Document K6wEgaGDL45o7557GoORqVV1K

DownloadSearchable PDFRandom document
ORIGINAL i VOLUME I PAGES: 1-69 EXHIBITS: 1-4 STATE OF CONNECTICUT Superior Court Department J.D. of Fairfield at Bridgeport **************************************** MILTON CORBETT, JR., Administrator * for the Estate of MILTON CORBETT, SR., * VS . * ACandS, INC . , et al . * **************************************** **************************************** SUSAN AUGERI and JUDITH CLARK, * Co-Executrix of the Estate of * RAYMOND CLARK, Deceased, * VS . * CUMMINGS INSULATION, et al. * **************************************** **************************************** KAREN E. BORAWSKI, Administratrix * for the Estate of ROBERT MURRAY, * VS . * ACMAT CORP . , et al . * **************************************** DEPOSITION OF RILEY STOKER CORPORATION, through its designee Harold Riddar, a witness called on behalf of the Plaintiffs, taken pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, before Lorene R. Eppley, CSR #109593, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public within and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the Law Offices of Cetrulo & Capone, Two Seaport Lane, Boston, Massachusetts, on Wednesday, March 5, 2003, commencing at 2:00 p.m. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING Post Office Box 382 Hopedale, Massachusetts 01747 (508) 478-9795 (508) 478-0595 (Fax) leppleyOmsn.com EPPLEY COURT REPORTING DEPOSITION FILE COPY 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 Representing the Plaintiffs: 3 EARLY, LUDWICK & SWEENEY, L.L.C. One Century Tower, 11th Floor 4 265 Church Street P.0. Box 1866 5 New Haven, CT 06508 BY: ROBERT J. SWEENEY, ESQ. 6 (203) 777-7799 (203) 785-1671 (Fax) 7 Representing Riley Stoker Corporation: Products, 8 CETRULO Sc CAPONE 2 Seaport Lane 9 10th Floor Boston, MA 02210 1 0 BY: NANCY KELLY, ESQ. JENNIFER A. CREEDON, ESQ. 11 (617) 217-5500 (617) 217-5200 (Fax) 12 Representing Thomas O'Connor Company: 1 3 BROADHURST, LAKIN & LAKIN One Elm Square 1 4 Andover, MA 01810 BY: CHRISTIAN COLWELL, ESQ. 15 (978) 470-3545 (978) 470-3464 (Fax) 16 Representing Duro-Dyne: 1 7 LECOMTE, EMANUELSON & DOYLE Presidents Place 1 8 1250 Hancock Street Quincy, MA 02169 1 9 BY: RICHARD B. KIRBY, ESQ. (617) 328-1900 (617) 328-2030 (Fax) 20 2 1 Also Present: Tierney Chadwick, Cetrulo & Capone 22 23 24 EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 3 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS: HAROLD RIDDAR 3 4 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE 5 Mr. Sweeney.................................................................................................... 4,62 6 Ms. Kelly...................................................................................................................... 57 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 EXHIBIT PAGE 13 No. 1, Notice of Deposition...................................................... 14 No. 2, Letter dated 2/28/03...................................................... 15 No. 3, Deposition of Harold Riddar 1 6 dated 2/6/02................................................................................... 4 4 4 1 7 No. 4, Deposition of Harold Riddar dated 6/30/95............................................................................... 18 (Original exhibits retained by Mr. Sweeney) 19 4 20 21 22 23 24 EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 4 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 3 (Exhibits 1-4 premarked for identification) 4 5 HAROLD RIDDAR, Deponent, having first been 6 duly sworn, deposes and states as follows: 7 *************** 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. SWEENEY: 9 Q. Could I just have your name, sir? 10 A. Harold 0. Riddar. I'll spell that. 1 1 R-I-D-D-A-R. 12 Q. Thank you. I just had a chance to meet 1 3 you a few moments ago. My name is Bob Sweeney 1 4 and I represent three individuals who filed 1 5 asbestos lawsuit claims, and one of the 1 6 defendants is Riley Stoker or I guess it's known 1 7 by a different name right now, but we'll use the 1 8 term Riley Stoker, if that's okay. 1 9 And I understand you've been produced 2 0 as a person most knowledgeable about certain 2 1 matters concerning Riley Stoker. Is that your 2 2 understanding of why you're here? 2 3 A. Yes. 2 4 Q. Just as a preliminary matter, I was EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 5 1 able to look at a couple of depositions which you 2 gave in the past. The first one was on June 30, 3 1995, and then the second deposition was February 4 6, 2002. 5 Have you given any depositions 6 subsequent to February 6th of 2002? 7 A . N o , I have not . 8 Q And is it still true that you have 9 never testified at a trial proceeding? 1 0 A. I have not. 1 1 Q. Okay. Thank you. Have you had a 1 2 chance at any point to read through the 1 3 deposition transcript of your February 6, 2002 1 4 deposition? 1 5 A. Yes, I have. 16 Q. And I had marked that as Exhibit 3. Is 1 7 there anything, as you sit here now, that you 1 8 wish to change or alter in any way regarding what 1 9 you said at that deposition transcript -- what 2 0 you said at that deposition? 2 1 MS. KELLY: I object to the form of 2 2 that question. It's hundreds of pages and he 2 3 can't possibly recall every single sentence or 2 4 line. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 6 1 Q You can answer. 2 A . As far as I know , not a t this point. 3 If I was to fine-comb i t , maybe. 4 Q I'm sorry? 5 A . If I was to fine - comb i t , really read 6 i t today, maybe . 7 Q. But as you sit there right now - 8 A . I don't think I would change anything. 9 Q . And certainly when you testified in 1 0 February of 2002, you were attempting to be as 1 1 complete and accurate as possible at that point? 12 A. I did. 1 3 Q. Maybe it might make sense to go through 1 4 some of the material that counsel for Riley 1 5 Stoker has produced for me today. 1 6 Now, what I have are a number of 1 7 documents that I've been through the years been 1 8 calling contract files, and I just pulled, 1 9 actually, the first one off the top, and it's 2 0 entitled Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford 2 1 Connecticut, Contract No. S-9659. 2 2 If you could just take a look at that, 2 3 just for a moment. 2 4 A. Okay. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 7 1 Q. Is this a particular contract that you 2 personally worked on when you were at Riley 3 Stoker? 4 A. No. That's a Union Iron Works 5 contract, so I was not involved in this. This 6 was long before Union Iron Works became part of 7 Riley Stoker. 8 Q. You worked at Riley Stoker from '53 9 until approximately '79? 1 0 A. '89. 1 1 Q. '89, excuse me. And Union Iron Works, 1 2 approximately when, as far as you know, did it 1 3 become part of Riley Stoker? 14 A . 1 9 6 0. 1 5 Q. Let me actually, then, pull out another 1 6 contract file that might be easier for me to ask 1 7 my, sort of, general questions about. 1 8 You were not involved in any contracts 1 9 when you worked at Riley Stoker that had to do 2 0 with Union Iron Works; is that correct? 2 1 A. Well, after the purchase there was a 2 2 period there where: we carried the Union Iron 2 3 Works contract, and those contracts generally had 2 4 two contract numbers; the Union Iron Works EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 8 1 contract when the contract was sold and then 2 Riley Stoker for bookkeeping reasons, I guess, 3 added their own number. 4 Q. Actually, it looks like everything I 5 have here is a -- everything that's been produced 6 is a Union Iron Works contract that was performed 7 prior to 1960. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Let me back up for a moment then. 1 0 Could you tell me just very briefly what your job 1 1 duties were at Riley Stoker, and I know they 1 2 probably changed over the years? 13 A. Yeah, they changed quite a lot. In 1 4 1953 I started as a draftsman trainee, and I went 1 5 through various jobs, grades of drafting, and 1 6 became a group leader. Sometimes we were called 1 7 project engineers. 1 8 I became assistant to the department 1 9 manager, became department manager, and I retired 2 0 as chief draftsman of what was then called the 2 1 design graphics department. 2 2 Q. As chief draftsman, briefly, what would 2 3 your day-to-day or week-to-week functions have 2 4 been? EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 9 1 A. Well, as the chief -- I was named chief 2 draftsman two years before I retired, 3 approximately two years. I assisted the 4 department manager, and I also did some 5 troubleshooting for them out in the field, and 6 that is to the best of my recollection. That was 7 basically my position. 8 Q Am I correct that you're e mp1oye d or 9 retained as a consultant at this point for a 1 0 company? 1 1 A . At this point I work independently. 12 Q Are you retained on a case-by-case 1 3 basis by a company? 1 4 A . By Cetrulo & Capone. 1 5 Q I s it your understanding that you're 1 6 acting as an expert witness retained by Cetrulo & 1 7 Capone ? 1 8 MS. KELLY: I object to the form of 1 9 that question. It calls for, I think, a legal 2 0 conclusion that he's not qualified to render. 2 1 Q You can tell me what your understanding 22 2 3 A . Nobody has told me that. 2 4 Q Do you consider yourself working for EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 10 1 Cetrulo & Capone or working for the company that 2 Riley Stoker has now become? 3 MS. KELLY: I object to the form of 4 that question. I think Mr. Riddar's production 5 here today in response to your notice answers the 6 question. And, again, I object and state that 7 you're calling for a legal conclusion that this 8 witness is not qualified to render. 9Q 1 0 is it? I'm not going to belabor it, but which 1 1 A I work for Cetrulo & Capone. 12 Q Have they increased your hourly rate? 1 3 I suppose I should ask: What is your hourly 1 4 rate? 1 5 A I work a split rate. 1 6 Q Okay . 1 7 A When I'm talking to you, I get $100 an 1 8 hour . When I'm not, when I work independently, I 1 9 charge $ 7 5 an hour. 20 Q Okay. In connection with the Notice of 2 1 Deposition that's been filed in this matter, and 2 2 I'll just ask you to take a quick look at it. 23 A. All right. I've read it. I mean, I've 2 4 looked at it, but I haven't read it. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 11 1 Q . My question iss, and let me see if I can 2 phrase it clearly enough: Have you done any 3 specific investigation concerning any matters or , 4 in particular, jobsite locations specific for 5 this particular deposition that we're here at 6 today? 7 A . I have reviewed the contracts that you 8 have just showed me. 9 Q. Were those contracts that you located 1 0 and provided to Cetrulo & Capone or contracts 1 1 that they showed you? 1 2 A. They were shown to me. 1 3 Q. At this point, do you have access - 1 4 question withdrawn. 1 5 Let me back up for a moment and ask 1 6 sort of a series of general questions regarding 1 7 the type of products, boilers if you will, 1 8 manufactured by Riley Stoker over the years. 1 9 Okay . 2 0 Let's say from 1953 to 1960, could you 2 1 tell me generally what types of products Riley 2 2 Stoker manufactured? 2 3 A. Boilers, sometimes called steam 2 4 generators, fuel burning equipment, stokers, EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 12 1 pulverizers, and ball tube mills. 2 Q. I'm sorry? 3 A. Ball tube mills. 4 Q. What are they? 5 A. They are called pulverizers. 6 Q. Is there a difference between a boiler 7 and a steam generating unit, or are those terms 8 used interchangeably? 9 A. Well, the term, as I understand it, 1 0 steam generating, was somewhat of a larger boiler 1 1 used by utility companies. It was just -- it was 12 still a boiler, but it was kind of a fancier 1 3 name . 14 Q Is a stoker - - well, I'll ask you. 1 5 What is a stoker? 1 6 A . It conveys the coal into the boiler. 1 7 Q During the 19 5 0 , 1960 time frame, did 1 8 Riley Stoker produce packaged boilers? 1 9 A . Yes . 2 0 Q. And what is your definition of a 2 1 packaged boiler? 2 2 A. A packaged boiler, as the name implies, 2 3 was a package. It was completely assembled in 2 4 the shop and was shipped either by truck, barge, EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 13 1 or railroad. 2 Q. And it was assembled -- question 3 wit hdrawn. 4 At the location whe re it was to be 5 was it installed as a single unit? 6 A . Yes, it was. 7 Q From reading your prior depositions, am 8 I correct in understanding that you personally 9 were not involved in the development of or you 1 0 didn't work on packaged boilers; is that correct? 1 1 A . No . 1 2 Q. You worked on something called 1 3 site-erected boilers, or what would be the term? 1 4 A. That would be a good term. 1 5 Fie1d-erected boilers. 1 6 Q. Back to the packaged boilers for a 1 7 moment, what was the approximate size of the 1 8 packaged boilers or range of sizes of the 1 9 packaged boilers that Riley Stoker produced in, 2 0 say, '50 to '60? 2 1 A. Well, as far as capacity they could 2 2 range, you know, from 15,000 pounds of steam an 2 3 hour up to close to 200,000 pounds of steam an 2 4 hour, but they had to fit on a railroad car or on EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 14 1 a truck or on a barge, so that kept the size 2 limited, but they varied in size. They did not 3 all have the same size. They were tailored to 4 suit the need of the customer. 5 Q. What type of customers would have used 6 packaged boilers in the '50s? 7 A. Industry, schools, maybe hospitals, 8 colleges. 9 Q. Did Riley Stoker ever produce any 1 0 packaged boilers that could be or were intended 1 1 for residential use? 1 2 A. Not that I know of. 1 3 Q. As far as you know, were all the 14 boilers produced by Riley Stoker steam boilers as 1 5 opposed to hot water boilers? 1 6 A. Yes. Well, are we talking about 1 7 superheated steam? Steam, you know, you get into 1 8 an area here where you had boilers that were what 1 9 we called saturated boilers, where the pressure 2 0 of the boiler and the temperature go in up to a 2 1 certain point. Depending on the pressure, you 2 2 have a certain steam temperature. 2 3 Once you exceed that, you get into the 2 4 superheater range, and that's where we have steam EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 1 that is a lot hotter than what you have in the 2 saturated range. 3 Q. I guess I was using it in a much more 4 simplistic sense. I was using hot water, or 5 boilers producing hot water, to be the type of 6 boiler that one would use in a small commercial 7 establishment, in a residential home, things 8 along those lines. 9 A . I think you confused me a little bit 1 0 Q Okay . 1 1 A . Because feed water to any boiler i s 12 we 11 above hot water, it's in the 300 degree 13 range, and as it goes through the boiler it's 1 4 going to come out perhaps 600 degrees or higher. 1 5 The utility boilers built in 1970 were producing 1 6 steam at 1005 degrees. 1 7 Q. When you say "utility boilers," are you 1 8 talking about boilers used by utility companies, 1 9 power companies? 2 0 A . That is correct. 2 1 Q. Could you describe for me, generally, 2 2 the type of fie1d-erected boilers that you worked 2 3 on? 2 4 A. Could you be a little bit more EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 1 specific? 2 Q. Sure. For what purpose would a 3 customer have used a field-erected boiler? 4 A. For processing in their product, 5 whatever. Let's assume that we sold a boiler to 6 a paper-making company. They would probably use 7 process, what we call process steam. 8 Then there were other industrial 9 boilers that were used for bigger companies that 1 0 liked to generate their own electricity. These 1 1 boilers would probably be at a higher pressure 1 2 and a higher steam temperature. It would have a 1 3 superheater with the boiler that would drive the 1 4 turbine, generator. 1 5 Q. Now, could you describe for me the 1 6 procedure that Riley Stoker had in place from '53 1 7 through '80 concerning the production of 1 8 field-erected boilers? 1 9 And by that I mean what role did the 2 0 customer play, what role did Riley Stoker play in 2 1 the development of the appropriate type of boiler 2 2 to be used? 2 3 MS. KELLY: Object to form. 2 4 A. As I understand it, all the boilers EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 17 1 that Riley built were built to contract 2 specifications. The customer would let it be 3 known or the ultimate user would let it be known 4 that they required a boiler, and Riley Stoker 5 would not be the only boilermaker that would bid 6 on that job. 7 All our work was done on contract. 8 Consequently, Riley Stoker bid, made a proposal, 9 made a price, and submitted it to either the 1 0 consultant engineer or the owner. 1 1 Q. When you say the customer or the - 1 2 I'll use the term customer, would specify what it 1 3 wanted, what the use of the boiler was, what the 14 purpose of the boiler was, what it was going to 1 5 do, is that what you're talking about? 1 6 A . Yes. 1 7 Q. Would Riley Stoker then, if it was 1 8 awarded the contract, then design the appropriate 1 9 boiler to meet the needs as specified by the 2 0 customer? 2 1 A . Yes. 2 2 Q. So, the actual design of the boiler, as 2 3 you've testified before in the other depositions, 2 4 was actually done by Riley Stoker's employees? EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 18 1 A . Yes. 2 Q Just out of curiosity, in 1950 to 1970, 3 who would you have considered to be competitors 4 of Riley Stoker in the Northeast? 5 A. Well, there's several companies, and 6 the larger companies that come to my mind is B&W, 7 Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, Foster 8 Wheeler, Riley Stoker, Zurn Industries. 9 MR. COLWELL: Can you spell that for 1 0 me ? 11 THE WITNESS: Zurn, Z-U-R-N. 1 2 A . There were others as well that I can't 1 3 think of right now 1 4 Q Riley Stoker didn't -- question 1 5 withdrawn 1 6 Did Riley Stoker produce any type of 1 7 boilers or heating units or any piece of 1 8 equipment to be used in a marine setting, on 1 9 ships? 2 0 A . No . 2 1 Q With the fie1d-erected boilers, was it 2 2 Riley Stoker's -- part of its contract to 2 3 actually build or erect the boiler at the 2 4 jobsite? EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 19 1 A . Sometimes. 2 Q. And if Riley Stoker was not erecting it 3 in the field at the jobsite, who did it? 4 MS. KELLY: Object to form. 5 A. Well, the customer would sometimes 6 select their own erector. 7 Q. If the customer selected their own 8 erection company, did Riley Stoker send 9 representatives to the field to supervise the 1 0 construction of the boiler? 11 MR. COLWELL: Objection to form. 1 2 A. Yes, they did. 1 3 Q. In the design and construction of its 1 4 boilers from 1953 through 1972, did Riley Stoker 1 5 use asbestos-containing gaskets and 1 6 asbestos-containing packing in its boilers? 1 7 MS. KELLY: Object to form. Not 1 8 limited in scope as to time and type. 1 9 MR. SWEENEY: Well, from '53 to '72. 2 0 MS. KELLY: It's overbroad. 2 1 A. The way we specified insulation on the 2 2 boiler was high-temperature block insulation, 2 3 intermediate-temperature block insulation, and 2 4 mineral wool. That's the way our requisitions EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 20 1 were written, and that's the way the requisitions 2 went to the purchasing department. 3 In the case of gaskets, we used 4 standard material that: was on the market, you 5 know, from various gasket suppliers, sometimes 6 indicated by their designations. 7 No, we did not always specify asbestos, 8 and we never did in the way of -- I should not 9 say never, but we very seldom specified 1 0 insulation by a specific content of asbestos. 1 1 And in the way of gaskets, we used asbestos 1 2 gaskets because there was no other material on 1 3 the market that would satisfy the conditions. 1 4 Q. Now, the high-temp insulation, 1 5 intermediate-temp insulation, and the mineral 1 6 wool insulation, you're characterizing that as 1 7 thermal insulation; is that correct? 1 8 A . That ' s correc t . 1 9 Q. And that is insulation, in laymen's 2 0 terms, that would have gone on the outside of the 2 1 boiler, am I correct? 2 2 MS. KELLY: Objection. 23 A. Not always. It went on the outside of 2 4 the boiler tubing, but it was most of the time EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 21 1 covered by casing, what we call casing, which was 2 a ten-gauge steel plate. 3 Q. And at times Riley Stoker also used 4 asbestos millboard, did it not, in its 5 construction of the boilers? 6 MS. KELLY: Objection to form. 7 Ove rbroad. 8 A. In what we called the MH, the packaged 9 boilers, we used that. 1 0 Q. And in constructing the boilers, there 1 1 was also piping associated with these 1 2 fie1d-erected boilers, was there not? 1 3 MS. KELLY: Object to form. No 1 4 foundation, overbroad, not limited in time 1 5 period. 1 6 A. Some piping. 1 7 Q. And you have testified previously that 1 8 Riley Stoker would specify the use of calcium 1 9 silicate to insulate that piping; is that 20 2 1 MS. KELLY: Objection. 2 2 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. And calcium silicate, I believe you 2 4 testified previously, would appear to be the EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 22 1 half-moon shape, hard, preformed insulation? 2 A . Yes. 3 Q. Now, the gaskets and the packing, when 4 you worked at Riley Stoker from 1953 to 1972, I 5 think you testified previously that you realized 6 that in many instances the gaskets and packing 7 were asbestos-containing products; is that 8 correct? 9 MS. KELLY: Objection. 1 0 A. Some of them, yes. 1 1 Q. Could you describe for me with a 1 2 fie1d-erected boiler, just very generally, I know 1 3 it's a general question, where one would have 1 4 used gaskets? 1 5 A. Manholes in the main steam drum and 1 6 handholes in the headers. 1 7 Q. How many headers -- more than one 1 8 header on a boiler? 1 9 A. There would be upward side water wall 2 0 headers and lower side water wall headers, so on 2 1 each side of the boiler you had several headers. 2 2 Q. Now, was there also packing used in 2 3 these boilers? 2 4 MS. KELLY: Object to form. Not EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 23 1 limited in scope, time. 2 A. There could have been packing. 3 Q. Where would packing, in general terms, 4 have been used in a boiler? 5 A. Where you had penetration of the steel 6 casing, you would probably have a packing ring. 7 Q. I'm just going to back up for a moment 8 to that gasket material. Did you say it was used 9 around a manhole cover? 1 0 A. Yes. The boiler would have what we 1 1 called the main steam drum. This drum was big 1 2 enough to have a manhole; in other words, man 1 3 could get i n . 1 4 Q To fix it o r look at it, whatever? 1 5 A . Whatever. And t hi s had a gasket on i t . 1 6 When you sealed it, i t; swung to the inside of the 1 7 drum, and the pressure of the boiler closed it 1 8 against the gasket. Now, this was shipped to the 1 9 field with a gasket in there. 2 0 Q. And if packing was used in a particular 2 1 boiler, would that also have been shipped to the 2 2 field with the packing in place? 2 3 A. Sometimes. 2 4 Q. What type of instances can youthink of EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 24 1 where the packing would have to be used or 2 inserted in thefield? 3 A. Packingin the old-type boilers 4 probably could have been used where the steam 5 drum penetrated the outside casing on a boiler. 6 To seal it, it may have been used around the 7 steam drum. 8 Q. Have you ever been on a jobsite while a 9 boiler has been erected? 1 0 A . Yes. 1 1 Q. Now, there were certain -- question 1 2 withdrawn. 1 3 With certain contracts Riley Stoker 1 4 would supply, for a field-erected boiler, the 1 5 thermal insulation; is that correct? 16 MS. KELLY: Object to form. 1 7 A . Yes. 1 8 Q. And under certain contracts Riley 1 9 Stoker would not only supply the thermal 2 0 insulation material, but also have its employees 2 1 install it; is that correct? 22 MS. KELLY: Object to form. 23 A. Sometimes. That was -- the labor was 2 4 contracted in the field. They were not employees EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 25 1 of Riley Stoker as such. They came -- you know, 2 if it was a union contract, the laborer came from 3 the union hall. 4 Q. By that you mean that if Riley Stoker 5 had a contract to erect a boiler and you needed a 6 boilermaker and the boiler is in Providence 7 College, as an example, you would go down to the 8 union hall in Providence and get a boilermaker? 9 MS. KELLY: Object to the form and the 1 0 identification of a site as not being relevant to 1 1 these cases. 1 2 A. Well, normally, if it was a union 1 3 contract, you would go to the union hall and get 1 4 all your labor from the union hall, unless you 1 5 wanted to have a strike on your hands. 1 6 Q. Now, when you -- question withdrawn. 1 7 I believe you testified earlier today, 1 8 and I know you've testified in the past, that 1 9 with the high-temp insulation, you did not 2 0 specify the type of high-temp insulation; is that 2 1 correct? 22 A. No. We specified it on the drawings 2 3 and on the requisitions as high-temperature block 2 4 insulation. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 26 1 Q. But somebody at Riley Stoker would take 2 the requisitions and actually order and obtain 3 the high-temp insulation; is that correct? 4 MS. KELLY: Objection. 5 A. Yes. The purchasing department would 6 purchase the insulation. 7 Q. And the purchasing department had a 8 list of approved vendors, did they not? 9 MS. KELLY: Objection. 1 0 Q. Is that correct? 1 1 A . Yes . 1 2 Q. And I think you've testified in the 1 3 past that some of the approved vendors that you 14 knew of were Johns-Manville, Eagle-Picher, Carey 1 5 Canada; is that correct? 1 6 A. That's correct. There were others as 1 7 well. 18 Q. Right. I know you've testified 1 9 previously that you personally did not know prior 2 0 to '72 that the thermal insulation products 2 1 contained asbestos. Is that still your 2 2 testimony ? 2 3 A. That's still my testimony. 2 4 Q. But you obviously are not and cannot EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 27 1 testify as to whether other individuals at Riley 2 Stoker, prior to 1972, knew or didn't know the 3 content of high-temp insulation? 4 MS. KELLY: Objection. 5 A. I can express an opinion, because I 6 personally don't think that anybody knew, and by 7 that I mean the people that worked with the 8 insulation. If they knew, I guess they wouldn't 9 have worked with it. It was not common 1 0 knowledge, put it that way. 1 1 Q. And again, I want to make sure I'm 12 clear. I'm not asking whether it was common 13 knowledge whether working with asbestos was 1 4 hazardous prior to '72. 1 5 All I'm asking is whether you know or 1 6 whether you have an opinion as to whether other 1 7 individuals at Riley Stoker knew that the thermal 1 8 insulation, the high-temp thermal insulation, was 1 9 asbestos-containing prior to '72? 2 0 MS. KELLY: Objection. Calls for 2 1 speculation. Don't guess, Harold. 2 2 A. I can't speak for anybody else. 2 3 Q. So, your testimony regarding the fact 2 4 that you didn't know that high-temp insulation EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 28 1 contained asbestos is simply your own personal 2 knowle dge ? 3 A. I think I siid that we didn't know, as 4 an engineering department, and the people that 5 worked, prepared the insulation drawings, we 6 specified it as high temperature, intermediate, 7 or mineral wool. We never questioned its 8 content. We didn't run any chemical analysis. 9 That was industry standard, high-temperature 1 0 block or intermediate--temperature block. 11 MS. KELLY: You've answered the 1 2 question, Harold. 1 3 Q. You don't know what the requisition 1 4 department, for example, at Riley Stoker knew or 1 5 didn't know concerning the asbestos content of 1 6 the high-temp insulation, do you? 17 MS. KELLY: Objection. The question 1 8 has been asked and answered at least three times 1 9 now . 2 0 A. The requisition department worked in 2 1 the engineering department where I worked, and 2 2 they knew, I guess, what I knew. 23 Q. Okay. I won't belabor it. Do you 2 4 recall the names of any vendors or manufacturers EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 29 1 of gasketing and/or packing material used by 2 Riley Stoker, say, from '53 through '72? 3 A. Yes. Johns -Manvi11e, Flexitallic, 4 Spirotallic, K-Sarge, Garlock. 5 Q. A.W. Chesterton, do you know if they 6 ever supplied any gasketing or packing material 7 that Riley Stoker used in its boilers? 8 A. We used that in thermal couple glands 9 in such small quantities that I would say that 1 0 the quantities used of that type of insulation or 1 1 packing would be maybe a cupful. The glands were 1 2 no bigger than that. That had a small gasket in 13 i t . 1 4 Q. That might have been supplied or was 1 5 supplied at times by Chesterton? 1 6 A. I believe it was. A thermal couple -- 1 7 MS. KELLY: You've answered the 1 8 que s tion. 1 9 Q. What is a thermal couple? 2 0 A.It measures the temperature 2 1 inside of the boiler. of the 2 2 Q . Is it your belief that Riley Stoker has 2 3 recordsof all the locations where it supplied 2 4 fie1d-erected boilers, say, from 1940 through the EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 30 1 present? 2 A . Yes. 3 Q. Does Riley Stoker also have records of 4 where or to whom it sold packaged boilers from 5 '40 through the present? 6 A . Yes . 7 Q. So, it's your belief or your 8 understanding that Riley Stoker, during that 9 period of time that I just mentioned, essentially 1 0 knows wherever it sold a boiler and to whom it 1 1 ever sold a boiler? 1 2 MS. KELLY: Object to the 1 3 characterization. The question has been asked 1 4 and answered. 1 5 Q. Is that your understanding? 1 6 MS. KELLY: Objection. 1 7 A . Yes. 1 8 Q. Did the packaged boilers also have 1 9 gaskets and packing as well as f i e1d-erected? 20 MS. KELLY: Objection. Overbroad. 2 1 A. Gaskets, yes. 2 2 Q. Would a packaged boiler also have had 2 3 the insulation, either high-temp, intermediate, 2 4 or mineral wool? EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 31 1 MS. KELLY: Objection as to form. 2 A. Yes, I believe they did. 3 Q. Did Riley Stoker ever produce or 4 manufacture any jacketed boilers? 5 A. By "jacketed boilers," can you describe 6 that to me, what you mean by "jacketed boiler"? 7 Q. A boiler where it would have an outside 8 metal casing and there would be some type of 9 insulation that attached the inside of the 1 0 casing, which would then have been placed on or 1 1 over the actual heating element itself? 1 2 A. Yes. All our boilers were covered by a 1 3 steel casing. Now, depending on what period 1 4 you're talking about, the early boilers had brick 1 5 settings, and on the outside of the brick setting 1 6 there was a steel casing. The construction of a 1 7 boiler has changed quite a bit over the years. 1 8 Q. Did Riley Stoker use refractory 1 9 materials in its field-erected boilers? 2 0 A . Yes. 2 1 Q. From the 1950 through 1972 time period, 2 2 did Riley Stoker design or produce any 2 3 fie1d-erected boilers that would not have used 2 4 refractory material? EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 32 1 A. I can't say that, but the quantities of 2 refractory with the introduction of the membrane 3 walls of a boiler, the use of refractory was 4 reduced to very, very small quantities. 5 Q. And as the years -- question withdrawn. 6 Am I correct in understanding that 7 there would have been more refractory material 8 used by Riley Stoker in 1940 than in 1970? 9 A. Yes, I would believe that to be true. 1 0 Q. And that would be true essentially for 1 1 any boiler manufacturer? 1 2 A . Yes. 1 3 Q. In a general sense, why would Riley 14 Stoker have a supervisor at the jobsite where the 1 5 fie1d-erected boiler was installed? 1 6 A. Well, he was there to oversee that 1 7 everything was put in its right place, see to it 1 8 that it was correctly installed. 1 9 Q. Did Riley Stoker have any aftermarket 2 0 program at any point in time that you worked 2 1 there? 2 2 MS. KELLY: Object to form and use of 2 3 the term "aftermarket." 2 4 A. If the customer came back and asked us EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 33 1 to supply tubing or whatever, Riley would respond 2 to that. 3 Q . Did Riley maintain a warehouse or 4 storehouse of material or items, boiler 5 components, that it would attempt to sell to 6 customers subsequent to the installation of a 7 boiler? 8 MS. KELLY: Object to form. Not 9 limited in scope 10 A. Not that I know of. I may add that - 1 1 MS. KELLY: You've answered the 12 que s tion, Harold. 1 3 Q . What were you going to add? 1 4 A . Every boiler is different. You cannot 1 5 store parts to fit all the boilers. 1 6 Q. Is this because the boilers designed 1 7 and manufactured by Riley Stoker were at least 1 8 somewhat unique to the customer and the purpose 1 9 that the customer was using it for? 2 0 A . That's right. 2 1 Q . So, in that sense, different than a 2 2 company such as Weil-McLain, which made 2 3 residential boilers; is that -- 24 MS. KELLY: Object to form. Calls for EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 34 1 speculation. 2 A . I'm not familiar. 3 Q. Do you know at what point in time Riley 4 Stoker ceased using asbestos-containing gaskets 5 in its manufacture of its boilers? 6 A. In the '80s, I believe. 7 Q. And I think you testified that you 8 personally became aware of the potential hazards 9 of asbestos-containing products when you looked 1 0 at, almost by accident, when you looked at an 1 1 OSHA publication at some point in the '70s? 12 MS. KELLY: Object to form. 1 3 A. Yes. 14 Q. Do you know if Riley Stoker at any 1 5 point in time provided any cautions or warnings 1 6 or material of any type concerning the hazards of 1 7 asbestos to its customers or to individuals 1 8 working with the product? 1 9 MS. KELLY: Object to form. 2 0 A. We did not make asbestos products as 2 1 such or asbestos gaskets. We used gaskets and 2 2 insulation in conjunction with our boilers. We 2 3 were there to build boilers, and we bought the 2 4 safest and the best material that you could buy EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 35 1 to make a reliable product. 2 Q. So, is the answer no, Riley Stoker, to 3 your knowledge, never provided any warnings or 4 cautions with its products? 5 MS. KELLY: Objection to form. That's 6 not what he said. Objection to form. 7 Q. Well, let me ask you directly. 8 A. I haven't seen any warnings before 9 1 9 7 2. 1 0 Q. Have you seen any warnings after '72? 1 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. That Riley Stoker provided? 1 3 A . Yes. 14 Q. And could you tell me about those? 1 5 A. Well, following the OSHA regulations 1 6 that were published in 1972, I believe, Riley 1 7 Stoker stopped using asbestos-containing 1 8 material, except forthe gaskets. You couldn't 1 9 buy gasket material that would do the job. 2 0 I mean, you're dealing with flange 2 1 gaskets. You have steam at 1,000 degrees. Do 2 2 you realize what it would do to anybody that came 2 3 close to that in a failure of gasket material? 2 4 Steam at 1,000 degrees will cut you in half. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 36 1 Q. I understand that and I'm really not 2 trying to be argumentative, and I want to end it 3 relatively quickly. Again, my question is very 4 simple, and there might be a reason for whatever 5 occurred or didn't occur. 6 My question is simply: Subsequent to 7 1972, did Riley Stoker itself, as a company, 8 provide any warnings or cautions with its 9 products, with its boilers, concerning the use of 1 0 the asbestos gaskets in the boilers? 1 1 MS. KELLY: Objection. 1 2 A. I am not totally aware of what went on 1 3 in the entire company, so I can't answer that 1 4 question with any certainty. 1 5 Q. Have you seen any warnings or cautions, 1 6 either while you worked for Riley Stoker or 1 7 subsequent when, I guess, you're a consultant for 1 8 Cetrulo & Capone, which has to do with warnings 1 9 or cautions that Riley Stoker at any point may 2 0 have provided to anyone? 2 1 MS. KELLY: Objection to form. Mr. 2 2 Riddar didn't say he was a consultant. 23 A. We were supplying boilers. You know, 2 4 our main purpose was not to furnish insulation or EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 37 1 gaskets. We never fabricated, mined, or whatever 2 asbestos. These materials were supplied to us. 3 MS. KELLY: You've answered the 4 que stion, Harold. 5 At the risk of being argumentative, am 6 in assuming that you have never seen, 7 at any point in time, any warnings or cautions 8 that Riley Stoker gave to anyone concerning the 9 use of asbestos? 1 0 MS. KELLY: Objection. 1 1 A. Personally, no. 12 MS. KELLY: Bob, couldI take abreak? 13 MR. SWEENEY: Oh, sure. 14 (Off the record, 2:51-3:02) 1 5 MR. SWEENEY: Back on the record. 16 * Q. Would you agree that Riley Stoker first 1 7 learned that asbestos is could be caused by 1 8 breathing asbestos fibers back in 1948? 19 MS. KELLY: Object to the form. No 2 0 foundation. It calls fora medical opinion that 2 1 this witness is not qualified to render. 2 2 A. I would agree to that. 2 3 Q. You would agree to that? 2 4 MS. KELLY: Object to form. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 38 1 A . Yes. 2 Q. Thank you. 3 MS. KELLY: Would the reporter read the 4 question back, please. I want to make sure that 5 the witness heard the question and understood the 6 question that was being put to him. Harold, 7 listen to the question. 8 MR. SWEENEY: Just for the record, I 9 should state that he has testified to that 1 0 previously, and I don't think he's going to 1 1 change his testimony. 1 2 (* Question read back, Page 37) 1 3 MS. KELLY: And I'll again object to 1 4 the form of the question. 1 5 Q. And is your answer yes? 16 MS. KELLY: It calls for a medical 1 7 opinion that this witness isn't qualified to 1 8 answer. 1 9 A. I really don't know what Riley Stoker 2 0 learned. 2 1 Q. You know that in 1948 Riley Stoker had 2 2 a workers' comp claim filed against it by an 2 3 individual who indicated that he had suffered or 2 4 had sustained asbestosis from breathing in EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 39 1 asbestos fibers, and you were made aware of that, 2 were you not, back in February of 2002 at your 3 deposition? 4 A . Yes. 5 Q. And in your deposition, and I'm going 6 to show it to you in a moment, and again this has 7 been marked as Exhibit 3. 8 At Page 70 and 71, you were asked, 9 Question: "Well, with that understanding in 1 0 place, based upon the documents that I put in 11 front of you, would you agree with me that you 12 would tell RileyStoker that the date that Riley 1 3 Stoker should put down when asked, When did you 14 first learn asbestosis could be caused by 1 5 inhalation of asbestos fibers, would be 1948, the 1 6 date of the first document I showed you?" 1 7 And you answered yes. 1 8 your testimony? Is that still 19 MS. KELLY: If you're going to ask him 2 0 aquestion about his prior testimony, then show 2 1 him the testimony. 22 MR. SWEENEY: Sure. No problem 2 3 whatsoever. 2 4 Q. On Page -- You can obviously look at EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 40 1 whatever part you would like. 2 MS. KELLY: I would object to this line 3 of questioning. His testimony is what it is. If 4 you want to ask questions about the comp claim, 5 you've got the documents there, you can ask him. 6 MR. SWEENEY: I thought that's what I 7 tried to do at the beginning. Do you want me to 8 show it to him? Do you want him to look at it? 9 I would be happy to show him what I just read or 1 0 any other part of it. 1 1 MS. KELLY: If you have a question 12 about a workers' compensation claim, why don't 1 3 you ask him about that. 14 Q. My question is, sir: Is your testimony 1 5 that I just read to you, and you're free to look 1 6 at it, is that still your testimony today? And 1 7 it's approximately where my finger is. 1 8 MS. KELLY: I object to the form of 1 9 that question. Can you tell me which page and 2 0 line you're referring to? 21 MR. SWEENEY: Sure. I thought I did 2 2 before. It's 70, 71, and I can't see the line 2 3 from where I'm sitting, but it's right where my 2 4 finger is. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 41 1 MS. KELLY: I would object to that. If 2 you want to ask him today about documents, then 3 ask him today about documents. I don't think 4 it's fair to ask him a question based on 5 documents that he doesn't have in front of him 6 today. I mean, a reading exercise is a reading 7 exercise. I object to the form of the question. 8 What is the question? 9 MR. SWEENEY: I appreciate that. 10 Q. My question is: Is that still your 1 1 testimony today? 12 MS. KELLY: Is what still his 1 3 testimony ? 1 4 MR. SWEENEY: What I gave at the lines 1 5 I just read, Nancy. 16 A. Well, let me answer it this way. That 1 7 workmen's compensation was placed in front of me. 1 8 It was the first time I saw it. I had no 1 9 previous knowledge of it. It was put in front of 2 0 me during my deposition. And that, at that time, 2 1 was my answer. 2 2 Q. Thank you. Now - - 2 3 A. Riley Stoker built thousands of 2 4 boilers, and one claim against Riley Stoker, I EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 42 1 guess, wasn't really that Riley Stoker could draw 2 a conclusion from that, you know, one case 3 against thousands of boilers. 4 Q. There was a second case in 1957, also, 5 wasn't there? A second workers' comp case? 6 A. I'm not sure of that. 7 Q. And there was also a memo or a letter 8 from Michigan Mutual Insurance Company in '57? 9 A. I have no knowledge of that. 1 0 Q. When did you first begin consulting 1 1 work for Cetrulo & Capone in relation to Riley 12 Stoker? 13 MS. KELLY: Objection. I don't think 14 that's what he said. 15 Q. Let me ask you a different way. When 1 6 did you first -- when you were first contacted 1 7 concerning providing testimony or expert analysis 1 8 or expert investigation concerning Riley Stoker 1 9 in asbestos litigation? 2 0 A. I can't recall, but if I was to 2 1 estimate it, it would probably be back in late 2 2 1987 or in the late '80s, maybe around 1987. 23 * Q. Okay. And I think, as you just 24 testified, the attorneys for Riley Stoker never EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 1 showed you that 1948 comp claim at any point in 2 time prior to February 6th of 2002, correct? 3 MS. KELLY: I object to the form of 4 that question. Could I hear the question again, 5 please . 6 (* Question read back) 7 MS. KELLY: Objection. That question 8 does not phrase at all what he just testified to. 9 Q. Were you shown the 1948 comp claim 1 0 prior to February 6th of 2002 by any attorneys 1 1 representing Riley Stoker? 1 2 A . No , I was not. 1 3 Q As a matter of fact, you were first 1 4 shown that by an attorney from Texas, were you 1 5 not, representing plaintiffs? 1 6 A . Yes. 1 7 Q. Subsequent to 1972 when you indicated 1 8 that you became aware that asbestos thermal 1 9 insulation products could be hazardous based on 2 0 your review of some OSHA regulations, subsequent 2 1 to that time, do you have any knowledge as to 2 2 whether Riley Stoker provided any warnings or 2 3 letters or material to customers of Riley Stoker 2 4 for boilers which had been installed prior to EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 1 1972? 2 MS. KELLY: Object to form. 3 A. I worked in the engineering department, 4 and my knowledge outside of that is limited. 5 Q. So, am I understanding correctly, you 6 don't have any knowledge of what I just asked 7 y ou ? 8 A . Let's put it this way, I don't know 9 Q You don't know is another way of 1 0 putting it. Fair enough. 1 1 Do you know whether Riley Stoker 1 2 advertised in a magazine called "Power"? 1 3 A. Yes, .1 believe they did. 14 Q. In the engineering department, while 1 5 you worked at Riley Stoker, do you ever recall 1 6 seeing "Power" magazines in the department? 1 7 A . Yes. 1 8 Q. Was that something that an engineer in 1 9 the field that you were in would be interested in 2 0 at least perusing? 2 1 A . Yes. 2 2 Q. To your knowledge, is there anyone that 2 3 worked in the requisition department at Riley 2 4 Stoker still alive? And again, let me put a time EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 45 1 frame on it. That worked in the requisition 2 department prior to 1975. 3 A. I don't think there is anybody alive 4 today. Not that I know of. I think the last one 5 died a couple of years ago. 6 Q. Thank you. Do you know what trade 7 organizations Riley Stoker belonged to from 1950 8 to 1980? 9 A. I know they belonged to the American 1 0 Boilermakers Association. I've seen a plaque in 11 a lobby. That is about the extent of my 1 2 knowledge on that point. 1 3 Q. And to your knowledge, from 1953 while 1 4 you worked there through '89, did Riley Stoker 1 5 ever do any air quality type testing at any of 1 6 its manufacturing facilities? 1 7 MS. KELLY: Objection. 18 A. Not that I know of. They may have, but 1 9 I have no knowledge of it. 2 0 Q. Again, at that same time period while 2 1 you worked at Riley Stoker, are you aware of 2 2 Riley Stoker doing any air quality monitoring 2 3 studies at the jobsite where the field boilers 2 4 were erected? EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 46 1 A. I have no knowledge of that. 2 Q. Did Riley Stoker have a safety 3 department during the period of time that you 4 worked there? 5 A. I think they had one person that 6 handled it. My contact with him was in the 7 office concerning file cabinets and that they 8 were properly anchored to the floors. I have no 9 knowledge of what went on in the field. 1 0 Q. You worked at the Worcester facility? 1 1 A . Yes. 1 2 Q. What other facilities from '50 to '80 1 3 did Riley Stoker have? 1 4 A. Well, they had facilities in -- we had 1 5 fabricating facilities in Cornwall Heights, 1 6 Pennsylvania. With the purchase of Union Iron 1 7 Works in I960, we had fabricating facilities in 1 8 Erie, Pennsylvania. Once that was up and going, 1 9 the Cornwall Heights, what we called the Baden 2 0 House shop, closed. B-A-D-E-N. 2 1 In 1969 the Scam Corporation, Skokie, 2 2 Illinois, bought Riley Stoker, and that gave us 2 3 fabricating facilities at what we called the 2 4 Riley Beaird plant. That was in Shreveport, EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 47 1 Louisiana, I think. And also the Abbott Heat 2 Exchanger, which became the Riley Southwest. 3 Previous to that, at the beginning of 4 the -- at the birth of the company, back in the 5 1920s, there were several foundries bought in the 6 early '20s, like Murphy Iron Works and United 7 Machinery Foundry. There was one other company, 8 but this was in the early '20s. The name of the 9 company was changed in 1925 to Riley Stoker. 1 0 Q. I think you said in '69 -- what was the 1 1 name of the company that purchased Riley Stoker 12 that you just mentioned? 1 3 A. Scam Company, Skokie, Illinois. 1 4 Q. Prior to that corporate transaction, I 1 5 would like to get an idea as to, in your opinion, 1 6 approximately how many employees Riley Stoker 1 7 had? And I'm not talking about union guys you 1 8 might hire to erect a boiler someplace, but do 1 9 you have any idea as to how many employees Riley 2 0 Stoker might have had? 2 1 MS. KELLY: What time period are we 2 2 talking about? 23 MR. SWEENEY: Prior to that '69 2 4 purchase. Say '68. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 1 A. Well, the company grew over the years, 2 so it's pretty hard for me to put an exact figure 3 on that. You know , it varies. It varied with 4 the contracts. 5 Q With the e c onomy ? 6 A. And with the economy, you know. I can 7 tell you this, in the Worcester office, when we 8 were back in the '70s, we probably had 300 people 9 in the Worcester office. 1 0 Q. How about in the '60s at Worcester, 1 1 more or less? 1 2 A. In the '60s it would have been less. 1 3 Q. Do you have any idea as to whether 14 Worcester would have been the largest facility 1 5 that Riley had? 16 A. Office, yes. There was no 1 7 manufacturing in Worcester, so that would make 1 8 them the largest office. 1 9 Q. So, there was no manufacturing in 2 0 Worcester? 2 1 A . No . 2 2 Q Are you aware of - - question withdrawn 2 3 The time period of 1953 through 1980, 2 4 are you aware of any medical monitoring by Riley EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 49 1 Stoker of any of its employees for any type of 2 respiratory illnesses? 3 A. I have no knowledge of that. That 4 wouldn't be done in the office, and it was not an 5 engineering concern. 6 Q. Did Riley Stoker have any type of 7 medical director, again, from '50 through '85? 8 A. Not that I know of. 9 Q. And you never saw any employees being 1 0 given chest x-rays or being sent for chest x-rays 1 1 that you're personally aware of? 1 2 A. Not that I know of. 1 3 Q. If I could just go back to Contract No. 14 S-9659, Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford, and I 1 5 realize you told me before that this was a Union 1 6 Iron Works contract? 1 7 A . Yes . 1 8 Q. But the specifications or blueprints 1 9 that I've just opened up, I just want to ask you: 2 0 In general, is this similar tothe type of 2 1 engineering drawings that you would have 2 2 participated in in your work for Riley? 2 3 MS. KELLY: Objection to form. Not 2 4 limited in scope and time. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 50 1 A. What we're looking at here is what we 2 call a baffle. It's the inside of a boiler. And 3 it appears to be from what we call a four-drum 4 boiler. As far as I know, Riley Stoker -- this 5 is Union Iron Works. I never worked at Union 6 Iron Works, so by that measure, I guess, I never 7 would have made a drawing typical or like this 8 one. 9 Q. I guess what I'm driving at is that 1 0 drawings of this general type would have been 1 1 things that you would have been involved with; 1 2 not this particular drawing, but drafting like 1 3 this? 1 4 A. A boiler draftsman would prepare 1 5 drawings similar to that one. 1 6 Q. Okay. You can see my knowledge of 1 7 engineering is very limited. The engineering 1 8 department at Riley, when you worked there, could 1 9 you just sort of walk me through how the 2 0 engineering -- let me start again. I'll withdraw 2 1 that question. 2 2 Could you just walk me through what you 2 3 would do to produce or to draft the plans for a 2 4 fie1d-erected boiler? What would you receive, EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 51 1 what would you do with it? Could you just walk 2 me through that? 3 A . I'll try. It would begin with what we 4 call the proposal drawing that went out with our 5 proposal documents showing the customer or the 6 consultant engineer that this is what we are 7 proposing to do, and we would indicate on the 8 drawing the approximate size of the boiler. 9 If the contract was accepted, then from 1 0 that information we would now put the engineers 1 1 to work to give us a good concept, a definite 1 2 concept, of how big that boiler was to be. 13 You know,we are now talking about 14 furnace volume, we are talking about boiler 1 5 heating surfaces, we are talking about 1 6 superheaters, we are talking about reheaters. 1 7 And when this became definite, we would 1 8 now make a general -- what we call a general 1 9 arrangement drawing, which are some of the 2 0 drawings you see here. This would show the 2 1 entire boiler. 2 2 Once that was done, we worked in 2 3 groups. That drawing was passed on to a group 2 4 that needed the work, and from there on, the EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 52 1 group leader would take that drawing and assign 2 detail drawings to the draftsmen. They would 3 prepare the detail drawings, as best they could. 4 The drawing could go from there to a 5 man that's been around for a while and knew what 6 it was all about. He would check the drawing. 7 The drawing from there would go to the 8 requisitioning department and the parts would be 9 put down on the requisition. 1 0 That requisition and the drawings - - 1 1 the requisitions would be issued to the 1 2 purchasing department, the drawings would be 1 3 issued to the shop, and they would fabricate from 14 that drawing. In a nutshell, that's it. 15 Q. Thank you. The attorney for Riley 1 6 Stoker, pursuant to my requests, provided me with 1 7 a number of documents today, and I would just 1 8 like to, hopefully very briefly, go over these 1 9 with you, ask you general questions, if you have 2 0 seen them before, et cetera, et cetera. That's 2 1 my purpose, in a nutshell. Okay? 2 2 A . Okay. 2 3 Q. I don't think we necessarily have to 2 4 mark these right now. I'm showing you what's EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 53 1 dated -- a document dated or a cover letter dated 2 December 4, 1972 on Riley Stoker Corporation 3 letterhead signed by Thomas A. Standard, 4 supervisor, mechanical design section. 5 Let me ask you first of all: Did you 6 know or had you heard of this Thomas Standard? 7 A . Yes. 8 Q I f you could just, take as much time as 9 you want, but if you could just take a look a t 1 0 that. I want to ask you if you have. prior t o 1 1 today, seen this document ? 12 A . I have seen it here in this very office 1 3 before. 1 4 Q Today or before? 1 5 A . I believe I saw it today or last week. 16 Q Actually, it doesn't matter when. My 1 1 question should be better phrased. While you 1 8 were work i ng at Riley Stoker, had you ever seen 1 9 that document? 20 A. I might have. I can't recall. 2 1 Q. You don't know one way or the other? 2 2 A. Not really. 2 3 MS. KELLY: Are you going to mark 2 4 those, Bob, or no? EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 54 1 MR . SWEENEY: Off the record. 2 (Off the record, 3:29 -3:30) 3 MR . SWEENEY: Back on the record. 4 Q - Mr . Ridda r, I be 1ieve you testified 5 that in approximately 1972 or thereabouts you 6 recall seeing some OSHA material regarding 7 potential hazards or regulations concerning 8 certain asbestos-containing thermal insulation 9 products; is that correct? 1 0 A . Yes. 1 1 Q. And what I would like to do, in order 1 2 to save time, I would like to pass over to you 1 3 some material which Riley Stoker's attorney 14 provided me today, and just ask you: Would you 1 5 look at it, number one, and number two, do you 1 6 recall whether -- question withdrawn -- number 1 7 two, is any of what I'm showing you the material 1 8 you recall reviewing from OSHA in '72? If you 1 9 would just take a look at that. 2 0 A. Well, you know, I really can't recall. 2 1 I saw the whole book in 1972. Whether this was 2 2 part - - I take it that this was part of the book 2 3 that I looked at in 1972. 2 4 Q. I don't know, to be honest. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 55 1 A. And the OSHA regulations covered just 2 about everything in that book, so that's the best 3 answer I can give you. 4 Q. That's fine. Fair enough. As a matter 5 of fact, in '72 you were looking for some 6 regulations for a ladder, weren't you, in a 7 boiler? 8 A. That's exactly right, and the OSHA 9 regulations had a lot to say about ladders, 1 0 platforms and ladders, but they really didn't 1 1 answer my question about the ladders. 1 2 MR. SWEENEY: Nancy, off the record? 1 3 MS. KELLY: Sure. 14 (Off the record, 3:33-3:34) 1 5 MR. SWEENEY: Back on the record. One 1 6 of the requests that I made was for Riley Stoker 1 7 to turn over all of the contract files in its 1 8 possession I think for the State of Connecticut, 1 9 and I might have also asked for Rhode Island and 2 0 New York, but in any event, I've had several 2 1 discussions with Attorney Kelly, and I believe 2 2 it's our agreement that Riley Stoker objects to 2 3 that request for any contract documents, other 2 4 than those contract documents for the jobsites EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 1 identified in the Corbett, Clark, and Murray 2 cases , which have been produced. I think it's 3 also our - - 4 MS . KELLY: If I could just - - 5 MR . SWEENEY: Sure . 6 MS . KELLY: I agree with that. I 7 indicated to Attorney Sweeney that we would 8 produce contract documents that are relevant to 9 these three cases in connection with this 1 0 deposition, and we would take any further issues 1 1 he had concerning the production of any contracts 1 2 beyond that, that we would take that up with the 1 3 court. Can we go off the record? 1 4 MR. SWEENEY: Sure. 1 5 (Off the record, 3:35-3:35) 1 6 MR. SWEENEY: Back on the record. Yes, 1 7 that's my understanding. The issue of contracts, 1 8 other than those relative to the three 1 9 plaintiffs, Clark, Murray, and Corbett that I 2 0 mentioned, is an issue that we'll take up with 2 1 Judge Skolnick. 22 MS. KELLY: That is true. I would say 2 3 for the record, since we're on the record, that 2 4 you have asked a number of general questions EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 57 1 today, and I reserve my right to, I would say, 2 forestall you or preclude you from re-asking the 3 same questions that you've already asked on these 4 general topics, but on the subject of the 5 contracts, I think we're in agreement. 6 MR. SWEENEY: I think you would agree 7 with me, I've done my best not to repeat the 8 questions that were asked in 2002 and other 9 depositions also. 1 0 MS. KELLY: Bob, can we go off the 1 1 record? 12 MR. SWEENEY: Sure. 1 3 (Off the record, 3:36-3:53) 14 MS KELLY: All right. Back on the 1 5 record. 16 ************** 1 7 EXAMINATION BY MS. KELLY: 1 8 Q. Mr. Riddar, I have just a few 1 9 questions, a few follow-up questions for you. 2 0 Would you state your date of birth for 2 1 the record, please? 2 2 A. August 26, 1924. 2 3 Q. And you understand that you were 2 4 produced here today at this deposition as a EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 58 1 ive of Riley Stoker Corporation; is 2 that right? 3 A . Yes. 4 Q And you understand that Cetrulo & 5 Capone represents Riley Stoker as the i r 6 attorneys ; i s that right? 7 A . Yes. 8 Q And you understand that you 're here to 9 testify today a s a former employee of Riley 1 0 Stoker concerning matters relating to Riley 1 1 Stoker? 1 2 A . Yes. 1 3 Q And you understand that Cetrulo & 1 4 Capone arranges for compensation for your time to 1 5 do that / is that right? 1 6 A . Yes. 1 7 Q But you are not an employee of Cetrulo 1 8 & Capone, are you 9 1 9 A . No , I am not. 2 0 Q And you are not a legal consultant to 2 1 C e t r u 1 o & Capone, are you ? 2 2 A . No , I am not:. 23 Q Okay . You recall that Mr. Sweeney 2 4 asked you if Riley Stoker first learned that EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 59 1 asbestos could cause asbestosis in humans in 2 1948. Do you recall that question? 3 A . Yes. 4 Q And you recall that I objected to the 5 form of that question and said that that question 6 called for a medical opinion. Do you recall 7 that ? 8 A . Yes. 9 Q And then you first said "yes" and then 1 0 said "I would agree with that"; is that right? 1 1 A . Yes. 12 Q Were you agreeing with my objection or 1 3 Mr. Sweeney's question? 14 A . I was agreeing with your question 1 5 concerning the medical question. 1 6 Q. You were agreeing with my objection 1 7 that the question called for a medical opinion? 1 8 A. I was agreeing with you, that's 1 9 correct. 20 Q. Okay. And why did you agree that you 2 1 could not give a medical opinion regarding that 2 2 matter; that is, whether Riley Stoker first 2 3 learned that asbestos could cause asbestosis in 2 4 humans in 1948? EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 60 1 A I'm not a medical man. 2 Q. Mr. Riddar, why do you agree with that 3 objection, that you can't give a medical opinion 4 on the question of whether Riley Stoker first 5 learned that asbestos could cause asbestosis in 6 humans in 1948? 7 MR. SWEENEY: I figure I should really 8 jump in with some sort of objection, so I will. 9 This is the first time I have ever heard someone 1 0 asking someone else why they agree with an 1 1 objection, but certainly you can ask. 12 A. Well, I have no medical knowledge. 1 3 That's all I can say. I'm not a doctor. I'm an 1 4 engineer or draftsman or whatever you want to 1 5 call it. 1 6 Q. And concerning this workers' 1 7 compensation claim from 1948 that Mr. Sweeney 1 8 asked you about, I believe you testified that 1 9 that was one claim; is that right? 2 0 A . Yes. 21 * Q. And you would agree that one claim over 2 2 many, many years in a company that manufactured 2 3 tens of thousands of boilers does not indicate 2 4 anything with regard to a scientific conclusion EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 61 1 or a medical conclusion that a company might 2 learn? 3 MR. SWEENEY: I really am forced to 4 object again because I think you're asking him a 5 scientific o r medical conclusion . He 's answered 6 it before, s o h e can certainly answer it again. 7 MS . KELLY: I paused in the middle of 8 the question, s o can you please just read him the 9 full question s o he can answer? 1 0 (* Question read back. Page 6 0 ) 1 1 A . Yes 12 Q- Okay . You recall that Mr . Sweeney 1 3 asked you i f you would correct any of your prior 1 4 deposition testimony; is that right? 1 5 A . Yes. 1 6 Q. And in light of today's discussion with 1 7 Mr. Sweeney, is thereanything in your prior 1 8 deposition that youwould like to correct? 1 9 A . No . 2 0 Q. Okay. 2 1 MS. KELLY: I think those are all the 2 2 questions I have. 2 3 **************** 24 EXAMINATION BY MR. SWEENEY: EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 62 1 Q. I don't want to belabor it, sir, but 2 it's significant if a company finds out 3 that one of its workers is making a claim for 4 illness? Wouldn't you find that, at least t o 5 some extent, significant? 6 MS. KELLY: Objection. 7 A. Let's put it this way, I was not aware 8 of it at the time. The case was introduced to me 9 at my last deposition. 1 0 Q . Right. 1 1 A. And what the company did, I don't know. 12 They may have done something or they may have 1 3 not. I don't know. 1 4 Q. If you were in the position at this 1 5 company in '48, or '57 when the second claim came 1 6 in, and you were in charge, would you have done 1 7 some t hing ? 18 MS. KELLY: Objection. I object to the 1 9 form of that question. It calls for speculation. 2 0 Harold, don't speculate. 2 1 A. I was not in that position. 2 2 Q. Do you think somebody - 2 3 A. So, consequently, I cannot tell you 2 4 what I would have done. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 63 1 Q. But you're a safety-conscious-type 2 person, aren't you? 3 A. Our boilers at Riley Stoker, and I 4 speak for the company now, were built to a safety 5 factor of four; that is, for the pressure parts 6 of the boiler. The structural steel was built to 7 a safety factor of two. So, in other words the 8 pressure parts were four times as strong as they 9 needed to be. 1 0 Q. That was to protect people - 1 1 A. That was to protect personnel from 1 2 accidents . 1 3 Q. And if you found out that someone was 1 4 being injured by a Riley Stoker product, you 1 5 would have wanted to know about that and done 1 6 something about it, wouldn't you? 1 7 MS. KELLY: Object to the form. 1 8 Overbroad. Calls for speculation. I 1 9 A. As far as I know, there are no safety 2 0 factors attached to insulation. Had there been 2 1 safety factors, we would have followed them. 2 2 Q. If you found out that someone was 2 3 injured by something Riley Stoker made or 2 4 produced or supplied, you as a safety engineer or EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 64 1 you as an engineer concerned with safety would 2 have wanted to know about that, wouldn't you? 3 MS. KELLY: Objection. Bob, you just 4 asked that question and he answered it. 5 Objection. Calls for speculation. 6 A. I was in the engineering department. I 7 had no say on safety issues. That was handled by 8 somebody else. 9 Q. But safety was something that you think 1 0 was important to you when you worked at Riley 1 1 Stoker? 1 2 A. We used the best material available to 1 3 put into our boilers. As a matter of fact, when 14 I started to work at Riley Stoker, I was told 1 5 that Riley Stoker built the Cadillac of the 1 6 industry, the safest and the best boiler. And if 1 7 you look through the Riley records, I think 1 8 you'll have testimony to that fact from customers 1 9 that were extremely pleased with the product that 2 0 Riley Stoker was putting out. 2 1 MS. KELLY: Okay, Harold. You've 2 2 answered his question. 23 MR. SWEENEY: That's all I have. I 2 4 appreciate it, sir. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING 65 1 MS. KELLY: Okay. Thanks. You're 2 done, Haro 1d. 3 4 (Whereupon, the deposition concluded 5 at 4:03 p.m.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 EPPLEY COURT REPORTING COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. I, LORENE R. EPPLEY, a Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify that the foregoing deposition was taken before me on the 5th day of March, 2 0 0 3 ; That the witness named in the prior to being examined, was by me sworn; deposition, first duly That said deposition was taken before me at the time and place therein set forth, and was taken down by me in shorthand and thereafter transcribed into typewriting under my direction and supervision; That said deposition is a testimony given by the witness objections made at the time of true record of the and of all the examination. I further certify that I am neither counsel for nor related to any party to said action, nor in any way interested in the outcome thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, name and affixed my seal 2 0 0 3. I have subscribed my this 19th day of March Lorene Rf-^E^pley, Not the Commonwealth of Massachus| My Commission expires: May 26 and for PLEASE NOTE: THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY REPRODUCTION THE SAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL AND/OR DIRECTION OF THE CERTIFYING REPORTER. OF EPPLEY COURT REPORTING March 19, 2003 Robert J. Sweeney, Esq. EARLY, LUDWICK & SWEENEY, L.L.C. One Century Tower, 11th Floor 265 Church Street New Haven, CT 06508 In Re: Connecticut Asbestos Litigation Dear Attorney Sweeney: Enclosed herewith is a copy of the deposition ' of HAROLD RIDDAR taken on Tuesday, March 5, 2 003, in the above-captioned case. According to the Massachusetts Civil Procedure, the witness has 30 and sign the deposition transcript. Rules of days to read Please have the witness read and sign the signature page/errata sheet. If the witness has not read and signed the original signature page within 30 days from the above date, it will be de eme d signed. Please have the witness forward the signed signature page/errata sheet to Attorney Nancy Kelly so that she may attach same to the original deposition transcript. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. cc: All Counsel of Record. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS TO DEPONENT After reading this volume of your deposition, indicate any corrections or changes to your testimony and the reasons therefor on the Errata Sheet supplied to you, and sign it. DO NOT MAKE MARKS OR NOTATIONS ON THE TRANSCRIPT VOLUME ITSELF! ERRATA SHEET HANDLING/DISTRIBUTI ON The original of the Errata Sheet has been delivered to Nancy Kelly, Esq. When the Errata Sheet has been completed by the deponent and signed, a copy thereof should be delivered to each party of record and the ORIGINAL thereof delivered to Robert Sweeney, Esq., to whom the original deposition transcript was delivered. PLEASE REPLACE THIS PAGE OF THE TRANSCRIPT WITH THE COMPLETED AND SIGNED ERRATA SHEET WHEN YOU RECEIVE IT. EPPLEY COURT REPORTING SIGNATURE-ERRATA SHEET I, HAROLD RIDDAR, hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have read the foregoing transcript of my testimony and further certify that said transcript is a true and accurate record of my testimony (with the exception of the corrections, additions, and/or deletions noted below). PAGE LINE CORRECTION, ADDITION, OR DELETION Signed under the penalties of perjury this day of, 2 0 0 3. HAROLD RIDDAR EPPLEY COURT REPORTING