Document M4LMpOYxj2xpgg4Vgvq9qV3Kz

^^h ' U 1 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 2 LAW DIVISION: UNION COUNTY 3 DOCKET NO. UNN-8573-89 4 5 IN RE ENVIRONMENTAL : 6 INSURANCE DECLARATORY: 7 JUDGEMENT ACTIONS : 8 9 v-: I SEP 28 1992 ~ d'JuD 1 0 DEPOSITION UPON 11 ORAL EXAMINATION 12 OF 13 c WAYNE BICKERSTAFF 14 15 1 6 THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1992 17 18 19 20 2 1 KABOT, BATTAGLIA & HAMMER/DE SIMONE 22 THE COURT REPORTERS 23 59 MAIN STREET 2 4 ' WEST ORANGE, N. J. 07052 2 5 (201) 669-3141 1 westinghouse -electric 2 CORPORATION, et al, 3 Plaintiffs, 4 vs. 5 LIBERTY MUTUAL 6 INSURANCE CO., et al, 7 Defendants. 8 - -- -- -- -- - 9 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC 10 CORPORATION, et al, 11 Plaintiffs, 12 vs . 13 AETNA CASUALTY & 14 SURETY CO., et al, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 23 24 25 2 DOCKET NO. L-069352-87 DOCKET NO. L-069351-87 3 1 TRANSCRIPT of the deposition 2 of C. Wayne Bickerstaff, a witness, 3 called for Oral Examination by the 4 parties in the above-entitled action, 5 said deposition being taken pursuant to 6 Rules governing Civil Practice in the 7 Courts of New Jersey, by and before ANN 8 P. CONLON, a Notary Public and Certified 9 Shorthand Reporter of the State of New 10 Jersey, at the office of Connell, Foley 11 & Geiser, Esqs., 85 Livingston Avenue, 12 Roseland, New Jersey, on Thursday, April 13 23, 1992, commencing at 10:20 in the 14 forenoon in the forenoon. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, ESQS., 4 1500 Oliver Building 5 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5379 6 BY: NEAL R. BRENDEL, ESQ., 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 8 Westinghouse Corporation. 9 1 0 MOUND, COTTON & WOLLAN, ESQS., 1 1 One Battery Park Plaza 12 New York, NY 10004 1 3 BY: MITCHELL S. COHEN, ESQ., 1 4 Attorneys for Defendants, 15 Royal Exchange Assurance Co. of America, 1 6 Lexington Insurance Company, 17 Birmingham Fire Insurance Company, 18 National Union Fire Insurance Company. 19 2 0 HARWOOD LLOYD, ESQ., 2 1 130 Main Street 22 Hackensack, NJ 07601 2 3 BY: PATRICIA M. BARROW, ESQ., 24 Attorneys for Defendant, 25 Aetna Casualty & Surety Company. 5 1 APPEARANCES: (continued) 2 3 CUYLER, BURK & MATTHEWS, ESQS., 4 Box 1947 5 Morristown, NJ 07962 6 BY: MARIA C. HERMIDA, ESQ., 7 Attorneys for Defendants, 8 Prudential Reinsurance company, 9 Gibraltar Insurance Company, 1 0 General Reinsurance Corporation, 1 1 Harbor Insurance Company, 12 Zurich Insurance Company, 1 3 Zurich American Ins. Co. of Illinois, 1 4 Northstar Reinsurance Company. 15 16 MANTA & WELGE, ESQ., 17 One Commerce Square 18 2005 Market Street 19 Philadelphia, PA 19103 20 BY: ROBYN E. LETO, ESQ., 2 1 Attorneys for Defendant, 22 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. 23 24 25 6 1 APPEARANCES: (continued) 2 3 MENDES & MOUNT, ESQ., 4 Three Park Avenue 5 New York, NY 10016 6 BY: R. JAMES BRADFORD, ESQ., 7 Attorneys for Defendant, 8 9 CONNELL, FOLEY & GEISER, ESQS., 10 85 Livingston Avenue 11 Roseland, NJ 07068 . 12 BY: GREGORY P. LEAHY, ESQ., 13 Attorneys for Defendant, 14 First State Insurance Company, 15 Allstate Insurance Company, 16 Columbia Casualty Company, 17 Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, 18 The Home Insurance Company, 19 Birmingham Fire Insurance Company, 20 Lexington Insurance Company, 21 National Union Fire Insurance company, 22 Ranger Insurance Company, 23 Royal Exhcange Assurance company. 24 25 7 1 ALSO PRESENT: 2 3 JAMES BURKHARDT, ESQ., 4 Inhouse Counsel, Westinghouse. 5 6 7 8 INDEX 9 WITNESS DIRECT 1 0 C. WAYNE BICKERSTAFF 1 1 By Mr.Cohen 10 12 13 14 15 1 6 EXHIBITS 1 7 IDENT. DESCRIPTION PAGE 18 1 Headquarters Contacts for 117 19 Environmental Incident 2 0 Reporting Document (.1 pg) 21 2 Procedure for Asbestos 120 22 * Removal Document {5 pgs) 23 3 Memo dated 8/.2 0/87 from 124 2 4 Bickerstaff to R & D (3 pgs) 25 EXHI-BITS (continued) Memo dated 4/16/74 from Kurz to Shoaff (2 pgs) Memo dated 7/10/51 from Speicher to Kansas City Works (3 pgs) Memo dated 7/16/56 from Speicher to Vicksburg Works (2 pgs) Memo dated 4/7/59 from Speicher to Pittsburg (2 pgs) Memo dated 2/20/68 from Shoaff (1 pg) Memo dated 1/14/69 from Williams to Superintendants (2 pgs) Memo dated 7/30/70 from Shoaff to Bloomington ( i P9) Memo dated 8/20/70 from Shoaff to Bloomington *127 134 141 146 161 162 166 169 1 2 3 12 4 5 13 6 7 14 8 9 1 0 15 11 12 1 3 16 14 15 17 16 17 18 1 8 19 20 19 21 22 23 2 0 24 25 EXHI-BITS (continued) Memo dated 3/11/71 from Hanzl (2 pgs) Letter dated 4/19/71 ( 1 P9) Memo dated 12/28/71 from Research to Pittsburgh (4 pgs ) Memo dated 6/21/72 from Research to Waste Disposal (5 pgs) Industrial Hygiene & Safety Course Listing Memo dated 1/30/75 from Rogers to Bloomfield ( 1 P9 ) Memo dated 10/25/74 from Williams to Capils (1 pg) Memo dated 12/27/73 from Jones to Bloomfield (i pg) Memo dated 10/22/75 from Jones to Sharon Works (2 pgs) 9 17 2 17 3 18 0 187 19 0 195 19 9 200 203 1 2 3 21 4 5 6 22 7 8 23 9 10 24 11 12 13 2 5 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXHI-BITS (continued) Memo dated 9/21/76 from Control Equipment Group (3 pgs) Letter dated 9/22/76 (2 pgs) Memo dated 11/24/76 from Williams (1 pg) Memmo dated 10/19/76 from Memo to Bickerstaff ( i pg) Memo dated 5/3/77 to Bloomfield Works (1 pg) 10 203 209 214 218 221 Bickerstaff - direct 11 1 C. 2 3 4 5 WAY N -E BICKERST A F F, having been duly sworn according to law by the Officer, testified a s f o1lows: 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COHEN: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. 8 Bickerstaff. My name is Mitchell Cohen, 9 I'm an attorney who represents some of 10 the defendants in this lawsuit. I'm 11 going to be asking you a series of 12 questions and I will ask you to answer 13 them completely and fully under oath. 14 Do you understand that you are under 15 oath? 16 A. Yes . 17 Q. And you will attempt to answer 18 the questions to the best of your 19 ability? 20 A. I wi11, yes. 21 Q. Before we begin the substance 22 of your deposition, I just have a short 23 statement, which is this is a deposition 24 that is being held pursuant to the 25 direction of special master Robert Bickerstaff direct 12 1 McDonough with regard to a discovery 2 dispute pending before the court between 3 the plaintiff Westlnghouse and certain 4 property insurers. The deposition will 5 be pursuant to the notice concerning 6 that dispute, which had originally 7 called for the deposition to be held on 8 April 1 of a person designated by 9 Westinghouse from the corporate 10 headquarters. 11 In holding this deposition, we 12 do not waive and are reserving all 13 rights to take a full and complete 14 substantive deposition on any of the 15 topics today and also a full and 16 complete substantive deposition of Mr. 17 Bickerstaff. 18 MR. BRENDEL: This is Neal 19 Brendel speaking on behalf of 20 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the 21 plaintiff in this case. Our position is 22 that this witness is being made 23 available responsive to the notice of 24 deposition, apparently undated, but 25 requesting the designation of an Bickerstaff - direct 13 1 individual at- headquarters level for the 2 specific time frame beginning 1975 and 3 continuing through 1982. 4 We will expect that counsel 5 will confine himself to the specific 6 period and the specific topics 7 identified in his notice, particularly 8 in light of his reservation to return to 9 conduct a more extensive deposition at a 1 0 later date. This witness is not being 1 1 offered, as we discussed, to address 12 issues raised in your paragraph six. 1 3 For that a separate individual has been 14 scheduled. - 15 Likewise, Mr. Bickerstaff will 1 6 address those subject matters to the 17 best of his knowledge for the time 1 8 period in question. There may be 19 subject matters which will need to be 2 0 addressed by another individual more 2 1 familiar with waste disposal issues. We 2 2 can see how that goes as the deposition 2 3 proceeds and the scope of the 24 questioning and just proceed in that 2 5 fashion. Bickers taf f direct 14 1 MR.- COHEN: To follow up on 2 what you said, Neal, in checking my 3 notes from Tuesday's deposition I saw 4 that the witness did not have complete 5 knowledge on a number of the issues in 6 our notice, and I'll write a note about 7 that. 8 MR. BRENDEL: This witness? 9 MR. COHEN: No, sir, Mr. 10 Rourke. 11 MR. BRENDEL: You're raising 12 something from the prior deposition? 13 MR. COHEN: No. You had 14 mentioned Mr. Bickerstaff may not be a 15 witness as to all the items with regard 16 to the deposition he is appearing for 17 today pursuant to this notice. It 18 appeared to me on Tuesday that Mr. 19 Rourke was not fully knowledgeable with 20 regard to a number of issues covered by 21 the notice for which he was produced. 22 Simply as an example,not to be an 23 exhaustive list, he did not have any 24 knowledge concerning interdivision 25 communications, nor did he have any Bickerstaff - direct 15 1 knowledge regarding communications from 2 the Bloomfield plant to Westinghouse 3 headquarters, both of which are very 4 large general topics covered by the 5 notice. I think that's an issue which 6 you may not disagree with me on now, we 7 can disagree another time. 8 MR. BRENDEL: It's not my 9 practice to discuss the results of 1 0 previous depositions in prefatory 1 1 remarks to another deposition. We will 12 probably have some misunderstandings. 1 3 It was my recollection that the reason 14 that the witness had no testimony to 15 offer was that it was his recollection 16 that there were no such communications, 17 to use your example. 18 Be that as it may. I'll 19 welcome your correspondence and respond 20 once I receive it, and then we can 2 1 discuss that, and we can also discuss 2 2 our correspondence with respect to the 2 3 deficiencies in the property insurers' 24 designees with respect to document 2 5 collection/production issues, which were Bickerstaff direct 16 1 raised in our correspondence to Andy 2 Jacobson and which we're still awaiting 3 a response from. 4 MR. BRENDEL: I know that 5 there are a number of documents in the 6 process of being produced. You'll be 7 given a rolling production. We expect 8 to complete it as quickly as possible. 9 I did not mean to engage in a 10 tit-for-tat conversation, 1 just wanted 1 1 to give you as prompt notice as possible 1 2 that I thought there was a need for 1 3 another witness. 1 4 MR. BRENDEL: I appreciate the 15 courtesy, and I certainly do not infer 1 6 from your statements that you're 17 suggesting that I'm engaging in a tit 18 for tat. I look forward to receiving 19 the claims file in this case, 20 considering we are now approaching the 2 1 fifth anniversary of its filing. 22 MR. COHEN: I'm ready to 2 3 begin, sir. 2 4 MR. BRENDEL: It's your 2 5 deposition. Bickerstaff - direct 17 1 MR.- COHEN: Thanks. . 2 Q. Mr. Bickerstaff, would you 3 please state your full name for the 4 record? 5 A. Clarence Wayne Bickerstaff. 6 Q . Mr. Bickerstaff/ would you 7 please state for the record your full 8 residential address and your full 9 employment address? 1 0 A. The residential address is 11 1241 Sumac Street, Westmoreland City, 12 Pennsylvania, 15692. The business 1 3 address is Westinghouse Electric 14 Corporation, 11 stanwix Street, 1 5 Pittsburgh, PA, 15222. 1 6 Q. Mr. Bickerstaff, could you 1 7 provide me with a summary of your 1 8 educational background since high 19 school? 2 0 A. I have a bachelor of science 2 1 degree in chemistry from Duquesne 2 2 University, and I have a master of 2 3 science degree in hygiene from the 2 4 University of Pittsburgh. 25 Q. When did you earn your BS, Bickerstaff * direct 18 1 s1r? - 2 A. The BS degree was awarded in 3 1970 and the master's degree in 1978. 4 Q. Have you ever attended any 5 other universities or colleges other 6 than the two you have just mentioned? 7 A. I've taken several courses, 8 special courses in radiation, hearing, 9 noise measurements, specialized in 10 industrial hygiene, at Northwestern 11 university. North Carolina State, but 12 not for degree purposes, for special 13 courses . 14 Q. These special courses you have 15 taken, have you taken them within the 16 scope of your employment with 17 Westinghouse? ' 18 A. Yes . 19 Q. When did you first begin 20 working for Westinghouse? 21 A. 195 7 . 22 Q. Was that your first full-time 23 employment position, sir? 2 4 A. Yes . 25 Q. Could you trace for me, if you Bickerstaf direct 19 1 would, sir, your employment history? 2 A. When I started in 1957, I 3 started as a laboratory technician in 4 the field of occupational health, and I 5 worked for about two years. Then I left 6 Westinghouse and went to Waynesburg 7 College, which is in the Pittsburgh 8 area, ran out of money and came back to 9 work for Westinghouse. 10 Q. When -- 11 A. That was 19 -- I left in '59, 12 September, and then I returned in 13 September of 1960. And when I returned 1 4 in 1960, I came back as a technician in 15 the Radiation Safety Department at the 1 6 Westinghouse Waltz Mill site. 17 Q. What state was that in? 18 A. Pennsylvania. All of my 19 employment with Westinghouse has been in 20 Pennsylvania, primarily in the 2 1 Pittsburgh area. 22 Q. Thank you, sir. . 23 A. I worked there about ten 2 4 years. In the meantime, I achieved my 25 bachelor of science degree at Duquesne Bickerstaff - direct 20 1 University. -Then I moved to a position 2 as a in the Occupational 3 Safety Department at the Westinghou'se 4 nuclear center, and I stayed at that 5 position for about three years. So that 6 was 1970 to 1973. In 1973, I went to 7 the Westinghouse Cheswick facility in 8 the Pittsburgh area as a supervisor of 9 industrial hygiene, and I stayed there 1 0 until September of 1976 when I was 1 1 promoted to this position I have today. 12 Q. And what position is it that 13 you have had since September of 1976, 14 sir? 15 A. I'm manager of industrial 16 hygiene and materials transportation. 17 Q. As manager of industrial 1 8 materials and hygiene - 1 9 A. Hell, manager of industrial 2 0 hygiene. 2 1 Q . Pardon me. 2 2 A. And materials transportation. 2 3 Q. Thank you, sir. As manager of 2 4 industrial hygiene and materials 2 5 transportation, where is it that you Bickerstaff - direct 21 1 work? Where -is your office? 2 A. I'm currently at the 3 headquarters building for Westinghouse 4 in Pittsburgh. 5 Q. And have you been at the 6 headquarters building since September of 7 1976? ' 8 A. No. The original location for 9 our department was at the Westinghouse 1 0 science and technology center. 11 Q. And where was that located? 12 A. That's also located in the 13 Pittsburgh area, community of 14 Churchill . . 1 5 Q. And did you move from the 1 6 science and technology center in the 17 community of Churchill to the 1 8 headquarters? 19 A . Yes. 20 Q. When was that, sir? 2 1 A. I went to the science and 2 2 technology center in September, 1976, 2 3 and our department moved to the 2 4 headquarters building in July of 1988. 25 But the whole time we were still a Bickerstaff - direct 22 1 headquarters -function, we just happened 2 to be not at headquarters. 3 Q. Just so the record is clear, 4 the Industrial Hygiene and Materials 5 Transportation Department is part of the 6 headquarters? 7 A. Right. 8 Q. Okay. Aside from the degrees 9 you have earned and the special courses 10 you have taken in your employment, have 11 you any licenses? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Have you been awarded any 14 certificates for completing any 15 educational courses? 16 A. Some of the courses I've 17 talked about there were certificates of 18 completion for. One was on radiation 19 safety, one on hearing conservation. 20 Most of these courses, you end up with a 21 certificate of completion. 22 . Q. You've mentioned two, one was 23 radiation. Do you remember what school 24thatwas? 25 A. Let's see, that was at Bickerstaff - direct 23 1 Bethesda, Maryland. That was sponsored 2 by the U.S. Department of Health and 3 HEW. I forget what the HEW stands for. 4 Health Education and Welfare. 5 Q. And approximately when was 6 that that you received your certificate? 7 A. I believe that was in 1970. 8 Q. Was this before you had your 9 present job? 1 0 A. Yes. 1 1 Q. Now, perhaps I misheard you, 12 but I believe you had mentioned to me 1 3 that from 1970 to '73, you were at the 14 Westinghouse Cheswick facility as a 15 supervisor, and then in September of 1 6 1976, you became a manager of the 17 Industrial Hygiene Department. 1 8 A. Corporate, yes. 19 Q. Corporate? 20 MR. BRENDEL: Would you read 2 1 that back? 22 (The question is read by the reporter.) 2 3 A. I was at the Westinghouse 2 4 nuclear center from 1970 to '73 as a 25 professional, as an engineer. Then in Bickerstaff - direct 24 1 1 9 7 3 to 197 6 r I went to Westinghouse 2 Cheswick as a supervisor in industrial 3 hygiene. 4 Q. I see. So there was no gap. 5 A. No. When I came back to work 6 for Westinghouse after that one-year 7 leave, this summer will be 34 years with 8 Westinghouse. 9 Q. The second certificate that 1 0 you had mentioned, do you recall by whom 1 1 that was provided and the subject 12 matter? 1 3 A. Let's see. One was at 1 4 Northwestern University. That was a 15 two-week course on industrial hygiene, 1 6 and that was in the summer of 1970. 17 There was a one-week course on 18 ventilation at North Carolina State, and 19 that was -- let me think about it. That 2 0 was about 1977, '78, something like 2 1 that. 22 Q. Are there any others that you 23 can recal1? 24 A. Not offhand, but I belong to 2 5 professional organizations and we have Bickerstaff - direct 25 1 our professional meetings and annual 2 professional conferences and things like 3 that. 4 Q. With regard not to the 5 professional organizations but the 6 academic training, so to speak, that 7 you've mentioned where you received 8 these certificates, be it from a 9 university or a government agency, upon 1 0 your completion of one of those courses, 1 1 did you prepare any memoranda or in 12 anyway communicate what you had learned 1 3 to anyone at Westinghouse? 1 4 A. No, I probably just showed my 1 5 certificate to my immediate supervisor 1 6 when I returned. 1 7 Q. What are the professional 1 8 organizations that you are a member of? 1 9 A. I.'m a member of the American 2 0 Industrial Hygiene Association, the 2 1 initials are AIHA, I'm a member of both 22 the national and our local chapter in . 23 Pittsburgh. The other one is the Health 2 4 Physics society, again, national and 2 5 local. I've been a past president of Bickerstaf f direct 26 1 both local chapters. 2 Q. You've been past president of 3 the both the AIHA and the Health Ph'ysics 4 Society? 5 A. Local chapters. 6 Q. Local chapters only. 7 A. Yes . 8 Q. Do these organizations in ' 9 anyway focus upon the use of substances 10 or materials in the work environment? 11 A. Yes, both do. . 12 Q. Have you participated in any 13 manner in seminars or training courses 14 with regard to that subject? 15 A. Yes. Like I said, both these 16 organizations have annual conferences, 17 and I have attended in most cases 18 annually one of them. 19 Q. And for how long has that been 20 your practice? 2 1 A. The Health Physics Society, I 22 think I joined that in 1971, and the 23 American industrial Hygiene Association, 24 I believe I joined that in, oh, about 25 197 6 . Bickerstaf f direct 27 1 Q. And I take it your memberships 2 have been continuous? 3 A. Yes . 4 Q. Aside from the annual 5 conferences, have you attended other seminars or other programs with regard 7 to the same subject matter? 8 A. Yes. Westinghouse is a member 9 of an occupational health company down 10 in Washington, DC called Organization 11 Resources council. I think there's 12 somewhere around 85 member companies, 13 Westinghouse, Exxon, General Electric, 14 whatever. And they have quarterly 15 meetings talking about standards, what's 16 coming, how to prepare for it, and X 17 attend every other one of those. So at 18 least every six months I'm at one of 19 these conferences. 20 Q. And that's been your practice 21 since approximately when? 22 - A. About 1977. 23 Q. Now, when you use the phrase 24 "discussed what's coming," are you 25 talking about changes in regulations? Bickerstaff direct 28 1 A* Yea, regulations. Usually 2 it's occupational health. 3 Q. Were there any guidelines 4 which you followed with regard to 5 communicating or did you learn at any of 6 these seminars or meetings? 7 A. Well, when I return from a 8 meeting, I would bring back the handouts 9 and then circulate them in my 1 0 department, and if there is anything of. 1 1 particular interest, 1 would maybe then 12 circulate that on to my supervisor or 1 3 even higher. 14 Q. Now, your department, that 15 would be -- 16 A. Industrial Hygiene and 17 Materials Transportation. 1 8 Q. And who would your supervisor 19 be? 2 0 A. My immediate supervisor is Dr. 2 1 Jack Fisch. 22 Q. And your department is part 2 3 of? 24 A. We report through the 25 Environmental Affairs Department at Bickerstaff - direct 29 1 Westinghouse -headquarters. 2 Q. Now, when was the 3 Environmental Affairs Department 4 created? 5 A. That was created in 1981. 6 Q. Prior to 1981, to whom did 7 your Industrial Hygiene Department 8 repo rt ? 9 A. We reported to the human 1 0 resources headquarters. 1 1 0. And that is part ofcorporate? 12 A. Corporate, right. 1 3 Q. Aside from circulating the 1 4 handouts within your department or to 15 your supervisor, did you circulate the 1 6 handouts to any person outside of your 17 department or to any other department? 18 A. I could have. If I saw 19 something that was pertinent to a 2 0 particular Westinghouse location or 2 1 something like that, I might make a 2 2 carbon and send it to them. . 2 3 Q. Were there any rules, whether 2 4 formal written rules or informal rules, 25 which you followed in reaching your Bickerstaf direct 30 1 determination whether to send a handout 2 to another department? 3 A. No, there wasn't. Pure 4 discretion. 5 Q. Now, your department, when it 6 reported to human resources prior to 7 1981, what division was that within? 8 A. That was headquarters, 9 corporate headquarters. 1 0 Q. And I take it environmental 11 affairs is also part of the headquarters 12 division? 13 A. Yes, correct. 14 Q. Did you ever communicate 15 outside of the headquarters corporate 16 division with regard to the handouts or 17 the subject matters you learned at any 1 8 of these seminars or programs? 1 9 MR. BRENDEL: We're talking 2 0 about the period from 1975 through 2 1 1/1/82? 2 2 MR. COHEN: I'm asking a more 23 general question. 2 4 MR. BRENDEL: I know you're 25 asking, but it obviously exceeds the Bickerstaff - direct 31 1 time frame which you specified in your 2 notice of deposition. 3 MR. COHEN: Well, it seems to 4 me that a little latitude is 5 appropriate. I'm obviously sticking to 6 the subject matter of the notice. I'm 7 asking about communications regarding 8 the substances which are at issue with 9 regard to this individual's training. 1 0 It's a relevant topic. You have stated 1 1 your objection at the very beginning, 12 you noted your objection on Tuesday a 13 number of times. 14 I will be asking these kinds 15 of general questions for the purposes of 1 6 aiding this question and answer 17 session. I will be showing the witness 18 documents that are not necessarily dated 19 between 1975 and 1982. If you would 20 like to have a standing objection to 2 1 that, that perhaps would make this a 22 more efficient process. On the other . 23 hand, if you wish to stop the questions 24 and answers every time this occurs, I 25 certainly can't stop you. I don't think Bickerstaff direct 32 1 it's necessary, however, I think you 2 preserve your objection. 3 MR. BRENDEL: We've responded 4 to a very specific notice of 5 deposition. We provided a witness to 6 address those specific topics. This is 7 the notice that we were given. If it 8 was your intention, as I understand, to 9 disregard that time frame and proceed to 1 0 upon any time frame that you . 1 1 now are interested in, notwithstanding 12 your specific reservations at the 13 beginning to bring this witness back, I 1 4 think it's improper and I think it's a 1 5 deposition by surprise on a specific 16 notice that you asked us to prepare 17 somebody and have a knowledgeable 1 8 representative on a specific time 19 frame. And to suggest that, well, I've 20 changed my mind, I'd like to go a little 2 1 further today and why not, we're all 2 2 here, I think that is highly improper. 23 And I'm not going to sit here and talk 24 about a running objection when you're 25 exceeding the scope. Bickerstaff - direct 33 1 I'm interested, if you have a 2 specific reason on a discrete topic as 3 to why you think it might be appropriate 4 to be out of scope. I'll listen, as we 5 did at the last deposition. But if your 6 purpose here is to just cover a subject 7 matter which was not designated, then 8 I'm not going to allow the witness to 9 respond. 1 0 MR. COHEN: I'm going to be 11 very brief, because I don't wish to 12 delay the record. I will focus upon the 1 3 matters set forth in the notice. I 14 think for the purpose of framing the 15 discussion, some latitude is necessary. 16 It is not my intention to conduct the 17 deposition by surprise. I really think 1 8 that's an unfair charge. 19 To the extent that any 2 0 documents are going to be shown to the 2 1 witness that have a date that falls 22 outside of the time frame, I must take 23 exception to the complaint that you are 24 unaware of it. We did designate all the 2 5 documents we were going to use. I am Bickerstaff - direct 34 1 sure that you immediately read the 2 documents designated and x am equally 3 sure that you are able to comprehend the 4 dates on the documents. 5 I think if you wish not to 6 reserve an objection but to deal with it 7 on an ad hoc basis, that is entirely 8 your prerogative. The question I guess 9 before us at the moment is, can the 10 witness answer the pending question? . 1 1 MR. BRENDEL: Would you read 12 the question back please? . 1 3 (The question is read by the reporter.) 14 MR. BRENDEL: He may respond 1 5 for the period you have designated, the 16 period 1975 through 1981. 17 MR. COHEN: 1982. 18 MR. BRENDEL*. Well, 1/1/82. 19 MR. COHEN: I designated 2 0 through 1982. 2 1 MR. BRENDEL: But your 22 designation also is in violation of the 2 3 case management order, which places at 2 4 issue the last policy in issue, which is 25 January 1,1982. Bickerstaf f direct 35 1 MR.- COHEN: Well, this 2 deposition is not for any purpose other 3 than resolving the discovery dispute, so 4 I don't believe -- 5 MR. BRENDEL: I disagree that 6 it's not for any purpose other than 7 resolving the discovery dispute. That's 8 your position. 9 MR. COHEN; No, my position is 10 because the special master directed us 11 to take this deposition on these subject 12 matters. 13 MR. BRENDEL: I was party to 14 that phone conversation where that 15 occurred and I've read the 16 correspondence from the special master. 17 Whether you want to take a deposition or 18 not is up to you. You are not required 19 to. You are seeking additional 20 discovery and it was determined that the 2 1 burden is upon you to lay a foundation. 22 Be that as it may, this notice certainly 23 is much broader than what the special 24 master directed. 25 MR. COHEN: I certainly don't Bickerstaff - direct 36 1 agree with anything you have said. But 2 if you are limiting his answer to ray 3 question, I think the record will 4 reflect that. My goal here is for you 5 and I to speak to each other as little 6 as possible and the witness to speak as 7 much as possible. 8 MR. BRENDEL: Well, I'm not 9 going to comment on what your goals are 10 obviously. I'm just asking the witness 11 to confine himself to your designated 12 period. 13 MR. COHEN: Will you now allow 14 him to speak? 15 MR. BRENDEL: As I indicated, 16 he certainly is free to speak. 17 Q. Would you please answer the 18 question as directed, by your counsel, 19 sir? . 20 A. During the time period that 21 you have discussed, 1975 through I guess 2 2 '81, '82, whatever, I may have come 2 3 back with information either gleaned or 24 pass-outs and may have, knowing that 25 that may influence a particular Bickerstaff - direct 37 1 Westinghouse -location or all 2 Westinghouse locations, may have either 3 summarized it or even sent the whoLe 4 document out. During that time period I 5 could have very easily done that. 6 Q. And in doing that, were there 7 any policies or practices or procedures 8 which you would follow in reaching your 9 decision? 1 0 A. No. That was, again, - 1 1 discretion. As a manager, they expect 12 me to he able to understand what should 13 be going out. 1 4 Q. Would you create any records 1 5 for headquarters which would memorialize 16 to whom you would send information? 1 7 A. I guess I'm not following 1 8 you . 1 9 Q. For example, if you attended a 2 0 seminar where the treatment of a 2 1 substance was discussed which you 22 thought might have particular importance 2 3 for an entire division, let's say, and 24 you decided to send it to the operations 25 manager for that division, would you Bickerstaf f direct 38 1 create a record indicating that you had 2 done so? 3 A. No, I would send it out, keep 4 a copy of what information we had sent 5 out. I wouldn't create a second 6 document saying that a letter on such 7 and such a date, no, we didn't have 8 that. 9 Q. So if I understand your 1 0 testimony, you would take what you had 1 1 received at the seminar, have it copied 12 and send it on to the operations 13 manager. 14 A. In most cases my contact 15 person at the plant, at the Westinghouse 16 facility would he the industrial hygiene 1 7 and safety officer. Each Westinghouse 18 facility had a designated industrial 19 hygiene safety officer responsible for 2 0 that plant, division, whatever. 2 1 Q. And you would do what I said 22 with regard to the industrial hygiene 23 and safety officer? 2 4 A. Right. 25 q. so that a search of the Bickerstaff direct 39 1 corporate records would not indicate to 2 whom you had sent such documents? 3 A. Except that we kept a copy of 4 what we sent out. 5 Q. Right. But the copy would be 6 what you had received. 7 A. With a cover letter saying 8 "attached is" or something to that 9 effect. 10 Q. Would you have such a cover 1 1 letter? 12 A. Yes, as far as I know, we have 1 3 that. 14 Q. Did you ever have a telephone 15 conversation with an industrial hygiene 1 6 supervisor where you would say I'm going 17 to be sending you something? 18 A. Oh, yes. We had lots of 19 calling back and forth for information, 20 questions, whatever. 2 1 Q. Did you visit the various 22 plants? 23 A. Yes, I did. 24 Q And in the course of your 2 5 visits t did you bring these handouts Bickerstaf direct 40 1 with you? 2 A. In most cases not. In most 3 cases they were sent. But on certain 4 occasions I may have brought something 5 with me. 6 Q. On the occasions where you may 7 have brought something with you, would 8 you then have a cover letter? 9 A . No . 1 0 Q. Did you ever simply discuss 1 1 the subject matter of the seminar or the 12 pamphlets with an industrial supervisor 1 3 at a local plant without providing it? 1 4 A. Could have, could have, yes. 1 5 Q. When you made your decisions 1 6 whether to forward a pamphlet or handout 17 to a particular plant, was that decision 18 based in anyway with regard to what 19 division the plant was in? 20 A. It could have. 2 1 Q. Again, an ad hoc 2 2 determination? 23 A. Yes. 2 4 Q. The industrial hygiene 2 5 supervisors at the various plants, were Bickerstaff - direct 41 1 they members -of your division, that 2 being Corporate Headquarters Division or 3 were they members of the division to 4 which the plant belonged? 5 A. They were members of the 6 division of the plant. There was no 7 dotted line or straight line 8 communication back to me. 9 Q. So that if you were to 1 0 communicate with the industrial hygiene 11 supervisor in the time frame of 1975 to 1 2 1982 at the Bloomfield, New Jersey 1 3 plant, he was a member of the lamp plant 14 division? 1 5 A. Yes . 16 Q. And then he would not have any 17 direct lines of communication back to 18 y ou . 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. How would the industrial 2 1 hygiene supervisor -- and by the way, do 2 2 you remember the name of that gentleman 2 3 for that time frame at Bloomfield? 2 4 A. I believe there was at least 25 one, I'm trying to think, he retired. Bickerstaff - direct 42 1 There might have been two, yes. 2 q. Would you tell me please? 3 A. Dick Williams was the original 4 manager of industrial hygiene and 5 safety, and he retired I think late 6 '70s. And then Mr. George Goodrow was 7 his succes sor. 8 Q. And to whom did Mr. Williams 9 report with regard to matters of 1 0 industrial hygiene and safety? 1 1 A. I believe he reported directly 1 2 to the Human Resources Department. 13 Q. And the Human Resources 14 Department -- 15 A. I think reported to him 16 eventually. I'm not sure if there was 17 anybody in between/ but then he 18 eventually did report to the manager at 19 Bloomfield.. 2 0 Q. So the Human Resources 2 1 Department was for the lamp plant 22 division? . 23 A. Well/ Bloomfield was two 24 things. It was a plant and they had 2 5 their own operations, but it was also Bickerstaff - direct 43 1 headquarters -for the Lamp Division. And 2 I don't know if Mr. Williams' or Mr. 3 Goodrow's immediate supervisor had , 4 responsibilities out at the other 5 plants. X know they did have 6 responsibility for Bloomfield, but I 7 don't know if he had human resources 8 responsibilities at the other plants. 9 Q. With regard to what you do 10 know, which is the responsibilities for . 11 the Bloomfield plant as a plant, not as 12 a division headquarters? 1 3 A. Right. 1 4 Q. Did I understand you to 1 5 testify that Mr. Williams would report 16 to the plant manager? 17 A. Eventually. There were 18 several people in between, at least one 19 and maybe two, three people in between. 2 0 Q. And do you know what titles 2 1 would be in between? 22 A. Well, I think originally a 2 3 supervisor in the human resources 24 reported to the manager. 25 Q. Of human resources? Bickerstaff - direct 44 1 A. Of .human resources. Then from 2 there, I don't know if there was another 3 layer of management to the plant 4 manager. But there was at least two, 5 maybe three people in between. I don't 6 know . 7 Q. And all of this is within 8 human resources? 9 A. Yes. 1 0 Q. And human resources was part 1 1 of which division? 12 A. The human resources was part 13 of the Lamp Division. 14 MR. BRENDEL: One 15 clarification. When you summarized that 1 6 all of this was within human resources, 17 I believe the witness testified that the 18 plant manager was not within human 19 resources. 2 0 Q. Is Mr. Brendel correct? 2 1 A. I'm not following, 22 MR. BRENDEL: When you said 2 3 "plant manager," I think there was some 24 testimony that there are different 2 5 managers at Bloomfield. Were you Bickerstaff direct 45 1 referring to Mr. Rourke, for instance, 2 during that period? 3 THE WITNESS; Yes. See, I 4 think there were several changes in the 5 way they were structured there. So when 6 Mr. Rourke was there, maybe it was a 7 different organization, different 8 structure, but I'm trying to give you my 9 perception of what I thought was there, 1 0 and most times I dealt only with Dick 1 1 Williams. So I don't know in some cases 12 if he had a new boss or a new -- I 1 3 didn't know all the time. 14 Q. Once the information reached 15 the plant manager, how if at all would 16 it be communicated to the division? 17 A. I guess I'm not following. I 16 didn't communicate with the plant 1 9 manager . 20 Q. I understand. We're following 2 1 a line now that began with Mr. Williams 22 and moving upwards, and if I understood 2 3 your testimony, it would go to the head 2 4 of the Industrial Hygiene and Safety 25 Department at Bloomfield, and that Bickerstaff - direct 46 1 person's titl-e would have been what? 2 A. Dick Williams. His title was 3 manager of industrial hygiene and 4 s a f ety. 5 Q. And he would report through a 6 number of levels ultimately reaching the 7 plant manager. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And the plant manager would 1 0 report to the operations manager for the 1 1 division? 1 2 A. I don't know. 1 3 Q. Okay. Do you knowhow a plant 1 4 manager would communicate with regard to 15 the use or the handling or the disposal 1 6 or storage of any substance at the plant 17 to the division? 1 8 A. That could vary from plant to 19 plant. I really don't know. 20 Q. Okay. Do you know if the 2 1 plant manager, having been involved in 22 some discussion concerning the use, 2 3 handling or disposal of any substance, 2 4 would communicate with headquarters 25 directly, if at all? Bickerstaff - direct 47 1 A. I think if there was a letter 2 or questionnaire sent out to the plants 3 from headquarters on such an issue, most 4 plants would correspond directly back to 5 headquarters. 6 Q. Now, in the answer you have 7 just provided, you're envisioning a 8 scenario where headquarters has begun 9 the communication. 10 A. Yes . 11 Q. Do you have any understanding 12 of what the process would be where the 13 communication would be instituted on the 14 plant level? 15 A. I thinkin some cases the 16 plant might have a particular report 17 they would want somebody at headquarters 18 to review or something. They might send 19 it in and say would you take a look at 20 this, or a report could have been 21 requested. I could see that happening. 22 -But again, trying to limit it to my 23 knowledge, mine is occupational health, 24 not waste disposal and treatment of 25 chemicals. My concern is always going Bickerstaff - direct ' 48 1 to be employee exposure to hazardous 2 materials. 3 Q. And I take it at times, 4 employee exposure is necessarily 5 intertwined with the question o the 6 storage or use or disposal of a 7 substance, but if it's not, you wouldn't 8 be involved. 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. And even under the 11 circumstances where it was involved with 12 an employee exposure, do you know the 1 3 process by which the plant would 14 communicate with headquarters or whether 15 there was such a direct line of 1 6 communication? 17 A. There was no need, that 1 know 18 of, of any formal or informal saying you 19 will correspond. The only thing I know, 20 injury and illness records on an annual 2 1 basis, now semi-annual basis, 22 Westinghouse requires every facility to 23 send in their OSHA what they call injury 24 logs saying we had these numbers of 25 injuries and accidents, whatever, and we Bickerstaf f direct 49 1 put a corporate report together. 2 Q. Let me see if I understood. 3 With regard to OSHA, corporate , 4 headquarters would prepare a report 5 based upon the information provided by 6 each individual plant? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And how often would each 9 Individual plant provide that 1 0 info mat ion? 1 1 A. In that time period, I think 1 2 it was annually. 13 Q . This is in the 1975 to 1982 14 time period? 1 5 A. Right. 1 6 Q. Are you aware of any time 17 period where the headquarters corporate 18 reports were created on more than an 19 annual basis? 2 0 A. It may have been semi-annual, 2 1 but I think -- either annual or 22 semi-annual. Today it's semi-annual. 2 3 Q. Okay. 24 A. But there's norequirement to 25 do this under OSHA. This is just Bickersta f f direct 50 1 Westinghouse, where are we, what are our 2 injuries and illnesses, how can we 3 reduce them, whatever. So this is our 4 own individual, internal report. 5 Q. Do you know when this practice 6 began? 7 A. It was there when I started in 8 19 7 6 . 9 Q. And you have no knowledge 1 0 about when it began before that? 11 A. No, I don't. 12 Q. How often do the plants report 13 to headquarters so that the report could 1 4 be compiled on an annual or semi-annual 1 5 basis? 1 6 A. Again, then I think annually. 17 Today I think it's semi-annual. 18 Q. What other reports or 19 summaries of developments were forwarded 2 0 from plants to corporate headquarters? 2 1 A. Again, back during that time 22 period, it could be a response back to 2 3 OSHA or a letter to OSHA sent to them, 2 4 please investigate this. It could be an 25 OSHA inspection where they had to ask Bickerstaf f direct 51 1 follow-up. We would maybe assist them 2 on that. 3 Q. My question might not have 4 been clearly phrased. I understood your 5 answer to be responsive with regard to 6 particular events that would require a 7 communication, but what I'm asking about 8 is, was there any standard practice 9 regarding the compilation of information 10 by a plant to be forwarded to 11 headquarters 7 . 12 A. The only one I really know of 13 is the annual or semi-annual injury 14 illness records which had to go in. 15 Others were as needed or as they needed 16 our input. There was no formal other 17 information that had to go back to 18 headquarters that I'm aware of. 19 Q. All right. For example, are 20 you aware of monthly operating reports? 2 1 A. Monthly operating reports. 2 2 There was no requirement that. I'm aware 2 3 of, again, I'm speaking my area, that 24 there was a requirement that it had to 25 go back to headquarters. Bickerstaff direct 52 1 Q. Are you aware of any practice 2 whereby monthly operating reports would 3 be forwarded to headquarters? 4 A. There were I think several 5 divisions that on their option copied us 6 on minutes of their safety meetings and 7 things like that# yes. 8 Q. When you mention minutes of 9 safety meetings and things like that, 1 0 you're talking about discrete subjects 11 for a particular plant or even a 12 division? 13 A . Yes. 14 Q. Are you aware of any general 1 5 overview report that would consist of 1 6 production, supplies, labor issues, 17 health issues that might have been 18 prepared on a monthly basis by a plant? 19 A. Not where they sent it back to 20 headquarters, no. Again, to my 2 1 department. 22 - Q. Understood. I'm only asking 23 you things, sir, which you are aware of 2 4 to your own personal knowledge. 25 Certainly if you are aware of something Bickerstaff direct 53 1 that occurred out of your department, I 2 expect you to tell me if you know it. I 3 can't expect you to tell me things you 4 do not know . 5 A . Okay . 6 Q . Do you know of any periodic 7 report prepared on a regular basis from 8 plants to division headquarters? 9 A. Unless we were copied, no. 1 0 Q. Do you know of any practices. 11 policies or guidelines from the 12 divisions reporting to headquarters? 13 A. I can only think of one 14 division that had any kind of a 15 routine. In the beginning they were 1 6 copied on safety minutes and things like 17 that. But again, that was their choice. 18 Q. And what division was that? 19 A . That was our defense. 20 Q. The Defense Division? 2 1 A . Yes . 22 Q. When was the Defense Division 23 created? 24 A . Oh, I have no idea. 25 Q . Did it exist for the time Bickerstaff direct 54 1 frame of 1975 through 1982? 2 A. Yes. . 3 Q. And during that time frame, 4 was it the practice of the Defense 5 Division to forward periodic general 6 reports to headquarters? 7 A. Again, their option, yes. 8 Q. But it's your understanding, 9 even though it was at their option, it 10 was the practice? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And how often was that done? 13 A. It could be quarterly, 14 monthly, depending on when they had 15 their safety meetings at their 16 facilities. 17 Q. Are you aware if these reports 18 that were forwarded or copied to 19 headquarters were limited to the safety 20 minutes ? 2 1 A * As far as I remember, yes. 22 Q. And did they go to your 23 department? 24 A . Yes. 2 5 Q. And that's the only reason Bickerstaff - direct 55 1 you're aware .of it? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. So if another division 4 forwarded some sort of periodic report 5 on a regular basis to a division other 6 than yours, you would not have any 7 know ledge? 8 A. Unless I was copied on it/ 9 correct. 10 Q. And your division now would be 11 which? 12 A. Headquarters, corporate. 13 Q. You mean the higher 14 Headquarters Division? 15 A. Yes . 1 6 Q. Environmental affairs was 17 within the Headquarters Division, 18 correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. An islegal within the 2 1 Headquarters Division? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. I thinkWestinghouse refers to 24 legal as the Law Department? 25 A. Yes. Bickerstaf direct 1 Q. What other departments are 56 2 within the Headquarters Division? 3 A- Finance, human resources. 4 Each one of these now are departments of 5 headquarters. 6 Q. Right. Headquarters is the 7 umbrella to which these all fit within? 8 A . Yes. 9 Q. Okay. So we have finance, 1 0 human resources. 11 A. Purchasing, traffic. 1 2 Q. What was the Traffic 1 3 Department? 1 4 A. Well, for anything that's 15 shipped, by truck, train, whatever. 16 Q. And I take it traffic 17 therefore necessarily would be involved 18 with questions involving the shipping of 19 hazardous substances or waste? 20 A. Yes. 2 1 Q. What other departments were 22 there at the Headquarters Division? 23 A. Benefits. 24 Q. Benefits, for example, would 25 be involved with claims for benefits Bickers ta f f direct 57 1 arising out of employee disability 2 because of alleged exposure to 3 substances ? 4 A. Yes. Worker's compensation, 5 I'm just trying to think. Tax 6 Department. I think most major 7 corporations are going to have these. 8 Q. And yours, of course, 9 industrial hygiene? 10 A. Yes. Communications is 11 another one. 12 Q. Now, what were the 13 responsibilities of the Communications 14 Department, sir, if you know? 15 A. Communicating information on 16 Westinghouse, anything that's going out 17 in advertising or anything, press 18 releases, whatever. 19 Q. Did they ever have, to your 20 knowledge, anything to do with internal 21 Westinghouse communications? 22 A. I guess I'm not following 23 you. What do you mean? 24 Q. For example, when you attended 25 a seminar and you made a decision that Bickerstaff direct 1 something should be circulated to . 58 2 various plants, was the Communications 3 Department involved in that? 4 A . No . 5 0 6 meant. That is an example of what I 7 A . Right. They also probably had 8 things like helping to develop all of 9 our corporate policies and procedures, 1 0 things like that. 1 1 Q. Regarding corporate 12 communications ? 13 A . Yes . 14 Q. Did these corporate policies 15 that they helped to develop also concern 16 corporate internal communications? 17 A. I don't remember offhand. 18 They may have, I don't know. 1 9 Q. Have you ever seen an internal 20 Wtstinghouse document that had been 2 1 stamped or labeled in some way 22 "confidential"? 2 3 A. Yes. 24 Q. What was your understanding of 25 the use of that phrase on a document? Bickerstaff - direct 59 1 A. That could be -- there are 2 several areas. Maybe just for internal 3 purposes of West i nghouse. I'm not sure 4 if it's confidential, but there's always 5 sometimes at the Westinghouse research center to protect information because 7 it's a defense contract or whatever, 8 that would be another use of 9 "confidential." I don't know. To me 10 "confidential" certainly meant kind of 1 1 restrict the use of it. 12 Q. When you say "the use," you 1 3 mean the dissemination? 14 A. The dissemination, yes. 15 Q. Have you ever seen any other 16 words which indicated a restrictive 17 dissemination? 18 A. I've seen the word 19 "proprietary." And that pretty much is 2 0 used by the Westinghouse science and 2 1 technology to restrict information on 22 maybe patents or new information, new 23 technology, whatever. 24 Q. Have you ever seen a document 2 5 that might have been labeled "strictly Bickerstaff - direct 60 1 limited distribution" or "limited 2 distribution only," something to that 3 effect? 4 A. Yes, I believe I've seen that, 5 yes . 6 Q. Have you ever seen a document 7 which said it was to be distributed only 8 for certain people who needed it for 9 their immediate tasks and then was to be 10 destroyed by burning or shredding? 1 1 A. I believe I've seen that 1 2 caption, yes. 1 3 Q. Have you seen that caption in 1 4 preparation for today's deposition? 1 5 A. I have seen several documents 1 6 that were identified, and I saw it on 1 7 some of those yesterday with my 1 8 attorney. 19 Q. Aside from preparing for the 20 deposition/ have you seen those 2 1 documents in the course of your ordinary 22 business? . 23 A. I may haye. I don't know. 24 Q. Are you aware of any rules, 25 practices or guidelines setting forth Bickerstaff - direct 61 1 when a document is subject to a 2 restricted dissemination? 3 A. I don't know the rules p e*r s e , 4 but I'm sure there are some rules. 5 Q. Do you know who drafted those? 6 A. No, I don't. 7 Q. Do you know when they were 8 drafted? 9 A. No, I don't. 1 0 Q. Do you know where those rules 1 1 are maintained? 12 A. No, not offhand. 1 3 Q. I take it you do not know the 1 4 sum and substance of those rules? 1 5 A . No . 16 Q. Do you have anyknowledge 1 7 regarding the different levels of 18 restricted dissemination, such as 19 confidential, strictly limited, destroy 20 by burning or shredding? 2 1 A. No, I don't know those rules. 22 Q. Do you know when was a plant 2 3 authorized to limit the distribution or 2 4 dissemination of a document? 25 A. No, I don't know that. Bickerstaff - direct 62 Q. Do -you know when headquarters would invoke a limited distribution to prevent dissemination to local plants? A. Would you restate that? Q. Let's hear it back. (The question is read by the reporter.) A. No, the kinds of information that I normally would handle in health and safety has not really been ever -- I don't remember putting a "proprietary" on or "restricted." So I don't know. Q. What divisions were there besides a Headquarters Division? A. During that time frame? Q. I am asking a more general question. You should listen to your attorney. MR. COHEN: Are you preventing him from answering that? MR. BRENDEL: Why doesn't he respond with respect to the time frame in the request. MR. COHEN: Then we'll play it by ear. MR. BRENDEL: Because it is I Bickerstaff - direct 63 1 suspect a rather broad question and he 2 may not want to go further. 3 Q. Let us begin with the 1975 4 through 1982 time frame. 5 A. From my recollection. 6 Q. Yes, sir. 7 A. The Lamp Division, there was 8 the Defense, Broadcasting, our Financial 9 and Credit Corp., our Nuclear Division. 1 0 There were some commercial products at 1 1 that point I believe. 12 Q. When you say "commercial 13 products," is that similar to consumer 1 4 products? 15 A. Yes. Just about that time was 16 when Westinghouse was getting out of the 17 consumer product business, but there may 1 8 still have been some at that time. 1 9 Q. When you say "at that time," 20 can you tell me what you mean? 2 1 A. 1975 through1981. 22 Q. You can't give a more specific 2 3 answer? 24 A . No . 2 5 Q. Okay. Bickerstaff - direct 64 1 A. Let's see. Power Generation 2 was one, and I think the Motor Company. 3 That's about the broad groups. 4 Q. And within each of these 5 divisions, I take it there were various 6 departments ? 7 A . Yes . 8 Q. There was an Industrial 9 Hygiene Department within each division? 1 0 A. Yes . 1 I Q. There was a Building and 1 2 Grounds Department within each division? 1 3 A. I don't know. 14 Q. Do you know which departments 1 5 there would be within each division that 1 6 would in anyway be concerned with the 17 use, handling or disposal of 18 substances? And just so the record is 19 clear, when I say "substances," I mean 20 those that may have been released or 2 1 present at any plant that contributed to 22 an environmental condition or pollution 23 or radiation or contamination for which 24 there is an insurance claim lawsuit? 25 A. I don't know which locations Bickerstaff - direct 65 1 had what department pursuing that or 2 following that, given that was not my 3 responsibility. So I really, I don't 4 know. if all of them had it, some of 5 them had it, I don't know. 6 Q. Were there any formal rules or 7 guidelines concerning what departments 8 would handle the questions involving the 9 use, handling and disposal of 10 substances? 11 A. I think just like we had an 12 industrial hygiene and safety officer, I 13 think somebody was designated at the 14 plant. 15 Q. Do you know when that first 16 happened? 17 A. No, but that was the plant's 18 choice. Like for instance, our 19 representative a lot of times came out 20 of human resources, but it could also be 21 the nurse. It was the plant's choice 22* who they were going to designate. 23 Q. And now are you speaking 24 specifically with regard to issues of 25 industrial hygiene? Bickerstaff direct 66 1 A. Industrial hygiene and safety, 2 correct. 3 Q. So with regard to disposal of 4 substances, what is your knowledge? 5 A. Again, the plant or the 6 facility, it was their choice who was 7 going to be the environmental control 8 officer. 9 Q. Would the environmental 1 0 control officer deal with questions of 1 1 offsite disposal of a hazardous 12 substance? 13 A. I don't know for sure. I 1 4 would guess so. 1 5 Q. I appreciate your efforts, but 16 what I'm concerned about is what you do 1 7 know . 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. With regard to the storage of 20 substances, do you know how that was 2 1 assigned at the plant? 22 A. That would vary from plant to 2 3 plant. . 2 4 Q. And I take it, therefore, 2 5 within each division there might not Bickerstaff - direct 67 1 have been a uniformity of assigned 2 responsibilities at the various plants? 3 A. That could be, yes. ' 4 Q. Do you know what department at 5 headquarters was responsible for 6 facilitating communications between the 7 divisions ? 8 A. What kind of communications? 9 Q. Specifically with regard to 1 0 the use, handling or disposal of 1 1 substances. First of all, are you aware 1 2 of any communications between the 13 divisions? 1 4 A. Between divisions? 1 5 Q. Yes . 1 6 A. Between divisions, there was 17 virtually -- I don't think there was 1 8 usually much correspondence between 19 divisions on this issue. 20 Q. Okay. Was there 2 1 correspondence from the divisions to the 22 headquarters on this issue? 23 A. Again, on the issues of you're 2 4 talking waste disposal and things like 25 t hat ? Bickerstaff - direct 68 1 q. Yes-. Not necessarily only 2 disposal. For example, if there was an 3 indication of an ambient atmosphere, 4 mercury exceeded a regulation, how would 5 that be communicated within the 6 Westinghouse structure? 7 A. It would be the plant that had 8 the exposure measurement, it would 9 probable just be directed back toward 1 0 headquarters. 11 Q. Would that be division 12 headquarters or corporate headquarters? 1 3 A. Corporate headquarters. 1 4 Possibly in some cases it could go back 15 to division. Again, it depends. A lot 1 6 of the responsibility was decentralized 17 and put back on the plant to do this. 18 Q. Am I correct that the decision 1 9 whether to disseminate the information 20 beyond the plant level was also a 2 1 decentralized decision? 2 2 A . Yes. 2 3 Q. Was there, to your knowledge, 24 a department that was responsible for 2 5 disseminating information to the various Bickerstaf direct 1 divisions ? - 2 A. For environmental issues, when 3 I've been at this job, there was one 4 individual who had that responsibility. 5 Q . Who was that person, sir? 6 A . Mr . Bud Kerns , B . A. Kerns. 7 Q And Mr. Kerns had what title? 8 A . Boy, I ' m not sure what his 9 title was. Manager, environmental 1 0 compliance. I'm not sure what it was. 1 1 Q. Do you know, was he part of 12 the Headquarters Division? 1 3 A. Yes . 1 4 Q. And do you know which 15 department Mr. Kerns was in? 16 A. He at that time reported to 1 7 the Construction Technology Department. 1 8 Q. I take itthat's another 19 department within the Headquarters 20 Division? 2 1 A. Yes . 22 Q. Do you know what the scope of 23 responsibilities for the Construction 2 4 Development Department was? 25 A. Anything with the plant going Bickerstaff - direct 70 1 in. They would assist the plant in 2 construction, any remodeling of plants 3 or things like that. They would go to 4 headquarters works engineering. 5 Q. And on the local level, what 6 was works engineering? 7 A. Works engineering. 8 Q. What were the 9 responsibilities, so to speak? 1 0 A. The operation of theplant as 11 far as facilities, electricity, power, 1 2 whatever. New buildings going up, 13 renovations, things like that. 1 4 Q. At the HeadquartersDivision, 15 I take it from your testimony that the 1 6 Construction and Development Department 17 had responsibilities with regard to the 18 use, handling or disposal of substances? 19 A. That's my understanding, yes. 2 0 Q. And they also had 2 1 responsibilities with regard to 22 communications involving that subject 23 matter? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Can you tell me what the Bickerstaff- direct 71 1 responsibilities of that department, the 2 Construction Development Department 3 within the Headquarters Division was 4 with regard to the use, handling and 5 disposal of substances? 6 A. Just to keep the plants 7 appraised of regulations, and I believe 8 they maybe put in some training courses 9 and things like that on how to implement 10 different programs for proper disposal, 11 whatever. That's my understanding. 12 Q. Okay. I take it you 13 personally have never been an employee 14 of that department. 1 5 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Are you aware of any 17 responsibilities that the Construction 18 Development Department undertook other 19 than to advise of changes in the 20 regulatory atmosphere and the putting on 2 1 of seminars? 2 2 A. No. I was not on the 23 distribution for anything that they sent 24 out. 25 Q. Do you recall ever attending a Bickerstaff - direct 72 1 seminar put on by the Construction 2 Development Department? 3 A . No . 4 Q. Do you recall having 5 discussions that the Industrial Hygiene 6 Department should be on the distribution 7 of the Construction Development 8 Department concerning the use, handling 9 and disposal of substances? 1 0 A. Occasionally Kerns would give 11 us a call and he may have information on 12 a particular material safety data sheet 13 and ask for our input on maybe the 14 proper kind of glove to wear or 15 something like this. We would assist 16 him there, yes. 17 Q. What was a material data 18 safety sheet? 19 A. For every chemical that you 20 buy today, there's a material safety 2 1 data sheet that has to be made available 22 to the customer. For instance, if you- 2 3 went over to the Sherman Williams and 24 you bought paint, right behind the desk, 2 5 the sign says material safety data Bickerstaff - direct 73 1 sheets are available on request. It is 2 basically a one-, two-, three-page 3 document that talks about the health 4 hazards, what kinds of protective 5 clothing to wear, how to avoid 6 overexposures, what the ingredients are 7 inside. It's a piece of information or 8 document on this particular subject or 9 substance rather. 10 Q. Was there a document that was 11 for the internal use of Westinghouse 12 employees regarding the handling, use or 13 disposal of substances in a safe manner? 1 4 A. As far as the handling and 1 5 use, Westinghouse developed, our 16 department, industrial hygiene developed 17 safe practice data sheets. We started 18 probably back sometime in the 1940s. 19 And again, the intent was how to work 20 with this material safely and use of 2 1 protective clothing, things to avoid so 22 you don't have incompatible chemicals 2 3 coming together, things like that. And 24 this was only for internal use in 2 5 protecting Westinghouse employees. Bickers taf f direct 74 1 Q. Had you ever heard of that 2 document in a compilation referred to as 3 a "safe practices manual"? 4 A. Not "safe practices manual." 5 The compilation was the safe practice 6 data sheets. "Sheets." 7 Q. Have you ever heard of a safe 8 practices manual used by Westinghouse 9 employees ? 10 A. Not a safe practices manual, 11 n o . 12 Q. For example, a Lamp Division 13 safe practices manual? 14 A. They may have had one. I 1 5 don't know. 1 6 Q. That would be outside the 1 7 scope of industrial hygiene? 1 8 A. Yes . 19 Q. What was the equivalent at the 20 Corporate Headquarters Division of the 2 1 Buildings and Grounds Department on the 22 plant level, if you know? 2 3 A. I would guess it would be the 2 4 construction technology. 25 Q. Were there any standard Bickerstaf f direct 75 1 policies, practices or procedures with 2 regard to the reporting by plants of 3 conditions that were in violation of 4 regulations concerning the presence of 5 substances 7 6 A. I'm not following you. What 7 do you mean? 8 Q. Okay. For example/ if a 9 plant, say Bloomfield, for example, 10 determined that the presence of mercury 11 within a particular building did not 12 conform to regulations, were there any 13 policies or practices or procedures 14 regarding how that fact would be 15 communicated, if at all? 16 A. I don't think there was a 17 formal policy that they had to respond 18 back. Being decentralized, the 19 responsibility was still back on the 20 plant to be in compliance. I don't 21 think that they had to, well, we took an 22 air sample today and found it above and 23 call our department. No, that was not 24 required. 25 Q. If there was a chronic Blcke rsta f f direct 76 1 situation where the investigation 2 revealed a continuing lack of 3 compliance, was there any formal 4 practice, procedure or guideline 5 regarding reporting? 6 A. No, we could pick things up, 7 for example, on the annual injury and 8 illness rates or records that they had 9 to s end to us . 1 0 Q. Those were the documents we 11 were referring to earlier? 12 A. Yes. If we would see that 1 3 start to climb or increase, this may be 1 4 an indication there's a problem with the 15 plant. We would then contact the plant 1 6 and go out and visit and see what was 17 going on. So that was another way of, 18 yes, we had a way of detecting whether 19 or not there was a problem at the plant. 20 Q. Aside from the annual injury 2 1 and accident rates, were there any other 2 2 documents which would be reviewed for 2 3 the purpose of internal compliance on 2 4 the local levels? 25 A. There was no reporting Bickerstaff - direct ' 77 1 requirements -that I remember. 2 q. Aside from reporting 3 requirements, was there any standardized 4 practice or policy that you recall? 5 A. Westinghouse had a 6 se1f-eva1uation program, but that was 7 primarily inhouse. You evaluate your 8 own program against these different 9 parameters. And there was no reporting 1 0 requirement to come back to 11 headquarters, but some might, just 12 saying hey, we scored ourselves and we 1 3 were 98 percent this year, something 14 like that. 15 Q. Let me see if I understand 16 what you just told me. There was a - 17 can I have the last answer read back? 18 (The question is read by the reporter.) 19 Q. The self-evaluation program, 20 did that concern in anyway the use, 21 handling, presence or disposal of 2 2 substances? 23 A. The use and handling, yes, as 2 4 far as employee exposures. Nothing as 25 far as the environmental. Again, it was Bickerstaff - direct 78 1 all industrial hygiene and safety. 2 Q. And was this self-evaluation 3 program something that was implemented 4 by industrial hygiene and safety? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. That's why you know about it. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And so the only things that 9 would be responsive would be issues 1 0 concerning employee exposure. 1 1 A. Correct. 12 Q. And therefore, issues 13 concerning the internal environment of a 14 building or external environment would 15 not be within the scope of that 16 self-evaluation program. 17 A. Internal, if it wereto cause 18 an employee exposure. 19 Q. But assuming it had not. 20 Q. And if I understood what you 2 1 said, there was no practice with regard 22 to reporting the results of this 23 self-evaluation program. And you gave 24 the example of perhaps if someone had 2 5 scored particularly well, they might Bickerstaff direct 79 1 report to headquarters. . 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Can you recall any examples 4 where a plant scored particularly poorly 5 and they reported it to headquarters? 6 A. No . 7 Q. To your knowledge, was it the 8 practice of plants that had conditions 9 that were below par or below average to 10 bring that to the attention of 11 headquarters? 12 A. There was no practice to do 13 that. There may have been during the 14 year maybe an acquisition, a company we 15 bought, was not used to the Westinghouse 16 system, scored themselves and said hey, 17 I think I'm a little low here, what can 18 I do to improve it. That could happen. 19 Q. With regard - 20 A. Acquisitions always tended to 21 be much lower in score. 22 Q. Aside from the question of 23 acquisitions, with regard to a plant 24 that had a been a traditional 25 Westinghouse holding, do you recall any Bickerstaf f direct 80 1 examples ? - 2 A . Not o f fhand. 3 Q. Do you recall that the 4 Bloomfield plant was recognized as 5 having a problem with regard to the 6 presence of mercury for a historical 7 period? 8 MR. BRENDEL: I'm going to 9 object at this point since you're going 1 0 into the substantive scope of his 1 1 deposition. If you want to conduct that 12 type of inquiry on this subject matter 13 now, we can discuss that. But if your 14 intent here is to get into substantive 15 issues now and then reconvene the 16 deposition later to get into substantive 17 issues, then we have a problem. 18 MR. COHEN: Well, I don't 19 think we need to have a problem. That's 20 a strong word. 2 1 MR. BRENDEL: I don't think 22 "pToblem" is a strong word. Maybe you 2 3 do. Maybe you're more fortunate than I 2 4 am to go through the day without any 25 problems. Sounds like you've already Bickerstaff direct 81 1 had one today anyway. So - 2 MR. COHEN: I have no 3 problems, sir, at all. In any event, I 4 want to be very clear. In no way do I 5 intend to forego a substantive 6 deposition. This is not a substantive 7 deposition, and we are reserving all 8 rights to take a substantive 9 deposition. I think it is only 1 0 necessary for you to state an objection 1 1 and then direct the witness to either 12 answer the question subject to the 1 3 objection or direct him not to answer 1 4 the question. If we have repeated 1 5 directions not to answer, we can seek 16 intervention. 17 So the purpose of my question 18 was to find out about communications 19 with regard to a situation at 2 0 Bloomfield, whether there was such 21 communications or if there were not. If 22 you wish to say that you object to the 2 3 form of the question for assuming a fact 24 being in issue, that is your business. 2 5 But I would like an answer regarding Bickerstaff - direct 82 1 communications from Bloomfield to 2 headquarters regarding the presence of 3 mercury that was beyond regulated 4 levels. 5 MR BRENDEL: Would you please 6 read his question back? 7 (The question is read by the reporter.) 8 MR. BRENDEL: That question 9 has nothing in it about lines of 1 0 communication. It's a direct 1 1 substantive question to the witness, and 12 I'm going to instruct him not to answer 1 3 on the grounds that that question is out 14 o f scope. 15 MR. COHEN: Please just put a 16 little mark next to the question. 17 Q. Do you recall any 18 communications from the Bloomfield plant 19 to Headquarters Division with regard to 2 0 a chronic situation involving the 2 1 presence of mercury that did not conform 2 2 to regulated standards? 2 3 A. There was correspondence 24 between Bloomfield and our department. 25 And I don't know if it was chronic, but Bickerstaff - direct 83 1 they had on cccasion air samples that 2 exceeded the OSHA permissible limit. 3 However, employees were wearing 4 respirators in most cases for their 5 protection and had protective clothing. 6 But they had an ongoiug program of using 7 engineering controls, administrative 8 controls to try to correct the problem, 9 housekeeping, and in some cases they 1 0 were looking for alternative materials 11 other than mercury. 12 Q. Okay. I had only mentioned 13 mercury as an example. In the 14 situations where there were 1 5 communications, were they pursuant to 16 any formal practice or was this 17 something that happened on an ad hoc 18 basis? 19 A. I think in most cases it was 20 on an ad hoc basis that they would take 2 1 periodic air samples, and if they found 22 a problem, they would contact us and say 2 3 what can we do to correct the problem. 24 If the air samples turned out to be less 2 5 than permissible, there probably was no Bickerstaff - direct 84 1 correspondence to us. 2 Q. With regard to the steps that 3 may have been taken at Bloomfield with 4 regard to a problem, as you earlier 5 referred to, was there any formal means 6 of communicating the programs 7 implemented to other plants or other 8 divisions? 9 A. There could have been, yes. 1 0 But I can't say specifically we took 11 this and applied it here, but we could 1 2 have . 1 3 Q. Is your answer that on 1 4 occasion this was done? 15 A. I'm just saying it could have 16 happened. I can't remember any specific 17 detail that it did happen. 18 Q. Do you recall whether there 19 was a policy that it should have been 20 done ? 2 1 A. No, there was no policy. 22 Q. Do you recall any discussion, 2 3 that it would be a good idea to 2 4 disseminate to the various plants 2 5 programs instituted at a plant to deal Bickerstaff - direct 85 1 with this substance? 2 A. Again, that was not required. 3 Again, our discretion. If we saw 4 something visiting one plant, suggested 5 it maybe to another plant, that could 6 happen. But nothing said formally it 7 had to be disseminated. 8 Q. Do you recall any discussions 9 concerning whether it was a good idea 1 0 for there to be a formal requirement? 11 A. No, not really. 12 Q. Do you recall any discussions 13 in which the dissemination of such 1 4 information was discouraged? 15 A. Oh, no, never discouraged. 16 Q. Would you consider a labeling 17 of a memoranda for a restricted 1 8 dissemination or a confidential use to 19 be discouragement of the exchange of 20 information? 2 1 MR. BRENDEL: I'm going to 22 ob'ject to the question on the grounds 23 that it's presumably a hypothetical, 24 there's no foundation for it. I don't 25 know what he's referring to or what type Bickerstaff ~ direct 86 1 of communication or what type of 2 document the label to which he is 3 referring to applies. I'd ask that 4 there be some foundation if you expect 5 the witness to answer a hypothetical 6 question. 7 MR. COHEN: My question was 8 merely an effort to probe his 9 understanding and his last answer with 10 regard to there never being any 1 1 disapproval of the dissemination. And I 12 was trying to see within the scope of 1 3 his answer how the use of the 14 confidential restricted dissemination 15 labels fit. 1 6 MR. BRENDEL: So it was within 1 7 the scope of his answer, he was 1 8 responding with respect to environmental 19 affairs at headquarters and his 2 0 knowledge of environmental affairs at 2 1 headquarters. With that understanding. 2 2 I'll let the witness respond. 2 3 MR. COHEN: So the record is 2 4 very clear, I do not agree in anyway 25 with any characterizations in my Bickerstaff - direct 87 1 question, and I will rely upon the 2 transcript and the reader's 3 interpretation. 4 MR. BRENDEL: I mean so there 5 is a clarity here on what you're asking, 6 and I think we should have that if we're 7 not in agreement on what you're asking. 8 You're requesting that his answer extend 9 beyond headquarters environmental 1 0 affairs? Are you asking him to respond, 11 to your question based on his knowledge 12 beyond headquarters environmental 13 affairs? 14 MR. COHEN: I'm asking the 15 witness to respond to my question to the 16 best of his ability during all of his 17 personal knowledge. I do not ask him to 1 8 speculate or guess, I only ask him to 19 tell me what he knows. 20 MR. BRENDEL: Then 1 would 2 1 request that the witness when responding 22 to questions that appear to be overbroad 23 or were not directed to a specific area 24 or issue, to make sure that he answers 25 and defines what he's responding to. Bickerstaff - direct 88 1 since counsel- doesn't have any intention 2 to define the scope of the question for 3 the witness. 4 Q. Sir, can you answer my 5 question? 6 A. Can you read the question 7 again? 8 (The question is read by the reporter.) 9 A. The health and safety 1 0 information that I'm familiar with, 11 again during that time period, I don't 1 2 know, I can't remember any of it ever 1 3 saying "restricted" or "proprietary" or 14 anything like that. I really don't 1 5 remember any. 16 (There is a brief recess.) 17 BY MR. COHEN: 18 Q. Mr. Bickerstaff, in the 19 various positions you have held with 20 Westinghouse, have you received any 2 1 training with regard to communications 22 or policies that should be followed 23 regarding communications with the 2 4 subject matter of substances? 25 A. No, not that I remember. I Blckersta direct 89 1 Q. Have you ever trained anyone 2 on what should be communicated regarding 3 substances ? 4 A. In our training courses, if a 5 particular regulation says that 6 employees should have copies of material 7 safety data sheets and things like that, 8 yes, we would disseminate that in the 9 training courses. 1 0 Q. And I take it when laws such 1 1 as -- if I use the phrase RCRA, do you 1 2 know to what I'm referring? 1 3 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. Require notifications or 15 disclosures of the presence of 16 substances, then people have been 17 trained to comply with those laws? 18 A. That was the Environmental 19 Control Department, but I believe there 2 0 were, yes. 2 1 Q. But that is not something you 2 2 specifically know? 2 3 A . No . 24 Q. Generally speaking, with 25 regard to the handling used for the Bickerstaff - direct 90 1 presence of substances and their impact 2 upon the environment, as opposed to any 3 impact they may have had upon employees, 4 what responsibilities, if any, did you 5 ha ve ? 6 A, Probably only to assist the 7 Environmental Control Department as they 8 requested information from us. 9 Q. Okay. Now, i take it 10 generally it has always been your 11 responsibility to assist any 12 Westinghouse department that seeks 13 assistant from industrial hygiene? 14 A. Everybody is our customer, 15 yes . 16 Q. So what I'm asking is aside 17 from those moments when another 18 department would ask for your 19 assistance, did you have any direct 20 lines of responsibility? 2 1 A. No, I did not. 22 Q. You mentioned with regard to 23 substances and the'environment the 2 4 Environmental Control Department. Is 2 5 that something separate and distinct Bickerstaff * direct 91 1 from the environmental affairs group? 2 A. The environmental control 3 group is a part of the Environmental 4 Affairs Department, as industrial 5 hygiene and safety is also part of 6 environmental affairs. We're peers. 7 Q. May I have that answer read 8 back? 9 (The question is read by the reporter.) 1 0 Q. Having had that answer read 1 1 back, is it accurate? 12 A. As far as I know, yes. 13 Q. Wasn't environmental affairs 1 4 created in 1981? 1 5 A. Yes . 16 Q. Prior to 1981, where within 17 the corporate structure of Westinghouse 18 was the Environmental Controls 19 Department? 20 A. It was a group, a group or a 2 1 person. It was Bud Kerns, B. A. Kerns, 22 and he reported to the construction 23 Technology Department. 2 4 Q. Okay. Let me see if I 25 understand. Environmental controls Bickerstaff - direct 92 1 prior to 198 1* was personified by Mr. 2 Kerns, who reported to the Construction 3 Development Department? 4 A. Construction technology. 5 Q. Pardon me. In 1981, with the 6 advent of the environmental affairs 7 group, the Environmental Control 8 Department became a subsection of the 9 environmental affairs? 10 A . correct. 11 Q. Do you have any knowledge 12 concerning the policies, practices and 1 3 procedures followed by the Environmental 14 Control Department, whether it was 15 within the framework of the Construction 1 6 Department or the Environmental Affairs 17 Department, concerning communications 18 with divisions? 19 A. No, it was not a distribution, 20 so X don't know what communications they 2 1 had with the plants or divisions. 2 2 Q. Okay. In the broadest sense, 2 3 do you have any knowledge regarding the 24 communications by environmental controls 25 and their practices regarding Bickerstaff direct 93 1 communications with regard to 2 substances ? 3 A . No . 4 Q. Okay. Do you have any 5 knowledge regarding the policies, 6 practices and procedures concerning 7 communications by, between and among 8 Westinghouse headquarters, divisions and 9 plants that did not involve the 1 0 Industrial Hygiene Department? 1 1 A. Unless I was copied on it, no, 12 I don't. I don't know what transpired. 1 3 Q. And you would be copied on an 14 ad hoc basis, not pursuant to any formal 1 5 practice or rule. 1 6 A . Right. 1 7 Q. To your knowledge, was the 18 Human Resources Department involved in 1 9 communications involving the presence, 20 handling or use of substances? 2 1 A. No, not really. If anything, 2 2 the handling of employee exposure would 2 3 be from our department. 2 4 Q, And if it was environment, it 2 5 would have been construction Bickerstaff - direct 94 1 development? - 2 A Yes. No, it may have been 3 called works engineering, I'm not sure, 4 but today it's called construction 5 technology. It might have been works 6 engineering back then. 7 Q. Why don't you describe the 8 department to which you're referring and 9 your understanding of their 10 1 1 A . Again, I think I told you 12 before what I thought the 1 3 responsibilities were, but to reiterate 1 4 this, their responsibility was a service 1 5 to Westinghouse plants, divisions, 1 6 whatever, on constructing new buildings, 1 7 new processes, buying new businesses for 18 Westinghouse, going out and looking at 1 9 them to see what we could buy. Just the 20 operation of the plants as far as 2 1 utilities, not so much manufacture and 2 2 things like that. That's my 2 3 understanding. 24 Q. When you say the processes in 25 the plant, you mean the ongoing Bickerstaff direct 95 1 processes in- the plant? 2 A. They could be involved, yes. 3 For instance, maybe one operation that 4 we're going to put in requires 5 ventilation or something like this. 6 They might take one of their ventilation 7 specialists into the plant, size it and 8 design it so that, you know, it will in 9 fact ventilate the process. 1 0 Q. Was construction the 11 appropriate department when a problem 12 had been detected involving a substance 1 3 that required remediation? 1 4 A. I don't know. See, I'm not 1 5 sure when that phased in, I don't know. 16 Q. You know it wasn't industrial 17 hygiene? 18 A. It was not industrial hygiene. 19 Q. Could it have been a 2 0 department other than construction? 2 1 A. I can't think of another 22 department, no. 23 Q. And who at construction did 2 4 Mr. Kerns report to? 2 5 A. During the time period I Bickerstaff - direct 96 1 think, again,- when I first came in, it 2 was Mr. Tom Berry. 3 Q. And did Mr. Kerns continue to 4 report to Mr. Berry with the advent of 5 the environmental affairs group or did 6 he report to someone else? 7 A. I think he continued to report 8 to Tom Berry. 9 Q. Did Mr. Berry become part of 1 0 the environmental affairs group? 1 1 A. No, he did not. 1 2 Q. What was his title with 1 3 construction? 1 4 A. I believe he was director of 1 5 construction technology or works 1 6 engineering, whatever it was called at 17 that time. 1 8 Q. And who was the head of 19 environmental affairs? 20 A. There was no environmental 2 1 affairs. 22 Q . In 1981? 2 3 A. Oh, in '81? Mr. Frank Beal. 2 4 Q. Did Mr. Kerns, to your 25 knowledge, ever report to Mr. Beal? Bickerstaff - direct 97 1 A. Oh,- yes . Mr. Beal became the 2 director of the environmental affairs 3 when it was pulled together. Both Bud 4 Kerns, Mr. Kerns, and myself reported to 5 Frank Beal. 6 Q. Did anyone else report to Mr. 7 Beal when environmental affairs was 8 pulled together? 9 A. Yes. There was a director of 10 product safety, John Gormley, and there 11 was a manager of transportation and 12 hazardous materials, Mr. Joe Levine. 13 Q. Mow, product safety, was that 14 a separate division within corporate 15 headquarters ? 16 A. Prior to environmental 17 affairs, that group, department, they 18 were physically located at the science 19 and technology center, as I was. And I 20 don't know if that was a corporate 21 function or if it was part of the 2 2 science and technologies. 1 don't 23 know. I don't remember. 2 4 Q. And with regard to traffic, 25 was that a separate department prior to Bickerstaf f direct 98 1 1981? ' 2 A. Mr. Levine prior to coming 3 into environmental affairs reported to 4 the corporate Traffic Department, yes. 5 Q. okay. Did you have any 6 practice with regard to industrial 7 hygiene and employee exposure to any 8 substance as to whether to communicate 9 with a division or directly to a plant? 1 0 A. Canyou? 1 1 Q. Let's have it read back. 1 2 (The question is read by the reporter.) 1 3 A. I don't remember any practice 1 4 that they had to respond .back to me on 15 air monitoring, air measurements, or 16 anything like that. That was their 17 choice . 18 Q. How about your communications 19 downward, so to speak? Would you speak 2 0 or communicate with the division or with 21 the plant or both? 22 A. Both. It could be both. 2 3 Q. Was there a formal rule that 24 you followed when making the decision? 25 A. No. ' Bickerstaf f direct 99 1 Q. What criteria would you employ 2 when reaching your own ad hoc decision? 3 A. If a plant called in and had a 4 particular problem, I may want to call 5 the division to see if they have similar 6 problems at other plants, but again, my 7 choice. I would rely also upon the 8 people in my department who would also 9 visit plants and were familiar with what 1 0 kind of operations were going on in 11 other plants. But there was no set rule 12 that says you call and talk to, no. 13 Q. And in relying upon other 1 4 people in your department, did you have 15 any periodic meetings where there would 1 6 be communications regarding substances? 17 A. We would have periodic staff 18 meetings, yes. 19 Q. How often were these staff 20 meetings? 2 1 A. They could be monthly, they 22 could be quarterly, as needed. 2 3 Q. There was no set schedule? 2 4 A. Ho set schedule. 25 Q. Another ad hoc sort of Bickerstaff direct 10 0 1 decision? - 2 A. Exactly. 3 Q. Were minutes kept of the staff 4 meetings ? 5 A. No. In this case it was 6 action items, you know, handwritten 7 notes. And I would just have an agenda 8 that I was going to follow, and then I 9 would pass the information and everybody 1 0 had their opportunity to speak to me 11 about what was going on. 12 Q. Were you involved in anyway 13 with regard to communications concerning 1 4 worker's compensation claims arising out 1 5 of exposure to a substance? 16 A. There was nothing that was 17 formal, but if a Westinghouse plant, 18 division, or whatever, had a particular 19 worker's compensation case involving an 2 0 illness and needed our input, they would 2 1 contact us, or possibly the person 22 responsible at headquarters for worker's 23 comp might occasionally say we have 24 something here on hearing loss or we've 25 got something here on asbestos. Bickerstaf f direct 10 1 1 whatever. Again, it was only illness, 2 not injuries. But again, it was as 3 needed. 4 Q. And there were no formal rules 5 requiring someone to communicate with 6 industrial hygiene? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. And unless someone took the 9 initiative to communicate with 10 industrial hygiene, you would not know 11 what communications there would have 1 2 been? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. And do you have any knowledge 15 regarding communications on the subject 16 matter of worker's compensation claims 17 from various plants to their divisions? 18 A. No. Unless, again, I was 1 9 called in and/or copied on it, no. 20 Q. Do you have any knowledge with 2 1 regard to communications on the subject 22 of worker's compensation claims arising 23 out of exposure to substances from the 24 divisions to headquarters? 25 A. Again, if they felt the need Bic ker s t a f f direct 10 2 1 to involve us, yes. 2 Q. And aside from that? 3 A. No, no set policy for it. 4 Q. Where would a worker's 5 compensation claim ordinarily go? 6 A. It could be paid locally at a 7 plant, it could be paid at a division, 8 and it could sometimes even be paid at 9 headquarters. It really depended on the 1 0 plant, the division, and sometimes the 11 state. Because in some states you could 12 be self-insured, other states you 1 3 couldn't, whatever. And again, I was 1 4 only called in as needed. 15 Q. Did the criteria involving 1 6 where a communication would be directed 1 7 have any connection with regard to the 18 substance involved in the employee 19 exposure? 20 A. I don't remember any. 2 1 Q. So whether it was an alleged 22 exposure to PCBs would not necessarily 2 3 trigger a particular line of 24 communication? 25 A. Not that I'm aware of. Bickersta f f direct 10 3 i 0. Were there any discussions/ to 2 your knowledge, about putting the 3 various plants that had PCBs on the 4 premises in communication to coordinate 5 their responsive efforts to work on 6 worker's compensation claims? 7 A . NO. 8 Q. Do you recall any discussions 9 as to whether that would have been a 1 0 good idea or a bad idea? 11 A. No, I don't remember any 12 discussion like that. 1 3 Q. Were you involved in anyway 14 with regard to communications by any 15 union or employee representative 1 6 organization concerning employee 17 exposure to a substance? 18 A. I don't remember any offhand, 19 unless it was an employee complaint, 20 OSHA came in and the union was involved, 2 1 and again, then the plant would involve 22 us. But there was no communication . 2 3 between me and a union or anything like 24 that or my department and a union, no. 25 Q. Were there any procedures Bieke r s ta ff direct 10 4 1 involved where there were communications 2 by unions that dictated that industrial 3 hygiene should become involved? , 4 A. There was no policy, no, not 5 that I remember. 6 Q. Do you recall any 7 circumstances where you were involved 8 because of a union or even for a 9 complaint with regard to an employee 1 0 exposure to a substance? 11 A. Yes, we were involved. 12 Q. I am not interested in the 13 substance, I am interested in the lines 14 of communications. With that caviat, 15 please tell me your recollections. 1 6 A. Again, in most cases it was an 17 employee complaint, OSHA came in. Then 18 the plant in turn, because of the OSHA 19 visit, contacted headquarters, 2 0 industrial hygiene, for assistance. And 2 1 then we went out to or gave them 22 information or whatever. But it was 2 3 after the visit and the plant would call 2 4 us. But there was nothing that says in 25 writing, you shall call industrial Bickerstaff direct 10 5 1 hygiene if this happens. 2 Q. It was your perception that 3 when OSHA became involved, there would 4 be a request from industrial hygiene? 5 A. If it was an industrial 6 hygiene issue. If it was a corporate 7 safety issue, then it would have been 8 the manager of health and safety. 9 Q. What would delineate whether 10 it was an industrial hygiene or a 11 corporate safety issue? 12 A. Industrial hygiene issues tend 13 to be things that would result in an 14 employee illness as opposed to an 15 accident. Safety could be fire 15 estinguishers, tripping hazards, things 17 like that. 18 Q. Would the urinary excretion 19 rates of employees demonstrating mercury 20 levels be an industrial hygiene subject 2 1 matter? 22 * A. Industrial hygiene and 23 probably medical, yes. 24 Q. Was there a separate medical 25 department? Bickerstaff direct 10 6 1 A. There was a medical 2 administrator during the time we're 3 talking, yes, corporate. 4 Q. Corporate medical 5 administrator. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What lines of communications 8 were there between the Industrial 9 Hygiene Department and the medical 1 0 administrator with regard to employee 1 1 exposure to substances? 12 A. Nothing formal. As we 13 developed our documents for our safe 14 practice data sheets, as we would revise 15 it or whatever, we would maybe issue it 16 to the medical administrator for their 17 perusal to make sure that we're not 18 putting something that was not current 19 or whatever, but nothing formal. 20 Q. Who was the medical 2 1 administrator? 22 A. Mr. Harry Burr at the time. 23 Q. You mentioned him as being 2 4 "Mr." Harry Burr. 2 5 A. Yes, he was not a physician. Blckerstaff direct 10 7 1 Q. Okay. To whom did he report? 2 A. He reported also through the 3 corporate human resources. 4 Q. Were there any lines of 5 communications from Mr. Burr's office to 6 divisions? 7 A. To divisions and probably 8 plants. He would issue information to S the medical divisions at the different 1 0 Westinghouse organizations, yes. 1 1 Q. And these would be medical 1 2 departments at the plant level? 13 A. Correct, plant and division. 1 4 It could be division too. 1 5 Q. What was the initial point of 16 contact on behalf of Westinghouse with 17 regard to the unions if there were 18 complaints concerning employee exposure 19 to substances? 20 A. I think the normal line of 2 1 communication would be the plant would 22 be contacted where the union was 2 3 organized, try to resolve it there 24 first. And if that didn't happen, then 2 5 they might contact OSHA, the union. Bickerstaff direct 10 8 1 Q. So -in the normal course, there 2 was no involvement with headquarters 3 until OSHA became involved? 4 A. Correct. Unless of course the 5 plant would come in and the plant would 6 call us and say we've got this problem, 7 the union is complaining, can you come 8 in and help us. That would happen too. 9 We didn't always say we're not doing 10 anything, call OSHA. We always tried to 1 1 resolve issues. 12 Q. On occasions, however, OSHA 13 would be brought in when the issue had 1 4 not been resolved? . 15 A. True, that could happen. 16 Q. Forgive me if I've repeated 17 something. 1 8 A. I'll try to repeat my answer. 19 Q. With regard to questions 20 involving the effects upon the 2 1 environment by the presence, use or 22 disposal of substances, that was 23 something beyond your scope of 2 4 responsibility? 25 A. That's correct. Bickerstaff - direct 10 9 1 Q. And you have no knowledge 2 regarding the lines of communication or 3 practices involving communications? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. As the research and 6 development conducted by Westinghouse 7 related to a substance, do you have any 8 knowledge concerning the policies or 9 procedures or practices concerning 10 communications? 1 1 A. Again, if I was copied on 12 something, but I don't know what the -- 13 I don't know who determined the 14 distribution of information, I don't 15 know. In some cases I was copied on 16 information, on maybe a substitute 17 material or something like this. But 18 only again at the discretion of the 19 author. 2 0 Q. And again, there were no 2 1 formal rules? 22 A. No formal rules, no. 23 Q. If there was a development 24 reached on a plant level to obviate the 2 5 need to use a particular substance, how Bickerstaff direct 110 1 would that information be communicated, 2 if at all, from the plant to a division? 3 A. I don't know. . 4 Q. And assuming, if you will, 5 that the information was communicated to 6 the division, how, if at all, would it 7 be communicated to headquarters? 8 A. Unless it involved us finding 9 a new substitute material for a 10 particular substance that OSHA is going 11 to either regulate or change the 12 permissible limit or something like 13 this, we might send out, say, this is 14 going to occur, has anybody found a 15 substitute for this. 16 Q. Was industrial hygiene's 17 communications regarding innovations 18 concerning the use of substances 19 reflective of the regulatory atmosphere? 20 A. Not just because of 21 regulatory. In some cases you know a 22 particular material is going to be on 23 the hit list. Whether benzene, 24 trichloroethylene, whatever. And we 25 would start processes right away to try Bickerstaf direct 111 1 to either eliminate it or substitute for 2 it or minimize the use in the 3 corporation. 4 Q. Can you think of any other 5 circumstances where industrial hygiene 6 would be involved in these research and 7 development issues other than when there 8 was a change in the regulatory 9 atmosphere or when you predicted that a 10 change would be occurring? 11 A. I can't think of any, no. 1 2 Q. Do you know whether there were 13 any common practices between the lamp 1 4 plant in Bloomfield and any other 1 5 Westinghouse plants concerning the use 1 6 of any substance? 17 A. Ho. To me that would be very 18 highly irregular for that kind of 19 correspondence. 2 0 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't understand 2 1 the answer. Can I have the question and 2 2 answer read back? 23 (The question and answer are 2 4 read by the reporter.) 25 Q. Can you expand upon what you Bickerstaff direct 1 12 1 mean? * , 2 A. Well, Westinghouse lamp plants 3 corresponding with defense or 4 broadcasting or whatever about issues of 5 health and safety or environmental, that 6 just didn't happen. There was no need 7 for it. They just didn't correspond. 8 Q. Was it ever recognized that 9 the various divisions were using some of 10 the same substances? 1 1 A. Yes, but any correspondence 1 2 would be through our department and then 13 back out or something to that effect. 1 4 Never between departments or plants 15 rather. 16 Q. And when it was through your 1 7 department, that was strictly with 18 regard to industrial hygiene issues. 19 A. Correct. 2 0 Q. And if it was with regard to 2 1 environment or environmental issues, 22 which way would the information flow? 23 A. My perception is it would have 2 4 been to Bud Kerns. 25 Q. And then the issue of Bickerstaff direct 113 1 centralization and dissemination was . 2 made at the headquarters level? 3 A. If it was made, that's where 4 it would take place. One thing you have 5 to realize. 6 Q. Yes, sir. 7 A. I had three or four 8 professionals working for me. Bud Kerns 9 was a single person for those early 10 years. So I had some assistance. so 1 1 that's why I say if any correspondence 12 back and forth, it would have occurred 1 3 there. I don't know if it happened. 1 4 Q. When did Mr. Kerns become more 15 than a single person? 1 6 MR. BRENDEL: I'm going to 17 object to the question, for obvious 1 8 reasons. 1 9 MR. COHEN: I'll rephrase the 2 0 question. 2 1 Q. When did Mr. Kerns become the 2 2 head of a unit that included people 2 3 other than himself? 2 4 A. Well, when environmental 2 5 affairs was pulled together I think at Bic kers taf f direct 114 1 that point in time is when his staff., he 2 started to permit them to add staff. 3 Q. And that was in 1981? 4 A. I think then or soon 5 thereafter. 6 Q. Do you recall how big Mr. 7 Kerns' staff grew to? 8 A. By 19 -- well, again, this is 9 out of that time frame. But I don't 10 know if we got into -- I don't know 1 1 exactly. He would be better to answer 12 that . 13 Q. Aside from issues involving 14 industrial hygiene and employee 15 exposure, do you have any knowledge 1 6 regarding the reporting requirements 1 7 imposed upon Westinghouse's divisions 18 and plants concerning the handle and 19 use, disposal and storage of any 20 substances ? 2 1 A. No. 22 Q. Is that again somethingwhich 23 was Mr. Kerns' responsibility? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And I take it the answer is Bickers taf f direct 1 15 1 the same with regard to the 2 environmental effects of any such 3 substances ? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Am I correct that you have no 6 knowledge concerning the reporting 7 requirements with regard to procedures 8 for insurance claims generally and 9 arising out of the presence of any 10 substance? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. No knowledge whatsoever? 1 3 A. No knowledge. 14 MR. COHEN: Let us go off the 15 record for a minute. 16 (There is a discussion off the record.) 17 (There is a one-hour recess.) 18 BY MR. COHEN: 19 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. 20 Bickerstaff . 2 1 A. Good afternoon. 2 2 Q. Do you realize you're still 23 another oath, sir? 24 A. Yes . 25 Q. I am correct that you are Bickerstaf f direct 116 1 still a West i-nghouse employee? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And are yourepresented by 4 counsel here today? 5 A. Yes, I am. 6 Q. Your attorney is Mr. Neal 7 Brendel? 8 A. Yes . 9 Q. When did you first learn of 10 your appearance at this deposition? 11 A. A couple of weeks ago. I'm 12 not sure exactly what day, but a couple 1 3 of weeks ago . 14 Q. Have you reviewed any 15 documents in preparation for the 1 6 deposition? 17 A. My attorney and I reviewed 1 8 documents yesterday, yes. 19 Q. And can you describe the 2 0 documents in any manner? 2 1 A. I believe those were the 22 documents that was indicated to us that 23 were going to be present today. 2 4 Q. Aside from your conversations 25 with counsel, have you discussed your Bickerstaf f direct 117 1 appearance here today with anyone at 2 all? 3 A. My boss, yes, Dr. Fisch. 4 Q. What was the substance of that 5 conversation? 6 A. To tell him that we were 7 preparing for it and I would be coming 8 up here. 9 MR. COHEN: Could we mark as 10 Bickerstaff Exhibit 1 a one-page 11 document bearing Bates stamp number 1 2 006 02073? 1 3 ("Headquarters Contacts" 1 4 Document is marked as Exhibit 15 Bickerstaff 1 for Identification.) 1 6 Q. Have you ever seen this 17 document before, sir? 18 A. I saw it yesterday. 19 Q. Aside from that? 20 A. I may have. I may have seen 2 1 it. 22 Q, Do you have any understanding 23 of when it was created? 24 A. It was after 1981, because it 25 says "environmental affairs" here, but Bickersta direct 118 1 B. A. Kerns had several people reporting 2 to him at that time. 3 " Q. do you recall any formalized 4 procedure with regard to headquarters 5 contacts for environmental incident 6 reporting prior to the creation of this 7 document? 8 A. Not o f fhand. 9 Q. Do you recall any rules or 1 0 guidelines concerning what constituted 1 1 an environmental incident that 12 necessitated a report? 1 3 A. I don't remember. If there 1 4 was one, I don't know. I can't recall. 15 Q. In the course of your duties, 1 6 were you ever called upon to report an 1 7 environmental incident in accordance 18 with these or any other procedures? 19 A. No, not that I remember. 20 Q. Did you ever have any 2 1 communications with the Westinghouse Law 22 Department with regard to the presence, 2 3 use, handling or disposal of any 24 substances? 2 5 A Yes . Bickerstaff direct 119 1 Q. And could you explain to me 2 how that would have happened? 3 A. I could have gotten a call 4 from Mr. R. E. Wills on any number of 5 issues. Again, if he would call us, it 6 was always to talk about maybe toxicity 7 of something, chemical material, as far 8 as exposure to people or employees. 9 That's the way it probably would come in 1 0 from Mr. Wills. 1 1 Q. Do you recall any instances 12 where you began the communication 1 3 process? 1 4 A. Not offhand. I may have, but 1 5 I don't remember. 1 6 Q. Were there any procedures that 1 7 you followed or that you were aware of 1 8 when you should have began the 19 communication process with the Law 2 0 Department ? 2 1 A. After the Environmental 22 Affairs Department was formed, I would 23 inform my own boss at that time, which 24 was Mr. Beal. And then he in turn would 25 inform the Law Department. Bickerstaff direct 12 0 1 Q. In .the time period before the 2 Environmental Affairs Department, were 3 there any procedures you were to follow 4 with regard to initiating communications 5 with the Law Department regarding 6 substances ? 7 A. I don't remember any such 8 procedures per se. There may have been 9 some. I don't remember an incident 1 0 where I had to do that, that's why. 11 Q. The next document, which we 1 2 will mark as Bickerstaff Exhibit 2, is a 1 3 procedure for asbestos removal with the 1 4 Westinghouse logo. Safety and Health 1 5 Department, PGOD, Westinghouse Electric 16 Corporation, Lester, Pennsylvania, Bates 17 stamp number 006 03647 through 03651. 18 ("Procedure for Asbestos 19 Removal" Document is marked as Exhibit 2 0 Bickerstaff 2 for Identification.) 2 1 Q. Have you had an opportunity to 22 review the document, sir? 2 3 A. Yes. 2 4 Q. Can you describe for me what 25 Exhibit 2 is? Bickerstaff direct 12 1 1 A. It `appears to be a procedure 2 for asbestos removal for the 3 Westinghouse plant in Lester, 4 Pennsylvania. 5 Q. Now, was the Safety and Health 6 Department part of the Corporate 7 Headquarters Division? 8 A. I guess I'm not following 9 you. 1 0 Q. The document on its very first 11 page indicates "Safety and Health 12 Department." . 13 A. Right. 14 Q. Was that particular department 15 part of corporate headquarters? 16 A. Ho. This would have been the 1 7 Safety and Health Department for the 18 Lester plant. 19 Q. Do you know what division that 2 0 plant belonged to? 2 1 A. The PGOD, Power Generation 2 2 Operations Division I believe. . 23 Q. Would communications regarding 24 the procedures developed by this 2 5 particular plant be transmitted to the Bickerstaf direct 12 2 1 division headquarters or PGOD? 2 A. It could have been. 3 Q. Do you know? ' 4 A. I don't remember offhand 5 seeing this prior to yesterday. 6 Q. Do you know where the PGOD 7 divisional headquarters were located? 8 A. I think at the time that was 9 East Pittsburgh. I think that was East 1 0 Pittsburgh. They since moved down to 1 1 Florida. I'm sorry, the East Pittsburgh 12 facility, plant. 13 Q. The East Pittsburgh plant is 14 separate and distinct from corporate 15 headquarters? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Was there any procedures for 18 between communicating the PGOD asbestos 19 removal plant to corporate headquarters? 2 0 A. During that time period, no. 2 1 Q. And what time period do you 22 mean? 23 A. The time period from 1975 24 through 1981. 25 Q. Are you aware of any changes Bickers ta f f direct 12 3 1 at any time with regard to your answer? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Can you tell me the change you 4 are aware of please? 5 A. I believe it was in 1987/ 6 there was a directive sent out saying 7 the corporate industrial hygiene had the 8 responsibilities for asbestos abatement 9 in the corporation. 1 0 Q. And that is the same directive 11 which instructed the plants not to 12 communicate directly with the EPA but to 1 3 send all responses through corporate 14 industrial hygiene to be sent on to the 15 EPA? 16 A. Without seeing the document/ I 17 couldn't say. 18 HR. COHEN: Let us mark as 19 Exhibit 3 a document dated August 20 of 20 1987. That is the forwarding memo. 2 1 There's a two-page attachment, its Bates 2 2 stamp numbers are 144 0086931 through 23 0086933. 2 4 (Memo dated 8/20/87 is 25 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 3 for Bickersta f f direct 1 Identification.) 12 4 2 G Have you had an opportunity to 3 review the document ? 4 A . Yes . 5 Q. Is this a memo which you wrote 6 to a J .. Gianquinto ? 7 A . Yes . 8 Q That is your signature on the 9 bottom of the first page? 10 A. Correct. 11 MR. BRENDEL: I'm going to 1 2 object., This is clearly outside the 1 3 specified chronological scope of this 1 4 deposition. . 1 5 MR. COHEN: I am simply 1 6 following up on his previous answers. 17 I'm mostly going to be using this 18 document to ask him questions within 19 that scope. It is impossible to avoid 20 the overlap. 2 1 Before I continue with a 22 speech, may I ask you, Mr. Brendel, are 2 3 you directing him not to answer? in 24 fact, I believe he has already answered, 25 so I'm not sure what your objection is. Bickerstaff direct 125 1 other than noting the objection/ which I 2 understand. 3 MR. BRENDEL: If you have any 4 trouble understanding ray objections, let 5 know and I'll be pleased to explain them 6 to you. 7 MR. COHEN: I don't understand 8 the purpose of an objection after an 9 answer has been given. 10 MR. BRENDEL: You've shown him 11 a document. Perhaps you have no further 12 questions in mind, in which event I'll 13 withdraw the objection. 14 MR. COHEN: I do. Why don't 15 we take them one at a time, shall we? 16 MR. BRENDEL: That's fine. 17 Q. In your memo, you make 18 reference to past involvement with 19 several people from the broadcast and 20 technical services TV group concerning 21 asbestos abatement. Was that 22 involvement pursuant to any formal 23 practice or guideline at Westinghouse? 24 a. No. It was in some cases 25 during renovation. The asbestos was in Bickerstaf f direct 12 6 1 the way. They chose to remove it. 2 There was no memo saying that you will 3 take out asbestos or anything like that, 4 no. I think in most cases it was 5 because of renovation. 6 Q. And at those instances in the 7 past when corporate industrial hygiene 8 became involved with this division, was 9 it at the behest of the division? 1 0 A. Yes, yes. 11 Q. On the second page of the 12 document, which is the beginning of a 13 two-page memorandum concerning the 14 asbestos abatement project review, in 15 the second paragraph there is a 16 delineation between headquarters 17 environmental affairs having 18 responsibility for defining Westinghouse 19 policy with respect to compliance with 2 0 laws and regulations for protection of 2 1 the environment and the responsibility 22 of corporate industrial hygiene because 2 3 of the potential effect in the work 24 place on employees due to the presence 25 of asbestos. Do you see to where I am BIckerstaff - direct 127 1 referring? - 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. To your knowledge, was that a 4 change of any prior delineation of 5 responsibility that had been in effect 6 in the past? 7 A. No, not really. 8 Q. Prior to 1981, whohad the 9 responsibility for the area outlined by 1 0 headquarters environmental affairs? 11 A. For what area areyou talking 1 2 about? 1 3 Q. Referring to the paragraph, 1 4 "responsibilities for defining 15 Westinghouse policy with respect to 1 6 compliance with laws and regulations 1 7 provided for the protection of the 18 environment." 19 A. I would assume that was the 20 headquarters, works engineering or 2 1 construction technology, whatever it was 2 2 called at the time. 23 Q. The reference to management 2 4 directive and the E55, do you see that. 25 sir? Bickerstaf f direct 12 8 1 A. Yes, . 2 Q. What was that directive? 3 A. I don't know. I think it's 4 for environmental control. I don't 5 know . 6 Q. The third full paragraph on 7 the page outlines what industrial 8 hygiene is responsible for in assisting 9 facilities. Did that reflect any change 1 0 in industrial hygiene's responsibilities 1 1 from prior practices? 12 A. I think the change would have 1 3 been to centralize some of this 1 4 activity, and especially on selected 1 5 landfills, to make sure it was going to 1 6 the appropriate landfill. 17 Q. And prior to this 1 take it 1 8 there were no formal written guidelines 19 to be implemented? 20 A. That's correct, for asbestos, 2 1 yes . 2 2 Q. On the second page of the 2 3 two-page memo or the very last page of 24 the exhibit, the recipients are directed 2 5 to call you, sir, regarding plans Bickerstaff direct 12 9 1 related to asbestos abatement. Was this 2 a change from prior practice leaving the 3 decision making at the plant level? 4 A. I think at this point what it 5 did/ it centralized/ saying my 6 department did have that 7 responsibility. Up to that point, if 8 they didn't choose to call us -- but 9 they were finally directed to do that. 1 0 MR. COHEN: We'll mark 1 1 Bickerstaff Exhibit 4, a two-page 1 2 document without Bates stamp numbers, 1 3 previously marked in another deposition 1 4 as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1905. 15 (Memo dated 4/16/74 is 1 6 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 4 for 1 7 Identification. ) 1 8 A . Is this page the same ? 1 9 Q It i s not exactly the same 20 A . Okay, it started off the 2 1 same . 22 Q. Off the record. 2 3 (There is a discussion off the record.) 2 4 Q. Have you had an opportunity to 2 5 review the document, sir? B ickersta direct 13 0 1 A. Ye s, I have. . 2 Q. Have you ever seen itbefore? 3 A. Yesterd ay. 4 Q. Aside from yesterday. 5 A . No . 6 Q. Looking at the first page of 7 the exhibit, it indicates that the 8 document went from the Sharon plant to 9 the Bloomington plant. 10 A. Okay. 11 Q. Now, were the Sharon plant and 12 the Bloomington plant both part of the 13 same division? 14 A. Yes. 15 q. What division was that, sir? 16 A. That was the transformer. It 1 7 was the transformer business. I don't 18 know if it was a division, but the two 19 plants were sister plants. 20 Q. So X canunderstand, sir, what 21 was the general business of the two 22 plants that made them sister plants, if 23 not a complete division? 24 A. The plant at Sharon 25 manufactured transformers. The plant at Bickerstaf f direct 13 1 1 Bloomington manufactured capacitors.. 2 Q. I take it that both of these 3 plants in the course of their duties or 4 responsibilities were involved with 5 PCBs ? A. Yes . 7 Q. Now, there is a cc to mails, 8 if I'm reading It correctly, and 9 manufacture technology, fluid insulation 10 section, at the very bottom of the 11 page. Do you see that? 12 A. Right here? 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. I think that's the person who 15 signed the letter. I don't know, it's a 16 c arbon copy. 17 Q. so the mails and manufacture 18 technology was -- 19 A. I think it's "materials." 20 Q. Pardon me. Materials and 21 manufacture technology, that would be a 22 department within the Sharon plant? 23 A. Yes, that's what I would 24 guess . 25 Q. Having looked at this Bickerstaf direct 132 1- document/ do -you have any refreshed 2 recollection or any recollection 3 whatsoever concerning procedures/ 4 policies or practices regarding 5 p1 ant-to-plant communications with 6 regard to the presence, the use or 7 handling of substances? 8 A. No. I believe the Bloomington 9 plant/ the process for the capacitors, I 10 think they may have started at Sharon 11 and they moved it to Bloomington a s they 1 2 developed that whole operation. and I 13 think that's the tie-in between the two 14 plants. 15 Q Now, am I correct that from 16 the face of this document, there i s 17 absolutely no indication that it ever 18 went to corporate headquarters? 19 A . Yes . 20 Q. Do you have any reason to 2 1 believe. looking at the front page of 22 this two -page exhibit, that the document 23 went to corporate headquarters ? 24 A . No, I don't. 25 Q . What was the division Bickerstaff direct 13 3 1 headquarters -for these two plants, if 2 you know? 3 A. I'm not sure. I think 4 Sharon. 5 Q. Could it have been anything 6 but Sharon or Bloomington, to your 7 knowledge? 8 A. No, I think it was either one 9 of those two. 1 0 Q. On the second page of the 1 1 document, there is a handwritten 12 notation to T. K. Shoat I believe, and I 1 3 make no representations as to my ability 1 4 to read the handwriting, and Bob Kunz, I 15 believe, who appears to be the author of 1 6 the original memo. 1 7 MR. BRENDEL: Kurtz or Kunz? 1 8 MR. COHEN: You would probably 1 9 know better than I. 2 0 A. K-U-R-Z, Kurz. 2 1 Q. First of all, do you recognize 22 the handwriting or the signature? 2 3 A. No . 24 Q. The written note to Mr. Kurz 2 5 and another person is, "I think you B i c ke r s t a direct 13 4 1 should convey, this info verbally and not 2 by letter." Was there any practice that 3 you were aware of at corporate , 4 headquarters regarding the communication 5 of information verbally? 6 A . No . 7 Q Were you aware of any flow of 8 information from the plants to 9 divisional headquarters or to corporate 10 headquarters regarding what would be 11 conveyed verbally or in writing? 1 2 A . No . 1 3 Q. Having looked at this document 1 4 with the handwriting notations on it, is 15 there any indication of it ever being 1 6 received by corporate headquarters? 17 A . I don't see anything on here. 1 8 no . 19 MR. COHEN: Let us mark as Mr. 2 0 Bickerstaff Exhibit 5 a document bearing 2 1 Bates stamp numbers 844 6053353 through 22 6 053355 . 23 (Memo dated 7/10/51 is 2 4 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 5 for 2 5 Identification.) Bickerstaff direct 13 5 1 Q. Are you ready, sir? 2 A. It's difficult to read. 3 Q. I understand. I sympathize 4 with you, I suffer the problem myself. 5 This document appears to be either a 6 memo or a letter from the East 7 Pittsburgh Industrial Hygiene Laboratory 8 to Kansas City Works. Were East 9 Pittsburgh and Kansas City Works part of 10 the same division? 1 1 A. I don't know. 1 2 MR. BRENDEL: At what point in 1 3 time are you referring? 1 4 A. This is 1951. 1 5 MR. COHEN: I will take his 16 knowledge at any point in time. 1 7 A . I don't know. 18 Q. Do you know which division 19 either of these two plants may have ever 20 belonged to? 2 1 A. East Pittsburgh was the power 22 generation with, I think we talked 2 3 earlier, Lester. Kansas City, I have no 24 knowledge of that plant. It's no longer 25 in the Westinghouse portfolio. I have Bickerstaff - direct 13 6 1 no idea when 'it was sold. 2 Q. In the letter, there is a 3 reference to a June medical report. 4 A. I saw that. 5 Q. Do you know what medical 6 report the reference is to? 7 A . No . 8 Q. Are you aware of any practice 9 at any plant concerning the preparation 1 0 of a monthly medical report? 1 1 A . No . 1 2 Q. Prior to youremployment at 1 3 corporate headquarters in 1976, did you 1 4 ever have an opportunity to come into 15 contact with a medical report prepared 1 6 on a monthly or any other periodic 1 7 basis? 18 A. No. The only thing that we 1 9 ever did at the divisions was send in 2 0 annual injury/i11ness records. 2 1 Q. And those were within which 2 2 divisions that you did that? 2 3 A. When I worked at Westinghouse 2 4 Cheswick, that was part of nuclear, and 25 when I worked at the nuclear Bickerstaff direct 13 7 1 headquarters,- again, that was part of 2 nuclear. That's the times that I had 3 responsibilities for completing or at 4 least assisting in the completion of 5 that data. 6 Q. Now, the writer on this memo 7 notes that from the June medical report 8 he has noticed a number of dermatitis 9 cases resulting from various substances 10 including trichloroethylene. Is that 11 the substance that you had mentioned 1 2 earlier with regard to being aware of 13 the possibility of impending regulations 1 4 or am I confusing it with a different 15 subject? 1 6 A. It could have been. There's 17 been a lot of materials and chemicals, 1 8 asbestos and whatever, that OSHA has 19 proposed to impose permissible limits. 2 0 This could have been one. 2 1 Q. In the second paragraph the 2 2 author seems to be answering an inquiry 23 concerning the composition of a red 2 4 dye. Do you know of any procedures 25 pursuant to which one plant would be Bickerstaff direct 13 8 1 communicating with another plant 2 concerning employee exposure to 3 chemicals resulting in medical 4 complications or how to use a particular 5 product such as red dye? 6 MR. BRENDEL: What time 7 period? 8 MR. COHEN: To the best of 9 this witness's knowledge. 1 0 MR. BRENDEL: I would still 1 1 like to know what time period. I 1 2 understand anytime he answers a question 1 3 it's to the best of his knowledge. 1 4 MR. COHEN: My question is 15 with regard to any time period 1 6 whatsoever. If he tells me he has no 17 knowledge, I have nothing to follow up 18 on. If he tells me he only knows of 1 9 something within a time period between 2 0 '75 and '82, I suspect, I make no 2 1 guarantees, we will have no problems. 22 .If he tells me he has knowledge in a 23 time period outside that framework, we 24 can deal with any problems that may or 2 5 may not be. It was just a general Bickerstaff direct 13 9 1 question to get to the subject matter. 2 A. I think as far as health and 3 safety or exposures, I think that was 4 his main intent was employee exposures. 5 Plants tended to always contact 6 headquarters. If headquarters knew 7 another operation in other plant, maybe 8 they could get the information and send 9 it, whatever. But I don't know if 1 0 plants would go out, you know, would -- 11 Q Directly plant to plant? 12 A . Yeah. In most cases employees 1 3 didn't know what the other plant was 14 making. 15 Q Now, I am correct or am I 1 6 incorrect that East Pittsburgh is not 17 corporate headquarters? 18 A . East Pittsburgh was not 1 9 corporate headquarters, correct. 2 0 Q. And the industrial hygiene 2 1 laboratory at the East Pittsburgh plant 22 was not part of the Corporate 23 Headquarters Division. 24 A'. That's wrong. 2 5 Q That's wrong? Bickerstaff direct 1 A. That's wrong. They were 14 0 2 physically located there. They were 3 tenants/ because they had needs for- the 4 laboratory. That's the same department 5 that I have today. 6 Q. So this is a document from 7 corporate headquarters? 8 A. Yes. Wilbur Speicher was one 9 of my predecessors. 10 Q The author? 11 A . Yes , sir. 12 Q And so when he writes in the 13 third paragraph that he has not heard 14 from South Philadelphia concerning a 1 5 substitute for toluene, he is reflecting 1 6 his inquiry to a plant? 17 A. Yes. Again, that's what I'm 1 8 assuming. 1 9 MR. BRENDEL: I will object to 2 0 the extent that we're assuming what the 2 1 author may have meant. Obviously the 22 author is not here and we don't know and 23 this witness doesn't know. 24 MR. COHEN: I'm only asking 2 5 for the witness to give his Bickerstaff direct 14 1 1 understanding- based on his experience 2 with Westinghouse. 3 MR. BRENDEL: Well, I mean the 4 question at issue was a specific 5 question about what may or may not have 6 been intended by the author. 7 MR. COHEN: I think your 8 objection is noted. 9 Q. On the second page, the author 1 0 notes a number of suggestions concerning 11 the handling of various substances. 12 This is the communication from 1 3 headquarters industrial hygiene to a 14 plant on how to handle a substance? 15 A. Yes. 16 MR. COHEN: This is 17 Bickerstaff Exhibit 6, bears Bates 1 8 numbers 844 6067234 through 6067235. 1 9 (Memo dated 7/16/56 is 2 0 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 6 for 2 1 Identification.) 22 Q. Sir, does this document, which 2 3 is from East Pittsburgh Works to 24 Vicksburg Safety Department reflect a 25 communication that is division to Bickerstaff direct 14 2 1 division, plant to plant or headquarters 2 to a division or plant? 3 A. To me it looks like it's 4 headquarters to a plant. 5 Q. So that in this time frame, 6 the Works Department was located in East 7 Pittsburgh and not corporate 8 headquarters? 9 A. Correct. 1 0 Q. And the Industrial Hygiene 11 Department was within or part of the / 12 Works Department? 13 A. Well, they just happened to be 1 4 physically located in East Pittsburgh. 15 Q. Now, in this document, which 1 6 I'm going to paraphrase rather than read 1 7 it, there is information provided to the 1 8 Vicksburg Works plant regarding the 19 problem with disposal of Inerteen that 2 0 reflects efforts to burn it, use with 2 1 absorbing materials, burying it in 22 porous soils, spraying on dusty roads to 23 lay dust or the use for exterminating 24 termites. Were there any, to your 25 knowledge, procedures for the Bickerstaff direct 14 3 1 communication of policy with regard to 2 the disposal of Inerteen from corporate 3 headquarters to plants? 4 MR. BRENDEL: I'm going to ask 5 that the witness limit himself to the 6 time period specified in the notice of 7 deposition. You can respond. I also 8 object at this point -- well. I'll stand 9 by the objection that I've made without 10 amplifying further. 11 (There is a discussion off the record.) 12 MR. COHEN: I take it you're 13 not directing the witness to testify as 14 to any other knowledge he may have? 15 MR. BRENDEL: With regard to 16 out of scope areas, yes. 17 MR. COHEN: I think that since 18 we designated this document, that you 19 reviewed the document with the witness 20 yesterday, there is no surprise. If he 21 has information, pertinent information, 22 it should be provided. However, I will 23 not belabor the record further, and let 24 us take the answer and we will mark our 25 disagreement. Bickerstaff direct 14 4 1 MR.* BRENDEL: I will respond 2 to your comments. The fact that you 3 designated a document or series of 4 documents that may exceed the scope of 5 what you designated as your subject 6 matter or the scope of what you're 7 entitled to explore in this deposition 8 doesn't constitute who noticed the 9 deposition or doesn't constitute notice 10 to us that you intend to expand the 11 scope of the deposition. As I've 12 indicated/ we don't know what your 13 question is going to be until you ask 14 it. And I give you the presumption that 15 you may have some permissible use for 16 this document that escaped my review 17 when you designated the document. The 18 witness may respond to the question 19 within your specified period. 20 MR. COHEN: I don't agree with 21 anything you just said. Let us 2 2 continue. 23 A. Can you read the question 2 4 back? 25 (The question is read by the reporter.) Bickerstaff direct 14 5 1 A. During the time period again 2 1975 through '81, it was not the 3 responsibility of disposal of materials 4 for the Industrial Hygiene.Department. 5 If anything, that came out of the 6 corporate environmental control. 7 Q. Are you aware of any time 8 frame when it was the responsibility of 9 the Industrial Hygiene Department? 1 0 A. I don't think there was a 11 directive saying that's your 12 responsibility. I think in the absence 13 of somebody there, they may have on this 14 particular material here passed that 15 information on, which they may have 16 gleaned again, I don't know, may have 17 gleaned from the manufacturer of the 18 Inerteen. Because we didn't 19 manufacture, we bought Inerteen. 20 Q. Now, perhaps I've been less 2 1 than clear. We have been referring just 2 2 recently with regard to East Pittsburgh 23 as the Industrial Hygiene Department 24 located there as being part of 2 5 headquarters. Is that the Corporate Bickerstaf f direct 146 1 Headquarters .Division? 2 A. That's a Corporate 3 Headquarters Division of Westinghouse 4 Corporation/ yes. 5 Q. Which was later moved to where 6 the rest of headquarters was located in 7 Pittsburgh? 8 A. Well, it moved from East 9 Pittsburgh in 1975 to the science and 1 0 technology center. Again, they were a 11 tenant there. They were not part of the 12 science and technology, they were still 13 corporate. They needed a lab. Then in 14 1988, our department was physically 15 located in the headquarters building. 1 6 The laboratory is still at the science 1 7 and technology center. 18 Q. Thank you. 19 HR. COHEN: Let us mark as Hr. 2 0 Bickerstaff Exhibit 7 a two-page 2 1 document bearing Bates stamp number 844 22 6059885 through 6059886. 2 3 (Letter dated 4/7/59 is marked 24 as Exhibit Bickerstaff 7 for 25 Identification. ) Bickerstaff direct 14 7 1 Q . Sir-/ is this a document from a 2 department within corporate headquarters 3 to corporate headquarters? 4 A. Yes . 5 Q. So it is the Industrial 6 Hygiene Department of corporate 7 headquarters communicating to the 8 employee relations office within 9 corporate headquarters? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. The document responds to a 12 request for comments regarding 13 activities in various plants for the 14 past five years and gives a summary of 15 information. Are you aware of any 16 procedures regarding historical 17 summaries of information at various 18 plants concerning the use of substances? 19 MR. BRENDEL: You may respond 20 for the requested period. 21 MR. COHEN: And we both 22 reserve what we just said moments ago 23 without lengthy recitations? 24 MR. BRENDEL: I will, if you 25 Will Bickerstaff direct 14 8 1 MR.- COHEN: Deal. 2 A. I can't remember putting a 3 summary together of plants that had 4 problems or whatever during that '75 to 5 '81. 6 Q. During the time frame to which 7 you are being permitted to answer, were 8 you aware of any prior practices that 9 had been discontinued with regard to X 0 summarizing activity at various plants 11 with regard to the use, presence or 12 disposal of substances? 1 3 A . NO . 14 Q. To your knowledge, it was 1 5 always done on an ad hoc basis? 16 A. Or if there was a monthly 1 7 report or whatever, you know. I don't 1 8 know that it was always on an ad hoc 19 basis. It might have been a monthly 20 report. But again, this guy here, Mr. 2 1 Crook, I believe was Mr. Speicher's 2 2 supervisor. 2 3 Q. Mr. Speicher was a predecessor 2 4 of yours? 25 A. Yes, because when I came into Bickerstaff direct 14 9 1 the job, I reported to an individual who 2 reported to Mr. Crook. 3 Q. And when you came into the 4 job, you did not prepare monthly 5 reports ? 6 A. I would write monthly reports 7 on activities, what we did for that 8 month. Training course, whatever, so 9 many visits to such and such a plant. 1 0 Very brief, one page, one and a half 11 pages, just to show them what we did for 12 the month. 13 Q. Now, the monthly reports that 14 you prepared, were they based on any 1.5 reports that you received from other 16 sources? 17 A. There might have been 18 information gleaned from the people that 19 worked for me. 20 Q. Did they report to you on a 2 1 periodic basis to enable you to prepare 22 monthly reports? 23 A. Yes, they gave me monthly 24 activity reports on what they did. 25 Q. And who gave you monthly Bickerstaff direct 150 1 activities re.ports ? 2 A. I had about three 3 professionals working for me, industrial 4 hygiene engineers. 5 Q. And what was the subject 6 matter of the reports that you received? 7 A. Things that they did. Plant 6 visits. 9 Q. So my question is clear, I am 1 0 concerned with regard to communications 1 X concerning the use, handling or disposal 12 of substances and the communication 1 3 practices. 14 A. Okay. No, our information was 15 almost exclusively for industrial 1 6 hygiene concerns. 17 Q. Which at times was involved in 1 8 these subject areas? 19 A. Limited. Again, use of, not 2 0 disposal of. 2 1 Q. Would not the question of 22 disposal at times involve exposure to 23 employees ? 2 4 A. tt could. 2 5 Q. And in those circumstances it Bickersta f f direct 15 1 1 would be within the scope of a report? 2 A. Yes, that's where we would 3 c one in. 4 Q. And otherwise it would be, if 5 it was just a question of environmental 6 contamination, it would be outside of 7 your department? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. To your knowledge, did the 10 other departments within corporate 1 1 headquarters have a similar procedure 12 with regard to the preparation of 13 monthly reports? 14 A. I don't know. . 1 5 Q. Do you have anyknowledge 16 concerning the practices at industrial 1 7 technology with regard to the 18 preparation of monthly or periodic 19 reports? . 20 A. The construction technology 2 1 group, I don't know. I don't know if 22 they had monthly reports. 2 3 Q. Or any other type of periodic 2 4 reports? 25 A . I don't know. Bickersta f direct 15 2 1 Q. And I take it your answer is 2 the same with regard to any other 3 division other than industrial hygiene? 4 A. Right. Remember, I was 5 physically at the science and technology 6 center, we were the only people there 7 from headquarters. 8 Q. So you were somewhat isolated 9 from headquarters? 10 A. We were eight to ten miles 11 away. So I don't know what kind 12 of. . . 13 Q. To your knowledge, was it a 14 corporate practice of Westinghouse to 1 5 prepare monthly reports that were 1 6 followed on the headquarters divisional 1 7 and plant levels? 18 A. In the jobs that I had 19 previous at different Westinghouse 20 locations, there were monthly activities 2 1 reports, yes. 2 2 Q. Now, the reports that you have 23 seen or read or been involved in, would 2 4 they have been titled anything? 2 5 A. Monthly activities report. Bickerstaff direct 15 3 1 Q. And that would be at the top 2 as a title? 3 A. Right. And again now, 4 information from ours would be health 5 and safety. The previous locations, it 6 would have been what my responsibility 7 was at that plant. 8 Q. Understood. But for example, 9 with the Industrial Hygiene Department, 10 there would be a monthly activity report 11 labeled as such for industrial hygiene, 12 A . Exactly. 1 3 MR. COHEN: Neal, I have made 14 an effort since Tuesday to search for 15 monthly reports, and I have for the most 1 6 part with the exception of perhaps six 17 pieces of paper struck out. Do you know 18 if they have been produced? 19 MR. BRENDEL: You have found 2 0 some? 2 1 MR. COHEN: Six I believe, 22 perhaps four/ but nothing that would 2 3 indicate -- 24 M R. BRENDEL: I don't have 25 anything more to contribute than what's Bickerstaff direct 15 4 1 already been 'said on what was produced. 2 I can't respond to an inquiry from you. 3 I don't have anymore information, it's 4 not something that I looked into. 5 MR. COHEN: I would ask you if 6 you could look into whether that was 7 within the scope of the production made 8 by Westinghouse, the various types of 9 monthly reports. Based on today and 1 0 Tuesday, I'm aware of monthly operating 11 reports prepared at the plant level that 12 went to divisional headquarters, and I'm 1 3 aware of monthly activity reports at the 14 Industrial Hygiene Department. 1 5 A. I note myself, I would keep 16 mine maybe a couple of years and I would 17 discard them, even my own copy. 1 8 Q. Did you forward your reports 1 9 to anyone? 2 0 A. Just to my supervisor. 2 1 Q. And what was the purpose of 22 these compilations? 2 3 A. To keep him informed of what 2 4 we had done, and then in most cases I 2 5 would also put in there what we had Bickerstaff direct 15 5 1 planned maybe* for the next month. Bill 2 is going to go to such and such a plant 3 or we're going off to this training 4 course, whatever. 5 Q. Do you know what your 6 supervisor did with the monthly reports 7 that you gave to him? 8 A. I don't know if he saved them 9 any longer than a month or two months or 1 0 a year, I don't know. 11 Q. Let me ask you this. Did your 12 supervisor receive monthly activity 1 3 reports from other departments besides 14 yours? 1 5 A. In that time period, again, 1 6 because I've had six different 17 supervisors, that's why. 1 8 Q. Okay. Let us begin with the 19 time frame when you were, if I may, in 20 charge of the Industrial Hygiene 2 1 Department at corporate headquarters in 2 2 '76 I believe through '81 or '82. 2 3 A. During that time period I had 24 I think three different supervisors, and 2 5 I think it was the practice of at least Bickerstaf direct 15 6 1 two of the three that they were getting 2 monthly reports from the other people. 3 Q. Which two would that have 4 been? 5 A. The first two. When Mr. Beal 6 came in, I don't think it was a 7 requirement initially that he got 8 monthly reports from the other people. 9 I just always did, and I continued. 1 0 Again, he was downtown Pittsburgh and I 1 1 wasn't. So I'm not sure what he was 12 getting from the other people. 1 3 Q. Mr. Beal then was in 14 environmental affairs? . 15 A. Right. 1 6 Q . And his two predecessors to 17 whom you reported? 18 A. Well, the first person I 19 reported to was a Mr. William Ziefel. 2 0 He was manager of industrial hygiene and 2 1 s a f ety. 22 Q. And was that -- 2 3 A. He reported to Mr. Crook. 24 Q. Was industrial hygiene and 2 5 safety a larger department than your Bickerstaff direct 15 7 1 department? * 2 A. He then had one manager 3 reporting to him who was the manager of 4 safety. 5 Q. So safety was a separate 6 department from yours? 7 A. Well, separate group. 8 Q. Separate group within the same 9 department? 1 0 A . Yes. 1 1 Q. So there would be twomanagers 12 reporting to your superior. 1 3 A. Yes. 14 Q. And then would he prepare a 15 report based on the reports that he 16 received? 17 A. I honestly don't know. 1 8 Q. Do you know if the information 1 9 that was conveyed to your superior was 20 transmitted upward within the corporate 2 1 structure ? 2 2 A. Honestly I don't know. 23 Q. Do you know if it was 24 disseminated laterally or down? 25 A. If anything, he may have given Bickersta f f direct 15 8 1 it at least to the manager of safety, 2 and I don't know if he took mine, added 3 it to his, I don't know. Because I* 4 didn't get a copy back, if he did that. 5 Q. Did you get a copy of the 6 safety manager's reports? 7 A . No . 8 Q. And aside from the Industrial 9 Hygiene Department, which I understand 1 0 Included the safety section within it? 11 A. Well, again, my 1 2 responsibilities have always been just 13 industrial hygiene. There's always been 14 somebody else who has had the safety 15 responsibi1ity. 1 6 Q. And the two of you together 1 7 comprised the department? 1 8 A. Yes, industrial hygiene and 19 safety. 2 0 Q. So your knowledge and your 2 1 testimony is only with respect to the 22 industrial hygiene half of the 2 3 Industrial Hygiene and Safety 2 4 Department. 25 A. Correct. Bickerstaff direct 15 9 1 Q. And then you certainly have no 2 knowledge beyond that department. 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Now, were there any procedures 5 that you are aware of which would 6 indicate from where the information in 7 Exhibit 7 was derived? 8 A. Other than personal knowledge 9 of the plant -- 10 Q. Well, here the author I 11 believe is not a plant but industrial 12 hygiene . 1 3 A . That was Mr . Speicher 14 Q You mean his personal 15 knowledge of the plant? 16 A. Yes, his personal, between 17 himself and the staff that reported to 18 him, three or four professionals. 19 MR. BRENDEL: I'm going to 20 object to the extent that you're asking 2 1 the witness to speculate on what Mr. 22 Speicher knew or what he knew, when he 2 3 knew it or where he knew it. I'm going 24 to ask the witness to limit himself to 2 5 his own personal knowledge. Bickerstaff direct 16 0 1 Q. Locking at this document, do 2 you have any refreshed recollection 3 concerning procedures or the means by 4 which the Industrial Hygiene and Safety 5 Department at corporate headquarters 6 would learn of the circumstances 7 involving substances at various plants 8 throughout the United States? 9 A. Other than plant visits, you 1 0 know, there was no requirement for them, 1 1 to, that I'm aware of, even during that 1 2 five-, six-year period, '75 to '81, that 13 they had to on any kind of periodic 1 4 basis send information to headquarters 1 5 industrial hygiene. 1 6 Q. Was there any practice or 17 requirement regarding visiting of plants 18 by hygiene? 19 A. No, not that I'm aware of. 2 0 Q. Now, with regard to 2 1 Bloomfield, for example, there is a 22 reference to correspondence and 2 3 telephone calls concerning information 24 regarding the toxicity of materials, 2 5 problems with thorium and radium and the Bickers ta f f direct 16 1 1 safe usage of- mercury. Is this, to.your 2 knowledge, pursuant to ad hoc 3 communication and not any procedures? 4 A. That's what I would guess, 5 yes. 6 MR. BRENDEL: I ask you not to 7 guess. 8 A. Okay, then I don't know. 9 MR. COHEN: Let us mark as 1 0 Exhibit 8 a one-page document bearing 11 Bates stamp numbers 00266616. 12 (Memo dated 2/20/68 is 1 3 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 8 for 1 4 Identification.) . 15 Q. Sir, from a review of this 16 document, can you tell if this is a 17 communication from headquarters to 1 8 divisions, division to division, plant 19 to plant or plant to headdquarters or 20 any other permutation? 2 1 A. I have no idea. I don't 22 recognize any of the names. 23 Q. And from the author's title as 2 4 a materials engineer, can you glean any 25 insight? Bickersta f f direct 16 2 1 A. K O ' . 2 Q. The fact that the document 3 provides advice regarding the state of 4 the law concerning the disposal of 5 substances such as trichloroethylene and 6 FCBs, does that provide you with any 7 insight? 8 A. No. 9 MR. COHEN: Let us mark as Mr. X 0 Bickerstaff Exhibit 9 a two-page 11 document bearing Bates stamp number 003 1 2 105797 through 105798. 1 3 (Memo dated 1/14/69 is 1 4 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 9 for 15 Identification.) 16 Q. Have you had a chance to 1 7 review the document? 1 8 A. Yes. 19 Q. Is this a division reporting 2 0 to lamp plant superintendents at the 2 1 various lamp plants? 22 A . I don't know. 23 Q. Is there anything in this 24 document that indicates communication to 2 5 corporate headquarters? Bickerstaff direct 16 3 1 A. No.- 2 Q. There is a reference to 3 Department 316 personnel in paragraph 4 two. Do you have any idea what that 5 reference is to? 6 A . No . 7 Q. Now, the author is an R. T. 8 Williams, division administrator, 9 accident prevention. Did you know him, 1 0 sir? 11 A . Yes. 1 2 Q. Was he the division 1 3 administrator for the Lamp Plant 1 4 Division? 1 5 A. He had two responsibilities. 1 6 He had direct responsibility for 17 accident prevention, health, safety, 18 then it -was called accident prevention, 19 for the Bloomfield plant. 2 0 Q. That would be a local plant 2 1 level job? 22 ' A. Right. He also had . 2 3 dotted-line responsibilities for the 2 4 rest of the "Lamp Plant Division," 2 5 dotted line. Each of those plants had Bickerstaf f direct 16 4 1 individual people directly responsible. 2 Q. But he would have overall 3 supervision responsibility? - 4 A. They would be dotted line. In 5 other words# they would be paid for by 6 the plant. He could send them 7 information# okay# but they still had to 8 answer to their boss first. He had 9 division responsibilities, but his main 10 responsibility was for the Bloomfield 1 1 plant. 12 Q. In this letter as a division 13 administrator# accident prevention# 1 4 despite the use of the word "division#" 15 this is a local plant document? 16 A. That's what it looks like to 1 7 me. I don't want to guess, but that's 1 8 what it looks like. 1 9 Q. I only want your understanding 2 0 based on your experience. 2 1 A . Yes . 22 Q. And as far as which 2 3 superintendents this is directed to# do 24 you have any understanding of whether it 25 was the various lamp plants# plants Bickersta direct 16 5 1 outside of t-he Lamp Division or just 2 superintendents within the Bloomfield 3 plant itself? 4 A. To the superintendents inside 5 the Bloomfield plant/ because It lists 6 the plant at the top there. 7 Q. And I take it if it was sent 8 to headquarters, there would be an 9 indication? 1 0 A. Y e s . . 1 1 Q. And if for some reason it was 12 sent to a division other than the Lamp 13 Division or another plant, there would 14 be an indication? 1 5 A. I would think so. 1 6 Q. You would expect it in the 17 course of your experience? 18 A. Yes . 19 Q. Now, the document sets forth 2 0 procedures to be used concerning the 2 1 disposal of various wastes. Were the 2 2 plants required to inform headquarters 23 concerning their procedures for the 2 4 disposal of hazardous waste? 2 5 A. I don't know. Bickersta f direct 16 6 1 Q. Do -you know who would know 2 t ha t ? 3 A. If there is a person, it might 4 be Bud Kerns. It might be, I don't 5 know, because this may predate him. 6 MR. COHEN: Let us mark as Mr. 7 Bickerstaff Exhibit 10 a one-page 8 document bearing Bates stamp number 9 0 0 259 5 6 6 . 1 0 (Memo dated 7/30/70 is 1 1 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 10 for 12 Identification.) 13 Q. Mr. Bickerstaff, is this a 1 4 document from all appearances which 1 5 remained within the purview of the 16 Bloomington Works plant? 17 A. That's what it appears to be. 18 Q. What division was Bloomington 19 Works? 2 0 A* It was part of the Transformer 2 1 Division. 2 2 Q. Where was the divisional 23 headquarters ? 24 A. I believe I answered that 25 earlier, and I think it was Sharon, Bickerstaff direct 16 7 1 Pennsylvania.* 2 Q. The document mentions process 3 specs for the handling and disposal of 4 Inerteen. You understand that to be 5 PCBs I take it? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. It mentions a review, an 8 informal review of the specs with a Bob 9 Sawyer and Jack Curl. Do you recognize 10 either of those individuals as being 1 1 part of the Headquarters Division? 12 A . No . 13 Q. Do you recognize them at all? 14 A. Bob Sawyer. 15 Q. And what division was he in? 16 A. He was at Bloomington. 17 Q. The third paragraph strongly 18 urges immediate action because of 19 possible legal action by the state 20 against Westinghouse if Inerteen is 21 disposed of in the city storm sewer 22 systems. Were there any procedures, 23 practices, policies or guidelines of 24 which you are aware concerning 25 communications to divisional Bickerstaf direct 16 8 1 headquarters -or to corporate 2 headquarters regarding potential legal 3 liability arising out of the disposal of 4 substances ? 5 A. NO/ I'm not aware of any. 6 Q. And I take it, and again 7 forgive me if I'm repeating something we 8 did earlier/ you have no knowledge 9 regarding the communication process as 1 0 to any insurance department? 1 1 A. Did you ask that before? 12 Q. I'm not sure. Let me just ask 13 the question. Are you aware of any 14 practices, procedures, guidelines, 15 whether formal or informal, concerning 16 the communication process when there was 17 a potential legal liability as a result 18 of the use, handling or disposal of 19 substances such as Inerteen? 2 0 MR. BRENDEL: I'm going to 2 1 object, just because it's outside the 22 scope of the deposition. . 2 3 MR. COHEN: I will then 24 rephrase the question by simply 25 prefacing it for the time period of '75 Bickerstaff direct 16 9 00 to 1 through ' 2 A . No , I am not aware o f any. 3 Q Not that there was none , 'it's 4 just that you have no knowledge one way 5 or the other? 6 A. Correct, correct. 7 Q. And I'mcorrect, am I not, 8 sir, that this document shows no 9 indication of having left the 10 Bloomington plant? 11 A. I don'tsee any on there. 12 MR. BRENDEL: Let us mark as 13 Exhibit 11 a two-page document bearing 14 Bates stamp numbers 00266654 through 15 00266655. 16 (Memo dated 8/20/70 is 17 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 11 for 18 Identification.) 19 Q. Is this document a memo from 20 Bloomington Works to various managers, 21 engineers or supervisors within the 22 Bloomington Works plant? 23 A. That's what it appears like to 2 4 me . 25 Q. Now, are the recipients or the Bickerstaff direct 17 0 1 addressees part of the Corporate 2 Headquarters Division or part of the 3 division to which the Bloomington plant 4 be 1ongs ? 5 A. I don't know# but I would -- I 6 think this is just a Bloomington person 7 sending it to people at Bloomington, all 8 within the plant. 9 Q. Now, the Industrial Hygiene 10 Department to which you belonged, which 11 was a corporate department, did it have 12 employees located at various plants? 13 A . No . 14 Q. The memo concerns violations 15 of process specs for various hazardous 16 wastes . 17 MR. BRENDEL: That's your 18 characterization. 19 MR. COHEN: It absolutely is 2 0 my characterization. 2 1 MR. BRENDEL: And obviously it 22 states what it states. 2 3 MR. COHEN: Good point, so let 24 me quote it. 2 5 Q. "The above-referenced process Bickerstaf f direct 17 1 1 specs cover Instructions for marking by 2 the section the scrap originates, 3 handling and disposing of hazardous 4 waste. Since the date of issue, almost 5 every manufacturing section has 6 completely disregarded these specs." 7 When specs were being 8 violated, were there any procedures, 9 practices or guidelines for reporting 1 0 the violations to headquarters? - 1 1 A . I don't know. 12 Q. Within the communications that 13 you were involved in that came to 1 4 industrial hygiene because.of potential 15 employee exposure, was the fact of a 1 6 violation of a spec a determinant factor 17 as to whether industrial hygiene would 18 be made aware of the circumstances? 1 9 A. Idoubtit. 2 0 Q. Now, the end of thesecond 2 1 paragraph reads, "this practice is going 22 to end up causing injury to personnel 2 3 handling unknown waste and some of it is 24 going to end up at the loyal dump and 25 found by the state, which will bring Bickerstaf f direct 172 1 legal action -against Westinghouse . " 2 Were there any policies, 3 practices or procedures for the 4 conveying of this type of information to 5 headquarters ? 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. Do you know of any such 8 practices, policies or procedures for 9 the conveying of this type of 10 information from a plant to a division? 11 A. Again, I don't know. 12 Q. Are you aware from a review of 1 3 this document of any indication 1 4 indicating that it went beyond the 15 Bloomington plant? 1 6 A. I can't see anything that 1 7 references that. 1 8 (Memo dated 3/11/71 is 1 9 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 12 for 2 0 Identification. ) 2 1 (There is a brief recess.) 2 2 Q. Have you had a chance to 2 3 review the document? 2 4 A. Yes. 25 Q. Is this a document from the Bickerstaff direct 17 3 1 Bloomfield L&np Division headquarters to 2 the various Lamp Division plants? 3 A. That's what it appears to be. 4 Q. It refers to a pollution 5 questionnaire that was circulated to the 6 lamp plants. Do you know of any 7 procedures by which that questionnaire 8 would have been circulated at the behest 9 of corporate headquarters? 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. And do you know of any 12 procedures pursuant to which the answers 13 would have been passed on to corporate 14 headquarters? 15 A. Idon't know, 16 Q. Do you have any information 17 whatsoever regarding this document? 18 A. No. 19 MR. COHEN; Let us mark as Mr. 20 Bickerstaff Exhibit 13 a one-page 21 document bearing Bates number 00259560. 22 * (Memo dated 4/19/71 is 23 marked as Exhibit Bickerst&ff 13 for 24 Identification.) 25 Q. Sir, is this a memorandum Bickersta f direct 17 4 1 went from pla'nt to plant? 2 A. I don't know. 3 Q. Do you know was there a plant 4 in St. Louis, to your knowledge, sir? 5 A . Yes , there was a plant in St. 6 Louis, yes * 7 Q . And do you know what division 8 the plant was within? 9 A . I think there were several 10 plants there, and again. I ' m only 1 1 speaking from 1975 on or '7 6 when I came 12 i n . 13 Q That is pursuant to your 14 directives from counsel? - 15 A . Well, again, I only came into 16 corporate in 1976. So I had no, see. 1 7 when you're at the plant , you don't 18 know what the other plants -- I mean I 19 know -- 20 Q. Tell me what you personally 2 1 know. 22 A . Okay. In 1976 when I came in. 23 there were two plants in St . Louis. One 24 was a repair plant, and another plant 25 was a Distribution Equipment Division. Bickerstaff - direct 175 1 It basically *-- I'm trying to think.what 2 they made there. 3 Q. Are you aware of any plants in 4 Cincinnati? 5 A. In 1976 again, there was a Distribution Equipment Division plant in 7 Cincinnati. 8 Q. Do you have any reason to 9 believe that did not exist in 1971? 10 A. I don't know. ` 1 1 Q. This document reflects a spill 12 of a substance referred to as "askarel" 1 3 as a result of the improper securing of 1 4 drum bungs. From a review of the 15 document, is there any indication of 1 6 communication to corporate headquarters, 17 whether it was the Law Department or 1 8 industrial hygiene or any other 19 department? 20 A. I don't know. 2 1 Q. Do you see anything that 2 2 indicates that? 23 A. I don't see anything more than 2 4 you do. 2 5 Q. Specifically there are some i Bickers taf f direct 17 6 1 cc's on the right. NJOHN, and PB, it's 2 very difficult to read, ENI. Are those 3 acronyms that in anyway refer to 4 headquarters? 5 A. Not that I'm aware of. 6 Q. The document indicates that 7 this was the second incident and the 8 first was not reported, but there is a 9 request made for the appropriate 1 0 personnel in Westinghouse to renew or 11 review the incident to prevent future 12 problems, and there's a reference to the 1 3 adverse legal and environmental 14 consequences. Do you know if there were 15 any rules or regulations or requirements 16 within Westinghouse directing that a 1 7 document concerning this subject matter, 18 the adverse legal and environmental 19 consequences of a substance spill, be 2 0 reported to division headquarters or to 2 1 corporate headquarters? 22 A. Back in this time frame, I 23 don't know. 24 Q. And during the time frame for 2 5 which you are familiar? Bickerstaff direct 17 7 1 A. There may have been/ but I 2 don't recollect it. 3 Q. And to the best of your 4 recollection/ were there any formal 5 written procedures or was it some sort 6 of informal practice? 7 A. I believe informal. 8 Q. And to the best of your 9 recollection, was the practice that the 1 0 decision making was decentralized and 11 resided in the plants? 1 2 A. To the best of my knowledge, 1 3 yes. 14 Q. You will notice, sir, in the 1 5 upper right-hand corner of the document 1 6 that the word "confidential" appears. 17 Earlier today we discussed the use of 18 such labels. Can you tell from a review 19 of this document whether that is a 2 0 "confidential" label or stamp that was 2 1 used in the ordinary course of 22 Westinghouse business? Does that look 2 3 like a Westinghouse "confidential"? 2 4 A. I don't know, I've not had to 2 5 use a "confidential," so I don't know. Bickerstaff direct 17 8 1 Q. If -you would look back at 2 Exhibit 12/ you'll see there is also the 3 word "confidential." It is slightly 4 different. Do you have any familiarity 5 with either of those? 6 A. No . 7 MR. COHEN: Neal, when we met 8 on Tuesday, it became apparent that 9 there are some documents which were 10 stamped confidential contemporaneously 1 1 with their creation and some documents 1 2 which perhaps your firm had stamped 1 3 confidential pursuant to a protective 1 4 order entered in this case. And I had 1 5 asked you to advise me whether you would 16 identify which documents had the stamp 1 7 your firm put on and you took my request 1 8 under advisement. I'm wondering if you 19 have reached any decision on that 20 inquiry. 2 1 MR. BRENDEL: I think as part 22 of our document production we have 23 provided written designation of those 24 documents which were being designated as 25 confidential Bicke r s t a f f direct 17 9 1 MR.- COHEN: And therefore, 2 only those which were designated would 3 have a stamp placed by your office? 4 MR. BRENDEL: Well, it would 5 be my understanding that those which 6 were designated would have a stamp. 7 Now, I know that there were initially 8 some documents that were released which 9 weren't stamped but which we wanted 1 0 designated as confidential. This is my 11 reco1 lection. 12 MR. COHEN: I'll talk with you 1 3 off the record, and perhaps not this 1 4 afternoon, ^n this issue to resolve 1 5 this. 1 6 MR. BRENDEL: Yes, I don't 1 7 think it can be done this afternoon. 1 8 What you might want to do is give me a 1 9 letter and then I can respond 2 0 accordingly. 2 1 MR. COHEN: It will be my 22 pleasure. Let us mark as Exhibit 14 for 23 identification a document bearing Bates 2 4 stamp numbers 132/4192913 through 25 4192916 Bickers ta f direct 18 0 1 {Me'mo dated 12/28/71 is 2 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 14 for 3 Identification.) 4 Q Mr. Bickerstaff, in the upper 5 right-hand corner there is some language 6 that is difficult to read, but in 7 essence it states that the document is 8 subject to a strictly limited 9 distribution, it is not to be circulated 10 outside the company, and that within the 1 1 company the recipient must have a 12 specific need for the information in 1 3 conduct of his assignment and 14 s and that the document 15 should be destroyed by burning or 16 shredding. Have you ever seen that 17 stamp in the course of your duties, sir, 1 8 or any language similar to it on a 1 9 Westinghouse document? 2 0 A. I don't know exactly word for 2 1 word, but that looks like the kind of 22 language on documents coming out of the 2 3 Westinghouse research or science and 24 technology center. 25 Q. And is this a document coming Bickerstaf f direct 18 1 1 out of the research or science and 2 technology center? 3 A. That's what it looks like. 4 Q. And what division did that 5 center belong with? 6 A. That was its own division, but 7 it eventually then reported back to 8 headquarters. It was essentially the 9 headquarters research and development 10 center. It's now called science and 1 1 technology. 12 Q. When you received a document 13 that had language to this effect, did 14 you implement the procedure outlined by 15 destroying the document? 16 A. If I didn't have any further 17 need for it, then yes, I would do 18 something like that. 1 9 Q. What was your understanding of 2 0 your freedom to distribute the document 2 1 when you received it with this type of a 22 legend upon 11 ? 2 3 A. That I was to maintain the 24 distribution within the company. 25 Q. And did you understand that Bickerstaff direct 18 2 1 you had any limitations upon your 2 disseminating the document within the 3 company? 4 A. Before I would do that I would 5 probably call the author and ask him. 6 Q. Were you aware of any 7 division, department or section which 8 had anything to do with the creation of 9 the rules regarding strict limited 1 0 distribution or confidential treatment 1 1 o f documents ? 12 A . No . 1 3 Q. Do you know who was in charge 14 or had anything to do with that? 15 A. No, I don't. 1 6 Q. Now, first of all, do you 1 7 recognize any of the addressees in the 1 8 document on the left-hand corner? 1 9 A. The second name Schoaff. 20 Q. And do you know which plant or 2 1 division he was with? 2 2 A. He was at the R and D center . 2 3 Q. Do you recognize the name 2 4 Munson? 2 5 A. No. J. C. R. Kelly, he was Bickerstaff direct 18 3 1 also at research, and Mandelcorn, he was 2 also at research, but the other ones I 3 don't recognize. 4 Q. The document in the first 5 paragraph states that it's concerning 6 the situation with PCBs. And in the 7 second paragraph it notes that another 8 "very large use of these materials is 9 in lightning ballasts associated with 10 all fluorescent lights being used in 11 residential and commercial 12 applications. " 1 3 Are you aware of any 14 procedures, policies or guidelines so 15 that the information in this document 1 6 would have been disclosed to the Lamp 17 Plant Divisions? 18 A. No, I don't. What wee you 19 saying about the ballasts? 20 Q. Let me point it out to you so 2 1 you can read it. 22 * A. Okay. Well, the reason I ask 23 that is Westinghouse made fluorescent 24 lights, but they did not make ballasts. 25 Q. Did the lights that Bickerstaff - direct 184 1 Westinghouse -make - 2 A. He made like the fluorescent 3 tubes. 4 Q. Right. When they were 5 ultimately distributed, did they have 6 ba1las ts ? 7 A. No, the ballast is the fixture 8 it goes into. 9 Q. And when Westinghouse 10 manufactured a fluorescent tube, when 11 did the tube become connected to a 12 fixture? 13 A. When the person would take it 14 and put it into the light fixture. 15 MR. BRENDEL: Off the record. 16 (There is a discussion off the record.) 17 A. There may not have been a need 18 for them to send this on, because they 19 didn't make a product that contained 20 PCB. 21 Q. Do you know if there were any 22 PCBs. at the any of the Lamp Plant 23 Divisions? 24 A. Not as a product I don't 25 believe. Bickerstaf f direct 18 5 1 Q. Are- you aware that at one time 2 product was sent to the Bloomfield plant 3 for storage that contained PCBs? 4 A. No, I'm not aware of it. 5 Q. The memo makes several points 6 about PCBs at the bottom of page one . 7 going on to page two concerning their 8 interactions with animals. Was this the 9 kind of information which you expected 10 to receive at the Industrial Hygiene 11 Department at any time? 12 A. We could have, but I don't see 13 the distribution here. 14 Q. I understand that you could 15 have. What I'm asking specifically 16 about is what your expectations would 17 have been at the Industrial Hygiene 18 Department. 19 A. If it's something which was 20 brand new that they were aware of that 21 we may not have been aware of, I think 22 that we would have been on the 23 distribution, but I don't know. I don't 24 know why we were not -- I don't know. 25 Q. Do you recall ever learning Bickerstaff - direct 186 1 regarding the characteristics of PCBs 2 and how they affected the reproductive 3 cycle of animals or children as set 4 forth in paragraphs three and four of 5 this memo? 6 A. Yes, I got that information 7 through public information from NIOSH 8 and OSHA, whatever. 9 Q . Do you recall when that would 1 0 have been? 1 1 A . After X got on the job in 12 1 9 7 6 . 1 3 Q. Do you recall ever receiving 14 the information from a source within 1 5 Westinghouse? 1 6 A . I could have from somebody 1 7 picking up a news article and sending it 1 8 to me . 19 Q. Do you have any specific 20 recollection? 2 1 A. I don't remember, no. 2 2 Q On page three, the memorandum 2 3 reads, "there is sufficient evidence 2 4 that PCBs can be deleterious to the 25 health of animal and human life and that Bickerstaf direct 18 7 1 the risks are ignoring the evidence that 2 does exist was inappropriate for," and 3 then there is a symbol which I assume to 4 mean Westinghouse. Is that the kind of 5 information which you expected to 6 receive at industrial hygiene with 7 regard to employee exposure to 8 substances ? 9 A. Yes, I would expect to. 10 MR. COHEN: Let us mark as 1 1 Exhibit 15 a document bearing Bates 12 stamp numbers 053/0008842 through 13 0 00 8 84 6 . 1 4 (Memo dated 6/21/72 is 1 5 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 15 for 1 6 Identification. ) 1 7 Q. Sir, have you ever seen 1 8 Exhibit 15 before? 19 A. Yesterday was the first time. 2 0 Q. The document concerns the 2 1 centralized waste disposal system for 22 Westinghouse plants in southwest 23 Pennsylvania. Do you know of any 24 procedures by which waste disposal 25 practices were centralized for various Bickerstaff direct 188 1 plants in a given geographic area? 2 A. Idon'tknow. 3 Q. On the second page, there' is 4 some discussion of a meeting at which a 5 Mr. Kerns discussed national solid waste 6 disposal picture and intended 7 regulations. I take it that would be an 8 environmental issue and those 9 communications were outside the scope of 10 your responsibility? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. I have no further questions 13 this document 1 4 MR . COHEN: Let us mark as 15 Exhibit 16 a two -page document bearing 1 6 Bates stamp numbers 144/0148450 and 17 1 44 / 0 14 84 5 3 . The documents are not i n 1 8 consecutive numerical order 19 MR . BRENDEL: Is this the 2 0 sequence that you placed them and 2 1 stapled them? 22 * MR. COHEN: I personally did 2 3 not do so , so I cannot tell you how it 2 4 occurred. 25 MR . BRENDEL: It occurred Bickerstaf f direct 18 9 1 subsequent to the production or were 2 they produced -- 3 MR. COHEN: I can only draw 4 the same references you can draw from 5 the Bates stamp numbers, nothing else. 6 MR. BRENDEL: So my question 7 was was i t stapled when you received 8 it . 9 MR. COHEN : When I received 1 0 it. yes, but that's not answering what 11 you really want to know . I don't know 12 the answer to what you want to know. 13 MR. BRENDEL: All right. 1 4 Then - - . 15 MR. COHEN: Shall we call it a 1 6 composite exhibit and reserve your 17 obj ections? 18 MR. BRENDEL: To the extent 19 that there is an issue as to how the 20 Exhibit was assembled and stapled and to 2 1 the extent that this is not the fashion 22 in which it was maintained, we would 2 3 object. 24 MR. COHEN: Okay. I don't 25 agree with anything, but he has his Bickerstaff - direct 190 1 right to object. 2 (Safety Course Listing is 3 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 16 for 4 Identification. ) 5 Q. Have you ever seen Exhibit 16 6 before, sir? 7 A. Yesterday. 8 Q. Aside from yesterday, have you 9 ever seen it before? X 0 A. No . . 11 Q. It reflects I believe various 12 courses offered in 1975 by the 13 Industrial Hygiene and Safety 1 4 Department. Is that correct? 1 5 A. That's what it looks like, 1 6 yes. 1 7 Q. Did you have anything to do 1 8 with these courses? 1 9 A. Not back in 1975, no. 2 0 Q. How about in 1976, sir? 2 1 A. In 1976, yes. 22 Q. And what role did you play 2 3 with regard to these courses with 24 respect to communications concerning 2 5 substances ? Bickersta f direct 19 1 1 A. From that time on we pretty 2 much put on equipment courses for 3 Westinghouse facilities. We would 4 sponsor them in most cases in the 5 Pittsburgh area. 6 Q. Now, when did this practice of 7 having courses with regard to industrial 8 hygiene and safety and the hazards posed 9 by radiation or other substances begin? 10 A . I don't know. 11 Q. The front page lists the date 12 of presentation and tuition fees. 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Who was charged tuition for 15 attending these courses? 16 A. All of the students. 17 Q. Were the students Westinghouse 18 employees ? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Did the Westinghouse employees 2 1 actually bear the expense of these 22 dourses? 2 3 A. No . 24 Q. Were they reimbursed by their 2 5 local plants ? Bickers ta f f direct 19 2 1 A. No.- What would happen was 2 there would just be a charge from budget 3 to budget so that somebody from 4 Bloomfield we'll say attending a course 5 would just fill out the form and put his 6 budget number down. 7 Q. And then the Bloomfield plant 8 would be billed by industrial hygiene? 9 A. Yes, correct. 10 Q. Was there any requirements 11 concerning attendance at these courses? 12 A. There wasn't a requirement, it 13 was highly recommended that they attend. 14 Q. And who was it recommended 15 would attend? 16 A. The manager of industrial 17 hygiene and safety, work and human 18 resources that they reported to. 19 Q. Were these courses offered on 20 an annual basis? 21 A. Some of them were, other ones 22 were maybe offered just as a special, 23 maybe on radiation. It might not be 24 offered again for another three years. 25 Q. Were any of the courses Bickerstaff direct 19 3 1 offered on anything more frequent than 2 an annual basis? 3 A. I can't remember anymore 4 frequent than annual. 5 Q. The second page of the 6 document is "engineering and hazard 7 evaluation for materials used in 8 manufacturing." The course description, 9 which is the third paragraph on the left 1 0 margin states that the course will 11 describe the organization of the 12 Corporate Standards Department, their 1 3 Westinghouse contacts and the purpose 1 4 and function of their basic material 15 parts and service codes. Was that 1 6 another department, the Corporate 1 7 Standards Department within corporate 18 headquarters? 19 A. That was a department that was 20 physically located at the science and 2 1 technology center, corporate standards. 2 2 I believe they reported to the science, 23 and technology center, which in turn 2 4 reported to the headquarters. 2 5 Q. Now, was this a course that Bickerstaff direct 19 4 1 was open to all divisions? . 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And generally were these ' 4 courses open to all divisions? 5 A. Yes . 6 Q. In the course description, the 7 next to last paragraph reads, "explain 8 the need for standardization of 9 products, to eliminate costly errors in 10 choice of materials." Was it a policy 1 1 or practice of Westinghouse to 12 standardize the practices used or the 13 products I should say used in its 1 4 various plants? 1 5 A. The Corporate Standards 1 6 Department, if if you were going to use 1 7 a new material say, or even a new use 1 8 for an existing material, and you 19 determine what you want that product to 20 have, and maybe it's a new paint spray, 2 1 it must have this, whatever. You would 2 2 write a spec for that, you would find a 2 3 vendor that would meet the specs, the 2 4 information would go to all Westinghouse 2 5 facilities. If they wanted to buy that. Bickerstaf f direct 19 5 1 they would just buy that spec number. 2 And in some cases we always got some 3 pricing, better pricing. 4 Q. Because you would be buying in 5 bulk? 6 A. Right. 7 Q. And I take it by the 8 standardization of products, the 9 manufacturing process could become more 10 efficient? 11 A. In some cases, yes. 12 MR. COHEN: Let. us mark as Mr. 13 Bickerstaff Exhibit 17 a one-page 14 document with Bates stamp number 003 15 1 0 5 8 36 . 16 (Memo dated 1/30/75 is 17 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 17 for 18 Identification.) 19 Q. Have you had a chance to 20 review the document, sir? 2 1 A. Yes . 22 Q. Is this a document which was 23 internal to the Bloomfield plant? 24 A. That's what it appears to be, 2 5 yes . Bickersta direct 19 6 1 Q. Has. it your expectation that 2 meetings concerning the disposal of 3 waste chemicals at a plant was a subject 4 matter which involved employee exposure 5 to waste chemicals? 6 MR. COHEN: Should I rephrase 7 that ? 8 MR. BRENDEL: Yes. 9 Q. I don't think I put that 10 together all that well. What I want to 10 H 11 know, sir when a meeting was held at 12 a plant regarding the disposal of waste 13 c hemicals , was that something you 14 expected to be within the purview of the 15 Industrial Hygiene Department? 1 6 A . They could be invited. They 17 could be, I don't know. 18 Q . "They" being industrial 19 hygiene ? 2 0 A . The local industrial hygiene 2 1 safety rep at that plant could be 2 2 invited. 2 3 Q . And that safety rep, however. 2 4 wouId be part of the same division for 2 5 which the plant belonged and not part of Bickerstaff direct 19 7 1 your corporate division. 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. And then the question of 4 whether or not the subjects discussed at 5 the meeting made it to the corporate level would remain at the plant level in 7 the first instance and then if it 8 reached a division level would remain at 9 the division level? 10 A. It would. 11 Q. Were there any processes or 12 procedures that you were aware of where 13 the information would pass directly to 14 corporate? 15 A . NO . 1 6 MR. COHEN: Let us mark as 17 Exhibit 18 a one-page document bearing 1 8 Bates stamp number 003 105836. 19 (Memo dated 10/25/74 is 20 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 18 for 2 1 Identification.) 2 2 Q. Sir, thisdocument, have you 2 3 ever seen it before withthe exception 24 of preparing for your deposition? 2 5 A. No,I haven't. Bickersta direct 19 8 1 Q. The document reflects three 2 reports of mercury vapor levels in an 3 area of the Bloomfield plant in excess 4 of permitted levels, and states that the 5 higher than permitted mercury vapor 6 level would be viewed by the Bureau of 7 Engineering and Safety as evidence of 8 our inability to control employee 9 exposure. We will be re-cited, given 1 0 time to get in compliance and possibly 1 1 fined. 1 2 Was the Bureau of Engineering 1 3 and Safety part of Westinghouse or 1 4 something external to Westinghouse? 1 5 A. I think it says New Jersey 1 6 Department of Labor, Bureau of -- 17 Q. Up above. Perhaps you're 18 correct. 19 A. Here in New Jersey the 2 0 Department of Labor -- 2 1 Q. in the first paragraph? 22 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. Fine. The second paragraph 2 4 from which I read with regard to the 2 5 Bureau of Engineering, there is the Bickerstaff direct 19 9 1 statement which I read. is this , 2 something which you would have expected 3 to be made aware of at corporate 4 headquarters ? 5 MR. BRENDEL: What are you 6 referring to? 7 MR. COHEN: This is the second 8 paragraph of this document/ the quote 9 that I read. If you like. I'll rephrase 1 0 the question. 11 MR. BRENDEL: If it could make 12 it clearer, fine. 13 MR. COHEN: It could help to 14 make it clearer. 15 MR. BRENDEL: Okay. 16 Q. Sir, at the Industrial Hygiene 17 Department of corporate headquarters, 18 did you expect to be advised of a 19 situation where a government agency was 20 expected by the local plant in viewing 2 1 the circumstances as giving evidence of 22 an inability to control employee . 23 exposure to mercury? 2 4 A. I'm not sure what in 1974 25 existed, but from 1976, the plants were Bickerstaff direct 200 1 directed to c.ontact corporate in a 2 situation like this if they were cited. 3 Q. If they were cited. ' 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Prior to being cited however, 6 I take it there was no direction? 7 A. No direction. 8 Q. And even once a citation was 9 received, the directive was aninformal 1 0 one. Is that correct? 11 A. Correct. 12 MR. BRADFORD: Just for the 1 3 record, I do want to state that we 14 reserve the right to recall this witness 15 with respect to the substantive matters 1 6 that are not included within the scope 17 of the current deposition notice that 18 he's appearing here today on. 1 9 MR. COHEN: Let us mark as Mr. 20 Bickerstaff Exhibit 19 a one-page 2 1 document bearing Bates number 003 02217. 22 (Memo dated 12/27/73 is 23 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 19 for 2 4 Identification.) 25 Q . Mr. Bickerstaff, this document Bickerstaff direct 201 1 concerns a program, for lack of a better 2 word, of periodic examinations for the 3 detection of beryliosis for active and 4 retired Bloomfield employees. Are you 5 aware of any communications regarding 6 these periodic examinations between the 7 Bloomfield plant and corporate 8 headquarters? 9 A . No . 10 Q. Do you know if this process 1 1 had anything to do with a directive from 12 corporate headquarters at any time? 13 A . No . 14 Q. And do you know of any 15 communications or procedures implemented 1 6 so that corporate headquarters and 17 particularly industrial hygiene was made 18 aware of this circumstance? 19 A. No, I'm not aware of that. 2 0 Q. Is this something that was 2 1 within the scope of industrial hygiene? 2 2 A. No, this probably would be 2 3 within the scope of corporate medical. 2 4 Q. And could you explain to me 2 5 how you draw the delineation? Bickersta direct 202 1 A. The'y're talking about periodic 2 exam. To me they're examining 3 employees, and that would be some sort 4 of physical exam, and not being a 5 physician, I wouldn't know what to look 6 for in beryliosis. 7 Q. Now, the corporate medical 8 department, that was not headed by a 9 physician. Is that correct? 10 A. From the time period we're 11 talking, it was not. 12 Q. At any time period was It, to 13 your knowledge? 14 A. Mr. Burr retired in the early 15 '80s and then there was a medical 16 director in there from the 1980s until 17 now. 18 Q. sometime in the 1980 decade? 19 A. Right. Earlier than that, I 20 don't know. 21 MR. COHEN: Let us mark at the 22 same time two documents as Exhibits 20 23 and 21. Exhibit 20 is Bates stamped 132 24 4429230 through 132 4429231. Exhibit 21 25 is Bates stamped 132/4181442 through Bickerstaf direct 203 1 44 4 . 2 {Memos dated 10/22/75 3 and 9/21/76 are marked as Exhibits 4 Bickerstaff 20 and 21 for 5 Identification.) 6 Q. Have you had an opportunity, to 7 review the exhibits, sir? 6 A. Yes. 9 Q. Exhibit 20, am I correct that 1 0 this is a memoranda from the 1 1 Westinghouse Sharon Works? 12 A. That is what it looks like, 13 Westinghouse Sharon, yes. 1 4 Q. So this is not a division 1 5 document as an originating source but a 1 6 plant document. Is that correct? 1 7 A. That's what it looks like to 1 8 me . 1 9 Q. And theaddressees, whether 2 0 they're the direct addressees or the 2 1 copy recipients, can you tell me, are 22 any of those division level or corporate 2 3 level? 24 A. The only name that I recognize 25 is G. E. Laverty. He worked at Sharon. Bickerstaff - direct 204 1 That's the only one I recognize. 2 Q. There are some prefix letters 3 and number codes. Do you know what 4 those mean? For example, they all have 5 the same prefix with ML. 6 A . Well , some plants will have 7 MS , it ' s called "mail stop. " This might 8 be "mail location." 9 Q . Is that "mail location"? 1 0 A . Mail, M-A-I-L. I 'm guessing. 11 I don't know . 12 Q . Now , the document concerns the 13 focus on asbestos known stocks and 14 possible replacements. Is there 15 anything about this document which 16 indicates that it was communicated to 17 corporate headquarters or division 18 headquarters from the Sharon plant? 19 A. I don't see anythingon here. 20 Q. Now, is there anything on 21 document 20 which indicates 22 communication to the Beaver Works? 23 A. To the Beaver Works? 2 4 Q. Yes . 2 5 A I don't see anything on here. Bickerstaff direct 205 1 Q. Now, if you look at Exhibit 2 21, you'll see a number of people listed 3 at the Beaver Works. 4 A. Okay. 5 Q. And you can check me, but to 6 my eye it looks that nobody who received 7 Exhibit 20 was addressed on Exhibit 21. 8 A. I don't see any. 9 Q. Exhibit 21 is from the control 10 equipment group and it concerns an 11 asbestos substitution project. Do you 12 know to what plant, division or 1 3 department the control equipment group 1 4 belonged? 1 5 A. I believe that's Beaver. 1 6 Q. And is there anything on 17 Exhibit 21 which indicates that the 1 8 document left the Beaver plant? 19 A. I don't see anything that says 2 0 that. 2 1 Q. Was the Beaver plant within 22 the same division as the Sharon plant? 2 3 A. No. . 2 4 Q. Very briefly, could you just 25 tell me the divisions for each plant? Bickerstaff direct 2 06 1 A. Sharon was in the transformer, 2 capacitor business unit. Beaver, I'm 3 not sure exactly what business unit they 4 were in, but they were not tied to the 5 Sharon plant. 6 Q. Okay. Would the decisions by 7 plants to begin eliminating the use of 8 asbestos-containing materials be 9 something that fell within the purview 10 of the corporate Industrial Hygiene 11 Department because of potential employee 12 exposure to asbestos? 13 A. Yes, I would expect that. 14 Q. Do you have any recollection 15 of being advised of these developments 16 first in October of 1975 at Sharon and 17 then second in September of '76 at 18 Beaver? 19 A. No. In the first one I was 20 not on the job at that point. 21 Q. Fair enough. 22 * A. On the second one, I was on 23 the job three weeks at that point. 24 Q. Were there any procedures 25 pursuant to which this information was Bickerstaff direct 207 1 required to be forwarded to industrial 2 hygiene ? 3 A. I think industrial hygiene 4 earlier in the year, '76, had taken the 5 initiative to start looking for 6 substitute materials for asbestos. 7 Q. Was there any requirement, 8 however, for the plants that were 9 looking for substitute materials to 1 0 report that to headquarters? 11 A. The document they put out at 12 the time, I can't say. 1 3 Q. Looking at these documents, is 14 there anything that would have required 15 them to be forwarded to headquarters? 1 6 A. I don't see anything here. 1 7 Q. Now, shortly after you joined 1 8 the Industrial Hygiene Department, did 19 you have occasion to visit Bloomfield in 2 0 October of 1976? 2 1 A. I know it was in the fall of 22 '76, yes. 2 3 Q. Did that visit have anything 2 4 to do with the lines of communication 25 with regard to the handling, use or Bickerstaff direct 208 1 treatment of 'any substance? 2 A. I think it went back to 1976. 3 They contacted me because of an old 4 radiation process that they had back 5 there during the Manhattan project/ and 6 that occurred actually back in the 7 '40s. They were notified that people 8 from Oakridge University wanted to do 9 some measurements. 1 0 Q. Did you coordinate that 1 1 information with regard to any other 12 plants that may have had a similar 13 circumstance involving radiation? 14 A. On that particular, the 15 Manhattan project, the Westinghouse East 16 Pittsburgh plant was also suspect. We 17 also went in there and visited that 18 area, and they took measurements and 19 nothing was found. Again, it was 2 0 alleged, nobody could find any records. 2 1 Just the two plants. 2 2 Q. Was there any communication 2 3 between the two plants? 2 4 A. Only through me. 25 Q. Now, in '76 when you were the Bickerstaff direct 209 1 manager of i n'd ustrial hygiene, was your 2 immediate superior part of that same 3 department? 4 A. Well, I was manager of 5 industrial hygiene and he was manager of 6 hygiene and safety. 7 Q. Got it. 8 MR. COHEN: Let us mark as 9 Exhibit 22 a document with Bates stamp 1 0 numbers 844 6048653 through 6048654. 1 1 (Memo dated 9/22/76 is 12 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 22 for 1 3 Identification.) 14 Q. Sir, I recognize that the 15 photocopying quality of this document is 16 not perfect, but is this a document from 1 7 Westinghouse corporate headquarters? 18 A. It's from corporate 19 headquarters industrial hygiene, yes. 20 Q. And was Zella Heasley someone 2 1 who reported to you? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. That was one of the three 24 professionals you mentioned earlier? 25 A. Yes, that's correct. Bickerstaff direct 1 Q. Wha-t were the names of the 210 2 other two ? 3 A. At that time, I've got 4 different people moving in and out. 5 Mark Perriello, and at that time John 6 Adams. That was 1976. 7 Q. And did your staff change at 8 some point? 9 A. John Adams in 1977 was 1 0 promoted to supervisor of industrial 1 1 hygiene and he went to the Baltimore 12 defense group. And at that point Diane 1 3 Whittier came in to replace him. 1 4 Q. Was the defense group a 1 5 separate division within Westinghouse? 1 6 A. Yes. 1 7 Q. So when you named the 18 divisions earlier today - 19 A. That's one of the divisions, 2 0 right. 2 1 Q. Okay. Was there anything 2 2 unique about the lines of communication 2 3 from the defense group to corporate 2 4 headquarters with regard to the use, 2 5 treatment or handling of substances? Bickerstaff direct 2 11 1 A. NO.. 2 Q. Were there anymore restrictive 3 rules regarding the dissemination of 4 information? 5 A. No. They voluntarily sent 6 their monthly safety meetings and things 7 like that just for updates. 8 Q. The defensegroup? 9 A. Yes . 10 Q. So there were two divisions 11 that did that then? 12 A. No, that was defense. That 13 was the one we talked about earlier. 14 Q. I'm sorry, thank you. Now, 15 the document mentions a letter and a 16 focus upon trichloroethylene, which is, 17 according to this document, the 18 carcinogen for humans, and the response 19 by corporate headquarters concerning 20 information that the Westinghouse 21 industrial hygiene has with regard to 22 that substance. Was this kind of . 23 document something which Ms. Heasley 24 would pass to you before sending out to 25 a plant? Bickersta direct 2 12 1 A. Normally she would do that. 2 yes, or carbon me on it. 3 Q . And I take it that Hami1 to n 4 Canada i s a particular Westinghouse 5 plant? A . Hamilton Canada, I be 1ieve 7 that's the headquarters for the Canadian 8 operations 9 Q. Would Canadian operations. 1 0 constitute a separate division? 1 1 A . At that time, yes. 12 Q And the safety manager 1 3 personal relations, would that be a 14 person within the Canadian division? 1 5 A . Yes . 1 6 Q. So this is an example of 1 7 responsive communication from corporate 18 industrial hygiene to division 19 headquarters. 2 0 A. Correct. 2 1 Q. The document notes that the 22 substance trichloroethylene has been 23 definitively established as resulting in 2 4 cancer in animals under certain 25 conditions and this only serves as an Bickerstaff direct 2 13 1 alert for the potential for future human 2 carcinogenicity. When this document 3 went out, were there any communications 4 to other divisions and plants that may 5 have been using the substance? 6 A. I don't remember any. 7 q. Was there any requirement that 8 all divisions and plants that were using 9 the substance be provided the same 10 information that was being given in 1 1 response to a request? 12 A . No . 13 Q. I take it there was neither a 14 formal requirement or an informal 15 practice along those lines? 16 A. We would send information out 17 as we saw need to. But I think if you 18 look, it indicates here that we don't 19 have any detailed information. She may 20 have heard something/ she may have seen 2 1 a news release. So what I'm saying is 22 if we had information that said yes, in 2 3 fact it is a known human carcinogen, she 24 would have concluded that, but she is 25 saying it's a suspect at this time. Bickerstaf direct 2 14 1 It's still a -suspect. It's never been 2 declared, even today. 3 Q. And so the information is 4 being given in response to an inquiry 5 and it is not something that is coming 6 from headquarters on its own Initiative 7 to the plant level? 8 A. In this case, you're correct. 9 MR. COHEN: Let us mark as 1 0 Exhibit 23 a one-page document bearing 11 Bates stamp number 844 6033215. 12 (Memo dated 11/24/76 is 13 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 23 for 1 4 Identification.) . 15 Q. Now, Exhibit 23 has in the 16 upper left-hand corner the word or the 1 7 letter W followed by "proprietary" with 18 a number symbol and then the number 19 one. Is that correct? 2 0 A. That's what it looks like, 2 1 yes . 2 2 Q. Were there different levels 2 3 for proprietary information labeling? 2 4 A. I believe so, I don't know. 2 5 Q. Do you recall which was the Bickerstaff direct 2 15 1 most restrictive level? 2 A. No, because I never had to put 3 a proprietary on anything that I sent 4 out . 5 Q. The document also has two 6 different confidential stamps on it. . I 7 take it you can't tell if either of 8 those were part of the original 9 d o c ument ? 10 A . No . 11 q. The document concerns a list 12 of suspected carcinogens, it is from the 1 3 division administrator at Bloomfield, 14 Mr. Williams. Am I correct that the 1 5 document is only addressed to Bloomfield 1 6 employees ? 1 7 A. Yes. 18 Q. The document indicates that 19 the New jersey Department of 20 Environmental Protection has issued a 2 1 report containing a list of 2 2 cancer-causing chemicals that are "a 2 3 potential concern to the residents of 24 New Jersey." In the second paragraph it 25 is noted that within group one is Bickerstaff d irect 2 16 1 trichloroethylene. Is there any 2 indication that this information was 3 conveyed to corporate headquarters and 4 the Industrial Hygiene Department 5 specifically? 6 A . In this letter? 7 Q Yes . 8 A . I don't see anything that 9 indicates that . 10 Q Was there any practice. 11 procedure or rule, either formal or 12 informal, requiring Mr. Williams to pass 13 this information on to corporate 14 headquarters ? 15 A . Not that I'm aware of. 16 Q Do you have any recollection 17 of Mr. Williams ever advising the 18 Industrial Hygiene Department of this 19 list published by the New Jersey 2 0 Department of Environmental Protection? 2 1 A . I don't personally remember 2 2 f t, no. 23 Q. Returning to Exhibit 23 for 24 just a moment, in it Mr. Williams 25 recommends substitute materials be found Bickers ta f direct 2 17 1 to avoid the 'use of suspected 2 carcinogens. is this something that you 3 would have been expected to have been 4 alerted to within the Industrial Hygiene 5 Department because of possible exposure 6 to Westinghouse employees? 7 MR. BRENDEL: I'm going to 8 ask, when you say "this," I don't 9 understand what you mean. 1 0 MR. COHEN: I will rephrase 1 1 the question. 1 2 Q. Was the circumstance that a 1 3 state Department of Environmental 14 Protection had published a list 15 concerning potential carcinogens and 16 then a division administrator for the 17 Lamp Plant Division had recommended the 18 eradication of the use of those 19 substances something that you would have 20 expected to be brought to your attention 2 1 at corporate headquarters because of 22 potential employee exposure? 23 A. It would be their prerogative 24 if they wanted to involve us, yes. 25 Q. Strictly their prerogative? Bickerstaf direct 2 18 1 A. Their prerogative, yes. 2 MR. COHEN: Let us mark as 3 Exhibit 24 a one-page document bearing 4 Bates stamp number 844 6058563. 5 (Memo dated 10/19/76 is 6 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 24 for 7 Identification.) 8 Q. Have you had a chance to 9 review the document? 1 0 A. Yes . 1 1 Q. Aside from preparing for 12 today's deposition, have you ever seen 1 3 it before? 14 A. I remember -- well, it was 15 sent to me. So I must have reviewed it 1 6 back in 1976. 17 Q. Did you review it in 18 preparation for the deposition? 1 9 A. Yes, we looked at it 2 0 yesterday. 2 1 Q. The documents is from the 2 2 Relay Instrument Division Where was 23 headquarters for that division located? 2 4 A. I don't know about 25 headquarters, but the plant in question Bickerstaff direct 2 19 1 here was in Newark. . 2 Q. Now, when you say the plant in 3 question here, is that because you know 4 that the personnel relations - 5 A. The person, he was in the 6 Relay Instrument Division and he was 7 also at Newark. 8 Q. Now, in Mr. Merkle's letter, 9 he is advising you of a NI05H bulletin 1 0 concerning possible carcinogenic 11 substances and various fluids and he is 1 2 focusing on the cutting fluids. Do you 13 recall ever responding to his inquiry? 1 4 A. I can't say. I'm sure I did, 15 but I don't. . . 16 q. would it have been your 17 practice to respond to this type of an 18 inquiry in writing or verbally or did 19 you not have a standard practice? 2 0 A. 1 probably would call him 2 1 initially on the phone to find out more 22 information and then respond back in 2 3 writing. Either I would respond back in 2 4 writing or Miss Heasley, who was our 2 5 materials person for the department. Bickerstaff direct 220 1 Q. Oka-y. Was this, to your . 2 recollection, the first you learned of 3 the October 6 NIOSH bulletin regarding 4 the possible carcinogenic substances? 5 A. I don't know. 6 Q. How often did you receive 7 NIOSH bulletins? 8 A. As they were issued. But you 9 don't always get all NIOSH bulletins. 1 0 If you're on the list to get ones for . 11 cutting fluids or if you're on the list 12 to get ones for certain things, you only 1 3 get certain ones. But in most cases we 1 4 got most bulletins. 15 Q. Now, here Mr. Merkle is 16 writing to you on October 19 and 17 referring to an October 6 NIOSH 1 8 bulletin. So he apparently was on the 19 cutting fluid list. 2 0 A. Right. 2 1 Q. Did you have the experience 2 2 where people in the field would advise 23 you of government bulletins concerning 24 potential carcinogenic substances that 2 5 were being used in the field? Bickerstaff direct 22 1 1 A. On -occasion. There might be 2 information prior to us receiving it. 3 yes . 4 Q . Generally, however, you 5 received all of the bulletins? 6 A . In most cases we did, yeah. 7 Q And do you know which plants 8 received what bulletins? 9 A . No . 10 Q Was there any standard 11 practice regarding what bulletins would 1 2 be received at the plants? 13 A . No, not that I'm aware of. 14 Q . Was it the practice that the 15 corporate industrial Hygiene Department 16 would be the resource for the plants to 17 use when they needed information? 18 A . Correct. In most cases, yes. 19 MR. COHEN; Let us mark as 20 Exhibit 25 a one-page document bearing 2 1 bearing Bates stamp number 844 6033230. 22 Be'fore . 23 (Memo dated 5/3/77 is 24 marked as Exhibit Bickerstaff 25 for 25 Identification. ) Bickerstaff direct 222 1 Q. Have you had a chance to 2 review the document, sir? 3 A . Yes . 4 Q. Is this a document from a 5 member of your staff to Mr. Williams, 6 division administrator at the Bloomfield 7 Works ? 8 A. Yes, it is. 9 Q . In the document, am I correct 1 0 that Mr. Adams is reporting to Mr. 1 1 Williams concerning the results from a 12 sampling for airborne asbestos fibers in 13 Building 2 at the Bloomfield Works? 14 A . 1 hat's correct. 15 Q. On the bottom of the document. 16 there is a legal statement. Do you see 17 that, sir? 1 8 A . Yes . 19 Q And the statement indicates 2 0 that the sampling process regardless of 2 1 to whom it's delegated is being 22 performed by agents of the Westinghouse 23 Law Department. What communications 24 were there between the Westinghouse Law 25 Department and the Industrial Hygiene Bickersta direct 223 1 and Safety Department regarding the . 2 presence of substances in the workplace? 3 A. Between the Law Department 4 and ? 5 Q. Let's have it read back. 6 (The question is read by the reporter.) 7 MR. BRENDEL: At this point 8 I'm going to object on the grounds that 9 to the extent of having substantive 1 0 communication between Hestinghouse 1 1 lawyers and people in the Industrial 12 Hygiene Department relating to the 1 3 rendering of legal advice, I believe the 14 attorney client privilege applies. And 15 to the extent that your question can be 1 6 broadly interpreted to encompass those 1 7 types of communications, I would direct 1 8 the witness not to respond. 19 MR. COHEN: I do not agree. 2 0 Let us see if we can work around this 2 1 for the moment. 22 Q. I am concerned about the . 2 3 process, not the substantive 2 4 communications, by which the Industrial 25 Hygiene Department and the Corporate Law Bickerstaff direct 2 24 1 Department co-mmunicated regarding air 2 sampling in the workplace and 3 specifically when that practice began. 4 MR. BRENDEL: If you can 5 formulate some questions that do not ask 6 for the substantive communications/ then 7 we'll proceed and see how the questions 8 go. Obviously if you ask questions that 9 are so detailed as to the information 10 that you're requesting that it begins to 1 1 reveal the substantive communications/ 1 2 then I'll object. But I think that 13 there may be some questions to 14 understand procedures regarding 15 communication that wouldn't be 16 privileged. 17 MR. COHEN: I am not agreeing 18 with your position regarding the 19 privilege, but I don't need to draw any 20 lines in the sands here, so I'm going to 2 1 try and ask questions in an effort to 22 get answers and we can revisit the issue 23 if necessary later. 24 Q. To your knowledge, sir, when 2 5 did the practice begin that the Bickerstaff direct 225 1 Industrial Hygiene Department began 2 acting as agent of the Westinghouse Law 3 Department when performing tests on 4 samples of airborne asbestos in the 5 workplace ? 6 MR. BRENDEL: I'm going to 7 object to the question to the extent of 8 the issue of agency and, number one, it 9 presumes certain facts for which there 1 0 is no foundation at this point, and 11 number two, agency is a legal notion, 12 and this witness is not competent to 1 3 testify on what constitutes agency or 1 4 what doesn't constitute agency. 15 MR. COHEN: Subject to all 1 6 those objections, will you allow the 1 7 witness to answer the inquiry? 1 8 MR. BRENDEL; Not if you're 19 asking him the question on agency. 20 MR. COHEN: I'm not asking 2 1 him. I am taking the statement from the 2 2 document, which indicates, and I share 2 3 your sense that it is a dubious 24 proposition, that industrial hygiene was 25 an agent of the Law Department. Bic ke rs ta f f direct 226 1 MR.- BRENDEL: Well, I didn't 2 state that. I stated that it's not 3 within his purview to make that 4 characterization one way or the other. 5 So I disagree with your characterization 6 of what I'm saying. Let's take a brief 7 adjournment. 8 (There is a discussion off the record.) 9 (The question is read by the reporter.) 1 0 MR. BRENDEL: I reiterate my 1 1 objection. The question calls for a 12 legal conclusion that this witness is 13 not competent to make regarding what 1 4 constitutes the fuzzy and gray 15 boundaries of agency under the common 16 law. Subject to that objection. I'll 17 allow the witness to respond to the 18 question the best he can. 19 MR. COHEN: Thank you. 2 0 A. Under advice of Corporate Law 2 1 Department, this statement was to go on 2 2 the reports as they went out. The Law 2 3 Department was not copied on any of 2 4 this, we just were advised to put the 2 5 statement on it. Bickerstaff direct 227 1 Q. What reports did this 2 statement go on? 3 A. It went on trip reports that 4 went out to a plant. Obviously it was 5 also put on air sample results. That's 6 the ones that I know of for sure. . 7 Q. When did this practice begin? 8 A . I don't know. 9 Q. Was it in existence when you 1 0 became manager of the Industrial Hygiene 11 Department in 1976? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did the practice ever cease? 1 4 A. Yes. 15 Q. When? 16 A. I think late '70s. 17 Q. Do you know why? 18 A. We were just advised by the 19 Law Department that the statement was no 20 longer necessary. 2 1 Q. When the statement was put on 22 a document/ was it your understanding 2 3 that that would restrict the 24 dissemination of the document within 25 Westinghouse? Bickerstaff direct 228 1 A. I don't know. I have no idea 2 what that meant. 3 Q. You have no idea one way or 4 the other? 5 A. No . 6 Q. Do you have anyidea whether 7 the statement which says the document is 8 to be treated as a confidential legal 9 document limited the dissemination of 1 0 the document beyond Westinghouse or 11 outside of Westinghouse? 12 A. I don't know. 13 (There is a discussion off the record.) 14 (The deposition is 15 adjourned at 5:10 PM.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 229 1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICER 2 3 1/ ANN P. CONLON, a Notary Public 4 and Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 5 State of New Jersey, do hereby certify 6 that prior to the commencement of the 7 examination the witness was duly sworn. 8 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the 9 foregoing is a true and accurate 1 0 transcript of the testimony as taken 11 stenographica 1ly by and before me at the 12 time, place and on the date hereinbefore 13 set forth. 14 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am 15 neither a relative nor employee, nor 16 attorney or counsel to any of the 17 parties involved; that I am neither 18 related to nor employed by such attorney 19 or counsel,-and that I am not 20 financially interested in the outcome of 2 1 the action. 22 23 NOTARY PUBLIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 24 My Commission Expires; June 28, 1994. 25 C.S.R. License No. 999 2 30 1 -LITIGATION SUPPORT INDEX 2 3 4 DIRECTION TO WITNESS NOT TO ANSWER 5 Page-Line 7 82-12 8 223-16 9 10 11 12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 13 14 Page-Line 15 154-5 16 17 18 19 20 MOTIONS TO STRIKE 21 22 Page-Line 23 None 24 25