Document RJJRvwmR72y7xp7XvRNORarzn

ASB. 44, #3 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT K-I969 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE: SPARROWS POINT STEEL PLANT ASBESTOS CASES ) BML-3 ) ) ALL CASES ) ) ANSWERS OF OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC. TO MALE PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Some of the events which may be relevant to the matters inquired about by Plaintiffs' Interrogatories apparently occurred more than thirty-five years ago. In addition, more than r twenty-five years ago, effective April 30, 1958, Owens-Illinois, Inc. disposed of the business involved in this action by way of sale of that business to Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation. Since that time, Owens-Illinois, Inc. has not engaged in any such business. It does not now and it has not since that s$le manufactured, distributed or sold any asbestos-containing products. As a result of the foregoing factors, many of the individuals who might have had personal knowledge of the matters to which Plaintiff's Interrogatories relate are deceased, or are otherwise unavailable to Owens-Illinois, Inc., ahd investigations to date indicate that at least some documents which relate to matters inquired about by these Interrogatories may have been transferred to Owens-Corning Fitxerglas Corporation with the transfer of the business in question in 1958. Owens-Illinois, Inc. is engaged in a continuing investigation in an attempt to locate, confirm the transfer of, or confirm the absence of, such documents and is also engaged in a continuing investigation into ( the matters inquired about in these Interrogatories. . Unless otherwise stated in an answer to a specific Interrogatory, the c c ''W' / answers set out hereinafter are limited to the period during 'which Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactured asbestos-containing insulation products and to the facilities related to that business. The following is a part of and is incorporated by reference in every answer provided hereinafter: This answer is accurate as of the date made. However, Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s investigation is continuing, and Owens-Illinois, Inc. cannot exclude the possibility that it may be able to obtain more complete information or even information which indicates that the answer being supplied is incorrect. Owens-Illinois, Inc. objects to answering this Interrogatory in regard to any period of time other than the period during which it engaged in the business involved in this case which ended in mid-1958 or concerning any facility hot related to that business, on the basis that any such answer would be irrelevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation, would not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and would be burdensome and oppressive. Furthermore, Owens-Illinois, Inc. objects to the instructions and definitions supplied by Plaintiff with regard to these Interrogatories, on the basis that the definitions are overbroad, vague, and often inconsistent with the normal usage and meaning of such words, and the instructions are overbroad, burdensome, and constitute an unreasonable expansion of the Interrogatories themselves. Owens-Illinois, Inc. therefore gives notice that it does not consider itself bound by the instructions and definitions propounded by Plaintiff, and instead shall answer the Interrogatories in a manner consistent with a normal understanding of the language used in the answer and to the extent necessary to fairly and fully answer the Interrogatory. -2- A. 1. iThi-s defendant states that it has referred to the relevant business records of the -Owens-Illinois Glass Company, which are still in the possession of Owens-Illinois, Inc., in connection with the preparation of answers to these interroga tories unless otherwise indicated. A. 2. Owens-Illinois Glass Company was incorporated in the State of Ohio in 1929. Owens-Illinois Glass Company changed its name to Owens-Illinois, Inc. on April 28, 1965. The address of the principal place of business is One SeaGate, Toledo, Ohio 43666. Owens-Illinois, Inc. has been authorized to do business in the State of Maryland as of May 31, 1962. A. 3. No. Refer to answer to Interrogatory No. 2. A. 4. No. Refer to answer to Interrogatory No. 2. A. 5. Owens-Illinois Glass Company began limited pilot plant operations involving the production of "Kaylo" asbestoscontaining products in 1943. It began the manufacture of commercial quantities of "Kaylo" asbestos-containing products in about 1948 and continued such manufacture until about April 30, 1958. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and dis tribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. Its investi gation as to the composition of each such product, including the type of asbestos contained therein (i.e., amosite or chrysotile) and the quantitative percentage of asbestos in each product, is continuing, although Defendant now believes that its asbestoscontaining products were hydrous calcium silicates containing between 13% and 25% asbestos. Chrysotile asbestos was the primary type apparently used. Amosite was used to a lesser extent. The asbestos-containing products manufactured by this Defendant were intended to be used for industrial high tempera ture thermal insulation such as pipe covering and block insula tion, and to increase fireproofing and fire protection and for -3- insulation through use as a roof deck or fireproof material or door core material. ~,\- , ,, . A. 6. Owens-Illinois Glass Company began limited pilot plant operations involving the production of "Kaylo" asbestos-containing products in 1943. It began the manufacture of commercial quantities of "Kaylo" asbestos-containing products in about 1948 and continued such manufacture until about April 30, 1958. This defendant objects to answering this interrogatory for any state other than the state of Maryland on the grounds that such information is not relevant to the subject matter -,of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objection, this defendant states that this defendant has referred to the business records of Owens-Illnois Glass Company which are still in the possession of Owens-Illinois, Inc. in answer to this interrogatory insofar as the state of Maryland. This defendant has found no information in its records which indicate that this defendant sold or supplied its asbestos-containing products to the Bethlehem Steel Company at their Sparrows Point, Maryland facility. A. 7. Refer to Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 6. A. 8. Refer to Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 6. In 1953, this defendant entered into a sales agreement with Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation under which it agreed to the sale of asbestos-containing products to that corporation. This defendant believes that it ceased the general marketing and sales of its asbestos-containing thermal insulation products at that time, disbanded its sales force, and that thereafter, OwensCorning Fiberglas Corporation was the primary marketer of its product until the sale of the division to Owens-Corning Fiberglas in 1958. -4- A. 9. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. It does not now, and it has not since that time, manufactured, sold or distributed any asbestos-containing products. In 1953, this wrr- - , , p - fiX 1 Defendant entered into a sales agreement with Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation under which it agreed to the sale of asbestos-containing products to that corporation. This Defendant believes that it ceased the general marketing and sales of its asbestos-containing thermal insulation products at that time, disbanded its sales force, and that thereafter, Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation was the primary marketer of its product until the sale of the division to Owens-Corning Fiberglas in 1958. A. 10. This defendant has located information in its records indicating that several efforts were made to substitute other materials for the asbestos in its Kaylo products; however, o i. such efforts were unsuccessful. Defendant will make available to plaintiffs' counsel through its local counsel reports on such experiments. Some of the reports are contained on microfilm which is old and of poor quality. Adequate copies may not be made from it, and reading it requires a reader device. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this interrogatory is continuing. A. 11. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. A. 12. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. A. 13. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. A. 14. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. A. 15. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. -5- A. 16. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing thermal insulation products in 1958. This defendant states that in 1953 it entered into a "Sales Agreement" under which it agreed to sell certain amounts bf its asbestos-containing thermal insulation products to Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation. Futhermore, this defendant has found information in its records which indicate that in at least 1956, it placed Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation's logo on some of its boxes. This defendant does not have information sufficient to further respond to this interrogatory. A. 17. This defendant has never distributed or sold any asbestos products not manufactured by it. A. 18. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this Interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this Interrogatory is continuing. However, it does not appear that any warning concerning asbestos was given in that it does not appear that this Defendant had reason to believe that the use of its products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm. A. 19. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. It does not now, and it has not since that time, manufactured, sold or distributed any asbestos-containing products. A. 20. Charles Shook, M.D., deceased, employed from March 25, 1946 until June 30, 1960; Glenn S. Usher, M.D., 4254 Bonnie Brook, Toledo, Ohio, employed from April 1, 1961 until December 31, 1969; George N. Bates, M.D., 2102 Shenandoah, Toledo, Ohio, employed March 15, 1971 until present. Dr. Shook was the Medical Director during the period in which this Defendant manufactured, sold or distributed asbestos-containing products. -6- :s , A. 21. -This Defendantsobjects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence except as it relates to the period of time within which this defendant manufactured its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objection, this defendant answers: Vice President of Corporate Staff, Director of Corporate Personnel. _;i A. 22. This Defendant's chief medical officer is responsible for assuring and promoting preventive and corrective medical programs, services and practices to protect and preserve employee health and productivity throughout Owens-Illinois, Inc. The individual in this position develops, organizes, introduces and implements pre-employment and periodic examinations as well as new health programs in order to insure the continued well being of Defendant's employees in a safe and healthy environment. Tiie person in this position is also responsible for the quality of medical services at Owens-Illinois locations. A. 23. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958 and does not have any records from which it can obtain information sufficient to answer this Interrogatory. During May, 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories at Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Raylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain information related to the substance of this Interrogatory. This Defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. This Defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and reports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies' constitute only a portion of a larger volume of papers and reports which this Defendant has not copied. They are available at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, New York. This Defendant also has reason to believe that Plaintiffs' counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. Other documents possibly relating to this Interrogatory may have been produced by Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation in the asbestos litigation. Those documents found at Saranac Lake and at OwensCorning Fiberglas Corporation and elsewhere, indicate that during the period of time when Owens-Illinois was in the business of manufacturing asbestos-containing products, the state of government, industrial hygiene and medical community knowledge Was that there was a recognized safe exposure level for asbestos dust, that persons installing insulation were not exposed to excessive or hazardous levels of asbestos dust, that Kaylo plant employees were x-rayed periodically and displayed no asbestos-related chest disease, and that therefore during the period in which this Defendant was in the business of manufacturing Kaylo it had no reason to believe that the forseeable use of Kaylo would create a hazard to users. The documents produced by Owens-Corning indicate that the September, 1955 publication in the A.M.A. Archives of Industrial Health was a publication of inhalation experiments described by documents produced at the deposition of Mr. Logie. A. 24. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this interrogatory is continuing. -8- A. 25. This Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on -the grounds that it seeks information which is not relevant to the: subject matter of this litigation and is nob reasonably calcu lated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence except as i-fe relates to the period of time within which this Defendant manufactured its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving the above objection, this Defendant states that insofar as this Interrogatory refers to associations or organizations of which this Defendant was a member during the time when it manufactured asbestos-containing products, it was a member of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation (which changed its name to the Industrial Health Foundation in 1970) for the years 1936 through 1975. This Defendant has been unable to find any information in its records which would enable it to further answer this Interrogatory, although its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this Interrogatory is continuing. A. 26. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 25. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to further answer this Interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this Interrogatory is continuing. A. 27. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 25. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to further answer this Interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject, matter referred to in this Interrogatory is continuing. A. 28. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 25. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to further answer this Interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this Interrogatory is continuing. -9- A. 29. This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is .not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence except as it relates to the period of time within which this Defendant manufactured its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving this objection, Defendant states that it has found information in its records which indicate that at one time this Defendant's industrial hygienist received copies of various bulletins from and the transactions of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation. However, these documents were destroyed in 1969 and Defendant has no way of determining whether such documents were in fact received by its industrial hygienist. A. 30. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A. 31. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A. 32. W. G. Hazard was employed as this Defendant's industrial hygienist during the period of time in which this Defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products. Mr. Hazard has retired from this Defendant's employ and currently resides at 3609 Mapleway Drive, Toledo, Ohio 43614. This Defendant objects to further answering this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence except as it relates to the period of time within which this Defendant manufactured its asbestos-containing products. -10- A. 33. This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objection, this defendant states that it ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing thermal insulation products in 1958. It has found information in its records which indicate that McCormick Asbestos Company was a distributor of its asbestos-containing products in the State of Maryland. A. 34. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this interrogatory is continuing. However, it does not appear that any instructions concerning asbestos were given in that it does not appear that this defendant had reason to believe that the use of its products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm. A. 35. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale, and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958, and has not been able to find information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this Interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter of this Interrogatory is continuing. However, a document produced at the deposition of E. C. Shuman on June 12, 1979 in a case then pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, C/P 77-1-N indicates that during the period in which this Defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing products, none of its employees employed at its facilities in which it manufactured asbestos-containing products filed a workers' compensation claim or other claim claiming disability or seeking compensation for any asbestos-related disease. This -11- Defendant has been unable to locate this document in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for, and continues to search for it. This Defendant further states that it sold its asbestoscontaining product business to Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corpora tion in 1958. At the time of the sale, this Defendant's employees left the employ of this Defendant and became employees of Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation. A. 36. This Defendant believes that some of its asbestoscontaining insulation products were packaged in corrugated cartons with the trademark Kaylo on the carton. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958 and does not have informa tion sufficient to further answer this Interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject' matter referred to in this Inter rogatory is continuing. A. 37. Refer to Exhibit I. A. 38. This Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that is burdensome and oppressive, Further, it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A. 39. This Defendant has not engaged in sufficient discovery to make such contention at this time. However, this defendant reserves the right to make such contention after it has engaged ia sufficient discovery. A. 40. The identity of witnesses to be called at trial is not known at the present time. This Defendant reserves the right to designate at a later date witnesses to be used at trial. -12- A. 41. This defendant objects to answering this interrogatory for any period of time other than the period of time this defendant manufactured its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objections, this Defendant states that it ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products effective April 30, 1958 and has not engaged in any such business since. During May, 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories at Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Kaylo manu facturing process. These papers and reports may contain information related to the substance of this Interrogatory. This Defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. This Defendant's counsel obtained copies of the papers and reports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies con stitute only a portion of a larger volume of papers and reports which this Defendant has not copied. This Defendant also has reason to believe that Plaintiff's counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. They are available at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, New York. Other documents possibly relating to this Interrogatory have been produced by Owens-Corning Piberglas Corporation. Those documents indicate that the experiments referred to in the documents produced by Mr. Logie were published in an AMA publi cation in September, 1955. As with the documents produced by Mr. Logie, the documents produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corpora tion have not been found as part of this Defendant's records. The foregoing documents indicate that during the time in which this Defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products, its products contained a relatively small portion of asbestos when compared to other asbestos-containing products in use during and prior to the same period of time. It appears that this Defendant's employees -13- I at its asbestos product manufacturing plants were x-rayed periodically and displayed no asbestos-related chest disease, although in the course of their employment they were exposed to the raw materials of this Defendant's products as well as the' dust of the finished product. Furthermore, these documents indicate that there were no worker's compensation claims filed by its employees for asbestos-related diseases. It was this Defendant's understanding of the state of medical and industrial hygiene knowledge that exposure to asbestos in excessive amounts over a prolonged period of time (years), in the conditions typically experienced in factories, workshops, and possibly mines and mills could lead to the potential hazard of contracting a disease known as asbestosis. However,, the state of medical and industrial hygiene knowledge was also to the effect that there was a safe level (threshold limit value) of asbestos to which a person could be exposed without r.isit ..of injury*. .This .Defendant was aware of the threshold limit value for asbestos as published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in the 1940's and 1950's through publications by the Industrial Hygiene Foundation, ACGIH and from the above referenced "Logie" and "OCF" documents. In addition, it appears that an employee of this Defendant subscribed to and received the Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology which contained in January, 1946 an article published by the Navy entitled, "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels," by Fleischer, Viles, Gade and Drinker. This article stated that persons who worked as insulators in shipyards were not exposed and did not work in conditions similar to those experienced in factories, workshops, mines and mills, and were not exposed to levels of asbestos above the recognized safe limits. Therefore, the article concluded that such persons were not engaged in a hazardous occupation. From the foregoing papers, reports and articles, this Defendant had no reason to believe that exposure to its -14- asbestos-containing products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm to users. This Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery and the case warrant. This Defendant has reason to believe that Plaintiffs' counsel is in possession of a substantial library of asbestos-related literature containing articles that Defendant may wish to rely upon. A. 42. This Defendant objects to answering this interrogatory insofar as it pertains to products manufactured or sold by other defendants. Without waiving its objection, refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 41. A. 43. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 41. A, 44. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 41. ( A. 45. To the extent this interrogatory inquires as to asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by other Defendants, this Defendant states that it does not have any records from which it can obtain information sufficient to answer -this Interrogatory, nor can it locate any present employees with knowledge thereof. Insofar as this Interrogatory inquires as to asbestoscontaining products manufactured by this Defendant, this Defendant states that it ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products effective April 30, 1958 and has not engaged in any such business since. During May, 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories at Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Kaylo manu facturing process. These papers and reports may contain information related to- the substance of this Interrogatory. This c Defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its.business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. -15- This Defendant's counsel obtained copies of the papers -and reports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies con stitute only a portion of a larger volume df papers and reports which this Defendant has not copied. This Defendant also has reason to believe that Plaintiff's counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. They are available at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, New York. Other documents possibly relating to this Interrogatory have been produced by Owens-Coming Piberglas Corporation. Those documents indicate that the experiments referred to in the documents produced by Mr. Logie were published in an AMA publi cation in September, 1955. As with the documents produced by Mr. Logie, the documents produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corpora tion have not been found as part of this Defendant's records. The foregoing documents indicate that during the time in which this Defendant engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products, its products contained a relatively small portion of asbestos when compared to other asbestos-containing products in use during and prior to the same period of time. It appears that this Defendant's employees at its asbestos- product manufacturing plants were x-rayed periodically and displayed no asbestos-related chest disease, although in the course of their employment they were exposed to the raw materials of this Defendant's products as well as the dust of the finished product. Furthermore, these documents indicate that there were no worker's compensation claims filed by its employees for asbestos-related diseases. It was this Defendant's understanding of the state of medical and industrial hygiene knowledge that exposure to asbestos in excessive amounts over a prolonged period of time (years), in the conditions typically experienced in factories, workshops, and possibly mines and mills could lead to the potential hazard of contracting a disease known as asbestosis. However, the state of medical and industrial hygiene knowledge was also to the effect that there was a safe level (threshold limit value) of asbestos to which a person could be -16- exposed without risk of injury. This Defendant was aware of the threshold limit value for asbestos as published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in the 1940's and 1950's through publications by the Industrial Hygiene Foundation, ACGIH and from the above referenced "Logie" and "OCF documents. ^ In addition, it appears that an employee of this Defendant subscribed to and received the Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology which contained in January, 1946 an article published by the Navy entitled, "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels," by Fleischer Viles, Gade and Drinker. This article stated that persons who worked as insulators in shipyards were not exposed and did not work in conditions similar to those experienced in factories, workshops, mines and mills, and were not exposed to levels of asbestos above the recognized safe limits. Therefore, the article concluded that such persons w^re not engaged in a hazardous occupation. From the foregoing papers, reports and articles, this Defendant had no reason to believe that exposure to its asbestos-containing products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm to users. This Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery and the case warrant. This Defendant has reason to believe that Plaintiff's counsel is in possession of a substantial library of asbestos-related literature containing articles that Defendant may wish to rely upon. A. 46. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this Interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this Interrogatory is continuing. A. 47. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 46. C; A. 48. This Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks information which is not relevant to the -subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A. 49. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this Interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this Interrogatory is continuing. However, it does not appear that any warning concerning asbestos was given in that it does not appear that this Defendant had reason to believe that the use of its products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm. A. 50. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 49. A. 51. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this interrogatory is continuing. However, it does not appear that any warning concerning asbestos was given in that it does not appear that this defendant had reason to believe that the use of its products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm. 52. Refer to Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 45 and 51. 53. Refer to An rs * t* Interrogatoties Nos . 45 and 51. 54. Refer to Answers to Interrogatories Nos . 45 and 51. 55. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No . 45. -18- A. 56. Refer to Answers tci Interrogatories Nos . A. 57. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 45. A. 58. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 39. A. 59. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 39. A. 60. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 39. A. 61. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 39. A. 62. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 39. A. 63. This idefendant ceased the manufacture, sa distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this interrogatory is continuing. A. 64. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 63. A. 65. This defendant does not make such contention at the present time, but reserves the right to make such contention after it has engaged in sufficient discovery. A. 66. This defendant contends that plaintiff did not use its asbestos-containing products. This defendant also contends that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury to the extent plaintiff smoked, diu nol. wear respirators, did not wear protective clothing, disregarded warnings, and did not participate in health or other safety programs offered by his employer. -19- c A. 67. This defendant contends that plaintiff did not use its asbestos-containing products. This defendant also contends that plaintiff was contributorily negligent'to the extent plaintiff smoked, did not wear respirators, did not wear protective clothing, disregarded warnings, and did not participate in health or other safety programs offered by his employer. A. 68. This defendant contends that the plaintiff improperly used or misused its asbestos-containing products to the extent it can be proven that plaintiff used this defendant's products. A. 69. This Defendant objects to answering this interrogatory as being ambiguous, overly broad, burdensome and not restricted to the time period of this litigation. c A. 70. This Defendant objects to answering this interrogatory insofar as it pertains to any period of time other than that during which this Defendant manufactured its asbestos-containing products on the grounds that said information is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objection, this Defendant states that it ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 23. A. 71. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 49. A. 72. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 49. A. 73. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and c distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Its investigation into -20- c the subject matter referred to in this interrogatory is is pertient to this defendant. Without waiving this objection, defendant states that it has not found any information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. A. 74. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 73. A. 75. This Defendant objects to this interrogatory except as it relates to the time period in which this defendant manufactured its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving this objection, this defendant states that ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this interrogatory is continuing. However, it does not appear that any warning concerning asbestos was given in that it does not ( appear that this defendant had reason to believe that the use of its products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm. A. 76. This Defendant objects to this interrogatory except as it relates to the time period in which this defendant manufactured its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objection, this Defendant states that it ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this interrogatory is continuing. A. 77. This Defendant objects to this interrogatory except as it relates to the State of Maryland. Without waiving its objection, refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 6. c A. 78. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 77. -21- A. 79. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 41. A. 80. During the period of time pertinent to these actions, this Defendant did not maintain an entity which could be characterized as an industrial hygiene, medicine, safety and/or engineering library. However, this Defendant believes that a separate engineering library may have been maintained by its technical facility. This Defendant also states that although it has no records indicating the existence of such a library, the publications listed on Exhibit II and attached hereto are presently located in its current industrial hygiene library. This Defendant has not yet determined which, if any, of these publications were in this Defendant's possession during the time it manufactured, sold and distributed asbestos-containing products. ,. 3r. v^r.81,. roThis- Defendant- ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958 and does not have any records from which it can obtain information sufficient to answer this Interrogatory. During May, 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories at Saranac Lake involving dust collected during the Kaylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain information related to the substance of this Interrogatory. This Defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or correspondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. This Defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and reports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies constitute only a portion of a larger volume of papers and reports which this Defendant has not copied. They are available at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, New York. This Defendant also has reason to believe that Plaintiffs' counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. -22- Logie. Other documents possibly relating to this Interrogatory may have been produced by Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation in the asbestos litigation. Those documents found at Saranac Lake and at OwensCorning Fiberglas Corporation and elsewhere, indicate that during the period of time when Owens-Illinois was in the business of manufacturing asbestos-containing products, the state of government, industrial hygiene and medical community knowledge was that there was a recognized safe exposure level for asbestos dust, that persons installing insulation were not exposed to excessive or hazardous levels of asbestos dust, that Kaylo plant employees were x-rayed periodically and displayed no asbestos-related chest disease, and that therefore during the period in which this Defendant was in the business of manufacturing Kaylo it had no reason to believe that the forseeable use of Kaylo would create a hazard to users. The document^,.produced :by Owens-Corning indicate that the September, 1955 publication in the A.M.A. Archives of Industrial Health was a publication of inhalation experiments described by documents produced at the deposition of Mr. Logie. A. 82. The documents upon which Defendant intends to rely upon at trial are not known at the present time. This Defendant reserves the right to designate documents to be used at trial at a later date. As a partial listing, however, the following materials may be relied upon: "A Study of Asbestosis in the Asbestos Textile Industry," Dreessen,, W.C. (1938); an article published in the Transactions of the Eleventh Annual Meeting, Industrial Hygiene Foundation, November 7, 1946 by J.J. Bloomfield; "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels," Fleischer, Drinker, et al (1946); "Asbestos Exposure During Naval Vessel Overhaul," Marr, William T. (1964); "Prevalence of Chronic Respiratory Disease," Feris, B. G., Jr. (1971); "Asbestosis and Bronchogenic Carcinoma," Isselbacher, K.J. (1953); and the Threshold Limit Values promulgated by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial -23- c Hygienists for 1946 through 1958; along with others to be supplemented' later. A. 83. This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing products more than 20 years ago. This Defendant further states that it began collecting written materials of the kind referred to in this interrogatory in 1975, once this Defendant became involved in asbestos-related litigation. This Defendant objects to listing these materials as they constitute attorney work product. Without waiving this objection, this Defendant states that within the relevant time period during which it was involved in the manufacture of asbestos-containing products, in May, 1979, various papers and reports were produced by an employee of the Trudeau Institute, Mr. Allan Logie, regarding animal experiments conducted at laboratories' aVSaranac Lake involving dust c collected during the Kaylo manufacturing process. These papers and reports may contain information related to the substance of this Interrogatory. This Defendant has not been able to find these papers and reports in its business records or cor respondence although it has searched for and continues to search for them. This Defendant's counsel obtained copies of some of the papers and reports produced by Mr. Logie. However, these copies constitute only a portion of a larger volume of papers and reports which this Defendant has not copied. They are available at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, New York. This Defendant also has reason to believe that Plaintiffs' counsel has copies of the documents produced by Mr. Logie. Other documents possibly relating to this Interrogatory may have been produced by Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation in the asbestos litigation. c Those documents found at Saranac Lake and at OwensCorning Fiberglas Corporation and elsewhere, indicate that during the period of time when Owens-Illinois was in the business of -24- manufacturing asbestos-containing products, the state of government, industrial hygiene and medical community knowledge was that there was a recognized safe exposure level for asbestos dust, that persons installing insulation were not exposed to excessive or hazardous levels of asbestos dust, that Kaylo plant employees were x-rayed periodically and displayed no asbestos-related chest disease, and that therefore during the period in which this Defendant was in the business of manufacturing Kaylo it had no reason to believe that the forseeable use of Kaylo would create a hazard to users. The documents produced by Owens-Corning indicate that the September, 1955 publication in the A.M.A. Archives of Industrial Health was a publication of inhalation experiments described by documents produced at the deposition of Mr. Logie. A. 84. This Defendant states that it has not engaged in sufficient discovery to enable it to answer this interrogatory. Its investigation is continuing and Defendant hereby reserves the right to make contentions at any time in the future as a result thereof. A. 85. This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objectipns, this defendant responds that the status of its liability coverage by its insurer, Aetna, with regard to actions brought against this defendant allegedly resulting from the use of asbestos-containing products has not yet been resolved and is unclear at this time. A. 86. This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing products in 1958 and therefore its -25- present knowledge concerning the manufacture of asbestos-containing products is not relevant to issues in the litigation. A. 87. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 86. A. 88. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to enable it to answer this Interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this Interrogatory is continuing. However, it does not appear that any warning concerning asbestos was given in that it does not appear that this Defendant had reason to believe that the use of its products would result in a foreseeable risk of harm. . C. .......... A. 89.-- This defendant objects to this interrogatory except as it relates to the time period in which this Defendant manufactured its asbestos-containing products. Without waiving its objection, refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 88. A. 90. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 6., A. 91. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 82. A. 92. This Defendant states that it has referred to the relevant business records of the Owens-Illinois Glass Company, which are still in the possession of Owens-Illinois, Inc., in connection with the preparation of answers to these Interroga tories unless otherwise indicated. A. 93. Refer to Answer to Interrogatory No. 92. A. 94. This Defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This Defendant has not found information in its records sufficient to -26- enable it to answer this Interrogatory. Its investigation into the subject matter referred to in this Interrogatory is continuing. In addition, this Defendant states that it has found no information in its records which indicate that this Defendant sold or supplied its asbestos-containing products to the Bethlehem Steel Co. at their Sparrows Point, Maryland facility. A. 95. This Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of its asbestos-containing products in 1958, and therefore its present knowledge concerning the difference between asbestos fiber types and asbestos-related diseases is not relevant to the issues in this litigation. A. 96. This defendant ceased the manufacture, sale and distribution of asbestos-containing products in 1958. This defendant is aware that the following present or former employees ( have testified at trial or by deposition in asbestos-related litigation: Edward C. Ames, Richard L. Grimraie, William Justice, John Pershing, John Rhoads, June Welser, Everett Shuman, Willis G. Hazard, Richard R. Beck, Samuel P. Schillaci, George N. Bates, M.D., and Thomas A. Meehan, Esq. This defendant objects to listing dates of trials apd/or depositions for each name listed above as being burdensome and oppressive. Effective April 30, 1958, this defendant sold its asbestos-containing product manufacturing division to Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation. At that time certain employees who worked in the division, some of whom are mentioned above, transferred to Owens-Corning Piberglas. These individuals have been deposed with regard to asbestos-related litigation involving Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation. C -27- c EXHIBIT I ( C I c ***'' *** * -4^.ifT"1- *"*V- ', % * *r.V-rr `'~-**:ir. A NEW HEAT INSULATION WITH A REMARKABLE COMBINATION OF ADVANTAGES.... Kaylo Heat Insulating Bi a new type of lightweight mint filiation (hat is tjficitnt enough used at ordinary room tempe: and rttitUnt enough to perforrr lively up to 1200 F. Few new products of any kin been so thoroughly researched being placed on the market. Heat Insulating Block is the ac ment of many years' work by C Illinois Glass Company engi physicists and chemists. No other material, new or c effectively combines the most able characteris'ics of the idea insulation. For instance .. . LOW DENSITY Kaylo Heat Insulating weighs only 11 pounds per cvbi This light weight (less than one to the board foot) simplifies han shipping and application. It $ reduces weight'--an important . tage on ships, for an example. i MM M US.A. Notice the clean, straight on these insulated precipitator pers. Applicators find it easy to d kind of work with Kaylo Heat In ing Block because they are so es cut and yet they have a relatively flexural strength. The walls abo\ hoppers are also insulated with > Heat Insulating Block. 3 YV THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY The coefficient of conductivity, or _ v". of Kaylo Heat Insulating Block, .shown on the chan on page four, ices *ir among the rnosr-efficierrnrr- i<'->s for medium high tempera* r % insulation value comes prin* sal.. ;om its line, interlaced cellular ucture. These cells are so tiny and numerous that they pres'enr a ma il! surface of approximately 140 res per cubic foot of insulation. Experience shows that the insula'B value of Kaylo insulation imoves when the material is put into vice. FECTIVE OVER WIDE MPERATURE RANGE Kaylo Heat Insulating Block per ms efficiently not only on temperaes in the low pressure steam and hot ter range but on temperatures in : superheated steam range as well, is is shown by the flatness of the aducrivity curve. One-material covige with Kaylo insulation handles plications which often require two cknesses of different materials. GH COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Its compressive strength - is unof ;gh for a hrineral product of :lV. i weight. Kaylo Heat Insu lating Block withstands compression values equivalent to those of a man's -walking on it or even to those-of a heel's being ground into it.------- -- HIGH TLEXURAL STRENGTH a Its flexural strength is higher than the normal requirement for heat insu lation of this type. This strength makes for easy handling and applica tion. and contributes to long service with low maintenance. NO ADDED BINDER Kaylo insulation is an inorganic compound, containing no added binder. Its performance characteris tics. therefore, are not affected by additives, which often reduce insulat ing value, modify effective tempera ture range or otherwise limit per formance. EASY TO APPLY WELL Kaylo Heat Insulating Blocks are clean-cut and trim. They are easy to fit into place to make a good-looking installation. Their "feel" is pleasant and non-irritating. They can be cut, scored and sawed with ordinary wood working rools. Finishes that go over the block, whether cement, cloth or other types, can be applied smoothly and with a minimum of effort. No special tools are needed. LOW MOISTURE ABSORPTION Moisture absorption is no prob lem with Kaylo insulation. Even *hcn subjected to an atmosphere of 90 ff . relathe humidity and a temperature . of 120s F.. in standard tests, speci mens absorb less than 19! moisture by volume. RETAINS EFFECTIVENESS AFTER LONG SERVICE Kaylo Heat Insulating Block re mains strong, free from excessive powdering, and shows little loss in weight or shrinkage after long appli cation to temperatures up to 1200 F. Even conventional tumbling tests, run after prolonged heating, produce relatively little crumbling or break down of the material. STANDARD SIZES Lengths (inches) 3 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Widths Thicknesses (inches) | (inches) 61 6 1 Vi 62 6 2 Vi 63 12 1 12 lVi 12 2 12 2 Vi 12 3 - Other sires are available on special order. D A REMARK ABLE V E R S AT I ITY On large or small equipment, ine or out, Kaylo Heat Insulating >ck performs efficiently and with a nimum of maintenance. Here it is ne `"nlied to the walls of a large 'r. Workmen are laying >ck c i 6" x 6" wire mesh welded the stiffeners. The block are then ) ered with finishing cement and ''w/ 'halt mastic weatherproofing. Kaylo Heat Insulating Block cov ers both flat and curved surfaces on the power house equipment pictured here. At the right are fresh air intakes; the center compartments house in duced draft fans; and at the left are conduits leading to a precipitator. Kaylo insulapon means continuous fuel savings to this power plant. Hot water is always ready when needed in the office building where this hot water storage tank is installed, thanks to Kaylo Heat Insulating Block. This permanent insulation holds water temperarure constant with a minimum of power consumption. Other applications for Kaylo Heat Insulat ing block are listed on the hack page. Heat Loss, Surface Temperatures and Efficiencies ** u ........................ - -------------- -- 2 RATIO {aT INSULATING hOCx I a'- ------ -------C--O--N--O--u-c-r-rv-m---*--*-- ------- ------ "JST * i,, .......................... -- ------------------- j* f .-- 4 i Is X. S) OO>JeNO2JO)OOJJOeOO4j0J mnmm T>ea>rnsmto. f c RATIO MAT MlUTMC UOOC hut teas wom rut smugs SURUg T>*ATVJMS OR NSUATON ......... A---- Ml A.0*T Iotide or outside, for large iostallesions or small, from 0KS1700*?., use Kaylo Hear InsulanhgBlock to 'insulate: Breechings ` Lehrs ' - Hot Air Dues Autoclaves Tanks Ovens Towers - Furnaces Dryers Turbines Evaporators Chilling Pits Heat Exchangers Boilers Condensers Precipitators Locomodves - .... ,, . - j SOURCES OV TEST_DATA^^ -y .. The data shown on these: pages . .are supported by tests run et-^anous I .laboratories, all. welL knoWe.no the- 5? ^ insuladon'indastry.-They are' further supponed by the performance of the product in service. */']- --eano hiat insvuttws hoc*----natcws on hat sm*c ___________ * .m _S;A Aw, _RG"_l_______ 3T vr--- 7 More detailed informadon oo Kaylo Hem losulanng Block is avail able on request. American Strucrurxl Products Company, Toledo 1, Ohio. Subsidiary of Owens-Illinois Glass Company. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ( AT A GLANCE Approximately 11 lb. per cu. ft. $0 ib. per sq. in. (at 3% deformation) Before heating................................................................. 150 lb. per *q. in. After beating for 24 hours. at 750* F................................................................... 144 lb. per *q. in. at 1000* F...................................................... 123 lb. per sq. ia. at 1200* F.... ;iv:............-------------- 117 lb. per sq. in. I--"* -. - _ After boiling for 24 boon, (while wet).......----- 74 lb. per sq. in. - `"m-Jt - After boiling for 24 hours.......... . .. ................................................ 0.2 % : vVk.yrrw'jr's *7^- (Conventional Tumbling Test--Loss in weight after 10 minutes) . . ..V Before hearing..' *:-ifriSSi ^^Ster h&anic 4 m e*e . 2*2 ^ . . n - it > 7<n* T ?* -y*?*______ __________________ %.7 & ~ \ linear Shrfhkxgeafter beating for 24 hr*.! - - - - *--730 ^e 4 1 4 4 4 4 * 4 4444444I 44 0*8 % at 1000* F....................... .'............... ............................................. 0.9% at 1200* F.......... . .'........................................................................ 1.3% Elongation after saturation (max.)..................................................... 0.4 % ?'iVv'L' - r :'J*: '."I'ltlJV (velum*) c After 6 hours exposure in atmosphere of 120* F. and 90% Relative Humidity.......... 0.9% * * / : At 300* F. mean temperature. 0.474 PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF KAYIO HEAT INSULATING SLOCK EXTREMELY LIGHTWEIGHT Kcyf* Structural Insulating Block--is a near-white, rigid mineral insulating material weighing approximately 20 pounds per cubic foot It is composed principally of calcium silicate. Except for density and for those characteris tics that are changed by density it is similar to Kayio Heat Insulating Block, a lightweight insulation used to insulate against heat loss from hot surfaces. Kayio Structural Insulating Block (20-lb. density) is designed to develop maTimnm strength and fire resistance without sacrificing its advantages of light weight and low thermal conductivity. In fact the practical combination of these four properties--strength, weight, insulating value and fire resist ance--makes it almost unique as a building material. It weighs nominally 20 pounds to the cubic foot (actually on an oven dry baas from 19.5 to 22 lb.), has a compressive strength of approximately 500 lb. per sq. in., a "k" of 0.66 at 100 mean and outstanding resistance to the travel of heat and flame at building fire temperatures. A * STTK^CTE Kayio Structural Insulating Block is not a finished build ing material in itself and is not made for exposure to the weather. Its principal uses are as a structural roof tile, or roof deck unit, in which a steel reinforcing mat is inserted at the time of forming, and as a core material. In this latter use it serves as the core of laminated structures where the faces or laminates are applied with adhesives, and also as the core of structural shells or envelopes where the Kayio core material is simply inserted in the open spaces and held by its own contact or by such conven tional methods as clips or other attachments. In any of these applications it adds rigidity to the structure and vastly increases insulation value and fire resistance. i 4YSICAL PROPERTIES I Light Weight--Nominal 20-lb. density Kayio Block is about a third lighter than yellow pine. On an oven-dry basis it weighs from 19.5 to 22 pounds per cubic foot. High Strength--Its compressive strength is approximately 500 lb. per sq. in. with a deformation of 5 per cent. Flexural strength is approximately 175 lb. per sq. in. _ Fireproof--Kayio 20-lb. density Structural Insulating Block has been tested at the Underwriters' Laboratories in Chicago and given the following rating, baaed on com parison with untreated Red Oak as 100. Flame spread........................0.0 Fuel contributed.................. negligible Smoke produced...................0.0 Far use in fabrications that are to be Underwriters' Lab atories inspected, Kayio Structural Insulating Block furnished bearing the Underwriters' label for fire haz: classification for building material. o 1 Good Insulation Valuo--At low mean temperatures Ka> Structural Insulating Block is one of the most efficie structural mineral insulations. At high mean temperanu it still compares favorably with heat insulating maten. of its own weight. High Light Reflectivity--Where left exposed and untreat (as with the underside of a roof deck) Kayio Structu: Insulating Block has high light reflectivity. Its light : flection factor is from 70 to 80 per cent. Non-Abrasive Surfoco--Its surface is non-abrasive. It h a somewhat "soapy'' feel that makes it pleasant to hand At the same time it has a firm surface that assures go contact with surfaces applied over it. No Added Binder--It contains no added binder, but i stead constitutes its own binder. Hence its characterise are not modified as to temperature limit, solubility, ins lation value, fire resistance or otherwise by "bind limitations." v L 'EKSEStAnKG BLOCEC CSG-LE. C r. *j rK LW r* / r t-aO-T MU U 4 4 >eed Werkahiiity--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is ?sponsive to wood working tools. It can be sawed with a and saw or power saw, can be routed, tongue-&ndrooved, sanded, and, in fact, run through most wood working equipment. igh Modulus of Elaitleity--The modulus of elasticity of 3-lb. density block is approximately 160,000 lb. per sq. in. jw Specific Hoot--The specific heat of Kaylo Structural 'isulating Block is approximately 0.22. llulor Structure--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is Dout SO per cent inter-communicating air cells. The cells -e extremely small, less than a micron in diameter. >w Moisture Absorption--Kaylo Structural Block is hyoscopic. It will absorb moisture from humid air and will ach equilibrium at lower moisture contents when exposed > lower humidities. However, because of its extremely nail pore size and other characteristics, its behavior with spect to moisture differs from that of most porous mana> Tt has unusual capacity to distribute moisture ithV. mass, and to give it off to surrounding air of wer . .sture content. s moisture absorption when surrounded by humid air low. Test specimens dried for 24 hours at 215* F., cooled id then exposed on all surfaces to an atmosphere of 90 r cent relative humidity and a temperature of 120* F. r six hours, absorbed less than one per cent of moisture volume. insistent with the common practice for good construc>n involving porous insulating materials of high interna! rface area, Kaylo Structural Insulating Block should sealed against moisture on the warm side when it is bjected to extremely low temperatures. gh W*t Strength^--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block, :e most other insulating materials, is not intended to rve immersed in water or exposed to extremely damp or mid conditions, yet its flexural strength when wet (imersed 10 hours) is reduced only about 15 per cent. Dimensionally. Stabla--'The dimensions of Kaylo Struct ural Insulating Block change little with chang in moist ure content. Earoerience has shown from the manufacture of thousands of units of laminated structures that they have unusual dimensional stability and unusual, freedom from warping. __ Available with and without Reinforcing--In the form of roof tile Kaylo Structural Insulation is available with a steel reinforcing mat. In the form of core material for var ious types of structure it is available without reinforcing. Accepts Nails and Screws--Both nails and screws car. be used with Kaylo Structural Block. Tables showing holding power of both are available on request. Nails should be of the cement-coated type without barbs that abrade the sides of the opening they make as they are driven into the block. Galvanized or non-ferrous nails may be used where - greater resistance to corrosion is required. Screws may be inserted either with or without drilling a pilot hole. Sixes--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is made in a standard size of 18 x 36 inches. Since most uses involve manufacturing operations, thick nesses that are practical can best be worked out with the manufacturer of. Kaylo Insulating Products after approxi mate quantities needed are known. These will usually be between one and two inches thick. Certain thicknesses are suggested by certain building re quirements. A thickness of from l5* to 2 inches of Kavio Structural Insulating Block is required to withstand a typical building fire for one hour--usually somewhat more for a partition than for a door because of the greater per formance required of a partition. 20-lb. and 11-lb. Density Slack Can Sa Used in Cambinotien. Where two thicknesses of insulation are used to build up an insulating structure it is possible to use the two den sities in combination to develop the best insulation value strength and fire resistance. AMERICAN STRUCTURAL PRODUCTS COMPANY Talada 1, Ohia ainatjon ,n over a Kayla Insulating Cor*--Almost any face mar be bonded to Kaylo Structural Insulating rfitp>- Eonding agents can be selected to meet rei\ of the particular facing--also to satisfy the sendee requirements of the finished product--and still offer some choice in curing procedures. Some adheMves which may be used with various r.-pe; of face materials are listed below. .This list is not inter.dec to be complete. Its only purpose is to identify a partia'. list of adhesives. These have been found to provide a tensile strength of 35 lb. per sq. in. and a minimum shear strength of 100 lb. per sq. in. when cured in the manner indicates.1 VES FOR JOINING URAL INSULATING BLOCK TO: Stainless Steel ADHESIVES FOR JOINING LIKE MATERIALS: Insulating Black ta *1 s Insulating Black' Aluminum ta Aluminum Stainless Sleet to Stainless Steel VmyUMl MA IS-It Amborlito M14 o iMiil EZt 13S o o Owf.i. No. 302* No. A. NM247 NIOC 3 MEC 124 o o w.w,,*d o Intolwto No. 1 iMtflgkt 4142 OO Vuicolook OO if 4*33 Ou*m< G. t 2142 G. L 7031 Vioyhool MA 2MI Amfcorlito MU Battik 7024 o Q O O O o o Ovrtf* 3024A ItMnliif 01131 Q wWwm* Inioivi* 1 Q G. E. 2142 Fitiktn 911 OO 3003 O Vmrfeool MA*2M o Ambotiito MU o lottik 7024 o lottik EXE 131 o Sodium Slitm o o Syoa X-S34C o + 1301W (OW) Vvfeoioti 0ttOOOt 4*33 OO Dvmm 4433 O. t 7031 Q Dweoot G. E. 7031 Bettik 7024 k o o Bottik 7024 eti.k EXE131 Itfui o ft Bettik EXE 131 BoUvo o o P Q Damped at raam tamparatura far 24 hours. . O dampest in oven at 120* F. for 1 hour. method of rare 1 I 0 Placed in press at 10 p.s.i. at 300* F. far 10*30 minutes. azimum Strength Placed in press at 100 p.s.i. at 300* F. for 10-30 minutes. ^ (0 Damped in even at 250* F. far 1(^30 minutes. y curing has been tried auecessfully on an experimental od.aluminum and stainless steel bonded to a Kaylo .* ilan" of the manufacturers making the above listed pro( dhesives suitable for high-frequency curing. AOSIBISOSAHl S^nSQfKS'CQfllSjaQ. (PE? <SfiaiPAK)V TOltDO 1. OHIO Su.il.l... .1 OWENS-ILLINOIS OlASS COMfANY KU4M-4I13 Cipr"f^ VtdC; Amaomm* Ftiiiifi Cptnpony. R*nw its U-S.A- r /t r /- c LI w. SLS a ( \ Ls WITH A REMARKABLE COMBINATION C KAYIO HUT INSUUTING BLOCK is s m <yP< of lighrweight mineral insulation that is efficient enough to be used at ordinary room temperatures and retittant enough to perform effectively up to 1200 F. Few new products of any kind have been so thoroughly researched before being placed on the market. Kaylo Heat Insulating Block is the achievement of many years' work by Owens-Illinois Glass Company engi neers, physicists and chemists. It combines the most desirable characteristics of the ideal heat insulation. LOW DENSITY. Kaylo Heat Insulating Block weighs only II pounds per cubic foot. This light weight (less than one pound to the board foot) simplifies handling, shipping and application. LOW THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY. The coefficient of conductivity, or i, of Kaylo Heat Insulating Block places it among the most efficient insulations for medium high temperatures. Its insulation value comes principally from its fine, cellular structure. These cells are so tiny and so numerous that they present a material surface of approximately 140 acres per cubic foot of insulation. Experience shows that the efficiency of Kaylo insula tion improves after exposure to service temperatures. EFFECTIVE OVER WIDE TEMPERATURE RANG! Kaylo Heat Insulating Block performs efficiently nc only on temperatures in the low pressure steam an hot water range but on temperatures in the supe heated steam range as well. One-material coversg with Kaylo insulation handles applications whic often require two thicknesses of different material HIGH COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. Its compress^ strength is unusually high for a mineral product t such light weight. HIGH FLEXURAL STRENGTH. Its flexural strength i higher than the normal requirements for heat insul; tion of this type. This strength makes for easy hanc ling and application, and contributes to long servic with low maintenance. NO ADDED BINDER. Kaylo insulation is an inorgani compound, containing no added binder. Its pci formance characteristics, therefore, are not affected b additives, which often reduce insulating value, modi/ effective temperature range or otherwise limit pci formance. EASY TO APPLY. Kavlo Heat Insulating Blocks ar clean-cut and trim. They are easy to fit into place i Notice Hie dean, straight edges on these insulated pre cipitator hoppers. Applicators find g easy to work with Kaylo Hest Insulating Block because they are so easy to cut sad yet have a high flexural strength. On large or small equipment, inside or out, Kaylo Hex Insulating Block performs eficiently and with a minimum oi maintenance. Here it is being spplied to the wails of s large precipitator. ,,c C i. W* L L >VAMT65S... ike a good-looking installation. Their "feel" is tasant and non-irritating. They can be cut, scored d sawed with ordinary woodworking tools. Finishes tt go over the block, whether cement, doth or other )es, can be applied smoothly and with a minimum effort. No spedal tools are needed. W MOISTURE ABSORPTION. Kaylo Heat Insulat- i Block absorbs little moisture from surrounding mid air. FECTIVE AFTER LONG SERVICE. Kaylo Heat Insulat- ; Block remains strong, free from excessive powderand shows little loss in weight or shrinkage after ig application to temperatures up to 1200* F. en conventional tumbling tests, run after prolonged ating, produce relatively little crumbling or breakwn of the material. fPICAL APPLICATIONS: $0i0di' { iisuets-Kid-aey, lfoorHlaeragteI-ninssutlaaltliantgio-Bn-sloocrk small, up to to insulate: rechines t Air Duacts nks werj ycrs iponton Condensers Lehrs Autoclaves Ovens Furnaces Turbines Qtilling Pits Boilers Precipitators Locomotives fio Heat Inswlatinf Black covers both 1st sad curved aces on the power bouse equipment pictured bare. By imiring heat loss, it saves fuel and keeps tsmpermtures iin the room mt comfortable levels. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS .D...I.N....S....i.r.r..................................................................... Aeprpeaimwetiely 1111 lb. e' rv. ft. UlXUtai STMNOTM..........................................................SSOO llbb.. per 1*. in. coMeeissivi stsinoth :e *% MeMiM) . 1 SO lb. S* ' Mlwt beetwf.............. ..................................... After fpr 24 Howry et 7S0* 9..................................................... .144 lb. per ta..mtb. eer is i 1000= t...................................... Aftoerr 1b2e0l0ie: ft1...'..2.4...b.e.e..n..(...M..e....*.e.t.l............... ..117 . 74 llbb., per pr 18. 18- ~m- loss IN WIIOMT After beamy <r 24 Hewn ei 7S0* f................................................. ei 1000* f................................................ ei 1200' f................................................ After bedwf *e 24 Hewn (efter drywy).. .3.5% .7.970 .9.1% . .0.2% SICManISeTewAiNonCetl ITwOnbAliMnfateSeIOl4eNu in veifDi efier 10 Mwlesl Pefere heeiinf.................................................................. Abet beeline fer 24 ei 730* t........... t 1000* t. at 1200* r.......................................... OIMINSIONAl STAIUITT tineer UwinHefe efter Heetis tar 24 Hewr, at 730* f.................................................... ei 1000: t.................................. el 120C: f.................................................... Beneetien efier tamelron (mee.l.................. .2.2% ..3.7% ..5.7% ,0.% .0.9% ,.1.1% 0.0*'.: moistAufhteraSabseoesnsTeiiOpeNwre in emoeebere of 120* f. end 90% telenve Hwm,d>r*.... CONPUCTIVtTT <K) At 100* t. ween Xwpererwre. At SO0* K ween leieperewre. .0.9% .0.41 .0.S4 THICKNESS{aodees} Oo o0 o o0 oo o 0o 0 0 0o 00 CTb HEAT INSULATING BLOCK Htat Loss, Surface Temperatures, and Efficiencies C 100 200 300 *00 -400 600 >00 *00 900 1000 l >00 1200 Temperature Difference, Lore Surface to Air, *F. Temperoture Difference, flat Surface to Air, *F. SOURCES OF TEST DATA: The date shown oh these pages are supported by testa run at var- C ous laboratories, ail well known to the insu lation industry. They are further supported by the performance of the product in service. :`a More detailed Information on Kaylo Heat Insulating Block ia available on request. American Structural Products Company, Toledo 1, Ohio. c^ ' 'v nA 20-LB. DENSITY c* ( USES i Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is not a finished build ing material in itself and is not made for exposure to the weather. Its principal uses are as a structural roof tile, or roof deck unit, in which a steel reinforcing mat is inserted at the time of forming, and as a core material. In this latter use it serves as the core of laminated structures where the faces or laminates are applied with adhesives, and also as the core of structural shells or envelopes where the Kaylo core material is simply inserted in the open spaces and held by its own contact or by such conven tional methods as clips or other attachments. For use in fabrications that are to be Underwriters' Labor atories inspected, Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is furnished bearing the Underwriters' label for fire hazard classification for building material. o r In any of these applications it adds rigidity to the structure and vastly increases insulation value and fire resistance. .11. ..I ** . ....... -- -- --! j\ YSICAL PROPERTIES Light Weight--Nominal 20-lb. density Kaylo Block is about a third lighter than yellow pine. On an 'oven-dry basis it weighs from 19.5 to 22 pounds per cubic foot. High Strength--Its compressive strength is approximately 500 lb. per sq. in. with a deformation of 5 per cent. Flexural strength is approximately. 175 lb. per sq. in. Fireproof--Kaylo 20-lb. density Structural Insulating Block has been tested at the Underwriters' Laboratories in Chicago and given the following rating, baaed on com parison with untreated Red Oak as 100. Flame spread........................ 0.0 Fuel contributed...................negligible Smoke produced. .......... . .0.0 Structural Insulating Block is one of the most efficient structural mineral insulations. At high mean temperatures it still compares favorably with heat insulating materials of its own weight. High Light Reflectivity--Where left exposed and untreated (as with the underside of a roof deck) Kaylo Structural Insulating Block has high light reflectivity. Its light re flection factor is from 70 co SO per cent. Nen-AWesive Surface--Its surface is non-abrasive. It has a somewhat "soapy" fed that makes it pleasant to handle. At the same time it has a firm surface that assures good contact with surfaces applied over it. - No Added Binder--It contains no added binder, but in stead constitutes its own binder. Hence its characteristics are cot modified as to temperature limit, solubility, insu lation value, fire resistance or otherwise by "binder limitations." STRUCTURAL INSULATING BLOCK (. Good Workability--Kavlo Structural Insulating Block is responsive to wood working tools. It can be sawed with a hand saw or power saw, can be routed, tongue-andgrooved, sanded, and, in fact, run through most wood working equipment. High Modulus of Elasticity--The modulus of elasticity of 20-lb. density block is approximately 160,000 lb. per sq. in. Low Specific Hoot--The specific heat of Kaylo Struc tural Insulating Block is approximately 0.22. Cellular Structure--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is about 80 per cent inter-communicating air cells. The cells are extremely small, less than a micron in diameter. Low Moisture Absorption--Kaylo Structural Block is hygroscopic. It will absorb moisture from humid air and will reach equilibrium at lower moisture contents when exposed to lower humidities. However, because of its extremely small pore size and other characteristics, its behavior with respect to moisture differs from that of *st porous materials. It has unusual capacity to dis pute moisture within its mass, and to give it off to surrounding air of lower moisture content. Its moisture absorption when surrounded by humid air is low. Test specimens dried for 24 hours at 215 F., cooled and then exposed on all surfaces to an atmos phere of 90 per cent relative humidity and a tempera ture of 120 F. for six hours, absorbed less than one per cent of moisture by volume. Consistent with the common practice for good construc tion involving porous insulating materials of high internal surface area, Kaylo Structural Tnsnlating Block should be sealed against moisture on the warn side when it is subjected to extremely.low temperatures. High Wot Strength--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block, like most other insulating materials, is not intended to serve immersed in water or exposed to extr emely damp or humid conditions, yet its flixural strength when wet (immersed 10 hours) is reduced only about 15 per cent. Dlmonsianally Stable--The dimensions of Kavlo Struct ural Insulating Block change little with changes in moist ure content. Experience has shown from the manufacture of thousands of units of laminated structures that thev have unusual dimensional stability and unusual freedom from warping. Available with and without Reinforcing--In the form of roof tile Kaylo Structural Insulation is available with a steel reinforcing mat. In the form of core material for var ious types of structure it is available without reinforcing. Accepts Nails and Screws--Both nails and screws can be used with Kaylo Structural Block. Tables showing holding power of both are available on request. Nails should be of the cement-coated type without barbs that abrade the sides of the opening they make as they are driven into the block. Galvanized or non-ferrous nails may be used where greater resistance to corrosion is required. Screws may be inserted either with or without drilling a pilot hole. Siios--Kaylo Structural Insulating Block is made in a standard size of 18 x 36 inches. Since most uses involve manufacturing operations, thick nesses that are practical can best be worked out with the manufacturer of Kaylo Insulating Products after approxi mate quantities needed are known. These will usually be between one and two inches thick. Certain thicknesses are suggested by certain building re- Suirements. A thickness of from 1:* to 2 inches of Kaylo tructural Insulating Block is required to withstand a typical building fire for one hour--usually somewhat more far a partition than far a door because of the greater per formance required of a partition. 20-Lb. and 114b. Density Black Can Ba Usad in Combination. Where two thicknesses of insulation are used to build up an insulating structure it is possible to use the two den sities m combination to develop the best insulation value strength and fire resistance. Kaylo Division OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY LAMINATION lamination ovar a Kayla Insulating Cora--Almost any face material may be bonded to Kavlo Structural Insul ating Block surfaces. Bonding agents'can be selected to 'eet the requirements of the particular facing--also to .tisfy the service requirements of the finished product --and still offer some choice in curing procedures. Some adhesive* and primers which may be used with various types of face materials are listed below. (This list is not intended to be complete. Its only purpose is to identify a partial list of adhesives. An adhesive no/ listed does r.ot imp!" that it is not suitable. These havs been found to prov.de a tensile strength of 35 lb. per square inch ar.d a minimum shear strength of 100 lb. per square incr. when cured according to the manufac turer's recommendation. They are not listed m the order of their aqhesive strength.) ADHESIVES ANO PRIMERS FOR JOINING [T^/TVYTPifo) STRUCTURAL INSULATING HOCK TO: Weed Vanssr r Paper or Plastics Steel, Stainless Steal J Kaylo fiaivsnoal. Af AlumtAum [ Insulating Black er 1 Cement-Asbestos Beard Ownt* Ns. 3036A PanetaKtt G1131 Swears 711 Catobond 730 Dorita No. 3036A ar o No. A NM367 o N100 ss W i Ovrt 3326A G ^ncuilii* Ol 131 o Socara 711 O ' Armstrong J 1162 o 3MIC 136 GOO hsaiwia 1 Vblybaol MA Jt-li o PanacaSta 01131 O CX 3143 A*6rflf* M 14 o baalata Na. 1 O Saisuiau 3003 taalik 7036 o baartaba 4163 ilt- tadwa o VokaMk ofI*- v-4 Vn*m S-I34I-M301.W (DW| OaPam 4633 GO OO GOG VstyMaal MA 34-l labsHH. SC.14 laaSk 7024 o 0 0 0 G o 0 o o UMTMtans.s.i: Araatranf J.U63 Taea 0 DaPam 4644 o laamSsN M3 o GX 3143 O0O 0 G awn cant SM-- SEcata tadaa 0 o 0 CX 7031 G Sraca X-I34S-H30LW |DW| o last* 7036 larfb EU 131 taatih 1007 VbtyUaai MA 3S1I O lasanabaad 1-13 0 Toga o o 0 o r AoSsfStl PI-14 ada. Asaaaais >1143 o o o Q Gampad at roam temperature far 24 hours. ^ Clampad in avon at 120* F. far 1 hour. Symbols for method of cart; 0 Placed in press at 10 p.s.i. at 300* P. for 10-30 minutes. For Maximum Strength F Q Placed in press at 100 p.s.i. at 300* F. for 10-30 minutes. { Q Gampad in oven at 250* F. far 10-30 minutes. High-frequsncy curing hu been tried successfully on sn experimenu! bssis with wood, aluminum end stainless steel bonded to s Ksyio inhering core. Msny of the manufacturers asking the above listed ** can proride adhesive* suitable for high-frequency curing. Kaylo Division OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY Toledo 1# Ohio L Or SOS Ut Cwv.in 14S. Owi luvwu w v u m mm # The Right Material... Expert Application Tint, Kayio Hut Insulation is proved s beUer matchsi-- hydrous calcium silicate. Its light weight, strength, waterinsolubility, low conductivity and wide temperature range give you extra advantages at no extra cost. Second, Kayio distributors have the technical knowledge and experience to provide you with a complete insulating service. Their trained applicators are skilled craftsmen who do nut and efficient installation. To be sure of getting the most out of your insulating dollan for your next job, call the nearest Kayio distributor. Chances are you can 2nd him listed in the yellow pages of your phone book. Ifnot contact us and we'll give you his name. went tee rtn nw ASSrMl Pl. M.370, O'iwi ffni. GJu Cam pmj. Ssyts Dniusn, Tsl.fs 1, OMs. . first in calcium silicate ...pioneered by OWENS <^)>ILLINOIS Glass Company MAIN OfflCli TOUOO I, OMIO-KATIO 1AUS Ofncili ATLANTA CMICASe HOUSTON N1W TOM miLAStlFHIA NTTHUtOM IT. 10UIS Owen.Illinois Class Company--Kayio Oivisioii ASrtnanwm Ns. K1U. .stuns* is tfea fsIlsuM fu Cknniral Cnsiacsnac--Jas.. Ill) OUNO.i JmtiuJ--Jm. 11. IfSI Slsst Cniw-nas--J1s9nU.. PilfiMium XcnMr-fti.i IfU v For Kaon Trom /^ul^h.... _ V to Nesting Kaylo Heat Insulation Requires Fewer Pieces Per Job The complete rang# of Kaylo Insulation includes pipe covering in Simplified Dimensional Standards for diameters from 14 in. to 72 in., carved block from 72 in. to 60 ft. and flat block for surfaces of less curvature whose radii approach infinity. With its wide selection of interchangeable sizes and shapes. Kaylo Insu lation reduces the number of items needed per job ana permits substantial savings in warehousing maintenance stock. WtlTI FOt FRff I00K--"VartaHMthMutaM*.* N-171. 0'i Mii^n 01 C-->T Kayla Biwii--. Tal.aa 1. 0*M. , ... first in calcium silicate e ...pioneered by OWENS ILLINOIS Glass Company AJiWwiwb x K lt< -invuGiiI^.iIs,iItC, ompany ^Uf-Jtaaiamin* Mvrk. ISJ jj1 a Cm JoMnul Uarrh U. 1M Cftaaieral Kagnwirint- Msrrh. ItS3 Omacai Prwm.ni April. ItU c exhibit II c c American Medical Association Archives Health, published by the American Medical Association, Vol. 11, 1955, through Vol. 1958. American Industrial Hygiene Association Quarterly, 1946 through 1958. Annual Review of Nuclear Science, published by Annual Reviews, Inc., 1952 through 1953; 1955 through 1957. Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine, published by the American Medical Association; 1950 to 1954 . British Journal of Industrial Medicine, published by British Medical Association, 1949 through 1958. Industrial Medicine and Hygiene, published by Butterworth and Company, 1954 through 1956. Industrial Medicine and Surgery, 1949 through 1958. Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, The, published by the Williams and Wilkins Company, 1928 through 1949. Noise Control, published by the Accoustical Society of America, 1955 through 1958. Aids to Anatomy, Last, 1951. Airborne Contagion and Air Hygiene, An Ecological Study of Traupwood Infections, Wells, 1955. Analytical Chemistry. By Treadwell, Vol. 1, Quantitative Analysis, 1937. Chemical Analysis of Industrial Solvents, Jacobs and Scheslan, 1953. Chemical Engineers' Handbook, edited by Perry, 1941. Design of Industrial Exhaust Systems, Alden, 1939. Dictionary of Modern English Usage, A, by Fowler, 1926. Electromagnetically Enriched Isotopes and Mass Spectrometry, Proceedings of the Conference Held in Cockcroft Hall, Harwell, Sept., 1955; Encyclopedia of Instrumentation for Industrial Hygiene, edited by Yasse, Byers and Hosey, 1956. Fatigue, edited by Floyd and Welford, 1953. -2- Fatigue of Workers - Its Relation to Industrial Production, Committee on Work Industry of the National Research Council, 1941. Fuels and Combustion, Smith and Stinson, 1952. r ^ C 1957. _Acoustics and Vibrational Physics, Stevens and Bate, 1950; Acoustical Engineering, Olson, 1957; Acoustic Measurements, Beranek, 1949; The Measurement of Hearing, Hirsh, 1952; Man's World ofSound, Pierce and David, 1958; Technical Aspects of Sound, edited by RichardsSn, 1953; Physiological Acoustics, Weaver and Lawrence, 1954 ; Fundamentals of Acoustics, 2nd Edition, Xinsler and Frey, 1950; Acoustics Noise in Buildings, Parkin arid Humphreys, 1958; Hearing and Deafness, 3rd Edition, edited by Davis and Silverman, 1947; A Textbook of Sound, Wood, 194 9; Noise Reduction Manual, Geiger, 1953; Physical Acoustics, Supplement 1, edited by Lukasik and Nolle, 1955; Foundry Noise Manual, American Foundrymen's Society, 1953 and 1956; Foundry Ventilation and Dust Control, Harrogate, 1956; Body Temperature, Its Changes with Environment, Disease and Therapy, Selle, 1952; Applied Heat Transmission, Stoever, 1941; Heat and Temperature Measurement, Weber, 1950; Life Heat and Altitude, Dill, 1938; Heat Insulation, Wilkes, 1950; Basic Principles of Ventilation and Heating, Bedford, 1948; Heat Transmission, McAdams, 1942; Climate in Everyday Life, Brooks, 1951; _ Handbook of Chemistry, Lange, 1956. Handbook of Emergency Toxicology, Xaye, 1954. Handbook of Glass Manufacture. By Tooley, 1953. Handbook of Material Trade Names, Zimmerman and Lavine, -3- 1957; Handbook of Toxicology, edited by Spector, 1955 and History of Factory and Mine Hygiene, Teleky, 1948. Human Machine, The, Shilling, 1955. Industrial Environment and Its Control, The, by Dallaval1*, 1948. Industrial Medicine and Hygiene, edited by Merewether, 1954 through 1956.- Industrial Methods of Analysis, Willard, Merritt,- and Dean, 1948. Industrial Poisons in the United States, Hamilton, 1929. Industrial Toxicology, Hamilton and Johnstone, 1945. 1923. Introduction to Medical Biometry and Statistics, Pearl, Introductory Quantitative Chemistry, Olson, Koch and Pimentel, 1955. language Habits in Human Affairs, Lee, 1941. Manual of Industrial Eealth Hazards, Ficklen, 1940. Manual of the International List of Causes of Death, U.S. Government Printing .Office, 1929. Manual of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death, Vol. 2, Alphabetical Index, 1950. Mechanical Engineer's Handbook, edited by Marks, 1951. Methods of Air Analysis. By Haldane, 1935. Noxious Gas and the Principles of Respiration Influencing their Action, Henderson and Haggard, 1927. Odor's Physiology Control, Cord and Witheridge, 1949. Preventive-Medicine and Public Health, Smillie, 194 7. Professional Engineer's Examination Questions and Answers, Londe, 1956. Radioisotopes in Scientific Research, edited by Extermann, 1958. -4- 1958. Roget's College Thesaures, The New American Library, Standard Methods of Chemical Analysis, Scott, 5th Edition, 1925.' * Symposium on Instrumentation in Atmospheric Analysis, published by The American Society for Testing and Materials, 1958. Toxicology and Hygiene of Industrial Solvents, edited by Lehmann .and Flury, 1943. Women in Industry - Their Health and Efficiency, Baetjer, 1946-. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on Industrial Medicine, 1949. The Pneumoconiosis Problem, Thomas, 1958. -5- STATE OF OHIO ) ) COUNTY OF LUCAS ) AFFIDAVIT ... PHILIP M. RICE, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an Assistant Secretary of Owens-Illinois, Inc., a defendant herein; that as such he is authorized to make an Affidavit on its behalf; and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answers of Owens-Illinois, Inc. to Male Plaintiffs' Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. day of PHILIP M. RICE Sworn to and subscribed before me this &ih Qc-foUl________ , 1984. NOTARY PUBLIC mw,'obuc'^0/,80 MttwWssroexp-1BVs^f4Hioj 26 914 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES United States v. Pighetti, 898 F.2d 8, 4 (1st Cir.1990). Affirmed. ii r ; . . i. . . ( (o f m amyrcn>i} ( edge, discoveries, and advances, and is pre sumed to know what is imparted thereby. 3. Products Liability =i3 '' Manufacturer has a duty to test fully and inspect its products to uncover all dan gers that are scientifically discoverable. / I 4. Products Liability *=>13 \ . . ,, ,, |i Manufacturer may not rest Content with industry practice in fulfilling its duty, I ii / to test fully and inspect its'products for f Marion GEORGE, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Stuart dangers, as the industry may be iagging behind it in its knowledge about a product, George, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, or as to what, in exercise of reasonable < * ;. it. . care, is knowable about a product The CELOTEX CORPORATION, Individ. 6. Products Liability <*=*81 ually and as successor in interest to Fact that report offered by plaintiffs k Philip .Carey Corporation, Defendant- in products liability action to show that ' Appellant: dangers in product were knowable by the No. 1339, Docket 90-7144. ;., ' t ( manufacturer had not been published did not preclude finding that it was part of the United States Court of Appeals, state of the art and that the dangers which Second Circuit ' it set forth were reasonably foreseeable or Argued May 22, 1990. scientifically discoverable. 1 i 'Decided Sept 13, 1990. ' : '' i- i >."'! 'i ' i1.,."-' ' ` i*i ' 6. Froducta Liability *=81 .!' , Unpublished, scientific report setting -: i,! i 1, . | forth dangere^f asbestos was relevant,;not . 'Manufacturer appealed from judgment to' show what manufacturer of: asbestos^ of the United States District Court for the containing products knew or even what Eastern District of New York, Eugene H. manufacturers of such products knew gen Nickerson, J.,' which awarded damages for erally, but to Bhow what the- manufacturer injuries resulting from exposure to asbes reasonably should have known had it con tos-containing products. The Court of Ap ducted its own, tests or been in contact with peals; Walker, Circuit Judge, held that (1) others in the industry,, , 20-year-old unpublished report was admis sible to establish dangers of asbestos which manufacturer could have discovered, and (2) apportionment of liability was supported b' y the evidence .r - ' ' i Affirmed.......... ..1 2 7' Evidence *=266 1 '' Out-of-court statement offered not for the truth of the matter asserted but merely to show that the defendant was on notice of a danger is not hearsay. "" 8. Evidence *=318(4) , Report of which manufacturer of .ss: 1. Federal Courts *=823 District court's determination of rele vance will not be disturbed unless it evi dences an abtise of discretion. '* >' ' J i 2. Products Liability- =*9, 75 1 . bestos-containing products was unaware and which was not published was not . ad missible over hearsay objection on theory that it was not offered to prove its contents but merely to. show that manufacturer was on notice of particular dangers where there Manufacturer is held to the knowledge was no proof that the manufacturer had of an expert in its field and therefore has a ever seen the 'report, which was unpub duty to keep abreast of scientific knowl lished. , I' I GEORGE v.< CELOTEX CORP. CSUaal4 fM M (WOr. IMO) 27 9.. Evidence !*=372(1) ^ ' I that the district court (a) improperly admit-' 'lv,i Document which had been in existence ted a certain scientific report into evidence' more than :20 years and whose authenticity on the issue of the current state of the art, wasiesta'blish'ed at'trial'was admissible un and (b) erroneously let stand a jury alloca-f der"thel ancient document exception tb-the tion of 90 percent liability against Celotex' [t; hehrsay^rule'to' establish the dangers of in the face of contrary evidence. Because a6besto*&>ntaih!ng products despite al we disagree with both assertions, we af U leged need to1 teat' the document's conclu if.' sions'.!-' FedJlules' ^Evid-Rule 803(16),!28 UAC^, -iU Jllli ' ; . U||. . 10., E vji.dte..n...ce ' ?146 V. - . i .r i , j Court properly determined that report pu|>lu4jed' some 20 yean earjier setting forth dangers of asbestos-related products had,i ii>tl'p*r(oi b. a.tive value in ,act;i`oin to recover for asbestos-belated injuries which out weighed its potential for prejudice. Fed.' R..p..l.e..sI Evid.Rule J 4. 03, 28 U.IS.C.AJ-. J '. . . firm the judgment of. the district court i" J.' ' ,. BACKGROUND Stuart George, plaintiffs '`Marion George's 'decedent was emplo/ed for 68 years as a purchasing agent by the Robert A. Keasbey Company ("Keasbey"), an as bestos insulation contractor and distribu tor. ' From approximately 1931 'until his retirement in 1975, George would leave his: office on a daily basis to visit the ware 11. ProductsJ Liability =H>2 . .. Jury could have apportioned liability for asbestos-related injuries to manufactur- errof asbestos' products based op the per centage^'its products handled by the worker's employers jn the 1930s and 1940s, in viewW evidence that the mesothelioma from' which"tie iworker suffered might not surface until after a latency period of up to 40 'yesira; - based' on evidence that the em ployer handled manufacturer's products al most-.exclusively,: jury could have appor tioned 90% of the liability to the manufac turer. ' vA . , 1 . . i ' 1. . .. house where; asbestos was , unpacked, stored on open racks, packed and shipped, and was .thus exposed to asbestos dust. From. 1903 until 1965, Keasbey.was the New York area's exclusive distributor for, the. full line of asbestos products manufac tured by Celotex's predecessor, the Philip Carey. Company ("Philip Carey'!)., i, Kessbey's ,former president who was.employed with the company from 1931 to 1989, testi fied that while in more recent years Keas bey distributed the products of other manu facturers, "in the early years" Keasbey handled "almost ail Carey products." .. t ' Donald 1. Marlin (Perry Weitz, P,C., New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appel lee. ' .' -I f. JO'! -i . . ,,.Rosapne, C. Kemmet (McCarter & Eng lish,. Newark, NJ-.'of counsel), for defen dant-appellant .. ; 1 Before VAN GRAAFEILAND, MESKILL and WALKER, Circuit Judges. ' WALKER, Circuit Judge. The Celotex Corporation ("Celotex") ap peals from' a judgment awarding plaintiff Mqriop. George, bn her own behalf and as executrix of her husband Stuart George's estate;1 damages in Btrict liability arising from her Husband's exposure to'asbestos manufactured by Celotex. Celotex argues In 1976, Stuart George died of mesotheli oma, a lung cancer caused by the inhalation of asbestos dust Mesothelioma has a la tency period between exposure to asbestos dust and the occurrence of the disease of up to forty years. Plaintiff initially sued sixteen defen dants, all of whom, save Celotex,- had set tled or otherwise obtained dismissals by the time the jury reached a verdict in this case. Accordingly, the jury returned a ver dict against Celotex alone in the amount of 3700,000 with liability apportioned 90% agpinst Celotex and 10% spread among four other manufacturers. On November 3, 1989, after reducing the award to ac count for settling defendants, Judge Nick erson'entered judgment against Celotex in the amount of $588,000. On January 4, I 28 914 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES 1990, Judge Nickerson denied Celotex's mo tions: for s judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, a new trial that raised, inter alia, the two issues now before us. This appeal followed.' '.'if ' ' - . . , r - DISCUSSION Hemeon Report ' Celotex argues that Judge Nickerson erred by receiving' in evidence a report wrjtten in 1947 known as the Hemeon Re port as it was both hearsay and irrelevant to the issue of liability. Even if relevant and admissible, Celotex argues, the district court abused its discretion by refusing to exclude it as unfairly prejudicial pursuant to FedJLEvid. 403. [1] The district court's determination of relevance will hot be disturbed unless it evidences an abuke of discretion.' See McNeilab,' ikd v.American Home Prod ucts Corp., 848 F.2d 34, 88 (2d Cir.1988). Our inquiry into the relevance of the He meon Report begins with plaintiffs theory of liability at trial. Plaintiff sought to prove that Philip Carey breached its duty to warn users of its asbestos1 products,1 such as the plaintiff, of latent dangerous defects of which it "ha[d] knowledge or by .the'application of reasonable developed hu man'skill and foresight should have [had] knowledge'1.'.." Restatement (Second) of Torts ,} .402A.comment J (1986).. , i 3] "We agree"with the plaintiff that a manufacturer such as Philip Carey is held \ to the'knowledge of an expert in its field, ) Borel Fibreboard Pape? Products Corp., L 493 F.2d 1076, 1089 (5th Cir.1973), cert' denied, 419 U.S. 869, 95' S.Ct 127, 42 L.Ed.2d 107 (1974); see also Dartez v. Fi breboard > Corp, 766 F.2d 456,' 461 (5th Cir.1985);: Wright v. Carter Products, 244 F.2d 53, 69 (2d Cir.1957), and therefore has- a duty "to keep abreast of scientific knowl edge, discoveries, and advances and is pre sumed to know what is imparted thereby." Borel, 493 F.2d at 1089 (citing Keeton, Product* Liability--Problems!. Pertaining, to Proof of Negligence, .19 S.WXJ,. 26,: 3033 (1966)); see also 1 LiFrumer. & M.i Friedman, Products Mobility2_22(lj at 2-1062-64 (1990) (collecting cases) O'tnanm facturer must keep abreast of scientific advances and is under a duty to make1 tests to ascertain th4 nature df its product' In~ this scientific age the tqahufacturef tih-: doubtediy has or should have' superior knowledge of his product").' In addition,' a manufacturer has a duty to test fully and inspect its products to uncover, all dangers, that are scientifically discoverable! Id.' al 1089-90; Dartez, 766 F2d at 46L1' : .1 .. ` * i [4] In fulfilling its duty,, a manufactur er may hot rest content with industry prac-. tice, for the industry may be lagging be hind b its knowledge about a product, or b what,' with the exercise of reasonable care,; is knowable about a product- 'TV. Hooper,\ 60 F.2d 737;-740 (2d Or.), cerL'denied: 287 U.S. 662, 63 S.Ct 220, 77 L.Edy571 (1932); Eaton v. Long Island.Rail RdadJOompd-, ny, 1898 F.2d 738,. 742'(2d Cir/1968);nffane v. Branch Motor Express Co., >290! '.Fi2d 603, 607 (2d Cir.1961); Hall v. E.L DuPont De Nemours and Co., 346 F.Supp. 363, 378 (E.D.N.Y.1972);. Bolm v. Triumph Corp., 71 A.D.2d 429.' 422 N.V^!2d 969,'975'n.' 2 ("state of the art refers to what is real istically capable of achievement not merely bdustry custom.") As Judgev'Learned Hand wrote b the venerable T.J^Hoope?} vj,f f, <[> [a] whole callbg may have unduly lagged b the adoption of new and .avail able devices.. It never may .set jts^own 1. ` New York law U not to the contrary. New - York's "doctrine of strict products liability geri- erally follows the guidelines set forth 'in .,5 402A," Farina v. Niagara Mohawk Power ACorp., SI A-bJd 700, 438 N.YAJd 64S, 644 (3d '' Dcp't 1981),including the expansion of the doc' trine that has occurred in both federal and state jcourts, ltd. 438 N.Y-SJd at 646; .see also Baker . v. SL Agnes Hospital, 70 A-D.2d 400, 421 N.Y. r S.2d 81. 85 (2nd Dep't 1979) (it Is the obligation 1. of a:drug manufacturer to "keep'abreast of knowledge of its products ss. gamed, through research, adverse rexrilnn irpnrti scientific lit erature and other available methods,"- and to .-warn the medical profession); Wolfgruber v, Upjohn Co., 72 A_D-2d 59, 423 N.Y.S.2d 95, 97 ` (4th Dep't 1979), affd, 52 N.Y.2d 768; 436 N.Y: " S.2d 6l4, 417 N.EJd 1002 (1980) (manufacturer must, notify the medical community as to. those risks which manufacturer has, or.b the exercise of due diligence, should .have knowledge).' .'I JJJ' '.llllIR'lI ' GEORGE'V. CELOTEX CORP. CUm*I4 F-2d 3* (ladCir. 19*0) 29 ' teats, however persuasive be its usages. plaintiffs exposure to Philip Carey's asbes ^Courts must in the end say what is re tos products. 1 -u quired; there are precautions so imperak;tive) that even their universal disregard i'wjll ijot excuse their^ omission. ! ` It was in this context'that plaintiff'of fered and the court received in evidence the unpublished July, 1947 report containing a' TJ. .Hooper,, 60 F.2d ft J40 (citations omit: study of asbestos plants that was prepared ,V by W.C.L. Hemeon, the'head engineer of t [511 i Defendants . challenge neither. the the .Industrial' Hygiene Foundation of applicability of the foregoing principles of America ("IHF"j, for the Asbestos Textile law to the facts of this case nor Judge Institute ("ATI"). The Hemeon'Report ex Nickerson's instructions to the jury setting pressed doubts as to the safety of the five them forth.Rather, Celotex argues that million particle TLV, It explained''that the Hemeon'.Report is irrelevant to (the "scientific evidence is obscure" oh the point1 issue of liability because since the compa and questioned "present dust count meth ny never saw the report, it couUJ not have ods." . Hemeon recommended "that studies been on notice of the information contained be initiated aimed to develop another yard-, therein. Furthermore,' Celotex contends stick." Philip Carey was not a member of ;. 11' h * . i that because the report was not published, the Asbestos Textile Institute, to whose: it was not` part of the state of the art' members the report was distributed,, and These arguments miss the point ' The state there was no evidence presented that any-, of the' art, as embodied in Judge Nicker one at Philip Carey was aware of the He son's jury! instructions,1 was defined in meon Report during the> relevant period. terms'of whether the dangers of asbestos ' (6] The document was relevant in plain were reasonably foreseeable or scientifical tiffs direct case not to show what Celotek ly discoverable at the time of plaintiffs knew, or even what manufacturers knew' exposure:1 "The actual knowledge of the generally, but what, if the jury so deter individual' manufacturer is not the issue." mined, Celotex reasonably should have Dartez v. Fibreboard Corp., 766 F.2d 466, known had it either conducted its own tests 461 (6th Cir.1986). or been in pontact with others in the indus Xt trial, Celotex defended on the ground that it'reasonably thought plaintiffs work place to be safe since it operated its facili ties ' below * the threshold ' limit 'value (`TLV'') which established a presumably safe level of exposure to asbestos dust of five million particles per cubic foot of air. Operation of a plant at this TLV was, Celo tex maintains, the so-called "state of the try, such as IHF or ATI, that were testing. The relevance of the Hemeon Report was elevated by Celotex's reliance at trial on the five million particle TLV recommended in 1946 by ACGIH that Hemeon then criti- I. cized the following year in his report) Judge Nickerson plainly did not abuse his discretion in finding the Hemeon Report relevant art" since that TLV had been recommended Balm v. Triumph Corp., 71 A.D.2d 429, by the American Conference of Govern 422 N.Y.S.2d 969 (3rd Dep't 1980), upon mental Industrial Hygienists ("ACGIH") in which the defendant relies, is distinguish 1946 and was based upon the conclusions able. There the court excluded evidence of of k 1938 study of asbestos workers pub post accident studies and safety, tests em lished by the United States Government ploying methodology that had not.been de known as the Dreesen Study. Celotex ar veloped at the time an allegedly defective gued to the jury, both in opening and in motorcycle was manufactured. . The court summation, that in the context of the deemed the evidence inadmissible because ACGIH recommendation, the dangers of the plaintiff had not established that the relatively low levels of asbestos exposure, post accident tests were within the state of such as those experienced by the plaintiff, the art at the time of manufacture. The were both unknown and unknowable by Appellate Division found error in the trial ,, Philip Carey during the relevant period of court's admission of the evidence on the 30 914 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES ground that the testa were "technically'' or "ultimately" possible at the time of manu facture. Bolm, 422 N.Y.S.2d at 976, 71 A,JD.2d 429. By contrast, the information contained in the ,Hemeon Report was not only ^technically1}, or "ultimately" possible during the relevant time period, but was in fact set/orth in a report that existed at. that time.,. Judge Nickerson, therefore, correctly left it to the jury to decide wheth er Celotex .reasonably should have known of the information comprising the contents of the report, not of^his one specific report ,:.v,:i , she must show that the defendant was at least inferentially put on notice by the re port This plaintiff has not done.' Plaintiffs better argument is that, the Hemeon Report was hearsay as Celotex contends, but that It is honetheless admissi ble under either of two exceptions to the* hearsay rule--as a' business record of the American Textile Institute or as ah ancient' document 1 ' ..i 1)1 . -M '[9] While we have some doubts' as "th' whether the Hemeon report meets the re-' it will ut jury.'Be sion' of pt dinary rei Dartiz^'l Heiteon'l picture <Jf the fciairii prejudice HemeozT it did not cordingly 1dis'ici.retion [7,8] .Celotex next claims that , even if quirements, of Fed.R.Evid. 803(6)''as' I' i : the report.is relevant, it was improperly record oi regularly conducted business WJ B. i, AlUx admitted as it is hearsay'not within any of tivity, we need not decide that question ,-V'U tliia the exceptions to the hearsay rule.1 In re because, in our view, the document is' hd-' alj9catior. sponse, plaintiff first argues that the re missible as a statement in an ancient doc; was[wlib port was admitted i "not for the truth or ument pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 803(16).' Although ! falsity of its suggestion that the TLV was improper \ but merely to show that someone said it was; wrong in 1947" and, thus, plaintiff argues, it is not hearsay. To be sure, an out of court statement offered not, for the truth. (of the} matter asserted, but merely to show that the defendant was on notice of a danger, is not hearsay. See Gardnery v.' Q.H.S. Inc., 448 F.2d 238, 244 (4tii Cir.1971); Webb a Fuller brush Co., The document had been in existence more than twenty years and. its authenticity was established at trial as contemplated by. the{ rule... Its authenticity was established in. accordance with Fed.R.Evid..901(bX8).* ,.In-| deed, defendant does not dispute that plain-, tiff met these .requisites for .admittingythej' Hemeon Report, as an ancient .document^ Rather, Celotex argues that, the need ;tq. ployee: fr tends, K products only oth< Celotex i bilitjf Vtt ex'ceed`7 ip Cafe) years'ht 378 F.2d 600, 602 (3rd. Cir.1967); eWcA Motors Corp. v.. General Motors Corp., 181 F.2d 70, 82 (7th Cir.1950); remanded on other grounds, 340 U.S. 668, 7l S.Ct 408, 95 L.Ed. 534 (citing Greater New York Live Poultry, etc. v. U.S., 47 F.2d i66r cert denied 283 U.S.,837,.51 S.Ct 486, 75 LEd. 1448 (1931)). But if this basis were the only one upon which the report could have been offered, its receipt would have been improper.'" Philip Carey could not have test the reliability of the report's . .conclu sions makes it inadmissible, as an ancient, document). Defendant cites neither, case-^ law nor commentary in support of its argu-, raent, nor could: we find any that limit the, scope and application of the ancient doc-, uments exception to the hearsay rule in the, . manner suggested by, the defendant. Ac cordingly, we conclude that the report was properly admitted as an ancient document, pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 803(16)/' 1 .M -,.,y : erro^fj 1 decedem years of which K More, sij evidenct a.latenc the^1 nor George been put on nptice by the Hemeon Report because'there was no proof at trial that lu. 'o. [10] Finally, Judge Nickerson did,. not of his e. n#le Philip Carey ever saw the unpublished re-' abuse his' discretion in refusing to exclude could n port or that it reasonably should have seen the 'Hemeon Report' pursuant to ' Fed.RJ based^o' it as part of the published literature in the industry.1 Celotex is quite, correct that be^ fore plaintiff can argue' non-hearsay notice Evid. 403 which allows a court to exclude relevant,' admissible evidence if itsproba}__ tive value is outweighed by the danger that handled lifto's1! Carets 1 1 - i - t i ... i. II ' : !J1! '' -A ' York'a 2. Rule 901(b)(8) provides that an ancient doc place where it, if authentic, would lively Keasbe ument may be authenticated by. evidence thai the document**' ' rl 1 (A) is in such conditioh as to create no suspi cion concerning its authenticity, (B) was in a and (C) has been in existence 20 years' or more at the time it is offered.Jr"11 i; '* ,. , )IIK ' . .1 ,. .'v . 1 ' , ' : .-' :.V( UCtSi''* stippon ty. '.I *' ' PHILLIPS V. BEBBER auuu rad SI (4UlClr. 1990) 31 itl Will' unfairly prejudice or ` confuse the ;'jury. Because Rule 403'permits the exclu^ion^of probative evidence, it is an extraor- remedy thit must be'used sparingly. paHe,t 766 F.2d at 461.l(IIn this case, the CONCLUSION -j . ' ; 1 .. u For the reasons set forth above; > the judgment of the district court is affirmed in all respects. ' .r , Bemeoii' Report presented a more complete picture of the state of the art at the time of jtfie plaintiffs exposure to asbeetbs. Any u <: `prejudice to Celotex was'derived from the ^;`Hemeon Report's probative force and thus ,j?it:did. not unfairly prejudice Celotex. Ac- . ... t /fV!-------- - (O IUT UWH rrtHH> V' .11. > i) .-U ;-Tcordingly, it was within the district court's .^'discretion to admit it vXnv-f . fiyr?a" ;i . '. -.Allocation of Liability W . i !i. r-..<r? 1 ^p_[ll]i Pelotex also argues that the jury's allocation of 90% liability against Celotex wasi wholly unsupported by the evidence. Although .the decedent was a Keasbey em l ployee from 1931, until J975, Celotex con `J r gi: tends, Keasbey ceased distributing Carey products in 1965 and thereafter distributed only other manufacturer's products. Thus, 'f`- Celotex i reasons, the percentage responsia bility attributed to Philip Carey:could not. 'exceed 78% as George was exposed to Phil ip-Carey products for only 35 of the 46 years he worked for Keasbey. `^ |n the first place, Celotex is factually in error.;, Testimony at trial indicated that the decedent retired in 1975 after 58, not 45,. years of service with Keasbey during 48 of t? which Keasbey distributed Carey products. v; More significantly, however, the jury heard evidence that mesothelioma surfaces after a.latency period of up to 40 years. Thus, the- non-Philip^ Carey products to which Georpe was exposed in the last nine years of his employment probably played little or f no role in the disease process. The jury i. could reasonably have apportioned liability >! based on the percentage of Carey products handled by Keasbey in the 1930's and 1940's at a time when Keasbey was Philip Carey's exclusive distributor in the New York area and, as one witness testified, Keasbey handled "almost all Carey prod ucts." - Thus, there was ample evidence to support the jury's apportionment of liabili ty. William Dayid PHILLIPS; William ,E.( McKinney; J.C. Simpson; Lawrence* F. * Lovato; Harold Atkins, Individually and as representatives of a class ,of plaintiffs similarly situated, Plaintlffs- Appellees, .. < ' v*. Herbert R. BEBBER; Edward W. Erkel; B.B. - Scarborough; Walker Kellog; John- Lltzler; Lawrence Wagner;''as trustees of the Trailways Lines, Inc.-- Trailways, Inc. Joint Council, A.T.U. Retirement and Disability Plan, and Walker Kellog, John Litzler, Lawrence Wagner, William Ginn, James D. Wood and William Dize, Jr., as trustees of the Trailways Lines, Inc--Trailways, Inc. Joint Council, U.T.U. Retirement and Disability Plan, Defendants-Appellants, * Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., Amicus Curiae, and Greyhound Lines, Inc; Jerry M. Hatalla; Jim Cushing Murray; Rafael Rivera; Edward Strait; Robert M. Tucker; Smith Williamson; Kevin Bolton; J. Michael Doyle; P. Anthony Lannie; Judy Collins; L.L. Petrie; Robert Tancos, as trustees of GLI-A.T.U. Mirror Image Trailways Lines, Inc.--Trail-