Document GEx9kRxdgp473Xv1DLBYo36r

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION) 4 --oOo-- 5 6 DON FELKER and SHARON FELKER, 7 Plaintiffs, 8 vs. No. CGC-06-456317 9 A.W. CHESTERON CO., et al., 10 Defendants. / 11 12 13 TELEPHONIC DEPOSITION OF KIM E. ANDERSON O.M., Ph.D. 14 Wednesday, April 18, 2007 15 San Francisco, California 16 17 18 Reported by: 19 CHERYL WILDER, CSR #7805 20 21 22 TOOKER & ANTZ 23 COURT REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICES 350 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 700 24 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 Phone (415) 392-0650 Fax (415) 392-3897 25 1 1 INDEX 2 ------oOo------ 3 EXAMINATIONS Page 4 EXAMINATION BY MR. KAISER ............................................................................ 4 5 6 EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION 7 Exhibit No. Description Page 8 1 Curriculum Vitae of Kim Anderson, O.M., 9 Ph.D................................................................................................................... 25 10 2 11 3 Notes of Dr. Anderson .................................................................25 Invoices re: sales of Canadian Carey materials to Kaiser Gypsum and Kaiser 12 13 4 Cement (not found or provided by witness) ......... 25 Interrogatory responses, correspondence, and Cafco brochures ...........................................................................52 14 5 Deposition transcripts of George J. 15 16 6 17 7 Humphries .......................................................................................................55 E-mail with attacheddeposition of Carl Mangold ............................................................................................................57 Riverside Study ......................................................................................74 18 19 CERTIFIED QUESTIONS 20 (None) 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Wednesday, April 18, 2 2007, commencing at the hour of 3:04 p.m. thereof, at 3 the offices of Tooker & Antz, 350 Sansome Street, Suite 4 700, San Francisco, California 94104, before me, CHERYL 5 WILDER, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 7805, State of 6 California, duly authorized to administer oaths pursuant 7 to Section 2093(b) of the California Code of Civil 8 Procedure, personally appeared 9 KIM E. ANDERSON O.M., Ph.D., 10 called as a witness by the Plaintiff; and the said 11 witness, being by me first duly sworn, was thereupon 12 examined and testified as hereinafter set forth. 13 14 APPEARANCES: 15 LAW OFFICES OF LEVIN SIMES KAISER & GORNICK LLP, 16 44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor, San Francisco, 17 California 94104, represented by Jeffrey A. Kaiser, 18 Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel on behalf of the 19 Plaintiffs. 20 LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC, 21 Two Union Square, 601 Union Street, Suite 4100, Seattle, 22 Washington 98101, represented by Christopher S. Marks, 23 Attorney at Law, appeared as counsel on behalf of the 24 Defendants Kaiser Cement and Kaiser Gypsum. 25 --oOo-- 3 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. KAISER 2 Q. Dr. Anderson, my name is Jeff Kaiser. Can you 3 hear me okay? 4 A. I sure can, Jeff. 5 Q. How are you today? 6 A. I'm very good. Thank you. 7 Q. Are you located today in Wisconsin? 8 A. In Elm Grove, Wisconsin. 9 Q. And are you alone? 10 A. Very much so. 11 Q. In life and otherwise? 12 A. I won't go that far, Jeff. 13 Q. I've had an opportunity to review some of your 14 prior depositions. Do you recall the most recent 15 deposition you gave in an asbestos personal injury case? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. When was that? 18 A. Last Friday. 19 Q. And do you have the case name in mind? 20 A. Oh, boy. I'm looking at my schedule book. 21 That would have been the Meyer case. 22 Q. Do you happen to know who plaintiff's counsel 23 in that case is? 24 A. Mr. Wignon. 25 Q. What is the name? 4 1 A. Wignon I believe it was. 2 Q. I have a deposition that you gave on March 3 26th in the Barrett case. Do you remember that 4 deposition? 5 A. Yes, I do. 6 Q. How many depositions have you given in 7 asbestos personal injury cases this year? 8 A. This year, three or four I would guess. 9 Q. Have you testified in any trials in asbestos 10 personal injury cases this year? 11 A. I have not. 12 Q. Have you ever testified at trial in an 13 asbestos personal injury case? 14 A. The only testimony I would have given would 15 have been at an administrative hearing on an asbestos 16 case. Approximately 1980, I would guess. 17 Q. Is it still true that all of your work in 18 asbestos personal injury cases has been on behalf of the 19 defendants? 20 A. That is correct. 21 Q. And I understand that you're being offered in 22 this case by Kaiser Cement and Kaiser Gypsum? 23 A. Yes, sir. 24 Q. Have you been retained by those companies in 25 prior asbestos cases? 5 1 A. Yes, sir. 2 Q. Can you estimate when you were first retained 3 by those companies in an asbestos case? 4 A. I could only estimate. 5 Q. That would be fine. 6 A. That would be probably about two years ago. 7 Q. And can you estimate how many cases Kaiser 8 Gypsum and Kaiser Cement have retained you in? 9 A. Kaiser Cement, this would be the second case. 10 For Kaiser Gypsum, again, I can only estimate, probably 11 15 cases I would guess, maybe 20. 12 Q. You said 10 to 20? 13 A. 15 to 20. 14 Q. 15 to 20. 15 Let's do Kaiser Cement since this is only the 16 second case. Do you remember when the first case was? 17 A. That would be the case in which I was deposed 18 last Friday, the Meyer case. 19 Q. Which jurisdiction was that case pending in, 20 do you know? 21 A. I thought California. 22 Q. Does the name Paul, Hanley, Harley sound 23 familiar in that case? 24 A. No, sir. 25 Q. What information, if any, have you been 6 1 provided regarding Kaiser Cement asbestos-containing 2 products? 3 A. Verbal information from counsel. 4 Q. You said verbal information? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. And which counsel is that? 7 A. Attorney John Katerndahl. 8 Q. And when did you first speak with 9 Mr. Katerndahl about Kaiser Cement asbestos products? 10 A. Would have been before the Meyer deposition, 11 so within the last month. 12 Q. And what information did Mr. Katerndahl 13 provide you concerning Kaiser Cement asbestos products? 14 A. As to gun cement material contained the short 15 fiber chrysotile with a dry mix percentage of that 16 asbestos product far less than 5 percent, probably more 17 appropriately at 2 percent. That the material was 18 routinely mixed to, I guess, an aqueous state using 19 water. That the material could be both hand applied 20 generally by a trowel or it could be sprayed through a 21 gun-type delivery from a hopper and that the material 22 was a product that had a relatively short life with 23 asbestos. That the, again, the short fiber chrysotile 24 content was the mid-'50s until approximately 1975. 25 Q. Did he provide you any other information about 7 1 Kaiser Cement asbestos products? 2 A. No, sir, not that I recall. 3 Q. Did he talk to you about the Kaiser Cement 4 hand plastic cement product? 5 A. No, sir. 6 Q. Did Mr. Katerndahl send you any written 7 information concerning Kaiser Cement asbestos products? 8 A. I don't believe so. 9 Q. Prior to your deposition today, have you ever 10 seen any written materials concerning Kaiser asbestos - 11 Kaiser Cement asbestos products? 12 A. I don't believe so. 13 Q. Did you have a conversation with counsel in 14 this case prior to your deposition today? 15 A. Yes, sir. 16 Q. And who did you have that conversation with? 17 A. Mr. Marks. 18 Q. Was that over the phone? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. And when did that occur? 21 A. Last evening. 22 Q. For approximately how long did you and 23 Mr. Marks speak on the phone? 24 A. I would suggest about an hour. 25 Q. And what did you talk about? 8 1 A. And there was a second attorney. 2 Q. Who was that? 3 A. Phil Ward. 4 Q. Was anyone else on the phone call? 5 A. No, sir. 6 Q. And what did you guys talk about for that hour 7 last night? 8 A. The discussion started on it appeared the case 9 was going to go to trial and that I would be deposed 10 this evening at 5 o'clock central, that I could 11 participate by phone and there was discussion of the 12 materials I reviewed and my opinions following my review 13 of those materials, discussion of the dose 14 reconstruction that I was completing, brief discussion 15 on my opinions related to short fiber chrysotile, and to 16 Mr. Felker's employment history as I saw it. I believe 17 that was it. 18 Q. Did either Mr. Marks or Mr. Ward provide you 19 any information about Kaiser Cement asbestos products? 20 A. They confirmed much of the information as I 21 described I received from Mr. Katerndahl. 22 Q. Did you guys talk about hand plastic cement at 23 all? 24 A. I believe so. 25 Q. And what information was exchanged concerning 9 1 that product? 2 A. That that material was similar to the gun 3 cement, that it also contained the short fiber 4 chrysotile, specifically Grade 7, that that material 5 probably had in the neighborhood of 2 percent of the 6 short fiber chrysotile Grade 7, and that the date of 7 removal of the asbestos was similar, again, to the gun 8 cement and other Kaiser Gypsum products, 1975. I 9 believe that's it, sir. 10 Q. Did they tell you when asbestos was first used 11 in the Kaiser Cement hand plastic? 12 A. I don't recall them telling me. I think I 13 asked again if it was similar to other Kaiser Gypsum 14 products. 15 Q. And what did they say? 16 A. Affirmative. 17 Q. What are your opinions about short fiber 18 chrysotile? 19 A. That specifically Grade 7 short fiber 20 chrysotile is not related to the cause of the 21 toxicological actions that relate to the short fiber as 22 compared to amphiboles -- is not related nor is a 23 causative factor in the contraction of mesothelioma as 24 one would see with amphibole asbestos. 25 Q. Let's break it down for the jury. How many 10 1 different grades of short fiber chrysotile are 2 commercially used in the United states? 3 A. I'm trying to turn my computer off and see if 4 that is causing the buzzing on my end. 5 Q. You had testified that the information that 6 counsel for Kaiser Cement, Kaiser Gypsum provided to you 7 was that only Grade 7 short fiber chrysotile was used in 8 the Kaiser Cement asbestos products; is that correct? 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. Is that also true for the Kaiser Gypsum 11 asbestos products? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 Q. How many grades of short fiber chrysotile were 14 commercially used in United States? 15 A. Well, if you looked at joint compounds, not 16 just Kaiser Gypsum joint compounds, there were many 17 Grade 7 materials that were used. The RF, the M series. 18 I guess I could only estimate that there were numerous 19 of the Grade 7 classifications that had gone through the 20 Grade 7 screening. 21 Q. What does the Grade 7 classification mean? 22 A. The Grade 7 classification relates to the 23 processing. There is a series of sieves and screens 24 that are used as a process that the fibers in general, 25 as you progress down to the RF, the F notation is for 11 1 quotation, which generally relates to the chrysotile 2 shorts or what was termed in the industry at that time 3 as asbestos shorts. 4 Those went through the final screening to the 5 flotation process, which related to the fibrils actually 6 coming all the way through and having, again, the 7 shorter fibers at the end. Those fibers in general you 8 put it in a Grade 7. Most of the fibers would be less 9 or even substantially less than 5 microns, but in 10 general all fibers should be less than 8 microns in 11 length. 12 Q. Is all Grade 7 chrysotile short fiber? 13 A. All Grade 7 which I'm familiar, yes, sir. 14 Q. Have you heard the estimate that 95 percent of 15 the asbestos used in the United States commercially was 16 chrysotile? 17 A. I've heard the estimate as much as 97 percent. 18 Q. Do you have an estimate that you use? 19 A. In general, I would say in excess of 90 20 percent. 21 Q. Do you have any estimate of how much of that 22 chrysotile was Grade 7? 23 A. No, sir. 24 Q. Do you have any information whatsoever? 25 A. I believe in other cases, I've seen the 12 1 estimated tonnage on certain time periods as a Grade 7 2 that was introduced into commerce versus the tonnage in 3 that period, but I certainly don't recall those numbers 4 at this time, Jeff. 5 Q. So the jury understands this grading system, 6 how many different grades of chrysotile are there? 7 A. That, I don't know, sir. 8 Q. I mean Grade 7, does that imply there was a 9 Grade 1, a Grade 2, a Grade 3, so on and so forth? 10 A. They could have gone through the various 11 screening processes, but I've never seen information, 12 Jeff, to say that Grade 1 was used for a certain type of 13 product; if there was a Grade 2, the product it was used 14 for. 15 Q. Suffice it to say you don't know whether 16 Grades 1 through 6 chrysotile fiber were ever 17 commercially used in the United States? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. And you don't know whether Grades 8 or above 20 were ever commercially used in the United States? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. But it's your opinion that Grade 7 short fiber 23 chrysotile, no matter what quantity a person is exposed 24 to, would not cause mesothelioma? 25 A. Grade 7, as we relate to the fiber lengths, 13 1 it's coincidental that the fiber lengths then coincides 2 with Grade 7. 3 Q. What do you mean by that? 4 A. In other words, if it's less than 10 microns 5 in length, then my opinion is it would be short fiber, 6 and I would coincide with other researchers who have 7 stated that they don't believe the toxicity is such nor 8 is there a finding of toxicity of such related to that 9 fiber length and mesothelioma. 10 Q. I need to break this down to make sure I 11 understand what you're saying. Let's leave the Grade 7 12 aside for a moment. Okay. Let's just talk about the 13 fiber length. Is it your opinion that chrysotile fibers 14 less than 10 microns do not cause mesothelioma? 15 A. Yes, sir. 16 Q. So no matter how large the exposure for how 17 many years, it doesn't matter, it simply does not cause 18 mesothelioma? 19 MR. MARKS: Objection; form. 20 THE WITNESS: My problem with that is an 21 operating hypothesis is I could modify that to an 22 exposure that results in a dose of anything that one 23 might see from occupations in which that material may 24 have been used. In other words, I would have no 25 information related to someone who was exposed to, you 14 1 know, several million fiber years of that material 2 because that would not be coincidental with what we've 3 seen from exposures. So if we look at a reasonable 4 exposure resulting in a lifetime dose that applies to 5 that reasonable exposure, then I agree with your 6 hypothesis that that would not relate in the short fiber 7 chrysotile to the causation or relationship to the 8 causation of mesothelioma. 9 Q. BY MR. KAISER: I take it you reviewed various 10 published literature about exposure to short fiber 11 chrysotile? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. What is the biggest exposure you've come 14 across? 15 A. If one would look -- let's use an easy one for 16 example. The ATSDR toxicological profile for asbestos, 17 if we look at the doses that are included, I believe 18 it's Table 3.1, and we go specifically to those 19 exposures that relate to the contraction of 20 mesothelioma, we're talking exposures anywhere for a 21 mixed fiber exposure of chrysotile and amphiboles, the 22 lowest exposure that one would note in Table 3.1 would 23 be 10 fiber years per cc. And as you look at other 24 studies, Jeff, you go all the way up into, oh, gosh, I 25 believe it's over 100 fiber years per cc, again, either 15 1 a mixed fiber exposure or mixed fibers of amphiboles. 2 Q. So would your opinion be that if someone is 3 exposed at 100 fiber years per cc to only short fiber 4 chrysotile that they would not be at increased risk for 5 mesothelioma? 6 A. Yes, sir, from what I've seen. 7 Q. And you don't have a level at which you would 8 say you're not certain? In other words, if I said 500 9 fiber years, your answer would be the same? 10 A. I guess I've never contemplated a maximum 11 exposure, Jeff, of which, as a toxicologist, I would 12 have concern, so I guess I would like to withhold a 13 finite answer and I need to contemplate that. 14 Q. Of all the literature you've reviewed, what is 15 the highest exposure that you have identified that 16 someone has had to only short fiber chrysotile as 17 opposed to mixed exposures? 18 MR. MARKS: I'm going to object to the form. 19 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I guess I haven't 20 categorized the literature in that manner, Jeff. Rather 21 I've looked at exposures from working people utilizing 22 materials in which the fibers -- in which the materials 23 contained short fibers. Then, Jeff, I would further 24 review the literature to see if there was concomitant 25 contamination from amphiboles. And then predicated on 16 1 that, I would determine what the disease or disease 2 process might be. Instead of doing a laundry list of 3 doses and trying to relate a dose, I more looked at 4 fiber type. 5 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Can you think of any articles 6 that you've read that have discussed individuals who are 7 only exposed to short fiber chrysotile? 8 MR. MARKS: I'm going to object to the form. 9 Are you asking him for a cohort of short fiber 10 chrysotile only? 11 MR. KAISER: No. Just as I asked it. 12 MR. MARKS: I'll object to the form. 13 THE WITNESS: And I got lost. I'm sorry, 14 Jeff, could you repeat, please, sir? 15 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Of all the articles that you 16 have reviewed, can you name any that have discussed 17 individuals who are only exposed to short fiber 18 chrysotile? 19 A. There are studies that go through exposures 20 including calidria exposures. Burnstein has a study 21 that goes through, as I recall, the biopersistence and 22 the histopathology of that material. There are other 23 studies that relate to cohorts that are exposed to mixed 24 fibers. Included in their cohorts would be those who 25 are only exposed to chrysotile. Some of that work was 17 1 done by Roggli, by Victor Roggli over at Duke and his 2 work on chrysotile. There have been other studies that 3 relate to, as I sit here and think, by Hodgson and his 4 work related to the incidence of mesothelioma in the 5 British Isles if differing shaded between fiber types 6 and essentially looked over time at a variety of fiber 7 types. 8 I guess the landmark study on the Grade 7 9 would have been Wagner. Wagner's, it was either '79 or 10 1980 study when he looked specifically at Grade 7 and a 11 couple of other chrysotiles. And there was one more 12 study, Platek, that was a mid-'80s study where he looked 13 at Grade 7 exposure over a year. I forget the exact 14 time. 15 And then lastly the compilation that provides 16 good reliance and good evidence of exposure was the 17 ATSDR's short fiber group when they actually empaneled a 18 group, assimilated the data, looked at all the data, and 19 then issued their, whatever it was called, Influence of 20 Short Fibers, I guess, guideline or publication, for 21 lack of better description. 22 Q. Any others? 23 A. Sure. If I could sit here for a while, I 24 could think of others, but those come to mind rather 25 quickly. 18 1 Q. Would you consider those the most prominent 2 ones? 3 MR. MARKS: Objection; form. 4 THE WITNESS: I know Miller has done some 5 work. I believe that, again, those come to mind and if 6 I had a while to cogitate, I'm sure I could come up with 7 some others, but those -8 Q. BY MR. KAISER: If you think of any as we 9 proceed, please bring them up. 10 Let's go back to the first one, the Burnstein 11 study on calidria. When was that published? 12 A. Within the last couple of years. 13 Q. Do you know the journal? 14 A. It was in Inhalation Toxicology, as I recall. 15 Q. And can you give me a sense of what they are 16 studying in that particular article? 17 A. Again, they were looking at the lack of 18 biopersistence of the calidria chrysotile as compared to 19 amphiboles. They also looked at the toxicological 20 activity in the lung, including inflammation, as I 21 recall, and they contrasted their findings by comparing 22 their findings on serpentine or chrysotile and amosite 23 or tremolite. I believe this one was tremolite, as I 24 recall. 25 Q. Did they actually review cases of individuals 19 1 who were only exposed to short fiber chrysotile? 2 A. I don't understand the question, I'm sorry. 3 Q. You indicated that they were looking at the 4 impact on lung tissue of the different fiber types; 5 right? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. Do you know, did they look at or review any 8 cases of individuals who were only exposed to short 9 fiber chrysotile or did they all have mixed exposures? 10 A. No, sir, my recollection is they were able to 11 find the cohort that had individual exposure to calidria 12 and others had either a mixed or solely tremolite. 13 Q. So they had part of the cohort of people whose 14 only asbestos exposure was to calidria? 15 A. That's my recollection. 16 Q. And calidria is a short fiber chrysotile? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. And is it Grade 7? 19 A. I believe so. 20 Q. And what was the conclusion of the authors on 21 the Burnstein study? 22 A. Again, they did not find the biopersistence of 23 the chrysotile. They did not find the marked 24 inflammatory process from the chrysotile. And I believe 25 they found that on the amphibole, that the fibers did 20 1 not tend to break apart and it did not appear to be as 2 susceptible, if one might call it that, to phagocytosis 3 or the alveolar macrophages. 4 Q. Is it still your opinion that an individual 5 needs an exposure of 10 fiber per cc years of amphiboles 6 to be at increased risk for mesothelioma? 7 A. No, sir. 8 Q. Do you have an opinion on that? 9 MR. MARKS: You're asking him what his opinion 10 is in terms of increased risk for exposure to the 11 amphiboles? 12 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Correct. Is there some 13 minimum dose that is required in your mind? 14 A. I guess if I was to look at a dose of 15 amphiboles, I would want to know essentially what type 16 of fiber, because I would concur with the risk 17 assessment that shows increasing potency as we would 18 move from tremolite to amosite to crocidolite. So I 19 would want to know the fiber type. From that, then I 20 believe I could look at the literature and provide a 21 dose of which I would have concern. 22 As I sit here today, I haven't been asked to 23 look specifically at amphiboles and determine a dose 24 response or potency relationship predicated upon those. 25 Q. So you don't recall in prior depositions 21 1 testifying that an insulator, for example, needed 10 2 fiber per cc years of exposure to be at increased risk 3 for mesothelioma? 4 A. If you look at the dose, no, I don't recall 5 that per se, sir. 6 Q. And for amosite, do you have a figure that 7 you're able to offer today in deposition as to the 8 minimum dose that you believe a person requires to be at 9 increased risk for mesothelioma? 10 A. If I was to look at amphiboles as a group and 11 their relationship from a dose perspective to an 12 increased risk of mesothelioma, I might well look at, 13 you know, 5 fiber years. 14 Q. But what if we only focused on amosite? 15 A. I believe that 5 to 10 fiber years would be a 16 valid dosage of concern. 17 Q. And do you have a number if it's just 18 tremolite? 19 A. No, sir. Again, I would put amphiboles in a 20 category of which once you increase the dose above 5, I 21 would have concern. Perhaps even lower. 22 Q. Is it your understanding that some chrysotile 23 has tremolite contamination? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. Do you know if any of the Grade 7 short fiber 22 1 chrysotile has tremolite contamination? 2 A. I guess when you throw the word "any" in, I 3 can't say that I know that. I know that the short fiber 4 chrysotile that is derived from Canadian Carey mines, we 5 have not seen tremolite contamination. 6 Rather if you look at the mines more in the 7 central and southern region, we have seen tremolite 8 contamination. 9 Q. Do you have any information about which mines 10 the chrysotile that went into the Kaiser Gypsum and 11 Kaiser Cement products came from? 12 A. Carey Canadian was my understanding. 13 Q. Do you know any more than that? 14 A. The Carey Canadian mines were in the north and 15 northeast part of Quebec, whereas the Bells and Thetford 16 mining region was more in the central and southern part 17 of Quebec. 18 Q. I'm sorry, was it your understanding that the 19 chrysotile that went into the Kaiser products came from 20 the Canadian Carey mines? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. And how do you know that? 23 A. That has been provided. Gosh, I even have 24 various invoices that have been provided over time to 25 show the sales of Canadian Carey materials to Kaiser 23 1 Gypsum. 2 Q. And where did you get those? 3 A. They were provided in other cases, in the case 4 materials I believe, Jeff. 5 Q. Do you still have those? 6 A. I'm sure I do, sir. 7 Q. How voluminous are they? 8 A. I don't recall. A number of pages, but I 9 don't recall. 10 Q. Do you believe those reflect the total 11 purchases of chrysotile asbestos by Kaiser Gypsum or 12 Kaiser Cement? 13 A. Oh, I would never suggest that I have every 14 document of every sales of every delivery of Carey 15 Canadian. I think that would be presumptious on my 16 part. 17 Q. What years do those documents cover? 18 A. My recollection is either late '60s into the 19 early 1970s. 20 But, again, as I stated, Jeff, they were in 21 another case and I haven't looked at those in some 22 period of time. 23 Q. But you relied in part on those documents for 24 your opinion that the Kaiser products used Canadian 25 Carey chrysotile asbestos? 24 1 A. Yes, sir. 2 Q. Can you collect those so that we can mark them 3 as an exhibit to this deposition? 4 A. Certainly. 5 MR. KAISER: Why don't we go ahead and mark as 6 Exhibit No. 1 your CV, which was provided to us by 7 counsel. It has a date on the bottom of 4-2007. 8 (Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was marked for 9 identification.) 10 Q. BY MR. KAISER: I take it that is your current 11 CV? 12 A. I just prepared it. 13 MR. KAISER: And then let's mark as Exhibit 2 14 your notes that were provided in this case. 15 And then Exhibit 3 will be the documents that 16 you'll need to provide regarding the invoices for the 17 chrysotile asbestos to Kaiser. 18 (Deposition Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 were marked 19 for identification.) 20 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Going back to this question of 21 which type of chrysotile asbestos was sold in the United 22 States, we have been talking about short fiber 23 chrysotile. Is there such a thing as long fiber 24 chrysotile? 25 A. There are longer fiber chrysotile, yes, sir. 25 1 Q. And do you know whether those were ever 2 commercially used in the United States? 3 A. Yes, sir, it's my understanding. 4 Q. And was it specific products that they were 5 used in? 6 A. My recollection is that some of the longer 7 fiber materials were used in frictional products and 8 some insulation products and in the textile world. 9 Q. And do you have an opinion about whether long 10 fiber chrysotile can cause mesothelioma? 11 A. I haven't thought of that either. Knowing the 12 way that the fibers, the chrysotile fibers are 13 detoxified, either through the self-defense mechanism of 14 the body, through the actual activities that happen in 15 the terminal portion of the lung, through phagocytosis, 16 through vascular transfer, I guess I would be very 17 surprised if we saw anything different from the longer 18 fiber than we've seen from the short fiber. But my 19 research, my work to date is centered around the short 20 fiber. 21 Q. Is that because you haven't been retained by 22 any defendant who used long fiber? 23 A. That's part of it. The other part of it is my 24 interest has resided on the short fiber. 25 Q. And what caused you to originally become 26 1 interested in the short fiber? 2 A. My employer. 3 Q. Is that A.O. Smith? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. I just got your CV right before the 6 deposition, so I frankly haven't had a chance to look 7 through it carefully, but have you ever published any 8 articles on asbestos? 9 A. No articles, no, sir. 10 Q. Have you ever given any professional 11 presentations concerning asbestos? 12 A. No, sir. 13 Q. In your current employment, other than your 14 consultation in asbestos personal injury cases, what 15 work do you do concerning asbestos? 16 A. I serve occasionally as a fact witness for 17 A.O. Smith. I have worked on surface and subsurface 18 contamination of soils from asbestos and I've worked on 19 regulatory compliance facilities who have had OSHA 20 inspections, Occupational Safety & Health Administration 21 inspections related to asbestos. 22 Q. Now, you indicated that your interest in short 23 fiber chrysotile first arose during your employment with 24 A.O. Smith; correct? 25 A. Yes, sir. 27 1 Q. Are they -2 A. It goes back further than that. Excuse me, 3 Jeff. 4 Q. A.O. Smith products historically were boilers; 5 correct? 6 A. A.O. Smith had a water heater division of 7 which some asbestos products had been used in that they 8 made some rechargeable-type boilers on occasion. 9 Q. And did any of the asbestos products that were 10 involved in the A.O. Smith business involve any type of 11 asbestos fiber other than short fiber chrysotile? 12 A. I guess I'm not at liberty to discuss other 13 clients' cases, some of which might be in litigation. 14 That would include some of the questions you may want to 15 ask on this, Jeff. 16 Q. I only go there because you said that is where 17 your interest first arose. 18 A. Right. 19 Q. What work have you done other than reviewing 20 other people's work in terms of researching the toxicity 21 of asbestos fibers, whether they be chrysotile or 22 amphiboles? 23 A. My work on asbestos started in approximately 24 1974 when I joined the Occupational Safety & Health 25 Administration. I initially served on a task force in 28 1 which we were looking initially at the emergency 2 temporary standard that had been enacted for asbestos 3 and then as we went forward in looking at what had 4 happened on the June '72 regulation and how that was 5 applying, that I guess resulted in I conducted many 6 inspections from ship exposures to workplace exposures 7 in a variety of employments and reviewing records at 8 that time as we were trying to ascertain in the agency 9 an exposure base standard instead of going strictly with 10 recommendations by the American Conference of 11 Governmental Industrial Hygienists. That worked then 12 continued as I went into A.O. Smith, and A.O. Smith used 13 some asbestos products in some of their finished goods, 14 and has continued now into my consulting years. 15 Q. Have you ever been involved with any 16 epidemiological studies that concerned asbestos? 17 A. No, sir. Other than reviewing such when I was 18 with OSHA. 19 Q. Let's go back to the articles that you listed 20 concerning -- I guess it would be analysis of impact of 21 exposure to short fiber chrysotile. The next one you 22 listed were cohorts exposed to mixed fibers and you 23 mentioned Roggli. Now, Dr. Roggli, of course, has 24 published a number of articles and also books. Are 25 there particular articles or books that you're focused 29 1 on on this topic? 2 A. I know he had a publication in 2002 that 3 carried a title like Mesothelioma and Occupational 4 Exposure, as I recall. 5 Q. And do you recall what the conclusions of that 6 article were? 7 A. That amphiboles are the causative agent for 8 most of the mesothelioma cases that we see in the United 9 States. 10 Q. Do you know whether Dr. Roggli believes that 11 short fiber chrysotile can cause mesothelioma? 12 A. My understanding from reading his text and 13 reading his articles is he does not believe that 14 chrysotile in and of itself, regardless of the fiber 15 length, is a causative agent in the contraction of 16 mesothelioma. 17 Q. The next article you list, I couldn't actually 18 hear you, I think you said Hutchins? 19 A. Hodgson. H-o- -- how does he spell it -20 H-o-d-g-s-o-n. 21 Q. I'm sorry, spell that again. 22 A. H-o-d-g-s-o-n. 23 Q. Okay. And do you know the name of the 24 article? 25 A. No, sir. It's related to death or mortality 30 1 from mesothelioma in Great Britain. 2 I think it's a prospective study, as I recall, 3 so he is preparing a model or he has prepared a model to 4 look at mesothelioma cases in the British Isles 5 prospectively. 6 Q. Do you know the year that it was published? 7 A. It has been within the last couple of years, 8 2004, 2005, I would suggest. 9 Q. And what is his conclusion? 10 A. That as he went through his model, and he was 11 working on validating a model by Peto that had been 12 prepared about a decade before, the Peto model and the 13 model of which Hodgson et al. prepared evaluated 14 exposures to both amphiboles and to chrysotile, and the 15 Hodgson et al. model's conclusion essentially gave no 16 weight to chrysotile exposures resulting in 17 mesothelioma. 18 Q. The next one you listed was Wagner. I think 19 you said from 1979 or 1980. 20 A. Wagner has several studies. The one I 21 recalled was his Grade 7 study. Yes, sir, I recall that 22 one. 23 Q. Do you know when that was published? 24 A. The early '80s, late '70s, somewhere in there. 25 Q. And what was his conclusions? 31 1 A. He looked with -- he looked at various types 2 of chrysotile, and I think for Grade 7 he didn't find 3 any malignant neoplasms. That's my best recollection on 4 that one, Jeff. 5 Q. When you say "he looked at different types of 6 chrysotile," what do you mean by that? 7 A. My recollection is he had two or three types 8 of chrysotile, including Grade 7. 9 Q. Do you know what the other types were? 10 A. I'm sorry, I just don't recall them at this 11 time. 12 Q. And do you recall whether he looked at cases 13 where individuals were only exposed to Grade 7 14 chrysotile? 15 A. I believe this was an animal study. 16 Q. The next one you mentioned was Platek from the 17 mid-1980s. 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. Do you recall the title of his study? 20 A. Again, it's Inhalation of -- I don't know if 21 it's Grade 7 or Short Fiber Asbestos. It's something 22 close to that, Jeff. 23 Q. This is from the mid-'80s? 24 A. That's my recollection, yes, sir. 25 Q. And what were his conclusions? 32 1 A. That for animals exposed -- and there was an 2 extensive period of time for an animal study. I want to 3 say well over a year -- that they found no pulmonary 4 disease in the animals that they studied from this 5 long-term inhalation exposure study. 6 Q. And the last reference you listed was the 7 ATSDR short fiber group, the Influence of Short Fiber 8 publication. 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. When was that done? 11 A. Boy, I don't recall the exact date. 12 Q. What is that organization? 13 A. The ATSDR? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease 16 Registry. It's a group from the Public Health Service 17 that was empaneled to look at the toxicity of a variety 18 of chemicals that was related to the Super Fund 19 Amendment work that was being done and the concerns 20 about chronic exposures to a variety of chemical and 21 chemical agents. 22 ATSDR then has selected these various 23 chemicals based on the incidence that they find these at 24 Super Fund sites and the public concern. The ATSDR then 25 empanels a committee including their staff and other 33 1 outside experts and they compile the data and prepare 2 what is termed a toxicological profile that presents the 3 contemporaneous data, helps interpret the 4 contemporaneous data, and then shows the various issues 5 related to the exposures of humans, of animals, 6 exposures to the general environment. And then from 7 that, provides recommended exposure levels of concerns 8 in the toxicological profiles, especially for asbestos. 9 They also go through I guess what they term, 10 as I recall, relevance to public health. They also go 11 through the volume of materials, especially on asbestos, 12 that have entered the environment and then especially on 13 asbestos they show the respective citations in 14 literature, relate those both to humans, to animals. 15 They compare and contrast then to acute, subacute, and 16 chronic exposures and establish doses that are related 17 to both an acute reaction and a chronic anomaly. 18 As they were going through asbestos, and my 19 recollection, the toxicological profile for asbestos was 20 either 2000 or 2001. They then decided they needed to 21 do more of an evaluation, especially on short fibers, 22 since many of the studies that they found on asbestos 23 there was mixed exposure in that you had chrysotile as 24 well as an amphibole, so they empaneled a group called 25 their short fiber group. They reviewed the literature. 34 1 They prepared their own opinions related to the short 2 fiber, and that had to be in the last, you know, three 3 or four years, I would guess, Jeff. 4 Q. Do you have any information as to why they 5 would be concerned from a public health standpoint of 6 segregating out short fiber for analysis? 7 A. I wasn't a member of the panel, and I'm not 8 privy to all of the reasons that they went through to 9 look at it other than, as I stated, many of the studies 10 we have mixed exposure and they hadn't had the 11 opportunity to look at some of the literature I 12 described, assess that literature and just look at short 13 fiber exposure in and of itself. 14 Q. Did they specifically look at different fiber 15 types? In other words, did they look at crocidolite, 16 tremolite, and amosite? 17 A. Yeah. There is no way you can look at 18 asbestos without looking at all the fiber types, but the 19 emphasis, the direction that they were taking was 20 related to the short fiber and trying to understand 21 short fiber chrysotile and its role in any disease 22 process or lack thereof. So, sure, they had to look at 23 all fibers. You couldn't independently look in a vacuum 24 and do a proper evaluation. But the emphasis was to try 25 to segregate again the influence of the short fibers of 35 1 chrysotile and what that meant toxicologically speaking. 2 Q. And what were the conclusions of this short 3 fiber study group? 4 A. The conclusions are many. It's a pretty 5 lengthy treatise and, Jeff, it goes through, gosh, a 6 variety of discussions related to if we are just looking 7 at the biopersistence factor, there is a whole section 8 that relates to the biopersistence factor. There is a 9 whole section that relates to the toxicological reaction 10 once you get a short fiber into the terminal portion of 11 a lung. Then it goes into discussions on how the whole 12 disease process of amphibole versus chrysotile happens. 13 So it's nothing that I can say is a single 14 finding or a single discussion. They look at all the 15 factors related to toxicology and to exposure and try to 16 break each of those factors apart, try to understand 17 those factors related to the differences that we have 18 between amphiboles and chrysotile and then present all 19 that data in a recent fashion. 20 Q. Now, you had testified earlier that the ATSDR 21 in their overall work actually quantify levels of 22 exposure to different toxins that could be hazardous. 23 Did I hear you right? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. Did they do that for asbestos? 36 1 A. Yes, sir. 2 Q. And did they do that for all fiber types or 3 only certain fiber types? 4 A. As we discussed earlier in the asbestos 5 toxicological profile, again I believe it's Figure 3.1 6 and Table 3.1, they display the salient issues related 7 to all of the studies they looked at starting with acute 8 exposures, going to chronic exposures. 9 On the chronic exposures, they differentiate 10 between pneumoconiosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma. For 11 pneumoconiosis, they will provide a no observable effect 12 level. For the respective cancers, including lung 13 cancer and mesothelioma, they will establish a cancer 14 effect level, which in our vernacular we have been 15 talking today would be called a dose. And they show 16 those respective doses for the various fiber types or if 17 it's a mixed fiber type, they show that as well. And 18 that will all be projected again on the figure and on 19 that table. 20 Q. I don't have the table in front of me so 21 you're going to have to walk me through it. But are 22 they saying that exposures below the dose level listed 23 will not cause, for example, mesothelioma? 24 A. What they are saying in this respective study 25 and they show, gosh, many studies, they will show the 37 1 dose that the individual had that resulted in the 2 material. They do not have what we might call a 3 prescriptive standard where they say you should not be 4 exposed above this, rather they take the data as it is 5 and project -- boy, off the top of my head, I would say 6 20 different studies that show the toxicological end 7 point being mesothelioma, they show the dose, they show 8 the type of fiber, they show the duration of exposure, 9 then they present the overall dose. 10 And, again, those doses, as I recall, for a 11 mixed fiber is as low as 10 fiber years for a 12 mesothelioma and then they go up substantially above 13 that. I recall where they have some doses, I think even 14 over 200 fiber years in some of the studies that they 15 project. 16 Q. Is there a dose listed for mesothelioma for a 17 chrysotile-only exposure? 18 A. I do not believe so. I think the only 19 chrysotile exposures are mixed, that there will be one 20 or more amphiboles as well as the chrysotile. That was 21 part of the reason for having the panel to look at the 22 short fibers. 23 Q. Did the short fiber group publish a similar 24 chart? 25 A. No, sir. 38 1 MR. KAISER: We've been going about an hour. 2 Why don't we take a short break so that Cheryl can rest 3 her fingers. 4 (The deposition was at recess.) 5 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Let's go back on the record. 6 The short fiber study group that we have been 7 talking about, do you know who funded their work? 8 A. They are a federal agency, so I assume it was 9 appropriations from federal government through the 10 Public Health Service. 11 Q. And do you know if the work was performed 12 under a contract? 13 A. That's my understanding, yes, sir. 14 Q. And do you know who the contractor was? 15 A. Not off the top of my head, no, sir. 16 Q. Do you have any information about whether the 17 work was completed? 18 A. You know, they published the treatise, so I 19 assume that the intended scope of work was completed at 20 that time. 21 Q. Do you have any information about whether the 22 contract was terminated? 23 A. No, sir, I don't. 24 Q. I'm not trying to be cute about it. Other 25 than information that one can glean from reading the 39 1 published article, do you have any background 2 information? Have you talked to any of the members of 3 the group? 4 A. No, sir. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. And I didn't take your question that way. 7 Q. I didn't want to beat around the bush, given 8 the late hour. 9 Let's talk about other organizations that have 10 looked at the potential impact of chrysotile exposure on 11 human health. Are you aware of OSHA considering that 12 issue? 13 A. I'm aware in that I've heard rumblings about 14 the long discussed dissatisfaction with having all 15 fibers grouped under one permissible exposure limit was 16 going to be examined at some time by OSHA. 17 Q. What is the current OSHA PEL for asbestos? 18 A. 0.1 fibers per cc of air. 19 Q. And that's for all fiber types including 20 chrysotile; correct? 21 A. It does not differentiate between the fiber 22 types. I'm sorry, yes, it's for all fiber types. 23 Q. And when was that PEL promulgated? 24 A. 2003, I believe. 25 Q. And did OSHA publish any literature that went 40 1 along with that PEL; in other words, explaining their 2 rationale? 3 A. Yes, sir, there was a preamble. 4 Q. And have you reviewed that? 5 A. Oh, yes, sir. 6 Q. And other than the preamble that OSHA 7 published, anything else? 8 A. Well, they've had a variety of publications 9 over the years related to explaining where to find 10 asbestos, what to do if you find asbestos, and then some 11 technical documents that were distributed both only for 12 compliance officers as well as the general public. 13 So, yeah, there has been a lot of stuff over 14 the years. 15 Q. But in terms specifically of their reaching 16 the PEL of .1 fiber per cc, other than a preamble are 17 there other documents that OSHA published explaining 18 their rationale for that PEL? 19 A. Again, I remember a technical document, excuse 20 me, that was provided after the promulgation of the .1 21 fiber per cc PEL. 22 Q. And you've reviewed that? 23 A. I haven't in some time, but, yes, I did. 24 Q. Is it your understanding in arriving at the .1 25 fiber per cc PEL for asbestos that OSHA specifically 41 1 considered the question of whether the PEL should be 2 different for chrysotile than for amphiboles? 3 A. My understanding and recollection, Jeff, it 4 was the age-old question of do we separate physical 5 anomalies and try to come up with exposures that would 6 apply or do we want to have one universal PEL that 7 applies to all fiber types and all potential physical 8 anomalies, and that was the problem we've, you know, the 9 agency had always had on trying to streamline and have 10 prescriptive standards. 11 Q. In terms of mesothelioma in reaching the PEL 12 of .1 fiber per cc, do you recall in the materials that 13 you reviewed from OSHA whether they considered this 14 question whether short fiber chrysotile could cause 15 mesothelioma? 16 A. I believe they had a discussion that centered 17 on mesothelioma and OSHA being unable to differentiate 18 between whether or not chrysotile had concomitant 19 contamination from amphiboles or if it was just what we 20 might call pure chrysotile. I recall that in one of the 21 documents. 22 Q. But suffice it to say that at the time it 23 established PEL for asbestos of .1 fiber per cc, OSHA 24 did not conclude that there was a level of short fiber 25 chrysotile exposure that was safe? 42 1 A. Well, again, the PEL does not differentiate 2 between pneumoconiosis, pleural plaques, lung cancer, or 3 mesothelioma. And the rationale was let's establish a 4 one-stop shopping type of PEL that we don't have to 5 differentiate between toxicological end point and fiber 6 type, and that's essentially how, you know, the .1 fiber 7 came about. They looked at the resulting dose being 8 somewhere between four and five fibers depending on if 9 it's a 40-, 45- or 50-year working lifetime. From that, 10 then they were able to ascertain that if we use .1, we 11 know we're going to have a good impact on reducing 12 pneumoconiosis and other impairments. So that's how the 13 .1 came about. 14 If we want to call that a reducing hazard, 15 then perhaps one might define it that way. I define it 16 as they use the .1 to derive the lifetime dose related 17 to either 40-, 45- or 50-year working lifetime and that 18 dose would be protective of pneumoconiosis as being in 19 all likelihood the lowest dose physical anomaly one 20 could contract from asbestos inhalation exposure. 21 Q. Generally speaking, in terms of mixed fiber 22 exposures, do you believe that the lower exposures are 23 more linked to mesothelioma or to asbestosis? 24 A. I believe you could have asbestosis from lower 25 dose exposures, perhaps to any form of asbestos, is 43 1 because the way the interstitial fibrosis can come about 2 as you have a lack of clearance, as you have other, I 3 guess, metabolic functioning happening in the lung unit. 4 Q. Let's discuss other organizations that have 5 considered the question about whether chrysotile causes 6 mesothelioma or whether chrysotile is less potent in 7 causing mesothelioma. Do you know whether the EPA has 8 ever looked at that issue? 9 A. Well, I know the EPA, boy, they published a 10 technical support document in 2003 where they did a 11 couple things. One, as I recall, they said that 12 fibers, it was either 20 or 30 microns in length, are 13 probably not important toxicologically, but then they 14 narrowed it down to let's say 10 microns as being - 15 fiber length had to be greater than 10 microns to be of 16 toxicological significance. 17 Then, secondly, they derived a different 18 formula than we had classically used for the potency and 19 essentially when this document, they said -- I'm 20 recalling here that chrysotile is something on the order 21 of seven or 800 to 1,000 times less potent than 22 amphiboles. To me, that was a landmark because 23 heretofore we had -- most of us that did this type of 24 work had little -- or used different potency factors. 25 Q. And do you rely on that EPA technical support 44 1 document in your opinion? 2 A. I think it's a good document. I guess as you 3 have seen going through our discussion tonight, Jeff, I 4 rely on many documents, I don't rely on any single 5 document. I try to look -- I think your term would be 6 the preponderance of the evidence. I try to look at the 7 number of studies we have, the validation of those 8 studies, how those studies are carried out, and the 9 significance of the findings and the consistency of the 10 findings. 11 So is this EPA document important? Well, it's 12 important in the fact that it has the same opinions as 13 many of the other documents that I've talked about 14 tonight. It talks about fiber length. It talks about 15 potency in comparing and contrasting chrysotile to 16 amphibole. So, yes, all of that is important, but it's 17 not singularly important, it's important in the total 18 universe of the documents in which I review and rely 19 upon. 20 Q. I forgot to ask you. You mentioned earlier 21 that you had reason to believe that OSHA was considering 22 visiting the subject of whether short fiber chrysotile 23 can cause disease. Did I hear you right? 24 A. That was my understanding. 25 Q. What is that understanding based on? 45 1 A. I still have friends in the agency and before 2 John Miles retired, we had had that discussion at one of 3 our alumni meetings at the University of Oklahoma. 4 Q. So this is casual conversations as far as any 5 formal statements by OSHA? 6 A. Like I said, I wasn't on any panel and I 7 wouldn't describe myself as being an inner-sanctum of 8 OSHA and knowing everything they are doing in this day 9 and age. 10 Q. I'm not sure anybody does. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Going back to other organizations that have 13 looked at the question of whether chrysotile causes 14 disease at all or is less potent in causing disease than 15 amphiboles. Have you looked at the report by the World 16 Trade Organization on that issue? 17 A. World Trade? 18 Q. World Trade Organization. 19 A. I must admit, I'm not familiar with the World 20 Trade Organization. 21 Q. Have you, in your review of the public 22 literature, come across any articles that suggest that 23 some of the studies on chrysotile may be biased by those 24 who have financial interest in chrysotile sales? 25 A. I guess I've seen less from that perspective 46 1 than I've seen on those doing work related to trying to 2 show the toxicity of chrysotile. 3 Q. I'm sorry, what do you mean by that? 4 A. I've read and heard about one researcher who 5 is actually funded by Gary Gallagher, who I understand 6 does a lot of plaintiffs' work, and I guess I've seen 7 more scuttlebutt -- heard more scuttlebutt, I guess is a 8 better way to term it, from that perspective than I have 9 from the other perspective that you mentioned, Jeff. 10 Q. And who is that researcher? 11 A. Suzuki. 12 Q. And what scuttlebutt have you heard? 13 A. As I described it, he is funded by a 14 foundation that is funded by plaintiffs' attorney, Gary 15 Gallagher. 16 Q. Where have you heard this? 17 A. I've read it in some trial manuscripts. 18 Q. What percent of your income do you derive 19 currently from expert consulting and testifying work in 20 the asbestos personal injury litigation? 21 MR. MARKS: Dr. Anderson, before you answer 22 that, Jeff, can I ask you a question? Is there a 23 protocol on this in San Francisco County that all 24 experts are kind of providing the same information, is 25 asked the same type of question. 47 1 MR. KAISER: No, not that I know of. 2 MR. MARKS: So are you going to object if I 3 ask this question of Dr. Castleman, Dr. Hammar, and 4 Dr. Horn? 5 MR. KAISER: I don't know. It won't be me, it 6 will be Bill. He may, he may not. 7 But I can tell you, I don't want to play games 8 with you. It's routinely asked. 9 MR. MARKS: I realize that. I'm not going to 10 object to his personal confidential information as long 11 as you guys are going to provide the same information in 12 response to our questions. 13 MR. KAISER: You can object. Feel free. I'm 14 not going to stipulate to anything. 15 MR. MARKS: Well, Dr. Anderson, I'll let you 16 answer how you would like, but I just want some 17 clarification. I guess I don't have it. 18 MR. KAISER: No game rules. 19 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Can you answer that question, 20 sir? 21 A. Sure. Can I take a minute to answer it? 22 Q. Sure. 23 A. We're a firm with 23 offices, about 550 staff 24 members. I serve as regional operating officer, 25 managing what is termed as our Great Lakes Region, which 48 1 is something around half the company, half the offices. 2 My income is primarily a function of my position, not of 3 my practice. I could never charge another hour and my 4 income would be the same. So I have a hard time 5 answering that because I don't make any more money doing 6 a deposition at 6:30 at night than I would if I was 7 watching the evening news at this time, so I always have 8 trouble, when I'm asked that question, answering, Jeff. 9 I'm not trying to be cute. It's just that other firms, 10 other people in our company even, their compensation is 11 a function of what they do. Mine, as one of the top 12 three senior managers in our company, is not related to 13 me doing this kind of stuff. 14 Q. Well, aside from compensation, what percent of 15 your professional time do you spend consulting in the 16 asbestos litigation? 17 A. I would guess 40 percent of my time. Maybe a 18 touch more. I've never looked at my hours and broken 19 them out that way. 20 Q. Are there other individuals in your company 21 that also serve an expert consultants in the asbestos 22 litigation? 23 A. I have three junior level people in my office 24 who might help on some cases on literature review, 25 helping me pull many of the articles I talked about, 49 1 staying abreast with the literature, make sure I don't 2 miss something that comes out. I do -- I can't say I've 3 written every report that has ever been written on 4 asbestos in our office, but I think I have. And I know 5 I've given every sworn testimony that has ever been 6 given by our firm on asbestos. So if that helps. 7 Q. Yes, it does. Thank you. 8 A. Yes, sir. 9 Q. Let's focus on this case in particular 10 When were you first retained? 11 A. I actually have the letter. 12 Q. Not how. When. 13 A. March 22nd, 2007, I received deposition 14 transcripts from Hassard Bonnington. 15 Q. And what did they send you in particular? 16 A. I can read it. I received the following 17 deposition transcripts of plaintiff Don Felker, direct 18 deposition taken November 7, 2006, discovery 19 depositions -- and I'll be brief here -- 1 through 7 20 inclusive, taken between November 8 and December 8, 21 2006. 22 Q. Have you been provided any other materials in 23 this case? 24 A. Yes, sir. I received -25 Q. What are those materials? 50 1 A. I received -- you haven't made me open my file 2 until now, so give me a second -- I received a packet 3 related to Cafco Blaze-Shield materials. 4 Q. I'm sorry, say that again. 5 A. C-a-f-c-o Blaze-Shield materials. 6 Q. And what in particular did you get? 7 A. I just got -- I haven't even looked at it, so 8 we can have a maiden voyage here together. Included in 9 the packet -- I don't even know what this is. It's - 10 oh, plaintiff's interrogatories, excuse me. It's 11 response to plaintiff's interrogatories in the case of 12 Gail Sprinkling versus W.R. Grace. Also - 13 MR. KAISER: Why don't we mark that as 14 Exhibit 4, including the correspondence. 15 THE WITNESS: I also have, it looks like, a 16 product brochure on Cafco Blaze-Shield Fireproofing. 17 Give me a minute here. 18 There is a second, what appears to be, product 19 brochure on Cafco Sound-Shield. 20 There is a third one, product brochure, again, 21 on Cafco Heat-Shield. And that appears to be it. 22 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Why don't we include all of 23 those as Exhibit 4. The interrogatory responses, any 24 correspondence and the product brochures. Does that 25 make sense to you? 51 1 A. Are you talking to me now? 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. Sure. 4 Q. Because you're going to have to provide it to 5 the court reporter, so I want to make sure we're on the 6 same page. 7 A. Okay. 8 (Deposition Exhibit No. 4 was marked for 9 identification.) 10 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Do you know why you were sent 11 this information? 12 A. I questioned last evening about this material 13 and that was provided to me today. 14 Q. And what were you told? 15 A. I was told they would send me what I just 16 described. 17 Q. But did they say why they are going to send it 18 to you? 19 A. Because I questioned -- I wasn't familiar with 20 Cafco materials. 21 Q. And why did the subject of Cafco materials 22 even come up? 23 A. Because it was one of the exposures, the 24 Blaze-Shield that was listed by Mr. Felker during his 25 employment. 52 1 Q. So prior to receiving these materials, you 2 weren't familiar with that product? 3 A. No, sir. 4 Q. You don't know the asbestos content of that 5 product? 6 A. No, sir. 7 Q. You've never done any personal research? 8 A. Yes. I went on-line but everything is 9 contemporaneous. I couldn't find any historic 10 information related back in the '60s when Mr. Felker was 11 talking about using this material. 12 Q. And what did the materials that were sent to 13 you by counsel tell you about the Cafco product? 14 A. As I hope I stated, I just received these 15 before I left the office and printed them, so as I 16 described, we take the maiden voyage together in looking 17 at these. I haven't looked at them. 18 Q. So you're not in a position to talk about 19 those at this time? 20 A. No, sir. 21 Q. What else did they provide you? 22 A. I have a videotape deposition transcript of 23 George J. Humphries taken January 9, 1991 in the case of 24 George J. Humphries versus Abex Corporation, et al. 25 Q. And have you read that transcript? 53 1 A. Yes, sir. 2 Q. And do you know why it was sent to you? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. And why is that? 5 A. Because it describes Mr. Humphries' use of 6 Cafco Blaze-Shield at the Wells Fargo building, the same 7 Wells Fargo building that Mr. Felker testified to work 8 in. 9 Q. And what information did you find important in 10 that deposition? 11 A. One statement that Mr. Humphries made as he 12 was going through his discussion of how offensive it was 13 to work with this stuff, and it was something like he 14 couldn't get anyone to work on this job with this stuff 15 because it was so dirty and so dusty and so difficult to 16 breathe when the guys were working in the area. 17 Q. And when did you receive this deposition 18 transcript? 19 A. I don't recall if it was late last night or 20 early today. 21 Q. This, again, was after you talked to counsel 22 for Kaiser Gypsum and Kaiser Cement? 23 A. That's my recollection, yes, sir. 24 Q. And indicated to them that you didn't have any 25 prior knowledge about the Cafco glaze material? 54 1 A. The Cafco Blaze-Shield. 2 Q. Correct. 3 A. Fireproofing. Yes, sir. 4 Q. Have you ever seen any studies that measure 5 any airborne asbestos concentrations when the Cafco 6 Blaze-Shield materials are applied? 7 A. I have seen studies with other fireproofing 8 but not Cafco since I didn't know it existed until this 9 case. 10 Q. Let's make the deposition -- I'm sorry, what 11 is the name, George what? 12 A. Humphries. George J. Humphries. 13 MR. KAISER: Let's make that Exhibit 5. 14 (Deposition Exhibit No. 5 was marked for 15 identification.) 16 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Were you provided anything 17 else in this case? 18 A. I think that's all Volume 1 of Mr. Humphries. 19 I also have Volume 2. And Volume 2 of the videotape 20 deposition. And then I have Volume 1 of the discovery 21 deposition and Volume 3 of the discovery deposition. 22 Q. Let's just include all the Humphries 23 depositions as Exhibit 5, okay? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. Are we on the same page? 55 1 A. I'm making notes. If you give me one second. 2 Humphries' depos. Cafco. Yes, sir, I got it. 3 Q. Okay. Were you provided anything else by 4 counsel in this case? 5 A. I don't have anything else in my file. And I 6 don't recall any other -- I wasn't in my office all 7 afternoon. 8 MR. MARKS: Dr. Anderson, did you review the 9 Mangold transcript? 10 THE WITNESS: You're right. 11 MR. MARKS: I'm sorry, I want you to know what 12 he reviewed, Jeff. 13 THE WITNESS: Thanks, Chris. 14 I did receive an e-mail talking about a 15 deposition provided by, I believe it's Carl Mangold 16 related to his description of an aluminum smelting 17 operation similar to the one that Mr. Felker worked at, 18 which I think was Harvey. I'll have to look at my 19 notes. I believe it was Harvey where he -- Mr. Felker 20 stated he worked at and Mr. Mangold described the work 21 in the smelting operation like that operation that 22 Mr. Mangold worked. So I do have that e-mail. 23 Q. BY MR. KAISER: I'm sorry, is it a deposition 24 or an e-mail? 25 A. It's attached to the e-mail. 56 1 Q. The deposition is attached to an e-mail? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 MR. KAISER: All right. Let's make that 4 Exhibit No. 6. 5 (Deposition Exhibit No. 6 was marked for 6 identification.) 7 Q. BY MR. KAISER: And when was the deposition 8 taken? 9 A. Again, I didn't go back into my office. I 10 don't know. 11 Q. And were you familiar with Carl Mangold prior 12 to the deposition? 13 A. I've heard of his name before. But I've also 14 been in aluminum facilities, both Reynolds and Alcoa 15 down in Bauxite, Arkansas when I lived there, so his 16 deposition is probably less important, but I will 17 nonetheless review it. 18 Q. Have you read it yet? 19 A. No. That's what I said. I haven't been back 20 in my office. 21 Q. I see. You got an e-mail saying a deposition 22 is attached, but you haven't read the deposition? 23 A. There you go. 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. I'm sorry, I did a poor explanation. 57 1 Q. Let's make Exhibit 6 both the e-mail and the 2 attachment. 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. And you just got that e-mail this afternoon 5 then? 6 MR. MARKS: Objection; misstates testimony. 7 THE WITNESS: I don't know if it came in late 8 last night or early this morning. I was in my office 9 for all of an hour today and I had to go to another job 10 site. 11 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Have you been provided 12 anything else? 13 A. I don't believe so. 14 As I look, I open my file, I have the 15 deposition transcripts I described and that's it. 16 Q. Did you ask counsel for any additional 17 information that you have not received? 18 A. No, sir. 19 Q. Now, Exhibit No. 2, the notes that you made in 20 this case, they are not page numbered, but I want to 21 make sure that I have the complete notes. Do you have 22 them in front of you, sir? 23 A. I do. 24 Q. On Page 1, what is the first sentence? 25 A. At the top it says "Summary. The first line 58 1 says "Father of Felker was a plasterer." 2 Q. Mine doesn't say "Summary," but that's my 3 first sentence. 4 A. Summary is at the very top. Maybe it didn't 5 get on the copy machine. 6 Q. My copy is not very good, I will tell you 7 that. 8 9 end? And then the last page, how does the document 10 A. Well, then there is Page 2 of the summary. At 11 the bottom under "Home Remodeling," the last sentence 12 says "Member of several unions" and "unions" is 13 underlined. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. Then there is a second set, for lack of better 16 description, that says "Felker Summary" at the top. 17 Q. Right. 18 A. And the first is "Roman I, Napa Valley 19 plastering slash Wesley Uffleman." 20 Q. Okay. I have that. 21 A. The second page is a continuation of that. It 22 starts three lines down with "C, Retirement Homes." 23 Q. Okay. We don't need to go through this 24 section by section. I just want to make sure that mine 25 starts and ends. The last page of the notes have some 59 1 dose calculations? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. All right. So that's your last page as well? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. And in between there is a bunch of pages where 6 you have reference to the page and line from the 7 deposition that you're reading; is that correct? 8 A. Yes. There is a set of pages for each 9 deposition transcript. 10 Q. As you're going through the deposition, what 11 causes you to note things? In other words, what are you 12 looking for? 13 A. Looking for his descriptions related to his 14 work career, anything related to his familial exposures 15 or potential exposures. I don't make any 16 interpretations. I rather do my best just to extract 17 what I believe is what his testimony says. 18 Q. And you do this work yourself? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. How many hours have you spent to date on the 21 Felker case? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. Can you estimate? 24 A. 30. I imagine something like that. 25 Q. So your primary focus in reviewing the 60 1 deposition is to identify his asbestos exposure 2 opportunities? 3 MR. MARKS: Objection to form; misstates 4 testimony. 5 THE WITNESS: Is there an objection? 6 MR. MARKS: Yes. Objection; form, misstates 7 testimony. 8 THE WITNESS: I looked, Jeff, for everything 9 from his family history all the way through his work 10 history and not just asbestos exposure, but what did he 11 do in general, to try to get a full flavor of his life. 12 And then from that, try to extract in the summary the 13 issues that relate to his specific work. And then from 14 that, I went to the third level that talks more 15 specifically about where he may have been exposed to 16 products that relate to Kaiser Gypsum or Kaiser 17 Permanente, Kaiser Cement. 18 Q. BY MR. KAISER: So the first two pages are 19 sort of an executive summary? 20 A. Was that a question? I'm sorry. 21 Q. Yes. 22 A. I wouldn't call it an executive summary. I 23 just tried to decant seven, eight deposition transcripts 24 into the issues that might have some substance and some 25 relationship to his exposure and his work career. 61 1 Q. Let's try to break it down. On Page 1 you 2 note that his father was a plasterer; is that correct? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. Did you believe that Mr. Felker had any 5 opportunities to be exposed to asbestos through his 6 dad's work? 7 A. I'm sure he did, but there was scant testimony 8 that really provided a great description on what 9 transpired in his home life. 10 Q. Why are you sure he would have been exposed to 11 asbestos through his father? 12 A. Well, if he wore home his work clothes, I'm 13 sure there was the opportunity for exposure. 14 Q. What years are we talking about? 15 A. Well, he was married in '50 something, '53. 16 So he would have resided in his house before then. Born 17 in '28. So we're talking the '30s through the '40s, 18 whenever he would have resided at home. 19 Q. Do you have any information about what 20 products his father worked with in the 1930s and 1940s? 21 A. Like I said, there was scant information 22 related about that. 23 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that any of 24 the products that his farther worked with in the 1930s 25 and 1940s could have contained asbestos? 62 1 A. I believe they sure could have. 2 Q. What is your basis for that? 3 A. Just the historical data that we see in the 4 literature, going all the way back to some of the first 5 studies that we saw related to asbestos exposures. 6 Q. Which products in particular do you think his 7 father would have worked with in the '30s and '40s that 8 contained asbestos? 9 A. Some of the actual plaster products that were 10 used had asbestos fillers. If he worked in any 11 facilities where there were any insulators in the '30s, 12 we were switching over to amosite at that time. 13 Q. Was there information in the deposition that 14 indicated that his farther worked around insulation? 15 A. No, sir. As I said, there was scant 16 information. 17 Q. Which plaster products contained asbestos in 18 the 1930s? 19 A. There were some products that had as a filler, 20 as I described, they didn't have the shrinkage issues, 21 but as they were applying it on the old lathe and 22 plaster applications, they found that by adding some 23 asbestos it helped the adherence factor. I don't recall 24 what brand. 25 Q. Do you have any information about whether in 63 1 the 1930s and 1940s the majority of plaster products 2 contained asbestos? 3 A. No. I would suggest it was the minority. 4 Q. Do you have any information about whether the 5 Kaiser Cement product, the plastic cement product in the 6 1940s contained asbestos? 7 A. My information says there was no such thing as 8 a Kaiser joint cement, gun cement product in the 1940s. 9 Q. How about the hand plastic cement product? 10 A. Again, my information shows it didn't come 11 about until the '50s. 12 Q. Is it your understanding that when Kaiser 13 first marketed the hand plastic cement that it contained 14 asbestos? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. Have you ever heard any information that they 17 started marketing it without asbestos in 1945 and didn't 18 add asbestos until 1960? 19 A. No, sir, I haven't heard that. 20 Q. Have you heard any information that they 21 manufactured the plastic hand cement in Southern 22 California without asbestos in the 1960s but they 23 manufactured it in Northern California with asbestos in 24 the 1960s? 25 A. No, sir, haven't heard that. 64 1 Q. If the minority of the plaster products in the 2 1930s and 1940s contained asbestos, would you be in a 3 position to say it's more likely than not that 4 Mr. Felker's father would have worked with those 5 minority of products? 6 MR. MARKS: Objection; form. 7 THE WITNESS: Again, I don't know. As I 8 stated, there is scant information other than he was a 9 plasterer. 10 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Any other opportunities you 11 think that Mr. Felker would have had during his 12 childhood to be exposed to asbestos? 13 A. Again, same answer. There was really scant 14 information. He worked on the farm. I just don't know. 15 Q. In terms of Mr. Felker's working career, when 16 do you believe he had his first opportunity for exposure 17 to asbestos? 18 A. I would have to put these in order. They 19 talked of his work at Curtis Insulation, where he used 20 Johns-Manville insulation on pipes and boilers. 21 Q. What year was that? 22 A. That's what I would say, I would have to pull 23 every one - 24 MR. KAISER: We've got another hour. Why 25 don't we take another short break and you can get these 65 1 organized so we can go through them. 2 (The deposition was at recess.) 3 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Back on the record. 4 We were talking about what you believe was 5 Mr. Felker's first occupational exposure to asbestos and 6 you indicated his work at Curtis Insulation; correct? 7 A. It was one of his first, yes, sir. 8 Q. And what year was that? 9 A. If I go in order as he mentioned in his 10 deposition, the actual first discussion of being an 11 insulator was at the Hanford Nuclear Facility for U.S. 12 Jenkins and Armstrong. That was as early as 1951, 13 including '52, '53 or '54. 14 Q. What type of work did he describe doing at the 15 Hanford Nuclear Facility? 16 A. That he was a laborer working with various 17 insulation products. 18 Q. Did you pick up whether he was actually an 19 insulator at this facility? 20 A. Well, he started -- yes, he ended up as, I 21 think his term was a permit man. That he started, as he 22 described, as a laborer. And then for Armstrong, when 23 he went after Jenkins to Armstrong, he worked first as 24 an asbestos apprentice the first year at Hanford and 25 then became a permit man the second year at Hanford. 66 1 Q. What is your understanding what a permit man 2 is? 3 A. Essentially he carried a card that would allow 4 him to perform insulation work. 5 Q. What asbestos products do you believe he was 6 exposed to during his work at Hanford? 7 A. Well, he describes that he worked with some 8 white, which well could have been chrysotile, some was 9 brown, which I assumed was amosite, and some was blue, 10 which I assume was crocidolite. 11 Q. Are you talking about raw fiber? 12 A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. 13 Q. You're talking about raw asbestos fiber? 14 A. He didn't describe it as such. He described 15 the bags of asbestos were mixed, so I assume it started 16 as the fiber, then it was mixed to the mud that would be 17 applied on some of the block insulation, which I assumed 18 when he described to be block that he meant the amosite 19 blocks, that as they would band them, then they would go 20 ahead and apply the mud over the seams and over the 21 block. 22 Q. Did you make any effort to quantify on a 23 fiber-year basis his asbestos exposure during his work 24 at Hanford? 25 A. No, sir. Just mentally I tried to compare and 67 1 contrast mentally what he could have been exposed to as 2 an insulator. 3 Q. What do you mean by that? 4 A. Well, I generally use three references if 5 there is an insulator involved, Balzer and Cooper, 6 Fowler, Cooper and Balzer, and then Nicholson. And if 7 we look at exposures, time-weighted average exposures 8 for insulators doing the type of work Mr. Felker 9 discussed, time-weighted average could be six fibers per 10 cc. So I look at it if he performed one day's 11 insulation work, he would have had a dose commensurate 12 with the type of doses I found essentially for his 13 working lifetime of the Kaiser products. 14 Q. Your opinion is that his asbestos dose as one 15 day as an insulator was equivalent to his career work 16 with the Kaiser Cement and Kaiser Gypsum products? 17 MR. MARKS: Objection; form. 18 THE WITNESS: It would be in the same range, 19 yes, sir. 20 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Did you come up with a total 21 fiber per cc estimate for the work at Hanford? 22 A. No, sir. As I said, I didn't go that far. 23 Q. What is the next work that Mr. Felker 24 described where you believe he had asbestos exposure? 25 A. Let me turn the page. That's when we have 68 1 some overlap on time. Again, when he talks more about 2 his work at Curtis in 1952 as well. And at Curtis he 3 describes four projects. 4 Q. And what are his job duties at Curtis? 5 A. Insulator. 6 Q. So I take it your opinions then would be 7 basically the same as they were with the Hanford 8 facility? 9 A. Yes, sir. He talks -- Curtis, as I recall, 10 yeah, mostly blue asbestos. So again crocidolite, 11 which, as we talked earlier, has the highest potency 12 factor of all the amphiboles. 13 Q. And what is your understanding that he was 14 doing with blue asbestos? 15 A. At one site in Montana he describes that he 16 was using mostly blue asbestos mud so then he would be 17 taking the mud and actually wrap -- or excuse me, take 18 any of the joints, take any of the elbows and hand apply 19 that material onto what he called half-rounds or any 20 other appurtenances that they were using for elbows on 21 the line. 22 Q. From your prior review of the literature and 23 prior cases that you've worked on, have you come across 24 insulators using blue asbestos in that application? 25 A. Yes, sir. 69 1 Q. And why would they be using blue asbestos as 2 opposed to chrysotile or amosite? 3 A. Why would they use it? 4 Q. Right. 5 A. I guess you would have to ask them. I mean, 6 it was an insulation product that was relatively easy to 7 acquire. I'm not trying to be curt. I guess I don't 8 understand the question completely. 9 Q. Well, I mean, blue asbestos used in the United 10 States in terms of total use of asbestos is very small; 11 correct? 12 A. From the insulation perspective, there was a 13 goodly amount of crocidolite that was used. 14 Q. Was it used in certain applications? 15 A. It could be used in any applications. 16 Q. What is the next work that he described you 17 believe he was exposed to asbestos? 18 A. Stern Rogers, second and third quarters of 19 1954, he was reinsulating smelter furnaces. 20 Q. So I take it your opinion there again would be 21 similar to those with his work at Hanford and Curtis? 22 A. Yes, sir, I believe so. 23 Q. What is the next job he described? 24 A. Claussen Gregory Company, December '52 through 25 January '53, he worked as a permit journeyman insulator. 70 1 Q. Again, your opinions would be the same as the 2 prior jobs? 3 A. I believe so. 4 Q. What is the next? 5 A. Vermiculite Construction, Potlatch, Idaho. 6 Q. What year was that? 7 A. He says it was the next job after January '53. 8 Without opening the deposition, I didn't note a date. 9 Q. Okay. That's fine. And what were his job 10 duties in that job? 11 A. He talks about insulating at a school also in 12 Potlatch, Idaho. He talks about working with half-round 13 insulation and mud, using both blue and white mud at the 14 Potlatch, Idaho site insulating about 300 feet of pipe. 15 Q. What is the next job that he described that 16 you believe he would be exposed to asbestos? 17 A. General Engineering, Inc. and it's a Dallas, 18 Oregon -- I don't know the pronunciation, "Dalees," 19 "Dallas" -- '58 to the beginning of '61, working as a 20 pipe insulator with Johns-Manville half-rounds and 21 another half-round. He also used asbestos mud and 22 worked in boiler rooms. I think, yeah, he described 23 working with brown asbestos mud, which would be very 24 typical amosite. 25 Q. These various jobs being described from I 71 1 guess the early '50s now to the early '60s, did you pick 2 up a sense of how often he would actually work hands on 3 with asbestos products? 4 A. I guess I would have to look at each one. 5 Some of the jobs I concluded it was continuous, if not 6 nearly continuous work, especially the one site where he 7 talked of working on 300 or insulating 300 feet, which I 8 assumed were linear feet, of pipe. 9 Q. What is the next job you described that you 10 believe he was exposed to asbestos? 11 A. Harvey Aluminum. 12 Q. What years were those? 13 A. Beginning of 1961 until 1962, he insulated two 14 boilers in a 20-by-20 boiler room. I think, yeah, he 15 described that as being in '61. He talks about mixing 16 his own mud. And 20 percent of his time he performed 17 insulation work for Harvey Aluminum. 18 Q. What is the next job? 19 A. I need to open another depo. And we go to his 20 work where it's hard to differentiate if it was actually 21 for Wesley Uffleman or Napa Valley Plastering. 22 Q. What years was that work? 23 A. '63 to '66. 24 Q. 1963 to '66? 25 A. Yes, sir. 72 1 Q. And what were his basic job duties during 2 those years? 3 A. Plasterer-type work. 4 Q. And do you believe he would have been exposed 5 to asbestos during that work? 6 A. I believe he might have been, yes, sir. 7 Q. And to which products? 8 A. He describes two plasters or plaster products, 9 the Kaiser Gypsum and the Calavans. 10 Q. Now, is this the work that you started 11 actually performing the fiber-year analysis for? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 Q. What years do you have him working with the 14 Kaiser plastic cement product? 15 A. Here we go. I have him working at the 16 apartment building site. 17 Q. Let me ask a different question and maybe 18 speed this up. In the 1963 to '66 time frame that we're 19 talking about, is it your understanding that all the 20 work that he was doing was as a plasterer? 21 A. Different projects, for example, the apartment 22 work, he said that 80 to 90 percent of his time was the 23 application. 24 Q. Application of plaster? 25 A. Yes, sir. That was my interpretation, yes, 73 1 sir. 2 Q. Now, in order to perform the dose analysis 3 that I guess is reflected, what, in the last two pages 4 of Exhibit 2; is that right? 5 A. It's two pages we talked about. I don't 6 recall the order in your pile, sir. 7 Q. Okay. What did you use as your fiber per cc 8 dose level? 9 A. If we'll look at the bottom of the page where 10 I take the total time, the dose is proportional to the 11 duration times the exposure or concentration. So from 12 the summation of all these times I converted it to 13 years. I took those years times the .376 fibers is the 14 arithmetic mean or average of exposures from a study 15 conducted by Riverside on the mixing and application of 16 their product in 1975. 17 Q. Do you have a copy of that study? 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 MR. KAISER: Let's make that Exhibit 7. 20 (Deposition Exhibit No. 7 was marked for 21 identification.) 22 THE WITNESS: Give me a second. Okay. 23 Q. BY MR. KAISER: So as I understand it, 24 Riverside is a competitor or was a competitor of Kaiser 25 in the plaster business? 74 1 A. That's my understanding. 2 Q. And they made an asbestos-containing plaster? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. And they did this study in 1975 to figure out 5 the potential exposures when working with the plaster? 6 A. Well, when others were working with the 7 plaster, they went to actual job sites. 8 Q. Did they hire some outside person to do this 9 study? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. Who was that? 12 A. I may have that study with me. I do. 13 Environmental Analysts, Inc. 14 Q. Is the .376 fibers per cc the level that they 15 identified? 16 A. They collected four samples during mixing and 17 four samples during spraying. I took the arithmetic 18 mean of the summation of those eight samples. 19 Q. Other than the Riverside study from 1975, do 20 you rely on any other studies or any other data in terms 21 of potential asbestos exposures when working with 22 asbestos-containing plaster? 23 A. No, sir. 24 Q. Are you aware of any other studies? 25 A. It was very difficult in the literature to 75 1 find other studies. 2 So I guess the answer is I found one study for 3 spray insulation that was a NIOSH health hazard. It was 4 evaluation, excuse me, NIOSH health hazard evaluation. 5 The material was completely inconsistent with the 6 composition of the Kaiser Gypsum product. 7 Q. Inconsistent in terms of the asbestos 8 percentage? 9 A. It had other additives that -- they had some 10 organic materials that could go into it. It was just 11 not even close to our material. 12 Q. And you didn't come across any other data 13 about fiber exposures when working with plaster 14 products? 15 A. No, sir. 16 Q. So after 1966, when is the next work he 17 described where you believe he had the opportunity for 18 asbestos exposure? 19 A. Bear with me. You have me throwing papers 20 everywhere here, Jeff. 21 Frank D. Smith. 22 Q. What year was that? 23 A. He didn't provide the exact year other than to 24 say it was right after the Wesley Uffleman era, so I 25 assumed it to be around '66, and that was consistent 76 1 with the testimony of Mr. Humphries. 2 Q. What were his job duties for Frank D. Smith? 3 A. Wells Fargo building. 4 Q. This is the new construction of the building? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. Here in San Francisco? 7 A. You got it. 8 Q. And what were Mr. Felker' s duties during this 9 construction? 10 A. He talked about doing a lot of stuff from 11 insulation application that included both fiberglass and 12 asbestos, from spraying what he termed was insulation by 13 Cafco then later clarified as fireproofing. He provided 14 some plaster work. I think that's pretty well the 15 universe of what he did. 16 Q. And the Cafco fireproofing, that's what we 17 discussed earlier, you weren't familiar with that 18 product prior to talking to counsel? 19 A. I wasn't familiar. I asked counsel about 20 Cafco. 21 Q. But as I understand it, as you sit here today, 22 you haven't yet reviewed any materials that give you any 23 information about what the product was, how much 24 asbestos it had, what type of fiber, that sort of 25 detail? 77 1 A. No, sir. 2 Q. Are you familiar with any studies that are 3 data concerning asbestos exposure opportunities 4 generally when workers are applying asbestos 5 fireproofing? 6 A. Yes, sir. As I just described, I had the 7 NIOSH health hazard evaluation and I had some other 8 studies that related to application of spray-on 9 fireproofing. 10 Q. And do you have a fiber per cc average that 11 you used for that work? 12 A. I don't recall. I've never had an actual 13 project where I performed dose reconstruction for that 14 type of product, Jeff. 15 Q. During this work for Frank D. Smith, you 16 mentioned he did some plaster work as well; is that 17 correct? 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. I'm sorry, did you answer? 20 A. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Yes, I did. 21 Q. Do know which brand product he used for that 22 work? 23 A. He didn't describe. 24 Q. What is the next work that he described that 25 you believe he had an asbestos exposure opportunity? 78 1 Are you with me? 2 A. I haven't gone to sleep. I'm looking here. 3 I believe we would be into his self-employment 4 era. 5 Q. And which years were those? 6 A. I want to verify that, Jeff. Just give me one 7 minute, please, sir. 8 I don't see anything. '72 to '77. There was 9 other employment between then. Welder/painter, 10 painter/laborer. Skimming rapidly, I don't really see 11 anything until that self-employment era, which, again, 12 I'm counting this '72, 1972 to 1977. 13 Q. What type of work did he do during the 14 self-employment time? 15 A. He described both. Well, he did a lot of -- a 16 little bit of everything, including repair work at homes 17 and some stucco work. 18 Q. And during that work, what type of asbestos 19 products do you believe he would have been exposed to? 20 A. Well, he described the stucco product as the 21 Calavans again, rather than Kaiser. He described the 22 drywall products as four brands, Kaiser Gypsum, 23 Riverside, Hamilton, and USG, U.S. Gypsum, and possibly 24 Georgia-Pacific. 25 Q. Now, is this the time period that you did the 79 1 dose analysis for the Kaiser Gypsum joint compound? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. And, again, what fiber per cc level did you 4 use for that calculation? 5 A. I went directly to Verma and Middleton and 6 used the 2.1 fiber per cc exposure concentration in 7 combination with the duration that is shown. 8 Q. Are you familiar with any other studies or 9 data that measured asbestos release during work with 10 joint compound? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. And what ranges on a fiber per cc basis have 13 those studies or data shown? 14 A. On a time-weighted average, the Verma and 15 Middleton appear to be the most comprehensive and 16 provide some of the highest exposure concentrations we 17 see on a time-weighted average basis. 18 Q. What is the highest you've seen in any of the 19 data that you have reviewed? 20 A. There is higher short-term concentrations for 21 various activities from bag opening to mixing and, 22 again, I should preface this, I'm talking about joint 23 compound. 24 Q. Correct. 25 A. Kaiser Gypsum sheetrock or wallboard does not 80 1 contain asbestos, therefore, I'm exclusively talking 2 joint compound. 3 The studies may look at one aspect of bag 4 opening to mixing to application to sanding to cleanup 5 and some of the exposures on that would exceed the 2.1 6 fiber per cc time-weighted average I use, but no one 7 else from the Selikoff study to the study by Fischbein 8 to the study by Rhodes really goes into establishing a 9 time-weighted average. So I believe that the Verma and 10 Middleton is superior in that regard. 11 Q. Does that study also give you data about peak 12 exposures? 13 A. Again, it's, as I hope I've stated, it 14 provides concentrations perhaps in a five-minute sample 15 for the mixing phase, perhaps for a -- I don't have the 16 study with me -- perhaps 100 minutes for cleanup, but 17 it's the only study that I know of that goes ahead and 18 computes a time-weighted average for all of the 19 activities involved in utilizing, mixing, applying, and 20 cleanup of joint compound. 21 Q. But do they like, for example, provide the 22 peak measurement on a fiber per cc basis during sanding 23 of joint compound? 24 A. I'm sorry, I have another call coming in so I 25 got a beep. Go ahead again, please, Jeff. 81 1 Q. The Verma and Middleton study, do they provide 2 the peak exposure level on a fiber per cc basis during 3 sanding of joint compounds? 4 A. I don't believe so. 5 Q. Have you seen any study that provide that 6 data? 7 A. Again, some of the other studies will look at 8 one aspect and they may -- since my concern is always 9 all the operations that are conducted, I just find Verma 10 and Middleton superior. 11 Q. So based on your prior testimony about 12 chrysotile and its ability to cause mesothelioma, it 13 really wouldn't matter, would it, how much or how little 14 Mr. Felker worked with the Kaiser plaster and Kaiser 15 joint compound products in your mind because no matter 16 how much he worked with them, it still wouldn't have 17 contributed to his mesothelioma; is that correct? 18 A. Well, that's not what I testified. Again, I 19 testified that I don't have a dose derived upper limit 20 for concern of chrysotile. Therefore, the dose 21 reconstruction was imperative to be conducted for a 22 couple of reasons. One, to go through and to see if he 23 had some massive mini-fiber-year exposures that is 24 beyond what anyone has looked at in the literature. 25 Secondly, it was important then to conduct 82 1 just to see what his actual exposure was in comparison 2 to what he may have had during his career work as an 3 insulator. 4 Q. But even if he had worked -- let's use the 5 Kaiser Gypsum joint compound and the 2.1 fiber per cc 6 time-weighted average as an example. Even if he had 7 worked with that product during a 40-year working career 8 every day, wouldn't it still be your opinion that the 9 exposure from that product would not have contributed to 10 his mesothelioma? 11 A. If we're talking about somebody that they did 12 this every day over 40 years and he had this type of 13 exposure so that his dose would have been in excess of 14 80 fiber years, my answer would be I don't know, but I 15 would be of the position I would have to further 16 evaluate because we don't -- I don't believe -- I don't 17 believe we have looked at all the data at massive 18 exposures. 19 Q. But didn't you say earlier that even at a 20 hundred fiber years you didn't think -- of chrysotile 21 exposure you didn't think that caused mesothelioma? 22 A. Again, from what the ATSDR found, it doesn't 23 appear to. I said my point of concern on amphibole 24 starts around five to ten and if we had some massive 25 exposure to chrysotile, I would still want to look at it 83 1 because I don't think it's been examined because that's 2 an exposure we don't typically see. 3 Q. How would you look at it? 4 A. We would have to go through the literature 5 again and see what is out there in all the studies ATSDR 6 has. I would have to look closely again at all the 7 studies we went through and refine my evaluation of 8 those actually looking at the doses. 9 So, you know, I feel like you're trying to put 10 me in a box that I'm saying something I haven't said. 11 I'm saying at the type of exposures we have found for 12 Mr. Felker and others doing this type of work, that I 13 don't see a dose component, irrespective of toxicity, I 14 don't see a dose component of causation or relationship 15 to mesothelioma for this gentleman. However, if he had 16 some massive exposure, my mind is not at the point that 17 I would consider some aberrant dose of not requiring 18 further evaluation. 19 Q. Is there a threshold that you would consider 20 aberrant? I mean, is it 50 fibers per cc or 20 fibers 21 per cc? 22 A. I don't know. I know it's -- if you approach 23 a 40-working year lifetime that every day you were 24 exposed to 2.1 fibers per cc, I guess, talking off the 25 top of my head, I wouldn't know why he wouldn't have had 84 1 asbestosis. Regardless of whether or not he would have 2 some other physical anomaly, I would want to look at 3 this again. I think any scientist would want to look at 4 something like this, Jeff, because we don't see these 5 kinds of exposures. 6 Q. Typically we see mixed fiber exposures; right? 7 A. We see a lot of mixed fibers. We see a lot of 8 insulators who the majority of their career they had 9 individual exposures to chrysotile with some amphiboles 10 and then some amphiboles. So when we look at lung 11 burden, you probably see a little bit of both. You see 12 a lot of ferruginous. 13 Q. Well, do you think looking at Mr. Felker's 14 entire work history, his total dose of asbestos exposure 15 was sufficient to cause his mesothelioma? 16 MR. MARKS: Objection; form. 17 THE WITNESS: I think in doing -- and, first, 18 can I interject one thing? 19 Q. BY MR. KAISER: Sure. 20 A. There is a mathematical error I just noticed 21 sitting here on the dose reconstruction at the Summation 22 of Dose on the bottom of Page 2. The stucco dose on 23 Page 2, I put an extra zero in. It should be 0.116. 24 Rather early when I completed that and I guess the 25 coffee hadn't kicked in. 85 1 0.116 for stucco joint compound remains the 2 same, so that the total is 0.1559. 3 Q. 0.155 - 4 A. 9. 5 Q. Okay. And that's your calculation of his 6 lifetime dose to asbestos from working with Kaiser 7 Cement and Kaiser Gypsum products? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. All right. 10 A. Now, to answer your question that stands, I 11 can empirically look at this, that if he worked as an 12 insulator for ten days, two working weeks, he would have 13 had a greater dose of asbestos exposure in ten days than 14 he had from all of his work with Kaiser Gypsum products. 15 Q. But in your opinion, would that ten days of 16 work as an insulator have caused his mesothelioma? 17 A. Well, first, that's an unfair question because 18 we both know what we have just gone over, he worked 19 many, many more than ten days. 20 Q. How many days do you estimate he worked as an 21 insulator? 22 A. I don't know, but it's many, many more than 23 ten days. 24 Q. Did you think it was enough to cause his 25 mesothelioma? 86 1 A. If we take his ten days times a factor of ten 2 to come up with 100 days, which is what, you know, less 3 than half of a year, he would have had a dose like 2.4 4 fibers per cc -- fiber years per cc, excuse me. 5 So then as you approach that then, yeah, I 6 think just on the amphibole alone, just from amphibole 7 there is enough information to tell us that that may be 8 well a dose that is related to the causation of 9 mesothelioma. 10 Q. So is it correct that you're of the opinion 11 that the asbestos exposure Mr. Felker received from 12 working with the Kaiser Cement and Kaiser Gypsum 13 products did not contribute at all to his mesothelioma? 14 A. I agree with you completely. 15 Q. Even, in fact -- and give me your total again 16 now because I don't have it written down -- the combined 17 total for the Kaiser products on a fiber year basis is 18 1.1 - 19 A. .1559 or if we want to be over conservative 20 .16. 21 Q. Can we just round it to .16, I was going to 22 say? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Even if it was 100 times more than that, so it 25 was 16 fiber years, would you still be of the opinion 87 1 that the asbestos from the Kaiser products did not 2 contribute to his mesothelioma? 3 A. I believe so. 4 Let me rephrase that so it's clear. I agree 5 with what you just said. A dose 100 times greater than 6 I show in my dose reconstruction, I do not believe would 7 be associated with the contraction of mesothelioma. 8 Q. Do you think he had any exposure to asbestos 9 after 1976? 10 A. He worked at Cargill '72 to '78, a small 11 amount of time as a laborer. I don't believe so. I 12 didn't look at it that way. 13 Q. I noticed in prior depositions that I read you 14 had always done a written report. Do you intend to do 15 one in this case? 16 A. I haven't been asked to do one, so I don't 17 know. 18 Q. I mean, is it your normal procedure to only do 19 one when you're asked? 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. What other work do you intend to do before you 22 testify at trial? 23 A. Well, I've got to load up a bunch of stuff and 24 send it to the court reporter. I intend, unless I'm 25 instructed otherwise, to look at the Cafco material and 88 1 to look at Carl Mangold's deposition. And I believe 2 that would be it, sir. 3 Q. Do you have any standard demonstrative aids 4 you use at trial? 5 A. Since I haven't testified at trial, I don't 6 know. I'm sorry, it's kind of late here. 7 Q. I guess we'll find out. 8 A. Yes. 9 MR. KAISER: All right. I'm going to reserve 10 our rights to further depose you. First of all, under 11 the San Francisco General orders, we're required to 12 receive all the materials that the expert gets prior to 13 his deposition and since we didn't get that, on that 14 basis, but also on the basis if you do review additional 15 materials. But those reservations aside, I don't have 16 any further questions for you, sir. 17 Why don't we go off the record. 18 (The deposition concluded at 5:55 p.m.) 19 --oOo-20 21 KIM E. ANDERSON O.M., Ph.D. 22 23 24 25 89 1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION OFFICER 2 I, CHERYL WILDER, duly authorized to administer oaths 3 pursuant to Section 2093(b) of the California Code of 4 Civil Procedure, hereby certify that the witness in the 5 foregoing deposition was by me duly sworn to testify the 6 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the 7 within-entitled cause; that said deposition was taken at 8 the time and place therein stated; that the testimony of 9 the said witness was reported by me and thereafter 10 transcribed under my direction into typewriting by 11 computer; that the foregoing is a full, complete and 12 true record of said testimony; and that the witness was 13 given an opportunity to read and correct said deposition 14 and to subscribe same. 15 I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney 16 for either or any of the parties in the foregoing 17 deposition and caption named, or in any way interested 18 in the outcome of the cause named in said caption. 19 20 DEPOSITION OFFICER 21 I hereby certify that this copy is a true and 22 exact copy of the original. 23 24 DEPOSITION OFFICER 25 CERTIFICATION DATE 90 1 TOOKER & ANTZ COURT REPORTING AND VIDEO SERVICES 2 350 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 700 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 3 Phone (415) 392-0650 Fax (415) 392-3897 4 5 6 Dr. Kim E. Anderson O.M., Ph.D. 7 C/o Law Offices of Williams Kastner & Gibbs PLLC 8 Two Union Square 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 9 Seattle, Washington 98101 10 In Re: Don Felker and Sharon Felker 11 vs. A.W. Chesteron Co., et al. 12 Dear Dr. Anderson: 13 Your deposition taken in the above-entitled matter has been transcribed. The deposition will be available at 14 our offices for reading and signing by you for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, after 15 which time the original of your deposition will be sealed and sent to the office which noticed the 16 deposition, in accordance with Section 2025.520(b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 17 18 Sincerely, 19 20 Tooker & Antz 21 cc: All counsel 22 23 24 25 91