, but it is highly 0043 1 disturbed and therefore may release a significant quantity 2 of asbestos fiber, correct? 3 A. That could happen, yes. 4 Q. Okay. And you may have a product which 5 by definition is friable but if not disturbed may not emit 6 fiber, correct? 7 A. That is correct. 8 Q. And then, conversely, you may have a 9 product which is generally considered to be encapsulated 10 but it could be severely disturbed or upbraided and it 11 would potentially release fiber, correct? 12 MR. STRELLITZ: Object to form. 13 BY THE DEPONENT: 14 A. Well, again, it would depend on exactly 15 what you were doing to the product. 16 Q. But there are certain circumstances in 17 which that could occur, correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. The mere presence of asbestos 20 containing materials in a room does not necessarily equate 21 to a person breathing asbestos fiber from that material, 22 correct? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Do you have knowledge, from any source, 25 about what asbestos containing products Victor Davis or 0044 1 John Robinson were exposed to? 2 A. I don't even know the names, so the 3 answer is no. 4 Q. All right. Have you seen anything that 5 would have to deal with either of these gentlemen's, 6 specifically, depositions, interrogatories or things of 7 that nature? 8 A. What were the two names again? 9 Q. Victor Davis and John Robinson. 10 A. No, I don't believe so. 11 Q. All right. Have you ever seen any 12 information with on US naval 13 vessels, asbestos naval vessels? 14 A. I have seen no information at all. 15 Q. What information have you seen with 16 respect to asbessttos containing gaskets? 17 MMRR. KUROWSKI: Object to the form. 18 BY THE DEPONENT: 19 A. I don't believe I have seen any 20 specific information at all. 21 Q. All right. And the same, have you ever 22 seen any information with respect to asbestos containing 23 packing materials? 24 A. No, I have not seen any information. 25 Q. All right. Dr. Chatfield, if you could 0045 1 just -- I don't have your CV, I have not seen it in 2 advance, so I want to get just a little bit of a sense of 3 your background then I think I will be done. 4 Can you tell me just in real general terms 5 where you grew up, where you went to school and your 6 professional background? 7 A. Well I grew up in England. Which 8 probably is obvious. I went to Cambridge University to 9 take their Natural Sciences Tripos degree, which required 10 me to study physics, chemistry, mathematics and mineralogy 11 and crystallography. 12 Q. And did you receive the degree? 13 A. Yes . 14 Q. What degree and what year? 15 A. Well that was the -Cambridge does it 16 differently. It was a Bachelor of Arts and that was, that 17 would have been probably 1958. 18 Q. All right. 19 A. Now that changes after a couple of 20 years, that changes to Master of Arts, you don't actually 21 do anything more for it. 22 Q. All right? 23 A. It just changes. 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. And then I then left. 0046 1 Q. Do you consider yourself to have a 2 Masters of Arts at this point? 3 A. Well that is what it says. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. Then I left Cambridge and went to work 6 at an Atomic Energy Authority establishment at Aldermaston 7 in England, and I worked there for nine years. 8 Q. What were you doing there? 9 A. I was doing work on nuclear safety, 10 specifically the storage safety of nuclear weapons and the 11 simulations of what might happen if we had a meltdown of a 12 plutonium fuel reactor. 13 Q. All right? 14 A. Largely doingparticular work. I was 15 concerned with generation of particular to dispersion of 16 that particular. 17 We did field studies in Australia. I was 18 in Australia for three times doing that kind of work. The 19 third time I was actually doing the radiological survey to 20 return the test range to the Australians. 21 And my lab work in those days was connected 22 with generation of particular from vaporizing plutonium 23 metal with metal such as sodium. I published several 24 papers and by the time I emigrated to Canada to go to the 25 Ontario Research Foundation, I was able to submit those 0047 1 papers to Cambridge under a program for an external Phd. 2 They had initiated a program where you 3 could submit published papers as your thesis and then you 4 had to go to Cambridge and defend the thesis in much the 5 same way as you normally do if you did it in-house so to 6 speak. 7 Q. All right. 8 A. So I received that degree, I think it 9 was 1971, I think, 10 Q. Phd is 1971? 11 A. I think it is. It is on my CV the 12 exact date. It is 1970 or '71. 13 Q. I apologize since we are not in the 14 same room physically I can't see that, that is why I am 15 just asking you a little bit about this general 16 background? 17 A. Sure. 18 So in 1968 I came to Canada to the Ontario 19 Research Foundation to run their optical -- or their 20 electron microscope lab but it had optical facilities as 21 well. 22 Q. What type of facility is that? 23 A. Electron optics. Electron 24 Q. Is that a governmental entity or a 25 research facility? 0048 1 A. No. Well it was always described as a 2 private non-profit research establishment which rather 3 like Batel(ph) in the United States. 4 Q. All right. 5 A. We got a government grant to help us 6 with research activities, but we were expected to get 7 contracts and service work from industry. 8 The establishment was primarily formed by 9 the Canadian Manufactures Association to provide research 10 facilities for those small companies in the province that 11 couldn't afford their own facilities. 12 So companies would come to us for problem 13 resolving in their activities and that would range from, 14 oh, finding what the black spot was in a piece of plate 15 glass and that kind of thing. 16 And pretty soon asbestos became active, and 17 I analyzed some air samples from a school playground in 18 west of the city here near the Johns Manville plant and 19 then - 20 Q. When was it you first became involved 21 doing that asbestos analysis? 22 A. Probably around 1972. 23 Q. All right. And who was it that was 24 asking you to do that analysis? 25 A. That would have been the Ministry of 0049 1 the Environment in Ontario. 2 Q. All right. 3 A. And then the topic of asbestos in water 4 became an issue and we did some measurements in Ontario in 5 about, I can't remember around 17 or 18 different 6 communities. 7 And then the EPA were interested in this 8 and we began to talk to EPA. They sent us some samples to 9 analyze from Thunder Bay, and we competed and got a 10 contract to analyze samples on behalf of EPA from Lake 11 Superior, with respect to the dumping of mine tailings by 12 the reserve mining company in Duluth. So that was running 13 for about three years. 14 And then we realized the analytical methods 15 for asbestos in water were not that good and we received 16 contracts to study the methods that were being used and 17 that resulted in another contract where we ended up 18 writing the US EPA analytical method for determination of 19 asbestos in water. And that method still stands today. 20 Q. Okay. And other than the two papers 21 you mentioned at the beginning, have you had any other 22 peer reviewed type publications dealing with asbestos? 23 A. Umm, quite a lot. I think there is 24 about 60 of them. 25 Q. Okay. Those are all on your CV? 0050 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. And when did you set up your 3 current business, Chatfield Analysis? 4 A. Chatfield Technical Consulting Limited. 5 I think it was 1986, just when I left ORF. 6 Q. What made you decide to leave and start 7 this private consulting business? 8 A. Well I had been thinking about it for 9 some time but the organization, like many organizations, 10 got a little unpleasant to work for and I was looking for 11 other venues where I could work and be happy with what I 12 am doing. 13 Q. Yeah, be your own boss? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. Dr. Chatfield, I believe that is 16 all I have for you. Thank you so much for your time this 17 morning? 18 MR. KUROWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Mundy. 19 No one else, I assume? 20 ------ WHEREUPON MATTER ADJOURNED AT 12:30 P.M. 21 22 23 24 25 0051 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 3 CANADA ) 4 5 PROVINCE OF ONTARIO ) 6 7 I, LISA BAKER, the officer before whom the foregoing 8 deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the witness 9 whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was 10 duly sworn by Sharon Giraud, General Manager of Atchison & 11 Denman Court Reporting Services Ltd.; that the testimony 12 of the said witness was taken by me to the best of my 13 ability and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my 14 direction; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor 15 employed by any of the parties to the action in which this 16 deposition was taken, and further that I am not a relative 17 or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the 18 parties thereto, nor financially or otherwise interested 19 in the outcome of the action. 20 21 22 LISA BAKER 23 Computer-Aided Transcription 24 25 0052 1 CORRECTIONS 2 3 PAGE LINE CORRECTION 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ________________________ 23 WITNESS SIGNATURE 24 _________________ 25 (PRINT NAME)