Document RpM8RpLr7LrbJknobQDQR7Q4E

I IN THE DISTRICT COURT 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS FRANK BROADNAX, e.feal.. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ,ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRI ) ) INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) NO. 87-11728-H ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT W. R. GRACE COMPANY GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following answers are based upon facts known or believed by W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn., formerly known as W. R. Grace & Co., ("Grace-Conn") at the time of answering these interrogatories. Much of the information is sought from many years ago and is, therefore, difficult or impossible to reconstruct or retrieve. Grace-Conn, therefore, reserves the right to amend these answers as and if new or better information becomes available to it or if errors are discovered. In Plaintiffs' Second Amended Petition, plaintiffs allege that the plaintiff workers were exposed to asbestos-containing products while working "in and around public schools within the Dallas Independent School District in Dallas County," or in the case of plaintiff Guy Couthran, while working in various facilities in the state of Texas. The plaintiffs do not allege the exposure of the plaintiff workers to any product manufactured by Grace-Conn at any location at any time. Discovery conducted to date also reveals that only one plaintiff has identified exposure to any Grace-Conn product at any time and at any location. In his deposition, plaintiff Guy Couthran testified that he recalls being "nearby" while "W.R. Grace Monokote fireproofing" was mixed and'sprayed on two unspecified Dallas high schools in 1968 or 1969. Grace-Conn states that it or the Zonolite Company, the assets of which were acquired by Grace-Conn in 1963, manufactured two products with the word Mono-Kote in their names during the relevant time period - Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-1) and Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-3). 2 Grace-Conn therefore limits its responses to Zonolite MonoKote (MK-1), Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-3) and to the activities of Gr;ace-Conn' s Construction Products Division ( "CPD" ) associated with the manufacture and sale of the same in the United States during the relevant time period. Any reference to the manufacture, sale or distribution of a product by any entity other than Grace-Conn, e.g., by the Zonolite Company, should not be considered an admission that Grace-Conn is liable or responsible for injuries alleged to have resulted from the manufacture, sale, or use of such product. Grace-Conn reserves the right to object to the admissibility of part or all of any answer to an interrogatory on this basis. To the extent that these interrogatories call for information beyond the limitations stated above, an objection is made thereto as being irrelevant, immaterial, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and the answers thereto are privileged and protected. Grace-Conn objects to the plaintiffs' definitions of "you", "your", and "product", as contained in the introduction to the plaintiffs' interrogatories on the grounds that they are vague, ambiguous^ and subject to various interpretations. Grace-Conn further objects to the plaintiffs' use of the term "asbestoscontaining products" throughout the interrogatories in that the term is undefined and capable of various interpretations. Grace-Conn further objects to these interrogatories insofar as they seek production of any information constituting a trade secret, confidential financial data or other confidential research, development or commercial information. Grace-Conn further objects to these interrogatories insofar as they seek information which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, which constitutes or evidences attorney work product, or which is otherwise not discoverable under the provisions of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY 1 Please identify by trade or brand name each asbestoscontaining product manufactured sold and/or distributed by Defendant, Defendant's predecessors and/or Defendants subdivision. For each product identified, please state the following: a. The years that the product was manufactured sold and/or distributed; b. A description of the chemical composition of the product, including the type of asbestos contained in the product and the percentage of asbestos in each product; c. A description of the intended uses of the product; 3 ANSWER 1 Subject to the General Objections interposed above, GraceConn states see Product Appendix Nos. 1 -- 2(a). See Product Appendix Nos. 1-2 (b) . See Product Appendix Nos. 1-2 (c) . See Product Appendix Nos . 1-2 (d) . INTERROGATORY 2 Did Defendant, Defendant's predecessors, and/or Defendant's subsidiaries ever maintain any distribution agreement with any company located in Texas with respect to the products identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 1? If so, please state the following: a. The name and address of each company with whom Defendant, Defendant's predecessors and/or Defendant's subsidiaries maintained such an agreement, and the years that each agreement was maintained; b. The products that the agreements involved. ANSWER 2 Grace-Conn states that it is unaware of any formal distribution agreements in the State of Texas during the relevant time period, except for a series of licensing/distribution agreements with the Texas Vermiculite Company, Vermiculite Products, Inc. and Southwest Vermiculite Company. Further responding; Grace-Conn states that it acquired a majority of the shares of Texas Vermiculite Company as a result of its acquisition of the assets of the Zonolite Company in 1963. In 1975, Grace-Conn acquired the remainder of the shares of Texas Vermiculite Company and that company was dissolved. INTERROGATORY 3 Has Defendant, Defendant's predecessors and/or Defendant's subsidiaries ever advertised its asbestos-containing products within the State of Texas through the present? If so, please state: a. the manner in which each product was advertised, including the name and address of the company that published, promulgated, and/or disseminated the advertisement(s), and the date of said advertisement(s); 4 ANSWER 3 , Subject to the General Objections interposed above, GraceConn states that, with regard to the products listed in the Product Appendix and to the extent that they exist, Grace-Conn will produce relevant, non-privileged, non-trade secret documents that are responsive to this interrogatory to the plaintiffs in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. INTERROGATORY 4 Prior to releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. to the public for sale, were any tests conducted on same by Defendants, its predecessor-in-interest{s), or its subsidiaries to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of and/or exposure to the asbestos materials contained therein? 1 If so, please state: a. the name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; b. the results of such tests. ANSWER 4 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Grace-Conn also objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in that the phrase "potential health hazards" is undefined and subject to various interpretations. Without waiving these objections, Grace-Conn states not to its knowledge, INTERROGATORY 5 Do any written memoranda, specifications, blueprints, correspondence or other written materials of any kind or character exist relating to the testing of said products? If so, please: a. List each such written material or document; b. Identify each person who presently has possession of each such document; c. State where each such document is located. 5 ANSWER 5 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not re-asonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. WithoutTwaiving these objections or the General Objections interposed above, Grace-Conn states that relevant, non-privileged and non-trade secret documents containing information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available to plaintiffs in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. INTERROGATORY 6 Were any design changes made as a result of such tests? If so, please state: a. the nature and date of the change made; b. the name, address, and job classification of each person in charge of making a change. ANSWER 6 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in that the term "design changes" is undefined and subject to various interpretations. INTERROGATORY 7 After releasing the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 1 to the public, were any tests conducted thereon to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of material contained therein? If so, please state: a. the name, address, and job classification of each person conducting said tests; b. the results and date of said tests. ANSWER 7 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in that the phrase "potential health hazards" is undefined and subject to various interpretations. Without waiving this objection or the General Objections interposed above, Grace-Conn states the following concerning tests relating to the spraying of Mono-Kote fireproofing (MK-3): 6 1. In 1968, the California Department of Public Health, Bureau of Occupational Health and Environmental Epidemiology conducted studies involving the mixing and application of Mono-Kote at the building construction site of the Beverly Hills High School, Beverly Hills, California. The studies showed that the total asbestos fibers in the air were well below the existing threshold limit values established by the ACGIH. 2. Tabershaw-Cooper Associates conducted air sampling in July, 1970, at three buildings in San Francisco. Fiber concentrations in all spray areas, except for one reading, were found to be below the then existing Threshold Limit Value for occupational exposures. 3. In 1970, the Werby Laboratory reported on air samples taken by Grace-Conn employees during Mono-Kote spraying operations in Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles, California, Omaha, Nebraska and Bethpage, New York. Fiber concentrations were found to be well within the then existing threshold limit values set by the ACGIH. 4. In 1970, the Oregon State Board of Health, Occupational Health Section, conducted air sampling during Mono-Kote spraying operations at the First National Bank Tower, Portland, Oregon. Fiber concentrations were found to be well below the then existing threshold limit values set by the ACGIH. 5. In 1972, the Department of Labor and Industries, State of Washington, conducted air sampling during Mono-Kote spraying operations at the Bank of California Center, Seattle, Washington. Fiber concentrations were found to be within the then existing threshold limit values set by the ACGIH. 6. In 1972, the Utah State Division of Health conducted air sampling during Mono-Kote spraying operations at the Howard Johnson Motor Lodge in Salt Lake City, Utah. Fiber Concentrations, as determined by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, were found to be within the then existing threshold limit values set by the ACGIH. Further answering, Grace-Conn states that relevant, nonprivileged documents containing information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available to the plaintiffs in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. INTERROGATORY 8 Has Defendant, Defendant's predecessor or any of Defendant's subsidiary companies, at any time, published and/or distributed any brochures, pamphlets, packagings or other written materials of any kind or character that contain any warnings, cautions, caveats or directions concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of and/or exposure to any of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 1? 7 If so, for each such product, if any, please state: a. the wording of each such warning; bT the method used to distribute the warning to persons who are likely to use and/or be expos ed to the products; c. the date each such warning was is sued; ANSWER 8 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in that the terms "warning", "caution" and "caveat" are undefined and subject to various interpretations. Grace-Conn further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly implies that Grace-Conn's products had any health consequences for users. Without waiving or in any way limiting these objections or the General Objections interposed above, Grace-Conn states that no warnings were placed on the packaging of its products that contained commercial asbestos or placed directly on any of its products. Further responding, Grace-Conn states the 1970 GraceConn brochure published in Sweet's Catalog of 1971 contained the following paragraphs: "POLLUTION AND HEALTH: Because of the constantly changing conditions involving fireproofing and its relation to pollution and health, we recommend that you contact your Zonolite sales office for the latest data on these subjects. Recent tests at Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. have provided some fire-ratings on an asbestos-free formula Mono-Kote. Other tests and ratings will follow." "Existing formulations of Mono-Kote contain minimal amounts of asbestos which are locked in during the mixing process. Mono-Kote is wet mixed, pumped and sprayed, and hardens to a cementitious mass. Jobsite tests show air fiber counts well below occupational Threshold Limit Values proposed by government bodies." Further, Grace-Conn states that it also had sales brochures for most of its products. Relevant, non-privileged and non-trade secret document-s containing information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available to the plaintiffs in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. INTERROGATORY 9 Did Defendant, Defendant's predecessors, or any of Defendant's subsidiary companies receive notice prior to 1968 that any person was claiming injury, including but not limited to workers' compensation claims, as a result of using and/or being exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured, distributed and/or sold by Defendant, Defendant's predecessor or any of Defendant's subsidiary companies? 8 If so, please state; a. the name and address of each claimant; bt the date of notice of each claim; c. a description of the claim; d. the type of injuries allegedly sustained; e. the style, court number and/or claim of each such claim; f. the resolution of each claim. ANSWER 9 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that plaintiff workers were not employees of Grace-Conn and, therefore, this interrogatory is irrelevant, immaterial and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, Grace-Conn objects on the ground that the information sought regarding other personal injury claims can be obtained from public records equally available to the plaintiffs as to Grace-Conn. Subject to these objections and to the General Objections interposed above, GraceConn states that in 1955 an employee, possibly named Weismantle, of the California Zonolite Company, in its Sacramento, California plant, filed a claim with the State Compensation Insurance Fund in California for disability allegedly because of asbestosis. No further information is known about this possible claim. In providing this information about the California Zonolite Company, Grace-Conn does not admit that the knowledge or activities of that company are in any way imputable to Grace-Conn. Other worker's compensation claims prior to 1968 are as follows: 1. a. Lilas Welch, addressunknown. b. April 1967. c. Claim filed for worker's compensation. d. Asbestosis. e. Unknown. f. Settled for $10,000. 2. a. Herman Hermsen, address unknown. b. September 11, 1967. c. Unknown. d. Asbestosis. e. Unknown. f. Unknown. 9 3. a. William Locke, 4701 Lowell Avenue, LaCrecenta, California. b. December 1965. c. Claim filed with Grace-Conn's Worker's Compensation carrier. d. Lung condition. e. Worker's Compensation Appeals Board, State of California, Docket No. 65UN9562. f. Unknown. In providing this information about the California Zonolite Company, Grace-Conn does not admit that the knowledge or activities of that company are in any way imputable to Grace- Conn. - 4. a. Frank G. Alvidrez, address unknown. b. September 15, 1967. c. Unknown. d. Lung condition. e. Unknown. f. Unknown. 5. a. Eddie D. Manuel, 4920 Cleland, Los Angeles, California b. March 1967. c. Unknown. d. Lung condition.. e. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, State of California, Docket No. 67LA306-493. f . Unknown. 6. a. Johnnie Lee Pace, address unknown. b. 1966: c. Unknown. d. Occupational disease. e. Unknown. f. Settlement. 10 7. a. Donald zak, address unknown. b. 1964. Unknown. d. Occupational disease. e. Unknown. f. Settlement. In providing this information Products Company, Grace-Conn does activities of that company are in Conn. about the Western Mineral not admit that the knowledge any way imputable to Grace- or INTERROGATORY 10 Has Defendant undertaken to investigate any of the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint, including but not limited to the allegation that Plaintiffs' exposure to asbestoscontaining products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by Defendant proximately caused their respective asbestos-related injuries? If so, please: a. state the name, address, and job title of the persons participating in each such investigation; b. list each written record pertaining to such investigation and its location and custodian; c. state whether Defendant has obtained statements from any witnesses; d. If so, please list each witness who has given a statement and the name, address, the job title of each person having custody of any such statement. ANSWER 10 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is privileged and/or constitutes trial preparation materials. without waiving or in any way limiting this objection, or the General Objections interposed above, Grace-Conn states that discovery is continuing in this regard and, other than what is contained in pleadings served to date, it has no such statements in this matter at this time. 11 INTERROGATORY 11 Please state whether or not the Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies, from 1930 to the present, ever conducted any tests in the field (i.e., where the asbestos containing products of Defendant, Defendant's predecessor> or Defendant's subsidiary companies were actually being applied, removed or used) to determine the nature and extent of asbestos fiber exposure to insulators, applicators, mine workers, textile workers or other persons working in the vicinity thereof. If so, pi ease identi fy: a. the date, place and nature of each and every test; b. the parti cula r ashes;tos-contaiLning product to which each test appl ied; c. the resul ts of each test with partiLcular reference to the number of asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air found at each site. ANSWER 11 See answer to Interrogatory No. 7, above. INTERROGATORY 12 Please state the scientific or medical periodicals to which the Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies, their medical departments, industrial hygiene divisions and/or consulting physicians subscribed during the period between 1930 and the present time. ANSWER 12 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to this objection and to the General Objections interposed above, Grace-Conn states that the Construction Products Division library subscribes or has subscribed to the following scientific and medical journals: Scientific Journals 1. American Chemical Society, Journal 2. Analytical Chemistry Dates in Library 1910 - 1939 1929 - 1948 3. Journal Of Physical Chemistry 1938 - 1945 4. Chemical Reviews 1938 - Present 12 5.Journal of Polymer Science ,6. Electrochemical Society Journal 7. Canadian Journal of Chemistry 8. Applied Science & Technology Index 9. Advances in Polymer Technology American Chemical Society. Division of Organic Coatings and Plastics Chemistry Papers 10. Makromolekulare Chemie 11. Current Contents - Physical, Chemical and Earth Sciences 12. Journal of Applied Physics 13. Hydrocarbon Processing 14. Scientific American 15. Inorganic Chemistry 16. Polymer Engineering & Science 17. Journal of Macromolecular Science/ Chemistry 18. Journal of Macromolecular Science/ Reviews 19. Environmental Science & Technology 20. Accounts of Chemical Research 21. Journal of Macromolecular Science/ Physics 22. Polymer Science USSR 23. American Laboratory 24. European Polymer Journal 25. New Scientist 26. Journal of Chemical Physics 27. Environmental Health Perspectives 28. International Journal of Polymer Materials 1946 - 1962 1955 - Present 1957 - Present 1958 - Present 1959 - Present 1959 - Present 1960 - Present 1962 - 1970 1962 - Present 1962 - Present 1962 - Present 1965 - Present 1966 - Present 1966 - Present 1967 - Present 1968 - Present 1968 - Present 1968 - Present 1969 - Present 1969 - Present 1970 - Present 1972 - 1974 1972 _ Present 1972 Present 13 29. Journal of Polymer Science/Polymer Chemistry 30. Journal of Polymer Science/ Polymer Letters Edition 31. Journal of Polymer Science/ Polymer Physics Edition 32. Journal of Polymer Science/ Polymer Symposia 33. International Polymer Science & Technology 34. Current Contents - Engineering & Applied Sciences 1972 - Present 1972 - Present 1972 - Present 1972 - Present 1974 - Present 1975 - Present Medical Journals 1. New England Journal of Medic ine Dates in Library 1972 - Present 2. American Journal of Industri al Medicine 1973 - Present 3. British Journal of Industria 1 Medicine 1973 - Present 4. Journal of Occupational Medi cine 1975 - Present 5. Neurotoxicology 1979 - Present INTERROGATORY 13 Please identify each distributor or wholesaler of your asbestos-containing products since 1940 in Texas. For each distributor or wholesaler, please state: a. the last known address; b. the years of the relationship; c. whether there was a written distributorship agreement. ANSWER 13 See the answer to Interrogatory No. 2, above. INTERROGATORY 14 Please identify any and all persons, including experts and witnesses, having knowledge of facts regarding the presence and use of any of the products identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 1 in any facilities, including school buildings, owned and/or operated by the Dallas Independent School District (DISD). 14 ANSWER 14 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is privileged and/or constitutes trial preparation materials. Without waiving or in any way limiting this objection or the General Objections interposed above, GraceConn states that discovery is continuing in this regard. INTERROGATORY 15 Please identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial and state: a. the subject matter on which each such expert is expected to testify, b. the mental impressions and opinions held by the expert with respect to the subject matter on which he will testify, and c. the facts known to the expert (regardless of when the factual information was acquired) which relate to or form the basis of the mental impressions and opinions held by the expert. ANSWER 15 Grace-Conn has not yet decided whom it will call at the time of trial, but reserves the right to do so prior to trial. When such decision is made, the information requested will be supplied in an appropriate manner. INTERROGATORY 16 Please list the name, address, and job title of each person who provided assistance in answering these Interrogatories. ANSWER 16 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving or in any way limiting this objection or the General Objections interposed above, Grace-Conn states that these answers were prepared with the assistance of many employees and representatives of Grace-Conn, with the assistance and advice of.Grace-Conn counsel, retained counsel and their staffs, who, in the course of preparing for these and other cases have interviewed many individuals and have reviewed voluminous records of Grace-Conn. INTERROGATORY 17 Please state the net financial worth of Defendant for each of the past five years. 15 ANSWER 17 . Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, in that the information sough can be obtained from public records equally available to the plaintiffs as-to Grace-Conn. INTERROGATORY 18 Please list the name, address and job title of each expert, witness, engineer, industrial hygienist, consultant, employee, contractor, sub-contractor, or any other person who, on behalf of Defendant, ever conducted any tests to determine the presence of asbestos in any building within the DISD. ANSWER 18 Subject to the General Objections interposed above, GraceConn states the following: 1. Dr. Richard J. Lee Energy Technology Consultants 350 Hochberg Rd. Monroeville, PA 15146 2. Dr. Anthony Kolk EMS Laboratories 12563 Crenshaw Blvd. Hawthorne, CA 90250 3. Donald R. McFee Executive Vice President Occusafe, Inc. 1040 S. Milwaukee Avenue Wheeling, IL 60090 INTERROGATORY 19 Please list the name, address and job title of each expert, witness, consultant, employee, engineer, industrial hygienist, contractor, sub-contractor, or any other person who, on behalf of Defendant, ever conducted any tests to determine the potentially harmful effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons working for and/or students enrolled within the DISD. ANSWER 19 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous in that the phrase "potentially harmful effects" is undefined and subject to various interpretations. Subject to this objection and to the General Objections interposed above, Grace-Conn states it is unaware of any tests done on its behalf to determine the potentially harmful effects of exposure to asbestos upon persons working for and/or students enrolled within the DISD. 16 INTERROGATORY 20 Please identify every building or facility owned and/or operated by the DISD, including but not limited to school buildings and swimming pools, where Defendant's asbestoscontaining produces have been used, installed or applied; the locations within the school of such use, application or installation; and the date(s) of said use, application or installation. ANSWER 20 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that none of the plaintiffs have alleged exosure to Grace-Conn products at any specific building or facility owned or operated by DISD. Respectfully submitted DATED: Eli: . . Esq. 0Fisk and Fielder l\ Attorneys at Law 1J 2710 Stemmons Freeway 400 Tower North Dallas, TX 75207 (214) 638-3744 Attorney for Defendant W. R. GRACE & CO. - CONN. 1 PRODUCT APPENDIX COMMMERCIAL ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS 1. a. b. c. d. Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-1). Produced by the Zonolite Company from December 1958 until approximately 1962. Virtually all sales ended the end of 1962, although there were some sales by Grace-Conn until approximately 1969. by Chemical Composition: approximately 11.9% short fiber chrysotile asbestos, vermiculite, plaster of paris, Portland cement, ZOD concentrate. Cementitious fireproofing. 2. a. b. c. d. Zonolite Mono-Rote (MK-3). Produced by Zonolite Company from 1959 to 1963. Produced by Grace-Conn from 1963 until 1973. Chemical Composition: Short fiber chrysotile asbestos, Vermiculite, Plaster of Paris, Sodium lauryl sulfate. Contained approximately 13.23 percent 7M or 12.18 7R short fiber chrysotile asbestos by weight. Fireproofing. CERTIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK, SS. Robert L. Romaine, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says he is Manager Finance and Control, of The Office of Environmental Policy of W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn., defendant in the above-entitled action; that he has read the foregoing answers to interrogatories and knows the contents thereof; that said answers were prepared by and with the assistance of employees and representatives of the corporation, with the assistance and advice of counsel, upon which he has relied; that the answers set forth herein, subject to inadvertent or undiscovered errors, are based on and therefore necessarily limited by the records and information still in existence, presently recollected and thus far discovered in the course of the preparation of these answers; that consequently W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn, reserves the right to make any changes in the answers if it appears at any time that omissions or errors have been made therein or that more accurate information is available; and that subject to the limitations set forth herein the said answers are true to the best of his present knowledge, information and belief. V ROBERT L. ROMAINE Subscribed and sworn to before me 1989. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was hand delivered to Russell W. Budd & Roger G. Worthington, Baron & Budd, A Professional Corporation, 8333 Douglas Avenue, 10th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75225, this 13th day of October, 1989.