Document LgyQrGORbEpBob7B3qmjeLLj3

00' 1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS 23rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 CASE NO. 19785-BH02 3 KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC., 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. 6 DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, ET AL, 7 Defendants. 8 9 10 VOLUME I 11 VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF: JAMES W. RAWLINGS 12 13 DATE: 14 TIME: December 9, 2003 10:15 a.m. to 5:41 p.m. 15 16 LOCATION: 325 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 17 18 REPORTED BY: REBECCA L. FELLA, Registered Professional Reporter, Notary 19 Public, State of Florida at Large 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 W. MARK LANIER, ESQUIRE DARA HEGAR, ESQUIRE 3 ROBERT LEONE, ESQUIRE 4 The Lanier Law Firm 6810 FM 1960 West 5 Houston, Texas 77069 (713) 659-5200 6 On behalf of the Plaintiff 7 PETER A. BICKS, ESQUIRE 8 BARRIE ROSENBERG PRINZ, ESQUIRE 9 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP 666 Fifth Avenue 10 New York, New York 10103 (212) 506-3764 11 On behalf of Defendant Union Carbide 12 13 ALSO PRESENT: Ed Bookbinder, Videographer Visual Impact Communications, Inc. 14 780 Florida Central Parkway, Suite 300 Longwood, Florida 32750 15 (407) 7367-9774 16 I NDE X 17 JAMES W. RAWLINGS 18 Direct Examination by Mr. Bicks 19 Cross Examination by Mr. Lanier Redirect Examination by Mr. Bicks 20 Recross Examination by Mr. Lanier Redirect Examination by Mr. Bicks 21 Certificate of Oath Certificate of Reporter 6 55 191 236 273 276 277 22 Read & Sign letter to Mr. Bicks Errata Sheet 278 279 23 (Errata sheet(s) to be forwarded upon execution) 24 25 00 1 EXHIBITS 2 Exhibit No 1 (Portion of transcript of David Egilman)43 Exhibit No 2 (1970 Asbestos Toxicology Summary) 46 3 Exhibit No 3 (1972 Asbestos Toxicology Summary) 46 Exhibit No 4 (Calidria asbestos brochure) 4 Exhibit No 5 (Article about Dr. Selikoff's work) Exhibit No 6 (Article about Dr. Selikoff's work) 48 50 50 5 Exhibit No 7 (Article by John Myers) 50 Exhibit No 8 (Our ten-year safety failure document) 75 6 Exhibit No 9 (Memo from Castor Oil Company, 7/5/72) 86 Exhibit No 10 (Memo from Mr. Ingalls of 7/22/72) 88 7 Exhibit No 11 (Letter from Degussa) 98 Exhibit No 12 (Letter from Degussa of 12/7/71) 98 8 Exhibit No 13 (Letter to Dr. Stern of 1/5/72) 99 Exhibit No 14 (Letter from Union Carbide of 1/6/72) 104 9 Exhibit No 15 (Letter from Degussa of 1/27/72) 104 Exhibit No. 16 (Letter from Degussa of 1/27/72) 108 10 Exhibit No. 17 (Degussa letter dated 12/7/71) 112 Exhibit No. 18 (Letter of May 30, 1975) 114 11 Exhibit No. 19 (Mellon Institute Special Report) 114 Exhibit No. 20 (Letter from Dr. Dernehl of 6/7/67) 117 12 Exhibit No. 21 (Memorandum of 3/22/66) 126 Exhibit No. 22 (Letter from Union Carbide, 11/30/71) 126 13 Exhibit No. 23 (Memo of 7/24/73 regarding coveralls) 182 Exhibit No. 24 (Kelly-Moore history of sales) 14 Exhibit No. 25 (Interrogatory answers) Exhibit No. 26 (Call report for Baker Castor Oil) 192 192 199 15 Exhibit No. 27 (Memo from Mr. Ingalls of 10/12/71) 202 Exhibit No. 28 (Airborne asbestos report) 203 16 Exhibit No. 29 (1971 Mellon Institute report) Exhibit No. 30 (Union Carbide memo of 3/21/70) 17 Exhibit No. 31 (Letter to Imperial dated 1/3/67) 206 206 216 Exhibit No. 32 (Evaluation of Airborne Asbestos) 221 18 Exhibit No. 33 (Asbestos survey of 12/15/76) Exhibit No. 34 (Evaluation of Airborne Asbestos) 19 Exhibit No. 35 (Asbestos fiber counts, 11/13/73) Exhibit No. 36 (Airborne fiber counts, 6/30/75) 224 262 262 263 20 21 22 23 24 25 00 1 PROC E E D I NG S 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record. The time 3 is 10:15 a.m., and today is December 9th, 2003, and 4 this is the videotape deposition of James Rawlings 5 in the matter of Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., 6 versus Dow Chemical Company, et al. It's being held 7 at the Westin Grand Bohemian Hotel, 325 South Orange 8 Avenue, Orlando, Florida. 9 The court reporter's name is Rebecca Fella 10 from Henjum Goucher Reporting Services. The videotape 11 specialist is Ed Bookbinder for Visual Impact Communications. 12 Will counsel please introduce themselves? 13 MR. LANIER: This is Mark Lanier. I 14 represent Kelly-Moore. I've got with me Bob Leone, 15 Kelly-Moore's legal team, or my legal team I should 16 say, and Dara Hegar, another lawyer with us. 17 MR. BICKS: And I'm Peter Bicks, and I'm from 18 Orrick, Herrington for Union Carbide, and Barrie 19 Prinz Rosenberg is with me today. 20 MS. PRINZ: It's the other way around. 21 MR. BICKS: I'm sorry; Rosenberg Prinz. 22 MR. LANIER: I knew that. 23 For the record, I do need to put on here that 24 while Judge Gayle had ruled that we could go first 25 and do hour-and-a-half divisions, it has come to my 00 1 attention in preparing for this deposition that I 2 have not yet been given at least one prior 3 deposition transcript of Mr. Rawlings. I am not in 4 a position to assess whether or not that enables me 5 to take a full deposition. 6 I have decided to let Mr. Bicks go first, and 7 I don't think we need to do the hour and a half time 8 division. And with all that on the record, we're 9 ready to go. 10 MR. BICKS: And just because Mr. Lanier put 11 on that on the record, let me make the record very 12 clear that we have complied with any request that 13 has been made by Mr. Lanier, and I'm not aware of 14 any request by him for Mr. Rawlings' prior 15 testimony. 16 Had he made such a request, of course we 17 would have given him prior testimony of 18 Mr. Rawlings, but I'm not aware of such a request. 19 MR. LANIER: I've got a specific document 20 request for previous transcripts of depositions in 21 asbestos cases of Union Carbide employees or 22 witnesses. I mean, it's -- it's as plain as black 23 and white. 24 Get a copy of that and file a motion to 25 compel immediately with the document request and ask 00 1 for fees for going down there. 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter 3 please swear in the witness if we're ready. 4 THEREUPON: 5 JAMES W. RAWLINGS 6 having been first duly sworn to tell the truth, the 7 whole truth and nothing but the truth, testified as 8 follows: 9 DIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. BICKS: 11 Q. Good morning, Mr. Rawlings. 12 A. Good morning, Peter. 13 Q. Did you work for the Union Carbide 14 Corporation? 15 A. Yes, I did. 16 Q. And for how many years? 17 A. Just a little over 26 years. 18 Q. And is that where you spent most of your 19 professional career? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. At some point were you in charge of the 22 Asbestos Group? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And when was that? 25 A. Well, it was approximately from 1971 through 0007 1 some -- sometime probably late '76. 2 Q. We are here today in Florida. Why are you 3 down in Florida now? 4 A. I live part of the year down here. I'm a 5 snowbird . I -- when it snows in the North, I come 6 South. 7 Q. And are you retired today? 8 A. 9 Q. 10 today? Yes. Is anyone paying you to come testify here 11 A. No. 12 Q. Why are you here? 13 A. I'm here just because I have a very strong 14 feeling about trying to bring a perspective to all of 15 this -- I don't know how to characterize it, but all of 16 these lawsuits that are being brought against Union 17 Carbide. 18 I -- I think that basically there are a lot 19 of things that get lost in the translation, principally 20 the fact that we were a very small potato in the 21 asbestos field and a small organization, very small 22 business 23 We came late to asbestos. We came at a time 24 when the publicity about toxicology -- toxicology of 25 asbestos was -- was rampant, and just, you know, we -- 0008 1 we made an attempt to build a business on specialty 2 asbestos products in a time, I think, of near hysteria, 3 mostly on the part of the media, about the dangers of 4 asbestos 5 Q. Let me ask you a little bit about your -- 6 your family background. Tell us a little bit about 7 that. 8 A. Well, I was born and raised in Provo, Utah. 9 I came out of a family that had been there for a number 10 of generations. I mean, some of my ancestors crossed 11 the plains with Brigham Young, and it was in the days 12 before the atomic family. 13 When I grew up I had aunts, uncles, cousins 14 galore. We didn't exactly live in a compound, but there 15 was a part of Provo, Utah, where probably every other 16 house had some of a relative. 17 It was very secure kind of upbringing in a 18 place like that. I mean, I don't think you see that 19 much anymore. On the other hand, you pay a price in 20 privacy, that is quite obvious, in a situation like 21 that. 22 My wife originally came from Portland, 23 Oregon. We met in college. We were married in 1952 24 while I was in the Air Force, so we celebrated our -- in 25 2002 our 50th wedding anniversary. 0009 1 We have five children. We have three boys, 2 two girls. My oldest boy is a reporter for a newspaper 3 in Louisiana, and his wife is the head of the art 4 department at Thibodaux -- at Nichols State University 5 in Thibodaux, Louisiana. 6 My oldest daughter is an attorney. She's 7 currently the deputy city attorney for the City of Santa 8 Rosa, California. Her husband is a practicing attorney 9 in private practice in Napa. 10 The -- my daughter Diane is a -- is a 11 teacher, and she's married to a US Navy captain. They 12 reside in -- just out -- just outside the District of 13 Columbia. 14 That daughter has two children by a prior 15 marriage. My daughter in California has two children 16 also. Her -- her oldest daughter, my oldest grandchild, 17 just started at the University of California Davis. 18 The -- Scott, my middle son, he's a computer 19 systems manager for the Ace Hardware Company, and he's 20 principally concerned with maintaining their -- their 21 internal programs for inventory control and so forth. 22 And the youngest child is a -- is a -- works 23 for a subsidiary of AOL, which is a broadway.com. He's 24 the content editor for the -- how does he put it -- the 25 non-broadway ends of it. He keeps track of all of the 0010 1 touring companies and where they are and ticket 2 information and information like that. And he and his 3 wife have a baby that was just born this past February. 4 I'm probably giving you more information than 5 you need. 6 Q. It's always nice to hear about people's 7 family. Tell me a little about - 8 MR. LANIER: Objection; form. 9 You skipped your fourth kid. 10 THE WITNESS: Stephen is a reporter. Suzanne 11 is the attorney. Diane is the teacher. Scott is 12 the computer maven for -- for Ace Hardware, and 13 David, the youngest one, is with broadway.com. 14 MR. LANIER: Thank you. 15 BY MR. BICKS: 16 Q. Tell us about your years in the military 17 service. 18 A. Well, I joined the US Air Force in the summer 19 of 1950, and subsequently I -- I joined the pilot 20 training program, the cadet program; went through 21 preflight, Randolph Air Force Base in San Antonio; went 22 through basic flying school at Parren Air Force Base, 23 Sherman, Texas; advanced flying at Reece Air Force Base 24 in Lubbock, Texas. 25 My first assignment was just a temporary one 0011 1 at Waco, and from there on out I -- I was selected when 2 I was halfway through advanced flying school for the 3 fighter interceptorall weather fighter interceptor 4 program, so I was dedicated even before I graduated. 5 And so my subsequent training was going 6 through the all weather school at Louie Air Force Base 7 in Georgia, going through the intercept school at -- at 8 Tyndall Air Force Base in the Florida Panhandle. 9 After that I was assigned to the -- the 96th 10 Fighter Squadron in the New York, Washington Air Defense 11 Command and then subsequently went to the 59th Fighter 12 Squadron, which was an oversized split squadron. Part 13 of it was at Goose Bay, Labrador; the other part was at 14 Tulich, Greenland. 15 And when I came back to the zone of interior 16 from that assignment, I left, came off active duty with 17 the Air Force. 18 Q. What year did you start with Union Carbide? 19 A. I started with Union Carbide in 1960. 20 Q. And have you heard of the word carbider? 21 A. I certainly have, yes. 22 Q. And tell us what that word means. 23 A. Well, you know, in locations where Union 24 Carbide had a lot of operations, and I -- you know, two 25 that come to mind right off the bat are the South 0012 1 Charleston, West Virginia area, which for most of my 2 career was -- was an area where we had more employees 3 than any other single location. 4 It was near the end of my time at Union 5 Carbide. Texas City exceeded South Charleston, but the 6 other one, of course, was, and particularly in 7 connection with mining and metals, was at Niagara Falls, 8 New York. 9 And you had a situation where people, you 10 know, multigenerations of people would work for Union 11 Carbide operations in those areas, so you had that kind 12 of continuity. 13 I think Carbide was a champion of promoting 14 from within, which gives employee, I think, an 15 identification with a corporation that they might not 16 otherwise have. 17 But I -- what -- and one anecdote, if I may, 18 my last assignment with Union Carbide when I was CEO of 19 Union Carbide Southern Africa, we were invested in South 20 Africa, and of course, there was a disinvestment 21 movement because of the apartheid government that was in 22 power at that point in time. 23 And we were involved with Reverend Sullivan's 24 initiative to -- to assist the majority in -- in South 25 Africa in the industrial area, and as an alternative to 0013 1 just merely pulling out of South Africa and going 2 elsewhere, and I used to try -- well, I -- back that 3 up. I didn't try, I went with other corporations 4 involved with Sullivan to universities, because there 5 was a -- kind of a center point for the objection to 6 doing business, continuing to do business in South 7 Africa. 8 And African-American students at the 9 university were, you know, particularly vocal about 10 their criticism that we would try to tell about the 11 Sullivan principles, and it wasn't, you know, always an 12 easy job. 13 And at -- at one point in time an 14 African-American student in a question and answer period 15 stood up and said that she wanted to make a statement 16 and, you know, you're usually prepared for something 17 pretty derogatory. And she proceeded to say that, you 18 know, her father had worked at the Carbide and his 19 father before him had worked at the Carbide at Niagara 20 Falls. 21 Well, Carbider and Carbide and she said that, 22 you know, it enabled her family to live a -- a middle 23 class existence and it gave her father enough 24 wherewithal to educate all of his children and she 25 thought it was a fine company. 0014 1 You know, it's something that would almost 2 drop you through the floor, but I think it's the epitome 3 of that, you know, are you a Carbider or -- or do you 4 work for the Carbide. 5 Q. Did that sense of belonging exist at all 6 levels of Union Carbide? 7 A. I think so, yes. Yes. 8 Q. You said you started in about 1960. 9 What was your position when you got involved 10 with the Asbestos Group? 11 A. Well, I had come to the Mining and Metals 12 Division as a -- as a vice president, and I was director 13 of financial control, personnel, now human relations, 14 and the government relations for the division. 15 Q. Were you the person ultimately in charge of 16 the Asbestos Group from 1971 to 1976 or 1977? 17 A. 19 -- I think late 1976, but, you know, I'm 18 not exactly clear just exactly when that -- that took 19 place. Well, it had to be in 1976 because in 1977 I 20 know Bob Folkman had succeeded me, so sometime late in 21 1976. 22 Q. And were you the person ultimately in charge 23 during that time? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. When did you retire from Union Carbide? 0015 1 2 3 A. July 1986. Q. And what did you do after that? A. I went to -- to Zimbabwe as the US 4 ambassador. 5 Q. And who appointed you as the US ambassador? 6 A. Ronald Reagan. 7 Q. And did you also serve under President Bush? 8 A. Yes, I did. For -- President Bush was 9 inaugurated in 1989, and I stayed on for, I think, four 10 months at -- at his request. 11 Q. I want to ask you some questions about Union 12 Carbide generally. 13 How long has Union Carbide been around? 14 A. Well, it's well over a hundred years old. It 15 dates back to, you know, probably 1875 to 1884, 16 somewhere in there. 17 Q. And back in the early 1900s, did Union 18 Carbide make a chemical called acetylene? 19 A. Yes, they did. You know, in the years right 20 after the Civil War a Confederate veteran, Major 21 Moorehead, was experimenting with something new, which 22 were electric furnaces, and he would put in small 23 hydroelectric plants to develop direct current power 24 that would -- would fire one of these furnaces. 25 And you'd have two electrodes, carbon 0016 1 electrodes, sticking in a -- in a bath, and he could - 2 he could achieve temperatures that never before had been 3 achieved in furnaces. I mean, the typical smelting 4 furnace using coal as the, burning coal as the heat 5 source wouldn't create anywhere near the temperatures 6 that you could get in one of these small electric 7 furnaces. 8 And so he tried to metals of oxides where 9 that -- where they'd never been able to achieve metals 10 before, and he was experimenting with calcium. He was 11 trying to make calcium metal. 12 Now, he had no idea what the -- what the 13 characteristics of calcium metal were, but trying to 14 make this he came up with some sort of glop that he knew 15 was not calcium metal. And he threw it in a water 16 quenching tank, and all of the sudden these gas bubbles 17 started to come out. 18 Well, in time he realized that what he had 19 made was calcium carbide, and calcium carbide when you 20 introduce water produces acetylene gas. 21 And so he at some point in time was looking 22 for capital to start a company where he would install 23 acetylene generators, and in places where they 24 weren't -- that you couldn't access natural gas, you'd 25 use it for illumination and heating, pipe it centrally 0017 1 for street lights and -- and home cooking and home 2 heating. 3 And he went to People's Gas and Electric, 4 which was a public utility in Chicago, and the people 5 who were the major investors in People's Gas and 6 Electric were the initial investors and people who 7 capitalized Union Carbide, and, you know, the initial 8 foray was the generation of acetylene gas. 9 Q. And was that used for things like city -- to 10 light city streets, bicycles and railroads and things 11 like that? 12 A. Yes, indeed. 13 Q. Ferro alloys, was Union Carbide involved in 14 that? 15 A. Very much so.The ferro alloys are -- are 16 metallic alloys that can be used in steel to give it 17 various properties, and so Union Carbide, and again 18 building on Major Moorehead's experience with electric 19 furnaces, began building electric furnaces where there 20 was cheap power available. 21 And Niagara Falls had a new power plant up 22 there that was based on diverting water around the 23 falls, a hydroelectric plant. The power was cheap, and 24 Carbidelocated its first ferro alloy operation there to 25 fire its electric furnaces. 0018 1 And Carbide predominately was involved, 2 although there were other -- other ferro alloys that the 3 -- ferro chromium, which is a principal constituent of 4 stainless steel, an addition to steel to make stainless 5 steel out of it, and vanadium, ferro vanadium, which is 6 a constituent to get what is known as high-strength, 7 low-alloy steel, which is primarily where you need 8 higher strength than carbon steel, but you can't -- you 9 have -- have to have a lower weight, and so you can 10 reduce the weight, but with the vanadium addition, you 11 can still get the strength of carbon steel. 12 Almost all steel in automobiles, you know, 13 today and for a good many years is high-strength, 14 low-alloy steel with a vanadium addition. 15 And then the last significant farro alloy is 16 farro manganese which gives toughness to steel. 17 Bulldozer blades, the great big power shovel blades 18 where the steel can't be brittle, has to be very, very 19 tough, and that's -- you know, it comes from the 20 manganese addition. 21 Q. Let me ask you about something called 22 electrodes. What are they and what were they used for? 23 A. Well, the electrodes, of course, are the 24 things that you would stick into electrical furnaces and 25 you'd arc them. They are good conductors, and you'd put 0019 1 a tremendously large charge of electricity to them and 2 arc them, and in arcing they would create heat. This is 3 the way you got those very, very high temperatures. 4 Now, there was, you know, a smaller edition 5 of that which had a different name for some reason. It 6 was called the arc carbon, and the arc carbon was the 7 ones where you needed big illumination for construction 8 projects or something like that where you'd need a lot 9 of light so you could work at night when you're building 10 a building. 11 And then the smallest example of arc carbons 12 are in the -- the movie industry. For years the light 13 source for movie projectors in theaters was arc carbons. 14 In fact, Union Carbide received an Oscar back in the 15 '30s sometime for its -- its work in arc carbon 16 illumination of movie projectors. 17 Q. Did Union Carbide make batteries? 18 A. Yes. Under the Ever Ready trademark they -- 19 they made all sorts of batteries from the -- you know, 20 the manganese-based D cells that we still have today to 21 later on very sophisticated batteries, cadmium, 22 chargeable batteries and things like that, but all of 23 the batteries were made under the Ever Ready trademark. 24 They also, you know, made flashlights and attendant 25 equipment too. 0020 1 Q. What about bug spray, did Union Carbide ever 2 make bug spray? 3 A. Yes. Union Carbide, you know, during my time 4 there developed a number of insecticides, mostly for 5 agricultural applications, but some of them were used 6 in, you know, in aerosols preventingbug problems with 7 people. 8 Q. What about, are you familiar with 6/12 bug 9 spray? 10 A. 11 Q. Yes. Was that a product that Union Carbide made? 12 A. Yes. Yes, it was. 13 Q. Was that bug spray used byAmerican troops in 14 World War II? 15 A. Yes, it was. 16 Q. Propane gas, did UnionCarbide make propane 17 gas? 18 A. Yes, Union Carbide made propane gas. I 19 think, you know, Union Carbide's entry into the chemical 20 business or the plastics business too first was with 21 acetylene. 22 Essentially plastics and chemicals are all 23 synthesized from some source that gives you large carbon 24 atoms. And acetylene will do that, but in time the 25 cheaper sources was material that was coming out of - 0021 1 and to this day it still happens -- coming out of oil 2 refineries, and it was the stuff that didn't make 3 natural gas, wasn't methane, wasn't ethane, that was not 4 in the oil, gasoline range. 5 And, you know, to begin with it was just 6 flared. It was still -- you could still burn it, so it 7 was just burned off. And Carbide would take that 8 material and would make the basic building block, which 9 is still the basic building block, for chemicals, 10 synthesizing chemicals and plastics today, which is 11 ethylene glycol. 12 And, you know, it -- they, in effect, had, 13 you know, an add on kind of a -- of a plant that was 14 working with the sludge into the oil company's material 15 to get the big carbon atoms in the form of ethylene 16 glycol. 17 Now, coming out of the ethylene glycol 18 process, they also had a material that wasn't useful, 19 and that was propane gas, and so they developed the 20 business in a division that was known as Pyrofax or 21 Pyrofax Company. 22 It was predicated on very much like fuel oil 23 is today. They had a fleet of delivery trucks. They 24 would take the propane and deliver it to the home, and 25 it was used for cooking and heating primarily in places 0022 1 where natural gas wasn't available. 2 Q. Let me ask you about chemicals that are used 3 in plastics like polyvinyl butane. Have you heard of 4 that? 5 A. Yes, I have. 6 Q. And was that used in automobile safety glass? 7 A. Right. It was one of the -- one of the 8 plastics -- automobile safety glass, you know, and 9 before it was developed, one of the terrible things with 10 automobile accidents is they had ordinary window glass 11 in there and it would shatter and, of course, wound 12 people pretty badly, a lot of facial injuries. 13 And the -- what now you had is you would take 14 that, that material, the polyvinyl butane, and you would 15 sandwich it between two -- two pieces of glass and 16 create, you know, a shatterproof glass that is still 17 standard in automobile windows today. 18 Q. What -- was that kind of plastic used in 19 things like shower curtains, raincoats and belts? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did Union Carbide make the plastic six-pack 22 carriers that are used for six-packs of soda and beer? 23 A. Yes, they did. 24 Q. In World War II, did Union Carbide supply all 25 of the polyethylene that was needed for use in radar? 0023 1 A. To the best of my belief, that's true that 2 they did. 3 Q. Let me ask you about something called 4 radioisotopes for cancer treatment. Was Union Carbide 5 involved in that? 6 A. Yes. Union Carbide had a division called the 7 Nuclear Division. They built a small reactor at Tuxedo 8 Park in New York, and that reactor was used extensively 9 to manufacture radioisotopes that used by -- for to 10 medical treatments. 11 Q. What about synthetic gems used for instrument 12 bearings, did Union Carbide have any role there? 13 A. Yes, they did. They -- again, their basic 14 technology in developing high temperatures, they 15 developed a system of building, importantly, synthetic 16 rubies a crystal at a time. 17 And they would build it up and make a -- a 18 ruby rod, and of course, the primary use of the ruby 19 rods was if you talk about lasersall of their 20 applications that you see today, the thing that -- it's 21 like the LA stands for light amplification, and that 22 amplification comes about from an excitation of ordinary 23 light into something that is, you know, very focussed, 24 very, you know, long range and, you know, can develop in 25 and of itself very high temperatures. 0024 1 But the ruby -- synthetic ruby rods made by 2 Union Carbide were the key, the basis of the -- of the 3 lasers. That's still true today. 4 Q. Tell us what the Lindy Star sapphire is. 5 A. Well, that was another synthetic gem, a 6 synthetic sapphire that they made, and they were -- they 7 sold these commercially to jewelry people like Harry 8 Winston and folks like that. 9 And they're beautiful stones, but they're 10 obviously manufactured because they're so perfect. The 11 lines in them geometrically, you know, are absolutely 12 right on, where a natural sapphire's lines just don't 13 tend to be that perfect. 14 Q. How experienced was Union Carbide with making 15 and selling chemicals and minerals that were used with 16 all these products we've talked about? 17 A. It's sort of -- you know, it was the core of 18 their business, that big effort in the area, the 19 familiarity was tremendous. 20 Q. Did some of these products have potential 21 hazards? 22 A. That's certainly true. I mean, Union Carbide 23 eventually got in the mining business to supply its 24 farro alloy operations with chrome ore, manganese ore 25 and vanadium ore. 0025 1 These were underground mining operations, and 2 start with the hazards that you operate in mining. I 3 mean, at the end of every shift in a mine, they -- they 4 blast, and they're working with high explosives that are 5 bringing down face walls. And when the next shift comes 6 in, they come out and muck out the ore. 7 And, you know, the rock itself gets fractured 8 by the explosion, so you always have to go in and bar 9 down, which is you sound the rock around the face of the 10 ore with a big, long crowbar, and if it sounds solid, 11 you're fine, but if it dings, you know there's something 12 structurally wrong with that. 13 And of course, the thing you're worried about 14 is the -- is the roof of the mine coming down, and so 15 you have to bar down any of the dingy sounding 16 formations, and so you can be entirely free of risk that 17 you won't have a rock fall. It's just impossible to 18 assure that sort of a situation. 19 Then the blasting itself, I mean, there's 20 people working with high explosives underground is 21 another problem. 22 In the farro alloy operations you tap those 23 electric furnaces just the way you do with a steel 24 furnace, and you've got -- you know, you've got people 25 there working with molten metal coming out of those 0026 1 furnaces and going into chill pots. You know, it's not 2 without a certain amount of risk. 3 When you get into the chemical business, 4 there are all sorts of problems with the toxicology of 5 various chemicals, some of them are very useful, but 6 they have -- have to be handled extremely carefully. 7 Q. And how did Union Carbide communicate with 8 its customers about hazardous chemicals? 9 A. Well, they had -- for every product that they 10 sold, they had toxicology reports, and those were made 11 available to the customers and they set forth whatever 12 Carbide knew about the toxicology of the product. 13 Q. Let me talk to you a little bit about the 14 Asbestos Group. 15 What was the size of the Asbestos Group? How 16 many people were involved? 17 A. It was very small. I mean, you know, the 18 King City, I think the total employment in the mill out 19 there was less than 50 people, and I would say probably 20 more like 30; in the marketing end of the thing, a half 21 dozen. 22 Q. And did that half dozen in the marketing end, 23 did those folks report to you ultimately? 24 A. Well, yes. When I first took over 25 responsibility, the smelter and the marketing group 0027 1 reported to me individually. Quite soon after that we 2 changed it around so that the -- both groups reported in 3 to John Myers. It was more -- more efficient use of 4 people. 5 And Myers and the salesmen all came over from 6 the R&D section that had developed the products that we 7 hoped would make the asbestos business a good one for 8 Union Carbide. 9 Q. And you mentioned salesmen. Give us a sense 10 of the salesmen and their backgrounds. 11 A. Well, starting with John Myers, I mean, he 12 was very much of a scientific bent. He had worked in 13 the R&D section of one of the chemicals divisions, and 14 that was true of all of the salesmen, per se. 15 And then Harry Rhodes, you had a guy who 16 really had trained as an industrial hygienist, but if 17 you look at them, if you tried to characterize that 18 small marketing group, very, very high technical input. 19 They weren't -- I'll put it this way. They weren't 20 characteristic of most salesmen. 21 Q. Were they scientists? 22 A. Well, yes, really they were scientists. 23 Q. Let me ask you about the asbestos that was 24 out in California. What was it called? 25 A. Well, it came from the Calidria mining 0028 1 district of California, which is a pretty remote area. 2 It is short fibber, high purity mineral. There is 3 nothing quite like it elsewhere in the world. I mean, 4 the byproduct short fibers that have come from other 5 operations are not of the -- of the purity that you have 6 of what we always called Calidria asbestos. 7 It's a gigantic deposit. It was found by our 8 exploration group when they were looking for something 9 else, and as a matter of fact, they were -- it was 10 during the post-Korean period. 11 Mindful of the fact that we had a lot of - 12 of materials that were produced outside the United 13 States and wouldn't be readily available in a time of 14 war, we started to stockpile them, and we also tried to 15 develop indigenous sources. 16 Now, the commercial grade of chrome ore was 17 about 50 percent chrome oxide, and we knew we had some 18 deposits of chrome in the United States. They weren't 19 commercially viable at that time, but in an emergency 20 time of war, you could use them. The cost would be 21 high, but in an emergency you'd use them. 22 So as part of the stockpiling programs, we 23 not only were stockpiling chrome ore in piles in various 24 locations around the United States, we were going out to 25 try to identify these low-grade deposits that could be 0029 1 used in an emergency. 2 And in the Calidria area the geologists saw 3 some indication there might be low-grade chrome deposits 4 out there, and they were looking for them when they came 5 upon this, you know, rather gigantic asbestos deposit. 6 Q. Did you personally think the Calidria had 7 unique properties? 8 A. Personally, yes. 9 Q. And what was your frame of mind about the 10 possible usefulness of that asbestos? 11 A. Well, first of all, because of the short 12 fiber, it was -- you know, there were certain asbestos 13 markets that we were just precluded from participating 14 in. 15 Q. And what markets were those? 16 A. Well, insulation, we could never participate 17 in insulation with a short fiber. You could never weave 18 short fiber into asbestos cloth. It was unsuited for 19 cement pipe with an asbestos content because of the 20 short fibers. 21 I don't think it was ever -- we took a look 22 at it, but we didn't think it was suitable for brake 23 linings. So there were these markets that, you know, we 24 never had a chance to participate in. 25 Q. Was there any particular type of Calidria 0030 1 that you thought had real potential? 2 A. Well, from the word go, the emphasis was on 3 developing chemically treated short fiber asbestos to 4 make a new set of products. These were called our resin 5 grade asbestos products, and we felt that we -- we could 6 build a business around these. 7 First of all, if you looked at the businesses 8 we could compete in, when you looked at paint and tape 9 joint compounds or you looked at -- at the chrysotile 10 businesses, we couldn't compete with people who were 11 producing on the East Coast because of the freight 12 rates. 13 You know, asbestos is a low-density, 14 high-bulk product that fills up freight cars without 15 getting a great deal of weight into them, and they - 16 the rates were high density -- you know, a high-density, 17 low-weight product is very high, which the freight 18 weights would prohibit us from participating in those 19 markets. 20 The same is true with almost any of the 21 applications where we could, so we were kind of confined 22 of markets that were in the West. We didn't -- we 23 wouldn't have gone into the asbestos business if that 24 was all we could see. 25 Now, it was important for us while we were 00. 1 trying to develop a market for the resin grade products 2 to try to develop some cash flow for the business by 3 participating in these markets, but the ultimate goal of 4 the -- of the Carbide asbestos business was to develop a 5 good, sound, viable market for these new products. 6 There were a lot of new products, but I'm 7 going to tell you about one in particular that we had 8 high hopes for. It was called RG-244, and it was a 9 chemically treated asbestos and it was used as a 10 thixotropy in the plastics industry. 11 Q. What is a thixotrope? 12 A. A thixotrope is a -- I always said it should 13 be called a fixotrope, not a thixotrope, because if you 14 took that product and you put it -- you poured it as a 15 powder or as a pellet in that glass, it would be very 16 much solid and you could fill the glass up, the rest of 17 the glass up with water about to there and you could 18 very slowly turn that glass over and nothing would 19 happen. It would just stay there as a solid, and you 20 could put some energy to it by just doing this 21 (indicating) and it would pour out like water. 22 Now, when you added it to, say, polystyrene 23 as an additive usually in around one percent, it would 24 give that same quality to the resin. And one of the 25 important uses of -- of that resin was making boat 00 1 hulls, so-called fiberglass boat hulls. 2 And you'd start with a mold, a hull mold, 3 where you move from the inside -- from the inside inward 4 and you try to build up a uniform thickness for that 5 hull. 6 And what you do is you start out with what 7 they call a clear gel coat, and while it was still 8 tacky, then you'd lay fiberglass in there, and 9 fiberglass was like reenforcingrod in cement. Then you 10 put another layer on, and these, these layers were 11 applied by spray. 12 Well, when I stay that it was a thixotropy, 13 the last thing in the world you wanted to happen is when 14 you were spraying the top part of the mold is for it to 15 start to run to the bottom of the mold. You're looking 16 for uniform thickness. 17 So you put the -- put the 244 into the 18 product; you'd spray it on. It would -- with the energy 19 of the spray gun it was a liquid. And it would come 20 out, but the minute it would hit that static surface it 21 would become solid, and you could build up these nice 22 uniform layers of the boat hulls. 23 And it was true of shower enclosures, 24 bathtubs, if you look at the Corvette, the -- you know, 25 the plastic body members of that car, anything you were 00 1 making in a mold, it had these properties. 2 And we had made the best mousetrap in the 3 world. I mean, there were other thixotropies, fume 4 silica, but it was nowhere near as effective as our 5 product and it couldn't -- because of its higher cost, 6 it couldn't compete with our product. 7 So this was the kind of product that was 8 going to make the Union Carbide asbestos business, if 9 indeed it could be made a successful business. 10 Q. You mentioned tape joint compound. Was 11 asbestos used in tape joint compound? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And was that done before Union Carbide sold 14 any Calidria? 15 A. Yes. I mean, you know, the tape joint 16 compound business was, you know, well established when 17 we came into the -- into the picture. 18 Q. Based on your history with the Asbestos 19 Group, did you feel that the manufacturers of tape joint 20 compound products were experienced with using asbestos? 21 A. Well, certainly they -- they'd had a long 22 history of -- of using asbestos products in tape joint 23 compounds, yes. There's nothing new to them. I mean, 24 it wasn't -- I'll put it to you this way. The customers 25 that we were trying to develop for RG-244 were people 00 1 who had not used asbestos products before, and that 2 was -- they were certainly a different breed of cat 3 than -- than the chrysotile people or the tape joint 4 compound people who had, you know, long experience with 5 asbestos. 6 Q. And was the experience of the companies in 7 the tape joint compound field, was that learned before 8 Union Carbide even started selling Calidria? 9 A. Yes, quite clearly. 10 Q. Have you heard of a company called 11 Kelly-Moore Paint Company? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And was that a company that was using 14 asbestos before Union Carbide was even selling asbestos? 15 A. I believe that's so, yes. 16 Q. Did you yourself, Mr. Rawlings, think that 17 Calidria could be used safely? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And if you didn't feel that way, would you 20 have allowed Union Carbide to be in that business? 21 A. No. 22 Q. From time to time did you go out to the mill 23 in King City? 24 A. Yes, I did fromtime to time. 25 Q. Why did you go out there? 00 1 A. Well, I was primarily interested in -- in 2 looking at -- we were in a time of change. The 3 threshold limit values were certainly coming down. I'd 4 look at what they had done to reduce dust, what they 5 were working on in that regard, very much interested 6 in -- in that aspect of what was going on out there. 7 I only went out to the mine once because it 8 was a -- a fairly pedestrian mine is what you could call 9 it, but it -- primarily I just wanted to review 10 firsthand their control of dust control programs. 11 Q. And what did you see when you were out there? 12 A. Well, they were doing a very good job, I 13 think. You know, every -- it seemed like every time I 14 got out there, you know, there was some pretty marked 15 improvements in -- in dust control. 16 Q. Was the health and safety of the people who 17 worked out at King City something that you paid 18 attention to? 19 A. Well, very much so. In Union Carbide's 20 culture, I suppose you'd call it that, any manager 21 having responsibility for -- ultimate responsibility for 22 a product was taxed very hard for the health and safety 23 of the employees. 24 You know, most of the time while I was there 25 it was a primary factor in determining, you know, the 00 1 level of bonuses that you would receive if you were in, 2 and the health safety program cascaded down from the top 3 of the corporation. 4 Q. Did -- in the King City was there a medical 5 monitoring program in place? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And are you aware of any King City worker who 8 has developed an asbestos-related disease? 9 A. To my knowledge, no, there have been none. 10 Q. Tell me, are you familiar with how Calidria 11 is mined? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Tell us how it'smined. 14 A. Well, the -- the deposit is on the surface. 15 You don't -- there's no overburden to remove. And you 16 might call it a open cast mine, but all we did was just 17 terrace a hillside. In, you know, the best of all 18 mining worlds, we were developing an ore. 19 Everything that we took off the hillside was 20 ore, so we had a, you know, a mining plan, if that's 21 what you could call it, just to terrace it so it was 22 easier to -- to take off the stuff with a bulldozer and 23 load it on the trucks, but it was -- it was a pretty 24 rudimentary mine. We never used explosives out there. 25 Q. Well, how does that mining that you described 00 1 compare to the way that Canadian asbestos is mined? 2 A. Well, most of those were open pit mines too. 3 They weren't underground mines, but they were huge pits 4 and they had to remove a lot of overburden before they 5 could get to the ore. 6 And, you know, I've only seen pictures of 7 those Canadian pits, but, you know, they -- they looked 8 to be 70, 80 meters deep and, you know, as long as a 9 half mile. And that is really some different way of 10 mining. 11 And, you know, I think they had to use 12 explosives to -- certainly with the overburden. I don't 13 know whether when they were in ore they used it, but -14 Q. How much public information was there about 15 the risks of asbestos when Union Carbide was involved in 16 the business? 17 A. Well, you know, it was -- you could pick up a 18 newspaper about any day of -- of the week and there 19 would be some story in there. There was a -- kind of a 20 media frenzy at that point in time with respect to 21 asbestos toxicology, and the -- you know, just driven 22 home to you that this was a problem that the media was 23 involved with. It was getting great exploitation. 24 There were -- there were things that, you 25 know, we found kind of upsetting. Our competitor for 0038 1 the 244, the fume silica, had a threshold limited value 2 too that we thought was -- the industry was kind of 3 haphazard about complying with it, but you'd never - 4 you know, the media was on the asbestos. 5 And, you know, part of it was the fact that 6 the disaster, which was the shipyard insulation 7 operations of World War II, were -- in that period we 8 were starting to see many, many deaths from asbestosis 9 and lung cancer and other things. 10 So, you know, it wasn't a frenzy that was 11 without merit, but it was -- you were having a lot of 12 people that have worked in shipyards during World War 13 II -- World War II starting to die during that period. 14 Q. And was Calidria used in any of those 15 shipyards? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Could you pick up a newspaper or a magazine 18 during the time period that you were involved with 19 asbestos and not see something that talked about the 20 risks? 21 A. Well, you know, it wasn't daily but, you 22 know, it seemed like that sometimes. It was, you know, 23 it was a very hot topic as far as the media was 24 concerned. 25 Q. Could you go to the public library and read 0039 1 about the hazards? 2 A. Yes, you could. 3 Q. Did you yourself do anything so that you knew 4 about the hazards of asbestos when you became involved 5 in the business? 6 A. Well, when -- when I knew I was going to take 7 over the business as an additional duty to my staff 8 jobs, I -- I went into a very intensive period of -- of, 9 you know, getting myself up on the learning curve. 10 It was helpful to have a sales group that, 11 you know, was of a scientific bend of mind because they 12 could fill me in on a lot of data. And Harry Rhodes in 13 particular was very helpful, but then the industrial 14 hygienist, Paul McDaniel, who was assigned to asbestos, 15 among other things, coming out of the Carbide Medical 16 Group was helpful. 17 And Dr. Dernehl, who headed up our Medical 18 Group at Union Carbide, and his staff, of course, was 19 pouring over all of these reports and whatnot because 20 they were -- some of the, you know, some of the reports 21 were controversial. 22 There was a lot of argument about whether the 23 scientific method used was -- was adequate in doing 24 these studies, and it was a complicated situation 25 because it's kind of long-term exposure as far as 0040 1 asbestosis and cancer are concerned that determined this 2 statistical excess of cases vis-a-vis some sort of 3 control group. 4 And the long term was a complicating factor 5 because you'd sit there and say to yourself, well, where 6 can you go find, if you want to do a current study, the 7 history of somebody that was working in asbestos going 8 back 30 years. It was difficult to find records that 9 would enable you to do that. 10 It -- it was inherent in the thing of the - 11 further complicated by mesothelioma which was, you know, 12 a rare form of cancer, but apparently there was, you 13 know, evidence coming through that massive exposures 14 that had happened 20 years ago but not necessarily a 15 continuous cumulative exposure might be a precipitating 16 factor. 17 So it was difficult for people trying to do 18 studies because of the reconstructing the history, say, 19 of a 30-year period and reconstructing a base group to 20 compare it with over a similar period of time was, I 21 would say was all but, you know, impossible then, but 22 the scientists were delving with it -- you know, dealing 23 with it as best they could. 24 And so we independently, looking at all of 25 these various studies, made a judgment with respect to 0041 1 what we thought were the reasonable -- the most 2 reasonable studies, the ones with the moist validity, 3 and based on that determination we moved forward in the 4 asbestos business. 5 Q. And were these studies that you've talked 6 about, were these public studies? 7 A. Yes. Yes. 8 Q. And did Union Carbide make these studies 9 available to its customers? 10 A. Well, certainly in the toxicology report we 11 referred to them fairly often. 12 Q. How much time did you spend yourself going 13 through this process of learning about the hazards of 14 asbestos? 15 A. You know, for probably about eight or nine 16 weeks it was very intensive. I mean, you know, I - 17 I've been a staff man. I was now given responsibility 18 for a business -- business with a lot of complications 19 and, of course, the biggest factor you had to deal with 20 was toxicology and the -- the media frenzy surrounding 21 asbestos. 22 Q. And after that work that you did, did you 23 form a view about whether or not Calidria could be used 24 safely? 25 A. Yes, I did. 0042 1 Q. And what was your view? 2 A. My view was that it could. You know, if I 3 had -- if that wasn't my view, I would have, you know, 4 stopped the project in its -- in its tracks -- not, you 5 know, it wasn't even altruistic because it would bear on 6 my -- my bonus money and everything else if I went 7 forward with something where I was placing our own 8 employees in danger, and, you know, certainly if you 9 were somehow transferring that kind -- you know, that 10 sort of thing to your customers, it would be doublely 11 bad. 12 Q. You said that you went out to King City to 13 visit the mill from time to time? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. When you were out there, were you yourself 16 exposed to asbestos? 17 A. Yes. Well, I was exposed to whatever the 18 workers were exposed to. 19 Q. And - 20 A. I didn't go around in abubble. 21 Q. Were you concerned about your health when you 22 were out there, out at the King City mill? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Let me ask you about the way that Union 25 Carbide and the Asbestos Group communicated health 0043 1 hazards to its customers. 2 What was the general policy in the Asbestos 3 Group about giving out health information? 4 A. Well, the general policy -- you have to look 5 at the -- our toxicology -- toxicology reports were - 6 were really the basis of the information that we -- we 7 gave out, and we gave that out on a regular basis to - 8 to customers. 9 The information we gave to our own employees 10 was complete. We had dialogue on all of these subjects 11 with them. They had meetings at King City to discuss 12 it. They were certainly privy to our views and -- and 13 to the basis upon which those views were developed. 14 But, you know, that was -- that wasn't 15 anything that was particularly true of asbestos. That 16 was just true of Union Carbide generally. We had a 17 toxicology report on -- on all of our products, and they 18 were made available to the public generally and 19 particularly to -- to customers, always to customers. 20 Q. Let me ask you this, and I -- I'm going to 21 mark as an exhibit the testimony of an expert witness 22 for Kelly-Moore who has testified in this case, and 23 we'll call it Rawlings' Exhibit 1. 24 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 1 was marked for 25 identification.) 0044 1 BY MR. BICKS: 2 Q. This is the testimony of somebody named David 3 Egilman, and if you open it up, I highlighted something 4 that I wanted to ask you about. 5 Are you with me? It's hard to see, but it's 6 page 101. 7 A. It's page 101, yes. 8 Q. The one at the bottom. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. It's lines 12 to 17, and the question was -- 11 A. So what your investigation and what you're 12 telling us today is that Union Carbide gave to 13 Kelly-Moore the asbestos toxicology report that talked 14 about the safe level under the TLV and that one of the 15 things -- and that's one of the things that Kelly-Moore 16 relied on. 17 Q. And the answer he says there is right? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And turn the page to exhibit -- page 104, and 20 it says there, the question is, Let me show you what is 21 Egilman Exhibit 8, which is another copy of the 22 toxicology report that Union Carbide revised. And I 23 presume your testimony is going to be the same that 24 Kelly-Moore received that document. And the answer is, 25 0045 1 2 3 4 right, based on previous testimony. Do you see that? A. I'm -- I'm kind of lost. I mean, page 103 over to -- here we are, 104. -- I see where you are right now. Okay. I go from Right. I 5 Q. And then the question at line 7 is, And let 6 me show you Exhibit 9, which is actually a Calidria 7 asbestos tape joint compound brochure. I presume your 8 testimony also is that Kelly-Moore received a copy of 9 that document as well? And the answer there is, 10 correct? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Based on your experience at the Asbestos 13 Group and the person in charge, do you think this expert 14 for Kelly-Moore got it right when he said that 15 Kelly-Moore had gotten Union Carbide's toxicology 16 reports? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What was the purpose of preparing those 19 reports in the firstplace? 20 A. Well, Union Carbide made a lot of chemical 21 products. Certainly there were metallurgical products 22 that we made that had a hazard connected with them, and 23 we simply had to tell people we were selling those 24 products to what those hazards were. There was -- you 25 know, it -- what can I say? It's part of -- part of 0046 1 very strong corporate procedures that came to bear on 2 that. 3 Q. Is really the only way that you can do 4 business as a company that sells minerals and chemicals 5 to educate your customers? 6 A. Well, it's true. I mean, you know, the -- 7 that's -- that's what these things do. They educate 8 them. In effect you tell them what you know about the 9 product, and that -- that's certainly an educative 10 process. 11 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 2 was marked for 12 identification.) 13 BY MR. BICKS: 14 Q. Let me put in front of you three exhibits 15 we'll call Rawlings 2. It's UCC Exhibit 153, and let me 16 show you that. This is a status summary mid 1970 17 asbestos toxicology report. Do you see that? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And is this the kind of document that Union 20 Carbide would give out to its customers? 21 A. Yes, it certainly appears to be the kind of 22 thing that we would put out to customers. 23 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 3 was marked for 24 25 0047 1 identification.) BY MR. BICKS: Q. And take a look at UCC Exhibit 68, which 2 we'll call Rawlings 3, which is an asbestos toxicology 3 status summary October 1972 ;is this also the type of 4 report that Union Carbide would give out to its 5 customers? 6 A. Yes. I can't really read the detail there, 7 but certainly on the -- on the basis of the introductory 8 material it is talking about the things that we would 9 tell customers. 10 Q. Take a look, if you would, at page 19131 at 11 the bottom. 12 What is this document, 19131? 13 A. Well, it's a report by the National Academy 14 of Sciences in Washington in 1971; subject, airborne 15 asbestos. 16 Q. And is this the kind of information that 17 Union Carbide gave out to its customers in the Asbestos 18 Group? 19 A. It certainly is, yes. 20 Q. What do you know about the National Academy 21 of Sciences? What is that group? 22 A. Well, it's, you know, a US governmental 23 agency, and, you know, it has a kind of sterling 24 represent -- you know, recognition value in the 25 scientific community. I guess it would come with a high 0048 1 degree of creditability any way you look at it, their 2 pronouncements on things. 3 Q. And why would Union Carbide give out to 4 customers reports done by the National Academy of 5 Sciences? 6 MR. LANIER: Objection to form. 7 A. Well, it's just, you know, it's part of the 8 proposition that, you know, when you talk about a 9 toxicology report, asbestos in that period I've 10 characterized as the, as the media frenzy period, you 11 really had to go further than most people would have to 12 go in getting out toxicological information. 13 And I suppose that basically you could say, 14 well, we -- in our toxicological reports we erred on the 15 conservative side of giving people as much information 16 as we could, because given the -- given the times, it 17 was the expedient thing to do. 18 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 4 was marked for 19 identification.) 20 BY MR. BICKS: 21 Q. Look at UCC Exhibit 26, which we'll call 22 today Rawlings 4. This is a Calidria asbestos SG-130 23 and SG-210 tape joint compound brochure. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And it this also a brochure that Union 0049 1 Carbide gave out to its customers? 2 A. Yes. Well, it was specifically designed for 3 people in the tape joint compound business. 4 Q. Take a look at that document and tell us how 5 much of it is devoted to talking about toxicology. 6 A. Well, a page and a half plus a graph plus, 7 you know, the distribution within Union Carbide of the 8 document. 9 Q. Is it fair to say that most or much of this 10 document deals with asbestos toxicology? 11 A. Most would be appropriate. 12 Q. What kind of impact would giving out 13 information like this have an sales? 14 A. Well, I mean, you know, there isn't any doubt 15 that, again, given the period that this would not 16 exactly be -- further the sales effort. Let me put it 17 this way. Maybe it's an anti-sales document in a sense. 18 Q. Why then would Union Carbide give it out? 19 A. Mostly because, as I say, it -- it was more 20 important that they have all of the information than to 21 get a -- get a digest of it in -- in a sense. 22 Q. Did Union Carbide employees publish 23 information that talked about the health risks of 24 asbestos? 25 A. Yes, they did. 0050 1 Q. And was that something that wasencouraged? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Why? 4 A. I think that Selikoff inparticular at one 5 point in time published a study that was particularly 6 critical of tape joint, the use of tape joint compound 7 containing asbestos, and we felt that it was expedient 8 to not so much refute them but to -- to get -- get 9 information out that indicated that -- our view that 10 asbestos could be safely used in tape joint compounds. 11 (Rawlings Exhibits No. 5 & 6 were marked for 12 identification.) 13 BY MR. BICKS: 14 Q. And let me show you Exhibits UCC 151 and UCC 15 152 which we will mark as Rawlings 4 and 5 - 16 MS. HEGAR: 5 and 6. 17 Q. -- 5 and 6. And are these the articles that 18 you're talking about that publish the work by 19 Dr. Selikoff as well as other information on the hazards 20 of asbestos? 21 A. Yes. 22 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 7 was marked for 23 identification.) 24 BY MR. BICKS: 25 Q. Let me show you what we'll mark as Rawlings 0051 1 7, which is also UCC 119, which I'm going to ask you to 2 take a look at. 3 This is an article that's published by 4 somebody -- by John Myers - 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. -- at UnionCarbide? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And -- and it indicates at the bottom that it 9 was a reprint of a Journal of Paint Technology? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Go to the second page of this, and do you see 12 the paragraph that says, what is the asbestos hazard? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And do you see in the middle a reference 15 there to the disease mesothelioma? 16 A. (No response.) 17 Q. The paragraphsstarts out, a third disease 18 mesothelioma - 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. -- has more recently been associated with 21 persons exposed to asbestos. Did you see that? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And can you read the rest of that paragraph 24 to us? 25 A. Mesothelioma is an extremely rare cancer of 0052 1 the lining of the chest pleura or the abdominal cavity 2 peritoneum. In contrast to the lung diseases, there is 3 some evidence that mesothelioma can occur after brief 4 exposure to relatively high fiber level. 5 Q. And is this the kind of information that 6 Union Carbide put in public documents? 7 A. You can't sweep anything like mesothelioma 8 under the rug. 9 Q. Was Union Carbide open and honest with its 10 customers about the risks of asbestos? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And was information about the risks of 13 asbestos public information? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Could you go to the library and find out 16 about it if you wanted to? 17 A. If you were diligent enough you certainly 18 could. 19 Q. Could you pick up a newspaper to find out 20 about the risks of asbestos? 21 A. Well, it mightsometimes be a bit skewed, 22 but, you know, certainly the warnings of the danger were 23 there. 24 Q. Did youpersonally, Mr.Rawlings, honestly 25 believe that Calidria was a useful product that could be 0053 1 used safely if you did good housekeeping? 2 A. Absolutely. 3 Q. And if you thought anything other than that, 4 would Union Carbide have been involved in that business? 5 A. No, they wouldn't. I mean, you must remember 6 that it was a very small business. If we had been 7 successful with our better mousetrap, if we could have 8 educated the customer, we would have had a very good 9 small business. 10 We ultimately failed because we couldn't 11 convince the customer, couldn't -- couldn't not convince 12 him but that he wouldn't accept the educational material 13 that we furnished to them. 14 Q. Did this ultimately become a business that 15 Union Carbide made a lot of money in? 16 A. No, not at all. 17 Q. Let me ask you, you worked at Union Carbide 18 for over 25 years and worked with the folks in the 19 Asbestos Group for at least six years. 20 What kind of people were those people that 21 you worked with? 22 A. They're a lot of very straight arrow kind of 23 people. I mean, you know, they were, you know, middle 24 to upper middle class type people, well educated. As 25 you point -- you know, the point you made before, they 0054 1 were of scientific bent. They were more scientists than 2 salesmen. The plant people were experienced milling 3 people, you know, but it was a very small group taking 4 it all and all. 5 But Larrison, who was the plant manager for 6 so long, you know, he was a -- he was the type of guy 7 that if you said that an atom bomb will drop in the 8 front yard, he'd say, well, the first thing we've got to 9 do is, you know, go out there and cover it up with dirt, 10 you know, really practical, straightforward sort of a 11 guy. 12 And he ran a tight ship, but I think, you 13 know, he -- I never worried about morale problems out 14 there. He was the kind of guy that was a good morale 15 builder, good leader, good natural leader. They were - 16 they were good people. 17 MR. BICKS: Thank you very much, 18 Mr. Rawlings. 19 MR. LANIER: Do you want to take a quick 20 break or do you want to keep going? 21 THE WITNESS: I -- I wouldn't mind just a 22 short break. 23 MR. LANIER: All right. 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the record. The 25 time is 11:33. Off the record. 0055 1 (Discussion off the record.) 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes tape one of 3 the deposition. Off the record 11:34. 4 (Recess taken from 11:34 a.m. to 11:43 a.m.) 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is tape two of the 6 deposition of James Rawlings. We're on the record. 7 The time is now 11:43 a.m. On the record. 8 CROSS EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. LANIER: 10 Q. Mr. Rawlings, my name is Mark Lanier. I met 11 you for the first time today, true? 12 A. I beg your pardon? 13 Q. Mr. Rawlings, my name is Mark Lanier. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. I met you for the first time this morning; i 16 that true? 17 A. Yes, you did. Yes. 18 Q. I noticed that you called the Union Carbide 19 lawyer Peter. I suppose you've met him before? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Once, twice, multiple? 22 A. Well, I think before mylast deposition we - 23 we met twice before that deposition. 24 Q. So you've given depositions for Mr.Bicks, 25 the Union Carbide lawyer, before this one that we're 0056 1 taking today? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. One other time or how many? 4 A. I've been deposed twice before today. 5 Q. Okay. Did you -- in addition to these other 6 times you've been with Mr. Bicks, were you with him 7 before your deposition today? 8 A. Yes, I was with him for a few minutes before 9 we came in here. 10 Q. But you didn't meet with him yesterday or - 11 A. Yes, I did. I met with him yesterday, yes. 12 Q. What for? 13 A. We talked about, you know, just the general 14 aspects of the case. I was interested in, you know - 15 it was - seemed unusual with one of our customers 16 bringing ction against us as opposed to, you know, 17 somebody was actually injured, suffered some sort of 18 personal 19 asbestos 20 Q. So you all got together yesterday just to 21 talk abo 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. How long did you spend? 24 A. I'd guess an hour and a half, an hour and 45 25 minutes. I didn't time it. 0057 1 Q. Where -- where was this meeting? 2 A. Here. 3 Q. Here being at this hotel? 4 A. At this hotel in anotherroom on this floor. 5 Q. Did Mr. Bicks show you anydocuments or 6 anything like that getting ready for your testimony? 7 A. He -- he showed me a couple of documents, 8 yes. 9 Q. What did he show you? 10 MR. BICKS: Mr. Lanier, I don't mind you 11 asking him that - 12 MR. LANIER: Thank you. 13 MR. BICKS: -- provided you're not going to 14 suggest that it's a waiver of any work product. 15 MR. LANIER: No. I'm -- I'm justasking 16 questions. 17 MR. BICKS: But if you're going to say that, 18 then I'm going to instruct him not to answer just 19 because I don't want any waiver of the work product 20 privilege. If you're going to say you're not going 21 to ever suggest that's a waiver, then you can ask 22 him that. 23 MR. LANIER: I am not suggestingyou showing 24 him documents is a waiver. I don't know what you've 25 shown him, but I don't have any basis forsuggesting 0058 1 that right now. If we reach a point where I think 2 it is a waiver, I'll tell you and you can say, well, 3 don't talk about that or something. 4 MR. BICKS: Fine. 5 BY MR. LANIER: 6 Q. What -- what did he show you? 7 A. Well, I think it's fair to say that -- that 8 some but not all of the documents that he had me look at 9 this morning he showed me. 10 Q. Okay. Kind of like a dry run through of what 11 he was going to show you today or something? 12 A. I suppose you could characterize it that way. 13 Q. Okay. Did he talk to you about the general 14 areas he was going to be asking you about? 15 A. Yes, we -- we talked about them, yes. 16 Q. I mean, did you feel like you needed to 17 practice before you did the deposition? 18 A. No, it wasn't so much practice, but, you 19 know, it -- it kind of -- it's more putting the whole 20 thing in perspective for me. I mean, I -- I didn't want 21 to come in here, you know, absolutely at ends about 22 what -- what we were -- which way this thing is going to 2 3 go. 24 Q. I understand, but one of the things I'm 25 trying to determine is how much of your testimony has 00! 1 been what you know versus how much has been something 2 that's been fed to you by the Union Carbide lawyers. 3 You understand that distinction? 4 A. I understand that question, and I think that 5 I can answer it by saying it's the -- it's what I know, 6 the final analysis that I'm testifying to today. 7 Q. Well, let me give you an example. 8 You testified that Kelly-Moore was using 9 asbestos before Union Carbide sold Calidria to 10 Kelly-Moore; how do you know that? 11 A. How do I know that? 12 Q. Yes, sir. 13 A. Well, I -- I guess I would have to say that I 14 asked for that -- asked that question and I was shown 15 some information that they were receiving it. 16 Q. Who did you ask? 17 A. I asked Mr. Bicks. 18 Q. So that's information you know from talking 19 to the lawyer as opposed to what you knew before you met 20 with Mr. Bicks? 21 A. Well, you know, what I knew was -- was what I 22 knew about tape joint compounders in general. 23 Q. I'm not fussingwith you. I'm just trying to 24 make sure I understand. That Kelly-Moore information is 25 something you knew from -- from what Mr. Bicks told you 00 1 and showed you, it's not something you knew before 2 your -- your meeting with him; fair to say? 3 A. I think it would be fairer to say that I 4 would have answered the question without having seen 5 that information that to the best of my knowledge none 6 of our tape joint compounders came into the business 7 after we did. 8 Q. Do you know about Proko? 9 A. Proko I -10 Q. Proco, P-r-o-c-o, a Texas tape joint compound 11 manufacturer you all sold asbestos to. 12 MR. BICKS: It's P-r-o-k-o. 13 MR. LANIER: K-o. What did I say? 14 MR. BICKS: C-o. 15 MR. LANIER: Thank you. 16 BY MR. LANIER: 17 Q. K-o. 18 A. It doesn't ring anybells. 19 Q. Do you know how many tape joint compound 20 manufacturers in Texas alone you all sold asbestos to? 21 A. No, I don't. 22 Q. Are you sitting here under oath and swearing 23 that all of them were making tape joint compounds before 24 you all start selling asbestos? 25 A. At the best of my knowledge, all of the tape 00 1 joint compounders predated us in the business. 2 Q. Okay. But you don't know that. I mean, you 3 don't know even know who they are in Texas; isn't that 4 true? 5 A. Well, that's -- that's true, but I'm saying 6 to the best of my knowledge, that's -- that would be my 7 testimony. 8 Q. And by that you would mean to be telling the 9 jury that of the ones you know about, they were already 10 doing it, right? 11 A. I suppose that's a -- that's a fair enough 12 statement. 13 Q. All right. Why don't you list those 14 companies for me. 15 A. I couldn't list one. 16 Q. You can't list one tape joint compound 17 company that you know that was making tape joint 18 compound with asbestos before Union Carbide started 19 selling it? 20 A. I couldn't name them, but that's just a 21 problem of my memory. I -- you know, I remember going 22 over, you know, customer by customer the sales because I 23 was that interested in what was happening, and -- you 24 know, of tape joint compounders as a class of customers, 25 but I'll be darned if I remember the names. 00 1 Q. All right. Well, let's go back over some of 2 the areas that you've testified about so far, sir. 3 First I'd like to talk to you a little bit about your 4 personal information. Okay? 5 A. (No response.) 6 Q. Is that all right if we 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. All right. First of all, your educational 9 background is not really as a chemical expert, is it? 10 A. No, it isn't. 11 Q. In fact, truth be told to the jury, you're 12 lawyer? 13 A. That's true. 14 Q. You have a lawdegree? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You went to work for Union Carbide as an 17 attorney? 18 Yes. 19 You'd been out of law school a couple of 20 years, and they hired you to go on staff at their legal 21 department in New York, right? 22 That's correct. 23 In fact, they didn't have just you, they had 24 a bunch of lawyers, didn't they? 25 A. Yes. 00 1 Q. And not just in New York, you all had lawyers 2 worldwide, didn't you? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And you worked as a lawyer at Union Carbide 5 for years before they moved you over in that asbestos, 6 didn't you? 7 A. Well, I'd -- I'd worked there -- I came on 8 board in 1960, and I went over in -- in '76 to the 9 Metals Division and I -- you know, I was through 10 practicing law at that point. 11 Q. All right. Well, when I say for years, 12 that's more than ten years, that's fifteen, more than 13 fifteen, isn't it? 14 A. I just misspoke. I went over in '69. 15 Q. Okay. That's more like what I was thinking 16 first. 17 You left in -- in '76, didn't you? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. All right. So we've got years. We've got 20 almost ten years, nine years, you did legal work before 21 they put you over - 22 A. No, no. You've got from '60 to '69. 23 Q. Isn't that nine years? 24 A. Well, it is almost nine years, yes. 25 Q. '60, '61, '62, '63, '64, '65, '66, '67, '68, 00 1 '69. You're right at ten years, aren't you? 2 A. Yes, that's true. 3 Q. Okay. Was that typical of Union Carbide to 4 move ten-year lawyers over into chemical divisions like 5 asbestos? 6 A. Well, they moved me over in financial control 7 and -- and personnel and government relations. Those 8 were things that, you know, I didn't have any trouble 9 with the transition. 10 Q. Well, you all had a lot of legal issues come 11 with up with asbestos, didn't you? 12 A. None that I was ever involved with. 13 Q. Are you sure? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You don't think, for example, you wrote a 16 letter to the Degussa people over in -- in France 17 threatening legal action in 1972 - 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. -- over asbestos? 20 A. I wasn't -- I wasn't the lawyer. I wasn't 21 practicing law at that point. 22 Q. I didn't say you were doing it as a 23 practicing lawyer, sir. I said you all had a lot of 24 legal issues over there in asbestos, didn't you, and you 25 said no? 00 1 A. No, I -- I thought you were talking about 2 during the time I was practicing law and then -3 Q. No. I mean when they moved you as a ten-year 4 lawyer over to asbestos, you in asbestos had legal 5 issues going on during your tenure there, your time 6 there, right? 7 A. That's correct, yes. 8 Q. Okay. You were asked questions about the 9 history of Union Carbide; you gave us some data, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. There were some things you left out I'd like 12 to talk to you about. Okay? 13 A. Okay. 14 Q. First of all, are you just a history buff or 15 is this more stuff that you were kind of told by 16 Mr. Bicks? 17 A. No, no, no. That's, you know, something that 18 always interested me. The history of Union Carbide 19 fascinated me, as a matter of fact. 20 Q. Didn't you know the gentleman Edward Acheson? 21 A. Yes, I know him. 22 Q. Who was Mr. Acheson? 23 A. Well, when you say do I know Mr. Acheson, the 24 name is familiar to me, and I think he was somebody who 25 was in the the chemicals, plastics area, an area that 0066 1 I never worked in, per se. 2 Q. Well, actually, Mr. Acheson is who started 3 Union Carbide in the 1880s after he left the Carborundum 4 Company. Did you know that? 5 A. No, I didn't know that, no. 6 Q. He's the one that established the plant on 7 Niagara Falls. It was the third company to take 8 electricity off of Niagara Falls. Did you know that? 9 A. No. You know, I knew that was -- we were 10 involved in it, but I didn't have the man's name. 11 Q. Yes. There are a couple of biographies out 12 on him. Since you're interested in the area, you ought 13 to grab them and read them. He's a fascinating 14 individual. 15 A. I'll do that. 16 Q. In your history knowledge, you left out the 17 Hawks Nest catastrophe. Did you know about that? 18 A. I did not know about that until very 19 recently. 20 Q. When did you find out about the Hawks Nest 21 catastrophe? 22 A. Probably in the last month or so. 23 Q. And how did you come by that knowledge? 24 A. Again, that was -- Mr. Bicks mentioned it to 25 me. 0067 1 Q. Did he tell you -- well, I shouldn't ask it 2 that way. 3 Are you aware of the fact that that's the 4 largest industrial disaster in the history of the United 5 States of America even today? 6 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 7 A. I had no idea. 8 Q. Did you know that thousands of people died 9 from dust disease doing work for Union Carbide? 10 MR. BICKS: Objection to form. 11 A. No, I didn't. 12 Q. So that kind of history knowledge of what 13 Union Carbide did in the -- the '30s and -- and dust 14 disease and -- and the people that died from it you 15 never learned about in your history class at Union 16 Carbide or whatever; is that true? 17 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 18 THE WITNESS: Peter, I didn't hear what you 19 said. 20 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 21 THE WITNESS: Okay. 22 MR. BICKS: You can go ahead. 23 A. You're right. I never -- I hadn't heard 24 about it. 25 Q. Now, when you talked to Mr. Bicks about a 0068 1 month ago, was that before a different deposition or 2 getting ready for this one? 3 A. No, raising the possibility of this one. 4 Q. So in addition to meeting with him yesterday 5 and today for this one, you've talked to him even a 6 month ago, true? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And in the process of that, you were told a 9 little bit about the Hawks Nest catastrophe that 10 happened out in West Virginia? 11 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 12 BY MR. LANIER: 13 Q. True? 14 A. He asked me if I was aware of it, and I told 15 him no. 16 Q. Have you done any looking in on that or read 17 any of the books about that? 18 A. No, I have not. 19 Q. As Mr. Bicks was asking you questions about 20 all of the products Union Carbide has made, he mentioned 21 bug spray. Do you remember that? 22 A. Yes, I did. 23 Q. That's a chemical, a pesticide-type product? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Is that what Union Carbide was making in 0069 1 Bhopal, India, when that explosion killed so many 2 people? 3 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 4 A. It -- it was a Sevin -- it was a Sevin Light 5 material. That was our -- our trade name for it, Sevin. 6 Q. S-e-v-i-n? 7 A. Right. 8 Q. And that's the bug spray or the 9 pesticide- type materials that you all make, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And that's what was being made out in Bhopal, 12 13 A. Yes 14 Q. -- at the plant that exploded? 15 A. Yes. It didn't explode, I mean, you know, 16 but 17 Q. 18 A. What happened? Well, it -- it had a runaway gas making 19 accident but there was no explosion. 20 Q. How many people killed in that? 21 A. Probably initially on the order of 2,000. 22 Q. Totally? 23 A. I've seen estimates as high as ten. 24 Q. When you recited the history of the company 25 for the jury, you didn't mention anything about the 0070 1 Industrial Hygiene Foundation. 2 Do you know about your company's founding of 3 that and its active involvement in that over the 4 decades? 5 A. No, I don't. 6 Q. Do you know who a Mr. J.W. McLaughlin was? 7 A. No, I don't. 8 Q. He served on the board of trustees for the 9 Industrial Hygiene Foundation in the '40s, and we've got 10 a picture we've shown the jury of him in the 11 Johns-Mansville boardroom, front row, center seat. Are 12 you familiar with him at all? 13 MR. BICKS: Object to the form. 14 A. No. 15 Q. Are you familiar with the company's history 16 producing asbestos in Bakelite? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Do you know what Bakelite is? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Did you know that Union Carbide has been the 21 Bakelite producer since at least the '30s? 22 A. Yes, I did know that. 23 Q. Did you know Union Carbide was putting 24 asbestos in Bakelite for decades and decades? 25 A. I did not know that. 0071 1 Q. When you talked about the radioisotopes and 2 the radar and the synthetic gems and all of these other 3 places Union Carbide was making money, did you know 4 those because they'd been told to you by somebody or did 5 you actually work in those divisions? 6 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 7 A. Some of both. You know, I -- I worked with 8 the gemstone people very closely. I at some point in 9 time had worked with the people doing radioactive 10 isotopes. That is all firsthand information. 11 Q. I mean, you weren't working during World War 12 II when supposedly Union Carbide made money by selling 13 some product for radar, were you? 14 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 15 A. No, but I just -- it's something I -- I heard 16 in the course of, you know, people telling me about it. 17 Q. So people have told you about making products 18 for the radar in World War II, but they haven't told you 19 about the Hawks Nest incident or Industrial Hygiene 20 Foundation or all of the asbestos in Bakelite or any of 21 those other things? 22 A. No, they have nottold me aboutthose things. 23 Q. When you said that UnionCarbide waslooking 24 at different places to put Union Carbide's asbestos, 25 0072 1 2 looking at new markets, do you remember that testimony? A. Yes. Q. You left out some of the new markets Union 3 Carbide looked at. 4 Did you know that Union Carbide tried to get 5 people to put asbestos in facial tissues, Kleenex? 6 A. Not on my watch. 7 Q. Well, it happened, I guess, in the late '60s, 8 early '70s, '71, '72; were you there? 9 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 10 A. You know, I -- I became involved, I think, in 11 sometime late '71 with the asbestos business as a 12 principal. 13 Q. Okay. Did you know that Union Carbide tried 14 to peddle asbestos in feminine products? 15 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 16 A. Not on my watch. 17 Q. Did you know Union Carbide tried to put 18 asbestos in paper? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Was that on yourwatch? 21 A. It -- it was something that was discontinued 22 on my watch. 23 Q. Did you known Union Carbide tried to get 24 asbestos in plaster of paris? 25 A. No. 0073 1 Q. Did you know Union Carbide tried to get 2 asbestos in Play-Doh that our kids use? 3 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 4 5 Q. Did you know Union Carbide tried to get 6 asbestos in crayons, Crayolas? 7 8 Q. Now, when exactly was your watch? 9 A. Well, first of all, I went to the Metals 10 Division in '69. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. And the -- at that point in time the asbestos 13 business was still over on the chemical side of the 14 house. Sometime between '69 and late 1971 when I became 15 involved in asbestos, it came into Metals Division, and 16 in late '71 I became involved with it as an extra duty. 17 I still had the administrative functions that I'd gone 18 over there with, but I took over responsibility for the 19 asbestos business. 20 Q. Okay. When you were asked questions by 21 Mr. Bicks about whether you were familiar with the term 22 a Carbider, do you remember those questions? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. You gave a story about how the Carbider term 25 was used by evidently a woman out of South Africa? 0074 1 A. No, an African-American girl who was a 2 student. 3 Q. Okay. Was that when people were upset with 4 the way Carbide was supporting the white government in 5 South Africa? 6 A. Well, they were upset with the method we were 7 opposing the apartheid government. 8 Q. Because the method sure appeared to the whole 9 world like you all were just profiting from it, true? 10 A. Well, I think that isn't true. Basically 11 speaking, the Reverend Leon Sullivan, who was a, you 12 know, a great mover in the civil rights movement, formed 13 a group of corporations, and he said, you know, I know 14 that it's difficult for you just to turn tail and leave, 15 but if you're going to stay, you're going to have to do 16 things that support the majority, the rights of the 17 majority in South Africa, their economic progress and to 18 state vocally your objection to apartheid rules that 19 apply in the workplace. 20 And Union Carbide was an initial signature to 21 that group which later included about 35 US 22 corporations. 23 Q. Well, while you talked about a Carbider, you 24 said it's a fine company and that's the reputation that 25 it had and that's why people were proud to be called 0075 1 Carbidersdo you remember that testimony? 2 A. Yes, I do. 3 Q. You understand back during this same time 4 period, let's say from 1959 to 1968, Union Carbide had 5 the absolute worst safety record of any of the big seven 6 chemical companies? 7 A. You know, I've looked at that data before. 8 It's a -- I would say this, that it wasn't true of 9 Mining and Metals Division. 10 Q. Well, actually it -- it was if you look at 11 the data. 12 MR. LANIER: What's the next exhibit number, 13 ma'am, 8? 14 COURT REPORTER: I think so. 15 MR. LANIER: Is that right, Dara? 16 MS. HEGAR: Yes. 17 MR. LANIER: Thank you. 18 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 8 was marked for 19 identification.) 20 BY MR. LANIER: 21 Q. Okay. Sir, I'm going to give you an exhibit 22 that we're going to mark as Exhibit Number 8 and ask you 23 to take a look at it. There you go. 24 Have you seen that exhibit before? 25 A. Yes, I recall seeing it. 0076 1 Q. What's the title on that exhibit for the 2 jury? 3 A. Our ten-year safety failure. 4 Q. Our ten-year safety failure? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. If you'll take a moment to get familiar with 7 that exhibit, if you're not already, I'd like to ask you 8 a few questions about it. You tell me when you're 9 ready. 10 A. Well, I was looking particularly at Mining 11 and Metals Division, and, of course, the -- the mining 12 operations came over from the Nuclear Division and for 13 some reason the Nuclear Division, you know, had a high 14 frequency rate. 15 If you read it, the paragraph on Mining and 16 Metals, it says it is also quite notable that M & M's 17 coal mining frequency last year was only five percent. 18 Well, the part that I'm getting about, it 19 says, the effect of the assumption of Nuclear's ore 20 mining operations was included after 1964. This boosted 21 M & M's 1965 frequency substantially for that year and 22 the next. Even with this handicap, the M & M frequency 23 was brought down to a level in 1968 nearly in line with 24 its pre-ore mining experience. It is quite -- also 25 quite notable that M & M's coal mining frequency last 0077 1 year was only five percent of the national coal mining 2 average. 3 There were no disabling injuries at all in 4 four of the five coal mines. Its Deremo ore mine, which 5 is a Colorado plateau, also had an outstanding frequency 6 record, winning the Sentinel of Safety Award for 1968. 7 M & M's ore mines have won this three times in the last 8 seven years. 9 You know, I look at this thing and I have no 10 idea why the frequency rate for Fibers and Fabrics and 11 for UC Canada were so high, but I can assure you that if 12 you would compare Union Carbide Mining and Metals 13 Division to other mining companies, you wouldn't see 14 this disparity. 15 MR. LANIER: Objection; nonresponsive. 16 BY MR. LANIER: 17 Q. All right, sir. What I'd like to do is go 18 over some of these issues with you. You've read the 19 front page to the jury as the title our ten-year safety 20 failure. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Also on that front page it says, of course, 23 the name Union Carbide and says company confidential; is 24 that right? 25 0078 1 A. Yes, that's written on there. Q. Now, if you'll turn one page over to the 2 summary page, I'd like you to look at a couple of things 3 with me. 4 A. Okay. 5 Q. It says, first sentence,simply stated, our 6 safety performance has shown no improvement for more 7 than ten years as measures by the most significant 8 yardstick, disabling injury frequency. Do you see where 9 I am? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. I'd like toconcentrate on thenextsentence. 12 It says, Furthermore, in the last ten years we've become 13 the most hazardous employer in the Big Seven chemicals 14 group, maiming people at more than twice the rate of the 15 others, and last year we let more accident dollars go 16 down the drain or up in smoke than any one ofthese 17 major competitors. Did I read that right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Some details of that summary are given on the 20 next page, if you'd turn it over. That very first 21 paragraph, the last sentence or two in the first 22 paragraph where it starts with, "over the last", do you 23 see that? It's the fourth line down. 24 A. Yes. Right. 25 Q. It says, Over the last ten years it has 0079 1 averaged 2.2 and it wound up '68 at 2.24. Do you see 2 where that is? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. All right. Look at that next sentence, 5 That's 341 persons disabled last year, seven of them 6 killed. Did I read that right? 7 A. Yes, you read it right. 8 Q. Now, in the third paragraph the question is 9 asked at the start of that third paragraph, But has our 10 safety been better than those of other predominately 11 chemical companies who are more nearly like us? Do you 12 see that question? Third paragraph. 13 A. Are you taking about the third paragraph? 14 Q. It's the fourth paragraph, sir. I'm sorry; I 15 miscounted. 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. The fourth paragraph says, but has our safety 18 been better than those of other predominately chemical 19 companies who are more nearly like us. Do you see that 20 question? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. What's the answer? 23 A. No, we have been twice as bad as their 24 combined average over the last ten years. 25 Q. In fact, it says you all ranked seventh in 00: 1 the Big Seven, right behind Dow Chemical, which 2 evidently was number six; is that right? 3 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 4 A. Yes, that's what it says. 5 Q. Okay. Now, sir, is that a safety record that 6 you think everybody was proud of at the company? 7 A. You know, I -- I wouldn't have thought so, 8 but then that was probably the reason for this document, 9 to -- 10 Q. Well, when you - 11 A. -- initiate change, but I would stilldraw 12 your fact -- your attention to the Mining and Metals 13 portion of this. 14 Q. Well, sir, it says in that same paragraph 15 that had the question, that fourth paragraph, about the 16 middle paragraph - 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. -- that this MCA reports onlyfrequency for 19 certain segments of the company, the chemicals and 20 plastics, the food products and the metals part of the 21 Mining and Metals. Do you see that? 22 A.. Yes. 23 Q. Then it says, So that only covers 39 percent 24 of our employees, true? 25 A.. (No response.) 00 1 Q. True? 2 A.. Yes. And I -- 3 Q. But if you look, sir, it says, This puts our 4 best foot forward. The other 61 percent wasn't even 5 that good. Evidently you all are hurting more people in 6 the -- the non-metals part of Mining and Metals than in 7 the other divisions, right? 8 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 9 A. I don't -- I don't think that statement is 10 correct. 11 Q. All right. So you think that this company 12 confidential ten-year safety failure got that data 13 wrong? 14 A. I think they did. 15 Q. Okay. So is that just based on your feeling 16 or do you have any hard data I can look at? 17 A. I can probably go develop some hard data, but 18 it's -- it just doesn't jibe with the -- with the broad 19 picture that I was familiar with. 20 Q. Well, it doesn't jibe with what you told the 21 jury, that there was a sense of safety and concern at 22 all levels of the company that everybody was proud of, 23 does it? 24 A. I don't -- I don't withdraw that statement at 25 all. 00 1 Q. All right. Well, let's keep going. I'll see 2 if I can get you to in a little bit. 3 In the next set of questions you were asked 4 why are you testifying today, and your answer included 5 Union Carbide was a small potato in asbestos, they came 6 late, there was near hysteria by the media, and it's 7 your honor in a sense to put all of that into 8 perspective. Is that a fair synopsis? 9 A. That's a fair synopsis. 10 Q. All right. I want to take apart those three 11 ideas for a minute. First of all, Union Carbide came 12 late. You didn't know Union Carbide was peddling 13 asbestos in Bakelite in the '30s, in the '40s, in the 14 '50s, in the '60s? 15 A. You know, certainly it wasn't -- it wasn't 16 asbestos they produced, but, you know -- 17 Q. No, they'd buy it and stick it in the -- the 18 Bakelite and ship it out and sell it all over the place. 19 A. Where were they mining it? 20 Q. Union Carbide didn't mine it. They'd buy it 21 from the other mines - 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. -- and put it in their product and ship it 24 out. 25 A. Okay. It's my answer that I didn't know they 00 1 put asbestos in Bakelite. 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. I mean, they've been doing that for decades. 5 They weren't latecomers to the asbestos field; did you 6 know that? 7 A. Well, that's -- you know, I didn't know that, 8 9 Q. Did you know in 1958 Union Carbide sat on the 10 legal committee for the Industrial Hygiene Foundation? 11 A. No, I did not know that. 12 Q. Did you know in 1958 that Industrial Hygiene 13 Foundation funded a study on the hazards of asbestos 14 mining? 15 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 16 A. I think I was generally aware that they did 17 in 1958. 18 Q. Did you know that you all's Industrial 19 Hygiene Foundation study you all -- by you all here, the 20 people doing the study at least -- distorted the results 21 before they published it? 22 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 23 A. Well, I doubt that, but then I don't know. 24 Q. All right. When you say that you all were a 25 small potato, that wasn't your goal; your goal was to 00 1 becomes a big asbestos seller, wasn't it? 2 A. Well, it was only -- we were hoping it would 3 only be limited by the plastics market, and that still 4 all depends on what you define as large. Certainly 5 larger than -- we had hoped for something larger than it 6 became, but -7 Q. Well, you were looking to grow, weren't you? 8 A. Certainly we were looking to grow. 9 Q. You wanted to be bigger? 10 A. Bigger, yes. 11 Q. You wanted more people to buy your asbestos? 12 A. But, you know, basically speaking, that would 13 be limited by the number of people who were -- could use 14 thixotropes and resin-grade asbestos. 15 Q. Well, sir, you all weren't just putting them 16 in those products. You were trying to put them in 17 papers. You were trying to put them in tape joint 18 compounds. 19 You were putting that product in lots of 20 different places, weren't you? 21 A. In very minimal qualities -- quantities. 22 Q. Well, but you all were looking to expand it, 23 weren't you? 24 A. We were looking to expand. When we really 25 thought about major expansion in the -- in the 00 1 resin-grade materials, we were hoping we could keep a 2 modest -- a modest base in the other people, the other 3 applications, in order to, you know, broaden the -- the 4 absorption of cost. 5 Q. Well, sir, you all were trying to get GE to 6 put it in a bunch of products, weren't you? 7 A. Like -- I don't know. You'd have to define 8 to me what products. 9 Q. I'm just telling you I read through your 10 sales reports and I see you all are trying to get GE 11 to -- to put it in because you think you can just sell 12 gargantuan amounts to General Electric if you can get it 13 past their safety department and medical department? 14 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 15 A. I don't remember that we ever sold anything 16 to GE in any quantity. 17 Q. Do you know you all were even selling it the 18 Castor Oil Company? 19 A. The Castor Oil Company? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. No, I don't remember that one. 22 Q. You all had given the CastorOil Company 23 evidently assurances that your asbestos was 24 non-carcinogenic. Did you know that? 25 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 00 1 A. I can't believe that. 2 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 9 was marked for 3 identification.) 4 Q. I'm going to show you an exhibit that we'll 5 mark as Exhibit Number 9 to your deposition. Take a 6 moment -- it's a very difficult copy to read, so if you 7 can't read it, tell me, but do you see that second 8 paragraph where it talks about using Union Carbide's 9 asbestos? 10 A. Yes, I see it. 11 Q. Do you see where it says, We have their, 12 meaning Union Carbide's, assurance that that asbestos is 13 non-carcinogenic? 14 A. All I can say is Mr. Smith, whoever he was, 15 was out on a frolic of his own, I would say. 16 Q. Do you think he just made that up? 17 A. I -- I don't know how to explain it, but that 18 certainly was at odds with anything we were putting out 19 to the public at that point in time. 20 Q. Well, at what point in time was that, 1972? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. Did you know Mr. Blair Ingalls? 23 A. I know Blare Ingalls, yes. 24 Q. When you were given the background of the 25 outstanding sales department at Union Carbide, you 0087 1 talked about how they all had science backgrounds. You 2 didn't mention Mr. Ingalls? 3 A. I didn't mention anybody by name. 4 Q. You thought you mentioned Mr. Myers and 5 Mr. Rhodes both by name? 6 A. Yes, I did. Yes. 7 Q. 8 you? Okay. You didn't mention Mr. Ingalls, did 9 A. No, I didn't mentioned any of the others. 10 Q. What were the outstanding scientific 11 background credentials of Mr. Ingalls? 12 A. You know, the only thing I know is he came 13 over from that R & D group, and the R & D group, as I 14 understood it, was -- was all scientifically based by 15 education, and I would be surprised if Mr. Ingallsdidn't 16 fall in that category. 17 MR. LANIER: Well, can I have another copy of 18 Blare Ingalls'memo, please? 19 Q. Have you ever seen the -- the type of 20 materials Mr. Ingalls prepared for the sales department? 21 A. Yes, I have seen things he's prepared. 22 Q. Did you see his -- did you see his memo on - 23 yes, I may have it in here somewhere. 24 Did you see his memo on what to do when 25 customers call in worried about asbestos sales? 0088 1 Let me put a sticker on it and hand it to you 2 so you can look at it. We'll mark it as Exhibit Number 3 10 to your deposition. 4 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 10 was marked for 5 identification.) 6 BY MR. LANIER: 7 Q. There you go, sir. Have you seen that memo 8 before? 9 A. Yes, I have. 10 Q. When did you first see that memo? 11 A. It was brought to my attention while I was - 12 by Mr Myers while I was in charge of the asbestos 13 business. 14 Q. Did you put out a response to that? 15 A. Mr. Ingalls was reprimanded and told never to 16 write anything like that again. 17 Q. Well, not just write it. That shouldn't be 18 the attitude. It's not a question of whether he 19 documents it. It's a question of what he's doing, isn't 20 it? 21 A. Well, I think, you know, you've got to look 22 at it in perspective. Here you've got a guy who, you 23 know, can't go into a purchasing agent because 24 purchasing agents are notoriously geared in by all sorts 25 of things, by price primarily, but they are very nervous 0089 1 2 about the media frenzy. I can see where Ingalls was -- was frustrated 3 by that, and he talks about, you know, trying to jolly 4 these guys along and -- and to try to -- what he was 5 trying to do was get them into some sort of scientific 6 discussion about the hazards of asbestos, and he was 7 frustrated because he couldn't do it. 8 And his frustration comes out with a -- with 9 a mistake like this memorandum, and it was a mistake and 10 we corrected it. It had never happened again. 11 Q. Sir, I'll go back to my original question. 12 He didn't make a mistake by putting it into a memorandum 13 and writing it, the whole attitude is a mistake, isn't 14 it? 15 A. Yes, but it was his attitude and -- and not 16 the attitude of the business or the other -- other 17 members of the sales group. 18 Q. Well, did you issue a -- a written response 19 to this? Did you tell Mr. Byrne or Mr. Dickson or 20 Mr. Klober or Mr. Norris or Mr. Myers or Mr. Rhodes or 21 any of the people who received this memorandum to 22 disregard it? 23 A. I can tell you that they -- they were 24 informed of that, whether I did it in writing or not, 25 but they knew it wasn't the -- that sort of thing was 0090 1 not to be allowed. 2 Q. Well, when you were telling this jury, being 3 asked questions by the Union Carbide lawyer, about how 4 wonderfully well your -- your sales department was 5 behaved and how professional and scientific they were 6 and how proud you were of them, you never mentioned this 7 memo, did you? 8 A. Because it's an anomaly. It just popped up 9 one time and disappeared. 10 Q. Set the mood; controlling the conversation is 11 paramount; assure the customer the new law is reasonable 12 and within the limits of practicality; it seems to have 13 a soothing effect on the emotionally irate. 14 A. What -- what do you find wrong with that? I 15 mean, that part isn't the part that I objected to. 16 Q. If the customer is persistent and threatens 17 to eliminate asbestos, a certain amount of 18 aggressiveness may be effective. 19 A. Okay. Now you're getting into the part that 20 I objected to. 21 Q. Now, listen to this. He doesn't try to -- to 22 move into a scientific knowledge. He says, words and 23 catch phrases like premature, irrational or avoiding the 24 inevitable will sometimes turn the table; the main 25 objective is to keep the customer on the defensive, make 00 1 him justify his position; most customers who call are on 2 the offensive, often prepared with loaded questions, 3 expecting an argument; change the mood before discussing 4 anything pertinent; alternating between an aggressive 5 and submissive attitude is confusing and allows you to 6 bide your time; refuse to argue; be humble and when 7 they're sufficiently calm, sometimes even embarrassed, 8 make your point forcefully; don't cover too much ground 9 in one confrontation, even rabies shots are spaced in 10 moderate intervals. 11 Don't you find that offensive? 12 A. Yes, I do. 13 Q. You didn't fire this guy when you found out 14 about it? 15 A. No, I did not fire him. 16 Q. You didn't write up a reprimand to go in his 17 file? 18 A. There is a reprimand in his file. I'm sure 19 of that. 20 Q. Are you? 21 A. You know, I -- I'll put it this way. I would 22 be very surprised if there isn't one there. 23 Q. Would you be surprised to find out we've 24 asked for his file and we're not allowed to see it? 25 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 00 1 A. You know, I'm surprised, yes. 2 Q. Don't you think if there was a reprimand on 3 this, your company would want that jury to see his file? 4 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 5 A. Yes, I would surmise that would be the case, 6 but I will come back to this. The -- the preliminary 7 statement that he makes in there about the, you know, 8 you try to assure them that the law is reasonable, that 9 they can function within the -- within the law was 10 certainly the position that we were taking. There's no 11 mystery about that. 12 The fact that, you know, certain purchasing 13 agents were out of hand rejecting those arguments put 14 forth on a scientific basis I think accounted for 15 Mr. Ingalls' frustration that manifests itself in this 16 particular document. 17 Q. So in light of that -- by the way, what was 18 Mr. Ingalls' job responsibility? 19 A. I'm trying to think what his title was, 20 special projects or something like that. He -- he -- 21 but he was essentially just another salesman. 22 Q. Okay. New subject. Let's talk about Degussa 23 for a minute. 24 A. Degussa. 25 Q. Say it again? 00 1 A. Degussa. 2 Q. Degussa? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. D-e-g-u-s-s-a; isthat right? 5 A. That's right. 6 Q. All right. Degussawas a company over in 7 France, wasn't it? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And Degussa was the French company that sold 10 your Calidria asbestos over in Europe, right? 11 A. The resin grade. 12 Q. Yes. Youall called it RG, resin grade, 13 true? 14 A. Right. 15 Q. And it was Degussa that in 1971 quit selling 16 your asbestos, didn't they? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. And the reason Degussa quit selling your 19 asbestos is because Degussa believed that it could be 20 hazardous to the health, true? 21 A. That's what they said. 22 Q. They said that they thought it was noxious, 23 n-o-x-i-o-u-s, and probably subject to cancer, right? 24 A. That's what they said. 25 Q. In other words, they believed that your 00: 1 asbestos would not only make people sick, but it causes 2 cancer and they weren't going to sell it, right? 3 A. That's what they said. That's not 4 necessarily what they thought. 5 Q. Well, okay. That's certainly what they put 6 into writing, isn't it? 7 A. That certainly is what they put in writing. 8 Q. And when they put that into writing - 9 MR. LANIER: Let's mark these exhibits so 10 that we can look at them. Bear with me one minute. 11 I want to make sure I get them in a good 12 chronological order. 13 MR. BICKS: Mark, let's just take a 14 one-minute break while you mark them. Is that all 15 right? 16 MR. LANIER: I mean, I'm -- I'm ready to go. 17 If you need to take a break, but if you're going to 18 take a break and talk to him about this, I don't 19 think that's proper. 20 MR. BICKS: I can assure you I won't. 21 MR. LANIER: Okay. I'll take you at your 22 word. 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record. The time 24 is 12:30 p.m. 25 (Recess taken from 12:30 p.m. to 12:34 p.m.) 00 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record. 2 The time is now 12:34. On the record. 3 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 12 was marked for 4 identification.) 5 BY MR. LANIER: 6 Q. Sir, I'd like to give you a document that 7 we've marked as Exhibit Number 12. I apologize for 8 having to kind of toss it over there. I'm not throwing 9 it at you. I'm just trying to get it to you so you 10 don't have to get up. 11 Do you have that in front of you now? 12 A. Yes, I do. 13 Q. Okay. Sir, if you look at that, does it have 14 a date on it? 15 A. December 7th, '71. 16 Q. Okay. And this is a letter from Degussa 17 itself that you all have translated out of German; is 18 that correct? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. So if I was to show the jury the original 21 letter, unless they spoke German, it wouldn't make any 22 sense to them, true? 23 A. That's probably true. 24 Q. But you feel pretty confident that at least 25 this is the copy of the letter that you read unless you 00 1 read German, right? 2 A. (No response.) 3 Q. Do you read German, sir? 4 A. No, I do not. 5 Q. So you feel pretty confident that this 6 translation was the -- the one that you would have 7 gotten or at least read, true? 8 A. I -- I think that's correct. 9 Q. All right. If we look at this, this looks 10 like a form letter that was being sent out by Degussa to 11 customers of the Union Carbide asbestos, doesn't it? 12 A. Yes, it does. 13 Q. And that's what you understood it to be when 14 you got this back in the '70s, right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And this says to the customers that Degussa, 17 quote, decided to withdraw Union Carbide's asbestos 18 products from the market between now and the end of the 19 year. 20 Do you see where it says that in the second 21 paragraph? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Then it continues, we are doing so mainly 24 because of our misgivings regarding the possible health 25 effects of asbestos fibers. Did I read that right? 00 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. It continues, It has long been an established 3 fact that the inhaling of asbestos dust in larger 4 amounts can cause asbestosis, which it's possible to 5 prevent, however, by adherence to the relevant safety 6 regulations. Are you still with me? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Only more recently has statistical evidence 9 begun to build up from which it appears asbestos dust 10 cannot be ruled out as a possible cause of lung and 11 peritoneal cancer, even when these regulations are 12 observed. Did I read that right? 13 A. Yes, you read it right. 14 Q. We consider it our duty, therefore, to 15 withdraw this material from the market, although as far 16 as we know, not all who offer such products for sale 17 share our misgivings. Did I read that right? 18 A. That last sentence is quite true. 19 Q. Now, sir, you wrote these people, didn't you? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And you wrote them within the next month or 22 two, I think in January; is that right? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. January 11th, 1972, does that sound about 25 right to you? 0098 1 A. It sounds about right, yes. 2 Q. All right. Let's get yourletter out and 3 look at it. Let me start by asking you about an 4 internal letter you did. 5 MR. LANIER: I'm up to what number? 6 MS. HEGAR: You're up to 13. 7 MR. LANIER: I've not given him 12? 8 MS. HEGAR: You've given him 12, but you 9 skipped 11. 10 MR. LANIER: Well, where did I put 11? 11 MS. HEGAR: 11 is here, it looks like. 12 (Rawlings Exhibits No. 11 and 12 were marked 13 for identification.) 14 BY MR. LANIER: 15 Q. Sir, let me give you 11, just so I get all of 16 this right and they don't yell at me afterwards. This 17 looks like a letter that you all think the date may have 18 been November 18th, but you're not certain. It's 19 certainly a letter from Degussa to a client, and it's 20 one that says that the Union Carbide product A-28 is 21 noxious and probably subject to cancer. Do you see 22 that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. You'd seen that letter as well, I'm assuming? 25 A. Yes. 0099 1 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 13 was marked for 2 identification.) 3 BY MR. LANIER: 4 Q. Somewhere in the midst of this you wrote a 5 letter to a Dr. Milton Stern, who is just listed as on 6 the 39th Floor. I'm going to give you that as Exhibit 7 Number 13. Is that your letter? 8 A. (No response.) 9 Q. Is that your letter? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. You said to Dr. Stern -- bythe way, is 12 Dr. Stern a Union Carbide doctor? 13 A. Yes. He's a Ph.D. 14 Q. Okay. 38th Floor, I assume that's - 15 A. He was at that time the executive vice 16 president of the Mining and Metals Division. 17 Q. When it says 39th Floor, I don't understand 18 that. Were you all just -- 19 A. That's just where the Mining andMetals 20 Division was located. 21 Q. Okay. And you all had a big building there 22 in New York City? 23 A. That's right. 24 Q. How many floors in that building did you 25 have? 0100 1 A. There were 50 floors. 2 Q. How many of them were Union Carbide's? 3 A. I don't remember. We had a few tenants, but 4 I don't remember. 5 Q. Basically the whole building? 6 A. Not basically. I think there were maybe six 7 floors that were tenant floors. 8 Q. So you all would have had about 40 floors of 9 the 50? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. All right. I'm just trying to get a feel for 12 how much of that building was yours. 13 Now, sir, look at that letter. Keep it in 14 front of you for a minute. By that letter I mean 15 Exhibit 13. You told this Dr. Stern fellow on the 38th 16 Floor, the termination with Degussa is not going 17 smoothly and that they're making very irresponsible 18 statements to customers concerning the toxicology of 19 asbestos. 20 You've got both of their letters in front of 21 you. What statement did you consider irresponsible? 22 A. This, you know, unfortunately it has been 23 found that A-28 is noxious and probably subject to 24 cancer; subsequently our company decided to stop selling 25 this product. 0101 1 Well, I would suggest to you that we 2 disagreed very strongly with that statement, and by this 3 time, you know, we were aware -- Degussa produced the - 4 before they signed the distribution agreement with us, 5 they produced fume silica, and they were selling it as a 6 thixotrope in competition with us. 7 They obviously recognized at an early date 8 that we had a superior product, and so they discontinued 9 the marketing of their own fume silica. 10 At some point in time they ran into the same 11 resistance from purchasing agents that we were running 12 into in the United States, and they said, hey, you know, 13 we can put out a document like this, terminate the 14 agreement with Union Carbide, and as you can see here, 15 he quickly points out, some quantities will be 16 available, however, before the end of the year. In 17 order to continue your manufacturing, we will be 18 grateful if you could let us have your order 19 immediately. A-28 will be replaced by our aerosol, COK 20 Aerosol 300. 21 Now, basically all Degussa saw, in our 22 estimation was an opportunity to play on the media 23 frenzy to say things that weren't -- you know, that -- I 24 don't know that they were that specific in the -- in the 25 media, but at least they were -- the media was 0102 1 suggesting that, you know, that the hazard was greater 2 than certainly it was believed by people and regulatory 3 auditors in the US and for that matter in Europe and - 4 but, you know, they were being said, so they play on 5 that. 6 They -- you know I don't know what you get 7 out of this statement, that noxious and probably subject 8 to cancer. I mean, you know, I don't think anybody 9 would ever, you know, disagree with the fact that 10 asbestos used improperly was a carcinogenic thing, but 11 this noxious and sickening thing, you know, is something 12 that they just picked out of the blue. 13 But our feeling, my feeling, still is 14 strongly to this day that these guys were just taking 15 advantage of the fact that it was difficult to sell an 16 RG grade, which they call it the A-28, and to put their, 17 you know, inferior product back on the market. It was 18 that simple. 19 Q. Well, sir, I'm looking at it and in plain 20 English it looks to me like they said that the asbestos 21 product is probably subject to cancer, which means it 22 could probably cause cancer. 23 A. Well, you - 24 Q. You call that an irresponsible statement? 25 A. No, no. You -- both you and I know that - 0103 1 that asbestos is a carcinogen, and the question is, can 2 it be used safely within certain limits. And I'm saying 3 that we were convinced then, we're convinced now, that 4 that's the case, that it could be used safely. 5 And all I'm saying is we had evidence to 6 doubt the bona fideness of what this organization said. 7 After all, you know, this is a -- this is an 8 organization that sold thiolovit to people for years, 9 and, you know, they -- they're -- you know, you might 10 argue that that might make them more sensitive to this 11 sort of thing, but I think it's just crass, commercial, 12 opportunistic action on their part. 13 Q. All right. Mr. Rawlings, I want to see if I 14 understand your answer. We're talking about sale of 15 RG-244? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. That is a Calidria asbestos Union Carbide 18 sold? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. They mined it out of Idria, California? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. It was a chrysotile asbestos , short fiber? 23 A. That's right. 24 Q. You will agree with me it was a -- it was or 25 is carcinogenic, it causes cancer, you just disagree 0104 1 over how much dose it takes to do it; fair to say? 2 A. That's absolutely right. 3 Q. And that's cancer of the lung, mesothelioma, 4 those are what we're talking about, right? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. That Union Carbide has known that based on 7 all of your science way back in the '70s, probably 8 before, but you all's position is it can be used 9 responsibly and it doesn't cause that cancer except at 10 excessive levels, fair? 11 A. That's -- that's correct. That's always been 12 our position. 13 Q. So the reason you consider this letter 14 irresponsible from Degussa, and by this letter I mean 15 Exhibit 11, is because it says probably subject to 16 cancer, but it doesn't say what the dosage needs to be, 17 and you think it was just a manipulative letter to get 18 Degussa's product sold instead? 19 A. I believe that firmly. 20 (Rawlings Exhibits No. 14 & 15 were marked 21 for identification.) 22 BY MR. LANIER: 23 Q. And is that then the reason you wrote the 24 letter that's dated actually January the 6th, which is 25 Exhibit 14? Let me give it to you to look at, and I say 0105 1 you wrote it. As I'm looking at it, I've seen some 2 other things that indicate to me it came from you, 3 but -- but I don't see your name signed on it so it may 4 not have been. 5 Help me with that first. Who wrote this? 6 A. (No response.) 7 Q. This may be a draft that you didn't send. 8 I'm not sure. 9 A. Well, I was familiar with this letter, I 10 mean, you know. 11 Q. Well, let me tell you why I know you were 12 familiar with it. Let me get it all out here so that we 13 don't have to play guessing games at all, because that's 14 not good use of time or fair to you. 15 Here is a responsive letter from Degussa to 16 you saying that they got your January 11th letter with 17 the enclosed January 6th letter here that's Exhibit 14. 18 Do you see that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. Now, then let's look at that Exhibit 21 Number 14, the January 6th letter that you sent to 22 Degussa. You said, according to you -- and I'm looking 23 at the second product -- or second paragraph. According 24 to you, Degussa, this product, in effect, should have 25 been declared harmful and even carcinogenic, and you 0106 1 would be obliged to halt the sale thereof. Did I read 2 that right? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. Well, sir, it was carcinogenic, wasn't it? 5 A. Well, it was carcinogenic depending on how it 6 was used. 7 Q. Well, now, you told me that there's no way 8 anybody could have made representations like were in the 9 Castor Oil letter that your product was 10 non-carcinogenic. 11 Sir, you sent a letter out threatening to sue 12 people for claiming it was carcinogenic, weren't you? 13 A. Yes, I -- I did, but -- yes, I did. 14 Q. You said that that's a contradiction to the 15 rules of good faith and are of a nature to create false 16 impressions, can't tolerate them, and we're going to - 17 we're going to file legal actions. 18 You told them it was not carcinogenic with a 19 letter like that, didn't you? 20 A. No. You've -- you've taken the thing all 21 completely out of context. 22 Q. Sir, look at the words. You said 23 specifically, according to you, this product should have 24 been declared harmful and even carcinogenic? 25 A. No, but basically they are telling me what my 0107 1 letter said, and I can't believe that I said in my 2 letter that the product was not carcinogenic. I mean, 3 it's just out of hand. 4 Q. Sir, you sent them this Exhibit Number 14 5 letter where you're threatening to sue them because 6 they're telling people it is carcinogenic, and you're 7 saying if you're going to tell them it's carcinogenic, 8 we're going to sue you? 9 A. That's what they said I said. 10 Q. No. This is -- this Exhibit 14, sir, this is 11 your letter. This is your letter you sent to them 12 saying, according to you, Degussa, this product should 13 have been declared harmful and even carcinogenic, and 14 you, Degussa, would be obliged to halt the sale, and you 15 said this is false? 16 A. Well, first of all, you're sitting here and 17 you're not getting the whole picture. I mean, certainly 18 we never took the position with anybody that asbestos 19 wasn't carcinogenic, including RG-244, but we believed 20 that a company who was then furnished with all of the 21 information that we had and our toxicology report, where 22 special care had been taken to -- to bring them up to 23 date on, you know, our view on its usage and strong 24 binders that it could be used, the educated force of 25 using it in a way that it was not a risk of -- a 0108 1 carcinogenic risk, these guys just ignored that and 2 decided that they would use this particular media frenzy 3 to sell their product and -- and get rid of ours. 4 There's no question in my mind about that. 5 And if things got a tear in temperate I'm - 6 you know, I'm not surprised, but certainly I wasn't 7 making a position, making a posture with them that 8 RG-244 was not asbestos and that asbestos was not a 9 carcinogen. It's ridiculous, I mean, you know, to think 10 that way. 11 Q. Well, sir, that's what the letter says, isn't 12 it? 13 A. Well -- 14 Q. I mean, it says what it says, doesn't it? 15 You're threatening to sue them because they're telling 16 people that it causes cancer, it's carcinogenic, and 17 you're saying we're going to sue you if you tell that to 18 people? 19 A. Yes, well, it's -- it's an irresponsible 20 statement. It's like saying, you know, it's 21 carcinogenic under any condition. You know, that's the 22 inference that they -- that they were trying to give to 23 people, and that simply isn't true. 24 (Rawlings Exhibits No. 16 was marked for 25 identification.) 0109 1 BY MR. LANIER: 2 Q. Well, sir, I'm going to show you now 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 16, which is the response 4 that Degussa sent to you after they got your letter 5 threatening to sue them. Do you have that in front of 6 you? 7 MS. PRINZ: Was that 15? 8 MR. LANIER: Did we skip 15? 9 THE WITNESS: Well, 15 that I was looking at 10 is a Degussa letter that I had before. 11 BY MR. LANIER: 12 Q. All right. I think this is 16 then that I'm 13 giving you now. 14 A. Okay. Now, they refer to my letter of 15 January the 11th. 16 Q. Which we don't have. It looks like it was 17 just - 18 A. And I was going to say and they characterize 19 what I said in that letter, and I -- I don't accept 20 their characterization to begin with. 21 Q. Well, I think what they actually do is say 22 that your letter of January 11th enclosed this Exhibit 23 Number 14 - 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- and so they -- they mention, if you look 0110 1 there, that you had sent them the Exhibit 14, the 2 January 6th letter. Do you see that? 3 A. This is the -- the copy of the unsigned 4 letter -- 5 Q. Right. 6 A. -- to Degussa. 7 Q. Right. And all I'm -- all I'm saying to you 8 right now, if you look at it, sir, you'll see that this 9 letter right here, Mr. Rawlings, we refer to your letter 10 of January 11th and the letter of Union Carbide Europe 11 to our subsidiary company dated January 6th. In other 12 words, you enclosed or they were looking at the January 13 6th letter - 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. -- as well as your own. Do you see that? 16 A. Okay. But, you know, I -- 17 Q. Well, sir - 18 A. There is no way in theworld that we were 19 contending outside a very testy little thing where they 20 were being ingenious with us -- 21 Q. But, Mr. Rawlings, if you look at the letter 22 that they sent you there in January, this Exhibit Number 23 16 -- 15 - 24 A. Right, wherethey said yousaid in your 25 letter of January 11th. 0111 1 Q. Right. If you look down at the bottom and on 2 the next page, they specifically tell you, hey, we'll 3 give you the names and addresses of all of the people 4 who had been buying your stuff so that you all can 5 continue to sell it to them. They say that, don't they? 6 A. The only thing they could do that would be 7 really meaningful after the damage they had done would 8 be to recommence selling our product. 9 Q. Sir, the only damage that was done was them 10 putting out a form letter to everybody that says, we 11 think that causes cancer or the studies show -- look at 12 the actual form letter. It says, Dear Sirs, you've been 13 a regular customer of ours for some time and have 14 come -- have no doubt come to appreciate the advantages 15 of our asbestos fillers. Although these products have 16 much to offer technically, we've decided to withdraw 17 them from the market between now and the end of the 18 year. 19 A. And I think -- I think it's interesting that 20 they later on say, but we still have some stocks and 21 we'd be happy to supply you with them until they're 22 exhausted, but right after that -- 23 Q. Well, I'm not sure that's shining behavior on 24 their part, but - 25 A. Yes, well -- 0112 1 2 Q. they said, -- sir, they did put the letter together we're doing so mainly because of our and 3 misgivings regarding the possible health effects. 4 A. All I can tell you is that as far as Degussa 5 was concerned, this was an act of ultimate bad faith on 6 their part. 7 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 17 was marked for 8 identification.) 9 BY MR. LANIER: 10 Q. I'm not sure what all of these numbers of 11 documents are right now, but I'm going to give you one 12 that's document Number 17. It is the Degussa letter 13 dated December 7th that they sent out to all of their 14 suppliers before you started writing them. I'm sorry, 15 sir. 16 Would you tell me -- I will give you Marks A 17 Lot, and would you please highlight for me the language 18 that you think was irresponsible and wrong there? There 19 you go. 20 A. (Witness complies.) 21 Q. Okay. With this greenmarker, sir, on 22 Exhibit Number 17 you have highlighted what you consider 23 to be irresponsible -- what was your language - 24 irresponsible statements to customers, right? 25 A. Yes. 0113 1 Q. And what you consideredirresponsible was 2 the, only more recently has statistical evidence begun 3 to build up from which it appears asbestos dust cannot 4 be ruled out as a possible cause of lung and peritoneal 5 cancer even when these regulations are observed. 6 You felt that was irresponsible and wrong? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Anything else in here? 9 A. Not really. 10 MR. LANIER: Okay. Degussa is over, if you 11 want to take a lunch break. Thank you, 12 Mr. Rawlings. 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record. The time 14 is now 12:58. 15 (Recess taken from 12:58 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.) 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record. The time 17 is now 1:45 p.m. On the record. 18 BY MR. LANIER: 19 Q. Sir, I want to talk some about your frame of 20 mind on asbestos. You remember Mr. Bicks asked you what 21 your frame of mind was as to the unique properties of 22 Union Carbide's asbestos. Do you remember those 23 questions? 24 A. (No response.) 25 Q. First of all, when you did your research and 0114 1 when you did your speaking with the authorities at Union 2 Carbide on Calidria, which one of them told you about 3 the studies that showed Calidria was more toxic and 4 harmful than other kinds of chrysotile? 5 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 6 THE WITNESS: Are you objecting to form? 7 MR. BICKS: Yes. 8 THE WITNESS: Okay. 9 A. I was never told that. 10 Q. Really? 11 A. That's correct. 12 (Rawlings Exhibits No. 18 & 19 were marked 13 for identification.) 14 BY MR. LANIER: 15 Q. Did anyone ever give you what I'll mark as 16 Plaintiff's Exhibit 19 and ask you to take a look at, 17 sir? Have you ever seen that document before? 18 A. I think so, but let me check it. 19 Q. All right. 20 A. No, as a matter of fact I have not seen the 21 document. 22 Q. Sir, if you look at it, that document is 23 marked as a confidential report, special report by the 24 Mellon Institute, looking at basically disease potential 25 of three different kinds of asbestos products. It was 0115 1 done under funding by the Union Carbide Corporation, 2 Chemicals Division. Do you see all of that on the front 3 page? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. This wasnot under your watch. This was 6 before your watch back in July of 1966, true? I think 7 that's also on the front page. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. All right. Sir, thesummary of this tells us 10 that they took a Johns-Mansville fiber and they took a 11 second fiber, I believe it was a Canadian fiber, and 12 then they took a fiber that was the Calidria, a Union 13 Carbide fiber, and tested those three, and of those 14 three chrysotiles, they didn't all have the same 15 reaction. 16 The Union Carbide chrysotile produced more 17 severe reactions in both the rats and the guinea pigs. 18 Did you see that, sir? 19 A. Yes, I see that's what it says all right. 20 Q. And no one ever let you know that your 21 asbestos at Union Carbide tested out to be more toxic 22 and dangerous than the other kinds of chrysotile, did 23 they? 24 A. No, but I think that, you know, in fact, the 25 information I had was all to the contrary. 0116 1 Q. And the tests, the hardcore tests, they never 2 showed you, they being your company, true? 3 A. I'm not, you know, sufficiently knowledgeable 4 to judge this test. You know, I'm not sure about the 5 science involved here. 6 Q. Okay. Well -- 7 A. You know, I -- I can't really look at this 8 and say to you that granulomas with cells in six of the 9 seven guinea pigs , what the hell that means. 10 Q . Well - 11 A . I mean , I just simply don't know. 12 Q . And I won't press you on the details of that 13 but you've spent an hour and a half testifying before I 14 started about what all you'd been told and how much you 15 were able to go research and how much you knew and that 16 this was under your watch, and I'm just curious -- I'm 17 not asking for those fine details, but just the general 18 comments that it looks like the reaction was more severe 19 with the Union Carbide asbestos as opposed to the other 20 kinds. 21 You understand what that means, a more or a 22 less severe reaction, don't you? 23 A. I don't understand when they describe the 24 reaction what -- what exactly they're describing. 25 Q. Well, do you understand that the reaction is 0117 1 not a good thing? 2 A. That's the implication, but I don't know 3 that. 4 Q. Well, I'll represent to you the reaction is 5 disease. Now, if I'm right, no one ever told you that 6 confidential Union Carbide tests done at the Mellon 7 Institute showed that the Union Carbide asbestos was 8 more toxic, more dangerous, than the other kinds of 9 chrysotile? 10 A. As I say, my -- my information is all to the 11 contrary. 12 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 20 was marked for 13 identification.) 14 BY MR. LANIER: 15 Q. All right. Let me show you another document 16 to that effect. It's Exhibit Number 20. For the record 17 this is a retyped version so it's easier to read on the 18 first two pages. The last two pages are the actual 19 signed original copy. You just wouldn't find the last 20 two pages as easy to read. Okay. 21 Have you got all four pages? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. Sir, this is a letter from a 24 Dr. Dernehl. 25 You knew Dr. Dernehl, didn't you? 0118 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. He was the medical -- associate medical 3 director at Union Carbide, right? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. And he wrote this, he being Dr.Dernehl, 6 wrote this letter to Dr. Hall. 7 Did you know Dr. Hall? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And in this letter -- by the way, have you 10 ever seen this letter before? It's 1967. It's before 11 your watch. 12 A. I don't remember this specific letter. 13 Q. In the second paragraph Dr. Dernehl says we, 14 meaning Union Carbide I gather, have been interested in 15 the possibility that the short fiber Coalinga 16 product -- now, that is your Calidria chrysotile, isn't 17 it? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Might have a greater hazard than the more 20 conventional forms of asbestos because sub-micron silica 21 has been known to cause a rapidly progressive silicosis 22 after exceedingly brief exposure -- in other words, 23 extra small silica is bad -- so we were concerned about 24 whether the Coalinga material which -- with its 25 exceeding fine fibril diameter might have a similar 0119 1 effect in causation of asbestosis. 2 We therefore made some preliminary studies in 3 which the material was injected into the belly cavity of 4 guinea pigs, rats and rabbits and also was injected 5 intratracheally by a method which distributes the 6 asbestos throughout the lungs of rats. 7 The materials injected were the standard 8 fiber, a refined fiber and a long fiber obtained from 9 Johns-Mansville for purpose of comparison. In the 10 injection study the Coalinga refined fiber -- now, that 11 would be Union Carbide's chrysotile called Calidria, 12 right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Produced the most severe reaction in the 15 belly, whereas the standard fiber and the Mansville 16 fiber were essentially the same and less severe. In the 17 injection study in the lung, the crude fibers caused a 18 more severe, the refined fiber was intermediate and the 19 Johns-Mansville fiber was least reactive. Did I read 20 that right so far? 21 A. I'm having trouble reading it. I'm listening 22 to you, but I - 23 Q. Well, what I want you to focus on now is this 24 last sentence that says, the only conclusion. Do you 25 see that sentence, last sentence in the paragraph I've 0120 1 been reading? 2 A. (No response.) 3 Q. Do you see that last sentence in the second 4 paragraph on the page you're on? I believe it would be 5 the paragraph that's starting up at the top. Do you 6 see, the only conclusion? Do you see that sentence? 7 A. (No response.) 8 MR. LANIER: Mr. Bicks, I would not object to 9 you pointing it to him if -- if you want to save me 10 from having to get over his shoulder. 11 BY MR. LANIER: 12 Q. Up at the top -13 A. Right. 14 Q. -- the only conclusion we can draw -15 A. Okay. 16 Q. Do you see where that is? The only 17 conclusion we can draw from this crude test is that 18 possible our Coalinga product may be more hazardous to 19 use than long fiber asbestos in that it may induce the 20 disease asbestosis at an earlier time after exposure. 21 They never told you that, did they? 22 A. No. 23 Q. They had you over the whole division and they 24 didn't show you the test and they didn't tell you the 25 conclusions. They let you think it was a safe product, 0121 1 didn't they? 2 A. Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. 3 I mean, a safe product is a -- asbestos is a dangerous 4 product. All asbestos is dangerous. 5 Q. I understand, but they let you think - 6 A. You know what we're talking about, and it 7 comes right down to that it can be used safely. 8 Q. Well, or so you were led to believe? 9 A. Yes, and so I believe despite what this says, 10 but - 11 Q. Well, you've got actual studies being done. 12 It's true the results were kept confidential, but the 13 study was done, right? I mean, you've seen the study 14 now. I've shown it toyou even if they won't. 15 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 16 MR. LANIER: Yes, it's probably out of line. 17 BY MR. LANIER: 18 Q. Let me reask that. Sir, you've got -- I've 19 given you -- they never gave you the study, did they? I 20 had to give it to you, right? 21 A. I don't recall seeing it. 22 Q. They never gave you Dernehl's letter where he 23 talks about the conclusion. They never gave you that, 24 did they? I had to. 25 A. I don't remember ever seeing it. 0122 1 Q. Well, when you tell this jury, we told our 2 customers everything, you never told your customers that 3 your asbestos might be more dangerous, did you? 4 A. No, we never did. 5 Q. You never told your customersthat the only 6 conclusion you all could draw from one of the tests you 7 done -- you'd done was that it's possible your product 8 was more hazardous to use than long fiber asbestos. You 9 never told them that, did you? 10 A. There is a tremendous amount of information 11 that we have in our files to the contrary. 12 Q. Well, sir, you don't know what's in all of 13 the files. You didn't have these things in your files, 14 did you? 15 A. I don't think so, no. 16 Q. Why -- why would they hidethis from you? Do 17 you have a reason? 18 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 19 A. I don't know that it was necessarily hidden 20 from me, but I never did see it. 21 Q. Well, sir, they told you that as long as you 22 kept breathing asbestos at above the threshold limit 23 value -- I mean, sorry, below the threshold limit value, 24 you didn't have to worry about disease. That's what 25 0123 1 they told you, didn't they? A. Well, no. That was, you know, after the 2 information on mesothelioma became -- coming -- you 3 know, started coming in, all of our toxicology reports 4 said that our recommendation was that they wear 5 respirators during the interjection of our material into 6 the resin because it was not entirely clear to us just 7 what was going on here, and, you know, I can show you 8 reams of toxicology reports that say that. 9 Q. Well, sir, Dr. Dernehl talks about that in 10 the next paragraph in this letter you've never seen. 11 It's the other document to your right -- yes, to your 12 right, sir, not that one but the one next to you, right 13 there, yes, sir. 14 If you look at the -- on the second page of 15 the document, either the retyped letter or the original, 16 the first full paragraph that starts on that page that 17 says, the question was raised, do you see that -- yes, 18 where your finger is? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. The question was raised whether the 5million 21 particles per cubic foot were still valid as a threshold 22 limit value. 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. The doctorsays, I maintained thevalue is 25 still correct in terms of preventing the disease 0124 1 asbestosis. There is no evidence of asbestosis 2 occurring among people who have worked in an environment 3 where the concentration was kept within it. 4 But he continues, it is probable the 5 5 million particles per cubic foot will not be acceptable 6 for the prevention of mesothelioma. I have no idea what 7 concentration might be effective in preventing this 8 disease. I would wonder whether even a limit of 1 9 million particles per cubic foot would be effective. 10 A. Now, my whole situation -- I didn't deal in 11 cubic feet. I dealt in cc per centimeter, and as I 12 recall, the 5 million particle threshold value was 13 something like 30 cc. 14 You know, he's questioning whether 30 cc 15 or -- or the 5 million particles per cubic foot is 16 acceptable, and I'm saying that, well, you know, I -- I 17 wouldn't contest that. That was, you know, a very high 18 level, and on my watch, the only disagreement we had was 19 as to whether five fibers per centimeter, which is 20 something like six times less than what he's citing 21 here, the threshold limit value that gives, you know, 22 sort of a reasonable -- gives you a reasonable assurance 23 rather than the minimal risk applies. 24 And as you will recall from the, you know, 25 findings of -- of the OSHA, this is exactly what they 0125 1 2 said, that we think it reduces it to a reasonable risk. It doesn't guarantee because of questions of 3 predisposition and other things that it would always be 4 there, but they say it reduces it to a reasonable risk. 5 I personally have no experience with -- with 6 threshold values that are as high as what Dr. Dernehl is 7 talking about here, so - 8 Q. Well, let's pause for a minute and talk about 9 that. 10 You went to work in the Metals and Mining in 11 '69, didn't you? 12 A. Yes, but I went to work as in -- in an 13 administrative function. 14 Q. Did you -- 15 A. It wasn't until '71 that I got involved with 16 asbestos. 17 Q. Did you know in 1971 the toxicology report 18 that was being published by your department under your 19 watch said that this five TLV, in the exact language 20 being talked about here by Dernehl, was accurate? 21 A. No, no, no. You're talking about five fibers 22 per cubic centimeter. 23 Q. Not in '71, sir. That didn't come in until 24 OSHA in '72. Until OSHA in '72 the TLV was 5 million 25 parts per cubic foot, exactly what Dernehl is talking 0126 1 about here. Did you know that? 2 MR. BICKS: Objection to form. 3 A. Well, you know, I know that's what it -- what 4 it was, but I don't -- you know, I don't argue with the 5 fact that there was some question as to whether it was 6 adequate. 7 Q. Sir, I'll show you a copy of the toxicology 8 report that was already in existence when Dr. Dernehl 9 wrote this letter. 10 MR. LANIER: We'll attach it as Exhibit 21. 11 (Rawlings ExhibitS No. 21 & 22 were marked 12 for identification.) 13 BY MR. LANIER: 14 Q. If you look at it here, it's a letter dated 15 March 22nd, 1966. The cover letter goes to a bunch of 16 different people. 17 I'll bet you know some of these people, don't 18 you? 19 A. Yes. They are all over on the other -- the 20 non-metal side of the house, but, you know - 21 Q. And it talks about early in March New York 22 Times and Herald Tribune talked about these new things 23 of asbestos as a health hazard. This is out of context 24 reporting. You have copies of Dr. Dernehl's asbestos 25 toxicology report. Additional copies are enclosed. Use 0127 1 these. Call particular attention to Dernehl's 2 statements in regard to the threshold limit value for 3 asbestos. Do you see that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. All right. Now let'slook at the attached 6 report. Do you see where it says at the top asbestos 7 toxicology report? 8 A. Yes, I do. 9 Q. Okay. It specifically says, it's now 10 generally accepted a man can work a 40-hour week for a 11 lifetime without developing asbestosis if the asbestos 12 dust particle count is kept at or below 5 million 13 particles per cubic foot of air. This dust 14 concentration is the threshold limit value for asbestos. 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. Do you see that? Do you see where it says 17 it, sir? 18 A. Yes, and that's the equivalent of 30. 19 Q. That's right. 20 A. Okay. 21 Q. That's right. And if you continue, you're 22 not going to find anything in that asbestos toxicology 23 report that even remotely tells the Kelly-Moores of the 24 world what Dr. Dernehl knew, namely that's not going to 25 prevent mesothelioma. It's nowhere in there, is it? 0128 1 A. Well, I don't think that, you know, the 2 mesothelioma thing was necessarily all that clear. I 3 mean, it -- basically there were some suggestions made 4 that high dosages but lower cumulative exposures would 5 be a causative factor, but, you know, that's - 6 Q. Sir, you told us specifically, quote, that 7 you all would communicate whatever Carbide knew on a 8 subject? 9 A. Well, during my watch that was certainly 10 true. 11 Q. Well, it evidently wasn't true before your 12 watch, was it? 13 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 14 BY MR. LANIER: 15 Q. It wasn't true before your watch based on 16 that, was it? 17 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 18 A. All I can say is that these documents would 19 lead you to that conclusion. 20 Q. Go back to Rawlings Exhibit Number 4. This 21 is one that the Carbide lawyer asked you about. 22 You've said that's a brochure we gave 23 everybody to tell them about our Calidria asbestos, 24 right? 25 A. Yes. 0129 1 Q. And you talked about how you probably lost 2 customers because it spent so much time talking about 3 toxicology properties. Do you remember that? 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. Look what it says, sir. It says, it's now 6 generally accepted a man can work a 40-hour week for a 7 lifetime if the dust particle count is kept at or 8 below -- what does it say? 9 A. Five million particles per cubic feet of air. 10 Q. That's that same TLV that you said wasn't 11 adequate right? 12 A. (No response.) 13 Q. It's the same TLV that wasn't adequate, isn't 14 it? 15 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 16 A. I'm looking for a date on this. 17 Q. October 1968, down on page one on the lower 18 right-ha corner. It's possible that the sticker has 19 covered up, but I don't think it has. 20 A. I don't know. 21 Q. Do you see it there? 22 A. Yes, I do. 23 Q. Sir, October of 1968, that's after 24 Dr. Dern l's letter that's in front of you that says 25 that the 5 million is not safe, isn't it? 0130 1 A. That's what it appears to say. 2 Q. So it appears that this letter you've 3 testified was going out to Kelly-Moore and others to 4 warn them about asbestos hazards did not tell the truth 5 about the Union Carbide knowledge, right? 6 A. I suppose that that's the indication you see 7 here. 8 Q. And, of course, this was before your watch, 9 't it? 10 A. Yes, it was. 11 Q. If you pick back up that Calidria sales 12 brochure you all were putting out to Kelly-Moore and 13 others, I want to draw your attention -- it's Exhibit 14 Number 4 -- I want to draw your attention, if you would 15 turn to page four, let's read what it says about cancer. 16 If you'll look at the paragraph, that 17 first -- the first full paragraph on page four where it 18 starts, several years ago, do you see that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. This is the only paragraph that talks about 21 cancer as a -- as a hazard with asbestos, and I'd like 22 to go through it with you very carefully. 23 You all were telling Kelly-Moore several 24 years ago it was reported that there was an increase in 25 the incidence of cancerous tumors especially of the lung 0131 1 associated with asbestosis. Do you see that? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Recently there have been reports of some 4 cancers occurring in individuals exposed to asbestos 5 dust but who have not developed clinical asbestosis. Do 6 you see that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. It continues, it is believedby most 9 authorities that these cases have been associated with 10 exposures significantly exceeding the threshold limit 11 value. Did I read that right? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. And this is thatthreshold limit value of 5 14 million particles per cubic foot before your watch, 15 right? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. It says, amajor manufacturer of asbestos 18 products who also mines asbestos has not been able to 19 show an increase in cancerous growths in men working 20 where dust concentrations were maintained at the 21 threshold limit value. Do you see that? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Sir, this is suggesting to theKelly-Moores 24 of the world that as long as you keep your exposure 25 below the threshold limit value of five, you're safe 0132 1 when it comes to cancer, right? 2 A. That was certainly the law of the land at 3 that point in time. 4 Q. Sir, that is therepresentation made by Union 5 Carbide to Kelly-Moore and others that in tape joint 6 compound materials, if you keep the exposures below the 7 threshold limit value, you are safe on cancer, right? 8 A. (No response.) 9 Q. I mean, that's what it says, isn't it? 10 A. That's what itsays, yes. 11 MR. BICKS: Mr. Lanier, in terms of 12 housekeeping -- 13 MR. LANIER: Just one second, please. I'm in 14 the middle of something . Just one second. 15 BY MR. LANIER: 16 Q. Sir -- 17 MR. BICKS: Let me just -- then you can keep 18 going. 19 MR. LANIER: No. 20 MR. BICKS: You were supposed to go for an 21 hour and a half. Just give me a sense -- the rules 22 of the Court -- 23 MR. LANIER: The reason I let you -- okay. 24 Can we do this when I'm not in the middle of this 25 line of questioning on this document right now, 0133 1 please? 2 I will finish this line of questioning in 3 three to five minutes, and then you can talk to me 4 all you want, but this is very rude and out of line 5 with the rules. Sir -- 6 MR. BICKS: Hold on a second. The rules were 7 that we were to go an hour and a half. 8 MR. LANIER: The rules were that I would go 9 first for an hour and a half and then you would go 10 an hour and a half and then I would go an hour and a 11 half and then you would go an hour and a half. 12 I said instead you could go until you were 13 done and I would just recross, I would let you take 14 the deposition first, which you did. 15 MR. BICKS: But you've gone significantly 16 over an hour and a half now. 17 MR. LANIER: That's because I'm doing my 18 cross off your direct. 19 MR. BICKS: You -- you were allowed to go for 20 an hour and a half - 21 MR. LANIER: No. 22 MR. BICKS: -- so let's finish this up. 23 MR. LANIER: No,Peter. We'll getthe judge 24 on the phone and we'll explain to the judge what 25 0134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 we've done, but I let you ask everything. You didn't run out of stuff. You said you were through. I let you ask all of your questions. Didn't you -- MR. BICKS: The rules were very clear, Mr. Lanier. You were to go first - MR. LANIER: No. MR. BICKS: -- for an hour and a half. I was to go second. MR. LANIER: Peter, if you want to get the judge on the phone, that's fine, but I'm going to play this for the judge also with my request that 11 you not interrupt these questions. This is on tape, 12 and what you're doing is out of line and not 13 appreciated and it's very clear gamesmanship. 14 MR. BICKS: No, it is not. 15 MR. LANIER: And I think you will find 16 this -- there is no reason for you to be 17 interrupting at this moment when I have asked you 18 not to, and I will be asking the Court to consider 19 rejection of the pro hac vice. 20 MR. BICKS: Can I just, for the videographer, 21 can you tell me how long he's been questioning? 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: One hour and 40 minutes. 23 BY MR. LANIER: 24 Q. Sir, before the Union Carbide lawyer 25 interrupted, you had just testified that basically 0135 1 comparing what Dr. Dernehl knew with what Kelly-Moore 2 was told as to the cancer hazard, there was a 3 misrepresentation, true? 4 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 5 A. Again, I'm not sure I know enough about what 6 was going on at this particular point in time to answer 7 that question, but - 8 Q. Based upon the documents that you've been 9 given and that you've testified about, it's true, isn't 10 it? 11 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 12 BY MR. LANIER: 13 Q. It's there in black and white? 14 A. What document did I testify about? I talked 15 about -- I testified about a toxicology report during my 16 watch that had a far different reading than this. 17 Q. Sir, the Exhibit Number 4 in front of you you 18 testified about, and I'll show the jury right now your 19 testimony about that, but Mr. Bicks asked you and said 20 it goes on for half of the report, talks about 21 toxicology and you all talked about how that probably 22 cost you sales but you all wanted to tell everybody 23 everything. 24 A. This isn't the same. 25 0136 1 2 3 MR. BICKS: Let's take a break because MR. LANIER: No. MR. BICKS: Just answer the question and we're going to take a break because you're not 4 showing him the right -- the documents that I showed 5 him. 6 A. No, this is not the document. 7 Q. Is that Exhibit Number 4? Does it have a 8 sticker on it? 9 A. It's UCC 26. 10 Q. It doesn't have Exhibit Number 4 on it? 11 MR. LANIER: No, we're not going off the 12 record with this if you're accusing me of showing 13 him the wrong document. 14 BY MR. LANIER: 15 Q. Look at this. What does that say? 16 A. Exhibit 4. 17 Q. Rawlings Exhibit Number 4? 18 A. Yes. 19 MR. LANIER: Now, Mr. Bicks, why is that not 20 the right document? Is that Exhibit Number 4 or 21 not? Do you withdraw your accusation that I've 22 shown him the wrong document? 23 MR. BICKS: You are showing him a 1968 24 document when you know that document got amended in 25 1969, and I was talking to him about all of the 0137 1 2 documents - MR. LANIER: Sir - 3 MR. BICKS: -- including the 1969 document 4 and you're trying to confuse him. 5 MR. LANIER: Sir, excuse me. Is this Exhibit 6 4 or not? Is this the document, Peter Bicks, you 7 handed him, you put into evidence or not? Are you 8 saying I have deliberately changed the document and 9 the sticker? Let's go on the record now and say it. 10 MR. BICKS: I'm not saying that, Mr. Lanier. 11 MR. LANIER: Okay. Are you saying that there 12 has been some shenanigans in the room and the 13 documents have been shifted? 14 MR. BICKS: No, of course I'm not. 15 MR. LANIER: Are you agreeing that this is 16 the document you handed him? 17 MR. BICKS: Yes. 18 MR. LANIER: Okay. 19 MR. BICKS: Let's take a break. 20 MR. LANIER: So I'm not mixing -21 MR. BICKS: No. Let's -22 MR. LANIER: -- up the documents? 23 MR. BICKS: Mr. Lanier, let's take a break. 24 MR. LANIER: No. We're going to finish these 25 questions. You are not going to interrupt this 0138 1 questioning. 2 BY MR. LANIER: 3 Q. Sir , isn't it true based upon the document 4 Mr. Bicks gave you that you testified about to this jury 5 was one you all gave to Kelly-Moore, was one that you 6 all relied on and that gave all of the toxicology 7 information, that document does not tell the truth about 8 cancer and asbestos, true? 9 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 10 A. You know, I'm so confused by this whole thing 11 that I don't know how to answer that question, to tell 12 you the truth. 13 Q. Well, does Dr. Dernehl say in his letter of 14 1967 that five is not a safe level for cancer? 15 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 16 A. I don't know that that was the way he worded 17 it, but 18 Q. Well, look at it. It's right there in front 19 of you. Does he say -- the question was raised whether 20 five was valid for asbestosis. He says it is, but it is 21 probable 5 million particles per cubic feet will not be 22 acceptable for the prevention of mesothelioma. Is that 23 what he says? 24 A. That's what he says. 25 Q. And yet the very next year the exhibit that 0139 1 Mr. Bicks has given to this jury as Exhibit Number 4 2 specifically says about cancer that as long as you stay 3 within five you're safe, right? 4 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 5 A. There could have been intervening information 6 as far as I know. I mean, I can't -- I can tell you 7 that what you say about that, it says what it says. 8 Q. And so what it says is not a fair and 9 accurate representation of what Dernehl said in his 10 letter, true? 11 MR. BICKS: Objection. 12 A. It all depends on whether Dernehl had 13 intervening information or not, I suppose. 14 Q. All right. Let's assume Dernehl had no 15 intervening information. Then we know that Calidria 16 brochure Number 4 is inaccurate and misleading, correct? 17 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 18 A. Okay. What am I going to say? If you just 19 read the words the way -- way they are, you don't look 20 at any intervening circumstances, then you can say that 21 that would be the case. 22 Q. Okay. 23 MR. BICKS: Let's take a break. 24 MR. LANIER: Why? The witness does not need 25 a break. 0140 1 MR. BICKS: I have to go to the men's room. 2 MR. LANIER: Okay. We've been going for 30 3 minutes. All right. We'll wait. Hurry and go to 4 the men's room, please. 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record. The time 6 is now 2:20. Off the record. 7 (Recess taken from 2:20 p.m. to 2:34 p.m.) 8 (Continued to Volume II) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0141 1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. 23rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2 CASE NO. 19785-BH02 3 KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC., 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. 6 DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, ET AL, 7 Defendants. 8/ 9 10 VOLUME II 11 VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF: JAMES W. RAWLINGS 12 13 DATE: December 9, 2003 14 TIME: 10:15 a.m. to 5:41 p.m. 15 16 LOCATION: 325 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 17 18 REPORTED BY: REBECCA L. FELLA, Registered Professional Reporter, Notary 19 Public, State of Florida at Large 20 21 22 23 24 25 0142 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 W. MARK LANIER, ESQUIRE DARA HEGAR, ESQUIRE 3 ROBERT LEONE, ESQUIRE 4 The Lanier Law Firm 6810 FM 1960 West 5 Houston, Texas 77069 (713) 659-5200 6 On behalf of the Plaintiff 7 PETER A. BICKS, ESQUIRE 8 BARRIE ROSENBERG PRINZ, ESQUIRE 9 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP 666 Fifth Avenue 10 New York, New York 10103 (212) 506-3764 11 On behalf of Defendant Union Carbide 12 13 ALSO PRESENT: Ed Bookbinder, Videographer Visual Impact Communications, Inc. 14 780 Florida Central Parkway, Suite 300 Longwood, Florida 32750 15 (407) 7367-9774 16 I NDE X 17 JAMES W. RAWLINGS 18 Direct Examination by Mr. Bicks 6 19 Cross Examination by Mr. Lanier 55 Redirect Examination by Mr. Bicks 191 20 Recross Examination by Mr. Lanier Redirect Examination by Mr. Bicks 21 Certificate of Oath 236 273 276 Certificate of Reporter 277 22 Read & Sign letter to Mr. Bicks 278 Errata Sheet 279 23 (Errata sheet(s) to be forwarded upon execution) 24 25 0143 1 EXHIBITS 2 Exhibit No. 1 (Portion of transcript of David Egilman)43 Exhibit No. 2 (1970 Asbestos Toxicology Summary) 46 3 Exhibit No. 3 (1972 Asbestos Toxicology Summary) 46 Exhibit No. 4 (Calidria asbestos brochure) 48 4 Exhibit No. 5 (Article about Dr. Selikoff's work) 50 Exhibit No. 6 (Article about Dr. Selikoff's work) 50 5 Exhibit No. 7 (Article by John Myers) 50 Exhibit No. 8 (Our ten-year safety failure document) 75 6 Exhibit No. 9 (Memo from Castor Oil Company, 7/5/72) 86 Exhibit No. 10 (Memo from Mr. Ingalls of 7/22/72) 88 7 Exhibit No. 11 (Letter from Degussa) 98 Exhibit No. 12 (Letter from Degussa of 12/7/71) 98 8 Exhibit No. 13 (Letter to Dr. Stern of 1/5/72) 99 Exhibit No. 14 (Letter from Union Carbide of 1/6/72) 104 9 Exhibit No. 15 (Letter from Degussa of 1/27/72) 104 Exhibit No. 16 (Letter from Degussa of 1/27/72) 108 10 Exhibit No. 17 (Degussa letter dated 12/7/71) 112 Exhibit No. 18 (Letter of May 30, 1975) 114 11 Exhibit No. 19 (Mellon Institute Special Report) 114 Exhibit No. 20 (Letter from Dr. Dernehl of 6/7/67) 117 12 Exhibit No. 21 (Memorandum of 3/22/66) 126 Exhibit No. 22 (Letter from Union Carbide, 11/30/71) 126 13 Exhibit No. 23 (Memo of 7/24/73 regarding coveralls) 182 Exhibit No. 24 (Kelly-Moore history of sales) 192 14 Exhibit No. 25 (Interrogatory answers) Exhibit No. 26 (Call report for Baker Castor Oil) 192 199 15 Exhibit No. 27 (Memo from Mr. Ingalls of 10/12/71) 202 Exhibit No. 28 (Airborne asbestos report) 203 16 Exhibit No. 29 (1971 Mellon Institute report) Exhibit No. 30 (Union Carbide memo of 3/21/70) 206 206 17 Exhibit No. 31 (Letter to Imperial dated 1/3/67) 216 Exhibit No. 32 (Evaluation of Airborne Asbestos) 221 18 Exhibit No. 33 (Asbestos survey of 12/15/76) 224 Exhibit No. 34 (Evaluation of Airborne Asbestos) 262 19 Exhibit No. 35 (Asbestos fiber counts, 11/13/73) 262 Exhibit No. 36 (Airborne fiber counts, 6/30/75) 263 20 21 22 23 24 25 0144 1 (Continued from Volume I) 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is tape three of the 3 deposition of James Rawlings. We're on the record. 4 The time is now 2:34 p.m. On the record. 5 BY MR. LANIER: 6 Q. Okay. Sir, during the 15-minute quick run 7 across the hall to the bathroom for Mr. Bicks, did you 8 discuss anything with him? 9 A. Are you -- is there a question? 10 Q. I'm sorry, sir. Mr. Rawlings, Mr. Bicks took 11 a -- a quick run across the hall for 15 minutes to use 12 the restroom. 13 During that time did you have any discussions 14 with him? 15 A. You know, we talked - 16 MR. BICKS: Hold on a minute. You can't go 17 into what I talked to him about on a break. 18 MR. LANIER: I didn't ask him what you talked 19 about. 20 MR. BICKS: Okay. 21 BY MR. LANIER: 22 Q. I said, did you have any discussions with 23 him? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And I'd like to know what you all talked 0145 1 about. 2 MR. LANIER: You can instruct him -- 3 MR. BICKS: Instruct him not to answer. 4 MR. LANIER: Okay. So it was about this case 5 at least? 6 MR. BICKS: Instruction not to answer, 7 confidential. 8 MR. LANIER: Is the instruction based upon 9 the fact that it's attorney/client work product? 10 What is the privilege based on? 11 MR. BICKS: Attorney/client privilege. 12 BY MR. LANIER: 13 Q. Okay. Now, sir, I want to move on to a 14 little bit of another subject with you, please. 15 Mr. Bicks asked you whether or not Union 16 Carbide made studies available to customers. Your 17 answer was, we would refer to those studies in the 18 toxicology report. Do you remember that testimony? 19 A. Yes, I do. 20 Q. Okay. Now, some of the studies we've already 21 determined were not even given to you. I'm assuming 22 those were not given to customers as well, true? 23 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 24 A. You know, you're asking me to assume 25 something too. 0146 1 Q. Well, I mean, you don't have -- you're not 2 telling the jury that that secret study that showed 3 Calidria to be more hazardous, you're not saying that 4 that was given to customers, are you? 5 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 6 A. I haven't any idea whether it was or not. 7 Q. Well, it was never given to you, was it? 8 A. I don't think so. 9 Q. So you weren't giving it to customers, were 10 you? 11 A. No, I wasn't giving anything like that to 12 customers. I didn't have it. 13 Q. Well, sir, what youtestified to was very 14 careful, and I want to make sure I understand it. 15 Mr. Bicks asked you about two exhibits here that were 16 marked Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, and I want to hand them 17 to you. Do you remember him questioning you about those 18 exhibits? 19 A. (No response.) 20 Q. Do you remember those questions, sir? 21 A. Yes. I need to refresh my memory. 22 Q. Okay. Well, take a moment and look at them. 23 Tell me when you're ready for me to continue. Okay. 24 Are you ready? 25 A. Yes. 0147 1 Q. Do you remember Mr. Bicks asking you 2 questions about those toxicology documents, Exhibits 2 3 and 3? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. I believe Mr. Bicks called them toxicology 6 reports. That's not what those are, correct? 7 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 8 Well, they're not -- you know, they're not 9 edited up toxicology reports. 10 11 A. It just talks about asbestos toxicology. 12 Q. Yes. Those are summaries, aren't they? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Those are not documents that you all gave out 15 to your customers; those are internal summaries that 16 contain some handouts and other materials, right? 17 A. Well, it says by its terms that it's to 18 provide -- provide the Calidria asbestos user and 19 potential user with a reasonable picture of the 20 toxicology situation, so -- 21 Q. That's, sir, not of the whole document, is 22 it? Where are you talking about? 23 A. I'm talking about -24 Q. Paragraph three, the purpose of this short 25 report is to provide the Calidria asbestos user -- 0148 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Some limited information generated by cutting 3 and grinding may be of interest is also included? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. It's talking about not this whole document, 6 but what is actually contained within it, the asbestos 7 and your health brochure, the Calidria asbestos 8 brochure, correct? 9 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 10 A. It's notapparent tomethat everything 11 that's connected here wasn't involved. 12 Q. Okay. Well, look, for example, at the next 13 page of this. Do you think that you sent out to 14 customers like Kelly-Moore a memo that just says, 15 response to article in Wall Street Journal and then has 16 the response, several reprints from recent newspaper 17 articles, coverage is more objective? 18 I mean, this is obviously an internal 19 itemization. We can tell that from page two, can't we? 20 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 21 A. I don't think it necessarily follows that 22 they weren't included. 23 Q. Are -- are you swearing under oath that you 24 all sent this document to Kelly-Moore, Exhibit 2 or 3? 25 A. I would say the purpose was certainly to send 0149 1 it out to all users. 2 Q. Are you swearing under oath that Document 2 3 or 3 were sent to Kelly-Moore? 4 A. Did I personally know that this document was 5 mailed to Kelly-Moore? 6 Q. Or hand delivered or anything else. 7 A. No, I can't testify to that, but I certainly 8 can't testify that it wasn't done either. 9 Q. Well, sir, did you know Mr. Bicks has in his 10 office just literally hundreds and hundreds of boxes of 11 Union Carbide's files? Did you know that? 12 A. It doesn't surprise me. 13 Q. Did you know that Mr. Bicks, among all of 14 those boxes, has certain files that specifically say, 15 here are the materials that we sent to Kelly-Moore and 16 to other companies as well? 17 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 18 BY MR. LANIER: 19 Q. Did you know that? 20 A. No, I didn't know that. 21 Q. Mr. Bicks hasn't shown you that document that 22 shows what was sent to Kelly-Moore and when it was sent? 23 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 24 A. I don't recall seeing it. 25 Q. Okay. Well, let's talkabout some documents 0150 1 that we do have that -- that show usat least what we 2 know for certain was being sent to customers. Okay? Is 3 that fair to do? 4 A. (No response.) 5 Q. You're okay if we talk about some documents 6 we do know were sent to customers? 7 A. Sure. 8 Q. All right. Let's start with Exhibit Number 9 22 and what's talked about within that exhibit. I'd 10 like to discuss it with you. Have you ever seen that 11 exhibit before? 12 A. (No response.) 13 Q. Have you ever seen it before, sir? 14 A. Let me finish reading it. 15 Q. I'm sorry; I don't mean to cutyou off. 16 A. Well, I -- you know, I see that I'm copied on 17 it. I assume I saw it, but I don't have any personal 18 recollection of seeing it. 19 Q. Okay. Well, it does have a cc going to you 20 as J.W. Rawlings, doesn't it? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. And it is dated November 30th, 1971, which 23 was under your watch, right? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. This is a call sheet, isn't it? 0151 1 A. It's a what? 2 Q. A call report? 3 A. Yes, that's right. 4 Q. This is a call report on another paint 5 company, Glidden-Durkee out of Cleveland, Ohio, true? 6 A. I think that's right, yes. 7 Q. And the purpose of the call or the meeting 8 with that paint company was to discuss the toxicological 9 aspects of Calidria, right? It's under objective, very 10 first line. 11 A. Yes, that's right. 12 Q. It says -- let's -- let's try and get an idea 13 of what went on at this meeting to discuss the poison or 14 toxicology aspects of you all's Calidria asbestos with 15 the paint company. 16 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 17 BY MR. LANIER: 18 Q. Do you see observations? 19 A. (No response.) 20 Q. Do you see where it says observations, sir? 21 A. Yes, I see it. 22 Q. It says, we first met with Mr. Dunn and 23 Mr. Holkesvig at their corporate headquarters in 24 downtown Cleveland. Mr. Dunn opened the meeting by 25 saying that they, Glidden Paint Company, were well aware 0152 1 that much of the hysteria associated with the toxic 2 properties of asbestos promoted by the news media and 3 others was, in fact, nothing more than hysteria. Did I 4 read that right? 5 A. Yes, you read it right. 6 Q. In fact, that's your opinion too, isn't it? 7 There's abunch of -- what did you call it -- media 8 frenzy over this subject, right? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. Okay. The observations continue. 11 Nevertheless, it was their, being Glidden's, 12 responsibility and obligation to both personnel of 13 Glidden-Durkee and their customers to assure themselves 14 on the position of asbestos and the safe handling of the 15 product in their applications. Did I read that right? 16 A. You did. 17 Q. So we can as an observation say this was 18 another paint company that wanted to meet with you all 19 because they wanted to make sure they understood just 20 how dangerous asbestos was and how it could be handled 21 safely. 22 That seems to be the purpose of the meeting, 23 right? 24 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 25 A. Well, you know, let that go for a minute. 0153 1 What else? 2 Q. All right. Well, it says, he personally, 3 meaning I guess either Mr. Dunn -- well, yes, it must be 4 Mr. Dunn, he personally wanted to be prepared for any 5 questions that might arise either by their production 6 people or unions, et cetera. Did I read that correctly? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Now, sir, let's focus in real closely on this 9 next line, okay? Read with me. With this in mind, he, 10 the Glidden paint company, went on to say that to date 11 the only information that Carbide had furnished him with 12 regard to this subject in print is our asbestos 13 toxicology report and some information concerning 14 methods and equipment for determining dust levels. Did 15 I read that right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Now, the asbestos toxicology report, that was 18 a printed document entitled asbestos toxicology report 19 that Union Carbide had, right? 20 A. Now you've lost me. 21 Q. Well, we - 22 A. Are you saying that this was -- the one we've 23 looked at previously was the only toxicology report we 24 had? 25 Q. No. The one that I showed you previously was 0154 1 the 1966 version and it would get amended, but there was 2 an asbestos toxicology report that the jury has seen 3 that's titled asbestos toxicology report, and that's 4 what was provided to these people at least, right? 5 A. That's apparently true. 6 Q. Okay. Then he continues, the -- the Glidden 7 Paint man said our asbestos toxicology report he found 8 atrocious and rather than answering questions actually 9 posed them. He felt that should such a report fall into 10 the hands of their production people, it would cause 11 considerable concern to say the least. 12 Exemplifying his point, he noted we make 13 reference only to crocidolite and yet neglect to 14 identify our own asbestos which is chrysotile. This 15 obviously, on the basis of the report, would be to our 16 favor. He also felt we should be more specific in our 17 recommendations for safe practice. Did I read that 18 right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Would you agree with me that at least for the 21 Glidden Paint Company in November of 1971 you all were 22 not communicating, quote, whatever Carbide knew on a 23 subject, close quote? 24 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 25 A. Well, I don't know all what we were 0155 1 communicating, but it would appear that the asbestos - 2 that they had reservations about the asbestos toxicology 3 report. 4 Q. In fact, you all had evidently only given 5 them that toxicology report, and he thought it was 6 woefully inadequate, didn't he? 7 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 8 A. I wish he had stated why. 9 Q. Well, I think he does. One ofthe reasons is 10 that it references only crocidolite. It doesn't talk 11 about the chrysotile. Do you see that where he says 12 that? 13 A. (No response.) 14 Q. Do you see where it says that, sir? 15 A. Well, I'm lost with reading some of the 16 points. Point this out to me now? 17 Q. Okay. It says he felt that the report was 18 bad because -- an example was, we make -- quote, we make 19 reference only to crocidolite and yet neglect to 20 identify our own asbestos which is chrysotile. Do you 21 see that? On the front page, I'm sorry. 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. Let me show you. 24 A. Okay. Here we are. Yes. 25 Q. Do you see where it says, exemplifying his 0156 1 2 point, he noted we make reference only to crocidolite and yet neglect to identify our own asbestos which is 3 chrysotile? Do you see that? 4 A. Yes, but where is -- where is the -- the 5 applicable -- I want to look at the applicable -6 Q. Toxicology report? 7 A. -- toxicology report. 8 MR. LANIER: Do you have one, Mr. Bicks? 9 BY MR. LANIER: 10 Q. Sir, I don't think the Union Carbide lawyers 11 brought one, and I can tell you I have not. 12 MR. BICKS: Mr. Lanier, just so the record is 13 clear, this is your examination. I'm not going to 14 be sitting here answering questions on your 15 examination. 16 MR. LANIER: Okay. 17 MR. BICKS: The witness has asked you. 18 MR. LANIER: Okay. I understand. Thank you 19 Peter. 20 BY MR. LANIER: 21 Q. Sir, I will tell you this, by the time I play 22 this to the jury, they will have seen the toxicology 23 report and they'll know exactly what this language is 24 and I'll hold it up. 25 And right now, while I play this question to 0157 1 them, do you have any memory about it at all? 2 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 3 A. I don't have any remember -- I mean, any 4 memory at all of this particular report, the customer 5 visit report. 6 Q. Boy, it sure doesn't look like you all had 7 given this customer all of the information you all knew, 8 this paint company, does it? 9 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 10 A. Well, you know, I don't know what the devil 11 we've given, I mean, not necessarily -- well, I guess 12 they were looking at the toxicology report. 13 Q. Well, you say you don't know what you gave 14 them, but you testified when Mr. Bicks asked you, quote, 15 we communicated whatever Carbide knew on a subject - 16 A. Well, we -17 Q. -- did you not? 18 A. We -- we gave them the toxicology report, and 19 I want to see what this toxicology report said. 20 Q. All right. If the toxicology report -- well, 21 one thing we know for sure, there was one fellow named a 22 Mr. Canning who worked for Glidden who seemed to be a 23 lot more direct, it's a frontal attack is what it's 24 called, on how forthcoming you all were being with 25 asbestos. That's on page two. 0158 1 A. Yes, I saw that. 2 Q. And the recommended action down at the 3 bottom, it says that you all need to start getting some 4 more information packages together, but one of the first 5 things it says is, I think Mr. Canning bears close 6 attention, let's maintain frequent contact with him. 7 That was the main thrust coming out of that 8 meeting, wasn't it? 9 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 10 A. It appears that it was certainly a factor. 11 Q. Okay. Now, by the way, you will agree with 12 me that Union Carbide is an authority on what they sell, 13 right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Union Carbide is an authority whenUnion 16 Carbide sells asbestos or when Union Carbide sells some 17 other chemical, true? 18 A. That's true. 19 Q. And customers ought to be able to rely upon 20 Union Carbide to be an authority, right? 21 A. I suspect that, you know, ifyou're saying 22 does Union Carbide have the expertise to issue the 23 toxicology report, I'd agree with that. 24 Q. Right. And -- and it's fair and 25 understandable and you all knew when you issued those 0159 1 reports that customers like the Glidden Paint Company or 2 Kelly-Moore would rely upon you all telling them the 3 truth, right? 4 A. Well, you know, of course the thing that just 5 absolutely amazes me is the assumption that these people 6 that have been in asbestos for as long as they had were 7 little babes in the woods and didn't understand it. 8 Q. How long had Kelly-Moore been in the asbestos 9 business? 10 A. Well, I don't know. They were using asbestos 11 or they were distributing asbestos back, you know, in 12 the -- prior to 1960, I think. 13 Q. No. 14 A. No? 15 Q. No. Did Mr. Bicks tell you that too? 16 A. Somehow I just got that -- that idea from 17 looking at -- at some summaries of the -- of the 18 activity we'd had with them. Now, didn't you all buy 19 a -- a company that, you know, you assumed their 20 information and they were using asbestos? 21 Q. There was a small, little drywallcompany 22 called Paco that madejointcompound in thelate '50s 23 they started, and we bought that as part of the wall 24 preparation, trying to be a one-stop shop, but 25 Kelly-Moore has always been a paint company. 0160 1 2 It's family owned, didn't have a research department, didn't have an industrial hygiene 3 department. I mean, you're within ten years of 4 Ms. Moore taping -- gluing the labels on the paint cans. 5 It was a family shop. Did you know any of that? 6 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 7 A. I'm afraid not. I mean, it's -8 Q. I mean, could they rely on Union Carbide? Is 9 that reasonable? Were you all trustworthy? 10 A. Well, I still contend we were trustworthy on 11 those -- those reports. I don't -- you know, I'd still 12 like to look at the report to see what Mr. Canning, you 13 know, what -- what he was bridling about. 14 I mean, he specifically states the fact that 15 we were -- that we called it a different kind of 16 asbestos, and I find that hard to believe we'd call it 17 other than chrysotile. 18 Q. Well, here is -- I've got it on computer 19 here, which -- which may not be all that easy to read, 20 but let's look at it, because the jury, I can put it up 21 for the jury so they can see it. This is page two of a 22 1969 asbestos toxicology report. 23 Now, I think what they may be talking about 24 is where it says here, a type of cancer named 25 mesothelioma has been noted to be associated with 0161 1 asbestos exposure in recent years. These tumors, while 2 rather few in number to date, may occur in individuals 3 with histories of only slight exposures as much as 20 to 4 40 years earlier. 5 There is considerable evidence that 6 crocidolite is most frequently associated with 7 mesothelioma. 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. From the data available, it appears that the 10 TLV of five is not low enough to protect against 11 mesothelioma. It's quite possible that two is not 12 either. Research on the problem continues. Do you see 13 that? 14 A. Okay. 15 Q. See, but itdoesn't say anything about 16 chrysotile. It just talks about crocidolite there. 17 A. But the -- the inference is clear and it's 18 consistent with the information I have that crocidolite 19 was considerably more toxic than -- than chrysotile. 20 Q. But itdoesn't tell you aboutchrysotile. It 21 doesn't tell you -- it doesn't mention whether 22 chrysotile even -- I think that was their concern, you 23 all sidestepped chrysotile. You don't say anything 24 about it there. 25 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 0162 1 A. I -- basically speaking, I -- you know, I 2 don't know whether you -- I mean, what you're reading 3 into this thing, but basically as I look at it, the only 4 conclusion I come to is we said that there were some 5 indications that crocidolite, which is not our product, 6 is more toxic with respect to mesothelioma than other 7 forms of -- of asbestos. 8 Q. Okay. Well, sir -- 9 A. Now, if they weren't making that clear, I 10 mean, that, you know, that we weren't talking about that 11 we were calling our stuff crocidolite rather than 12 chrysotile, I mean, I -- I think that's -- that's - 13 that's absolutely wrong. I mean -14 Q. Sir, you said that, quote, we erred on the 15 conservative side of giving extra information. 16 Well, that's not true based on what we're 17 reading from Glidden and all of these other things we're 18 looking at - 19 A. Yes, but - 20 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 21 BY MR. LANIER: 22 Q. -- is it? 23 A. You know, I -- like -- like with this thing, 24 I'm -- I'm missing information when -- when you're 25 asking me questions and, you know, when I look at it 0163 1 it's clear that they were saying -- suggesting that 2 crocidolite was -- was more toxic than chrysotile is the 3 sole meaning of that thing. 4 Now, you know, if -- if you look at -- and 5 then the other thing is, I'd like to look at the whole 6 of the toxicology report. 7 Q. Okay. Well, you'll have a chance to do that 8 at a break if you'd like. 9 Sir, I want to shift a little bit of gears in 10 terms of the document, and I want to focus in more on 11 your testimony that said, we were willing to lose sales 12 as long as we could give all of the information. The 13 information was more important than the number -- than 14 the amount of sales? Do you remember testifying about 15 that? 16 A. Yes, I remember testifying to that. 17 Q. Sir, I want to show you a document that I've 18 labeled Exhibit Number 18. It's dated May 30, 1975, ask 19 you if you've ever seen it before. 20 A. I have no recollection just looking at the 21 title, but let me read it. 22 Q. And it's a long document. The part I'd like 23 you to especially read initially is going to be the 24 first two paragraphs. I'll -- I'll represent to you 25 this was written by Mr. Rhodes, Harrison Rhodes. 0164 1 MR. BICKS: Mr. Lanier, just for the record, 2 you know it's our position this is a privileged 3 document. 4 MR. LANIER: Yes. 5 MR. BICKS: I'm going to go ahead and let you 6 ask questions provided you won't say that my 7 allowing you to ask questions waives the 8 attorney/client privilege. Is that fair? 9 MR. LANIER: So stipulated. 10 MR. BICKS: That way because if the judge 11 sustains it - 12 MR. LANIER: So stipulated. 13 MR. BICKS: -- you can't use it. If he says 14 you can use it, then - 15 MR. LANIER: Then we're done. 16 MR. BICKS: But we're in agreement that by my 17 letting you ask him questions, it's not a waiver of 18 the attorney/client privilege? 19 MR. LANIER: We are in agreement on that. 20 BY MR. LANIER: 21 Q. I'll tell you, sir, in the interest of time, 22 at this point, having spent three or four minutes 23 looking at it, does it ring any bells? 24 A. Well, there are certain points raised in here 25 that ring a bell with me. I mean -- 0165 1 Q. All right. Can I ask you the parts I'm 2 concerned about and you tell me if you have any memory 3 of them, please? 4 A. Okay. The first two paragraphs? 5 Q. Yes, sir. Let's start with who Marjorie 6 Chamberlain was. Did you know her? 7 A. Her name doesn't ring a bell at all. 8 Q. Okay. Mr. Thurber, who received this letter, 9 did you know him? 10 A. Yes, I did. 11 Q. Who was he? 12 A. He was the product manager for asbestos, 13 reported to me directly. 14 Q. So he was under you? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. All right. This is on your watch now, May 17 30th of 1975, isn't it? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. It says this -- Mr. Rhodes wrote, this is in 20 response to Thurber's request for comments on Marjorie 21 Chamberlain's memo of May 5 on the subject of, I guess, 22 asbestos use warnings; is that right? 23 A. That appears to be right. That is the 24 caption up above. 25 Q. All right. It says, the suggestions made by 0166 1 2 the law department undoubtedly maximizes protection against possible future product liability suits; on the 3 other hand, cancer is a very emotional word. There is a 4 strong possibility people will react to it far beyond 5 the real danger involved. This is particularly true 6 when it appears on a label where the actual extent of 7 the risk is not explained. Did I read that right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. It's pretty apparent from reading that that 10 evidently the law department had suggested putting a 11 warning label that talked about the hazards of cancer on 12 the product, true? 13 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 14 A. That appears to be the case. 15 Q. All right. And then - 16 A. You know, I take your word for the fact that 17 Marjorie Chamberlain is a lawyer, but I -- 18 Q. She may not be. We've been told she is. 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. We've been told that by Union Carbide, but I 21 don't have personal knowledge of it. 22 Sir, the second paragraph, Mr. Rhodes' 23 comment is, we cannot predict with certainty what affect 24 the use of the proposed label will have on our business, 25 but the general feeling here is that it's likely to vary 0167 1 somewhere between serious and fatal. Did I read that 2 right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Would you be shocked to find out that you all 5 decided not to put the cancer label on the product? 6 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 7 A. No, I wouldn't be shocked in lieu of what I 8 read down below. I mean, it's -- 9 Q. Sir, isn't it true that this very document 10 shows us that Union Carbide had a greater concern about 11 the effect on sales than they did putting a cancer 12 warning label on the product? 13 A. I don't think that it necessarily does. I 14 mean, you know, one of the things -- if you look at 15 three below, the mesothelioma has only been clearly 16 associated with crocidolite inhalation, there is real 17 doubt that it can be caused by inhalation of chrysotile, 18 you know, I -- I think there was -- there's some good 19 information backing that concept up. 20 And basically speaking, you know, if I -- if 21 you look -- I'd -- I'd like to see specifically in terms 22 of making judgments on this what -- what our 23 toxicological report showed at this particular time 24 specifically with mesothelioma. 25 My recollection was by this time it said 0168 1 something to the effect that, you know, it's uncertain, 2 but, you know, our recommendation is that whenever 3 you're -- you're using our product, you know, in an open 4 form, you should be wearing respirators. And, you know, 5 based on that, I don't -- I'd like to read the rest of 6 it now too because I'm still looking at only part of 7 a -- part of a document. 8 Q. Well, in the interest of time, because the 9 lawyer has told me to cut my time short, I'll let him 10 give you a chance to do that. And I'd love to talk to 11 you about it some more, but what I'd like to do right 12 now is ask you, so do you believe you all put a cancer 13 warning label on there or you did not? 14 A. Well, you know, we had warning labels on 15 that, you know, were exactly what OSHA said we should 16 have on our bags. 17 Q. That wasn't my question. Did you put a 18 warning label on recommended by the legal department 19 that says cancer, can cause cancer, quote, unquote? 20 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 21 A. You know, I would doubt it, but I -- I 22 don't -- 23 Q. And isn't it true Mr. Rhodes says the reason 24 he'd recommend against it is because the effect on the 25 business would be somewhere, quote, between serious and 0169 1 2 3 fatal, close quote? A. Yes, I hear what Harry Rhodes said and I -Q. Is that an adequate reason not to put a 4 warning label on a product, that it would affect your 5 sales? 6 A. No, but, you know, if -- if it really, you 7 know, isn't clear what the mesothelioma risk is, you 8 know, why -- why are we putting it on 244 bags. 9 Q. Sir, it's not just mesothelioma. That whole 10 thing said cancer. You've already testified today that 11 you've known for years, since you started it's been 12 clear, it's clear today, that chrysotile asbestos, 13 Calidria, can cause cancer - 14 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 15 BY MR. LANIER: 16 Q. -- right? 17 A. That's -- that's argumentative because we've 18 gone over this ground before in the sense that all 19 asbestos -- 20 Q. Right. 21 A. -- all asbestos falls in that category. 22 Q. That's exactly my point. 23 A. And what we -- what we end up talking about 24 is that, you know, that's damnation in and of itself and 25 it doesn't make any difference how you use the product, 0170 1 and that's where I take issue with you. 2 Q. Sir, but my point is this: You've been 3 saying from the beginning you all have never said that 4 asbestos -- that your chrysotile is non-carcinogenic. 5 You've said from the beginning you all have always told 6 people it causes cancer? 7 A. No, no, no, no, no. You know, never on my 8 watch was it ever said that Calidria asbestos was 9 non-toxic. 10 Q. Okay. You have agreed on your watch you've 11 always said it causes cancer, right? 12 A. We've always said that it's carcinogenic. 13 Q. That means causes cancer,doesn't it? 14 A. Well, it can cause cancer -- 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. -- if it's not used in the right -- right 17 way. 18 Q. Now, sir, you all weren't willing to put that 19 on your bags, though, were you? You weren't willing to 20 warn people of that, were you? 21 A. Well, we were -- what we were doing was we - 22 we -- our feeling was that it was probably unnecessary, 23 but we were going to warn people that it was 24 carcinogenic and say that whenever you had a dust 25 condition, you know, using our product, and particularly 0171 1 it was always said in the same breath with mesothelioma, 2 you should wear respirators. 3 Q. Sir, you didn't put it on the bags. You 4 wouldn't put it on the bags because it would be 5 somewhere between serious and fatal to your business, 6 right? 7 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 8 A. That was Harry Rhodes' assumption. I don't 9 know that I'd buy into that, to tell you the truth. 10 Q. Well - 11 A. I'd have to look at what was going on with 12 our sales effort at that particular time too. 13 Q. Next issue. I want to show you two exhibits, 14 Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6 that were given to you by 15 Mr. Bicks. These are the two drywall articles. 16 Show me one place in either of those articles 17 on tape joint compound and drywall, one place where it 18 says you can get mesothelioma from the use of asbestos, 19 or cancer. 20 A. Well -21 Q. It's not in there, is it? 22 A. Not in that article, no. 23 Q. Okay. Sir, the article you've got in front 24 of you that you just read doesn't make any reference at 25 all, the Union Carbide men that wrote that article made 0172 1 no reference at all to asbestos causing cancer or 2 mesothelioma, true? 3 A. You know, I think that, again, there's an 4 assumption on your part that, you know, you, through all 5 of this hysteria, never had notice that asbestos was 6 dangerous and, you know, basically, you know, our 7 obligation was to inform you as a customer what was 8 going on, but, you know, to sit there and say that we 9 are responsible for your product, which is what you seem 10 to be inferring, is -- you know, it kind of baffles me. 11 Q. Well, I'm not sure that Union Carbide lawyers 12 properly told you what our -- what we're saying, so let 13 me suggest to you this. 14 Sir, what we were told by Union Carbide is as 15 long as we kept exposures below the threshold limit 16 value, everything would be okay. 17 Now, isn't that the message you all were 18 telling? 19 A. Not -- that was the message obviously up to 20 the -- the time that you had me look at this -- this 21 report, but -- 22 Q. Show me when that message changed. 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. When did it change? When did you all start 25 telling us the threshold limit value is not safe? 0173 1 A. Well, it -- it must have come up very soon 2 after this -- this report. 3 Q. When? I mean, when OSHA came out in '72 you 4 all told us the new OSHA limits were safe, as long as we 5 kept within those OSHA limits we were fine, and we 6 believed you. 7 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 8 BY MR. LANIER: 9 Q. Now, don't you think that if you all were 10 misrepresenting something to us, we ought to have a 11 right to come back and say, hey, guys, you should have 12 told us the truth? 13 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 14 A. All I can say is we were warning about 15 mesothelioma and saying because we are uncertain about 16 what this is all about, we -- our recommendation was 17 that you use respirators when -- when you saw any sign 18 of an -- of an asbestos dust count. 19 Q. Sir, that's not the recommendation you all 20 made to us. 21 Did you know that you all came out to our 22 plant and you tested our plant and you tested our 23 product and you said in almost every application, even 24 though there's a dust level, it's safe because the dust 25 level is low enough? 0174 1 A. Okay. What's -- 2 Q. Did you know that? 3 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 4 A. What's the time frame on this? 5 Q. '72, '73, '74. 6 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 7 BY MR. LANIER: 8 Q. That's not this. That's a different 9 document, sir. 10 Did you know about that? 11 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 12 A. No, I didn't know that. 13 Q. Okay. If, in fact, that happened, t 14 ought to have a right to come back to you and say, hey, 15 you should have been telling us the truth, right? 16 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 17 A. I think that basically speaking, you know, 18 you're asking me to make judgments with incomplete 19 information. I mean, if we were sending you toxicology 20 reports recommending respirators whenever you had a dust 21 count because of mesothelioma and the uncertainty, I 22 mean, these situations would -- would tell you nothing 23 more than you were within the threshold level, were or 24 were not within the threshold limit, but we were also 25 telling you a dust count and recommending in a separate 0175 1 document that our recommendation was that you use 2 respirators. 3 Q. Sir, there's no place you all ever told us 4 that we were over the dust count. You all told us the 5 opposite, that as long as we were under the threshold 6 limit, we didn't need to worry about respirators and we 7 could sell our product without warning users to use 8 respirators. 9 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 10 BY MR. LANIER: 11 Q. Did you know that was going on? 12 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 13 A. I -- I sort of doubt it, but - 14 Q. Okay. So I'd need to show the jury that - 15 that you all told us that, and the Carbide lawyer should 16 show the jury that you all told us wherever you've got a 17 dust count use a respirator, and that's kind of what 18 you'd want the jury to see? 19 A. That's right. 20 Q. Okay. New document, the Sayers report we 21 call it at trial. 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. This was put out by Mr. Sayers over in 24 England in '67 or whatever. 25 Have you seen this documents? 0176 1 A. You know, I don't remember seeing the 2 document, but I certainly remember, you know, the 3 discussion of the Sayers report came up during my 4 briefing. And, you know, it's a -- what can I tell you 5 about the guy? 6 He went out, got a book out of a library, a 7 compilation of a bunch of articles on asbestos, mostly 8 dealing with crocidolite, South African crocidolite. He 9 was the kind of guy that, you know, had to be the center 10 of attention. 11 Without attribution he went back and wrote a 12 report, and, you know, we find whole pieces of this 13 thing were just copied out of this -- this book which 14 was, you know, general public knowledge and brought it 15 back. 16 And he certainly got everybody's attention 17 right off the bat, but when it comes right down to it, 18 you know, what did it -- it didn't tell us in the final 19 analysis when we finally discovered this non-attribution 20 and looked at it that it was a very serious sort of 21 thing to deal with. 22 Q. So your understanding is this is just some 23 report kind of a renegade guy did that your company 24 never put much stock in? 25 A. Well, it took us a while to, you know, sit 0177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 back and take a look at it apparently. Again, it happened before my watch, but by the time I came along, nobody was very much concerned with what he had said in there. Q. So it would be fair to say where he writes things like, we're not entitled under any circumstances to state our material is not a health hazard - A. Yes, but we don't -Q. -- if it's believed a potential customer would use our material dangerously and he's unaware of 11 the toxicity question, it must surely be our duty to 12 caution him, to you that's just irrelevant? 13 A. No, no, no, it's not irrelevant. You know, I 14 think what we were saying was we were doing that. I 15 mean, you know, if -- 16 Q. So you think that the useful, important 17 information in the Sayers report you all were already 18 giving to everybody? 19 A. You know, it was anybody that wanted to go to 20 a library and -- and read -- read information on 21 asbestos would come -- come across everything he said in 22 there, and some very questionable documents appeared. 23 Q. Sir, I've got employees who have worked for 24 Union Carbide that tell -- that worked at the processing 25 plants or the mill, I guess you call it - 0178 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. -- that are testifying that Carbide always 3 told them don't worry, our asbestos won't hurt you, no 4 safety hazards. Did you know that? 5 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 6 A. You know, I certainly never heard anything 7 like that. 8 Q. Did you know that Union Carbide bought back 9 some houses of people out there in California that 10 worked for you all because they took the Calidria home 11 and used it in their houses? 12 A. No, I didn't know anything about that. 13 Q. Did you know that you had workers out there 14 that were contract labor at the actual mine itself? 15 A. Well, I know at the mine we did use contract 16 labor, but -17 Q. Did you know that you never kept track and 18 did medicals on those contract laborers, especially the 19 Mexican immigrants? 20 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 21 A. No, I didn't know that, but, you know, it - 22 that wet ore would seem -- always seem to me to preclude 23 any sort of a dust hazard out there. 24 Q. But yet you all used Mexican immigrant labor 25 on a contract basis out there. You'd work them for a 0179 1 few months and then send them on, never keeping up with 2 who they were or what their health condition was; isn't 3 that right? 4 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 5 A. That was unknown to me. I didn't -- 6 Q. You didn't know that was going on? 7 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 8 A. No. 9 Q. What do you think the contract laborers were? 10 A. Well, I mean, contract laborers, I didn't - 11 you know, I didn't know they were Mexican, but I thought 12 they were casual laborers that we picked up, and I 13 thought we probably were, you know, tracking them as far 14 as our -- our health program is concerned. 15 Q. Did you know that your company won't release 16 to us the health records of the employees that worked 17 out there? 18 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 19 A. That doesn't surprise me. 20 Q. Well, sir, you and your company claim that no 21 one ever got sick out there, none of the King City 22 workers ever got an asbestos disease, but no one will 23 let us see the records. Doesn't that -- doesn't that 24 kind of smell? 25 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 0180 1 A. I don't know that it necessarily does. I 2 mean, if it's a -- you know, a slight asbestos or some, 3 you know, alterations or you get the people who are 4 looking at chest x-rays, there are doctors who can come 5 to somewhat different conclusions, but, you know, 6 it's -- in terms of a, you know, real full-blown cancer 7 case out there, you know, I -- I have been told and I 8 believe that there have been none among the workers. 9 Q. And we're not allowed to see the records to 10 see if you even kept up with the migrant or immigrant 11 workers, right? 12 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 13 A. You've told me that we didn't. I mean, 14 that's the only information I've had on that, and all I 15 said is that it would surprise me. I -- my information 16 would -- you know, my inclination would be to the 17 contrary, but -18 Q. You don't know one way or another? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Do you know about Paul Whitlock's death 21 certificate? 22 A. No, I don't know about it. 23 Q. Paul Whitlock worked out there, and he died 24 in 1991. And his death certificate says that asbestos 25 was one of the causes of his death, but Mr. Myers got 0181 1 that altered by the coroner to take asbestos out. Did 2 you know about that? 3 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 4 A. Well, you know, I know about the case. You 5 know, he was convinced that it was a mistake, and he had 6 the mistake corrected. 7 Q. He being Mr. Myers? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. What business of it -- of his is the 10 coroner's death certificate of Paul Whitlock? 11 A. Nothing more than, you know, the fact that he 12 became aware that a mistake was made, that they had 13 violated the law by not having an autopsy and insisted 14 that the law be observed. 15 Q. You think - 16 A. That's my understanding. 17 Q. And where did you get that from? 18 A. Well, I got that from -- from Mr. Myers. 19 Q. When did you talk to him? 20 A. Lord, you know, like a long time ago, shortly 21 after I got back from Zimbabwe. 22 Q. So when? When did you find out about the 23 altered death certificate? 24 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 25 A. I guess, you know, mid '90s someplace. 0182 1 Q. You think that Union Carbide -- I think you 2 said it was part of your culture that the manager would 3 be responsible for health and safety and that Union 4 Carbide's culture was to take care of the health and 5 safety of the individual, make it most important? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. But you all wouldn't spend $5,000 to make 8 sure everybody had coverall service to keep asbestos off 9 their coveralls unless you were ordered to by 10 California. Did you know that? 11 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 12 A. Yes, I knew that. That was Thurber's 13 determination because he -- he thought that it, you 14 know, was all on the basis -- on the basis of all of the 15 information available to him that it wasn't necessary. 16 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 23 was marked for 17 identification.) 18 BY MR. LANIER: 19 Q. Sir, let's be -- let's be clear. Exhibit 20 Number 23 is the documentation we have to that effect 21 that your company wasn't going to spend $5,000 to keep 22 everybody from taking asbestos home on their clothes and 23 having it all around them, you were going to save $5,000 24 unless ordered to by California; is that right? 25 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 0183 1 A. That's what it says, yes. 2 MS. PRINZ: Is that 25? 3 MS. HEGAR: It's 23. 4 MR. LANIER: It's 23. 5 BY MR. LANIER: 6 Q. You don't have any clue why Union Carbide was 7 out there buying the houses of the people that took 8 Calidria home and put it in their houses? 9 A. When you say put it in their houses, put it 10 where? 11 Q. I don't know. 12 A. They were just taking bags of asbestos and 13 putting them in their house? 14 Q. They may have been using it for insulation in 15 the attic. I'm not sure what they were doing, but Union 16 Carbide bought the houses back, remediated them and then 17 sell them back or give them back to the employees. 18 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 19 BY MR. LANIER: 20 Q. Did you know about that? 21 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 22 A. No. 23 Q. That doesn't seem right, does it? 24 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 25 A. Well , again, I mean, you' re asking me 0184 1 questions about things where I don't know the 2 circumstances, and I'm trying -- 3 Q. How many people worked at the King City mine 4 if we count contract laborers? 5 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 6 BY MR. LANIER: 7 Q. How many people worked at the King City mine 8 if we count contract laborers? 9 A. I don't really know how many people that 10 Carbide put out, you know, from the mill to go out 11 and -- and kind of look at the mining operation, but I 12 know all of the mining that was done and the trucking 13 was done by contract labor. 14 Now, you know, the kind of supervision we put 15 on that I -- I don't really know. I suppose one or two 16 people, maybe even one, went out and -- and kept track 17 of what was going on during the mining period. 18 Q. But how many of the laborers, the contract 19 laborers, were out there doing that mining? 20 A. I don't know how many there were. There 21 can't be too many doing that because it's a relatively 22 simple operation. 23 Q. Okay. New subject. You testified to 24 Mr. Bicks that you're sure that the managers would have 25 made sure all of the employees were safe from asbestos 0185 1 2 hazards because it would come out employees were in danger? of their bonus if the 3 A. No. It would come out of Larrison's bonus, 4 it would come out of my bonus if it took place. 5 Q. But sir, you know that asbestos is going to 6 take 30 or 40 years before it starts hurting people and 7 showing up. 8 Is it going to come out of your bonus today 9 for the damage that was done back then? 10 A. Well, you know, I -- I can only object to 11 what you're imputing to me there very strongly that for 12 some reason I took that into calculation and all of this 13 stuff. 14 Q. I don't think you did. I'm just saying, when 15 you say on the record, Mr. Rawlings, that you all took 16 care of the asbestos health of the employees because it 17 would have come out of your earnings if they'd gotten 18 sick, well, sir, they're not going to get sick for 30 19 years or so. That -- that doesn't come into play, in 20 all fairness, right? 21 It's not like a crane is falling on their 22 neck that day. It's something that's not going to 23 happen for 30 years. 24 It's not going to affect your bonus if those 25 fellows got sick, is it? 0186 1 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 2 A. I -- I resent the -- the inference. 3 Q. Okay. I'm not trying to say you 4 affirmatively thought, hey, I don't care if they get 5 sick, it's going to be 30 years. 6 All I'm trying to do is say your idea that, 7 hey, I wouldn't let them get sick from asbestos, it 8 would affect my bonus, that's not accurate because the 9 asbestos sickness wouldn't happen for 20 or 30 years, it 10 wouldn't affect your bonus one way or the other, you're 11 done, right? 12 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 13 A. (No response.) 14 Q. You don't like it either way. Allright. 15 A. I don't like it either way. 16 Q. Let me ask you this: You -- you don't make 17 any more money from Union Carbide today, do you? 18 A. I'm a retiree. I have a bonus -- or not a 19 bonus. I have a retirement benefit. 20 Q. So you -- you look to the company for your 21 retirement? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And it's a set amount that you receive on -- 24 on a regular basis? 25 A. Yes. 0187 1 Q. And it doesn't vary by whether you're 2 available to do this kind of work or anything like that? 3 A. That's right. It doesn't vary. 4 Q. All right. Next issue. 5 MR. BICKS: Can I just, before you go on, can 6 you tell me how much time? 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On this tape, 57 minutes. 8 MR. LANIER: And I'll let you know I'm down 9 to my last five minutes or so. 10 BY MR. LANIER: 11 Q. Sir, when Union Carbide sold materials like 12 asbestos to customers, would it be proper for the 13 customer to rely upon Union Carbide's information about 14 that product as being correct? 15 A. I would say yes. 16 Q. Okay. Next subject. Do you know about Union 17 Carbide losing money in the Asbestos Division before 18 your watch? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Union Carbide made a decision about whether 21 or not to just sell out immediately and take the loss or 22 to try and work to turn the unit profitable and then 23 sell it, right? 24 A. Yes. It was -- it was based on the RG 25 product, if we could do it. 0188 1 Q. And you were one of the people brought in to 2 try and get the place turned around making a profit, 3 true? 4 A. I suppose that, yes, that's true. 5 Q. And then the goal was if you all could get 6 enough people buying it and make it profitable, at that 7 point in time you all would consider selling it and you 8 might not have to take a loss, true? 9 A. Yes, that's all true enough. 10 Q. And in essence, that's what happened; you all 11 turned it around, made a little bit of profit and then 12 wound up selling the mine in '85, true? 13 A. Well, I mean, we had a failure with probably 14 the best mousetrap that's ever been designed. I mean, 15 the sales, you know, just were -- never reached anywhere 16 near the point that it, you know, as a business made any 17 sense any longer. 18 Q. But at least you were able to -- to turn 19 around the negative numbers you all had in the '60s, 20 right? 21 A. Yes, to very minimal profit numbers, but -22 Q. Right. And then were you aware of how the 23 mine got sold to King City Asbestos Corporation, KCAC? 24 A. I don't -- I don't really know anything about 25 that. I mean, I was busy in another -- another venue by 0189 1 that time. 2 Q. Well, I know when you came back from Zimbabwe 3 you kept up your relationship with Mr. Myers, who I 4 believe went to KCAC and ran it? 5 A. You know, I -- I think I vaguely remember 6 hearing -- hearing that, yes. 7 Q. I mean, you talked to him in the '90s because 8 he told you about changing the death certificate, right? 9 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 10 A. The only thing I was interested in talking to 11 him about was is anybody sick. I mean, you know, that 12 was -13 Q. That was weighing on your mind? 14 A. Well, it wasn't weighing on my mind. I 15 just -- I always had this idea that if somebody smoked 16 25,000 cigars every day of his life and came down with 17 lung cancer out there, that Carbide, you know, would - 18 would be the person they'd look to. 19 But what I was being told was, you know, 20 we're not even running that risk because there isn't 21 anybody that has asbestosis, let alone cancer. 22 Q. And, of course, no one is allowed to look at 23 the records to see. You know that? 24 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 25 A. You know, that -- you've -- you've told me 0190 1 that. 2 Q. And you know the death certificate was 3 changed? 4 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 5 A. I had heard that it was changed, but it was 6 changed because of an error. 7 Q. That's what you've been told? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. You didn't talk to the actual people? Did 10 you know the widow was never told it was changed? 11 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 12 A. No. 13 Q. Sir, did -- do you know when the mine was 14 sold, did Union Carbide have any interest at all in the 15 KCAC? 16 A. I haven't any idea. 17 Q. Okay. Did you know any other people with the 18 new owner other than Mr. Myers? 19 A. You know, I -- I don't have any recollection 20 of anybody being there. 21 Q. You talked about media frenzy. You used that 22 word, I think, about eleven times or so at least. 23 You're not suggesting that every day in the 24 newspaper there were articles saying, here is the truth 25 about asbestos, are you? 0191 1 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 2 A. Well, you know, it -- it probably is an 3 overstatement, but definitely it had become a darling of 4 the news media and there were, you know, untold news 5 articles. You know, it comes up in television 6 presentations, and a lot of the data that they presented 7 was questionable, arguable or plain wrong, but -8 Q. Right. And that was you all's position on 9 it, that -- that that was not a reliable source of 10 information, you all wanted your side of the story to be 11 out there that asbestos could be used safely, true? 12 A. That's correct. 13 MR. LANIER: I'll pass the witness Thank 14 you, sir. 15 MR. BICKS: Why don't we just take a short 16 break and we'll get organized. 17 MR. LANIER: Okay. 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record. The time 19 is now 3:36. Off the record. 20 (Recess taken from 3:36 p.m. to 3:54 p.m.) 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record. The time 22 is now 3:54. On the record. 23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. BICKS: 25 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Rawlings. 0192 1 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Bicks. 2 Q. Let me cover some topics that the lawyer for 3 Kelly-More covered with you. 4 The first topic I want to cover is, when did 5 Kelly-Moore first sell products with asbestos? Do you 6 remember that general discussion that we were having? 7 A. You know, I -- I don't recall, but I'm 8 guessing that it goes back -- the first time they sold 9 asbestos-bearing material? 10 Q. Right. Let me just show you some -- you 11 remember just the discussion on the topic - 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- putting aside the details? 14 A. That's right. 15 (Rawlings Exhibits No. 24 and 25 were marked 16 for identification.) 17 BY MR. BICKS: 18 Q. Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 24 and Exhibit 19 25. Exhibit 24 is a history of Kelly-Moore's Drywall 20 Division production and sales prepared by somebody named 21 Doug Merrill at Kelly-Moore, and Exhibit 25 is a set of 22 sworn interrogatory answers prepared by Kelly-Moore. 23 Do you have both of those in front of you? 24 A. Yes, I do. 25 Q. And you know as a -- as alawyer that 0193 1 interrogatory answers that are sworn by a company are 2 supposed to be truthful, right? 3 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Look, if you would, at the first paragraph of 6 the history of Kelly-Moore's Paco Drywall Division's 7 production and sales. Do you see that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And what does that say? 10 A. Well, it said the corporation was founded in 11 1958, manufactured drywall joint compounds and wall 12 textures and sold to distributor principals principally 13 in Northern California, of which Kelly-Moore was the 14 largest distributor. 15 Q. Kelly-Moore was the largest distributor of a 16 company that used asbestos in tape joint compounds in 17 1958, right? 18 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 19 A. Right. 20 Q. Is that what the document says? 21 A. That's what it says, yes. 22 Q. And look at the interrogatory answers that 23 are before you. Do you see those? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And just so we're clear, these are 0194 1 interrogatories filed in the United States District 2 Court, Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi 3 Division, by Kelly-Moore, and do you see a list of 4 product names on the page that's before you? 5 A. This page? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And it lists on the left several products, 9 one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, 11 sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, over 12 twenty-one products sold by Kelly-Moore that contained 13 asbestos, right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And look over to the column that says first 16 manufactured. Do you see that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And does that indicate thatKelly-Moore was 19 manufacturing products with asbestos in 1960? 20 A. Yes, it does. 21 Q. So when you testified that Kelly-Moore was 22 selling products with asbestos before Union Carbide sold 23 any asbestos to them, do these documents show that you 24 were right? 25 MR. LANIER: Objection to form. 0195 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. When, Mr. Rawlings, based on a review of 3 these documents, was Kelly-Moore selling products that 4 had asbestos in them? 5 A. Well, I mean, you know, first manufactured 6 12/60, that's seems to be the first date there. 7 Q. Right. And then if you looked at Exhibit 24, 8 does that indicate that they were distributing products 9 with asbestos before 1960, looking at the introductory 10 paragraph? 11 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 12 A. I'm looking at the first page here? 13 Q. Right, Exhibit 24, the first paragraph. 14 A. Well, it looks like maybe 1968 was the date 15 they first went into operation, but, you know, I'm not 16 sure about what the -- in '67 it said we set up a 17 drywall manufacturing operation in Houston, Texas, in 18 order to be more competitive, and this operation 19 continued until 1974, at which time it closed. I don't 20 know that that indicates what -- when they first started 21 to sell. 22 Q. Right. Right. But look at the first 23 paragraph. The Paco Textures Corporation was founded in 24 1958? 25 A. Correct. 0196 1 Q. And then it says that it manufactured drywall 2 joint compounds and wall textures and sold to 3 distributors - 4 A. Kelly-Moore -5 Q. -- principally inNorthernCalifornia, of 6 which Kelly-Moore was the largest distributor? 7 MR. LANIER: Objection. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. So Kelly-Moore -- does this indicate 10 that Kelly-Moore was distributing products with asbestos 11 prior to 1960? 12 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 13 A. It would certainly seemthat way. 14 Q. Okay. 15 MR. LANIER: Can I see your copy of that? 16 Thanks. 17 BY MR. BICKS: 18 Q. Let me ask you about an exhibit you were 19 shown, Exhibit -- I believe it's Exhibit 8. Do you have 20 that before you? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. Can you open that up to the first 23 page, the -- I'm looking at page -- my page at the 24 bottom is page number one. 25 A. Yes. 0197 1 Q. Do you see the thirdparagraph from the top 2 that starts with, of course? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Can you read that to the jury? 5 A. Of course, our performance has been agreat 6 deal better than the national all-industry average, but 7 this really doesn't say much. The national average 8 includes all of the small concerns who have never had 9 very good records but whose total employment far 10 outnumbers concerns of major size, so they influence the 11 average more. 12 We also have performed better even than the 13 chemical industry average. This says more, but again, 14 it ducks behind the little -- the little concerns in 15 much the same way. 16 Q. Okay. Now, you were -- let me back up for a 17 minute. 18 The Asbestos Group at Union Carbide, what 19 division was that in? 20 A. Well, it -- it came over sometime prior to - 21 to 1971 from the Chemical Division, one of the Chemical 22 Division companies. 23 Q. And it went over into the Mining and Metals 24 Division, right? 25 A. That's correct. 0198 1 Q. Okay. Take a look at the safety record at 2 page eight of the Mining and Metals Division. Do you 3 see that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And this says, does it not, that -- and I'm 6 looking at the bottom of this. It says, starting from 7 its Deremo ore mine - 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. -- also has an outstanding frequency record, 10 winning the Sentinel of Safety Award - 11 A. Wait a minute. I'm missing page eight for 12 some reason. 13 MR. LANIER: It's out of order on that. It's 14 nine and then eight. 15 A. Okay. It's nine and then eight. Okay. 16 Q. Are you with me now on page eight? 17 A. Yes, I am. 18 Q. And are you with me under where it says the 19 Mining and Metals Division? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And it says -- read with me where it starts, 22 there were no disabling injuries at all in four of its 23 coal mines. Do you see that? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And it says, its Deremo ore mine also had an 0199 1 2 outstanding frequency record, winning the Sentinel Safety Award for 1968. M & M, meaning Mining and of 3 Metals, ore mines have won this three times in the last 4 seven years, more often than any US company in the last 5 ten years. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Doesthat reflect thesafety record of the 8 Mining and Metals Division? 9 A. Yes, and it's certainly in keeping with, you 10 know, what my -- my recollection is of the safety record 11 in Mining and Metals. 12 Q. You remember that you were shown a document, 13 a letter involving a company called Baker Castor Oil. 14 Do you remember that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And you've alsotestified about the Union 17 Carbide toxicology reports. Do you remember that? 18 A. Yes. 19 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 26 was marked for 20 identification.) 21 BY MR. BICKS: 22 Q. Take a look at Exhibit UCC 209, which is - 23 MS. PRINZ: Rawlings 26. 24 BY MR. BICKS: 25 Q. -- Rawlings 26, and this is a call report 0200 1 that involves Baker Castor Oil Company, right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And would you read for the jury what is under 4 the action part of this memo under the name HBR? 5 A. Send toxicology information; done 7/19/71. 6 Q. Did Baker Castor Oil get Union Carbide's 7 toxicology information? 8 A. I'm sure they did. 9 Q. And we've looked at some of that and I'm 10 going to ask you questions about it in a minute, but did 11 those toxicology reports talk about the possibility that 12 asbestos could cause asbestosis and cancer? 13 A. Certainly by that time theydid. 14 Q. You were also shown what was Rawlings Exhibit 15 10, which was a June 22nd, 1972 memorandum from 16 Mr. Ingalls. Do you remember that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And by the way, do you remember what 19 territory of the United States Mr. Ingalls had as a 20 salesperson? 21 A. As I recall, it was the eastern United 22 States. 23 Q. And do you know the Kelly-Moore is -- does 24 business in the western part of the United States? 25 A. It's based on information I heard today that 0201 1 they are solely in the western US. 2 Q. And so Mr. Ingalls would not have even been 3 dealing with Kelly-Moore, would he have? 4 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 5 A. I don't think so. 6 Q. Would Mr. Ingalls have dealt with 7 Kelly-Moore? 8 A. No. I mean -- 9 Q. You also indicated that when you found out 10 about this memorandum that you had reprimanded 11 Mr. Ingalls. Do you remember that? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you thinkthat was the rightthing to do? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Was he, by the way, in sales anymore after he 16 wrote this memorandum? 17 A. No. I recollect we moved him back to the 18 technical side of the house. 19 Q. Did he endup back in thelaboratory? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Let me ask you something. Do you believe as 22 a general matter that it's important to look at what 23 people do in determining whether their actions are 24 reasonable? 25 A. Yes, I do. 0202 1 Q. Do you knowwhat kind ofmaterial Mr. Ingalls 2 was sending to customers about the risks of asbestos? 3 A. Well, I'm sure he wassending the toxicology 4 report. You know, there might have been other 5 information too. 6 Q. Let me show you what we will mark as - 7 MS. PRINZ: Rawlings 27. 8 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 27 was marked for 9 identification.) 10 BY MR. BICKS: 11 Q. -- Rawlings 27. Mr. Rawlings, is this an 12 October 12th, 1971 memorandum from Mr. Ingalls to 13 somebody named Dennis Bridge, the manager of 14 environmental control at PPG Industries, Inc.? 15 A. It appears to be, yes. 16 Q. And can you read to the jury the introductory 17 paragraph to this memo? 18 A. Pursuant to our telephone conversation 19 yesterday, I have enclosed a copy of a report, quote, 20 Airborne Asbestos, unquote, prepared by the Committee on 21 Biologic Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants of the 22 Division of Medical Sciences, National Research Council. 23 It is a comprehensive report on asbestos, and I think it 24 puts the facts in their proper perspective. 25 Q. And let's mark as the next exhibit - 0203 1 MS. PRINZ: 28. 2 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 28 was marked for 3 identification.) 4 BY MR. BICKS: 5 Q. -- Rawlings 28. Is this a copy of the 1971 6 National Academy of Sciences report? 7 A. It certainly seems to be, yes. 8 Q. And how many pages is this report? 9 A. Fifty-three. 10 Q. And those 53 pages, the last part of this 11 report from page 34 to 53, all it is is references to 12 articles that talk about the potential hazards of 13 asbestos, right? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Is that the kind of information that Union 16 Carbide was giving out to its customers? 17 A. Well, certainly we did -- we gave them 18 information of that nature quite frequently. 19 Q. Can you think of a more comprehensive report 20 on the hazards of asbestos than this National Academy of 21 Sciences report prepared in 1971? 22 A. It certainly seems very complete. 23 Q. Let me ask you, you were shown some 24 correspondence with a company called Degussa. Do you 25 remember that? 0204 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Was Degussa a competitor of Union Carbide? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Do you think in those letters that you saw 5 that Degussa was really concerned about the safety of 6 their customers? 7 A. Not in myopinion. 8 Q. What is your view of what their concern was? 9 A. My -- my view is simply this, that they had 10 been competing against us. They looked -- they looked 11 at the results that came out initially on RG-244 and 12 found out the price and the -- the quality of the 13 product far exceeded the fume silica. I think the price 14 was lower. The -- the product did a better job. 15 They immediately approached us and said, let 16 us distribute it in Europe. Beyond that, I think that 17 basically as they started to run into some of the 18 problems we had with customers with 244 in the United 19 States and the customers were saying, well, you know, 20 we're uncertain about this thing and asking for 21 important information, I think Degussa just suddenly 22 said, hey, we've got an out here, we can hint, you know, 23 very broadly that -- that the use of -- of 244 is -- is 24 unsafe, it's a carcinogen, it -- in addition, something 25 that I'd never heard before, it will nauseate you, and 0205 1 that they did it just as an opportunistic thing to get 2 out of selling 244 and reintroduce their product. 3 And then, you know, in one of the exhibits 4 that I was shown -- shown by Plaintiff's counsel it 5 indicated that they had some stocks of 244 they 6 delighted -- you know, would be delighted to sell to 7 them, but when they were exhausted -- and they'd like a 8 purchase order right now of their fume silica product. 9 It just seems indicative to me that they were trying to 10 take advantage of the -- of the frenzy, if you will. 11 Q. Did any of the Degussa letters talk about the 12 safe handling practices that Union Carbide referred to 13 in its toxicology reports? 14 A. No, none of them did. 15 Q. Did any of those disclosures talk about the 16 importance of wearing respirators -- 17 A. No. 18 Q. -- to make sure that people are protected? 19 A. No, they did not. 20 Q. Now, you were asked some questions about 21 whether or not you had seen the Mellon studies. Do you 22 remember that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Let me show you - 25 MS. PRINZ: Rawlings 29. 0206 1 2 (Rawlings Exhibits No. 29 and 30 were marked for identification.) 3 BY MR. BICKS: 4 Q. -- what we'll mark as Rawlings Exhibit 29. 5 Have you seen this document before? 6 A. Let me just read it a minute. 7 Q. You'll see up onthe top thatit says 1971 - 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. -- Mellon Institute report. Have you seen 10 this before? 11 A. I'm not sure. 12 Q. Take a look at theback for thedistribution 13 of it and all of the people it was distributed to and 14 see if it at all refreshes your recollection of 15 information that you may have seen when you met to learn 16 about the risks of asbestos. 17 A. Well, the only thing thatsuggests that I 18 might have been involved in -- in the briefing is the 19 one that was send to the Mining and Metals library in 20 Tuxedo, New York. 21 Q. And just so we're clear, can you just 22 describe generally for the jury the distribution that 23 was made of this Mellon report, who these people are on 24 this distribution list? 25 A. Well, Szabo and Zutty were -- you know, and 0207 1 Murray were all at least vice presidents in -- in one of 2 the Chemical Plastics Divisions. I don't remember which 3 one. I don't -- South Charleston Division received a 4 copy. Tauber, Barr and Ackart doesn't mean anything to 5 me. T.H. Welch, the name sounds familiar, but I 6 don't -- but it's really widely distributed. 7 Q. And just so we're being fair to you, sir, 8 we're talking about -- today we're here in 2003 and 9 we're talking about documents that are over 30 years 10 old, right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. Just looking at who this document was 13 distributed to, this document -- 14 A. I'm sorry; it -- I overlooked the top of it. 15 It went to Dernehl. 16 Q. All of the medical directors had this 17 document? 18 A. He's a medical director. And it went to 19 McDaniel, who was the industrial hygienist assigned to 20 the asbestos operation. 21 Q. It was also in the library at Union Carbide? 22 A. Yes, in theChemical Division library, right. 23 Q. And I want you to look at on the second page 24 of this document, do you see the paragraph that says, in 25 essence? It's the fourth one down. 0208 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Then I want you to skip down four sentences 3 where it says in general. Are you with me? 4 A. (No response.) 5 Q. It says, in general, because of the 6 overwhelming preponderance of effect in the asbestos 7 dosed lungs versus the controlled - 8 A. You've lost me. You're talking about four 9 sentences down? 10 Q. Four paragraphs down. Do you see that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. This paragraph that says - 13 A. Fourth paragraphdown, okay, and it starts, 14 in essence? 15 Q. Right. 16 A. And you want me to pick up where? 17 Q. And then just go down four sentences where it 18 says, in general. 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. And it says there that ingeneral,because of 21 the overwhelming preponderance of effect in the asbestos 22 dosed lungs versus the controls, we have sufficient 23 evidence of damage to warn us to do our best to prevent 24 inhalation of concentrations of asbestos in excess of 25 the threshold limit value proposed for 1970, right? 0209 1 A. Right. 2 Q. Was Union Carbide telling its customers in 3 its toxicology reports to avoid exposure in excess of 4 threshold limit values? 5 A. Well, I think so, but where is the toxicology 6 report? Can I see one? 7 Q. We're going to look at a couple of them in a 8 minute. 9 A. Okay. 10 Q. Is there anything that when you look at the 11 conclusion here that is of a surprise to you about what 12 Union Carbide thought? 13 14 Q. Is it consistent with what Union Carbide told 15 people? 16 A. You know, this reference to the -- the tests 17 here is -- okay. 18 Q. Let me just ask you a general question. Do 19 you think it's important to -- for people to know the 20 whole story rather than just a little piece of it? 21 A. Well, true enough. I mean, you know, with 22 the Degussa case, when I'm asked to answer questions 23 without knowing all of the circumstances, it does make 24 it difficult. 25 MR. LANIER: Objection; unresponsive. 0210 1 BY MR. BICKS: 2 Q. Let me show you a memorandum from Dr. Dernehl 3 dated March of 1970, and in terms of your view on the 4 hazards of asbestos, did Dr. Dernehl have input on the 5 kind of information that you were provided? 6 A. He certainly did, major input. 7 Q. Do you see the third paragraph of this which 8 refers to the tests that were done on Calidria asbestos? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And do you seewhere it saysthat theresults 11 of this test showed Calidria asbestos to be slightly 12 more fibrogenic than long fiber asbestos, but the 13 difference was not so great as to suggest an usual 14 degree of hazard; from this I conclude that the same 15 precautions to avoid breathing asbestos dust must be 16 observed whether the dust be from Calidria asbestos or 17 from a standard long fiber form? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Is that what you understood? 20 A. That's alwayswhat I understood, I mean, you 21 know, that -- that basically the long fiber forms and 22 particularly crocidolite there was a -- there was a 23 great deal of evidence to indicate that it was more - 24 more -- more toxic than Calidria asbestos, and this, of 25 course, absolutely jibes with what I was -- what I was 0211 1 told. 2 Q. And do you see the last paragraph here that 3 says, some people believe there's an association between 4 exposure to asbestos dust and the development of lung 5 cancer and mesothelioma; there is no information 6 regarding Calidria asbestos in this respect as yet? Do 7 you see that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. The Mellon studies, the one of them that you 10 have in front of you there, that didn't deal with 11 cancer, did it? 12 A. No, it didn't. 13 Q. Do you know, in fact, in the Mellon studies 14 where the animals were injected? 15 A. Well, they were injected in the throat and in 16 the lining of the stomach, as I recall. 17 Q. And do you recall how large the doses were 18 that these rats got? 19 A. Well, they looked -- looked large to me, but, 20 you know, I don't -- I don't know what -- what large is. 21 Q. Let me ask you this: Is injecting rats in 22 the stomach and in the windpipe with large doses of 23 asbestos, does that have anything to do with the way 24 humans breathe? 25 A. I wouldn't think so, but I don't really know. 0212 1 Q. Do you see where we were talking about in 2 this March 21st, 1970 memo from Mr. Dernehl where he 3 says atthe end that it would be prudent to assume that 4 Calidriaasbestos will behave like other asbestos in 5 this regard, the last sentence? 6 A. Yes. That seems to me to be a, you know, a 7 conservative approach. 8 Q. Do you think it's a good thing when you're 9 dealing with safety and health to be conservative? 10 A. Yes, I do. I think it's, you know, it's a 11 good thing to do. 12 Q. And was that the way Union Carbide was when 13 you were involved in the asbestos business? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Now, I want to ask you about threshold limit 16 values. Do you remember that series of questions about 17 what Union Carbide told its customers about threshold 18 limit values? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do you know who set threshold limit values, 21 who determined what they should be? 22 A. OSHA. 23 Q. And OSHA was, in 1972, that was the United 24 States government? 25 A. Yes. 0213 1 Q. Union Carbidedidn't setthreshold limit 2 values, did it? 3 A. No. 4 Q. And rememberyou wereasked questions 5 about - 6 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 7 BY MR. BICKS: 8 Q. Did Union Carbide set threshold limit values? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Remember you were asked questions about what 11 the threshold limit values were in 1966, 1967 and 1968. 12 Do you remember that series of questions? 13 A. Yes, I do. 14 Q. Did asbestos -- did threshold limit values go 15 down over time? 16 A. Markedly. 17 Q. So when you're looking at what somebody says 18 about a threshold limit value, is it -- is it important 19 to know the particular time period that they're talking 20 about? 21 A. Yes, I thinkit'simportant. 22 Q. The threshold limit value that existed in 23 1966 and '67, was that something that was determined by 24 something called the American Conference of Governmental 25 Industrial Hygienists? 0214 1 A. Yes. They would set it out, and then 2 apparently it would be adopted by states and the federal 3 government. As I remember, it was adopted by a federal 4 standard, but it was their recommendation that was 5 followed. 6 Q. And when the threshold limit value changed 7 over time, did Union Carbide disclose that to its 8 customers? 9 A. Yes, it certainly did. 10 Q. Remember you were shown a document by 11 Mr. Dernehl where he was talking about the report by 12 Mr. Sayers. Do you remember that? 13 A. Yes, I do. 14 Q. And actually, let me just see that for a 15 moment. 16 MR. LANIER: Don't mark the court exhibit, 17 please. Don't highlight the court exhibit, please. 18 BY MR. BICKS: 19 Q. Do you see the first full paragraph that 20 talks about the threshold limit value and whether or not 21 it's acceptable for asbestosis? And I'm talking about 22 this page, the second page. Do you see that? 23 A. The second page, the first full paragraph? 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. Yes, I see it. 0215 1 Q. And what does that say, just that first 2 sentence? 3 A. The question was raised whether the 5 million 4 particles per cubic foot was still valid as the 5 threshold limit value. I maintain that value is still 6 correct in terms of preventing the disease asbestosis. 7 Q. Okay. Now, stop there. The Union Carbide 8 toxicology report that was dated 1966 or 1964 that 9 Mr. Lanier showed you - 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- do you see that? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Can I just see it for one second, please? I 14 don't have copies of this. I want you to focus on the 15 sentence, it is now generally accepted that a man can 16 work a 40-hour work week for a lifetime without 17 developing asbestosis if the asbestos dust particle 18 count is kept at or below 5 million particles per cubic 19 foot of air. Do you see that statement? 20 A. Yes, 5 million cubic feet, though. That's -21 Q. Right. And is Dr. Dernehl saying there that 22 he agrees that when it comes to asbestosis, that that is 23 the right threshold limit value? 24 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 25 A. That's correct. 0216 1 Q. Okay. And then he raises in the next part of 2 the letter that you've got, he says that -- and I'm 3 paraphrasing it -- it's possible that it may not be low 4 enough to protect against mesothelioma, right? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. He doesn't know? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. And you were askedquestions about 9 whether or not Union Carbidedisclosed thatuncertainty 10 to customers. Do you remember that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Let me show you what we will mark as the next 13 exhibit - 14 MS. PRINZ: 31. 15 MR. BICKS: -- Rawlings 31. 16 MS. PRINZ: What's the date? 17 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 31 was marked for 18 identification.) 19 BY MR. BICKS: 20 Q. This is aletter, is itnot, from 21 Mr. Dernehl, the associate medical director, to a 22 company called Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, the 23 Paints Division, in England. Do you see that? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And he'stalking to thiscustomer about the 0217 1 risks of asbestos, right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And look at thesecondparagraph where he 4 says, my presentopinion is thatthe threshold limit 5 value of 5 million particles per cubic foot of air is 6 adequate to protect against asbestosis, right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And that's exactly what he said when he saw 9 the Sayers report, right? 10 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And then can yougo down to thesentence not 13 that says in general, but skip one where it says, I am 14 not prepared to say whether the 5 million particle level 15 will also protect against mesothelioma? 16 A. Yes. Right. 17 Q. Can you read that to the jurywhat hetells 18 this customer? 19 A. I am not prepared to say whether the 5 20 million particle level will also protect against 21 mesothelioma. Presumably it may not, but convincing 22 data is not now known to me. 23 Q. All right. So let's stop right there. The 24 medical director is telling a customer in 1967 that he 25 is not prepared to say whether the 5 million particle 0218 1 level will also protect again mesothelioma, presumably 2 it may not, but convincing data is not now known to me, 3 right? 4 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 5 A. That's right. 6 Q. He's saying he doesn't know at this time, 7 right? 8 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 9 A. Right. 10 Q. Take a look at the 1969 Union Carbide 11 asbestos toxicology report. It was attached to Exhibit 12 2. 13 Do you have that in front of you, 14 Mr. Rawlings? 15 A. Yes, I do, and this is where I got confused 16 when I -- 17 Q. Because you got confused because when -- when 18 the Kelly-Moore lawyer was asking you questions about 19 the toxicology reports, he didn't show you this. 20 And did he show you that letter, by the way, 21 from Mr. Dernehl to the customer? 22 MR. LANIER: Objection to form. 23 BY MR. BICKS: 24 Q. Did he show you that? 25 A. I don't think so. 0219 1 MR. LANIER: Objection. 2 BY MR. BICKS: 3 Q. Okay. Look at the last paragraph here where 4 it talks about mesothelioma. Do you see that? 5 A. Yes, I do. 6 Q. And can you read the last two sentences to 7 the jury where it says, from the data available? 8 A. From the data available, it appears that the 9 TLV of 5 million parts per cubic foot may not be low 10 enough to protect against mesothelioma. Research on 11 this problem conditions. 12 Q. Very simple question, sir, Kelly-Moore's 13 expert has said they got this document, and you -- based 14 on Union Carbide's practice, do you agree with that? 15 MR. LANIER: Objection to form. 16 A. Yes, I agree to it. 17 Q. Simple question, did Union Carbide tell 18 Kelly-Moore that from the data available, it appears 19 that the threshold limit value of 5 million particles 20 per cubic foot may not be low enough to protect against 21 mesothelioma? 22 A. Yes, that's what it says. 23 Q. And remember we had talked about that the 24 threshold limit values were reduced over time. Look at 25 the beginning of this, the large paragraph, the second 0220 1 paragraph that now -- that says, it is -- it has been 2 generally accepted. Are you with me there? 3 A. It has been generally -- the beginning of the 4 paragraph? 5 Q. Right. Now drop down where it says, although 6 no cases of asbestosis are known. Do you see that? And 7 then it talks about the ACGIH. 8 A. Right. 9 Q. Can you read the end of that sentence 10 starting with the ACGIH? 11 A. The ACGIH, paren, which sets the threshold 12 load limit value TLV in the USA, close paren, has 13 indicated they intend to lower the TLV for asbestos to 2 14 million particles per cubic foot in an effort to 15 increase the safety factor incorporated in the limit. 16 Q. And here is Union Carbide disclosing to 17 Kelly-Moore that the threshold limit value will be 18 reduced in the future? 19 A. Yes. It seems like it, yes. 20 Q. And do you think that's a good thing to do? 21 A. Well, it's consistent with, you know, all of 22 the general policies that I thought were in place. 23 Q. Were you shown, by the way, from the lawyer 24 from Kelly-Moore any documents from Kelly-Moore's 25 insurance company talking to it about the threshold 0221 1 limit values? Were you shown any of those? 2 A. No. 3 Q. I want to ask you again, do you agree that 4 it's important to know the whole picture? 5 A. Indeed I do. 6 Q. Let me show you - 7 MR. LANIER: Objection to the form on that. 8 BY MR. BICKS: 9 Q. -- a 1972 document that we'll mark as - 10 MR. PRINZ: Rawlings 32. 11 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 32 was marked for 12 identification.) 13 BY MR. BICKS: 14 Q. Take look at Rawlings Exhibit 32. Do you 15 have that in front of you, Mr. Rawlings? 16 A. Yes, I do. 17 Q. And this is dated on the front it's a July 18 7th, 1972 document, evaluation of airborne asbestos, and 19 what's the company that's listed right on the cover 20 page, right on the top, first page? 21 A. Kelly-Moore Paints, Incorporated, San Carlos, 22 California. 23 Q. And go to page -- the discussion part of this 24 document, which is four pages in, where it says right at 25 the top, threshold limit value and toxicology. 0222 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And do you see that first paragraph where 3 it's saying -- it says, while the present standard for 4 permissible exposure to asbestos fibers in the air is 5 five fibers greater that five microns in length per 6 milliliter of air for an eight-hour workday, this value 7 is being reduced to two fibers per milliliter for an 8 eight-hour exposure by1976? Doyou see that? 9 A. Yes, I do. 10 Q. Do you actuallyremember that the threshold 11 limit value was being reduced from five fibers per 12 milliliter or cubic centimeter to two? 13 A. Well, that -- that happened in the OSHA - 14 the first OSHA Act. It said that this is effective, you 15 know, '72, and then four years later, in '76, it's going 16 to two. 17 Q. And can you read to us that last sentence in 18 that paragraph that says, however? It's the first 19 paragraph. 20 A. However, due to the high toxicity of 21 asbestos, it is suggested that all concentrations be 22 kept as near zero as possible. 23 Q. Is that the kind of information that 24 Kelly-Moore, based on this, was getting from its 25 insurance company? 0223 1 A. It certainly appears that that's the 2 information they got. 3 Q. And is this the same kind of information that 4 Union Carbide was telling them in 1969 where it said the 5 threshold limit value then may not be low enough to 6 protect against mesothelioma? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. Look, if you will, inthat same --under 9 Roman number one, the last paragraph which says, more 10 recently, evidence indicating asbestos fibers in the 11 development of mesothelioma, a form of cancer, has been 12 introduced. Do you see that? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Was Union Carbide telling Kelly-Moore about 15 mesothelioma three years before this insurance company 16 document? 17 A. I think it was, but, you know, I -- I want to 18 see a document. Well, this document says it, you know. 19 Q. The 1969 Union Carbide toxicology report - 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- saysthat,right? 22 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Does the Union Carbide 1969 toxicology report 25 say that about mesothelioma? 0224 1 MR. LANIER: Objection to form. 2 A. Yes, it does. 3 Q. Look at this paragraph for me that we were 4 looking at, and we were talking about the sentence that 5 said, more recently, evidence indicating asbestos fibers 6 in the development of mesothelioma, a form of cancer, 7 has been introduced. Are you with me? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And it goes on to say, while the emergency 10 standard of five fibers per milliliter is at present 11 based upon exposure to fibrosis, we should nonetheless 12 take into account the fact that exposures to even small 13 quantities of asbestos fibers over a short period of 14 time may lead to the development of mesothelioma in a 15 certain percentage of the exposed workers. 16 Is that very similar to what Union Carbide 17 was telling Kelly-Moore three years earlier? 18 A. That looks like, you know, they lifted the 19 language. 20 Q. Let me show you another document that deals 21 with Kelly-Moore, which is an asbestos survey dated 22 December 15th, 1976. 23 MS. PRINZ: It's Rawlings 33. 24 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 33 was marked for 25 identification.) 0225 1 BY MR. BICKS: 2 Q. Were you shown this document by the lawyer 3 for Kelly-Moore? 4 A. No, I don't remember that I was. 5 Q. What does this say right up in the first 6 paragraph? What company is this talking about? 7 A. Kelly-Moore Paints Incorporated, San Carlos, 8 California. 9 Q. And it says asbestos survey, right? 10 A. Right. 11 Q. Go to page two, if you will. Do you see the 12 discussion that talks about toxicity and then health 13 standard right in the middle? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Look at the healthstandardparagraph. Are 16 you with me? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Do you seewhere it says that health 19 standards are guidelines to protect most workers and 20 should not be accepted as absolute values with which all 21 workers will be protected? 22 A. I see that. 23 Q. And it goes on to say, forthesereasons it 24 is the best policy to keep air concentrations of 25 asbestos as low as possible. Do you see that? 0226 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Does every single personwho works in the 3 chemical field understand that this is what threshold 4 limit values mean? 5 A. Well, I'm sure they did. They -- they -- I'm 6 trying to think how it was phrased in the Act, that the 7 threshold limit value was -- was not a guarantee, 8 because they use this language about predisposition and 9 other things that, you know, might alter it, but they 10 said they felt like it was a minimal risk incurring, you 11 know, a great number of -- a minimal or acceptable risk, 12 I can't remember what they said, contracted cancer if 13 you kept the -- if you observed the threshold limit 14 value. 15 Q. Right. Remember that you were asked some 16 questions by counsel for Kelly-Moore where he referred 17 to Kelly-Moore as a mom and pop operation. Do you 18 remember that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do you know thatKelly-Moore sold about $78 21 million worth of products with asbestos in them? 22 A. No, I didn't. 23 Q. Would that surprise you? 24 A. It would surprise me from what counsel said. 25 Q. Does that sound like a mom and pop operation? 0227 1 A. No, it doesn't. 2 Q. And by the way, do you have a sense as to how 3 much asbestos Kelly-Moore bought from Union Carbide 4 during the time period that you were in charge of the 5 business? 6 A. I did -- did have occasion to review that at 7 one time, because we were very minimal participants in 8 their business and we were selling them less than $1,000 9 worth a year in the early period of time. The only time 10 we ever exceeded that was when there was a strike in - 11 in Canada and they were unable to get material from that 12 source. Then we went up to about $4,000 a month. 13 Q. Let me ask you about this Glidden-Durkee call 14 report that you were shown. Do you remember you were 15 pointed at the sentence which talked about the asbestos 16 toxicology report? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And it says under observations and then you 19 see the sentence which says, he felt that should such a 20 report fall into the hands of their production people, 21 it would cause considerable concern to say the least. 22 Do you see that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Isn't the reason it would cause concern, 25 Mr. Rawlings, is because the report, the asbestos 0228 1 toxicology report, talked about asbestosis, lung cancer 2 and mesothelioma? 3 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 4 A. Well, you know, it's hard to say how you 5 could go furtherthan that, but -- but I, you know -- 6 Q. Well, let me ask you this, sir: You got a 7 copy of this document, right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Is that a fair reading of what this is 10 saying, that what this person was concerned about was 11 that the asbestos toxicology report raised issues and 12 told people about hazards which could cause concern? 13 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 14 A. I think that's a fair interpretation of 15 the -- of the language. 16 Q. And let me ask you this: Was the purpose of 17 giving out toxicology reports which talk about 18 asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma to raise some 19 concern among the customer? 20 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 21 A. It -- it certainly was to raise some concern 22 and -- and, you know, it said how. The important thing 23 is how you handle the danger, and you should never 24 exceed the TLV and anywhere where you would encounter 25 dust, you know, you should be using respirators. 0229 1 Q. Now, let me also ask you this one. 2 Kelly-Moore was a paint company, right? 3 A. That's what I understand, yes. 4 Q. And do paint companies work with chemicals? 5 A. Well, certainly they do, importantly lead up 6 until a certain point. 7 Q. Would it -- did you know that Kelly-Moore had 8 lead in its paint for some time? 9 A. I would suspect that early on they did 10 because most paint companies did. 11 Q. Are paint companies companies that are 12 familiar with using chemical products? 13 A. They'd have to be familiar with all of the 14 chemicals they're using. 15 Q. Now, let me ask you, you were asked questions 16 about could a customer rely on Union Carbide. Do you 17 remember that series of questions? 18 A. Yes, I do. 19 Q. Do you think that customers of Union Carbide 20 have responsibility to do some of their own homework and 21 know about the products that they're making and selling? 22 A. Certainly not to the extent that other - 23 other materials, not Union Carbide materials, are 24 involved in those products. 25 I mean, we can't be held accountable for all 0230 1 of their -- their formulations. That doesn't make any 2 sense at all. In fact, you know, we couldn't even be - 3 we may not, you know -- first of all, we may -- probably 4 don't know what all of them are. 5 Q. Formulas that companies use to make products, 6 those are proprietary generally, aren't they? 7 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 8 A. Yes, they are in most companies. 9 Q. Do you think Kelly-Moore had a responsibility 10 to do some homework on its own and test its product and 11 know a little bit about the kind of product it was 12 making and selling to people? 13 A. Well, you know, I think when you talk about 14 the frenzy, I mean, they -- they were put on notice like 15 everybody else that, you know, the product was getting 16 bad reviews, and, you know, I can't imagine that they 17 didn't look into it on an independent basis. 18 Q. Remember you were shown a document which 19 talked about cancer and whether or not cancer should be 20 on a warning label. Do you remember that? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Who determined by lawwhatshould be on the 23 warning label? 24 A. OSHA. 25 Q. Did Union Carbide followthe law? 0231 1 A. Absolutely. 2 Q. As a person who runs a company, do you think 3 it is a good idea to follow the law? 4 A. Indeed, yes. 5 Q. Do you remember what OSHA concluded in 1972 6 about whether or not cancer should be put on a label? 7 A. They thought it was too alarmist and rejected 8 the idea. 9 Q. And even though OSHA rejected the idea, did 10 Union Carbide give out toxicology information that 11 talked about the possibility of cancer being caused by 12 asbestos? 13 A. Yes, we did. 14 Q.You were asked somequestions about asbestos 15 generally and whether or not asbestos can cause 16 different types of disease. Do yourememberthat? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. I take it as you are here today, are you here 19 as a medical expert about all of the science that talks 20 about different types of asbestos and whether or not 21 they can cause cancer? 22 A. No, I'm not. 23 Q. Do you think it was the right thing to do for 24 Union Carbide during the time period you were involved 25 to treat Calidria like other types of asbestos and to 0232 1 tell people that there were risks that had to be looked 2 out for? 3 A. Yes. I think that, you know, the information 4 that I had at that point in time indicated that 5 crocidolite was, you know, much more toxic from the 6 standpoint of mesothelioma than other asbestos products. 7 That is to say the other side of that is chrysotile 8 would be -- would be less toxic, but, you know, 9 certainly we weren't going to try and contend that there 10 was a difference. 11 MR. BICKS: I think we have to change the 12 tape. 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of tape 14 number three. Off the record. It's 4:46 p.m. 15 (Discussion off the record.) 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record. The time 17 is now 4:39. This is tape four of the deposition of 18 Mr. Rawlings. On the record. 19 BY MR. BICKS: 20 Q. Mr. Rawlings, you were asked some questions 21 about published articles in a magazine called GECI 22 Drywall that talk about asbestos and silica dust. Do 23 you remember that? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Take a look at page two. Do you see that 0233 1 chart in the middle there? 2 A. Yes. I'm having trouble reading it, but I 3 see it. 4 Q. Yes. And you look over on the right side and 5 you'll see discussions about data reported by 6 Mr. Nicholson. Do you see that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Did Union Carbide publish information that 9 talked about data that Dr. Nicholson and Dr. Selica of 10 Mount Sinai came up with? 11 A. Yes, we did. 12 Q. And was this data of Dr. Nicholson and 13 Dr. Selica something that was helpful to the sales of 14 asbestos, do you know? 15 A. No, it certainly wasn't. 16 Q. But Union Carbide published it anyway? 17 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 18 BY MR. BICKS: 19 Q. Did Union Carbide publish itanyway? 20 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 21 A. Yes. Yes, we did. 22 Q. And let me go back again, because I want to 23 make sure the jury is -- is clear. 24 Did Union Carbide actually, again, put in 25 public documents that were available to people in the 0234 1 paint industry statements about mesothelioma, lung 2 cancer and asbestosis? 3 A. Yes, we did. 4 Q. And did you allow that to take place? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Did you encourage it? 7 A. Certainly the answer is yes, because what we 8 wanted to do was to put that information out and then go 9 to stage two, which was, but you can use it safely if 10 you, one, keep the -- the dust count as low as you 11 possibly can and whenever there's a dust count at all 12 wear the -- the masks. 13 Q. Look at this article that Mr.Myers wrote 14 that is in front of you, and I asked you about this 15 before. It's not the drywall article, though, the 16 handling asbestos, chrysotile asbestos and plastics 17 article. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And -- and we looked at on the second page of 20 this the discussion about asbestos hazard. Do you see 21 that? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And does this state for the world to see 24 under mesothelioma that there is some evidence that 25 mesothelioma can occur after brief exposures to 0235 1 relatively high fiberlevels? 2 A. It does. 3 Q. You were shown a document that dealt with 4 coveralls at the King City mill. Do you remember that? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you know that, in fact, Union Carbide 7 purchased those coveralls for the workers? 8 A. I don't recall that, but that doesn't 9 surprise me. 10 Q. Why doesn't it surprise you? 11 A. Well, it's a -- it -- I guess again 12 conservatism in terms of not having them wear while they 13 were in the -- in the mill clothes that they would take 14 home. 15 MR. LANIER: I had an objection to, did you 16 know that they had, in fact, bought them, as 17 leading. Thank you. 18 BY MR. BICKS: 19 Q. Well, let me ask you this: Based on what you 20 know about Union Carbide, do you think that Union 21 Carbide purchased those coveralls for the workers? 22 A. I think it's probable, but I don't really 23 know. 24 Q. And who would know that, the people at the 25 plant level? 0236 1 A. Yes. 2 MR. LANIER: Objection; leading. 3 MR. BICKS: I have nothing further. Thank 4 you. 5 Mr. Lanier, just so my -- my objection is on 6 the record, I'm going to allow you to ask some 7 questions, but I think it's not -- inconsistent with 8 what the judge has ruled, which was that you were to 9 go for an hour and a half, I was to go for an hour 10 and a half, you were to go for an hour and a half 11 and then I was to conclude, and that was a very 12 clear ruling by the judge. 13 RECROSS EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. LANIER: 15 Q. Sir, let's start out with your knowledge 16 about Kelly-Moore. Kelly-Moore distributed Paco 17 products starting in '58. 18 Is that what you've now read into the record? 19 A. They were -- they were distributing it to 20 Kelly-Moore, which was their primary customer. 21 Q. Okay. It doesn't say asbestos products 22 there. It's talking about the reams of different 23 products Paco made that did not have asbestos in them, 24 maybe some of them did. 25 It doesn't say one way or the other, does it? 0237 1 A. No, it does not. 2 Q. Okay. You're not saying you know for certain 3 when Kelly-Moore started making them or started selling 4 or any of that mess; ask the Kelly-Moore people, right? 5 A. (No response.) 6 Q. Right? 7 A. Right. 8 Q. Okay. You don't need to look at that. 9 That's just the documents we were looking at. 10 The next subject. On the ten-year safety 11 failure exhibit, do you remember that - 12 A. Yes, sir, I do. 13 Q. -- the document entitled ten-year safety 14 failure by Union Carbide? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Sir, the bottom line is, you all were seven 17 out of seven, weren't you, last place? 18 A. Overallthat's what itshows. 19 Q. And your - 20 A. The last place versusthe chemical industry 21 generally. 22 Q. Right. Compared to companies that you should 23 be compared to, right? 24 A. I don't think so. I mean, I think that the 25 fact that you would include a Linde Division in Mining 0238 1 and Metals in there, it isn't necessarily fair. I mean, 2 Mining and Metals, mining by its very nature is a much 3 more risky business. I think that the chemical industry 4 is generally. 5 Q. Sir, your ten-year failure record, the safety 6 failure, says that you all were seventh out of seven in 7 comparable industries, doesn't it? 8 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 9 BY MR. LANIER: 10 Q. That's what it says, isn't it? 11 A. Well, but then it goes on to say that the 12 chemical industry generally is the comparable industry. 13 I mean -- 14 Q. Right. And that you all were seventh out of 15 seven, right? It lists them in order? 16 A. Yes. And now we have Union Carbide Canada in 17 there, and I don't know what that's all about, to tell 18 you the truth. 19 Q. Well, you just -- I only brought that up 20 because you started out today talking about the 21 wonderful culture and the Carbiders and the fact that 22 you all just were so safety conscious as an industry. 23 I'm looking at it, and you've got the worst safety 24 record and you even put out documents that say you all 25 had a safety failure. 0239 1 That's -- that's the story, isn't it? 2 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 3 A. Well, I -- you know, I take issue with that 4 being the whole story at least in -- particularly in 5 terms of referring to asbestos. 6 Q. Okay. Next subject. The Ingalls memo that 7 says set the mood, do you remember that one? 8 A. What's this memo? 9 Q. The Blare Ingalls memo that says set the 10 mood, you know, embarrass them -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- humiliate them and all of that stuff. You 13 now have testified from the Carbide lawyer that Ingalls 14 only worked in the eastern United States, not the West, 15 so he never would have dealt with Kelly-Moore. Do you 16 remember that? 17 A. That's correct, yes. 18 Q. So in other words, he mighthave told 19 everybody to embarrass people and humiliate them and to 20 set the mood to manipulate sales, but that wouldn't have 21 applied to Kelly-Moore, that was just being done in the 22 East Coast. Is that what I'm understanding? 23 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 24 A. You know, it -- it definitely was the case it 25 got stopped in its tracks, I mean, you know, that 0240 1 particular presentation. 2 Q. You haven't shown me one piece of paper, you 3 don't even have one, that says you all retracted that, a 4 memo out to all those different people, don't follow 5 what Ingalls said, we're going to fire him or we're 6 going to demote him. 7 I mean, there's nothing like that anywhere, 8 is there? 9 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 10 A. I haven't seen anything in terms of paper, 11 but I can tell you as a matter of fact that memo was 12 brought to my attention early on and I let them know in 13 no uncertain terms -- it was easy to communicate to that 14 group because they were so small -- that, you know, 15 enough of this nonsense, it isn't going to happen here. 16 Q. By the way, if Ingalls only dealt with people 17 on the East Coast, why did he send a copy of that to 18 Myers? 19 A. Well, Myers was the overall manager. I mean, 20 he was -21 Q. Not just East Coast but West Coast, wasn't 22 he? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Myers, in fact, was out in California, wasn't 25 he? 0241 1 A. Well, at some point in time he was out there. 2 He started out being in Niagara Falls. 3 Q. So you got the -- the California man on that 4 memo from Ingalls, West Coast, don't you? 5 A. No, no, no. Ingalls sent it to everybody. 6 You know, he was suggesting that they follow this 7 procedure when they were having 244 questions. 8 Q. All right. So not fair to say that Ingalls 9 was just saying this is East Coast policy? He sent that 10 out across the board, didn't he? 11 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 12 A. I think, you know, it's unlikely that -- that 13 that presentation or that approach was ever used with - 14 with your company. 15 Q. Now, are you saying that Ingalls got demoted 16 because of this? 17 A. No. He got sent back to the lab where he 18 belonged. 19 Q. But not because of this memo, that just 20 happened later? 21 A. No, I think the close proximity, it had - 22 certainly had something to do with it. 23 Q. And we just can't see his file so that we can 24 read to see if that's accurate or not? 25 MR. BICKS: Objection. 0242 1 BY MR. LANIER: 2 Q. You don't have a copy of it and you're not 3 showing it to us, nobody is showing us his file, right? 4 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 5 A. That he went back to the laboratory? 6 Q. Why he left, why he left sales, why he went 7 back to the lab. We're not privy to any of those 8 records that would show us what really happened? 9 A. I assume you haven't -- haven't any of those 10 records in your possession. 11 Q. Now, Ingalls sent a big toxicology report to 12 Pittsburgh Plate Glass, PPG Industries. Do you remember 13 being asked about that, Exhibit 27? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. PPG was no stranger to asbestos, were they? 16 A. No, PPG wasn't a stranger to asbestos. 17 Q. In fact, PPG was in the same club that you 18 all were in sharing all of the knowledge back and forth, 19 weren't they - 20 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 21 BY MR. LANIER: 22 Q. -- the Industrial Hygiene Foundation? 23 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 24 BY MR. LANIER: 25 Q. Did you know that? 0243 1 A. You know, I don't recall that was true, but I 2 don't -- on the other hand, I -- you know, I can't say 3 that it wasn't. 4 Q. Yes. I mean, the fact that you all are 5 willing to share information with other people in the 6 same club that have all of the same data, that doesn't 7 mean anything in terms of Kelly-Moore, does it? 8 A. Not only -- it just reflects an attitude 9 towards the customer. 10 Q. Well, it reflects an attitude towards another 11 club member who is paying the same money to keep the 12 same information out about asbestos? 13 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 14 BY MR. LANIER: 15 Q. That's what it shows, isn't it? 16 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 17 A. Again, you keep asking me questions where I 18 don't have all of the information in front of me. It's 19 hard for me to answer those questions. 20 Q. You understand it's Mr. Bicks you've gotten 21 to meet with time after time after time, month after 22 month, deposition after deposition. I just met you 23 today. I didn't give you all of this information. He's 24 supposed to give you that. Do you understand that? 25 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 0244 1 BY MR. LANIER: 2 Q. I mean, do you understand Mr. Bicks kept 3 saying, well, let's get the whole story out there? You 4 have looked to Mr. Bicks to bring you documents and show 5 them to you, haven't you? 6 A. Certainly to a certain extent, yes. 7 Q. And you've never called me up and said, 8 Lanier, I've got to give a deposition, get out here and 9 tell me the whole story, have you? 10 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 11 A. I don't -- you know, I don't expect you to do 12 that, but I just -- it makes it hard for me to answer 13 the questions. 14 Q. That's okay. I mean, if you want me to and 15 your lawyer would let you, I'd be glad to sit down with 16 you and show you the whole story, but they won't let me. 17 A. No. 18 Q. Do you understand? 19 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 20 BY MR. LANIER: 21 Q. All right. Let's change subjects. Degussa, 22 in your mind they were a bad company, weren't they, 23 doing some bad things? 24 A. In my view they were guilty of very sharp 25 practices. 0245 1 Q. You would agree with me there are good 2 companies in this world and there are bad companies in 3 this world, just like people, right? 4 A. Yes, that's true. 5 Q. And there are companies that do things that 6 are out of line, and those companies need to get 7 punished, wouldn't you agree? 8 A. Well, you know, they -- they had a no 9 punishment situation really, I mean, with all of the - 10 the data presentation. The thing that they were guilty 11 of was not -- you know, we furnished them information on 12 toxicology and the various risks and -- and what we were 13 suggesting in terms of customer usage, and they -- they 14 don't mention this at all. 15 All they do is just say, well, you know, 16 asbestos is bad stuff, and moreover they say, you know, 17 it's noxious. I mean, you know, I don't know where the 18 hell that came from because I never heard that one 19 before. 20 Q. They may be the translation. I don't know 21 what the German word was. 22 A. Yes, well, I don't know. 23 Q. Sir, but you'd agree with me as a principle 24 that if they're out of line and they're doing things 25 that are wrong, you ought to be able to sue them and you 0246 1 ought to be able to bring them to justice, shouldn't 2 you? 3 A. Based on the advice of counsel I had at the 4 time, they said that, you know, the game isn't worth the 5 candle. 6 Q. Fair enough. If the game had been worth the 7 candle, though, that's what courts are for, and you 8 recognize that as a lawyer and Union Carbide does, don't 9 they? 10 A. Well, I think, you know, you look at it in 11 terms of, you know, is it a case where you settle or do 12 you, you know, back off because it's going to cost you 13 too much. It's -- it's something that really doesn't 14 come back and bear on the issue at hand. As you say, 15 they are bad folks. I agree with that. 16 Q. All right. Next subject. Exhibit Number 29 17 you were asked questions about. That's a Mellon study 18 about the hazards of you all's asbestos. Do you see 19 that? 20 A. Yes, I do. 21 Q. Now, sir, that's 1971, isn't it? 22 A. Yes, this is the '71 report and -23 Q. I'm sorry. Mr. Bicks has handed you a 24 different report than the one we've been talking about. 25 We were talking about one back in the '60s, weren't we? 0247 1 A. Yes, you were, and that's the one that I 2 wasn't aware of. 3 Q. Yes. This one in the '70s, first of all, 4 aside from being a different report, it still says that 5 the only bottom line is don't breathe in excess of the 6 TLV, doesn't it? 7 A. That's right. 8 Q. Because the TLV is safe is what you all were 9 telling everybody, right? 10 A. Except that we don't have enough data on 11 mesothelioma, and so what we're going to say there is 12 that it behooves that, you know, all of you, whenever 13 you detect dust, to wear respirators. 14 Q. And where does it say that in -- in any of 15 the documents you've looked at today? 16 A. In this document. 17 Q. All right. Let's start there. Where does it 18 say it in that '71 study, wear a mask because of 19 mesothelioma? 20 A. (No response.) 21 Q. And to save us time,sir, I'll tellyou it 22 isn't in there. Will you take my word for that? 23 A. Okay. You know -- 24 Q. Yes. Well, if -- if you can find -- you'll 25 get a chance to review your deposition. If you can find 0248 1 where in all of these toxicology reports it says if 2 there is asbestos dust wear a mask because of 3 mesothelioma, I'd like you to point that out to me, 4 okay, when you review your deposition, because it's not 5 in there, sir. 6 A. Okay. 7 Q. Next question. Youwere asked aboutanimal 8 studies, and you were asked, does that have anything to 9 do with how a human breathes, and you said, I don't 10 know. Do you remember those questions? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Are you saying that you all were funding a 13 bunch of useless studies that were bad science and the 14 guys were doing a horrible job and no one should ever 15 believe them? 16 A. Well, I think that's true from everything I 17 heard about this one. 18 Q. So did you all ask for your money back? 19 A. You know, what -- what it is -- I think I 20 remember once the -- one of the sweeteners that was 21 barred for a period of about eight years, and I forget 22 which one it was, and finally they released it again for 23 sale to the public and they -- they made a comment that 24 because of the massive doses that had been given to 25 rats, that the label on it ought to read that be aware 0249 1 of this -- this product is a -- is a threat to the 2 health of your rat. It's kind of in that category. 3 Q. All right. So you all were just funding a 4 bunch of useless studies? 5 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 6 BY MR. LANIER: 7 Q. I mean, in short, you just think they were a 8 bunch of useless studies and you don't know why all of 9 those -- you're speaking as a lawyer here, I recognize, 10 but you don't know why all of those science people kept 11 doing this, right? 12 A. You know, I don't know why this -- this one 13 was done within the limitations that were set on it. 14 Q. Okay. Next question. You were asked about 15 Dr. Dernehl's letter that's Exhibit 30, and you were 16 handed this one. And in your answer, as I heard you, 17 you said that you had always understood that other kinds 18 of asbestos and long fiber asbestos was more toxic. Do 19 you remember giving that answer? 20 A. Yes. That's my understanding of it. 21 Q. Sir, that memo doesn't say that long fiber is 22 more toxic than your short fiber? 23 A. No, but there were places, other places, 24 where it was said. 25 Q. Well, but Dernehl said the exact opposite. 0250 1 He said that your short fiber might be more hazardous, 2 and that's what the '66 study showed, right? 3 A. Yes, but then later on he said in all -- you 4 know, in close proximity that there is so little data 5 it's hard to -6 Q. Well, he never comes out and says what you're 7 claiming, that the long fiber is worse. He says that 8 the short fiber -- the only test result you all had that 9 compared them heads up showed short fiber more dangerous 10 than long fiber, true? 11 A. Go back and look at the OSHA document itself 12 where they talked about substantial evidence to the 13 effect that, you know, crocidolite and amosite are more 14 toxic than -- than other asbestos materials, and, you 15 know, you can -- I'm sure you can dig back in that 16 document and find the sources of that information that 17 were presented to OSHA. It didn't come from Union 18 Carbide, but it was -- it was there. 19 Q. Are you claiming today that Union Carbide 20 told Kelly-Moore that the five TLV or whatever the 21 current TLV was was not adequate for mesothelioma? 22 A. At -- at a period in time we did. 23 Q. When, and show me the document? If you'll 24 tell me what you're looking for, I've got some of them 25 over here, so if it's -- I might need to pull it out for 0251 1 you. 2 A. Help me out. It was one we were just looking 3 at there. 4 Q. Okay. Now, the lawyers found it and opened 5 up something and pointed it to you. 6 MR. BICKS: Do you want me to help? 7 MR. LANIER: I asked him, but that's okay. 8 MR. BICKS: Okay. 9 MR. LANIER: If you need to show it to him, 10 I'm not worried about it because we'll get to it 11 quicker. 12 BY MR. LANIER: 13 Q. The lawyer wants you to look here at Rawlings 14 Exhibit Number 7. This paragraph is where he pointed. 15 A third disease, mesothelioma, has more recently been 16 associated with persons exposed to asbestos. It's 17 extremely rare cancer of the lining of the chest or the 18 abdominal cavity. In contrast to the lung diseases, 19 there's some evidence meso can occur after brief 20 exposures, but it says to what? 21 A. Relatively high fiber levels. 22 Q. Relatively high fiber levels. Show me one 23 that says -24 A. Okay. 25 Q. And I'll let the lawyer help you. 0252 1 A. No, but -2 Q. Hang on. Show me one that says something 3 below the TLV. 4 A. You know, all I can do is refer you -- for 5 the moment to refer you back to the language in the OSHA 6 Act, and it says that, you know, that the evidence on 7 mesothelioma is -- is scant, but there is some evidence, 8 and I'm almost positive it said high concentrations over 9 a short period of time. 10 Q. Okay. Sir, we will have OSHA, and the jury 11 can read OSHA. I want to know where Union Carbide told 12 anybody -- you can do it, the lawyer can do it, someone 13 show me the document where Union Carbide told 14 Kelly-Moore exposure below the TLV can cause 15 mesothelioma. Show it to me. 16 A. Well, I suppose the most direct evidence we 17 have on the table today is the statement of your 18 underwriter. 19 Q. In other words, Union Carbide never said it? 20 A. Well, I mean, the language -21 Q. Sir, please understand I'm going to get to 22 the underwriter, but I want you to focus on this 23 question. 24 Did Union Carbide ever tell Kelly-Moore 25 exposure below the TLV causes the meso? You've said 0253 1 yes. Your lawyer said yes. I want anybody in this room 2 of ten people to show me -- or eight people to show me a 3 piece of paper that says it. 4 MR. BICKS: Can we bring out the '69 5 toxicology report? 6 MR. LANIER: You bring out anything you've 7 got in here to show me, any piece of paper that says 8 it. We've got papers all over this room. 9 MR. BICKS: To expedite, do you want me to 10 help him find it? 11 MR. LANIER: Sure. 12 MR. BICKS: It's totally up to you. 13 MR. LANIER: I'm asking anybody. You can 14 help him again. You showed him the first one that 15 didn't say it. Show him another one. I'll give you 16 three strikes. 17 MS. PRINZ: Do you have Exhibit 2, by any 18 chance? 19 MR. LANIER: Barrie, I don't know if I have 20 Exhibit 2 or not. I don't think I do, but I might. 21 Yes. No, that's 32 . No, I don't, Barrie. Here is 22 a bunch. 23 A. Well I read that, but -- 24 Q. I mean, for you all to have told them 25 everywhere, it sure ought to be easier to find, 0254 1 shouldn't it? 2 A. (No response.) 3 Q. Okay. Now the lawyers have handed you this 4 asbestos toxicology report, which is the one dated May 5 of '69. 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. Do you see that? Now, look in the first page 8 here where it talks about mesothelioma, a type of cancer 9 named meso has been noted to be associated with asbestos 10 exposures. These tumors, while rather few in number, 11 may occur in individuals with histories of only slight 12 exposures that are as much as 20 or 40 years earlier. 13 There is considerable evidence crocidolite is most 14 frequently associated with meso. 15 From the data available, it appears a TLV of 16 five may not be low -- may not be low enough to protect 17 against meso. Research continues. 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. Is that it? 20 A. That's it. 21 Q. Okay. Now, you all didn't say it there about 22 your chrysotile, did you? 23 A. (No response.) 24 Q. You say crocidolite. That's a different kind 25 of asbestos, isn't it? 0255 1 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. In fact, that's the very thing the Glidden 4 people got upset with you about, said you don't mention 5 the chrysotile, all you talk about is crocidolite in 6 there on meso, right? 7 A. Well, except that we never -- never took the 8 position that, you know, we were better off when -- you 9 know, when we had evidence that we were -- we were less 10 toxic than the crocidolite and amosite. 11 Q. Sir, the point is, you don't even tell them 12 there that -- you don't say anything about your 13 chrysotile. That's what Glidden found so disturbing, 14 isn't it? 15 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 16 BY MR. LANIER: 17 Q. Sir, doesn't that say crocidolite, not 18 chrysotile? It does, doesn't it? 19 A. It just says that crocidolite is -- is 20 considered to be more of a gravamen than the other 21 asbestos forms. 22 Q. Now, look at a different letter. Let's go at 23 this from another angle. Exhibit 31, which is another 24 document that you were shown by Mr. Bicks, that's a 25 letter to some fellow over in England, some British 0256 1 place, in '67, right? 2 A. Yes, that's right. 3 Q. Imperial Chemicals Industries? 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. In that letter, can you go back to the first 6 page, from Mr. Dernehl? It says, I think I see what 7 Mr. Sayers really meant, and it's talking about 8 Mr. Sayers and the way he's talked to those people. 9 A. Right. Right. 10 Q. Mr. Sayers is the same fellow who admitted in 11 writing to you all that five is not safe for meso, 12 right? 13 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 14 BY MR. LANIER: 15 Q. That's the same Sayers, Ian Sayers, isn't it? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. He said -- then Dernehl in this letter 18 says, my present opinion is a threshold limit of five is 19 adequate against asbestosis, but he continues to say, I 20 am not prepared to say whether five will also protect 21 against meso. 22 He's not going to say. He doesn't know, does 23 he? 24 A. That's what he says. 25 Q. Now, that letter wasn't sent to Kelly-Moore, 0257 1 was it? 2 A. No, it wasn't. 3 Q. That letter was only sent to someplace in 4 England that had already been talking to Mr. Sayers, who 5 wrote the report that said this. The cat is already out 6 of the bag, right? 7 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 8 A. Well, here we go, lack of information. I'm 9 going to need more. 10 Q. Okay. Well, one thing you do have 11 information on, at least the lawyer gave you a letter - 12 when he gave you a letter, he didn't give you one 13 addressed to Kelly-Moore, he gave you one addressed to 14 some people over in England, right? 15 A. (No response.) 16 Q. Isn't that letter addressed to people over in 17 England, sir? 18 A. Yes, it is. 19 Q. Okay. Next let's look at theinsurance 20 document. This is the Liberty Mutual document you were 21 telling us about, and you said that the Liberty Mutual 22 language was just like what Union Carbide had been 23 saying. There it is right in front of you. 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. In fact, I think you even said they lifted 0258 1 the language it looks like? 2 A. It looked like it, yes, it did. 3 Q. Now, sir, where does it say in the Liberty 4 Mutual document if you're exposed to asbestos below the 5 TLV it can cause meso? 6 A. (No response.) 7 Q. And I'll let the lawyer help you because I 8 don't think it's in there anywhere. 9 A. Well, let me take a look at it. 10 MR. LANIER: If you've found it, Mr. Bicks, 11 you're welcome to direct his attention to some 12 portion. 13 MR. BICKS: Sure. Threshold limit value. 14 MR. LANIER: He's on that page. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 MR. BICKS: Okay. 17 MR. LANIER: You just reach over and point 18 it. I'm not -- 19 BY MR. LANIER: 20 Q. All right. He's pointing at this paragraph. 21 Let's read it together. More recently - 22 A. Evidence indicating asbestos fibers in the 23 development of mesothelioma, a form of cancer, has been 24 introduced. While the emergency standard of five fibers 25 per milliliter is at present based upon exposure to 0259 1 fibrosis, we should nonetheless take into account the 2 fact that exposures to even small quantities of asbestos 3 fibers over a short period of time may lead to 4 development of mesothelioma in a certain percentage of 5 the exposed workers. 6 For this reason there is now proposed an 7 emergency standard of two fibers per milliliter, and it 8 is imperative that exposure to asbestos fibers of the 9 longer fiber variety be kept to an absolute minimum. 10 Q. Okay. Sir, that doesn't say -- 11 A. That's pretty close to what, you know, my 12 understanding of what we were telling all our customers. 13 Q. Well, sir, that -- that doesn't -- I agree 14 that -- that in some regards that's what you all were 15 saying to some of your customers, but sir, that doesn't 16 say that if you get exposed below the TLV, we think it's 17 going to cause mesothelioma. It's saying small 18 exposures, brief exposures. I think you all were saying 19 high exposures over brief time periods. 20 A. Yes, well, you know, I certainly, you know, 21 had information of high -- high exposures for a short 22 period of time. 23 Q. Yes. That's what you all were saying. You 24 all contravened what Liberty Mutual said, didn't you? 25 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 0260 1 BY MR. LANIER: 2 Q. Sir, you all were saying different than 3 Liberty Mutual, weren't you? 4 A. You look over here at respiratory protection, 5 Bureau of Mines-approved respiratory protection was 6 being worn by those employees who dump ingredients into 7 the mixes. However, this respiratory protection is 8 removed immediately after the ingredients have been 9 dumped. Also, none of the employees working the general 10 working areas of the plant were wearing respiratory 11 protection. 12 Our sample results indicate that all 13 employees in the department should use respiratory 14 protection until the asbestos concentrations are reduced 15 to acceptable levels through engineering controls. 16 Q. Right. That's Liberty Mutual, but sir, let's 17 stay on the subject of mesothelioma. You said it looks 18 like Liberty Mutual was saying the same thing you all 19 were. I want you to compare two. Compare Liberty 20 Mutual to Exhibit Number 7, which is the Myers article. 21 Myers says there is some evidence 22 mesothelioma can occur after brief exposures to 23 relatively high fiber levels, right? 24 A. That's right. 25 Q. Liberty Mutual said mesothelioma, even small 0261 1 2 3 4 quantities of fibers over a short period of time may lead to the development of meso, right? A. Now, I -- I'm sure that we could find technical treatises who would say both ways, to tell you 5 the truth. 6 Q. I'm not fussing that with you. My fuss is 7 this: Liberty Mutual said small quantities, short 8 period of time could cause meso. That's different than 9 what Union Carbide and Myers said, isn't it? 10 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 11 A. That's -- you know, in terms of the -- of the 12 amount of exposure, total amount of exposure. 13 Q. Yes. It's different, isn't it? 14 A. Yes, it is. 15 Q. Yes. You all were saying no, no, no , no, 16 Liberty Mutual, it's not small quantities in a short 17 period, it's large quantities in a short period . It's 18 big exposure. That's what you all were saying, isn't 19 it? 20 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 21 BY MR. LANIER: 22 Q. Do you see the difference? 23 A. I'm sure we can find a report that states 24 that , that Myers -25 Q. No. Do you see the difference between what 0262 1 you all were saying and what Liberty Mutual was saying 2 A. I do 3 Q. Okay . And did you know that your company 4 after that Liberty Mutual report came in to Kelly-Moore 5 and said, hey, from here on out, let us do your 6 industrial hygiene work, let us do this Liberty Mutual 7 work, you don't need them? 8 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 9 BY MR. LANIER: 10 Q. Did you know your company did that? 11 A. No, I didn't know that. 12 Q. Did you know your company went in and in 13 1973 -- I'll mark this as Exhibit - 14 MS. HEGAR: 34. 15 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 34 was marked for 16 identification.) 17 BY MR. LANIER: 18 Q. -- 34 -- in 1973 your company came in and did 19 their own evaluation? 20 MR. LANIER: I'll also mark Exhibit 35, which 21 is six months later. 22 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 35 was marked for 23 identification.) 24 MR. LANIER: I'll mark Exhibit 36, which is 25 1975. 0263 1 (Rawlings Exhibit No. 36 was marked for 2 identification.) 3 BY MR. LANIER: 4 Q. And your company starts doing the fiber 5 counts for Kelly-Moore. Did you know that? 6 MR. BICKS: Objection. 7 A. I knew we did fiber counts for customers, but 8 I'm surprised that they were outside the RG. 9 Q. Did you know that in all of the reports that 10 you all started doing instead of Liberty Mutual, you all 11 never one time put any language like that in your 12 reports for Kelly-Moore? 13 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 14 A. Well, we -- we have here in part five, until 15 this level is reached, employees at the ceiling texture 16 dumping, dry texture dumping and dry texture bagging 17 should be incorporated into an adequate respirator 18 program. 19 Q. Right. Not one mention about mesothelioma or 20 cancer or anything in there, did you know it, not one 21 mention? 22 A. But are you trying to say that -- that your 23 people were totally unaware of the mesothelioma issue 24 being raised? 25 Q. No. What I'm saying is Union Carbide came in 0264 1 and trumped Liberty Mutual and everybody else and said, 2 trust us, you're safe if you operate within the TLV, and 3 Union Carbide said that over and over again. That's 4 what I'm saying. 5 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 6 BY MR. LANIER: 7 Q. In fact, that's what you believed, isn't it, 8 you're safe if you operate within the TLV? 9 A. No, I don't believe that. I say that, you 10 know, you're safe if you operate within the TLV as far 11 asbestosis and lung cancer is concerned. That's -- our 12 view is very much the same as the view of OSHA when they 13 went to the five, four years later to the two level. 14 But we had to raise the question because it 15 had been raised and in a very controversial way, some 16 experts going up, some going the other way, that perhaps 17 in mesothelioma -- my understanding was that very short 18 exposures, short but massive exposures, could be 19 causative and, you know, we were -- were warning that 20 school was still out on that, but in the meantime urging 21 everybody to use respirators wherever they found dust. 22 Q. Sir, you say that you all supported the OSHA 23 regulation. In fact, you went and testified to try and 24 keep the OSHA TLV from going down to two. 25 You went yourself to testify to that, didn't 0265 1 you? 2 A. Yes, I did. I went there because, first of 3 all, it was my impression at the time that it was 4 absolute overkill, and secondly, the -- I wanted to 5 point out that there was a good chance that would just 6 simply put us out of business. 7 Q. But if it's a safety thing, you ought to go 8 out of business, shouldn't you? 9 A. That's exactly right, but -10 Q. And they went down to two anyway, in spite of 11 the fact that you testified against it, didn't they? 12 A. I did not testify against it. They were 13 suggesting a five -- a five level, and I said, well, you 14 know, we can live with a five level. You know, I was 15 supportive of the five level. 16 Q. But you testified against the two level and 17 said, well, two is excessive, didn't you? 18 A. Well, two is excessive, you know, at this 19 present time because we lacked the engineering type of 20 controls to get to the two level at that time. 21 Q. And they passed it anyway, didn't they? 22 A. Yes, and then we complied with it. 23 MR. BICKS: Mr. Lanier, can I just -- he's 24 getting tired. 25 MR. LANIER: Okay. I'm almost done. 0266 1 MR. BICKS: Can we kind of wrap it up? 2 MR. LANIER: Yes. I'm actually trying to do 3 that, Peter. 4 MR. BICKS: Let's not - 5 MR. LANIER: You're taking longer with these 6 interruptions than 7 MR. BICKS: I'm not interrupting. Be fair to 8 this -9 BY R. LANIER: 10 Q. Sir - 11 A. You know, I feel like you're badgering me 12 now, quite frankly. 13 Q. Okay. Well, I don't mean to badger you. 14 I'll move on to another subject. I'm just saying when 15 you say OSHA, I'm reading your testimony, and I think we 16 need to keep the record clean. Okay? 17 A. Well, on OSHA I -- I did object in 1972 to a 18 two level, but -19 Q. The questions were asked of you about 20 Kelly-Moore having lead in their paint. Do you really 21 know anything about that? 22 A. Well, I'm only saying it because I think most 23 paint companies in that era had lead in their paint. 24 Q. Right. Did you know, though, that 25 Kelly-Moore only had it in there for a few weeks and in 0267 1 the 1940s pulled it out because Mr. Moore had been told 2 that it was hazardous and he didn't want to take a risk? 3 A. No, I didn't know that. 4 Q. That they were the only paint company for two 5 decades in America selling paint without lead? 6 A. I used -- I used the wrong illustration. You 7 use many chemicals in paint. You know, all paint 8 manufacturers use many chemicals, and, you know, they - 9 they're -- all of them, you know, can't be squeaky clean 10 propositions. 11 Q. All right. I'll try and limit my questions 12 down. I've got about four more -- five more questions, 13 and I'll try and keep them brief. Keep your answers 14 brief, I won't badger you, and we'll be out of here. 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. You asked -- you were asked about the 17 customer's responsibility to do his own homework, and 18 you said, if I'm understanding right, yes, to the extent 19 they're buying stuff that we don't give them information 20 about; is that fair to say? 21 A. You were mixing different kinds of -- we know 22 this, you were mixing different kinds of asbestos in 23 your formulations, and -- and we really, you know, had 24 somewhat different views about how that reaction would 25 take. 0268 1 And basically, you know, we can -- we can get 2 into this chemical thing much deeper, you know, in a 3 follow on, but, you know, we had no idea about what 4 those chemicals are and how they're used. 5 Q. Did you know Kelly-Moore had their product 6 tested? 7 A. Tested for what? 8 Q. It said here tested for asbestos concerns. 9 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 10 BY MR. LANIER: 11 Q. Did you know that? 12 MR. BICKS: Can I just ask you who did that? 13 MR. LANIER Union Carbide. 14 MR. BICKS: What year was that? 15 MR. LANIER Peter, please, he's getting 16 tired. 17 MR. BICKS: But don't mislead. 18 MR. LANIER : We need to try and wrap this up. 19 MR. BICKS: I can show you five interrogatory 20 answers from your client -- 21 MR. LANIER We need -- 22 MR. BICKS: -- where you've sworn under oath 23 you didn't test. 24 MR. LANIER : No, we didn't test. We had it 25 tested. 0269 1 MR. BICKS: Well, you just asked him did you 2 know that Kelly-Moore -- 3 MR. LANIER : No, I said we had it tested. 4 Peter, please, he's getting tired. 5 MR. BICKS: Let's finish it up. 6 MR. LANIER I feel like we should finish it 7 up and you should quit interrupting. 8 BY MR. LANIER: 9 Q. Did you know Union Carbide tested joint 10 compound products and published the testing results for 11 safety? 12 A. Yes, I think they did, yes. 13 Q. Yes. Should someone like Kelly-Moore be able 14 to rely upon Union Carbide to be honest about that? 15 A. Well, again, you know, you're trying to put 16 words in my mouth, I feel. 17 Q. No. I'm just asking, sir, can Kelly-Moore 18 rely upon Union Carbide to tell it the truth? Yes or 19 no, can they? 20 A. I suppose that if you knew all of the 21 circumstances and, you know, it was all out there on the 22 table of what the rules of the game were, I would say 23 yes, but here again, I don't have all of the information 24 about what was -- what was agreed upon in doing this 25 thing. 0270 1 Q. So maybe Kelly-Moore can trust Union Carbide, 2 maybe Kelly-Moore shouldn't, maybe Kelly-Moore should be 3 looking for fine print or something? 4 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 5 A. I object to the form too. 6 Q. All right. Next question. Are you 7 testifying as a Union Carbide man and a lawyer that when 8 OSHA says you've got to put one label on there for 9 warning, you're not allowed to put additional labels too 10 if you think it's necessary, you know, that's wrong? 11 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 12 A. Basically, you know, you're -- you're 13 acting -- asking questions about our -- our knowledge 14 and everybody else's knowledge evolves, and, you know, 15 you know as well as I do that school is still out as far 16 as - 17 Q. That's not my question. 18 A. -- mesothelioma is concerned. 19 Q. Mr. Rawlings, that's not my question. I'm 20 talking about labeling. The indication from your 21 testimony so far is that OSHA required a label, so you 22 all were not allowed to put anything else on other than 23 the OSHA label. Is that what you're saying? 24 A. No, that's not what we're saying. 25 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 0271 1 A. We said that we complied with the OSHA 2 regulation. 3 Q. Agreed. But you could put on additional 4 labels if you thought it important, couldn't you? 5 MR. BICKS: Objection to the form. 6 A. If we thought they weren't alarmist, right. 7 Q. Okay. Next question. I want to make sure I 8 understand exactly who you were at Union Carbide. 9 You were actually the man in charge at Union 10 Carbide over all asbestos at one point in time, right? 11 A. Yes, a period of time. 12 Q. You were in charge of the salespeople? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. You were in charge of the marketing people? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. You were in charge of the scientists? 17 A. Well, no. You know, Union Carbide as far as 18 Dernehl is concerned, he was in an advisory capacity to 19 us, but he didn't have a solid line to me by any means. 20 Q. Okay. But in terms of the scientists working 21 the asbestos end, at least the non-medical scientists, 22 you were in charge of them, the Rhodes, those kinds of 23 people? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You were in charge of the mine operations? 0272 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. All of these different divisions reported to 3 you? 4 A. Well, you know, bear in mind there's 5 something that, you know, we haven't looked at here. 6 Sometime in '73 I gave up my administrative chores and I 7 took over all of the mining operations of Union Carbide, 8 asbestos being, you know, the most minor of those 9 operations, but I had uranium, vanadium, tungsten mining 10 operations, primarily in the western United States. 11 And so there was a product manager for each 12 of those additional businesses, and so while I was doing 13 financial control, the personnel and government 14 relations as a -- as a staff man, I had asbestos for 15 probably a year and a half as a sole business operation 16 while I did the other things, and then -- 17 Q. Okay 18 A. -- I got rid of the staff position. 19 Q. Last subject You think Union Carbide wound 20 up buying coveralls. You don't know one way or the 21 other, do you? 22 A. I do not know. 23 Q. And you don't know whether or not, if they 24 were bought, it's because California required it? 25 A. No. I think that it -- that letter says -- 0273 1 that Thurber wrote said that California doesn't require 2 it; when they do, we'll buy them. 3 MR. LANIER: Fair enough. Thank you. Are we 4 done? 5 MR. BICKS: I'm going to ask -- have to ask 6 you just two or three questions. 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 8 MR. LANIER: It's getting late, Peter. 9 MR. BICKS: I know it is. 10 MR. LANIER: Let's wrap it up. He's getting 11 tired. 12 THE WITNESS: That, I'll agree to. 13 MR. BICKS: That, you can agree to. Off the 14 record. 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record. 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record. 18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. BICKS: 20 Q. Mr. Rawlings, two questions. Remember you 21 were trying to find the document where Union Carbide 22 warned Kelly-Moore respirators should be used with tape 23 joint compound? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. Take a look at this exhibit, Exhibit Rawlings 0274 1 4, UCC 26, the Calidria compound brochure, and do you 2 see that? I'm pointing to a particular part of that 3 document. Do you see where it says about employees? 4 A. Well, it says, employees should wear 5 respirators where dusting occurs in finishing products 6 such as sanding tape joints. 7 Q. And did Union Carbide give that information 8 to Kelly-Moore? 9 A. I'm sure they did, because it was going 10 specifically to -- to the tape joint compound customers. 11 Q. Another question just about the Mellon study. 12 You -- you think you saw the 1971 Mellon study, but 13 you're not sure about the 1966 one; is that fair? 14 A. I know I didn't see the 1966 one. 15 Q. Okay. In looking at information onhealth 16 hazards, is it -- is it -- does it make sense to look at 17 the most recent information that a company has available 18 because it changes over time? 19 MR. LANIER: Objection to form. 20 A. I think it's reasonable, yes. 21 MR. BICKS: Okay. Thank you. 22 MR. LANIER: Mr. Rawlings, I don't have any 23 24 25 0275 1 more questions. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes the deposition. The time is now 5:41. Off the record. COURT REPORTER: Do you need this 2 transcribed? 3 MR. BICKS: I'll take a mini and an ASCII. 4 MR. LANIER: I'll take everything you've got. 5 (Deposition concluded at 5:41 p.m.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0276 1 2 3 4 C E RT I F I CATE 5 6 7 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 8 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) OF OATH 9 10 11 I, REBECCA L. FELLA, being a Notary Public, State of 12 Florida at Large, do hereby certify that JAMES W. 13 RAWLINGS personally appeared before me and was duly 14 sworn. 15 16 Witness my hand and official seal this 11th day of 17 December, 2003. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Court Reporter Notary Public, State of FL Notary Comm. No. CC-968031 24 Comm. Expires: 25 0277 1 C E RT I F I CATE 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 10/01/04 5 6 I, REBECCA L. FELLA, Registered Professional 7 Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did 8 stenographically report the foregoing proceedings, that 9 a review of the transcript was requested, and that the 10 transcript is a true and complete record of my 11 stenographic notes. 12 I further certify that I am not a relative, 13 employee, or attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, 14 nor am I a relative oremployee or any ofthe parties' 15 attorney or counsel connectedwith the action, nor am I 16 financially interested in the action 17 DATED this 11th day of December, 2003. 18 19 20 REBECCA L. FELLA, RPR 21 22 23 24 25 10103 9 , 2003. Also attached is the Errata Sheet to be completed by 0278 1 the deponent when reading your copy of the deposition. 2 After the witness has completed these forms, please return them to our office for inclusion in the original transcript. 3 If the reading and signing has not been completed prior to 4 January 11, 2003, we shall conclude that the reading and signing of the transcript has been waived and we will forward the 5 original transcript to the ordering attorney without further notice. 6 Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. 7 Sincerely, 8 9 10 11 12 13 Rebecca L. Fella 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0279 1 2 E RRATA S HE E T DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT - ENTER CHANGES HERE 3 IN RE: Kelly-Moore vs. Dow Chemical 4 5 Page Line Correction Reason 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read my 18 deposition in this matter taken on December 9, 2003, and that it is true and correct, subject to any changes in form or 19 substance entered above. 20 21 DATE 22 23 24 25 James W. Rawlings