Document XR7x6LJZyGEBR7OjX1mx08zOR

NO. 91-891-B LAWRENCE SMITH and VERA MAE SMITH; CHESTER KERSHHAN and RUBIE KERSHHAN; JERRY WILLIAMS; and THOMAS STALLCUP, Plaintiffs, vs. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 44TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT W.R. GRACE AND CO. - CONN'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following answers are based upon facts known or believed by W. F.. 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 Exhibit D to their answers to defendants' master set of discovery requests, plaintiffs Lawrence Smith and Vera Mae Smith allege exposure of Lawrence Smith ("plaintiff Smith") to "Zonolite Acoustical Plasters" and "Zonclite Monokote" at "Numerous schools, hospitals and skyscrapers in Dallas" from 1946-1952 and 1955-1989 and to "Mono-kcte" at the "State Capitol Bldg in Austin" in 1962. Plaintiffs further allege exposure of plaintiff Smith to_"Zonolite Vermiculite" at a "Powerhouse on Haskell" in Dallas from 1952-1955 and at the "Brookhollow Country Club" in Dallas in 1963. Plaintiff Smith identified "Monokote Zonolite Fireproofing" in the "OCF Picture Book." With regard to the allegation of exposure of plaintiff Smith to "Zonolite Vermiculite", Grace-Conn states that vermiculite is the name of a mineral, not a product. Therefore the allegation of exposure of plaintiff Smith to "Zonolite Vermiculite" is vague and ambiguous. With regard to the various allegations of exposure of plaintiff Smith to "Monokote", Grace-Conn states that beginning in 1958, it or the Zonolite Company, the assets of which Grace-Conn did not acquire until 1963, manufactured four products with the word "Mono-Kcte"' in their names: Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-1), Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-3), Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-4), and Zonolite MonoKote (MK-5). Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-4) and Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-5) have never contained commercial asbestos but do contain vermiculite. Products which contain vermicuite may contain trace amounts of asbestiform tremolite as a contaminant. Grace-Conn therefore~limits its answers with regard to plaintiff Smith to Zonolite Acoustical Plaster, Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-1), Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-3), Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-4), and Zonolite MonoKote (MK-5) and to the activities of its Construction Products Division ("CPD") associated with the manufacture and sale of same in the United States during the relevant time period. In Exhibit D to their answers to defendants' master set of discovery requests, plaintiffs Chester Kershman and Rubie Kershman allege exposure of Chester Kershman ("plaintiff Kershman") to "Zonolite Acoustical Plasters" and "Zonolite Monokote" at various commercial buildinas, hospitals, and schools in Dallas from 1951-1957, 1959-1967, 1972, 1976-1983, and 198519B9 and to "Zonolite Monokote Fireproofing" at "Several Commercial Bldgs including the airport" in Dallas in 1965, 19691970, and 1972. Further, plaintiff Kershman identified "Zonolite Plaster" and "Zonolite Monokote" in the "OCF Picture Book." With regard to the various allegations of exposure of plaintiff Kershman to "Monokote", Grace-Conn states that beginning in 1958, it or the Zonolite Company, the assets of which Grace-Conn did not acquire until 1963, manufactured four products with the word "Mono-Kote" in their names: Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-1), Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-3), Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-4), and Zonolite MonoKote (MK-5). With regard to the allegation of exposure of plaintiff Kershman to "Zonolite Plaster", Grace-Conn states that, upon information and belief, the product to which plaintiff Kershman intended to refer was Zonolite Plaster Aggregate. Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-4), Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-5) and Zonolite Plaster Aggregate have never contained commercial asbestos but do contain vermiculite. Products which contain vermicuite may contain trace amounts of asbestiform tremolite as a contaminant. Grace-Conn therefore limits its answers with regard to plaintiff Kershman to Zonolite Acoustical Plaster, Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK1), Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-3), Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-4), Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-5), and Zonolite Plaster Aggregate and to the activities of its Construction Products Division ("CPD") associated with the manufacture and sale of same in the United States during the relevant time period. In Exhibit D to their answers to defendants' master set of discovery requests, plaintiff Thomas Stallcup ("plaintiff Stallcup") alleges -exposure to "W.R. Grace High Temperature Insulating Cements" at "Wichita Falls" in Red River, NM from 1946-1948 and at."Wichita General Hospital" in Dallas from 19511952. Plaintiff Stallcup further alleges exposure to "W.R. Grace Zonolite Acoustical Plaster" at "Several Schools and Commercial Buildings including Memorial Auditorium" at Grand Prairie, TX in 1949 and 1955-1959 and at Fort Worth Nat'l Bank in Fort Worth in 1952. Plaintiff Stallcup further alleges exposure to "Zonolite Vermiculite" at "Thomas Jefferson High School" in Tyler, TX in 1955 and to "Zonolite Plasters" at "Southland Center" in LaJolla, CA from 1958-1962. With regard to plaintiff Stallcup's H INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY 1 Please identify by trade or brand name and serial number each asbestos-containing product manufactured, sold and/or distributed by Defendant. For each product identified, please state the following: (a) The years that each product was manufactured, sold and/or distributed; (b) The asbestos content of each said product; (c) A description of the intended uses of each such product; and (d) A description of any instructions that appeared on the product or on the product's container regarding the proper use of same, if any. ANSWER 1 Subject to the General Objections interposed above, and with regard to plaintiff Smith, Grace-Conn states the following: See Product Appendix Nos. 3, 10-13(a). a. See Product Appendix Nos. 3, 10--13(b). b. See Product Appendix Nos. 3, 10--13(c). c. See Product Appendix Nos. 3, 10--13(d). d. Grace-Connstates that no such instructions were placed directly on any of the products in the product appendix. Further responding, to the extent that they exist, relevant, non-privileged, non-trade secret documents containing information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available to plaintiffs in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. Subject to the General Objections interposed above, and with regard to plaintiff Kershman, Grace-Conn states the following: See Product Appe:n dix Nos. 3, 10-14(a ) . a. See Product Appendix Nos. 3, 10-14(b) . b. See Product Appendix Nos . 3 , 10-14(c ) . c. See Product Appendix Ncs . 3 , 10-14(d ) . 5 d. Grace-Conn states that no such instructions were placed directly on any of the products in the product appendix. Further responding, to the extent that they exist, relevant, non-privileged, non-trade secret documents -containing information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available to plaintiffs in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. Subject to the General Objections interposed above, and with regard to plaintiff Stallcup, Grace-Conn states the following: See Product Appendix Nos. 1-9, 14(a). a. See Product Appendix Nos. 1-9, 14(b). b. See Product Appendix Nos. 1-9, 14(c). c. See Product Appendix Nos. 1-9, 14(d). d. Grace-Conn states that no such instructions were placed directly on any of the products in the product appendix. Further responding, to the extent that they exist, relevant, non-privileaed, non-trade secret documents containing information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available to plaintiff in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. With regard to plaintiff Williams, Grace-Conn states see the General Objections interposed above. INTERROGATORY 2 Prior to releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. to the public for sale, were any tests conducted on same by Defendant or Defendant's agents and/or consultants to determine any potential health impacts involved in the use of or exposure to any of the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 1? 1 If so, please state: (a) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; (b) The dates -of each such test, if any; and (c) The results of such tests. ANSWER 2 Subject to the General Objection interposed above, and with regard to plaintiffs Smith, Rershnan, and Stallcup, Grace-Conn states not to its knowledge. With regard to plaintiff Williams, Grace-Conn states see tHe General Objections interposed above. 6 INTERROGATORY 3 Were any design, marketing, labeling and/or packaging 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 3 Not applicable. INTERROGATORY 4 After releasing the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 1 to the public, were any tests conducted thereon by or for Defendant to determine potential health impacts involved in the use of or exposure to any of the products identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 1? If so, please state: (a) The name, address, and job classification of each person conducting said tests; and (b) The results and date of said tests. ANSWER 4 Subject to the General Objections interposed above, and with regard to plaintiffs Smith, Kershman, and Stallcup, Grace-Conn states not to its knowledge. With regard to plaintiff Williams, Grace-Conn states see the General Objections interposed above. INTERROGATORY 5 Has Defendant, 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, instructions or directions concerning the possibility of injury or health impacts resulting from the use of or exposure to any of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 1? If so, for each such product, if any, please state: (a) The wording of each such warning; (b' The method used to distribute the warning to persons 'who are likely to use and.cr be exposed to the products; 7 (c) The date each such warning was issued; and (d) Any tests, research data, studies and publications _relied upon in whole or in part in the decision to release such warning, if any. ANSWER 5 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 as it is not limited as to caution, time periods, locations, etc. Grace-Conn further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in that terms such as "warning" 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 presented a hazard to users. Subject to these objections and to the General Objections interposed above, and with regard to plaintiffs Smith, Ke rshman, and Stall cup, Grace-Conn states that no warnings were placed on the packaging of its products that contained commercial asbestos nor were any warnings placed directly on any of its products. Grace-Conn further states that it had sales brochures fcr most of its products . Further answering with regard to plaintiffs Smith and Kershman, Grace-Conn states that the 19"0 Grace-Conn 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 fellow." "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." In addition, with regard to plaintiffs Smith, Kershman, and Stallcup, Grace-Conn states with regard to its vermiculite products that beginning in 1976, in the form of Material Safety Data Sheets it notified customers of the need to wear NIOSH/MESAapproved respirators when threshold limit values were exceeded. Also starting in 1976 or 1 977, C-race-Conr. affixed a caution regarding nuisance dust tc the packaging of its vermiculite products. This caution read: 8 CAUTION AVOID CREATING DUST BREATHING DUST MAY BE HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH _USE WITH ADEQUATE VENTILATION OR WITH RESPIRATORY PROTECTION Relevant, non-privileged and non-trade secret documents containing information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available to the plaintiffs in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. With regard to plaintiff Williams, Grace-Conn states see the General Objections interposed above. INTERROGATORY 5 Did Defendant receive notice prior to 1972 that any person was claiming injury, including but not limited to workers' compensation claims, as a result of using and/or being exposed to any asbestos-containing products that were manufactured, distributed and/or sold by Defendant, Defendant's predecessor or any of Defendant's subsidiary companies? If so, please state: (a) The name and address of each claimant; (b) 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/cr claim number of each such claim; and (f) The disposition of such claim. ANSWER 6 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that none of the plaintiffs were employees of Grace-Conn and, therefore, this interrogatory is irrelevant, immaterial and seeks information net reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence*. In addition, Grace-Conn objects on the grounds that the information sought regarding other personal injury claims are a matter of public record equally available to plaintiffs as to Grace-Conn. Subject to these objections and to the General Objections interposed above and with regard to plaintiffs Smith, Ke rshman, and Stall cup, Grace-Conn 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. Ho further 9 information is known about this possible claim. In providing this information about the California Zonolite Company, GraceConn 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 1972 are as follows: 1. a. Lilas Welch, address unknown. 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. Asbes tosis . e . Unknown. f . Unknown. 3. a. William Locke, 4701 Lovell 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. 65UN956I. 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 GraceConn. 4 . a. Frank G. Alvidrez, address unknown. b. Septembe r 1 5, 1967. c. Unknown. 10 d. e. f. 5. a. b. c. d. e. f. 6 . a. b. c. d. e. f. 7. a. b. c. a. e. f. 8. a. b. c. d. e. f. Lung condition. Unknown. Unknown. Eddie D. Manuel, 4920 Cleland, Los Angeles, California. March 1967. Unknown. Lung condition. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, State of California, Docket No. 67LA306-493. Unknown. Robert E. Cohenour, Box 422, Troy, Montana. Employees first report of injury filed 1968; worker's compensation claim filed in 1973. Unknrv:n. Pulmonary Disorder. Unknown. Unknown. Johnnie Lee Pace, address unknown. 1966. Unknown. Occupational disease. Unknown. Settlement . Donald Zak, address unknown. 1964. Unknown. Occupational disease. Unknown. Settlement. ^ 11 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 9. a. Edward Graske, 18446 Gottschalk, Homewood, IL 60430. b. October 8, 1967. c. Unknown. d. Industrial Disease. e. Unknown. f. Unknown. 10. a. Clarence Wallace, General Delivery, Lowndes, Missouri 63951. b. October 28, 1971. c. Unknown. d. Occuoational Disease. e. Unknown. f. Unknown. With regard to plaintiff Williams, Grace-Conn states see the General Objections interposed above. INTERROGATORY 7 Please state whether or not the Defendant has ever conducted any tests in the field (i.e., where Defendant's asbestoscontaining products were actually being used) to determine the concentration of asbestos dust and fibers generated from the use, preparation, application and/or removal of any of the asbestos products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 1. If so, please identify: (a) The d.ate, place and nature of each and every test; (b) The particular product to which each test applied; and (c) The results of each test with particular reference to the concen t r a t i or. s . of asbestos dust and fibers per cubic centimeter of air found to which the person was exposed. ANSWER 7 Subject to the General Objections interposed above and with regard to plaintiffs Smith and Kershman, Grace-Conn states the following concerning tests relating to the spraying of Mono-Kote fireproofing (MK-3): 1. 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. 2. 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. The following tests were conducted during spraying operations of Mono-Kote (HK-4) and (MK-5): 1. On February 26, 1976, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-5 at the Allstate Insurance and Title Co., Irving, Texas. 2. On June 1, 1976, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of HK-4 at 60 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. On January 26, 1977, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application. of MK-4 at the Westminster Court Building, Westminster, California. 4. On March 2, 1977, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-5 at the Jackson Hospital, Montgomery, Alabama. 5. On March 8, 1977, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-4 at the Hyatt Regency, Dallas, Texas. 6. On March 9, 1977, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-5 at the Imperial Savings and Loan Office Building, San Diego, California. 7. On March 10, 1977, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-4 at the South County Hall of Justice, Fremont, California. 8. On March 11, 1977, Grace-Ccnn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-4 at the California Federal Savings L Loan, Burbank, California. 13 9. ' On May 3, 1977, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-4 at the Union Bank & Trust Co., Kokomo, Indiana. 10- On June 2, 1977, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of Mono-Kote, type unknown, at an unknown job site, by Pandol & Sons, applicators, Delano, California. Investigation continues for additional information concerning this test. 11. On April 26, 1983, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-5 at the Westshore Office Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 12. On June 3, 1985 Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-5 at 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. 13. On June 19, 1985, Grace-Conn conducted air samplings during the application of MK-5 at 53rd Street and 3rd Avenue, New York, New York. 14. On July 30, 1985, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-5 at the Allied Bank Tower, Dallas, Texas. 15. On April 15, 1986, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-5 at 10 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois. 16. On April 16, 1986, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-5 at 190 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois. 17. On April 17, 1986, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-5 at the Corporetum Office Complex, Lisle, Illinois. 18. On June 18, 1986, Grace-Conn conducted air sampling during the application of MK-5 at Concourse B, Stapleton Airport, Denver, Colorado. Fiber concentrations in all spray areas at each job site listed above were found to be well below the then existing Threshold Limit Value for occupational exposure. With regard to plaintiff Stall cup, and subject to the General Objectins interposed above, Grace-Conn states not to its knowledge. With regard to plaintiff Williams, Grace-Conn states see the General Objections interposed above. 14 INTERROGATORY 8 'Has Defendant ever sold any asbestos-containing materials for use in any place outside the continental United States of America (and Hawaii) without affixing to the product a caution or warning label which discussed the health impacts caused by asbestos? If so, answer the following questions: (a) Identify these products by trade name and describe the percentage of asbestos content of same; (b; Identify the years said products were sold; and (c; Identify the buyers of said products and the nations or states in which said products were intended to be delivered for use. ANSWER 8 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial, and net reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERRC G.-.TOEY 9 Did Defendant before 1973 ever conduct studies or tests of the concentration of dust generated in any of its asbestos products manufacturing plants? If so, (a1 Identify the dates of every such dust count studies taken; (b) Identify every plant at which such dust count studies were taken; and (c) Please produce all documents which show any dust count studies or tests taken at any of Defendant's asbestos manufacturing plant(s). ANSWER 9 Grace-Conn obj-ects to this interrogatory on the grounds that none of the plaintiffs were 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. Subject to this objection and to the General Objections interposed above and with regard to plaintiffs Smith, Xershman, and Stall cup, Grace-Conn states that beginning in approximately 1965, air sampling as a part of general'health and safety reviews were performed by Grace-Conr. personnel at its Libby, Montana mine and mill. Grace-Conn further states that since approximately 1969 periodic dust studies as part of general health and safety reviews have been performed by Grace-Conn personnel at its manufacturing facilities on a routine basis. Relevant, non-privileged and non-trade secret documents containing information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available to the plaintiffs in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually convenient time. With regard to plaintiff Williams, Grace-Conn states see the General Objections interposed above. INTERROGATORY 10 Did Defendant before 1973 ever conduct studies or tests of the concentration of asbestos dust to which insulators, fireproofers or bystanders were exposed during the application of any of their asbestos products in the workplace? If so, (a) Identify the dates of every such dust count study taken; (b) Identify every workplace or jobsite at which such dust count studies were taken; (c) Describe the conditions under which the dust count studies were performed; (d) Describe what steps were taken to ensure that the conditions under which the studies were performed represented the same or similar conditions existing on industrial or commercial jobsites where users would be exposed to Defendant's asbestos-containing products; and (e) Please produce all documents which discuss any dust count studies or tests or test results taken at any of Defendant's asbestos manufacturing plant(s) or any other facility. ANSWER 10 See Answer 7, above. INTERROGATORY 11 Did Defendant ever recommend to any United States Government agency or any state government agency that the threshold limit value (TLV) for exposure to asbestos dust be lowered from 5 mpccf? If so, when was such recommendation made, who made it, and to whom was it made? ANSWER 11 Subject tc the General Objections interposed above, and upon information and belief, Gracs-Ccnn states no. 20 8. Named insured: .Type: PoLicy Numbe r : Policy Period: Applicable Policy Limits: 9. Named insured: Type: Policy Number: Policy Period: Applicable Policy Limits: 10. Named insured: Type : Policy Number: Policy Period: Applicable Policy Limits: 11. Named insured: Type : Policy Number: Policy Period: Applicable Policy Limits: 12. Named insured: Type : Policy Numbe r: Policy Period: Applicable Policy Limits: Zonolite Company Comprehensive General Liability RLG 021629 4/1/59-4/1/60 Unknown Zonolite Company Comprehensive General Liability RLG 621620 4/1/60-4/1/61 Unknown Zonolite Company Comprehensive General Liability RLG 021621 4/1/61-4/1/62 Unknown Zonolite Company Comprehensive General Liability Unknown 4/1/62-4/1/63 Unknov;n Zonolite Company Comprehensive General Liability LU 1731-62 Expired 5/26/68 Unknown Company of America 1. Named insured: Type : Policy Numbe r: Policy Period: Applicable Policy Limits: Vermiculite-Northwest, Blanket Liability BLP 270815 6, 1/66-6/1/67 5250,000 Inc. Aetna Casualty And Surety Co. 1. Named insured: Type : Policy Number: Poll cy Pe nod: Applicable Policy Limits: Ari-Zcnolite Company Comprehensive General Liability 33 AL 84357CC Expired 1/01/70 Unknown 21 2. Named insured: `Type: Pol-icy Number: Policy Period: Applicable Policy Limits: Ari-Zonolite Company Comprehensive General Liability 33 AL 053762 Policy in force in 1967 Unknown 3. Named insured: Type: Policy Number: Policy Period: Applicable Policy Limits: Western Mineral Products Comprehensive General Liability 37 AL 011243 Policy in force in 1966 Unknown 4. Named insured: Type : Policy Number: Policy Period: Applicable Policy Limits: California Zonolite Company Comprehensive General Liability 33 AL 051406CC Expired 12/30/66 Unknown INTERROGATORY 15 What year, if ever, did Defendant first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels", published in January, 1946 in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene & Toxicology, and authored by W. Fleischer and P. Drinker, et al (the Fleischer-Drinker Report)? (a1 Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; (b) Please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or ir. any way reference the "FleischerDrinker" study prior to 1968; (c) Please produce all documents upon which you (sic) responses above are based; (d' Please identify the nameis) and address(es) of any person(s) who can verify your above response; (e: Did Defendant ever rely on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant (sic) asbestos products could be used in the workplace without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; (f! If so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory 15 (e> above; and 22 (g) If your answer to 15 (e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 15 (e) above? ANSWER 15 Subject to the General Objections interposed above, and with regard to plaintiffs Smith, Kershman, and Stallcup, Grace-Conn states that to the best of its knowledge, it has not received a copy of the above-mentioned article, unless it has received it in the course of asbestos litigation. a-c. Not applicable. d. See Answer 23, below. e . Not to its knowledge. f ,9- Not applicable. With regard to plaintiff Williams, Grace-Conn states see the General Objections interposed above. INTERROGATORY 16 Before 1972, did Defendant ever advise any customers or users or consumers of any of its asbestos-containing products to maintain exposure of dust from any of its asbestos products below 5 mpccf? If so, please answer the folloviing questions: (a ) Identify the names of the entities to whom this information was given; (b) Identify the form in which this information was supplied (oral and/or in writing); ( c ) Identify the dates all such information was delivered to the customer or users; (d) Please identify any person who can verify your above responses; and ( e ) Please produce all documents which support or provide a basis for your responses above. ANSWER 16 Subject to the General Objections interposed above, GraceConn states that it did not provide warnings with any of its products before 1972. Grace-Conn further states that from time to time certain of its employees would discuss the use of its products with customers. While Grace-Conn is unaware of any such communications referencing dust levels, it is impossible to recreate those conversations. 23 INTERROGATORY 17 Please identify all trade associations involving the mining, manufacturing, research, marketing, sale of (sic) distribution of asbestos products to which Defendant is/was a member and the years of said membership and the name and address of Defendant's representative at each meeting held by such association during which asbestos health impacts were discussed. ANSWER 17 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 the General Objections interposed above and with regard to plaintiffs Smith, Kershman, and Stallcup, Grace-Conn states that it has attended annual meetings of the Asbestos Information Association since approximately 1977. Further answering, Grace-Conn has been a member of the Perlite Institute from 1968 to the present, a sustaining member of the American Industrial Hygiene Association since 1976, and a member of the American Industrial Health Council since 1978. Grace-Conn has been a member of the Association of Walls and Ceilings International since the 1970's, a member of the Vermiculite Institute from 1963 to 1971, a member of the Exterior Insulation Manufacturers Association since 1984, a member of the Safe Building Alliance since the spring of 1984, a member of the Committee for Equitable Compensation since the summer of 1987, a member of the Vermiculite Association since 1988, and is a member of the Construction Products Manufacturers Counci1. Grace-Conn further states that Robert H. Locke attended annual meetings of the Asbestos Information Association from 1977 to 1984 or 1985. Robert Merther attended the annual meetings of the Association of Walls and Ceilings International from 1976 to 1984. Robert J. Bettacchi and Robert C. Walsh attended the meetings of the Safe Buildings Alliance until 1988. SBA meetings are currently attended by Kenneth Millian and Edlu Thom. Kenneth Millian and Jacquelyn M. Johnson attend the meetings of the Committee for Equitable Compensation. With regard to the subjects of these meetings, Grace-Conn states that this interrogatory should be directed to the relevant trade organizations. Grace-Conn further states that relevant, non-privileged, non trade secret documents containing information responsive to this interrogatory will be made available to plaintiffs in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. With regard to plaintiff Williams, Grace-Conn states see the General Objections interposed above. 24 INTERROGATORY 18 Has Defendant by or through any trade association to which it has ever belonged ever opposed any regulation proposed by any agency_of the federal or state government that would lower the threshold limit value or permissible exposure level for occupational exposure to asbestos? If so, answer the following questions: (a) Identify the proposed regulation and the date of said proposal and specify the name of all individuals acting on behalf of Defendant and/or its trade association; (b) Did Defendant and/or its trade associations submit written comments to the government agency in question and, if so, please produce each such set of written comments; (c) Did Defendant and/or any of its trade associations provide oral comments at any public hearing held by the government agency in question and, if so, please identify the date of such oral presentation and please produce the text of such presentation; (d) Did Defendant and/or any of its trade associations ever submit written comment to any government agency recommending that the standard for occupational asbestos exposure be raised? If so, please produce the text of all such comments; (e) Did Defendant and 'or any of its trade associations submit written comments to the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the EPA's proposed ban on all uses of asbestos in the United States and, if so, please produce all texts of such comments; and (f) Identify the representatives from Defendant, if any, who opposed any of the proposed regulations above. ANSWER 18 Subject to the General Objections and with regard to plaintiffs Smith, Kershman, and Stallcup, Grace-Conn states that to the extent that this interrogatory seeks to elicit information regarding the actions of the organizations in Answer 17, above, this interrogatory should be directed to those organizations. with regard to plaintiff Williams, Grace-Conn states see the General Objections interposed above. INTERROGATORY 19 Did Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, and/or Defendant's subsidiaries ever maintain any distribution agreement!s) with any company located in Texas with respect to any of the products identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 1? if so, please state the following; 25 (a) The name, address, and telephone number of the contact person with whom Defendant, Defendant's predecessors and/or Defendant's subsidiaries maintained such an agreements and the years that each agreement was maintained; and (b) The asbestos-containing products that the agreements involved. ANSWER 19 Subject to the General Objections interposed above and with regard to plaintiffs Smith, Kershman, and Stallcup, 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. To the extent that they exist, relevant, non-privileged, non trade documents containing information responsive to this interrogatory will be produced to plaintiffs in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. With regard to plaintiff Williams, Grace-Conn states see the General Objections interposed above. INTERROGATORY 20 List by name and address each and every expert witness Defendant intends to call at trial and include the following in your answe r: (a) Areas of expertise; (b) Expected 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 20 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. 26 INTERROGATORY 21 Please state the name, present address and present telephone number,-along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge of facts relevant to this case involving, but not limited to: (a) Identification of asbestos-containing products to which Plaintiff allegedly was exposed or facts disputing the identification of asbestos products in this case; (b) Alleged damages, injuries and/or facts disputing Plaintiff's alleged damages and/or injuries; (c) The negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and/or damages; and (d) Any other facts relevant to this lawsuit. ANSWER 21 Grace-Conn objects to the portion of this interrogatory which requires information regarding the experience and qualifications of any persons listed in response to the interrogatory as such information is not discoverable under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(2)(d). Grace-Conn further oDjects to the form of this interrogatory as it invades attorney work product by requesting witnesses' names to be broken out by category. Without waiving the foregoing objections, with regard to the identity and location of persons with knowledge of relevant facts, Grace-Conn is at this time only able to designate Plaintiffs. Discovery is continuing, and such response will be supplemented pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 166b(6). INTERROGATORY 22 Please state the net worth of Defendant and each of its divisions or subsidiaries in 1989 and 1990. ANSWER 22 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information sought is a matter of puolic record equally available to plaintiffs as to Grace-Conn. INTERROGATORY 23 Please list the name, address, and job title of each person who provided assistance in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER 23 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 24 Please identify and provide all documents relevant to each of the allegations appearing in Plaintiff's Complaint and to each of your defenses in your answer. ANSWER 24 Grace-Conn objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to this objection and to the General Objections interposed above, GraceConn states that it is unable to answer this interrogatory at this time because it has not obtained sufficient information from plaintiffs and other sources to make this determination and reserves the right to do so prior to trial. Due and appropriate notice will be given to all parties concerned when such facts, testimony and exhibits have been determined. However, Grace-Conn states that the applicable affirmative defenses are set forth in its ansv:er to the Complaint. W.R. Grace & Co. - Conn. By its attorney DATED: ~Sandra F. Clark, Esq. Mehaffy & Weber 2615 Calder Avenue Post Office Box 16 Beaumont, Texas 77704 (40?1 835-5011 COMMERCIAL ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS Econo-White 65 and Econo-White 70. b. Zonolite Company (1956-1963); Grace-Conn (1963 until approximately 1970). c. Chemical Composition: Short fiber chrysotile asbestos, Perlite, Bentonite (Ilontmor i lloni te type). Titanium dioxide, Sodium lauryl sulfate. Contained approximately 14.97 percent and 14.43 percent 7M asbestos, respectively, by weight. d. Acoustical plaster for walls and ceilings. Zono-Coustic 2 and Zono-Coustic Z. b. Zonolite Company (1960-1963); Grace-Conn (1963 until approximately 1973). c. Chemical Composition: Short fiber chrysotile asbestos, Vermiculite, Titanium dioxide, Sodium lauryl sulfate, Plaster of Paris, Hydrated lime. Contained approximately 12.64 percent 711 asbestos by weight. d. Acoustical base coat for walls and ceilings. a. Zonolite Acoustical Plastic/Plaster. b. Zonolite 'Company (approximately 1945 until 1963); GraceConn (1963 until approximately 1972). c. Chemical Composition: (Standard) Short fiber chrysotile asbestos, Vermiculite, Bentonite (montmorillonite type), Sodium lauryl sulfate. Contained approximately 17.11 percent 7n asbestos in standard acoustical plaster. Bermuda Tan: Short fiber chrysotile asbestos, Vermiculite, Eentonite (montmori1lonite type), Sodium lauryl sulfate, Dowicide, Sodium nitrite. Contained approximately 18.69 percent 7M asbestos by weight in Bermuda Tan. d. Acoustical coating for ceilings. a. Zonolite Finish Coat (Decorator's White). b. Zonolite Company (1950-1963). First produced by GraceConn in 1963; the product mav have been produced until 1974. c. Chemical Composition: Short fiber chrysotile asbestos, Vermiculite, Bentonite ( montnc r i 1 lor. i te type), Titanium dioxide, Sodium lauryl sulfate. Contained approximately 13.11 percent 7n asbestos by veiant. 2 d. Decorative textured finish. a. Zonolite Finish Coat (Decorator's White)(Extra Hard). b. Zonolite Company (1961-1963). First produced by GraceConn in 1963,- product may have been produced until approximately 1974. c. Chemical Composition: Short fiber chrysotile asbestos, Vermiculite, Bentonite (montmorillonite type), Titanium dioxide, Sodium lauryl sulfate. Contained approximately 12.78 percent 7M asbestos by weight. d. Decorative textured finish. a. Zonolite Spra-Tex (Regular). b. Zonolite Company (approximately 1955 to 1963); Grace-Conn (1963-1972). c. Chemical Composition: Short fiber chrysotile asbestos, Vermiculite, Kaolin clay, Titanium dioxide, Sodium lauryl sulfate. Contained approximately 33.045 percent 7H asbestos by weight. d. Decorative textured finish. a. Zonolite Spra-Tex (Extra-Hard). b. Zonolite Company (1961-1963); Grace-Conn (1963-1972). c. Chemical Composition: Short fiber chrysotile asbestos, Kaolin clay, Titanium dioxide, Sodium lauryl sulfate, Vermiculite, ZOD concentrate. Contained approximately 32.09 percent 7H asbestos by weight. d. Decorative textured finish. a. Z-Tex, may also be marketed as EZ-Tex, Z-Tex 2 and Z-Tex 2 Super White. b. The Zonolite Company (from approximately 1958 to approximately 1962). c. Chemical Composition: Exact composition unknown at this time.' The product contained approximately 14.3 percent short fiber chrysotile asbestos. Investigation continues. d. Sprayed texture product. a. High Temperature Insulating Cement. b. Zonolite Company (1945-1963); Grace-Conn (1963 until approximately 1970 or 1971). c. Chemical Composition: Short fiber chrysotile asbestos, Vermiculite, Bentonite (montmorillonite type). Sodium lauryl sulfate, Sodium Nitrate. Contained approximately 17.11 percent asbestos by weight or approximately 18.69 percent asbestos by weight. d. High temperature insulating cement. 10. a. Zonolite Mono-Kote (MR-1). b. Produced by Zonolite Company from December 1958. Virtually all sales ended by 1962, although there may have been some sales until approximately 1969. c. Chemical Composition: approximately 11.9% short fiber chrysotile asbestos, vermiculite, plaster of paris, Portland cement, ZOD concentrate. d. Cementitious fireproofing. 11. a. Zonolite Mono-Kote (MR-3). b. Zonolite Company (1959 - 1963); Grace-Conn (1963 - 1973) c . 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. a . Fireproofing. PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN COMMERCIAL ASBESTOS 12. a. Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-4). b. W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn (1970 to the present, in Southern California and Arizona only). c . Chemical Composition: Grace-Conn objects to providing the chemical composition of this product because the composition is a trade secret. Further answering, this product contains expanded vermiculite. d. Fireproofing. 13. a. Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-5). b. W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn (July, 1972 to the present). c. Chemical Composition: Grace-Conn objects to providing the chemical compositier, of this product because the composition is a trade secret. Further answering, this product contains expanded vermiculite. >.nBJ I c ^NSSl AUCTION rnouucrs DIVISION 10: J. D. R1CCLEMAN, Ubby L. M. KRUFP, Libby .FROM: F. V. EATON cc: E. D. Lovick, Libby DATE: February 17, 1970 SUBJECT: Mersbrane Filter Sailing When 1 was in Ubby, I had a chance to go over the cesbrane filter aethod of sampling with Lou Krupp, but did not have the tire to discuss this with J. D. Riggleran. Ir. this letter, I will try to review it briefly for both of you, and any details caitted car. be obtained fror the instruction book that is enclosed. This is a terporary aeasure, as you know, and as soon as soceone is hired to carry on this ar.d other functions at Ubby, both Rex Srith and Walt Baker will be freed of :his task. I have giver, both Rex and Valt a copy of the instructions, but neither got copies of the first part of the ranual that deals with the hanards associated with asbestos. Both cen were given a short training session on the principles involved ir. the use of the sampling equipaent, and 1 feel will be capable of carrying cut this collateral duty that has been assigned to then. I have asked that they both show the sampled aonitor and data sheet to you before it is sent to the laboratory here in Boston. In the aenbrane filter aethod of sanpling, we are only concerning ourselves with the collection and reading of treoolite and asbestos fibers that are known to be in Ubby ore. Through inpingere tests that V. Uordin has con ducted we know that the particulate level in the dry aill can be controlled within allowable threshold linit values for total dust. VhaC we don't know is the level of fibers and if we are belcv the threshold linit value established by the U. S. Public Eealth (12 nicrocs per cc_ longer than 5 nicrons in length). Johns Macville aad~Crnoeha've estacTish'fed a .value of 6* fibers per cc. Sanpling Is a relatively sinple procedure and will in no way interfere with-'tne aoverect of an operator in'perfoming his ncmal duties. A vacuua punp is attached to a nan's belt and connected, by aeans of a rubber tube, to a eonitor fastened to the operator's' shirr collar. The eonitor is positioned in the breathing zcne of a person and the rate of flow through the vacuis punp at the nonal respira tory rate of cvo leaders per ninute. The person being sacpled should conduct his norsal duties and in no way should deviate froa then to be either in a clean or dusty er.vironnsnt. As an exanple, on February 3 we saapled the top floor dry aill operator for ninty air.utes, and during this period of tine he made one ccsplete round of the upper floors and dryer area, and the reaafnder of the tine was spent in the operators rooa on the first level. It is not necessary for either Walt or Rex to follow the cen around all the tiae, but every thirty einutes they should check the vacrn punp to see that it is operating properly and observe conditions in the area being sanpled so that the sanpling data sheet can be filled out with al 1 pertinent infcmatlcn. Hnni 70:' J. D. RICCLEMAN L.-H. m*?P FROM: F. V. Eaton DATE: February 17, 1970 SUEJECT: Heebrane Filter Sampling Page Two 1 have requested that 90 minute sacples be taken each aonth at the following locations at the cine and clll: Mine Saceline Locations: 1. Two truck drivers (one at each shovel) 2. Two shovel operators 3. Drill operator 4. Grader operator 5. Transfer point 6. Portable laboratory Hill Sanolir.g Locations: 1. Each cill operator, including the sweeper 2. Area nair.ter.ar.ee can 3. Skip hoist operator 4. Truck driver at ore transfer point to river site 5. Operator at river ore storage site. 6. Ore car loader 7. Kill shift tester There are rwo cccplete testing setups at Libby (at the present tire, one pun? Is defective and I will see that it is replaced vlthin a veek), and 1 would reccnccr.d that two people be sacpled at the sane tine ao that there is less tine required of Valt ar.d Ren. In the downtown office, there are approxicately fifty nailing tubes to be used in sending the sanpled nonitors to Werby Laboratories in Sosten. I would Teco=oend as scon as you have eight sacples either at the nine or the cill that they be sent to Verby, along with one copy of the saeplir.g data sheet. One copy of the data sheet should be retained in Libby and acscber sent to ce here ic Cambridge. Until such tine as a pemar.er.t person is assigned this task if will not be necessary for you to clean and insert new filters in the monitor, nor calibrate the vacuum punps. I will see that fresh monitors, ready to use, are hipped to ycu and you should return the vacuuc pueps to ae in Cacbridge every Lx conths for recalibration. I appreciate your cooperation and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call ne. J. V. EATOH fat i) GOO1207 0. F. Stewart June 26, I967 R. A. Bleich R. W. Sterrett SJrroco Fan and Montana State Board of HealthInspections Dear Floyd; We have never had an opinion expressed regarding the Slrroco fan froo Mr. Ben Wtliss State Beard Engineer. Mr. Wake has only been concerned with the inside atmosphere ot the mill. This, of course, makes him Interested in any source of dust which contributes to the pollution of the mill atmosphere but to our knowledge his observations and comments have been on Internal sources. I suppose that It is possible that any possible pollution from the fan could have escaped his observation. That is, for conditions to have been favorable in every respect at each time of his Infrequent visits. Cur allowable limit as per the State Beard is 20 million particles per cubic foot. We-have set our cwn at 10 m ppcf anc the insurance people are trying to dictate 5 m ppcf. Now, there are tirr.es wr.en al 1 the conditions are such that seme pollution does occur from the fan discharge. These times are in frequent and a small percentage of the total, time. Also, there is real doubt as to whether ar.y pollution from the far. curing tiese times actually increases the cust count beyond the allowable limits. However, we must admit that It can and does occur at these infrequent intervals. We have not been able to detect any crastic increase in dust count during these times. The allowable limit Is In effect at all times. Therefore, I believe that 5t would be natural to expect that Mr. Wake In his capacity would be In favor of any project which would tend to remove any potential source of pollution but would no: demand that it be done as long as the dust counts were satisfactory, in other words, I believe that he wculc leave the method on how to get the requirec results to us but expects us to get them. He probably would give us an opinion if asked but seriously doubt that he c-uld give us anything except to be in favor of moving the fan. Moving the fan most certainly will not be detrimental to the dust situation. Just hew much benefit will be derived is the unknown question. At times It will help a lot, especially in the outside area, while at other times It probably will not help enough to make any difference. It will not bring the dust count down to 5 m ppcf. Any ory mill extension to the east, etc. will require moving the fan. I don't believe that Hr. Parks is going to relent un the subject and will continue to insist. Could our failure to comply with his recommendations ever be used to escape responsibility or liability on their part in the fu ture7 RABIelch/jbg 691ASB CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE served of I certify that a copy of the upon all interested counsel 1991. 7 foregoing on this instrument was the dav /SANDRA F. CLARK f