Document Vj38J8K52kKkBOpn2JVZO3GY4

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATE Hn all tn mfjmn ttys? prints filjall rnm. (gmittuj: By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Archivist of the United States, I certify on his behalf, (erthe seal ofthe National Archives andRecords Administration, that the attached reproduction(s) is and correct copy of documents in his custody. SIGNATURE ` y-n -KEKT-f. C.MrTX /TI^TITLLEE Regional Director NAME AND ADDRESS OF DEPOSITORY C'ff-ce of Regional Records Service? Southwest Region e^, w Felix St.. Bldg. 1 -,iOH-Worth, as. mv---------------- NA FORM 13040 (10-89) its undersigned attorney of record, and makes the following answers to interrogatories heretofore served upon said defendant under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, one of the defendants in this case, has stated that it has devised a high temperature heat insulation which does not contain asbestos Has your company devised a high temperature heat insulation which does not contain asbestos? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Combustion Engineering, Inc., manufactures an insulating cement that does not contain asbestos for use in the 1500-1600 degree fahrenheit range. It also makes a block which, commencing on November 30, 1971, does not con tain asbestos, for use in the 1500-1600 degree fahrenheit range. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: If your company has not devised a high temperature heat insulation which does not contain asbestos, please state whether or not you know if any other company has done so, and if so, state the full name of such company. !" f ...... h ; Ir'.wrrfr au* IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FILED U. S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district of texas SAMUEL R. POTTER BEAUMONT DIVISION J, DEC 3 01971 JAMES R. COONEY. CLERK VS. FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION, ET AL i 7 I CIVIL ACTION NO. 6329 I I y* - ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES TO: PLAINTIFF, SAMUEL R. POTTER, AND HIS ATTORNEYS, WARD STEPHENSON, STEPHENSON & THOMPSON, STEPHENSON BUILDING, ORANGE, TEXAS: Comes now Combustion Engineering, Inc., ond of the defendants in the above-entitled and numbered caiB e, through its undersigned attorney of record, and makes the following answers to interrogatories heretofore served upon said defendant under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Fxbreboard Paper Products Corporation, one of the defendants in this case, has stated that it has devised a high temperature heat insulation which does not contain asbestos. Has your company devised a high temperature heat insulation which does not contain asbestos? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Combustion Engineering, Inc., manufactures an insulating cement that does not contain asbestos for use in the 1500-1600 degree fahrenheit range. It also makes a block which, commencing on November 30, 1971, does not con tain asbestos, for use in the 1500-1600 degree fahrenheit range. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: If your company has not devised a high temperature heat insulation which does not contain asbestos, please state whether or not you know if any other company has done so, and if so, state the full name of such company. iWjUiinU ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Not applicable. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: If you have devised a high temperature heat insulation which does not contain asbestos, please state the name of such product. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3; The name of the insulating cement is "Castabloc", and the name of the block is "Griptex Block". INTERROGATORY NO. 4; If you have devised a high temperature heat insulation which does not contain asbestos, please state how long you have been manufacturing this insulation. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4; The Griptex Block has been manufactured without asbestos since November 30, 1971. Castabloc has been manufactured for sale since early 1966. INTERROGATORY NO. 5; If you have devised a high temperature heat insulation which does not contain asbestos, please state the exact content of such insulation. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Griptex Block Spun wool 73.53% Granulor bentonite 13.24% Bexecor 11.03% Asbestos 2.20% ( Since November 30, 1971 Griptex Block does not contain asbestos). Castabloc Granulated wool Raw earth Vermiculite Portland cement 33.5% 10.2% 17.9% 38.4% Attorney for COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., 1014 San Jacinto Bldg.,P.O.Box 1632, Beaumont,Texas. THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF JEFFERSON Charles S. Pipkin, having been first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that he is attorney of record for the defendant. Combustion Engineering, Inc., in the above cause, and as such is duly authorized to make the foregoing answers and this affidavit, and that he does so acting under such authority and authorization; that he has read over the foregoing answers and the same are true and correct. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, the undersigned authority, this P(] day of __ 197 I to certify which witness my hand and seal of office J\ //. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing answers to interrogatories was on this date served upon the plaintiff and his attorneys of record by mailing the same in a correctly addressed, stamped and sealed envelope to his attorney of record. Ward Stephenson, Stephenson & Thompson, Stephen son Building, Orange, Texas; and also, true copies have been served upon all other defendants in this action by mailing the same to their respective attorneys of record at their respective postoffice addresses, this 31) h day of 197 / ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION -......M \ \ SAMUEL R. POTTER VS. FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION ET AL ORDER OF THE COURT DISMISSING R. & I. REFRACTORY AND INSULATION CORPORATION AS PARTY DEFENDANT On this the day of ; \ u is> t=> 1969, came on to be considered the plaintiff's motion to dismiss as party defendant R. & I. Refractory and Insulation Corporation, and the Court after having considered said motion is of the opinion that the same should be granted: It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that R. & I. Refractory and Insulation Corporation be and it is hereby dismissed without prejudice as party defendant in this action. SIGNED AND ENTERED this ? (~L day of - f tn g 1969. 'Tv/r'-- JUDGE PRESIDING Civ.Qrder Book Sa\ .3A/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAs J~" | L, ? ) BEAUMONT DIVISION, r:7 James K. noosj-.-j. ; s_ SAMUEL R. POTTER, PLAINTIFF, VS. FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION, ET AL, DEFENDANTS. __ Di'.i ; , CIVIL ACTION NO. 6329 REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL. Now comes the defendant. Combustion Engineering, Inc., in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and makes and files this, its Request for Jury Trial, and hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues involved in this cause. This 26th day of June, 1969. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC; 1014 San Jacinto Bldg., P.O.Box 1632, Beaumont,Texas. True and correct copy of the foregoing request has been mailed this date to Stephenson,Thompson & Morris, Stephenson Building, Orange,Texas, plaintiff's attorneys of record; and likewise copies . . have been mailed to all interested counsel of record for the V respective defendants. This 26th day of June, 1969. " ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. sSStSSs '.v.v..rv> i'lJ.y" /; : ' ;* :: s\ ^- ,.v. *" ` '. >; .' y - r; * IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION SAMUEL R. POTTER VS. FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORP., ET AL. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6329 /. ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., TO SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES UNDER RULE 33, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Now comes the defendant. Combustion Engineering, Inc., in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and files herewith its Answers and Objections to the second set of interrogatories heretofore servedupon it by the plaintiff under Rule 33, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows: 1. This interrogatory No. 1 is not applicable to Defendant, Combustion Engineering, Inc., as this defendant did not so indicate in its answer to Interrogatory No. 3 of the first set of interrogatories. 2. This interrogatory No. 2 is not applicable to defendant. Combustion Engineering, Inc., as this defendant did not so indicate in its answer to Interrogatory No. 8 of the first set of interrogatories. 3. This interrogatory No. 3 is not applicable to defendant. Combustion Engineering, Inc., as this defendant did not so indicate in its answer to Interrogatory No. 10 of the first set of interrogatories. 4 See answer to Interrogatory No. 18 of the first set of interrogatories. In addition, this defendant says that the reason it had not used such warning prior thereto was that this defendant's experience had not indicated the necessity therefor. 5. Defendant, Combustion Engineering, Inc., objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the ground that the plaintiff is inquiring into medical facts which will necessarily have to be developed through expert testimony at the time of the trial, and said interrogatory is argumentative and improper; and said question is too general and is not limited to the products manufactured by this defendant but deals with "asbestos" as a general term, and the types of products containing asbestos which are manufactured by this defendant contain difference percentages and different types of asbestos than those manufactured by the other defendants, and this defendant should not be called upon to answer a question which calls for a medical conclusion and may also be one of the ultimate issues to be tried in this case because there is a wide -v*. "T- i ' '. -? -~ I;'. . * '/Cv ;: *F>?^.':`,'^vi':-" *';'** '*.. ' . THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF JEFFERSON CHARIES S. PIPKIN, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that he is attorney of record for the de fendant, Combustion Engineering, Inc., in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and as such is duly authorized to make, file and present the foregoing answers to interrogatories and this affidavit, and that he does so, acting under such authority and authorization; that he has read over the foregoing answers and the same are true and correct. jLu. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, this _/j2^_day of March, 1970, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 11th day of March/ 1970, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was mailed to the following named attorneys of record: Mr. Ward Stephenson, Attorney, Stephenson and Thompson, Stephenson Building, Orange, Texas. 77630 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF,S-R.Potter Mr. W.N.Arnold, Jr.,Attorney, Fulbright.Crooker,Freeman,Bates & Jaworski, Bank of the Southwest Bldg., Houston,Texas 77002 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING AND SUPPLY CORP., AND PHILIP CAREY CORPORATION Mr. Robert E. Barnes, Attorney, P.O.Box 5098, Beaumont, Texas 77706 Attorney for Defendant, RUBEROID COMPANY, A DIVISION OF GAF CORPORATION Mr. Dale Dowell, Attorney, 707 Beaumont Savings Bldg., Beaumont, Texas 77701 Attorney for Defendant, OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP. Mr. George A. Weller, Attibrney, P.O.Box 350, Beaumont, Texas 77704 Attorney for Defendant FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION Mr. Gerald P. Coley, Attorney, Vinson,Elkins,Searls & Connelly, First City National Bank Bldg., Houston, Texas 77002 Attorney for Defendant UNARCO INDUSTRIES, INC. Mr. James W. Mehaffy, Attorney, San Jacinto Bldg., Beaumont, Texas 77701 Attorney for Defendant, STANDARD ASBESTOS MANUFACTURING AND INSULATING COMPANY Mr. Ben L. Reynolds, Attorney, Royston, Rayzor and Cook, 877 San Jacinto Bldg., Houston, Texas 77002 Attorney for Defendant, EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC. Mr. Gordon R. Pate,Attorney, 1119 Beaumont Savings Bldg., Beaumont, Texas 77701 Attorney for Defendant, JOHNS-MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORP. Mr. George E. Murphy, Attorney, 615 San Jacinto Bldg., Beaumont, Texas Attorney for Intervenors, CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE CO. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION S. R. POTTER VS. FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CIVIL ACTION no/6329 CORPORATION ET AL ANSWERS OF COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., TO PORTION OF INTERROGATORIES CONTAINED IN FIRST SET OF INTER- ROGATORIES . Now comes CSmbudion Engineering, Inc., one of the defendants in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and answering the portion of the Interrogatories contained in the first set of Interrogatories heretofore served on said defendant under Rule 33, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which have not been heretofore answered, replies to the same as follows: 1. In answer to Interrogatory No. 2 of the first set of Interrogatories, defendant states that the following warning has been placed on this defendant's products containing asbestos, such warning being given to all who use such products: "CAUTION: This product contains asbestos fibers. Excessive inhalation of asbestos may be harmful. If adequate ventilation is not possible, wear respirators approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines." set of Interrogatories, this defendant answers the same no. 3. In reply to Interrogatory No. 11 of the first set of Interrogatories, this defendant has no information or knowledge of the matters referred to or inquired about in said interrogatory. 4. In reply to Interrogatory No. 12 of the first set of Interrogatories, this defendant has no information or knowledge of the matters referred to or inquired about in said interrogatory. 5 In reply to In terrogatory No. 13 of the first set of Interrogatories, this defendant has no information or knowledge of the matters referred to or inquired about in said interrogatory. 6 In reply to Interrogatory No. 17 of the first set of Interrogatories, this defendant has no information or knowledge of the matter referred to or inquired about in said interrogatory. 7 In reply to Interrogatory No. 19 of the first set of Interrogatories, this defendant has no information or knowledge of the matter referred to or inquired about in said interrogatory. 8 In reply to Interrogatory No. 26, of the first set of Interrogatories, this defendant answers the same no. 2- - 9. Answering Interrogatory No. 37 of the first set of interrogatories, the defendant answers same no. .10 This defendant answers Interrogatory No. 41 of the first set of interrogatories as follows: Due to the fact that prior to 1967 Combustion Engineering, Inc's subsidiary, R and I, Refractory and In sulation Corporation, later merged with Combustion Engineering, Inc., the net profit for both companies is indicated below: Combustion Enaineerincr. Inc. R and I Refractorv 1960 $6,160,000 $168,553 1961 $6,435,000 $ 66,445 1962 $6,853,000 $ 82,397 1963 $7,600,000 $339,716 1964 $8,784,000 $363,825 1965 $13,100,000 $344,120 1966 $18,299,000 $345,000 1967 $21,110,000 R & I for 1967, $422,000 , for Ramtite Company, nergt with R & I in 1967,$624,6t 1968 22,105,775 42. Answering Interrogatory No. 42 of the first set of Interrogatories, this defendant replies to same as follows: For the reason set forth under answer to No. 41 above, the figures called for are broken down as between Combustion Engineering, Inc., and its former subsidiary, R and I Refractory and Insulation Corporation: -3.A:;' iz-rn? ":'^i jS.V( 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Engineering, Inc. $94,060,000 $96,556,000 $98,714,000 $99,375,000 $181,889.00 $115,116,000 $132,819,000 $149,698,000 1968 $212,933,147 12. Answering interrogatory No. 43 of the first set of Interrogatories, this defendant replies to same as follows: For the reason set forth under answer to No. 41 above, the figures called for are bcoken down as between Combustion Engineering, Inc., and its former subsidiary, R and I Refractory and Insulation Corporation, and for the period from 1960 to and including 1967, the figures, insofar as Combustion Engineering, Inc., is concerned, do not include sales of asbestos-containing products, since Combustion Engineering, Inc., has only engaged in such business in its own name since December 31, 1967, but such figures represent sales of other items manufactured by Combustion Engineering, and only the figure shown for 1968 includes sales of asbestos-containing products. The figures as to R and I Refractory and Insulation Corporation do include sales of asbestos-containing products: -4- Combustion Engineering. Inc. 1960 $269,502,000 1961 $297,137,000 1962 $263,219,000 1963 $301,185,000 1964 $317,371,000 1965 $416,903,000 1966 $577,867,000 1967 $688,589,000 1968 $664,891,067 R & I Refractory $3,644,894 $3,303,218 $3,900,392 $5,068,720 $7,813,232 $8,807,332 $9,377,000 $9,891,000 for R & I and $9,671,705, Ramtite Company merged with R & I 1967 13. Answering interrogatory No. 46 of the first set of Interrogatories, this defendant has no knowledge in regard to Dr. Irving J. Selikoff as an authority in the field of asbestosis or otherwise. 14. Answering interrogatories Nos. 47 through 84, incl, of the first set of Interrogatories, this defendant says that it agrees that the states mentioned have workmen's compen sation laws which pertain to occupational disease but whether or not such laws specifically cover asbestosis, and the dates of the beginnings of such laws, this defendant does not have sufficient knowledge or information upon which to predicate a sworn statement in regard thei ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, Combustion Engineering, Inc., 1014 San Jacinto Bldg., P.O.Box 1632, Beaumont, Texas. THE STATE OP TEXAS COUNTY OF JEFFERSON CHARLES S. PIPKIN, being duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that he is attorney of record for the defendant. Combustion Engineering, Inc., in the above cause and as such is duly authorized to make, file and serve the foregoing answers to Interrogatories and this af fidavit, and that he does so acting on such authority and authorization; that he has read over the foregoing answers signed authority, this day of February, 1970, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY,TEXAS.  - j-.. ; ::vrtV:,: >: "5 \7A ;... . *v>.-**' ;:rVV - r *' : \` r* `1*:\S'v`;.> ` J CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I_ hereb.y certify. that on this ____ . _day of 1970, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was mailed to the following named attorneys of record: Mr. Ward Stephenson, Attorney, Stephenson and Thompson, Stephenson Building, Orange, Texas. 77630 attorney for PLAINTIFF,S-R.Potter Mr. W.N.Arnold, Jr.,Attorney, Fulbright,Crooker.Freeman,Bates & Jaworski, Bank of the Southwest Bldg., Houston,Texas 77002 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING AND SUPPLY CORP., AND PHILIP CAREY CORPORATION Mr. Robert E. Barnes, Attorney, P.O.Box 5098, Beaumont, Texas 77706 Attorney for Defendant, RUBEROID COMPANY, A DIVISION OF GAF CORPORATION Mr. Dale Dowell, Attorney, 707 Beaumont Savings Bldg., Beaumont, Texas 77701 Attorney for Defendant, OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP. Mr. George A. Weller, Attorney, P.O.Box 350, Beaumont, Texas 77704 Attorney for Defendant FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION Mr. Gerald P. Coley, Attorney, Vincon,Elkins,searls & Connelly, First City National Bank Bldg., Houston, Texas 77002 Attorney for Defendant UNARCO INDUSTRIES, INC. Mr. James W. Mehaffy, Attorney, San Jacinto Bldg., Beaumont, Texas 77701 Attorney for Defendant, STANDARD ASBESTOS MANUFACTURING AND INSULATING COMPANY Mr. Ben L. Reynolds, Attorney, Royston, Rayzor and Cook, 877 San Jacinto Bldg., Houston, Texas 77002 Attorney for Defendant, EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC. Mr. Gordon R. Pate,Attorney, 1119 Beaumont Savings Bldg., Beaumont, Texas 77701 Attorney for Defendant, JOHNS-MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORP. Mr. George E. Murphy, Attorney, 615 San Jacinto Bldg., Beaumont, Texas Attorney for Intervenors, NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION and CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE CO. k i ATTORNEY F<5r DEE'END? COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. \ a* 9ni *1 ", s i--v : ^1 L s: n *&S52g,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION 22)07, V y :yv-\'COONEV-cLEf?K SAMUEL R. POTTER wuryj. VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6329 FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS : CORPORATION ET AL : SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO _DEFENDANTS TO: PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING AND SUPPLY CORPORATION PHILIP CAREY CORPORATION RUBEROID COMPANY, A DIVISION OF GAF CORPORATION COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION UNARCO INDUSTRIES, INC. STANDARD ASBESTOS MANUFACTURING AND INSULATING COMPANY EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC. JOHNS-MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendants: -;\ /. ^ V--'*.tf.. '-.v-j*I : SAMUEL R. POTTER, plaintiff, hereby serves upon the above named defendants the following written interrogatories to be answered fully and fairly in writing under oath, which shall be signed by the person or persons making such answers, a copy of such answers to be served upon plaintiff's attorney within fifteen (15) days after service herein, in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. In connection with Interrogatory #3 of the first set of interrogatories propounded to you, you have indicated that your`company is familiar with the studies made by various other agencies, including the United States Government. Please state the names of the persons or agencies making such studies, the date and identification of such studies or reports, with sufficient detail to enable the plaintiff to obtain copies of any such studies to which you refer. Also, state what action, if any, your company took in response thereto. 2. In connection with Interrogatory #8 of the first set of interrogatories propounded to you, you have indicated that your company is familiar with studies made by various other agencies, including the United States Government. Please state the names of the persons or agencies making such studies, the date and identification of such studies or reports, with sufficient detail to.enable the plaintiff to obtain copies of any such studies to which you refer. Also, what action, if any, did your company take based upon these studies to prevent anyone using your products from contracting the disease of asbestosis? 3. In answer to Interrogatory #10 of the first set of interrogatories propounded to you, you have indicated that dust counts have been made by independent organizations, as well as by various contractors, and by various governmental agencies. Please state the names of the persons or agencies making such studies, the date and identification of such studies or reports, with sufficient detail to enable the plaintiff to obtain copies of any such reports to which you refer. Also, what action, if any, did your company take based upon these studies? 4. In connection with Interrogatory #18 of the first set of interrogatories propounded to you, you have indicated that your company started placing warnings on containers containing asbestos materials. Please state what knowledge or information caused you to start using the warning on the date that you started using such warning, and why did you not use such warnings long prior thereto? 5. Does your company recognize that asbestos causes asbestosis? If your answer is "Yes," when did you come to such realization, and what action did you take in response thereto? If your answer is "No," then please explain why no studies were made by your company to ascertain that this fact was indeed true and thereafter to take action to advise those exposed to your products of their dangerous nature. STEPHENSON AND THOMPSON Attorneys/for Plaintiff Stephensbjz Building Orange, Texas 77630 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, Ward Stephenson, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was, on this the 21st day of January, 1970 , mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following named attorneys: Mr. George E. Duncan Attorney at Law F. 0. Box 3708 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Attorney for Defendant PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION Mr. W. N. Arnold, Jr. Attorney at Law Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski Bank of the Southwest Bldg. Houston, Texas 77002 Attorney for Defendant ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING AND SUPPLY CORPORATION Mr. W. N. Arnold, Jr. Attorney at Law Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski Bank' of the Southwest Bldg. Houston, Texas 77002 Attorney for Defendant PHILIP CAREY CORPORATION Mr. Robert E. Barnes Attorney at Law P. 0. Box 5098 Beaumont, Texas 77706 Attorney for Defendant RUBEROID COMPANY, A DIVISION OF GAF CORPORATION Mr. Charles S. Pipkin Attorney at Law P. 0. Box 1632 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Attorney for Defendant COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. Mr. Gerald P. Coley Attorney at Law Vinson, Elkins, Searls & Connally First City National Bank Bldg. Houston, Texas 77002 Attorney for Defendant UNARC0 INDUSTRIES, INC. Mr. James W. Mehaffy Attorney at Law San Jacinto Building Beaumont, Texas 77701 Attorney for Defendant STANDARD ASBESTOS MANUFACTURING AND INSULATING COMPANY Mr. Ben L. Reynolds Attorney at Law Royston, Rayzor and Cook 877 San Jacinto Building Houston, Texas 77002 Attorney for Defendant EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC. Mr. Gordon R. Pate Attorney at Law 1119 Beaumont Savings Bldg. Beaumont, Texas 77701 Attorney for Defendant JOHNS-MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION Mr. George E. Murphy Attorney at Law 615 San Jacinto Building Beaumont, Texas Attorney for Intervenor NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION ' Mr. Dale Dowell Attorney at Law :! 707 Beaumont Savings Bldg. Beaumont, Texas77701 Attorney for Defendant OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION Mr. George A. Weller Attorney at Law P. 0. Box 350 ' Beaumont, Texas 77704 Attorney for -Defendant FIBREB0ARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION ORIGINAL SIGNED BY SVARD STEPHENSON Ward Stephenson IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ?! S. R. POTTER BEAUMONT DIVISION '':''By 23 196S9m / C<>u VS. FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 6329 deputy ' CORPORATION ET AL ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES UNDER RULE 33, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Now comes the defendant. Combustion Engineering, Inc., in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and makes and files the following answers to Interrogatories heretofore served upon said defendant under Rule 33, Federal Rules of Civil Pro cedure, as follows: 1. Defendant, Combustion Engineering, Inc., did not manufacture any type of insulating materials prior to December 31, 1967. However, R & I Refractory and Insulation Corporation, which was acquired by Combustion Engineering, Inc., by purchase in June, 1963, but which was operating as a separate entity until December 31, 1967, at which time it was merged with Combustion Engineering, Inc., began, on or about April 2, 1964, to manufacture the following insulating materials: (1) Griptex, a mineral fiber block insulation, consisting of mineral wool, packaged in cardboard cartons of about 3 cubic feet capacity. (2) Detrick Blanket insulation, being spun mineral fibers felted in large flat sheets and encased between metal fabrics, consisting of mineral wool and wire facings, packaged in cardboard cartons of about 12 cubic feet capacity. (3) Detroc Asbestos Board, being asbestos board insulating material, comprised of asbestos Portland cement, packaged in crates of 10 sheets per crate. (4) Detrick Easy Seal Cement, insulating cement comprised of asbestos and clay, packaged in 40 pound bags. (5) Detrick Bonding Cement, insulating cement, comprised of mineral wool, asbestos and clay, packaged in 50 pound bags. (6) Detrick Thinsuliner cement, insulating cement, comprised of clay, asbestos and Portland cement, packaged in 50 pound bags. (7) Detrick Pyroscat, light-weight fire-proofing protective treatment for structural steel, being a preblended mixture of high temperature aggregates, asbestos fibers, hydraulic binder and other materials. (8) Detrick casing cement, comprised of asbestos and Portland cement, packaged in 50 pound bags. (9) Detrick T-60 Insulating Finish, insulating finish cement, comprised of mineral wool, asbestos and Portland cement and clay, packaged in 50-pound bags. (10 Detrick MHD Finishing Cement, finishing cement, consisting of asbestos and Portland cement, packaged in 50 pound bags. -2- (11) Detrick No. 7 Asbestos Cement, straight asbestos fiber cement, comprised of asbestos, packaged in 100-pound bags. (12) Detrick Asbestos Ropes, consisting of two types, blue fiber rope and white fiber rope, comprised of long fiber amosite, finished in 100 foot coils 1/2 to 2 inches in diameter. (13) Loose wool, comprised of wool fibers, packaged in 40-pound bags. (14) Granulated wool, comprised of wool fibers, packaged in 40-pound bags. (15) Slag Fiber, which is the material of which all mineral wool is made. (16) Super No. 711 Mineral Wool Cement, insulating cement, comprised of asbestos, wool and clay, packaged in 50pound bags. (17) Utility Thermal Finish Cement, thermal finish ing cement, comprised of asbestos, wool, Portland cemand and clay, packaged in 50-pound bags. (18) Hilite, insulating and finishing cement, comprised of mineral wool, asbestos, Portland cement and clay, packaged in 50-pound bags. Prior to the year 1940 and until the year 1959, but not since the year of 1959, the said R & I Refractory and Insulation corporation manufactured the following insulating blocks: (1) No. 12 insulating blocks, comprised of expanded perlite, cement binder, 5% amocite fiber, packaged in cardboard coartons of about 3 cubic feet capacity. (2) No. 18 insulating Block, comprised of expanded vermiculite, cement, and diatomaceous clay, packaged in cardboard cartons of about 3 cubic feet capacity. (3) No. 19 insulating blocks, comprised of expanded vermiculite, cement and diatomaceous clay, packaged in cardboard cartons of about 3 cubic feet capacity. Prior to its acquisition by and merger with Combustion Engineering, Inc., and beginning prior to the year 1940, R & I Refractory and Insulation Corporation manufactured and still manufactures (now operating as C-E Refractory Division of Combustion Engineering, Inc.) the following insulating materials (1) Super Stic Tite, an insulating cement comprised of asbestos, wool and clay, packaged in 50-pound bags. (2) Super Finish Stic Tite, finishing insulating cement, comprised of asbestos, wool, Portland cement and clay, packaged in 50-pound bags. (3) R & I Insulated Felt (Blankets), laminated sheets secured with galvanized wire, comprised of mineral wool, packaged in cardboard cartons of about 12 cubic feet capacity. (4) Loose wool, comprised of mineral wool, packaged in 40 pound bags. (5) Stic Tite, insulating cement, comprised of asbestos, wool and clay, packaged in 50-pound bags. (6) Super Finish, insulating finish cement, comprised of asbestos,wool, Portland cement and clay, packaged in 40 pound bags. (7) Pourinsul, granulated fibrous material, consisting of clay, wool and Portland cement, packaged in 40-pound bags. (8) Packinsul, granulated mineral fibers, comprised of wool, packaged in 40-pound bags. (9) Finish Stic Tite, insulating finish cement, comprised of wool, asbestos, Portland Cement and clay, packaged in 25 and 50 pound bags. (10) Guninsul, instating seal material, comprised of wool, banded vermiculite and clay, packaged in 50 pound bags. (11) Casabloc, insulating pouring cement, comprised of wool, vermiculite and cement, packaged in 50 pound bags. (12) Mix A, semi-expansion insulation, comprised of asbestos, mineral wool and clay, packaged in 50 pound bags. As stated, on December 31, 1967, R & I Refractory and Insulation Corporation merged with Combustion Engineering, Inc., and has since that time operated as a Division of Combustion Engineering, Inc. -5- .\sv jSWi'W 2. This defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 2 and says the same is argumentative; and defendant denies the products manufactured by it were of a dangerous nature, and says that each of the products manufactured by it were suitable and reasonably fit for the purpose for which the products were intended. 3. Defendant has not made the studies referred to. 4. See answer to Interrogatory No. 3. 5. Defendant, Combustion Engineering, Inc., did not, prior to December 31, 1967, package and sell any products con taining asbestos. However, R and I Refractory and Insulation Corporation, which was formerly owned by Combustion Engineering, Inc., and which merged with Combustion Engineering, Inc., on December 31, 1967, packaged and sold the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No, 1 to contractors throughout the United States, through representatives, distributors and direct salesmen, some of which products, as shown by the answer to Interrogatory No. 1, contained asbestos and other materials, and the answer to Interrogatory No. 1 is here referred to; and in addition, sold, but did not package, the following products: -7- *; Vv * * i* - - *.* (1) Duriseal, a blend of asphalt mastics# comprised of asphalt and asbestos fibers, obtained pre-packaged in drums of 5, 30 and 55 gallon capacity. (2) Permiseal, insulating sealer and weather coating, comprised of asphalt and asbestos fibers, obtained pre-packaged in drume os 5, 30 and 35 gallon capacity. (3) Weathercoat, protective coating, comprised of asphalt and asbestos fibers, packaged in 5, 10 and 55 gallon drums, and obtained pre-packaged. 6. Defendant's products were used generally throughout the United States. 7. Defendant objects to interrogatory No. 7 because same is argumentative and ambiguous, unintelligible and irrelevant to any issue in this case. Subject to such objection, defendant answers same No. 8. No studies have been made directly by this dfendant. 9. No, defendant's experience has not indicated the need for doing so, and defendant does not regularly inspect the areas where workers are using products manufactured by defendant, and does not have any control over such work areas or sites where such products are used, and defendant does not make surveys in the field where such products are used. -8- n. : V-. V; IP :--;pP 11. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 11 for the reason that same is argumentative, ambiguous, immaterial and irrelant, and is not within the purview of the Rule relating to Interrogatories to a Party, and is not a proper matter for dis covery and cannot lead to the discovery of matters which are relevant, or to proper matters of discovery. 12. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 12 for the reason that same is argumentative, ambiguous, immaterial and ir relevant, and is not within the purview of the Rule relating to Interrogatories to a PaJly, and is not a proper matter for dis covery and cannot lead to the discovery of matters which are relevant dr to proper matters of discovery. 13. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 13 for the reason that same is argumentative, ambiguous, immaterial and ir relevant, and is not within the purview of the Rule relating to Interrogatories to a Party, and is not a proper matter for dis covery and cannot lead to the discovery of matters which are relevant or to proper matters of discovery. 14. No. 15. See answer to No. 10. Defendant does not make dust samplings in the field. -9- 16. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 16 on the grounds that same are irrelevant and immaterial in that plaintiff does not claim he has asbestos-induced cancer, and subject to this objection answers said interrogatory No. 16 no. 17. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 17 on the grounds that same is immaterial and irrelevant in that plaintiff does not claim he has the disease of mesothelioma. 18. Beginning in 1969, the following warning has been placed on this defendant's products containing asbestos, such warning being to all who use such products: "CAOTION: This product contains asbestos fibers. Excessive inhalation of asbestos may be harmful. If adequate ventilation is not possible, wear respirators approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines." This was done because there was much discussion about the matter and acting on the advice of industry spokesmen it was decided to transmit this information to workers using the product if they did not already have this information 19. Interrogatory No. 19 is objected to on the grounds that it is irrelevant and immaterial in that plaintiff does not claim he has cor pulmanale. 20. Defendant recognizes that asbestos is a durable material but does not recognize that asbestos fiber exists for an infinity of years. -10- 21. Defendant recognizes that year by year more asbestos is used in the United States, but the remainder of the inter rogatory No. 21 is answered no. 22. NO. 24. See answer to No. 10 above. 25. No. 26. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 26 for the reason that same is ambiguous, argumentative, irrelevant and immaterial and assumes a fact not in evidence. 27. See answer to Interrogatory No. 26 above. 28. See answer to Interrogatory No. 26 above. 29. Yes, these products can be distinguished by their appearance. 30. Yes, generally speaking. -11- >;>? ^ 31. Combustion Engineering, Inc., was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware October 25, 1912, and Windsor, Connecticut, is one of its domiciles. 32. Combustion Engineering, Inc., has been engaged in the manufacture of products containing asbestos and which are commonly used by insulators and asbestos workers since December of 1967. However,it acquired by purchase, in June, 1963, R and I Refractory and Insulation Corporation, which had manufactured insulation containing asbestos, the latter having begun the manufacture of such products in about the year 1938. 33. Defendant contends respirators are currently on the market which will materially reduce inhalationof asbestos dust and fibers. Such respirators are available under the United States Bureau of Mines Schedule 21B. Tests upon which said approval are based were designed and conducted by that governmental agency and are described in the Respiratory Productive Devices Manual published by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, American Conference of Governmental Hygienists, 1963. One such respirator, "Dustfoe 77", Catalog No. 10-9600, is manufactured by the Mine Safety Appliances Company. 34. - See answer to No. 32 above. Further answering such interrogatory No. 34, defendant says such products have not been placed "upon the open market to be purchased and used by the public" but are sold within a specific trade for a specific use. J'. -, : 1I 35 No; no tests have been made, but defendant has had no harmful effects on personnel involved with the manu= facture of these products. 36. Not to the knowledge of this defendant. 37. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 37 in that it is not within the purview of the Rule relating to Inter rogatories to a party, calls for an opinion and an assumption, and is argumentative, ambiguous, irrelevant and immaterial, and assumes facts not in evidence. 38. (1) Generally mixed with water. (2) Defendant does not manufacture. (3) Defendant manufactures no bricks or blocks of all asbestos. Asbestos containing pro-blocks are generally scribed or cut with a saw or knife. (4) Defendant does not manufacture. (5) Generally mixed with water. (6) Defendant.does not manufacture. (7) Defendant does not manufacture. The worker can avoid inhalation of asbestos dust or fibers by working in properly ventilated places and by wearing face masks and inhalators, if-there is any asbestos dust or fibers. Insofar as defendant's products are concerned, itTtm. the cements are mixed with water, there is no dust present and can be used without con tributing dust to the environment. -13- I tW-'v :".i\ : ..... ; - *.'*.\v--7vJ-' . 39. The number of employees who have worked for this defendant for 20 years or more and had any indication of lun^ disease was three, and upon reexamination in November, 1968, no evidence of asbestosis was indicated. 40. Defendant does not have the medical information or knowledge referred to. 41. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 41 for the reason that the matter called for therein is immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this cause, and same is not the subject of discovery nor within the purview of the Rule in regard to interrogatories to a party, and cannot lead to matters which are the subject of discovery, and said interrogatory is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this cause. 42. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 42 for the reason that the matter called for therein is immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this cause, and same is not the subject of discovery nor within the purview of the rule in regard to interrogatories to a party, and cannot lead to matters which are the subject of discovery. 43. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 43 for the reason that the matter called for therein is immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in this cause, and same is not the subject of discovery nor within the purview of the rule in regard to interrogatories to a party, and cannot lead to matters which are the subject of discovery. -14- President of Combustion Engineering, Inc., - Arthur J. Santry, Jr., 62 Vineyard Lane, Greenwich, Connecticut. There is at present no Chairman of the Board. 45. No answer required. 46. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 46 for the reason that same calls for a conclusion and an opinion, and such matter is not within the purview of the rule relating to interrogatories, and is an attempt by the plaintiff to bolster the witness and lead to the introduction of medical articles, and defendant should not be required to pass on the qualifications of Dr. Selikoff. 47. Defendant objects to Interrogatories Nos. 47 to 34, Inc., and each of them for the reason that same call for conclusions and opinions on questions of law. Attorney for Defeernj<dant, Combustion Engineieerr:ing, Inc., 1014 San Jacinto Bldg., P.O.Box 1632, Beaumont,Texas. THE STATE OP TEXAS, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON Charles S. Pipkin, being duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that he is attorney for the defendant. Combustion Engineering, Inc., in the aboe cause and as such is duly authorized to make,file and serve fe foregoing answers to interrogatories and this affidavit, and that he does so acting on such authority and authorization? that he has read over the foregoing answe correct. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, the undersigned authority, this ^? day of December, 1969, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS. CERTIFICATE OP SERVICE I hereby certify that the above and foregoing instru ment has been served upon the interested parties by mailing true and correct copies thereof to the following named attorneys of record for the respective parties/ this 2 3 day of t-v-Lu. , 19 4? 4 : Mr. Ward Stephenson/Attorney, Stephenson & Thompson, Stephenson Bldg., Orange, Texas, Attorneys for PLAINTIFF. Mr. George E. Duncan, Attorney, P.0. Box 3708, Beaumont, Texas 77704 Attorney for defendant PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION Mr. Gordon R. Pate, Attorney, 1119 Beaumont Savings Bldg., Beaumont, Texas 77701 Attorney for Defendant, JOHNS-MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORP. Mr. W.N. Arnold, Jr., Attorney, Fulbright, Drooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Bank of the Southwest Bldg., Houston, Texas 77002 Attorneys for Defendants, PHILIP CAREY MFG. CO., and ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING AND SUPPLY CORP. Mr. James W. Mehaffy, Sr.,Attorney, Mehaffy,Weber,Keith & Gonsoulin, 14th Floor, San Jacinto Bldg., Beaumont, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant, STANDARD ASBESTOS MFG. AND INSULATION COMPANY. Mr. Geo. A. Weller, Attorney, Weller, Wheelus & Green, P.O.Box 350, Beaumont, Texas 77704 Attorney for Defendant FIBREBQARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORP. Mr. Gerald P. Coley, Attorney, Vinson, Elkins, Searls & Connally, First City Nat'l Bank Bldg., Houston, Texas 77002 Attorneys for Defendant, UNARCO INDUSTRIES, INC. Mr. Robert E. Barnes, Jr.,Attorney, P.0. Box 5098, Beaumont, Texas 77706 Attorney for Defendant, RUBEROID COMPANY. Mr. Ben L. Reynolds, Attorney, Royston, Rayzor & Cook, 877 San Jacinto Bldg., Houston, Texas 77002 Attorneys for Defendant, EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES,INC. Mr. John G. Tucker, Attorney, Beaumont Savings Bldg., Beaumont, Texas 77701 Attorney for Intervenor, CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE CO. ---------------- ----- -- -- ,------------------- -- .- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED O. S, DISTRICT COURT IAITMN DISTRICT Of TEXAS FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FEB 221972 BEAUMONT DIVISION / mmd a GOONOC. .CLERK SAMUEL R. POTTER *3 I .% l 7y VS. il CIVIL ACTION NO. 6329 l FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS l CORPORATION, ET AL l JUDGMENT BE IT REMEMBERED that on the ibk day of February, 1972, the above entitled and numbered cause wherein SAMUEL R. POTTER is plaintiff, and FIBREBOARD CORPORATION (erroneously sued herein as Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation), COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., JOHNS-MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, OWENS- CORNING FIBER GLASS CORPORATION, EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC., PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION, UNARCO INDUSTRIES, INC., PHILIP CAREY CORPORATION, ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING AND SUPPLY CORPORATION, STANDARD ASBESTOS MANUFACTURING AND INSULATING COMPANY, RUBEROID COMPANY, Division of GAF CORPORATION, and ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY are defendants, came on to be heard and each of the respective parties, plaintiff, defendants and cross-defendants appeared either in person or by their attorneys of record and announced ready for trial. Also came the intervenor, CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, and the Court having heard the pleadings, the evidence and argument of counsel and then having been advised that each and all of the parties to this suit had settled and coiqjromised the same and it appearing that all payments made and agreed to be made pursuant to said settlement have been paid and that Judgment should be entered that plaintiff and intervenor take nothing against the defendants, it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that the , ---- -- Civ.Order Book -- w a/ i , % - '') plaintiff SAMUEL R. POTTER and the intervenor, CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, do have and recover nothing on their respective causes of action asserted against each of the defendants, FIBREBQARD CORPORATION, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., JOHNS-MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, CWENS-CORNING FIBER GLASS CORPORATION, EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC., PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION, UNARCO INDUSTRIES, INC., PHILIP CAREY CORPORATION, ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING AND SUPPLY CORPORATION, STANDARD ASBESTOS MANUFACTURING AND INSULATING COMPANY, RUBEROID COMPANY, Division of GAF CORPORATION, and ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY; and that such defendants be discharged with their costs. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that each of the defendants, all of whom filed a cross-action against each of the remaining defendants, should have and take nothing on their respective cross-actions. It is further ORDERED that the Judgment heretofore ren dered in behalf of Standard Asbestos.Manufacturing and Insulating Company and Pittsburgh-Corning Corporation shall become a final judgment by reason of the entry and disposition of the claims of the plaintiff against each and all of the defendants and disposi tion against each and all of the cross-defendants. SIGNED and ENTERED this the ^ i?^day of February,-.1972. APPROVED AS TO FORM JUDGE PRESIDING WARD STEPHENSON,/Attorney for Plaintiff SAMUEL R. POTTER ''GEO. A. WELLER, Attorney for Defendant FIBREBQARD CORPORATION -2- . .. - ______ -por"Deen5atlt Sg& w "DeletiSant gS=G cOB-POUAlXO^ ; 5 4 I * 5 , ?* '-.-vn- . <, ^^^.essi^ig^DerenSant IffiSos tSS^*. "ID - COMPAS* ^--J& ^ - iCkLsksrul 4.'S___________ ROBERT E. BARNES, Attorney for Defendant RUBEROID COMPANY, Division of GAF CORPORATION WWW 4- .**'. . 1" w 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION SAMUEL R. POTTER FILED U. S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district of iexas SEP 3 01970 JAMES R. COONEY, CLERK , VS. CIVIL NO. 6329 uu'urv.-fVi FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION, ET AL CLARENCE BOREL VS. FIBREBQARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION, ET AL CIVIL NO. 6449 ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.. TO INTERROGATORIES UNDER RULE 33. Now comes the defendant. Combustion Engineering, Inc., in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and answers the Interrogatories heretofore served upon it under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as follows: 1. This defendant has no so-called "threshhold limits" of its own for any product it manufactures or sells. 2. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 1. 3. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 1. 4. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 1. -1- i !  .k; .3&< - V-v..'--'' " : 5. It has recently been determined that on one occasion, and in connection with the use of one of its products, a representative of the defendant went into the field to observe the amount of dust created in connection with the use of said product, being #12 Insulating Block. 6. The observation was made as a result of complaints being made in regard to the dust at the job site, and was made by Mr.Christenson of Combustion Engineering, Inc.'s Refractories Div ision' wto made a trip to a jobsite for Consolidated Edison in Astoria, Long Island, in 1963; and it was discovered that the principal contributor to the dust was pearlite and portland cement, the system used was visual observation, and it did not appear to Mr. Christenson that there was any abnormally high dust levels. His observations were not reported to any other person within the companyat that time. was made. 7. No other dust count See Answer to Interrogatory No. 1. Ht &ii4 M ATTORNEY4 FOR DEFEND, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC; 1014 San Jacinto Bldg., P.O.Box 1632, Beaumont,Texas. 1 THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF JEFFERSON CHARLES S. PIPKIN, having been first duly sworn. on oath states that he is attorney of record for the defendant. Combustion Engineering, Inc., in the above cause, and as such is duly authorized to make, file and serve the foregoing answer to Interrogatories, and this affidavit, and that he does so, acting under such authority and authorization; that he has read over the foregoing and the matters therein stated are true and correct. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, the undersigned authority, this _day of September, 1970, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS W1WKm11 ummUJKEE !^-:V-^::-;V;.;-.:i .'*'. V ,, -*' ,' --"'-V, -. ' V '" V * *V ' s .. v 'O" ' : vav, . . ; CERTIFICATE OP SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 30th day of September, 1970, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was mailed to the following named attorneys of record: Mr. Ward Stephenson, Attorney, Stephenson and Thompson, Stephenson Building, Orange, Texas. 77630 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, S-R.Potter Mr. W.N.Arnold, Jr..Attorney, Fulbright,Crooker,Freeman,Bates & Jaworski, Bank of the Southwest Bldg., Houston,Texas 77002 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING AND SUPPLY CORP., AND PHILIP CAREY CORPORATION Mr. Robert E. Barnes, Attorney, P.O.Box 5098, Beaumont, Texas 77706 Attorney for Defendant, RUBEROID COMPANY, A DIVISION OF GAF CORPORATION Mr. Dale Dowell, Attorney, 707 Beaumont Savings Bldg., Beaumont, Texas 77701 Attorney for Defendant, OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP. Mr. George A. Weller, Attorney, P.O.Box 350, Beaumont, Texas 77704 Attorney for Defendant FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION Mr. Frank E.Bean, Attorney 500 Jefferson Bldg., Houston,Texas, ATTORNEY FOR EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC. Mr. Gerald P. Coley, Attorney, Vinson,Elkins,SearIs & Connally, First City National Bank Bldg., Houston, Texas 77002 Attorney for Defendant UNARCO INDUSTRIES, INC. Mr. James W. Mehaffy, Attorney, San Jacinto Bldg., Beaumont, Texas 77701 Attorney for Defendant, STANDARD ASBESTOS MANUFACTURING AND INSULATING COMPANY Mr. Ben L. Reynolds, Attorney, Royston, Rayzor and Cook, 877 San Jacinto Bldg., Houston, Texas 77002 Attorney for Defendant, EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC. Mr. Gordon R. Pate,Attorney, 1119 Beaumont Savings Bldg., Beaumont, Texas 77701 Attorney for Defendant, JOHNS-MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORP. Mr. George E. Murphy, Attorney, 615 San Jacinto Bldg., Beaumont, Texas Attorney for Interveners, NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION and CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE CO. -V; ',i; ' . "". *an staonol. (is7sso> *utm iWiKtNt-tiWONOV"',^.- ; v. nruon; :v y <CTH L, PARKCA ' WWCHI, JR.' ' rn-YN m'.jrka - -VV*:; I *f" NELSON,- PARKER &. POWERS - AaTtTtOorBneys at caw* 10TH IO.OOR, SAN JACINTO ,AUII-OINa* P. O. SOX 1C32 .^Mr^5Wbrdi Stephehson,.Attor5riejfv,v^...: Mr. Ben ,Reynolds1 ; MrGeorge. Murphy. Mr. Robert E. Barnes Mr. Gerald P. Coley Mr.' John-G. Tucker ; Mr. George Weller