Document Zn869m5r0dRBbD4x8K6D4QO4Z

I .i 1 2 IN THE" UNITED STATE* DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 4 BEAUMONT DIVISION 5 6 MARIE B. SOIGNET, ET AL 7 VS 8 MONTELLO, INC., ET AL * * * NO. B-86-1193-CA * * 9 ***** 10 11 This is the oral deposition of 12 HARRISON B. RHODES, Ph'.D., 13 a Witness in the above-styled cause. The testimony was 14 taken at the instance of the Plaintiffs on January 19, 15 1989, in the offices of Mehaffy, Weber, Keith & Gonsoulin, 16 8th Floor, NCNB Building, 2615 Calder at Tenth, Beaumont, 17 Texas. 18 Those persons present were as follows: 19 20 MR. DANIEL J. CARUSO, of the Law Firm of Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn 21 30th Floor - Energy Centre 1100 Poydras Street 22 New Orleans, Louisiana 70163-3000 23 Counsel for Plaintiffs 24 25 FILE COPY 9EAUM0NT TX (4091 839 4407 HOUSTON TX 7t3l 533 5400 UCAREF00018705 2 1 2 MR. WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, JR., of the Law Firm of Taylor & Taylor 3 Suite 811, Ten Penn Center Plaza 1801 Market Street 4 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 5 Counsel for Defendant, Sun Exploration & Production Company 6 7 8 MR. MICHAEL J. McGINNIS Attorney at Law 9 Phillips Petroleum Company P. 0. Box 1967 10 Houston, Texas 77251-1967 11 Counsel for Defendant, Phillips Petroleum Company 12 13 14 MR. KENT M. ADAMS, of the Law Firm of Adams, Duesler & Carrington 15 Petroleum Tower - . P. 0. Box 7505 16 Beaumont, Texas 77726-7505 17 Counsel for Defendants, Milwhite and 18 Barium Supply Company 19 20 MR. JOE L. GUYTON, of the Law Firm of 21 Weitinger & Tucker 1200 Cashco Tower 22 Houston, Texas 77046 23 Counsel for Defendant, Pacific Asbestos Corporation 24 25 BEAUMONT. TX aHOnUtSST2O3NS,AOTXO UCAREF00018706 3 1 2 3 MS. SANDRA CLARK, of the Law Firm of Mehaffy, Weber, Keith & Gonsoulin 4 8th Floor, NCNB Building 2615 Calder at Tenth 5 Beaumont, Texas 77704 6 Counsel for Defendant, Onion Carbide Corporation 7 8 9 MR. D. ALLAN JONES, of the Law Firm of Orgain, Bell & Tucker 10 470 Orleans Beaumont, Texas 77701 11 Counsel for Defendant, . 12 Atlas Corporation 13 14 CHARLOTTE SMITH, CSR, RPR 15 Charlotte Smith Reporting, Inc. 235 Orleans 16 Beaumont, Texas 77701 17 18 19 20 21 if 1c it 22 23 24 25 MAUMONT 7k 14091 839 4407 HOUSTON TX <713* 523*400 I UCAREF00018707 4 1 stipulation 2 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED BY COUNSEL FOR 3 THE PARTIES HERETO: 4 5 That the deposition of the Witness named 6 herein is taken by agreement at this time; 7 8 That the reading and signing of the 9 deposition by the Witness is hereby being waived; 10 11 That this deposition may be used upon the 12 trial of this cause with the same force and effect as 13 if the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 14 with reference to the talcing of the deposition and 15 return of same had been fully followed; 16 17 That all objections, other than those that 18 relate to the form of the question and responsiveness 19 of the answer, are hereby preserved and may be made at 20 the time any testimony herein is sought to be offered 21 upon the trial of this cause, despite no objection 22 having been made at the time the testimony was taken; 23 24 That the original transcript of the deposition 25 will be given to Mr. Daniel J. Caruso, who will be 8CAUM0NT TX <*09t 939 *407 HOUSTON 7* 7I3 533 S*CC J UCAREF00018708 5 1 responsible for. filing same with the Court, in the event 2 such act is called for by any party to this cause; 3 4 That if, for any reason, the original 5 transcript of the deposition cannot be located at the 6 time of trial, a copy may be used in lieu thereof. 7 8 9 10 11 * it it it * 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEAUMONT TX 14091 829 44Q7 CISR! HOUSTON TX t7 tOi 523 6400 UCAREF00018709 6 1 2 3 4 INDEX 5 6 7 EXAMINATION BY: PAGES: 8 Mr. Daniel J. Caruso 7-47 9 Mr. William J. Taylor, Jr. 47 - 48 10 Mr. Joe L. Guyton 48 - 49 11 Mr. Kent M. Adams ' 49 - 49 12 Mr. D. Allan Jones 49 - 51 13 RE-EXAMINATION BY: 14 Mr. Daniel J. Caruso 51 - 53 15 Mr. Joe L. Guyton 53 - 54 16 17 18 19 * * * * 20 21 22 23 24 25 StAUMONT. TX <409* 839 440? <H7O13U1S6T3O3N54f0X0 UCAREF00018710 7 1 HARRISON RHODES , Ph.D., 2 having been duly sworn, testified as follows, to-wit: 3 4 EXAMINATION BY MR. CARUSO; 5Q Would you state your full name for the 6 record, please. 7A Harrison Bateman Rhodes. 8Q Where do you live, Mr. Rhodes? 9A Grand Junction, Colorado. 10 Q By whom are you presently employed? 11 A Versar, V-e-r-s-a-r, Incorporated. 12 Q What is the business of Versar, Incorporated? 13 A General environmental consulting. 14 Q And you are Dr. Rhodes; is that correct? 15 A A Doctor of Science, yes. Doctor of . ' 16 Engineering Science, Chemical Engineering. 17 Q Where did you get your Doctorate from? 18 A Columbia University, New York City. 19 Q When did you obtain that degree? 20 A 21 Q 1960. After obtaining your degree from Columbia in 22 1960, could you tell us what your work experience was? 23 A I spent four years in engineering research 24 with Sun Oil Company, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, and 25 four years with Columbia University on a government BEAUMONT TX l09 939 **07 HOUSTON Tx (7131 523 MOO UCAREF00018711 8 1 project while I was getting my Doctorate. Have you got 2 it? * 3Q Okay. Go ahead. 4A And then in 1957 I went to work for Onion 5 Carbide Corporation. 6Q So, you went to work for Onion Carbide before 7 you actually obtained your Doctorate degree? BA Yes, I had finished the research work, but I 9 was still doing the thesis. 10 Q And when you went to work for Onion Carbide 11 in 1957, what was your position with the company? 12 A X was a group leader in process development. 13 Q What is process development? 14 A 1 worked on developing processes relevant to 15 the petroleum refining industry. 16 Q Where was your group located? 17 A Tonawanda, New York. 18 Q How do you spell that? 19 A It's just about the way it sounds: 20 T-o-n-a-w-a-n-d-a. 21 Q Then after working as a group leader in 22 developing processes for petroleum refining, what did 23 you do then? 24 A . I then spent about four years in process 25 licensing for Union Carbide out of the same division. BEAUMONT. TK >4091 839 **07 mHO3U*SaTOnNfi4oc UCAREF00018712 9 1Q What year would the*- have begun? 2A Oh, boy! Let's put a date. I transferred 3 from the Linde Division, which is the division I had 4 been with, to the Metals Division in 1967. So, the 5 process licensing was several years prior to the 6 transfer. 7Q Would that have been in the '60's? 8A Yeah, late ' 60`s, middle to late '60's. 9Q 10 A What was the business of this group? The new group? 11 Q The new group. ' 12 A This was the Carbide Asbestos Project, 13 Department. 14 Q Was the department in existence when you came 15 to it? ' 16 A Yes, it was. It had been in'existence about 17 three or four years, I think, at that point in time. 18 Q So, can we date its existence from the early 19 eo's? 20 A Early '60's isreasonable. 21 Q Now, was there someone when you came aboard 22 in that department who carried the title of the head of 23 the department? 24 A Yes, there was. 25 Q Who was that? hou$to* r r M3i S23 *400 UCAREF00018713 10 1A Dr. Robert Milton. Wait. I'm sorry. I 2 apologize. He was the head of the department back at 3 Linde. Oh, boy! I just don't remember. 4Q But this group dealt with the development of 5 asbestos products for Union Carbide? 6A That's correct, yes. 7Q Did you ever become the head of this 8 department? 9A No. 10 Q How long did you work in that department? 11 A From that time until 1981. 12 Q Where did you go in 1981? 13 A In 1981 I was made the Manager of Occupational 14 Health for the Metals Division of Union Carbide. 15 Q And where was your office? 16 A The same, the same office. 17 Q Is that Tonawanda, New York? 18 A I'm sorry. When I transferred, I transferred 19 to Niagara Falls, New York. Niagara Falls was a 20 different division. 21 Q So, the Metals Division was the division 22 under which the development of asbestos products took 23 place? 24 A That is not totally correct. The Metals 25 Division was selling fiber, producing from the ground BEAUMONT TX <409> 839 *M>7 HOUSTON Tr m 523 5400 UCAREF00018714 11 1 and bagging.up and selling fiber to the u~.ers of fiber. 2 We were not developing any asbestos-containing 3 products. 4Q So, you were developing the use of the fiber 5 itself? ' 6A 7Q The use of the fiber,.yes. By 1981 you had taken over the job of Manager 8 of Occupational Health for the Metals Division? 9A For the entire division. 10 Q Does that mean that somewhere along the way 11 you were' obtaining training in occupational health and 12 safety? 13 A Yes, I was, ' 14 Q Where did you obtain that training? 15 A I spent a great deal of time in that time 16 period working on regulatory matters, representing the 17 Union Carbide asbestos interests in a trade association 18 in the Asbestos Information Association North America, 19 A.I.A.N.A., and also the Asbestos International 20 Association, which was an association of country 21<. associations. And in conjunction with that I was doing 22 a lot of air monitoring development, things of that 23 nature. 24 Q Do you know when the Asbestos Information 25 Association of North America was formed? 0CAUMON7 TX <409) 839 4407 HOUSTON TX |7I3 523 6400 UCAREF00018715 t 12 1A Somewhere around 1970 or '71; '69, '70, 2 sometime in that time frame. 3Q Where is it headquartered? 4A Crystal City, Virginia. 5Q What was it that gave rise to the creation, 6 if you know, of the Asbestos Information Association of 7 North America? 8A The sudden growth in regulatory activities on 9 asbestos. 10 Q How did the business of the Asbestos 11 Information Association of North America relate to the 12 sudden growth in regulation of asbestos? 13 A I'm sorry? 14 Q How did those two interface? What was the 15 Asbestos Information Association of North America doing 16 with regard to the sudden increase in regulations for 17 its members? 18 A They were developing technical information on' 19 the safe use of asbestos, proper and safe use of 20 asbestos. They were also preparing industry-wide responses 21 to the regulatory initiatives that were going on in 22 that time period. 23 Q Did you ever hold any office in the Asbestos 24 Information Association? 25 A I at one time was head of their Technical BEAUMONT IX 14091 839**07 HOUSTON TX I713 523 5400 UCAREF00018716 13 1 Committee. 2Q Do you know what time that was? 3A Oh, somewhere in the '72, *73, '74 range, in 4 there. 5Q What was the business of the Technical 6 Committee? 7A They were the ones -- They were various 8 people from the companies who were looking into 9 technical matters on developing procedures, safe 10 procedures, and they also were involved with drafting, 11 working up responses to regulatory initiatives. 12 Q Did you ever testify before any Congressional 13 committees or OSHA committees regarding asbestos 14 regulation? 15 A Yes, I have. ' 16 Q Could you tell us for each occasionwhen you 17 did testify what was the purpose of that testimony? 18 A I can give you possibly some general answers. 19 I just don't remember. 20 Q ' Okay. 21 A Basically it wastechnical testimony onsuch 22 things as air monitoring and the aspects of complying 23 with the various proposals. 24 Q Did you ever argue against proposals being 25 made, regulatory proposals being made, by OSHA? SfAUMONT. TX <4091 83944Q7 . C O U . 19 ____1 UCAREF00018717 14 1A We presented what we felt were reasonable, 2 pointing out the problems that they were causing, and 3 attempting to indicate what we would think would be 4 more reasonable. 5Q What type of problems were they causing? 6A I'm sorry, I just don't remember 7 specifically. They were general to things which 8 would be very difficult to comply with. 9Q You said that there were two things? 10 A No, they were things which would be difficult 11 to comply with. 12 Q Can you give me an example of some of the 13 things that you felt and which you espoused were too 14 difficult to comply with? 15 A ` It's been too long. I don't remember the 16 details. Waitl One item was the initial monitoring 17 requirements and the concept of trying to set up work 18 practices for a particular operation, and demonstrate 19 that the fiber levels were controlled and, therefore, 20 as long as the procedures were followed, the monitoring 21 requirements were relaxed. That concept ended up in 22 the newest OSHA regulation on asbestos. 23 Q . Was that something you were positing? 24 A We were. 25 Q If you undertook a certain type of work StAUMONT TX I409< 8340? HOUSTON TX 1713* 523 5400 UCAREF00018718 15 1 practice, you could relax the air monitoring requirements? 2 That's what you were arguing for at the time? 3A That was the only thing I remember at the 4 moment. 5Q And that eventually became part of the new 6 OSHA standard? 7A Yes. 8Q When you were working, you said in the late 9 '60's, when you went to the Metals Division to begin 10 working with the Carbide Asbestos Project, what was 11 your understanding of what was considered to be 12 injurious health side effects associated with asbestos 13 at that time? 14 A Could you repeat that? I'm not quite sure of 15 your ... 16 Q When you went to work originally, you said in 17 the late '60's, with the Carbide Asbestos Project, when 18 you came on board there and started working in that 19 project, what was your understanding as to injurious 20 health side effects that might be associated with 21 exposure to asbestos? 22 A The most prominent was asbestosis. 23 Q Let's stop there a second and let me ask you 24 to define for me what is asbestosis. 25 A Pibrotic disease of the lungs which impacts seauuont rx *09 839 4*07 ________________ 1 H0US70'. <7J3l 523 MOO UCAREF00018719 16 1 on their ability to function. 2 Let me add that I am also a board certified 3 industrial hygienist in general comprehensive practice. 4Q We're going back to 1967. Were you that ------ 5A (Interrupting) I was not at that time, but I 6 have since become a board certified industrial 7 hygienist. 8Q What was your understanding, if any, besides 9 asbestosis as a possible health hazard associated with 10 the use of asbestos? 11 A Lung cancer was fairly well defined. And at 12 that time we were looking at the different types of 13 asbestos having considerably different health effects. 14 With crocidolite, which had been basically banned in 15 England at that point, the most significant; amosite, 16 being somewhere in between; chrysotile, being at the 17 bottom of that group. And there was considerable 18 uncertainty as to whether we had a mesothelioma hazard 19 with chrysotile. 20 Q You were not certain as to whether or not you 21 had a mesothelioma hazard with chrysotile? 22 A The risk appeared to be considerably lower, 23 if there was a risk at all. We were looking primarily 24 at asbestosis and lung cancer at that point in time. 25 Q Now, when you say "we were looking at it," BEAUMONT TX U09` 839*407 (ZS HOUSTON TX Mil 833 S400 UCAREF00018720 17 1 who is "we"7 . 2A The people involved in the Asbestos Project, 3 and we got our guidance from the Corporate Medical 4 Department. We were not independent experts. 5Q Can you give me a name of somebody who was 6 the head man at Corporate Medical? 7A The name that comes to mind is Dr. Durnell. 8 And whether he was the head or not -- He was one of the 9 prominent members there. There were several of them, 10 but ... 11 9 Can you recall for me any other prominent 12 members of the Medical Department? 13 A 14 Q No, I'm sorry, it's too long ago. In the asbestos group who specifically was 15 working on attempting to determine the health effects 16 that were associated with asbestos? 17 A In Union Carbide that responsibility rested 18 with the Corporate Medical, Toxicology people. 19 Q How did your group relate to them in trying 20 to make this determination, if there was a 21 relationship? 22 A We did a certain amount of - a fair amount of 23 following the literature ourselves. And anything, any 24 opinions or statements on health effects, would be 25 discussed with the Medical Department before anybody said SfAUMONT. TX (409i 839 4407 HOUSTON TX '!3) 523 5400 UCAREF00018721 1 18 1 anything outside of our group. We did not regard 2 ourselves as medical experts on health effects. 3Q What was your expertise within that group? 4A My expertise was application development and 5 also technical service for technical problems of users 6 of our product. 7Q That's what technical service isr helping the 8 users apply the product that you are selling them? 9A Yes. 10 Q But there were toxicologists at that time 11 within the Medical Department of Onion Carbide? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Do you know if anyone at this time - and by 14 "at this time," I'm talking about late 1967 as you have 15 defined when you went into the Metals Division -do 16 you know of anyone within the Medical Department of 17 Union Carbide who was conducting any type of tests 18 dealing with determining the potential side effects 19 associated with asbestos? 20 A There was a corporate industrial hygienist 21 that was one of our primary contacts. 22 Q Do you know what his name was? 23 A Paul McDaniel. 24 Q What was Mr. McDaniel doing with regard to 25 the question of asbestos and injury to a person's health? BEAUMONT TX 1*09* 939 4407 D ) HOUSTON r* <7UkM3S*OC UCAREF00018722 19 1A I-believe he had sent out some samples of the 2 material for animal testing. 3Q Do you know to whom he sent those samples? 4A Carnegie or Carnegie-Mellon Institute. 5Q Now, the samples that he sent to Carnegie-Mellon 6 Institute, were they samples of chrysotile asbestos? 7A They were samples of the asbestos as we were 8 beginning to manufacture it in the King City Mill. 9Q And did you ever have any discussion with 10 Mr. McDaniel about why he sent it to them and what the 11 results were after he got the results back from 12 Carnegie-Mellon? 13 A Yes. 14 Q . And on the first question: Why did he send 15 it to them? 16 A Carbide had a contractual relationship, I 17 believe, with Carnegie-Mellon, and they routinely sent 18 anything new, any new products, that sort of thing, for 19 basic animal screening sequence. And I assume that r 20 that was why they sent it; they wanted to find out what 21 the basic properties were. 22 Q And what were the results of those tests; do 23 you know? 24 A The conclusion that we got in discussion with 25 McDaniel was that our asbestos was not noticeably ScAiJMOUT TX (4091 B39 4407 HOUSTON IX ITt3l 623 6400 UCAREF00018723 20 1 different than any chrysotile asbestos. That was the 2 basis that we intended, that all our thoughts were 3 operating on. 4Q The statement that your chrysotile did not 5 act any differently than anyone else's chrysotile, what 6 does that mean in relation to the actual animal studies 7 that were done? Did those studies produce any tumors 8 in those animals? 9A I believe they did, yes. 10 Q Do you know what type of tumors they were? 11 A No. 12 Q Was any follow-up done, to your knowledge - 13 and, of course, this is all to your knowledge - with 14 regard to those studies done by the Carnegie-Mellon 15 Institute as to finding out the identity of those 16 tumors, the frequency, anything like that? 17 A 18 Q I don't know of any other studies. Was a written report prepared by the Carnegie- 19 Mellon Institute on those studies? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Have you seen it? 22 A I have seen it. 23 Q Do you have it with you? 24 A I do not have it with me here. 25 Q Do you have it in your file somewhere? afAUMONt TX U09. 839 4407 HOUSTON TK (713V 523 5400 UCAREF00018724 21 1 MR. CARUSO: You can answer it. I 2 may have it myself. 3 MS. CLARK: You may. 4 5 (By Mr. Caruso) 6Q Have you seen it? 7A I have seen it, yes. 8Q Once that report from Carnegie-Mellon got 9 back into the hands of Mr. McDaniel, was it the subject ' 10 of any discussion between your group and Mr. McDaniel? 11 A ' I don't recall any detailed discussion of, 12 you know, which kinds of tumors and that sort of thing; 13 but the original statement was that we should treat our 14 asbestos just as though it was chrysotile - just as 15 though it were like all other chrysotile. 16 The reason that it was in that connotation, I 17 believe, is. that this asbestos came from a unique 18 deposit in California. And it was a very different 19 deposit than the Canadian, as far.as the form. It was 20 a short fiber deposit. And the question is it any 21 different was basically the question that they were 22 asking. They were hoping that it would be less 23 hazardous. But the results did not indicate that. 24 Q To put this in context so that I understand 25 and make sure that we're on the same page about this: BEAUMONT TX 1409t $39 4407 C5R HOUSTON TX mil 523 5*00 UCAREF00018725 i! 22 1 In 1967 did those people working in the Union 2 Carbide Asbestos Development Group, including yourself, 3 believe that there was a possibility that chrysotile 4 asbestos might cause mesothelioma? 5A In that time frame we were basically 6 technical people working on a technical problem. 1967 7 was about the time that the Selikoff work on asbestos 8 developed, became generally known. And the whole 9 asbestos issue came to the fore that led to the 10 development of the OSHA standards and the various 11 regulations. 12 The people at that level had not really begun 13 to become knowledgeable about the hazards of asbestos. 14 Q To your knowledge, were the Selikoff studies 15 discussed within the Medical Department of Union 16 Carbide when they came out? 17 A To my knowledge, I don't know. 18 Q Did you all receive anything from the Medical 19 Department - "you all" being the folks in the Technical 20 Department -- Did you all receive any information or 21 input from the Medical Department following the time 22 the Selikoff studies came out? 23 A I can recall sitting down and discussing 24 hazards with them sometime in the late '70's or so. I 25 have a faint recollection of something in writing, but HOUSTON rx )?13> 923 S*QO UCAREF00018726 * 23 1 I have not seen it since, so I don't know that that 2 occurred. 3 We were being very careful about what we told 4 people about the hazards of the product and not 5 misrepresenting that it was not hazardous. 6Q Not misrepresenting that it was not hazardous? 7A Let me say that again. 8Q I want to make sure that's right, because 9 there was a double something there. 10 A We did not want to give people the impression 11 that it was not hazardous. ' 12 Q So, at least it was understood by you all in 13 the late '60's that there were certain hazards 14 associated with asbestos? 15 A The early '70's would be a better description 16 of the time frame there. 17 Q Before OSHA? 18 A As OSHA came about, as the standard was being 19 developed, we were ------ 20 Q (Interrupting) Go ahead. I'm sorry. I 21 didn't mean to interrupt you. 22 A The OSHA rule-making was something that we 23 were reading and following in that time frame. It was 24 in that time frame that we began to become aware of the 25 various hazards. BEAUMONT TX <*09i 129 *407 HOUSTON fx fT13i 523 540C UCAREF00018727 24 1Q And the origin of that knowledge or 2 suspicion, you date that to the Selikoff study; or do 3 you date it before that, with regard to cancer? 4A I really cannot define it any better than 5 that. 6 There was a flood of literature in the late 7 ' 60's, late *60's/early '70's. 8Q When do you date, if you can, the knowledge 9 that there is an association between asbestos exposure 10 and asbestosis? 11 A . Could you clarify? When I had a knowledge or 12 when ... 13 Q Yes, sir, I'm talking about you personally. 14 When would you date for us the scientific 15 knowledge that there is an association between asbestos 16 and asbestosis, if you can do it? 17 A I knew absolutely nothing about asbestos when 18 I joined the Asbestos Department, changed divisions in 19 1968 or '69, whenever it was. 20 Q When was it within the organization at Onion 21 Carbide that it became recognized that the chrysotile 22 asbestos created a potential for an individual exposed 23 to it to contract mesothelioma? 24 MR. TAYLOR: I object to the form 25 of the question. BEAUMOUT TV HOSi 339 4407 wovsnv* ** (713* 623 5400 UCAREF00018728 i 25 1 MS. CLARK: I join in that 2 objection. We!re just objecting to the 3 . question. Do you remember what the 4 question was? 5Q If you don't, she can read it back. 6A Would you read that back. 7 THE REPORTER: "When was it within 8 the organization at Onion Carbide that 9 it became recognized that the chrysotile 10 asbestos created a potential for an 11 individual exposed to' it to contract 12 mesothelioma?" 13 MR. GUYTON: I object to that. It 14 assumes that there is a potential of 15 mesothelioma contraction from 16 chrysotile. 17 MS. CLARK: Before we go on, 18 generally in these depositions we have 19 reserved objections, and we can continue 20 with that stipulation. 21 A I don't know that there was ever a time in 22 Union Carbide that the strength - that the mesothelioma 23 was a strong possibility. 24 Q How about a possibility? 25 A I would answer that the same way. BEAUMONT TX t*09f $39**0* HOUSTON TX lTl3t52344J0 J UCAREF00018729 26 1Q When you were working in the Technical 2 Department were you involved in preparing the material 3 safety data sheets for the asbestos products? 4A I prepared the one you have inyour hand. 5Q This one here (indicating)? 6A 7Q Yes. I don't have the date. 8A Approximately 1984. ' 9Q Let me show you this material safety data ' 10 sheet that we have previously had marked as Myers #3. 11 And I'll ask you, sir, if you recognize it as being one 12 prepared by you when you were working at Union Carbide. 13 (Tendering to Witness) 14 MR. ADAMS: Did you say the date 15 16 A was 1984? December 31st, 1984, as required by the 17 Hazards Communication Standard. 18 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 19 Q Is that the one that was prepared by you? 20 A That was the one that I was responsible for 21 preparing. 22 Q Now, here on the second sheet of this thing 23 where it says "Chronic Effects of Overexposure," it 24 says, "Overexposure to chrysotile asbestos has caused 25 damage to lungs (asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma BEAUMONT TX 14091 939 4407 HOUSTON TX 1713 623 MOO UCAREF00018730 t 27 1 of the pleura and peritoneum)." 2 Now, where did you all get that information 3 for that insert there? 4A There is literature which makes that 5 assertion. There is also a Hazards Communication 6 Standard, Mandatory Appendix A or B, I believe, which 7 requires that a material safety data sheet report 8 anything that has occurred in a valid study. 9 We were required by law to include mesothelioma 10 as one of the health effects of asbestos. 11 Q What valid study was it that you all relied 12 on to include mesothelioma in your entry there under 13 "MSTD"? 14 A I'll answer that this way: This section of 15 the health effects were generated by our Corporate 16 Toxicology Medical Department, and I cannot say which 17 reference they selected for that. 18 Q Now, in 1984 do you know who would have been 19 the man in the Corporate Medical Toxicology Department 20 who would have had the input into making the 21 determination to include mesothelioma in that MSTD? 22 A Yes, and let me bring it back. I'm drawing 23 a blank. I can see his face. I know who it is. I'll 24 think of it. I'm suddenly drawing a blank. Hilton 25 Lewinsohn. BfAUMOH7 7X MQ9I S39 4407 HOUSTON. TX rm> 623 5400 UCAREF00018731 28 1Q To your knowledge, is he still with Union 2 Carbide? 3A I do not know. 4Q Was chrysotile asbestos considered by you and 5 those working in the Technical Department to pose a 6 risk of lung cancer? 7A Yes. 8Q Was this based upon studies done independently 9 by Union Carbide or based on studies done outside the 10 Union Carbide organization? 11 A Based on studies done outside the organization. 12 May I have a drink of water? 13 Q Sure. Take a break anytime youwant. 14 (AT THIS TIME THERE WAS A PAUSE 15 IN THE PROCEEDINGS, AFTER WHICH THE 16 ' DEPOSITION RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:) 17 18 (By Mr. Caruso) ' 19 Q Did Union Carbide, to your knowledge, in the 20 late ' 60's or early '70's conduct any studies of its 21 own with regard to the carcinogenicity of chrysotile 22 asbestos? 23 A The only studies I know are the two that we 24 have discussed earlier. 25 Q Did Union Carbide sponsor or conduct any atAUMONT TX 1409- 839 4407 HOUSTON TX 1713* 523 640C J UCAREF00018732 ft 29 1 epidemiological studies dealing with health effects 2 associated with the use of chrysotile asbestos? 3A I do not know of any. 4Q Has Onion Carbide ever, to your knowledge, 5 done that, an epidemiological study? 6A Yes. 7Q When did that take place? 8A There was one done on brain cancer at Texas 9 City or something of that general nature. There was 10 also one done on radon, I believe, in conjunction with 11 Uravan. 12 Q In conjunction with what? 13 A In conjunction with the Uravan Mill. There 14 may be others, but those are the only two that I know 15 of. 16 Q When was the study of the brain cancer 17 conducted? do you know? 18 A I don't know. Four or five years ago, 19 something of that kind. 20 Q What was the cohort for that study? 21 A I don't know. All I know is that it existed. 22 It was conducted by the Corporate Industrial Hygiene - 23 the Corporate Group did that sort of thing. 24 Q And do you know why it was done, why all of a 25 sudden they decided to do that study? SIAUM0M7. TX l*09l 8394*07 nCUST0h TX tni. MOO UCAREF00018733 30 1A There was a question as to whether there was 2 an excess of brain tumors among the workers in that 3 plant. 4Q And what was the product that Union Carbide 5 was concerned about? 6A I don't know. 7Q Was it asbestos? 8A No. You asked the question are there any 9 other than asbestos. ,, 10 Q It was. Okay. 11 Do you know of any other epidemiological 12 studies that were done at any time by Union Carbide, 13 either sponsored by the company or actually performed 14 by the company, dealing with asbestos? 15 A 16 Q No, I do not knowthat. Now, the product that we're talking about or 17 which we have been talking about is a chrysotile 18 asbestos fiber mined in California; is that correct? 19 A That's correct, yes, sir. 20 Q And it is a processed chrysotile; is that 21 correct? 22 A Would you define what you mean by "processed"? 23 Q I don't know what I mean by "processed." I 24 was getting ready to ask you. I've been told that this 25 is a processed chrysotile. I was going to ask you what CAOUONT TX |409> 839-*407 CSR _________________i HOUSTON TX (7131 523 54QO UCAREF00018734 31 1 does that term mean when Union Carbide says "processed 2 chrysotile." 3A It means that the ore has been treated in a 4 manner which it is separated from the rock, and the 5 clumps of fibers have been broken downr and it has been 6 finished and put into bags for sale to the users. 7Q In the case of this specific chrysotile 8 asbestos that is mined -- Is that at Coalinga? 9A ' The mine is in Coalinga, California. 10 Q Besides separating it from the ore, as you 11 have just described, was the asbestos treated in any 12 fashion with any chemicals before it was put into the 13 bags? 14 A The Super-Visbestos was not. The Montello 15 products were not. 16 Q The Montello products were not treated? 17 A Were not treated. ' 18 Q What was treated? 19 A There was a product which we precipitated 20 amorphous silica on the surface designated as RG-244, 21 which was, I would say, chemically treated. 22 And let me retract my other answer, in that 23 it was an experimental product that never really got 24 into the marketplace that was treated with stearic acid. 25 Q Why was it treated with stearic acid? Is this BEAUMONT TX <409i 839 4407 C housiow r* <7131 523 64QO UCAREF00018735 T 32 1 asbestos being treated with stearic acid? ' 2A Yes. 3Q What was the purpose oftreating it with 4 stearic acid? 5A It made it hydrophobic. ` 6Q Was anything ever done to this asbestos that 7 was sold to Montello to remove the magnesium from it? 8A No. 9Q Right here where it says the formula 10 composition here, and they've got a bunch of letters 11 after it, that first one is magnesium, isn't it? 12 A 13 Q Yes. Thank you. So, the only process that we're 14 talking about with regard to this processed chrysotile 15 is to separate it from the ore ------ . 16 A Yes. 17 Q ------ as it is extracted from the earth? 18 A 19 Q Yes. And what happensafter that? 20 A It is wet sheared, you know, ground. 21 Q It is ground? 22 A To get the fibers apart. They come in a 23 lump. And then it is filtered to get the water out 24 and extruded in pellets, you know, quarter-inch, 25 three-eighths-inch pellets, and dried. Subsequently BfAUMONT TX <409> 839 4407 HOUSTON TX it;3. 523 5400 UCAREF00018736 33 1 it is -- For the Montello products it was partially 2 opened, which means dry grind to break the pellets up 3 to a limited extent. 4Q Why was it that the Montello product was dry 5 ground? 6A ' The use in the oil industry was primarily as 7 a hole cleaning system where they would dump once a 8 shift - this is typical - once a shift about eight to 9 ten bags. And it thickened up the mud and would pick 10 up the heavy stuff that was just percolating back and 11 forth in the shaft, and bring it out. And it was not 12 subject to shear until it got down into the drill bit 13 and things of that nature. 14 Q What does"shear" mean? 15 A Do you know what a Waring blender is? 16 Q Yes. 17 A Shear is what you get in a Waring blender. 18 It's high-velocity cutting. 19 Q Okay. 20 A The problem withthe pellets as they were 21 produced - and we would have much preferred to use them 22 that way - is that they sink too quickly. They just 23 did not circulate in the system. They wouldn't work. 24 Q Why would you have much preferred to use them 25 in a pellet form? BtM/MQNT TX I409> 839 **07 C ________________j HOUSTON TX .7l3i S23&4CO UCAREFOO018737 34 1A We didn't have to go through the opening; 2 they are denser, easier to handle, less dusty, a 3 variety of things. 4Q So, the fact that it had to be ground was 5 just the nature of the product itself for its 6 application? 7A Yes. 8Q It didn't work any other way? 9A Yes, it didn't work if we didn't do that. We 10 did just enough to make it work. 11 Q Now, were you ever part of any discussions in 12 the late '60's or early '70's dealing With warnings or 13 labeling to be put on the bags which contained the 14 Visbestos product? 15 A When I joined the group, they did have a 16 warning on the bags. 17 Q Do youremember what thewarning said? 18 A No. 19 Q Did the warning contain a warning about 20 cancer? 21 A It did not, to the best of my knowledge. In 22 fact,' I know it didn't. 23 Q . Were there ever any discussions to which you 24 were a party where it was offered by anyone that the 25 label should contain a warning against cancer? AtAUMONt rr U09> 839 *407 HOUSTON TK 7t3f 523 5400 UCAREF00018738 35 1A Yes. 2Q When was that? 3A Sometime in themiddle ^O's. 4Q Do you know what precipitated that 5 discussion? 6A Not specifically. There was becoming a 7 greater awareness that there was a cancer hazard and it 8 was appropriate that it began to show on our labels. 9Q Do you know if the warning was ever changed 10 at some point along the way to include a warning 11 against cancer? ' 12 A The label was changed at the same time this 13 material safety data sheet came out. 14 Q In 1984? 15 A Yes. Oh. 16 Q In the middle '70's -- Do you want to change 17 that? 18 A Let me think. 19 Q Take your time. 20 A I have a recollection of a year or two 21 earlier than that, prior to the new OSHA standard, of 22 meeting with OSHA with a proposed label that we were 23 going to put on and getting their recognition that it 24 would meet their proposed requirements. That did say 25 "cancer." BEAUMONT TX 14091 839 4407 C5R HOUSTON TX 1713* 533 5*00 UCAREF00018739 36 1 There was a problem in that time frame in that 2 OSHA had a proposal out for a new standard. The European 3 Economic Commission was in the midst of labeling 4 requirements. There was a general moving target and 5 confusion as to just what the regulatory requirements 6 were going to be. And we were struggling with coming 7 up with a label that we wouldn't have to have different 8 labels on different bags going to different parts of 9 the world. ' 10 So, it took a little longer than we had 11 anticipated/ but we had started on that back probably 12 around 1981. 13 Q 14 A 1981? In moving towards coming up with a new 15 revised product label. 16 Q But the discussions you all had with this 17 other product label was before OSHA was ------ 18 A This was before the final - the latest OSHA 19 regulation 20 MS. CLARK: Just to clarify, are 21 you talking about the emergency OSHA 22 standard? 23 THE WITNESS: No, I'm talking about 24 the 1983 - 1984 - the latest regulation 25 where it was a two-tenths standard and eSAUUONT 7X <*09` 3 4407 HOUSTON T* <713* 523 >400 UCAREF00018740 37 1 a point one action level. 2A That dragged from about 1975 or *76 to - I 3 have forgotten when - '83 or '84, something in that 4 time frame. 5Q So, you all were talking about changing the 6 labeling on the product to warn about cancer in .the 7 middle '70's, but it just dragged on until ------ 8A The middle to late '70's. We were waiting 9 for the OSHA thing to come out so that we could comply 10 with that, and we were worrying about the European 11 label. We ended up -- That, for example (indicating), 12 that "(a)" on there makes it acceptable in Europe. 13 Q Referring to the "(a)" on the material safety 14 data sheet? 15 A Yes. . 16 MR. TAYLOR: Referring to the small 17 "(a)" on the material safety data sheet 18 which is Myers #3. 19 Q When did youleaveUnion Carbide? 20 A June of *86. 21 Q What employment did youtake upafter June of 22 1986? ' 23 A I went to work for Versar, Incorporated, in 24 Springfield in July of 1986. 25 Q That is an industrial hygiene consulting group? BEAUMONT TX 14091 829-U07 HOUSTON fX I'13> 523 6400 I9 UCAREF00018741 38 1A 2Q It's a general environmental consulting group. Are you all presently dealing with asbestos . 3 removal and abatement projects? 4A Yes, I am, among other things. 5Q And you are now a certified industrial 6 hygienist as well? 7A Yes. 8Q In your field as an industrial hygienist, do 9 you recognize chrysotile asbestos as a potential 10 carcinogen? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Do you recognize chrysotile asbestos as a 13 potential cause of mesothelioma in humans? 14 MR. ADAMS: I object because he is 15 16 Q not qualified as a medical doctor; As an industrial hygienist. 17 A Would you like me to do an incision? 18 Q If I am consulting you in your professional 19 capacity today and I have a potential exposure in my 20 workplace to chrysotile asbestos, do you view that 21 chrysotile asbestos to which I might be exposing my 22 employees or other individuals in the workplace as 23 creating a potential for mesothelioma in those people? 24 A I would view the risk as very small, but 25 whether it is totally zero or riot-- It is a much, much 1 _________________I HOUSTON TY (713:623 5400 UCAREF00018742 39 1 lower risk. 2Q But there is a risk? 3A There may or may not be a risk. 4Q What is the new standard for chrysotile 5 asbestos under the latest OSHA regulations? 6A Point two fibers per cc. 7Q What was it in 1967 when you guys were 8 working on this product? 9A It was something million particles per cubic 10 foot. I don't remember the exact number. Ten or 11 twelve, I think, by midget impinger. 12 Q Does the Federal Government, according to its 13 regulations, recognize chrysotile asbestos as a 14 carcinogen? 15 A 16 Q Yes. Did you ever do any air sampling or 17 monitoring dealing with the actual use of this 18 Visbestos in the workplace? 19 A Yes. 20 Q When did you do that? 21 A At various times. 22 Through the '70's I was in charge of the 23 monitoring work that we did, the air monitoring of 24 asbestos. Personally I did some of it, but I had 25 trained people who were doing more of it than I did. waumomt tx 4091 839*40/ HOUSTON rx 1713> 323 6400 UCAREF00018743 40 1Q Let me ask you: Why were you all doing the 2 monitoring? 3A We wanted to know what kind of exposures were 4 occurring with our products in the marketplace. We 5 didn't just monitor the Super-Visbestos. We monitored 6 across the board and kept ongoing records of what kind 7 of exposures there were. % 8Q The testing or the monitoring that you did 9 with regard to the Visbestos, what locations would this 10 sampling have taken place? 11 A It was done all over the Southwest, and I 12 think we did one in Michigan. But, by and large, it was 13 anywhere from Texas to Oklahoma. 14 Q This would have been like on drilling rigs or 15 something? ' 16 A On drilling rigs, and we also did monitoring 17 in and around warehouses. The asbestos for drilling 18 operations was handled in individual bags, and it had 19 to come off the freight car into the warehouse and then 20 onto a truck, to the rig and to the warehouse, that 21 sort of thing. So, we monitored the whole basic train. 22 Q What were you measuring? - 23 A We were measuring the airborne asbestos 24 concentration in accordance with the OSHA procedure in 25 the OSHA standard. eCAOMOMT TX <*09. 839 4407 HOUSTON ^ ?!3> S23 5*00 UCAREF00018744 41 1Q What did you come up with? 2A It varied. Until '75 or '76/ whenever the 3 standard changed, we were comparing against a ten-fiber- 4 per-cc ceiling and five-fiber-per-cc TWA. And we had 5 numbers in the breathing zone of the operators that 6 would vary considerably, but in the one-, two-, maybe 7 five- or six-fibers-per-cc ceiling. The basic use 8 of the product was like five or ten minutes once a 9 shift, so that the time-weighted averages, when you 10 take that exposure and average it over eight hours, 11 were all quite low. . 12 There was a large amount of data on that. I 13 just don't remember all of the exact' figures. 14 Q In general, would the test results as you 15 recall them today meet the current OSHA standard? 16 A In general they would not. The three-eighths- 17 inch pelleted products were down in that range, in the 18 low tenths, and generally they would not. 19 Q Before coming here today what documents, if 20 any, did you review to prepare yourself for this 21 deposition? 22 A I reviewed the monitoring results that were 23 available here. I think they've got them all. I 24 reviewed the material safety data sheets over the 25 years. In the pile there was some work that was done BCAUMOr tx <4091 039 4407 HOUSTON TX <713* S23SAC0 UCAREF00018745 42 1 on processing of the material, the properties, 2 competitive materials and that sort of thing. Just 3 some general information on work that we had done. 4 You see, I was responsible for technical 5 service, too, Montello, and any quality problems, we 6 did that. 7Q I would like to call for production of those 8 documents right now. Let's take a look at them for a 9 second. 10 (AT THIS TIME THE WITNESS PRODUCED 11 THE DOCUMENTS TO MR. CARUSO AND A RECESS 12 WAS TAKEN. DURING THE RECESS THE 13 PRODUCED DOCUMENTS WERE MARKED FOR 14 IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES AS RHODES #1 15 THROUGH AND INCLUDING RHODES #27. THESE 16 EXHIBITS WILL BE FOUND IN THREE EXHIBIT 17 VOLUMES ATTENDANT TO THIS DEPOSITION. 18 FOLLOWING THE RECESS THE PROCEEDINGS 19 RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:) 20 21 (By Mr. Caruso) 22 Q Sir, in conjunction with the testimony that 23 you gave here today, you reviewed certain documents 24 which the Court Reporter has marked as Exhibits #1 25 through #27. And these are documents that were 8CAUUOMT TX 14091 8394407 HOUSTON IX I712i 223 5400 UCAREF00018746  43 1 produced in that brown envelope that you had and 2 included also an article that Ms. Clark brought in to 3 us on "Nonasbestos-Related Mesothelioma," and the 4 special report by the Mellon Institute that you 5 referred to earlier. 6A Yes. 7Q Without going through each and every one of 8 these, are these the documents that you looked at in 9 preparation for. this deposition? 10 A Yes. 11 MR. CARUSO: Inconnection with the 12 testimony of the Witness, I would like 13 attached to the deposition these 14 documents which have been marked as 15 Exhibits #1 through #27, if no one has 16 any objection. 17 MS. CLARK: (Conferring privately 18 with the Witness) Dr. Rhodes said 19 during the break that he was thinking 20 about the answer that he gave you as to 21 the current standards, whether the air 22 sampling would have met the current 23 standards or not. And he wanted to add 24 to that answer. 25 biaumont t* |4G9> C5R HOUSIOM t 1713* 523 5400 UCAREF00018747 44 1 (By Mr. Caruso) 2 Q- Go ahead. 3A The current standard is a TWA standard, and 4 my recollection of these is that particularly the later 5 ones would meet that. I was thinking in terms of 6 ceiling exposures of two-tenths when I answered. A 7 number of them will meet the requirements. 8Q During the time that you were working in this 9 asbestos development, were you ever at any meetings or 10 involved with any discussions with people from Montello 11 Corporation regarding packaging and labeling? 12 A 13 Q Yes. Does the name "Ken Campbell" sound familiar 14 to you? 15 A 16 Q Yes. Do you know when it would have been that you 17 and Mr. Campbell would have met and discussed the 18 packaging and labeling of the Montello product? 19 A I just don't recall. 20 Q Do you know what the substance of the 21 conversation was with regard to the labeling, what you 22 all were talking about? 23 A Your original question waspackaging and 24 labeling? 25 Q Yes, and I'm really concerned with the labeling. BEAUMONT TX 1409 839 4407 HOUSTON f* {7f S23 440O UCAREF00018748 45 1A I did not get involved significantly with the 2 labeling until 1983 or so when I was made Manager of 3 Product Safety also for the Metals Division. 4Q Who was involved in labeling before 1983? 5A It would have been primarily John Myers. 6Q Do you recall, though, having had a 7 discussion or being present at any discussions between 8 anyone from Onion Carbide and anyone at Montello, 9 whether it be Mr. Campbell or anyone else, dealing with 10 the question of labeling the Visbestos product? 11 A I won't deny that it is possible, but 1 don't 12 recall any at this point. 13 Q With regard to the air sampling that you all 14 performed and measuring those samples against the 15 government standards existing at the time, what 16 conclusion did you reach when you found that the 17 samples were within governmental limits? 18 A We reported where they were and compared them 19 with governmental limits. 20 Q Based upon your experience and your 21 knowledge, does the exposure to a worker to asbestos 22 within the limits set by the Government eliminate the 23 possibility of his contracting an asbestos-related 24 disease? 25 A The government standard is not set to 100% 6EAUMQNT TX 409* B39 4407 c HOUSION Ta *713* 523 5400 UCAREF00018749 46 1 eliminate the possibility of contracting an asbestos- 2 related disease. 3Q What is it set to? 4A It is set to lifetime exposure and some minor 5 percentage is possible. I don't recall the exact 6 percentage. 7Q So, a person working day in and day out at an 8 exposure within governmental limits still has a risk of 9 contracting asbestosis? 10 A That's the way the standard was set up. 11 Q ` He still has a risk of contracting lung 12 cancer? 13 A The same answer there. 14 Q And if, in fact, there is a relationship 15 between chrysotile and the mesothelioma, he still has a 16 risk of contracting that disease? 17 A In the context of your statement, yes. 18 Q If this wall behind me was made of 100% 19 chrysotile asbestos and I wanted to remove it, to 20 expand into the next room, what would the present 21 standards require me to do in order to remove that 22 wall? 23 A The present standards would treat it as a 24 renovation/demblition type operation. You would be 25 required to have a competent person onsite. You would BEAUMONT TX l*09< 839 440? HOUSTON,TX <Tt3t 523 5400 UCAREF00018750 47 1 be required to, if feasible - and I would say it is 2 feasible - construct a negative-pressure enclosure. 3 Your people would be required to wear certain types of 4 respiratory protection and protective clothing. They 5 would be required to enter and leave through a 6 decontamination unit, a three-chambered decontamination 7 unit by certain decon procedures. Waste removal would 8 have to be double-bagged or in drums with your properly 9 labeled bags. That, in essence, is what it would be. 10 Q Why? 11 A You are trying to protect two populations: 12 the building population and the working population. So, 13 you are setting up to keep the workers covered and to 14 operate under negative pressure so that you don't 15 spread the asbestos into other parts of the building. 16 MR. CARUSO: Thank you. 17 I'll pass. Thanks a lot. 18 19 EXAMINATION BY MR^ TAYLOR: 20 Q Mr. Rhodes, my name is Bill Taylor. 21 I reviewed your C.V., and you testified 22 earlier and I see it states in your C.V. that you 23 worked for Sun Oil from '49 to '53. What did you do 24 for Sun? 25 A Petroleum process development. I worked on BEAUMONT. TX 14091 839*407 HOUSTON, tx 17131 M3 5400 UCAREF00018751 48 1 their "isocyd" process, which may or may not still be 2 around, and a continuous silica gel absorption process 3 and a toluene de-alkylation process development 4 program. 5Q And you left Sun in 1953? 6A Yes, to go back to school. 7Q The mine that you testified about in 8 California, the Coalinga mine, the Onion Carbide mine, 9 did that mine or did that facility mine any other types 10 of asbestos other than chrysotile? 11 A There is no other type there. The answer is 12 no, they do not. 13 Q Do you know if Onion Carbide, say during the 14 years '65 through '75, supplied asbestos to be used in 15 drilling fluids to any other entities other than- 16 Montello? 17 A Let me think a minute. To the best of my 18 knowledge everything in that industry went through 19 Montello. * 20 MR. TAYLOR: I think that's all. 21 Thank you, sir. 22 23 EXAMINATION BY MRj. GUYTON: 24 Q Mr. Rhodes, my name is Joe Guyton. 25 Do you represent yourself as being qualified BEAUMONT. TX 14091 339-4407 HOUSTON r< t?13> $23 9400 UCAREF00018752 49 1 to assess the risk of contracting mesothelioma from 2 chrysotile? . 3A No, not really. As a professional expert 4 witness, no. . 5 MR. GUYTON: I'll pass the Witness. 6 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. ADAMS; 8Q I didn't hear your answer. Where is your 9 office today? 10 A Grand Junction, Colorado. 11 Q And the name of your firm,- sir? 12 A Versar, V-e-r-s-a-r, Incorporated. 13 Q Versar, Incorporated. And you stated the 14 nature of the business, and I didn't hear that. 15 A General environmental consulting. 16 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. I'll pass 17 the Witness. 18 19 EXAMINATION BY MIL JONES: 20 Q Dr. Rhodes, my name is Allan Jones. 21 As I remember your testimony, you had not 22 heard of asbestos or problems with asbestos before you 23 began working with Union Carbide in 1968; is that 24 correct? 25 A I began working with Union Carbide in 1957, B5AUMOMT TX 14091 939 440? HOUSTON TX 7t3 633 9400 UCAREF00018753 50 1 but I transferred into the Asbestos Department whenever 2 it shows here, 1968 or '69. 3Q But before going into the asbestos ------ 4A (Interrupting) Before going into the 5 asbestos project, I had not been aware of it. 6Q You indicated that in the early 170's you 7 became aware of the work of Selikoff and others that 8 began to be discussed. 9A Uh-huh. 10 Q ' You have to answer "yes" or "no." You said 11 "uh-huh." The Court Reporter needs a "yes" or a "no." 12 A Yes. 13 Q Thank you. The work that Selikoff was doing 14 was with what kind of workers, what occupation? 15 A They werebasicallyasbestosinsulation 16 workers. 17 Q Other than Selikoffs workwith asbestos 18 insulation workers, what other types of workers were 19 you familiar with in the early ' 70's that you all were 20 discussing? 21 A I just don't recall. There was a whole group 22 of research papers coming out in that time frame. 23 Q Do you remember any on asbestos miners? 24 A Asbestos miners; I think the McDonald study 25 on mesothelioma in Canada. It's been too long ago. 839 4*07BtAUMOMT. TX UOv - HOUSTON 1< |713> 523 5*00 UCAREF00018754 51 1Q Would it be fair to say that the workers that 2 you were concerned with at that time were workers 3 exposed to asbestos constantly during their working 4 day, as opposed to an intermittent exposure, such as a 5 person out in the oil patch? 6 MR. CARUSO: I object to the form 7 of the question. 8A Yes. ' 9Q And the studies that you were aware of and ` 10 the studies of which you were made known were studies 11 about people with constant, relatively day-long 12 exposures, were they not? 13 A Yes. 14 MR. JONES: That's all I have. 15 Thank you, sir. 16 MS. CLARK: We reserve our 17 questions until time of trial. 18 19 RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. CARUSO: 20 Q In other words, Union Carbide was not concerned 21 with exposures to people who were exposed to the asbestos 22 product on an intermittent basis? 23 MS. CLARK: I object to the form of 24 . the question. That was not Allan's 25 question, anyway. BEAUMONT. TX M0SlS3 *407 HOUSTON TX 17131 523 6400 UCAREF00018755  52 1Q Answer that question. 2 MS. CLARK: I object to the form of 3 the question. 4A Would you repeat the question for me, please. 5 MR. CARUSO: Read it back, 6 Charlotte, please. 7 THE REPORTER: "In other words. 8 Union Carbide was not concerned with 9 exposure to people who were exposed to 10 the asbestos product on an intermittent 11 basis?" 12 A I would say that is not correct. 13 (By Mr. Caruso) 14 Q That's not correct. Whereas, people who were 15 exposed to- this asbestos on an intermittent basis, 16 whatever "intermittent" might be, as far as Union 17 Carbide was concerned, might also face a possible risk 18 of contracting some type of asbestos-related disease? 19 MR. TAKLOR: I object to the form 20 of the question. 21 A The research papers that were coming out were 22 primarily based on studies of populations which had 23 continuous exposure. 24 To take the steps that we were trying to 25 distinguish at that time between intermittent exposure BEAUMONT TX 1409) 839-440? CSR HOUSTON. Ta (7t3lS23S<00 UCAREF00018756 53 1 and continuous is inappropriate. It just wasn't there. 2Q So, you had to treat them all the same? 3A Treat them all the same, correct. 4Q The gentleman that you said was in charge of 5 toxicity in the Medical Department in 1984 who had 6 something to do with the MSTD listing of mesothelioma, 7 what was his name again? 8A Hilton Lewinsohn. 9Q 10 A Do you know how to spell that? ' I think it's L-e-w-i-n-s-o-h-n. Now, he was 11 on the corporate medical staff. He was not in charge? 12 he was not the corporate senior medical officer at that 13 time. 14 Q Do you have any idea where he is today? 15 A He may still be at Onion Carbide. I don't 16 know that for sure. 17 Q Do you know where he lived? 18 A Somewhere in Connecticut. When I knew him, 19 he lived in Connecticut.,. 20 MR. CARUSO: I'll pass. Thank you. 21 That's all I have. 22 23 RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. GUYTON: 24 Q Did you say you reviewed this Mellon Institute 25 report? . SfAUMONT TX 14091 83*-*A07 HOUSTON TX 1713)623 5400 j UCAREF00018757 1A 2Q 3A 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 I--read it, yes. When did you read it? About three hours ago. MR. GUYTON: I'll pass the Witness. . (WHEREUPON, THE DEPOSITION WAS CONCLUDED.) ***** BLAUMONT, t< <4091 839-4407 C HOUSTON. TX (7)37 523-5400 UCAREF00018758 V. 55 1 THE STATE OF TEXAS: 2 COUNTY OF JEFFERSON: 3 I, CHARLOTTE SMITH, a Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter, hereby certify that the foregoing testimony 5 was given before me after the Witness had been first 6 duly sworn. 7 I further certify that this deposition was 8 typed under my direction and is a complete and correct 9 transcript of the proceedings; and that it is being 10 filed with the Court in accordance with the stipulation 11 of Counsel contained in this deposition. 12 I further certify that I sun neither attorney 13 for, related to nor employed by any of the parties to 14 the lawsuit in which this deposition was taken. 15 Further, I am neither related to nor employed by any 16 attorney of record in this cause; nor do I have a 17 financial interest in the matter. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ga 235 Orleans Beaumont, Texas 77701 (409) 839-4407 BEAUMONT. TX (409> 83VM07 C5R HOUSTON. TX (7131 S23-MOO UCAREF00018759