Document dQ0wLEgBRX9Q8BEnEGqDpeXO0

In The Matter Of: KENNETH DALE RAPER, et al. v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et al. RICHARD A. LEMEN, Ph.D. March 18, 1999 BROWN REPORTING, INC. ATLANTA, AUGUSTA, CARROLLTON, ROME 1740 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W ATLANTA, GA USA 30309 (404) 876-8979 or (800) 637-0293 Original File 0318LEME.ASC, 246 Pages Min-U-Script File ID:2098013363 Word Index included with this Min-U-Script- !Vv* KENNETH DALE RAPHR, el ai. v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL R1LUAKD A. LEMEN, PI March 18, 1 [1] IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 [2] DALLAS COUNTY. TEXAS PI KENNETH DALE RAPER and [41 MARGARITE ELLEN RAPER, [SI Plainlitls, [6] vs. [7] OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et at.. ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 98-i ) ) [81 Defendants. ) [91 [10] ["1 DEPOSITION OF [121 RICHARD A. LEMEN, Ph.D. [13] [14) March 18, 1999 [151 9:03 am [16] [171 4000 SunTrust Plaza [18] 303 Peachtree Street. N.E. Atlanta, Georgia [19] [20] (21! Diane Bachus. B-2089 [22] [23] BROWN REPORTING. INC. [24] 1740 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 [25] (404) 876-8979 Page 1 ! " j [1] i PI APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL On behall ot the Plaintiff: PI PATRICK HAINES. Esq. [4) Baron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 [5] 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219-4281 [6] [7] On behalf of the Defendant: Allied Signal, as Successor in Interesl to the [8] Bendix Corporation: [9] ERIC K. FALK, Esq. Davies. McFarland & Carroll, P C [10] The Tenth Floor, One Gateway Center Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-1416 ["I [12] On behall of the Delendant Daimler-Chrysler Corporation: OLLIE M. HARTON. Esq. [14] Hawkins & Parnell 4000 SunTrust Plaza [15] 303 Peachtree Street. N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3243 [16] [17] On behalf ot the Delendant Pittsburgh Corning: [18] IVAN A. GUSTAFSON [[191 Blasingame, Burch. Garrard, !i | [20] Bryant 4 Ashley, P C. 440 College Avenue North P.O. Box 832 j [21] | [221 Athens, Georgia 30603 [23] [24] [25] Pai BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (3) Page 1 - Pag JUU1AAL* A- LtMN, Ptl-D. March 18,1999 [11 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, CONT. (21 On behalf ot the Defendant [3] Kelly Moore: [4] KEVIN J. BAHR, Esq. Hawkins 4 Parnell [5] 4000 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. (61 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3243 m On behalf ot the Detendant [3] GEORGIA PACIFIC. [9] JONATHAN W. JOHNSON, Esq. Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P. 10] First Union Plaza, Suite 1400 999 Peachtree Street, N.E. iij Atlanta, Georgia 30309 121 On behalf ot the Detendant NARCO: 131 C. DENNIS BARROW, JR. i4) Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P. 2300 First City Tower. 1001 Fannin is] Houston, Texas 77002-6760 6] On behalf of the Detendant 7] Pneumo Abex Corporation: :8] FRANCESCA M. SIENI, Esq. Smith, Abbot, L.L.P 9] 100 Maiden Lane New York, New York 10038 '01 11] >2] >3) 41 -S] " age 3 - Page 5 (4) KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORMNG FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Page 3 j [1] APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, CONT. [21 On behalf ot the Defendant [3] Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; Asbestos Claims Management Corporation, f/k/a National [4] Gypsum Company; U.S. Gypsum Company; GAF Corporation; Dana Corporation: Quigley [5] Company, Inc.; Flexitallic, Inc.; the Synkoloid Company : [61 GARY ELLISTON, Esq. [7] DeHay & Elliston. L.L.P. NationsBank Plaza. Suite 3500 [8) 901 Main Street Dallas. Texas 75202 [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [141 [15) [16] [171 [181 [191 (20) [21] [22] [23| [24] [25] Page 4 [i] (Defendant s Exhibit 1 was marked for (21 identification.) [3i RICHARD A. LEMEN.Ph.D., [4] having been first duly sworn, was examined and Pi testified as follows: [6] CROSS-EXAMINATION [7] BY MR. HARTON: [a] Q: Dr. Lemen. I'm Ollie Harton. I'm going [91 to ask you some questions today. But before we get [ioj farther, I want to say a few things. (ill MR. HARTON; This is a deposition ![i2l being taken pursuant to agreement of ilia] counsel.All objections except as to the ; [i4] form of the question and responsiveness of [is] the answer will be reserved until the time ! [i6i of trial.This deposition is being taken ![i7] pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil l [is] Procedure and can be used for all purposes ! [i9i permitted thereunder. [20] Dr. Lemen, I don't know what you want | [2ij to do about reading and signing, but the [22i trial starts sometime next week. [23] MR. HAINES; I guess we'll go ahead [24] and waive signature. [25i MR. HARTON: If that's all right. Page 5 Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, t March 18, Page 6 ! p [i] waive signature. If you want to read it, pi it's going to make things difficult. [3] Potentially you may testify at trial. But [4] if you want to waive -- [5] MR. HAINES: Given the time frame, it [6] will be better to waive. [7] Q: (By Mr. Harton) What I'd like to do, [a) first of all, is show you what is one of the [9] amended notices of deposition, which is Exhibit 1, [io] and ask you if you've seen that before, sir. [it] A: No. [12] Q: If we could, let me run through what I [13] call the attachments at the back. And I know [14] you've brought a number of documents with you. and [is] we ll see what they are. [16] But you brought, first of all. I think, a [17] CV.You have one. Is this a -- obviously, this [is] is a CV of yours. Do you know when this -- oh, [19] it's December '98? Is that the right vintage? [20] A: Right. [21] Q: This is newer than the ones I've got. 22] A: Probably. [23] Q: What additions do you have on this that [24] weren't on the earlier one? [25] A: Possibly some publications and -- very j [i] information on Mr. Raper? [2] A: I'll give you everything that I've been [3] provided on Mr. Raper is in this packet right here. I [4] And there is -- there are two things on the [5] medical. [6] Q: Okay. If it's all right, collectively pi we'll mark this as Exhibit 3. [8] A: Yes. [9] (Defendant's Exhibit 3 was marked for [10] identification.) [11] Q: (By Mr. Harton) It's a cover letter to [12] you, obviously. So everyone knows, the report by [13] Dr. Robb -- well, actually, two. one dated [14] 11/24/98. another 2/18/98. What I will call the [is] work history sheets that Baron & Budd prepares on a [16] regular basis for their clients. And this is just [17] job sites, products information. And Volume -- [is] A: The rest are all Mr. Raper's two [19] depositions and co-worker depositions. [20] (3: Those are I and II of Raper. Co-worker [21] depositions of Mr. Ivie, Washington and Bridges and [22] Lewis. [23] Have you been provided any other [24] information on Mr. Raper? [25] A: No. that's it. [1] few additions. It's just that when my computer [2] prints it out, it prints out a new date on it. So P] it doesn't necessarily mean that it's changed, but K] I think that I probably added a chairperson of [5i Science & Technology Advisory Committee and the [6] Carpenters Health & Safety Fund, and I think I may [7] have added a couple of publications. [8] I think -- I don't know which version you pi have. [10] Q: Mine's August. [11] A: But I think probably the last three or [12] four publications. But that's the most current one [13] I have. [14] Q: All right. Can we mark this, take this [is] as an exhibit? [16] A: Yes, you can have that. [17] Q: Might as well mark that while we're at it [is] and we can look through there. [19] A: Is there anybody by phone? [20] Q: No, not that I'm aware of. [21] (Defendant's Exhibit 2 was marked for [22] identification.) [23] Q: (By Mr. Harton) Second, the entire [24] medical file on Kenneth Dale Raper. [25] Have you been provided any medical Page 7 [1] Q: No other medical records? [2] A: No, sir. ' PI Q: No chest X-rays? [4] A: No. [5] Q: Do you have -- some people do, some . [6] people don't. We've requested -- if you have a [ [7] list of the cases where you've testified in since [8] 1989, do you have any summary of -- ! [9! A: I didn't bring anything, no. sir. [101 Q: Do you have anything like that that would [11] just simply indicate that either the deposition -- i [121 A: I have put together a complete list. [13] Q: How about this way. Last time I know I : [14] talked -- I think it was in August of last year, I j[1S] think. Where have you testified in trial since [16] August of 1998? j [17] A: Well, last year, calendar year, I didn't j [18] look it up, I've testified five times in trial. I [19] And I've given, I think, 16 depositions in the last j [20] year. Most of the trials were -- that I testified I [21] in were fact witness as well as state-of-the-art, : [22] principally dealing -- a lot of them dealing with ! [23] Pittsburgh Corning. And this year I've testified [24] probably in about six trials since January, or [25] somewhere in that neigh borhood, both as a Pe BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (5) Page 6 - Pa JUCHARD A- A-fcJVLfciN, VQ-U. March 18,1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et al [i] state-of-the-art and fact witness.The latest Pi trial that I testified in was the paper mill trial P) in Louisiana as a rebuttal witness, not as a -- I [4j was brought in as rebuttal for that trial, is] And, also, last week I testified in a [6j Pittsburgh Corning trial in Austin, Texas. And do n you want me to keep going? Pi Q: No. Let me ask you some questions that [9] might help narrow at least my focus. For the years [ioi '98 and '99, have you testified in a case where you [ill were asked opinions regarding brakes or brake [i2l linings? [i3] A: The paper mill case. [ui Q: Other than the paper mill case, is that [i5i the only trial in '98, '99? P6) A: I think that's the only trial that I [it] testified in that dealt with brakes. [is] MR. HAINES: Just to be clear, it was [19] not brakes specifically but the Borg-Warner [20] case, which was the clutch facing case. It [21] was technically not a brake case but pretty r22] close. And that was in early '98. 23] Q: (By Mr. Harton) Okay. Other depositions ,24] that you've given in brake lining cases in '98 or 25] '99? Pago 10 Page 12 [1] extra copy of the time line, which is the principal [2] thing that I rely upon in state-of-the-an. But [3] you can have those copies. [4] MR. HARTON: Let me go off the record H for a minute. [6] (Discussion off the record.) m Q: (By Mr. Hanon) What I'm going to mark [8j as the next exhibit, as opposed to your large [9] notebook that you bring -- and I understand that [10] should we want a copy of the entire notebook you [11] can make that for us? [12] A: Yes. (i3! Q: But as the next exhibit or as a ponion [i4i of it I'm just going to put your time line in. if [is] that's all right. [16] A: And that you can keep. [17] Q: No. 8. any other objects or evidence that [18] you consider -- [19] A: I pulled out of my files specific [2oi references dealing with brakes, and that is not [21] included in this notebook. [22] Q: Okay. [23i A: There's a MedLine search in there. [24] there's a NIOSH search and a selected number of [25] articles that I pulled. [1] A: I think those pretty much cover it. to [2] the best of my knowledge. P] Q: Did you give both depositions and trial [4] testimony -- [5] A: Yes. pi Q: -- in both -- [7] A: Yes. [8] Q: -- of the Borg-Warner case and in the pi Boglusa case? io] MR. HAINES: I don't think you were ,ii] deposed in Borg-Warner. 12] THE WITNESS: I don't think I was 13] either, but I spent about six days in this 14] room in the paper mill, as you remember, is] Q: (By Mr. Harton) Luckily, I don't. ;i6] A: You popped your head in a few times, I [17] think. . [18] Q: Do you have any -- going down the list of [19] things to produce, any chans, exhibits or 201 photographs that you've considered in connection 21] with this case? That would be No. 7. 72] A: Well, usually when I testify I bring [23j along this book that I've used in most every case 24] for state-of-the-art, which is -- does have 25] exhibits in it. It has my time line. I brought an Page 11 Page 13 [1] Q: Are these articles included in your time [2] line, do you know? [3] A: Some are and some aren't. m Q: We should mark this and get copies of [5i that. [6] A: Okay. If I could. I'd like to make the [7] copies of that. I mean, I can do that real [a] quickly, but I can have them to you tomorrow, PI probably. But you can mark it. I mean -- [10] Q: That's fine. Other than these articles [11] and what you've produced as your -- in response to ,[i2] No. 7, your large notebook, I will call it, that [13] you're bringing with you to trial, is there any j [i4] other information that you have considered in ,[i5] connection with this case, the Raper case? j [i6] A: No. |[i7] Q: No. 9 is asking for standards, [i8i regulations, books, treatises or other supporting |[i9] written or computerized data that you've relied ![20] upon in connection with the testimony that you're I [2i] going to give in this case. [22] MR. HAINES: Let me just interpose an i [23] objection as to the breadth of that [24] request. Obviously, Dr. Lemen has lots of [2si learning treatises, which he can tell you Page 10 - Page 13 (6) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A- LEMEN, Pi March 18, 1 [i] about. If you don't have a copy, I'm sure Pi we can find a copy if he has one. But I do Pi object to the overbreadth of the request. [4] THE WITNESS: I would say my [5] knowledge on asbestos comes from a lot more [6] material than what I've produced here [7] today. And so to answer that question I [B] would say there are many books I've read [9] and other things. But to bring those would [10] necessitate bringing my entire library, [11] so -- [12] Q: (By Mr. Harton) No. 10, all notes, [13] documents, records, photographs, letters or other [14] written material of any kind that's been provided [is] to you by anyone with regard to this case. Is [16] there anything else? [17] A: No. [is] Q: Billing records. [i9] A: I haven't made any billings on this case [2oi to this point in time. [21] Q: How much time have you spent on this case [22] so far? [23] A: Well, I've read through the materials [24] that I was given. I would say that I've possibly [25] spent six hours at maximum, something like that. Page 14 Pag [i] lawyers or groups of lawyers. p] Do you have anything that's responsive to [3] No. 12? [4] A: No. [5] Q: That being done, let's talk about -- [6] first of all. I represent Chrysler Corporation. [7] Have you been provided any documents with respect [8] to Chrysler Corporation? [9] A: No. [10] Q: Have you ever been to a Chrysler [11] Corporation facility where they're making cars? [12] A: During the time I worked for NIOSH. I had [13] worked on several occasions with the.Joint Labor [14] Management Committees of the auto workers from the [is] three major car companies. And in the process of [16] that I've been into a Chrysler plant, but it's been [17] 15, 20 years ago at least. And 1 don't -- I think [is] it was a Chrysler plant, but it was in Detroit. [19] Q: An automobile plant? [20] A: Yeah, right. [21] Q: The time you went into this automobile [22] plant, were you at all focused on air sampling for [23] asbestos? [24] A: Mainly it was an orientation that we took [25] as a part of the tour of the plant. And it wasn't Page 15 Page [1] MR. HARTON: Let me get this marked, [i] really as a compliance activity or anything.The [2] if I can, and then give it back to you. Pi only time that I've ever been in an auto plant that [3] Can you mark that? p] really had anything to do with a health hazard H (Defendant's Exhibits 4 and 5 marked [4] evaluation was when I was working on the models, [si for identification.) [5] model makers, and there was some concern of the [6] Q: (By Mr. Harton) What we've marked as [6] models for the cars and disease that was occurring [7] Exhibit 9 -- or 4, I'm sorry, these are the [7] among the model makers. And that was back in the [8] articles. Is this something you prepared for the [8] late '70s. [9] Raper case or was this prepared in connection with [9] Q: What was the disease they were worried [10] other litigation? [io] about with these model plants? [11] A: I pulled the material out of this -- [ill A: I'm trying to remember right now. It [12] that's in that notebook for the Raper case. And I [12] was -- I think it was a concern about solvent [13] actually had prepared the literature searches [13] exposure. [14] earlier for another case. So you'll see the date [u] Q: It wasn't asbestos or asbestos exposure? [is] on those are several months old. But I put the [is] A: No. [16] notebook together specifically for this case. [16] Q: Have you been given any -- what I call [17] Q: What are your charges for your time? [17] test results on tests of brake linings that would [18] A: I charge for a deposition minimum daily ! [is] attempt to quantify the amount of asbestos that may [19] fee of SI ,500, and then if it goes over -- that's i [i9] be released by either installing or using brake [20] based on S300 an hour, and 250 for preparation i [20] liners? [21] time. ' . i [2i] A: If you look at the notebook that he has, [22] Q: Have you -- No. 12, the last one, this is : [22] Exhibit 4, the Lorimer paper -- I think it may be [23] dealing with presentations, videotapes, recordings [23] the number one or two paper in there, and the Rohl, [24] or writings you may have made in connection with [24] R-O-H-L -- is that how you pronounce it? Rohl. [25] seminars, speeches or presentations given to [25] And they do give some figures. And then there are BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (7) Page 14 - Page tUUlAKU A. UUVltiN, PiU). March 18,1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Pagu 18 Page 20 [i) others in there that do talk about amount of fibers I [i] Q: Have you been given any unpublished, Pi released during the repair. But that's the I pi un-peer-reviewed literature attempting to quantify [3j information. It's nothing that I've collected, Pi the amount of asbestos fibers released by using [4] it's material that I've relied upon. : [4i brake linings? (5j Q: The information that you have been given [5] A: No. none other than what I've brought i6i would have been, then, in effect, published [6] with me. [7j peer-reviewed repons? [7i Q: I'm talking about being given as opposed [si A: Yes. [ai to what you found.That question I did mean to [9] MR. HAINES: I'm not sure he Pi say -- oj testified that was given to him. I think [io] A: No, sir. n) that was -- ini Q: All right. You've -- I'm not sure which 21 THE WITNESS: No, I pulled this. No [i21 exhibit this is. 3i one gave that to me. I pulled that myself. [i3i What is -- Exhibit 5 includes the various 4) Q: (By Mr. Hanon) Let me change the (i4) depositions of Mr. Raper. his co-workers and si question.The information that you've -- I'll [is] others? 6] stan over.The information that you have [16] A: Exhibit 5 includes everything that I was 7i quantifying the amount of asbestos released by [17] given by plaintiff s attorneys, two medical reports ai working with or installing brake linings has come [iai by Dr. Robb, the rest are depositions of -- two of si from the published peer review literature? [19] Mr. Raper. and then the rest are co-worker oj A: And also NIOSH repons, which are like [20] depositions. ij the CIB that you're looking at right now, which is [21] Q: Based upon all the information you've 2i not a published peer review but a NIOSH document [221 received in the Raper case, do you have any 3] that -- [23] information to -- that would support an opinion 4] Q: Let me run through these. One of the [24] that you may express at trial that Mr. Raper worked 5] anicles in here is the Cunent Intelligence [25] with automobile brake linings after 1965? Page 19 Page 21 i! Bulletin 5 ofAugust 1975? [i] A: I don't believe I have anything -- I'm 2] A: Yes, sir. pi really not being asked to talk about his exposure, 3] Q: It would have some attempt to quantify pi but I don't think I have anything. 4 the amount of asbestos fibers released by or around [4] MR. HAINES: Right. No. Dr. Lemen is 5i garage mechanics. is] not being presented for that particular si This CIB No. 5, August 1975, deals with [6] opinion. 7] tests that were done on brake drums, dust from PI Q: (By Mr. Hanon) So from what you have 3] brake drums. Is that right? [8] done, your review of all of the depositions, 5] A: That's conect. Pi Mr. Raper's deposition and his co-workers' oj Q: The Rohl anicle I think you referred to [io] depositions, focusing on those only, you have no i] is asbestos exposure during brake lining [ill information to say that he worked with automobile '! maintenance and repair? [12] brake linings after 1965, right? 3i A: Yes. (131 A: No. 4 Q: That's a 1976 article? [i4) Q: Okay. Let's talk about -- let's talk si A: Right. i [is] about levels of exposure. Based on what you've 31 Q: The Lorimer-Rohl anicle, I think also a [i6] seen in Exhibit 5, you would agree that Mr. -- or 71 1976 anicle,-- . Ifi7] is it your opinion that Mr. Raper was diagnosed ai A: Yes, that's conect. I think from there ilia] with mesothelioma? si on back there are literature reviews. ; [i9] A: That's correct. 4 Q: So all of the peer-reviewed literature U2ai Ch Have you done anything to attempt to : that you could find quantifying the amount of , [2i] independently verify in any way this diagnosis, or ; asbestos released by working with brake -- or I [[221 are you just using these reports as the basis for should say friction products is all after 1965, [23] your opinion? right? [24] A: I'm relying upon these reports. First of A: I believe that's conect. [25] all. I'm not a medical doctor, so I'm not being ge 18 - Page 21 (8) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 AiUlML) A. UUVlfiiN, PiU. March 18, 1999 KENNETH uai^c. aat'IiK, ei at- v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Page 25 j Page 28 [i] here.And my opinion is yes, chrysotile can cause [i] Q: Obviously, there are those who believe Pi asbestos-related disease. ! [2] that chrysotile, to cause mesothelioma, either Pl Q: And by chrysotile. I'm attempting to P] there must be intense, enormous concentrations or 4] refer to pure chrysotile without any contaminant of w it can't cause it at all.You're aware of that? [5] any type. [5] A: I am aware of the scientific debate. [6] A: Very rarely do we find pure chrysotile, ; [6] Q: So you would agree that there's a debate [7] because most chrysotile is contaminated with m in the scientific community about that? !8) amphiboies such as tremolite.And there have been [81 A: Yes, I believe that chrysotile can cause [9] very few, if any, studies that I know of that have [9] mesothelioma.That's correct. to) looked at pure chrysotile, because they haven't [io] Q: Thank you. .M] been really able to identify pure chrysotile. [ii] MR. HAINES: Better cut back on your 12] Q: Do you know anything about the processing [i2l coffee. 13] that's done with chrysotile ore, once it's taken [13] Q: (By Mr. Harton) You know where I'm going ;i4] from the mine, before it can be used in other [14] and I appreciate the help, but you know how records is] products? Have you studied that? [is] are. So excuse me. i6] A: What do you mean by processing? I'm not [16] Now, brake linings, let's talk about ;i7] sure I understand the question. [17] brake linings and regulations. I guess, for a ;ia] Q: My understanding is, is that they take [is] minute. [19] chrysotile ore and dig it out. for instance, like [19] Today, 1999, brake linings can be [20] you would coal, strip mining? [20] manufactured and used with asbestos in them in the ,2i] A: Well most of the -- with few exceptions. !2i] United States, right? 22] most of the mines for asbestos in the world are [221 A: That's correct. 23] strip-type mines. And there are some underground [23] Q: There is no regulation that has ever 24] mines, but those are very few and not really used [24] prohibited brake linings from containing asbestos? :25] for commercial purposes anymore, to my knowledge. [25] A: Well. I don't know how you would classify Page 27 Page 29 [1] Q: After the ore is taken out, they have to [i] this, but when EPA tried to ban the use of asbestos [2] process it before they can get it to the point that PI and then it was overturned by the 5th Circuit. I [3] it can be used or incorporated into any products? [3] don't know if -- there was an attempt to do it, but [4] A: They take it into a mill, where they [4] it was not upheld in the courts. [5] grind the ore away from the fibers and separate the [5] Q: But at least the regulations that have [6] fibers, trying to get all of the non-asbestos ore [6] been enforced by our government have never banned [7] out of the material, and then it is shipped for m the use of asbestos in brake linings, right? [8] process manufacturing. [8] A: With that one exception. And I don't Pi Q: Do you know anything about the various [91 think it banned the use, but it did try to ban the [io] grades of chrysotile ore that have been used in [ioi use of asbestos in general. I don't think it was [ii] different -- [ii| specific for brake linings. [12] A: There are different grades. I'm not [121 Q-' But the -- I just want to make a [13] really an expert on the different grades. I know [i3i distinction so you understand. I'm talking about [14] they are listed in the company, but I haven't 1141 regulations that were enforced as opposed to [is] really compared one grade to another grade. [isi proposed legislation that was not enacted. [16] Q: Have you ever seen any studies that [i6i A: I agree. [17] indicate that, based upon a test of a brake lining, [i7] Q: With regulations that have been enforced [is] anyone has ever found tremolite in a brake lining? [isi by our government, they have never banned the use [i91 A: I don't know [i9l of asbestos in brake linings? 20] Q: Have you ever seen any tests or studies ; [20] A: To the best of my knowledge, that's [21] on dust from brake linings that indicate anyone (2i I correct. 221 ever found tremolite in the dust from a brake i [22] Q: Other than -- there was one study in 23] lining? [23] Exhibit 4 -- let me get to it -- CEB bulletin, 24] A: I don't know. I have not seen any lists, [24] August 1975. 25] put it that way. [25] A: Yes, sir. Page 26 - Page 29 (10) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KJiiNJNliiH DALE RARER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL HiCHARD A- LEMEN, Pi March 18, 1 [i] brought in to verify a diagnosis or to substantiate [21 that. I'm making the presumption that the (3) diagnosis is correct. [4) Q: You would agree that as a Ph.D. Pi epidemiologist, that asbestos-related diseases are [6] dose-related? PI A: Yes. I do. [8] Q: And. for instance, mesothelioma, there Pi has to be some dose before the disease could be [10] related to asbestos exposure? [11] A: Yes, there does. 1121 Q: You would agree that in the ambient air [i3] in urban environments, be it Atlanta, Dallas or, I [ui think, any city in this country, there would be [is] some asbestos in the air? [16] A: There's generally a background level of [17] asbestos, depending upon the urbanization of the [i8i city. And probably in Atlanta it 's getting a lot [19] bigger. [20] Q: Yes. it's getting larger in Atlanta as [21] the city grows. [22] Gosh, lose my train of thought. [23] Do you know of any attempt to quantify or [24] prove that ambient air concentrations of asbestos [25] can cause any asbestos-related disease? I [i] attempted to prove it.The National Cancer 1 [2] Institute, about 20 years ago, did put out their : Pi cancer maps, if you recall those, and they [4] published those. Those were not an attempt at Pi causation but were an attempt to show where there [6i were high rates of lung cancer versus low rates of [7] lung cancer based upon geographic location. But (a) they weren't an attempt to show causal association. Pi they were just an attempt to map it out. So I [10] don't -- I think the answer to your question is no. [11] Q: All right.Well. I'll take no and strike [12] everything else. then. Move to strike everything [i3l else. No, that's all right. [i4] Now. obviously -- or do you have [is] opinions -- obviously. I represent a brake [i6] manufacturer -- excuse me. I represent Chrysler [in Corporation. Excuse me. Let me get this straight. [18] We may have brakes on our cars because we want them [19] to stop. [20] Do you have any information about the [21] types of asbestos that would have been used in the [22] brake linings we would have manufactured or used? [23] A: I don't know specifically for Chrysler. [24] but I do know that in my career 1 was involved [25] quite heavily in doing studies of a major brake Page 23 Pag* [i] A: Well, there have been community studies [i] manufacturing facility, that being Raybestos pi that have been done concerning asbestos and [2j Manhattan. And, principally, the type of asbestos [3] disease. Been studies around the Canadian asbestos p] used in that manufacturing facility -- whether or [4] mines and mills.The latest. I guess, is a paper K] not cites later used that I don't know -- was i=] that was in New England Journal of Medicine, [5] chrysotile asbestos. But there were some mixed [6] looking at cancer rates in proximity. The original [6] exposures. m paper that Chris Wagner did about mesothelioma in [7] Q: And the mixed exposures you're referring [8] South Africa actually looked at community [8] to would have been at the Raybestos Manhattan [9] exposures. So there have been some studies that [9] plant? [to] did that. Newhouse in England looked at some [ioi A: In manufacturing of the material, yes. [11] community studies done around asbestos factors. [11] Q: And so you don't have any information [12] Q: Poor questions. I'm trying to exclude -- [12] that Chrysler would have used any brakes that had [is] A: Those type of things? : [i3] anything other than chrysotile in it; is that (hi Q: Yes. And, really, so you know. I know ; [14] right? [is] those things are out there. I don't deny that. [is] A: I do not have any other type of [16] But, for instance, for someone who would live in -- [i6] information. I don't know what type of brakes. I [17] be it Atlanta or Dallas or in some city where I [iz] don't even know where Chrysler bought the brakes. [is] they're not next to a factory, they're not next to ; [i8] Q: Now, there are obviously different types [19] a mine where asbestos ore is being taken out of the [i91 of asbestos, both amphiboles and serpentine and [20] earth, do you know of any studies in urban [20] chrysotile asbestos. In your opinion, can [21] environments, let's say, without those other pi] chrysotile asbestos cause mesothelioma? [22] potential contaminants, that have attempted to [221 A: I've published in this American Journal [23] prove that ambient air concentrations can cause [23] of Health, British Occupational Hygiene Journal in [24] asbestos-related diseases? [24] '97.Those are included in my time line.They're [25] A: I don't know of any that have been ! [25] also included in papers that are in the notebook BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (9) Page 22 - Page MJtMMtm DALE RAftK, et aL V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Ki<~lAKL> A. UiMEIN, E March 18,: [i] Q: Do you have any other government -- I [21 guess I'll call them studies of dust that would be Pi in brake drums? W A: I didn't include everything, but there [si are a number of health hazard evaluations that [6] NIOSH has done that have been in response to [7] looking at asbestos exposure in brakes. [si As a matter of fact. NIOSH did a very PI large study looking at prevention of -- and |io] prevention and suppression of dust. And I think, [ii] as he was just pointing out, there's the EPA [i21 guidelines that are included in that also. [i3i But I did not try and put together a [u] complete list of all the health hazard evaluations. [is] There are many of those, and they don't really add [16] to -- I mean, there are some in there, but it's not [17] comprehensive. [is] Q: So you'll know. I may -- I'm going to ask [19] some questions now. I'll look through some of [20] this. I may have some more after I look through [21] that as opposed to me trying to guess what you're [22] doing. But let me look through this. It will make [23] things a lot easier and a lot less confusing. [24] You would agree that in 1999 there is a [25i permissible exposure limit to asbestos that's Page 30 j Pa. ! ID Q: But after abatement contractors go into a | [2] school, they have to test the air to make sure that ! [3] the quantity of asbestos is below some number i M before they can send the kids back? : i*5' 6[i]7*A8*:*I1c0a1n1te1l2l y1o3u*in* *a7ns*w*e*r*to* *th*a2t 5that the [61 .01 was a recommendation that NIOSH made for m abatement. I don't know if EPA adopted that, but [81 that was one that we made based upon background [9] level of asbestos and the ability of the microscope [10] to measure down to that concentration. ['1] Q: And this recommendation you said that [12] NIOSH made, would that have been back mid 80 s. I [13] think, or do you remember? [14] A: It was around the mid '80s. I can't give [15] you an exact date. [16] Q: I know we didn't go through it. It's on [17] vour CV.What was vour position until the mid [18] '80s at NIOSH? [191 A: I was director of the Division of [20] Standards Development and Technology Transfer, [21] which was the division that formulated the policy [22] recommendations of the institute. And that was one [23] of them. [24] Q: The United States, in making their PELs, [25] or OSHA. I should say. making its PEL. they have [i] permitted in this country; is that right? PI A: Yes, sir. Pi Q: That is .1 fiber per cc. on a time [4] weighted average, is that right? [5] A: Yes, sir. [6j Q: The OSHA PEL is done by a PCM count, m right? [8] A: Phase contrast microscopy. PI MR. HAINES; If you just left it as [10] PCM it would be easier. [11] THE WITNESS; I just want to make [12] sure that what you meant by PCM was the [13] same thing I meant by PCM. [14] MR. FALK; If you'd been here [is] yesterday you would have known about that. [is] Q: (By Mr. Harton) You're aware that there [i7] are even regulations dealing with the ambient -- [is] excuse me, let me start over. [19] You're aware that the EPA has created [20] regulations governing post- abatement air in pi] schools that they define as clean air, right? [22] A: Yes, sir. [23] Q: And that is .01 fiber per cc., right? [24] A: I can't tell you exactly off the top of [25] my head. Page 31 Pac [i] not made a distinction between amphibole asbestos pi and serpentine; right? PI A: That's correct. [4j Q: But you are aware that there are other [5] governments, Britain, Canada for instance, that [6] make a distinction between the two types of fibers [7] in coming up with a PEL? [8] A: I think now the U.K. and Britain have ; [9] banned all uses of asbestos.They used to make a [10] distinction, but I don't think that they do now. I [11] think that they just promulgated new regulations [12] that are about 11 countries that have now [13] officially banned the use of all forms -- new -- [u] how do I want to say it -- importation or use of [is] asbestos in the future. But, yes, I agree with : [i6] you. there are countries that distinguish between [i7] the various types of asbestos. I [is] Q: Now, Mr. Raper, do you know when -- | [i9] assume -- do you believe that he stopped using car j[20] brakes or working with them in 1965, based on your ; [2i] review of this information? I [22] A: I don't know the exact date, but l [23] somewhere in that neighborhood, yes. | [24] Q: Do you know of any articles that would be [25]published either -- including vour time line. BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (11) Page 30 - Pag. JUU1AKU A- LtiVltlM, FJLi). March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE KAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Page 34 Page 36 [i] No. 3 -- [1] asbestos cloth, brake lining, insulating tape, [2i A: Can I look at the time line for just a [2] asbestos rope and wick and other miscellaneous Pi second? [3] products. w Q: Okay, that's fine. -- that would attempt W Right? [5i to study epidemiologically end users of brake [5] A: That's correct. 16) linings before 1965? [6] Q: So the Fulton article really deals with [7] A: There were case reports prior to 1965. [7] what I will call the manufacturing of brake linings pi Epidemiologic studies, I think the answer is no. [8] as opposed to end users, right? pi Q: So prior to 1965 there were no [si A: That's correct. 10] epidemiological studies of the end users of brake [10] Q: If you will go to the next article. ii! linings, indicating that they had an increased risk- [11] A: 1935. another article by--in Great 12] of gening any asbestos-elated disease? [12] Britain. 13] A: There were case reports, but the (13! Q: Is that the HMSO? mi epidemiologic studies, I think the answer is no. [i4] A: Yeah, that's Her Majesty's Stationary is) Q: Okay. I went through and looked at some [is; Office. Basically, the equivalent report that 16] of your old time lines and tried to pull some of [i6] would come out. like OSHA or Public Health Service. 7) the articles. And can you tell me which ones they [it] They talk in that report about the sawing, grinding s] are? Could you just take a minute? We can [is] and turning of brakes. 9] either -- I'd just like to talk about those for a [is] Q: Do you agree with me that this -- ;o) minute. [20] principally, the HMSO study -- I've got a copy if 11] A: You mean case reports. [21] you want to look at it, again, it's a bad 12] Q: The case reports you're talking about. [22] quality -- principally dealt with the manufacturing 13] A: Let me get over here to the right page. [23] of products in the industry as opposed to end 4j The first one I think that I mentioned [24] users. si was the Fulton Report of 1935.* 1 2 3 4 * 6 7 * * 10 11 * 13 14 [*25*] 17 M* 9R. HAINES: Object, vague as to 1] Q: I'm going to stop you for just a minute 2] because I've got that one. 3] MR. FALK: Fulton, did you say? 4] MR. HARTON: Fulton. si THE WITNESS: Fulton, 1935. 6] MR. FALK: That's the Commonwealth of 7] Pennsylvania? si MR. HARTON: Yeah. (9] THE WITNESS: I would just guess 10] that. 11] Q: (By Mr. Harton)The Fulton study, would 2]you agree with me that this was -- if you look at 13] page -- I've got a copy of it here. Is this the 14] Fulton -- it's not a good copy, but let me just is] show it to you.This is a copy. 6] A: Yes, that's it. 17] Q: It's a poor-quality reproduction. I'm ia] sorry. i9] A: Right. - io] Q: In attempting to read -- I've put a 1] little red mark there. Let me just quote this 2] incident, see if you can agree with what I said. 3] It says -- this article says, quote,The industry i] in this state consists mainly of several ] fabricating plants engaged in the making of Page 35 [1] 'principally." [2] THE WITNESS: Well. I think pi technically your answer is correct, but it m applies to the end user, because they re [5j talking about grinding and turning of the [6] brakes. And that's how I would interpret [7] it. [8] Q: (By Mr. Hanon) Would you go to the next [9] article please, sir. [10] A: 1939, the George and Leonard. Do you [11] have that one? This is in brake manufacturing [12] workers. i[i3] Q: Yeah.This is brake manufacturing !l i4] workers, right? [is] A: Right. [i6] Q: Go to the next one. [i7] A: 1940, article by Stone. Do you have that :[is] one?To answer your question, brake lining [is] manufacturing workers. i [20] Q: All right. Next? pi] A: 1941, the Brachmann paper. Do you have [22] that one? [23] Q: No, I do not. [24] A: The risk of asbestosis among brake [25] grinders and drillers.That was published in -- Page 37 age 34 - Page 37 (12) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KLiNiNfclii UAJLE KAPLK, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL KIOIAKL) A. IJtMiiiN, P March 18,1 [i] I've got these articles, I just didn't -- PI Q: Could you get that one? Because that's PI one that -- one way or another somehow it just [4] didn't -- [5] MR. HAINES: Do you have it here with [6] you? [7] THE WITNESS: No. [8] Q: (By Mr. Harton) Just get us a copy for [9] it. I've got a search out for it. but we haven't [io] been able to locate it yet. [ii] A: I'm pretty sure I have it. It may take [i2] me a while because a lot of my articles are on (i3i microfiche and it's sometimes hard to -- [u] Q: Do it when you can. I understand. I've [is] tried to find it as well and had troubles. [16] A: It was abstract, as you see in my [17] reference, and to -- let's see. it was in the [is] Journal -- [19] Q: Obviously, do you have any recollection [20] as to whether, when they're talking about grinders [21] and drillers of brake bands, they re talking about [22] the manufacturing process or end users? [23] A: I'm pretty sure they're talking about the [24] manufacture. But I'd have to go back and look at [25] that to make sure. Page 38 j Pac m when? [21 A: I first went in the Raybestos plant in PI the early '70s. I did a mortality study of workers [4] in that plant.The first publication is listed on [5] mv CV of that plant. It actually appeared as a [6] repon to the Congress of the United States and 71 appeared in the Congressional repons, the results [8] of a mortality' study.Then we continued to analyze [9] and published, in 1976,1 think, in the New York [10] Academy of Sciences' Occupational Cancer Symposium [11] the update of that. And that senior author on that [12] second publication was Robinson. It's listed in my [13] CV. So I was also involved in the industrial [14] hygiene survey of the Raybestos Manhattan plant. [15] This is the plant in Manheim. Pennsylvania. [16] Then I also was involved in the [171 industrial hygiene and medical survey in the plant [18] -- Raybestos plant in Charleston. South Carolina. [19] Q: We ll focus on the Pennsylvania plant. [20] A: The Pennsylvania plant was the one that I [21] spent the most time in. [22] Q: The Pennsylvania plant, that s one that [23] you would have started the study of the plant [24] workers, I would say. in the 1970s? [25] A: Yes, sir. Page 39 Pagt [i] Q: I understand. We can look at it when you [1] Q: Now. brake products, would they be Pi get it. [2] defined as friabie or nonfriable under the EPA Pi If you would go to the next article, [3] definition? [4] please, sir. gi A: I think the brake products in the final [5] A: My time line only carries me up to the [5] form would be considered nonfriable. But I'm not [6] passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, [6] an expen on the EPA definition. m and the articles that were in the notebook carry on [7] Q: Do you know anything at all about any [a] after that. So that's all I have in my time line, [8] trade associations or other organizations that [9] luckily. p] Chrysler may have been a member of? [10] Q: So we've discussed all the 1965 and [io] A: I haven't specifically looked at [11] earlier articles that deal with brake linings in l[ii] Chrysler, no, sir. [12] any way under your time line? :[i2] Q: Now, mesothelioma is a disease. I [13] A: There may be others, but I haven't [13] think -- was it first linked to asbestos exposure [14] included them in my time line. [14] by, I think, Dr. Wagner around I960? [is] Q: Okay. Well, they're not on your time [is] A: Well, there were reports of mesothelioma [16] line? [i6] as early as 1943 from Germany.There were reports [17] A: That's correct. {[17] from the Canadian asbestos mines in 1952,1 think [is] Q: The case -- earlier we talked about case I(i8] that was. And there were other case reports that [19] repons. Are the case repons you were referring I [19] occurred prior to Dr. Wagner's paper in 1960. And [20] to earlier about maybe a brake lining worker [20] his paper in 1960 was related -- the first [21] getting asbestos-related disease, are those the |(2i] comprehensive epidemiological evaluation of workers [22] anicles we just went through? [22] engaged in the mining, milling and community [231 A: Yes, sir. [23] exposures dealing with asbestos. [24] Q: Your work at the Raybestos Manhattan [24] Q: So Dr. Wagner's work, that is, I think, [25] plant, that was. I think, in the 1970s or '80s or [25] published in 1960. was the first epidemiological BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (13) Page 38 - Page RICHARD a. LtMtA, Pll_D. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWEN8-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Pago 42 Page 44 [i! study that linked asbestos exposure to the disease [1] A: Well, when I was at NIOSH, yes. Prior to [21 mesothelioma? [2] my coming and even after I came, for a while they Pi A: By that time that was the conclusion that pi were also looking at total dust by using the [4i he came to, yes, sir. [4] impinger method of sampling for particles per cubic [si Q: And Dr. Wagner, in 1960,1 think, was [5] foot. And when I first came to NIOSH, we also, in [6] studying mines in South Africa? [6] addition to the phase contrast microscopy, is used [7j A: That's correct. [7] these gigantic, high-volume samplers that we would [si Q: Was that principally crocidolite? [si sit in the middle of an area of an asbestos plant [9j A: That's correct. Pi that would pull very high volumes of air through. [10] Q: At what point in time were there [10] And those were looking at weight of dust and total [11] epidemiological studies that attempted to determine [hi dust that was in the atmosphere. So -- but for [121 that chrvsotile could cause mesothelioma? [12] personal samples, the only type that I ever took [13] A: Let me just refer to this. Wagner did [13] were the membrane filter. PCM-type samples. [14] mention chrvsotile but didn't find any disease. [14] Q: In the work that you or others would have [is] And he attributed that to the fact that they had [is] done, I assumed for you. at NIOSH, did they always [i6i shorter latencies and there was a large turnover. [16] use direct preparation techniques? [i7] But then McDonald looked at chrvsotile in the [17] A: I'm not sure I know what you mean by [ib) Canadian mills and mines in the early '70s. So I [is] direct preparation. [i9i think most of the data on chrvsotile [is] Q: For instance, there are a number of [20] epidemiologically, case reports started occurring [20] different types of techniques to sample for [21] when McDonald started looking at the chrvsotile [21] paniculate matter in the air, be it asbestos or .221 mines and mills in the Canadian area. [221 something else. One I know that the phase contrast [23] Q: What -- which is the first article you [23] microscopy requires is taking a filter, adding ;24] have on vour time line, just so I'll know? [24] personal samples, for instance, having air drawn [25] A: Well. Cartier. 1957. [25] with particulate matter in it.Then they count Page 43 Page 45 [ii Q: I mean the epidemiological McDonald [1] what's on the filter.That's what I call the Pi study.There have been so many.That's what I'm [2] direct method. Pi trying to find. [3] A: The answer to that is yes. And it was [4] A: McDonald. I'm sorry. [4j directly related to the NIOSH 7400 analytical [5] Q: Is that the early '70s? [5] methodology. is] A: 1973. Let me get -- asbestosis.The [6] Q: Because that's what's required? [7] first article that I have in my time line appeared m A: Right. [8] in IARC Scientific Publication No. 8 on the [8] Q: You do not accept other types of methods Pi chrysotile mines and mills. And there were two PI for comparison to OSHA PEL, would you? [io] papers, actually, one on asbestosis and the second i [io] A: I don't know what you're gening at, so I (i i] one on cancer from the mills, and they were both [11] don't know if I can answer that. But that's an [12] IARC scientific publications. I have those. I i [12] area that is somewhat beyond the area of my [13] mean, I didn't bring them. j [i3] expertise. [i4j And then McDonald has another paper in [U] Q: Well, for instance, when you or others at [is] 1977 on exposure relationships and mesothelioma | [is] NIOSH were out there sampling to determine [i6i and the proceedings of the Asbestos Symposium in ! [is] workplace exposures, you would comply with the OSHA [i7] Johannesburg, South Africa. And then there are a : ti7] requirements for sampling dust in the air, and that [i8i series of other -- j [is] would be 7400, the direct method? n9] Q: Others, that's-fine. I'm just looking I [19] A: Well, OSHA was using our methodology, 20] for the earliest, and that's all I need. I think [ [20] yes, sir. 211 you answered that. | [2i] Q: So it would comply with your own 22] When you would do air samplings, -- and [22] methodology, right? Either way? 23) I'm sure a lot of them were done while you were at [231 A: We developed the methodology that was 74] NIOSH -- did NIOSH always use the phase contrast [24j later employed by OSHA in their sampling. 5] microscopy in counting fibers? [25] Q: In sampling. >age 42 - Page 45 (14) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, Pi March 18,1 Page 46 j Pag [i) Have you ever sampled or looked at the j in -- or some of them would have contained asbestos, [2j dust in brake drums to determine how much of that ; ra right? pi dust is converted to forsterite? [3] A: Yes. W A: NIOSH has. I have not personally. [4] Q: The bonding agents, mastics, resins. [5] Q: Are those articles at all in either H whatever they are, would affect the aerosol dynamic [6] Exhibit 4 or your time line? [6] properties of the asbestos fibers if they're ever [7] A: I think they're mentioned in there. But m released? [8] I don't know specifically if they determine the [8] A: They could. Pi amount of forsterite that's produced. I think it [9] Q: And if bonding agents or mastics were [io] depends upon the use of the brake and the heat of [10] still attached to an asbestos fiber, that could [ill the brake as to the amount of forsterite. I don't [11] prevent it from being inhaled and retained in the [12] know that I've ever seen it totally quantified, if [i2i lungs? [13] that's what you're gening at. But I'll certainly [13] A: It could, yes. sir. [14] agree with you that it does occur and to an extent. [14] Q: I'm going to look through your articles [is] Q: I'll look through 4 and see if there are [is] and things like this. I'm sure I'll have some [16] quantifications, and we ll talk about that in a [16] questions. But I'd like to look through this, and [17] minute. I'm not going to bore you with it now. [17] at some point in time I'm going to take -- I'll [is] But on that same line, in looking at the [is] just do this later. [19] drum dust, do you know of quantifications of the [19] A: What is that? [20] amount of fibers, asbestos fibers, now that would [20] Q: Your disclosure, one of the things we [21] be greater than five microns in length that have [21] get. Maybe I can just ask you this now. I'm going [22] been seen in various studies? [22] to talk about these articles. I represent [23] A: I think that -- you mean after the brake [23] Chrysler, and we've got a case next week. And I [24] is used or -- !24] don't know if you've seen this, but this is the [25] (3: Brake drums and discs. [25] disclosure that I have given. Page 47 Page [1] A: In the composition of the brake? [i] A: I think this is a standard disclosure, [2] Q: After it's been used. p] Q: Yeah, it's a standard disclosure. [3] A: I think the Lorimer paper goes into some [3] Let me ask a question and you can tell me [4j quantification, talks about the average amount of [4] if I'm wrong. I'm trying to find out if I've [5] fibers found in the brake dust. I think his [5] touched on the areas you were going to testify' [6] greatest concentrations were found three to five [6] about Chrysler Corporation. For instance, when you [7] feet away from the brake drum after it had been [7] get to trial, is there anything I haven't covered? [8] blown, and the average concentration was somewhere Pi And if there is, let me know. PI around 15 fibers per cc. greater than five micron. Pi MR. HAINES: Object to the question [10] There's a table in there if you want me to point it [10] of having him anticipate, without knowing [11] out. [11] how he's going to respond to questions that [12] Q: Yeah, I think I found it. Let me look [12] we ask him. And to say, well, have you [13] through this. I'm just talking about the size and I [13] testified as to anything about Chrysler, I [14] length of the fibers, that they were -- i[i4] don't think that's a proper question. [is] A: Well, they were only counting greater ][i5i MR. ELLISTON: Excuse me.At this [16] than five micron in length. So they weren't \ [16] point I want to register an objection. [17] counting below five micron in length. So what I [i7] Plaintiff's counsel is going beyond simply [is] was referring to would have referred to those that [is] stating an objection to the form. Under [19] were greater than five micron. i [i9] the new rules, anything beyond "objection [20] Q: The manufacturing process for making the [20] to form" is inappropriate. So I object to [21] brake lining, that would obviously include various I [2i] plaintiff's counsel going beyond that [22] bonding resins and Lord-only-knows-what to make it ; [22] objection. [23] stay together, right? ;[23] MR. HAINES: Duly noted. [24] A: Right. [24] Q: (By Mr. Harton) You can respond. You [25] Q: And pan of the brake lining is obviously ; [25] can respond. Dr. Lemen. BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (15) Page 46 - Page KU^tlAKL A- t.r.iVLfclN, Ptl-L>. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Page 50 ! Pags 52 [il A: I've -- as far as I know, unless I'm [i]initiated the study of the chrysotile mines in the [2] asked questions that I can't anticipate, you've (21 Siberian area of Russia. It's a joint study with PI covered everything. But, I mean, I have to put Pi NIOSH, the Finnish Institute and the Russian [4j that in, because if plaintiff's counsel asked me a W Institute. And the only results so far. to my Pi question and you haven't anticipated it, I will -- [5] knowledge, that have been published are the [6j and I knew the answer, I would give an answer. [6] industrial hygiene samples of several hundreds of [7] MR. HARTER: Well, let me look m samples that were taken in that. And that is lei through some articles and I'll let some (8] bigger, as far as volume, than the McDonald. But [9! other folks talk to you. [9] the epidemiology and medical are still ongoing, to ioi CROSS-EXAMINATION [io] the best of my knowledge. ni BY MR. FALK: [i i] Q: So I think the first part of your answer i2l Q: Good morning. Doctor. My name is Eric [12] was that if we looked at published epidemiology you 13] Falk, I represent Allied Signal. [13] would agree that the McDonald Quebec cohort is the 14] My first question to you is, has anybody [U] largest published cohort? is] shown you any documents pertaining to Allied Signal [is] A: I agree. 16] or its predecessor, the Bendix Corporation? [16] Q: Are you familiar with the articles of the 17] A: I don't believe so. [17] McDonald group published in '97 and '98. about five a] Q: Okay. Have you ever conducted or worked [is] or six of them? i91 on any industrial hygiene surveys at airline [i9] A: I think I've read every one that Corbett 20] maintenance facilities? pa] and his wife Allison have put together. And 1 know 21] A: Specifically looking at asbestos, no. [21] both of them pretty well, so -- 22i But I have at airline maintenance facilities, and [22] Q: Okay.Then maybe we can short-circuit 23] I've published on -- just so the record is [23] this. And rather than breaking out the articles. 24] straight -- on principally looking at [24] I'm going to try to summarize the results. You 251 cardiovascular disease among airline refueling [25] tell me if my summaries are wrong, and if we re* 1 Page 51 Page 53 [i] operations, around airline maintenance facilities. [1] right we re going to move on. (21 And we've published on that from exposure to carbon [2] A: Okay. pi monoxide, but not as it relates to asbestos, Pi Q: They found that the excess of lung cancer m Q: Okay. And I take it, then, you certainly [4j mesothelioma arose predominantly from the central ;si have not participated in any industrial hygiene Pi area of theTheford mines, correct? [6] surveys at either Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport or Love pi A: I believe that's correct. 71 Airfield? [7] Q: And they also found there was a high (8i A: That's correct. [si level of tremolite contamination in the central (9] Q: Okay. I want to look at the -- talk to Pi area of the Thetford mines, correct? io] you a bit about chrysotile epidemiology. And I .[io] A: I believe that's true. ni want to focus on epidemiology. And let's put off [ni Q: And they found that even within the i2] to the side for a moment animal studies and then [121 central area of the Thetford mines, the excess does ;i3] we'll get back to that. | [i3j not arise until you get to exposures that are ;i4] Would you agree that the McDonald cohort [14] roughly at five to six million particles per cubic is] in Canada is the largest ongoing chrysotile-only [is] foot; is that correct? :6] cohort? [i6] A: Somewhere in that neighborhood. I can't i7] A: I would agree that it's probably the ! [i7] remember the exact number, ;ib] largest. I don't know of others that are larger. i [18] Q: Or if we wanted to just put it in some 19] We do have a study ongoing that was initiated by [i9| kind of lingo, the old ACGIH standard, roughly in 20] NIOSH while I was still at NIOSH. ! [20] that neighborhood? 7i] Q: Is that the South Carolina -- j[213 A: I believe that's what they were using. :2l A: No, no. Well, that's one that was done. ! [22] The authors concluded that it was -- from an :3] But we have an ongoing study, which the results [23] epidemiological point of view, the tremolite, that 4] have not been published yet. And I'm not a pan of [24] was the reason for the excess in mesothelioma, s] it anymore because I'm not at NIOSH. But I [25] correct. I believe that is a pan of the 'age 50 - Page 53 (16) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, P March 18,1 Page 54 I Pag [1] conclusion. But I think that McDonald also | [i] copies of the pre-published articles. (21 concluded that they had found -- if I can remembe r | pi Q: And have you read Dr. Hesterberg's work [3] exactly how they put it, they had found I p] on man-made mineral fibers? [4] mesothelioma to occur in ones that did not have | W A: Yes, sir. p] tremolite contamination, but very few. [si Q: If we were to look solely at [6j Q: Okay.Those were from the peripheral [6] epidemiologyI1, is it still vour opinion, that is. m areas ofThetford? [7] from an epidemiological point of view, there is a [] A: Yes, sir. [8j lower risk of mesothelioma among chrysotile p] Q: And they did not find an excess rate in Pi populations as opposed to amphibole populations? [ioi the peripheral areas, correct? [10] A: In the 1996 publication that I did with [ii] A: They did not find it, as compared to a [11] Leslie. Stavner and Dankovic in the American [i2l standard population. But they did find [12] Journal of Public Health, we concluded that [i3i mesothelioma. [13] mesothelioma can occur in chrysotile populations, (i4i Q: One of the things that the McDonald's [14] but it is at a lower rate than it would occur in an [isi focused on as they looked at the possibility of [is] amphibole population, but still at a significant [is] tremolite contamination was bio-persistence and [16] level. [i7] durability of fibers: correct? [17] Q: Do you still agree that case reports are [is] A: That's correct. [18] not as strong as an epidemiological study? [i9] Q: And tremolite would fit, would be a [i91 A: Of course. [2oi candidate that would fit the issue of [20] Q: Kind of a handy layman's analogy that [21] bio-persistence and durability, correct? [21] I've used. [22] A: If you're talking about, simply put, [22] And I'll throw this out to you. and you [23i residence time in the lung, that's correct. [23] tell me whether you like it or not, is that a case [24] Q: Chrvsotile is not as bio-persistent and [24] report can frame the question, the epidemiology [25i is not as durable, correct? [25] provides the answer. Does that sound acceptable? Page 55 Pagt [ii A: Chrvsotile gets into the lung and gets [i] A: Case reports are usually what we use to [2] out of it quicker than the amphibole-type fibers. pi generate hypotheses for conducting epidemiological [31 Q: And you're familiar with the clearance [3] studies. So I think we re saying the same thing. [4] rates and the studies on the clearance rates for [4] Q: Do you agree with the proposition that an [5] chrysotile, correct? [5] epidemiologist should look for a relative risk of [] A: Yes, sir. [6] two or greater in order to associate an agent with [7] Q: Are you familiar with any studies [7] a disease? [si pertaining to man-made mineral fibers, their [8] A: I don't agree with that specifically, no. [9] biopersistence and durability and their possible [9] Q: Okay. Do you agree that that is a view [10] impact on the development of mesothelioma? [10] held by many epidemiologists in your field? [11] A: By man-made mineral fibers, do you [11] A: I won't put many. I'll put that it is a [i2l include such things -- are you talking just I [12] view held by some epidemiologists in my field. [13] epidemiology now or are you talking animal studies* [i3] Q: What relative risks do you look for? [14] Q: This would be animal studies. | [i4] A: It depends on the size of the cohort. [isi A: If you're talking -- do you include [isi You could have a significant excess relative risk [16] refractory ceramic fiber in that definition? [16] if you had a large cohort and a large exposure [17] Q: Yes, fiberglass refractory ceramic fiber. [17] than, say, even at 1.5 or even lower. It depends ]i8] A: There are fairly new animal studies on [is] upon the population you're studying.And I think [i9] refractory fibers coming out of Geneva-sponsored [19] that arbitrarily assigning 2 as the cutoff point is [2oi studies by I guess it's Thermal Insulation [20] not something that I would do, and it's not [2il Manufacturers Association that have shown [21] something that we did when I was at NIOSH. [22] mesothelioma occurring in fairly high numbers in 1(22! Q: Are you aware of any epidemiological [23i animals that have been exposed to respirable [23] study of automobile mechanics or brake repair [24] refractory ceramic fibers. And those are just in ;[24] workers, end users, not manufacturing plants, [25] the process of being published. I happen to have [25] showing an increased risk of mesothelioma in the BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (17) Page 54 - Page RICHARD A. CCMiiN, Pb.D. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL m populations? pi A: Epidemiologic studies? Pi Q: Urn-hum. [4] A: I would have to go back and look at my [5] book. I can't answer that question right now. [6] MR. HARTON: This one? Here. Go [7] ahead. Pi Q: (By Mr. Falk) One of the MedLine Pi summaries you have in your book is the Woitowitz [io] and Rodelsperger 1994 article. [ill You have a MedLine summary of that [12] article in your notebook. Have you read the [13] article itself? (i4i A: I have sometime ago. I haven't read it [is] recently. [i6] Q: Do you recall what the author's [i7j conclusion was? [is] A: Well, if you know exactly where it's at 119] in here, it would help me. [20] Q: It's one of the larger, bold print. 211 MR. HARTON: Towards the front, yeah. ;22] Very early. [23] THE WITNESS: It was one of the very [24] first ones. I remember that.Yeah, okay. [25] Okay. Page 58 j Page 60 [i] MR. HARTON: I don't know if you -- PI thanks. Pi Q: (By Mr. Falk) Other than the Phoenix [4] ground water case, which I know is not an asbestos [5] case, have there been any other cases where your [6] testimony has been excluded or limited? m A: Not to my knowledge. [8] Q: Okay. Pi A: There have been cases where there's [io] summary judgment, but I don't think it was directed [iil at me particularly. [i2l Q: I don't want to get into the Phoenix [13] ground water case, not unless we have about an hour [14] to talk on that. [is] Are you aware of any attempts to quantify [is] the projected mortality in brake repair workers? [i7] A: No. [is] Q: I want to take a look at some of the [19] articles that you cited in your article with [20] Drs. Dankovic and Stayner. pi] A: Yes, sir. [22] Q: Okay. Do you have that article with you? [23] A: Yeah. It's somewhere around here. [24] Q: Just so we can read from it together [25] without me looking over your shoulder.* 11 Page 59 [i] Q: (By Mr. Falk) When was the last time you pi looked at that article. Doctor? [3] A: I can't remember. [4] Q: Okay. Do you recall the conclusions of [i] A: I don't know how it fell apart, but -- in pi fact. I've got it right here. Pi Q: If you could turn to Table 1. W A: Yes. [5] the authors of that article? is] A: As in the summary, yes, sir. [5j Q: Okay.There are two articles I'm [6] interested in that you put in the table as showing [7] Q: The conclusions were that they found no [8] increased risk of mesothelioma in the car mechanics [9] in Germany? [10] A: That none occurred, that's correct. ;ii] Q: Are you aware that Drs. Woitowitz and [i2] Rodelsperger have been studying car mechanics, ;i3] their exposure and disease rate, in Germany since [14] the mid 1980s? [is] A: I don't know when they started. 16] Q: Are you aware of any of their prior work? 17] A: Not other than what's in here. [is] Q: Is it still true that you don't think of ;i9] yourself an as expert in dust dispersion and [20] aerosol dynamics? 2i] A: I've never presented myself as that. 22i Q: You have not participated in any fiber 231 release testing of friction products? 24] A: No, sir. Here is the book back, unless 2si you want -- [7] excesses of either lung cancer, mesothelioma or [8] both.The first one is the Finkelstein article. [9j A: The automotive, yes, sir. [10] Q: Do you have a copy of that with you? [11] A: No, I don't. [12] Q: Okay. I'll pass it over. I just want to [13] go through that rather quickly. i(i4] Is it true that, if you turn to page 128 [is] of the article, they found that among men there i [i6] were no diseases associated with a significantly i[i7] increased SMR? [is] MR. HAINES: Hang on. Doctor, do you j [19] need a minute to review the article? ; [20] Q: (By Mr. Falk) I'm sorry. Page 128, I'm pi] looking at. [22] A: Let me just look at it for a minute. ` [23] Okay. What is your question? [24] Q: Is true that Dr. Finkelstein found among [25] men there were no diseases associated with a Page 61 Page 58 - Page 6l (18) Min-U Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPEK, el aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL K1GHAKD A. LEMEN, P March 18, 1 [i] significantly-increased SMR except for laryngeal [21 cancer? [3] A: I'm having trouble reading this, w Q: It's as good a copy as I could get. [5] A: You're talking overall, or what are [6] you -- you need to point that out. It's probably m my bifocals. [B] Q: That's quite all right. Okay. [9] A: You say 128. [loi Q: Right. Okay. Right here.Among -- [ill first off. they studied two automotive pans plants [12] in Ontario, correct? [13] A: Right. [14] Q: And brake pans were made at those [is] plants, correct? [16] A: To my knowledge, that's correct. [17] Q: Okay. And here on page 128 they say that [18] among men, no diseases except for laryngeal cancer [19] were associated with a significantly increased SMR, [20] Have I read that part correctly? [21] A: That's correct. [22] Q: And then they go on to say that there [23] were no trends of increasing SMR with increasing [24] length of employment. [25] A: Right. i [i] Q: The next one I want to talk about in ; p] Table 1 is the McDonald article. ! pi A: Right. [4j Q: Okay. This is the study of the [5] Connecticut friction plant. [6] A: Is this Connecticut or is this the -- : [7] Q: I think it's Connecticut. [8] A: I thought -- yeah. Okay. Pi Q: Okay. [10] A: It was -- Connecticut was one plant. [11] yeah. [12] Q: Yes. Okay. First off, the McDonald's [is] found no mesotheliomas in that plant, correct? [i4] A: That's what they report, yes. sir. [is] Q: Okay. And turning to lung cancer, the [i6i increased mortality that they found was due mostly [i7] to the people that had worked one year or less at [is] the factory, correct? [19] A: Well, I don't know if you said it the [20] right way.They say that excluding men who had [21] worked for less than a year, there was possible [22] evidence of some increased risk of lung cancer with [23] increasing exposure. So it was occurring in those [24] that were greater than one year. [25] MR. HAINES: That's actually the Page 63 Pag [1] Q: Have I read that correctly? [i] opposite of what he said. [2] A: Yes, sir. pi THE WITNESS: I think, if I've -- you PI MR. HAINES: Can I see it? [3] said less than one year. [4] MR. FALK: Sure. When you're done [4] Q: (By Mr. Falk) Less than or equal to one [5] with that I have a few more questions on [5] year. [6] that article, if you don't mind me looking [6] A: Right here. Unless they've misstated it m over your shoulder. [7] in there. [a] THE WITNESS: No. [8] Q: Let's go to page 155 of the article. And [9] Q: (By Mr. Falk)Turn to page 129. [9] they talk about that the most confusing aspect of [10] They then did a case control analysis in [10] the study is the fact that the only subcohort with [11] order to analyze whether there was an association i[ii] SMRs clearly above expectation comprises men [12] between the employment and the asbestos-related ! [i2] employed for less than one year. [13] diseases that they thought they had found, correct? : [i3] Correct? [14] A: Right. I [i4] A: That's total SMRs.That's in contrast to [is] Q: And they concluded the case control I [is] what you were asking about lung cancer. [16] analysis revealed no association between the risk |[i6] Q: Then they go on to say, thus, were it not [17] of lung cancer and employment in a department where i [i7] for the subjects with minimal employment or dust or [is] asbestos had been used or duration of employment. I [is] dust exposure or both, the mortality experience of [19] A: Correct. [19] this cohort would be close to expected. [20] Q: And they go on and they say that even [20] A: That's what they say there. pi] within the laryngeal cancers, none of the laryngeal [21] Q: Okay. Workers who work less than one [22] cancers had worked in an area where asbestos had ; [22] year, we call those transient workers. Would that [23] been used. l [23] be a good way to phrase it? [24] Correct? [24] A: They may not like to be called that. [25] A: Right. [25] Q: I understand. Scientifically, you tend BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (19) Page 62 - Pagt KlOiAKD A- LHME.N, Ph-D. March 18,1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Page 66 ! Page 68 [i] to call them transient workers? [ii Coming? [21 A: Yes. I ;2] A: No. [3i Q: Transient workers generally just have, pi Q: As a housekeeping question, part of [4j perhaps because of their lifestyles, just higher m Exhibit 5 was Volume I of the Raper deposition. Is Pi risks for many diseases, many conditions, correct? is] that the one that you had brought with you and the [6i A: That's possible. ; [6] one we had marked, or the one that we sent was a [7] Q: Okay. [7] copy of one? [si THE WITNESS: Can we go off the [8] A: Did I maybe make a copy? It's what was [91 record for just a second? [9] sent to me. And the first pan is missing every loi (Recess taken.) [10] other page. So it's only a ponion of it. And I ii) Q: (By Mr. Falk) Doctor, do you still agree [11] didn't call back and ask for another copy because 1 t2) that, with regard to fiber length, the [12] didn't really rely that much upon it. i3] preponderance of the evidence up until the 1980s [13] Q: So you received the Volume I of the Raper t4] was that fibers less than five microns in length [14] deposition in alternate page format, if you will? si did not lead to asbestos-related disease? [is] A: Exactly like it is there, yes. sir. And i6i A: There's a preponderance of the evidence [16] that's just the first part of it.The second page :7] to answer yes, but there is some evidence there may [17] is four-page format. si be disease in these smaller, but that was the [is] Q: With respect to the classification of 19] preponderance of the evidence. [19] persons called commercial airline mechanics, is 20] Q: And you still believe that the longer [20] that occupation one that has been identified by a ?i] fibers tend to be more carcinogenic than shorter [21] government agency or state agency, to your ;2i fibers? [22] knowledge, to have been at risk from or at risk for ?3] A: Yes, sir. [23i asbestos-related diseases? 4] Q: You mentioned the Camus article.Are you [24] A: I don't know. I don't know of any. 25] familiar with any follow-ups or letters to the -- [25] Q: Are you aware -- and I guess it would be* 1 2 * * 5 * 7 Page 67 Page 69 [i] A: The what article? [1] true, then, in vour years of government work and .2] Q: I call it Camus. [2] following the literature, you're not aware of any 3] A: Camus? pi pronouncement or proclamation from any government .4] Q: Camus. I call it Camus because of the M agency stating that commercial aircraft mechanics ;5] French author. [5] were an at-risk group for asbestos-related :6j A: Well, I didn't take French. I call it [6i diseases, is that right? [7] Camus. [7] A: I don't know of any. [a] Q: It could be either one. [a] Q: Did you review the work history of ;9] You mentioned that earlier. Are you Pi Mr. Raper? to] aware of any of the follow-up or letters to the ; [io] A: Only as presented in the material that I 11] editor that have come since that article? :[ii] received. 12] A: Well, I know the editorial that ; [i2i Q: Did you notice if he worked at a micarda '3] accompanied the article. I have not read the j [i3] plant for some period of time? mi follow-up letters. i[i4] A: I'd have to look at it again. si MR. FALK: Okay.That's all 1 have, I [is] MR. JOHNSON: I've taken the 6] sir.Thank you. | [i6] deposition out of there. i7] CROSS-EXAMINATION |[i7] THE WITNESS: It should be on this, I i8i BY MR. GUSTAFSON: [18] think. Where did you see that? I'm just 19] Q: Dr. Lemen, I'm Ivan Gustafson of j [191 trying to -- 20) Pittsburgh Corning. |[20] Q: (By Mr. Gustafson) I believe it was 63, 1] Have your opinions changed about [21] 64, maybe the third or fourth. 2] Pittsburgh Corning since this time last week? [22] A: You said micarda. 3i A: No. I [23j Q: Micarda plant in Hampton, South Carolina. 4] Q: Have you seen anything new in the last [24] MR. HAINES: Herndon Motor Freight, 5] seven days to change your opinion about Pittsburgh [25] Hampton, South Carolina. age 66 - Page 69 (20) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, Pi March 18, 1 Page 70 | Pag [1] Q: (By Mr. Gustafson) Before that page. I ; [i] manufactured after 1986 would have contained [21 hate to do this, but let me come over there. ; ra asbestos? Pi A: Okay. I saw Westinghouse, but I pi A: I don't know the answer. They could [4j wasn't -- yes, sir. ! [4] have. By law they could have. But I don't know. Pi Q: Are you familiar with that product, [5] Q: Do you know whether Georgia Pacific ever [6i micarda? [6] manufactured any joint compound that contained [7] A: No, sir. [7] asbestos? [8] MR. GUSTAFSON: That makes it short. [8] A: I don't know. [9] All right.That's it. Pi Q: Are you aware of any studies regarding [10] MR. FALK: Good job. [10] the impact of working with or around joint !ii] MR. HAINES: Next. [11] compounds on the health of the workers? [i2i CROSS-EXAMINATION [12] A: I know that there are studies that show mi BY MR. JOHNSON: [13] that carpenters and other people employed that [hi Q: Dr. Lemen, my name is Jonathan Johnson. [14] would use joint compounds but have other exposures [is] I'm here today representing Georgia Pacific. I [is] are at increased risk of developing [i6i just have a few questions for you. [16] asbestos-related diseases. [i7] In this case have you been given any [17] Q: Okay. Do you know of any studies that [is] documents to review that directly refer to Georgia [is] would say that people other than those you just [i9l Pacific or a company called Bestwall? [19] mentioned would be at risk just because they happen [20] A: Other than what I've shown here, that's [20] to be in the vicinity? [2il the only material I've been given. [21] A: Dr. Selikoff did some research in his [22] Q: Do you have any reason to believe that [22] group on looking at bystanders, if that's what [23] Mr. Raper worked with or around any joint compound? [23] you're getting at. And so there are studies out [24] MR. HAINES: Object to the form. [24] showing that workers that didn't work directly with [25] Go ahead. [25] an asbestos product but were working in the Page 71 Page m THE WITNESS: It's my understanding [i] vicinity of others that were working with asbestos [2] that he did. But I haven't been asked to pi products were at an increased risk of developing [3] specifically identify the products or Pi disease. [4] anything of that nature. [4] Q: Okay. And what specifically are the [5] Q: (By Mr. Johnson) What's your [5] studies by Dr. Selikoff that you're referring to? [6] understanding that he did based on? [6] A: Well, the one that shows that they're at [7] A: The material that I read in here of his [7] risk by looking at exposure is a study that Reitze, [8] work history. And that's it. [8] R-E-I-T-Z-E -- I think it's listed in my time Pi Q: And that does include Mr. Raper's PI line -- has conducted, looking at people directly [10] deposition, does it not? [io] applying asbestos insulation and then looking at [11] A: Yes, it does. [i i] welders and others that are not directly in the [12] MR. HAINES: It does. [121 area but around the area that have higher exposure [13] Q: (By Mr. Johnson) Did you see that in [i3] levels to asbestos. And that's the type of work [14] Mr. Raper's deposition he testified that he -- his [u] that he was doing. [is] claim with respect to joint compounds was during [is] Q: Okay. Did that study include anything [16] the time period 1986 to 1998? f[i6i with respect to joint compounds? [17] MR. HAINES: Object to form. [i7] A: I don't know. I don't think so. [is] THE WITNESS: I don't remember the ; [is] Q: Do you think there may be differences [19] exact dates.' [i9] between asbestos insulation and joint compounds? [20] Q: (By Mr. Johnson) Do you have any , [20] A: Yes. [21] knowledge as .to whether any of the joint compounds pi] Q: Sir, do you have any knowledge as to [221 that Mr. Raper may have worked around contained any [22] whether joint compounds would contain friable [23] asbestos at all? [23] asbestos? [24] A: I don t know. [24] A: You mean friable? [25] Q: Do you know whether any joint compounds [25] Q: Friable, sorry. BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (21) Page 70 - Page iUUIAKU A- LJiMEN, PHJD. March 18,1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL [1] A: I don't know exactly. I'm not an expen [2] on joint compounds. Pi MR. JOHNSON: Okay.Thank you, sir. 4] CROSS-EXAMINATION si BY MR. ELLISTON: ;si Q: Dr. Lemen, as you know, my name is Gary 71 Elliston and I'm here on behalf of several (si companies. 31 Would you agree, sir, that the U.S. 0] Public Health Service has been in existence since ii 1798? 2] A: Yes, sir. 3] Q: The U.S. Public Health Service recently 41 celebrated their 200th anniversary, didn't they? si A: Yes, sir. s] Q: How long were you a member of that ?! organization? 3) A: From 19 -- September of 1970 to March 1 31 of 1996. ai Q: The Surgeon General is actually the head 1] of the U.S. Public Health Service, isn't he? '1 A: Yes. il Q: He or she? il A: He or she. i] Q: The United States Public Health Service* 3 4 Page 74 i Page 76 m Act to a 1952 mention. I could provide that to [2] you. I don't have it with me. , pi Q: The first time the U.S. Government W created or issued or published any type of warning [si to be used in the workplace or on products [6j containing asbestos was in 1972. when OSHA [7] regulations were created; correct? [8] MR. HAINES: Object to form. (91 THE WITNESS: Are you referring to [ini the -- including in the 1972 criteria nil document that NIOSH put out to OSHA. or are [is] you saying just for the OSHA standard? But [13] '72 is correct, in either case. [u] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Okay. sir.You [is] actually participated on the committee that issued [16] the 1972 criteria document for NIOSH. didn't you? (17] A: My role in that criteria document was not (is) a decision-making role but one of putting together [i9i the tables that appeared in the appendix of the [20] criteria document showing the technical feasibility [21] of achieving the recommendation. But I did not (22! have any role in making the decision what the [23i standard was at that time. [24] Q: Were you a member of the committee? [25i A: I don't know that you'd call it -- I Page 7;> Page 77 1 has studied asbestos and its potential health [i] wasn't a member of a committee. 1 was a worker 21 hazards since the 1930s. hasn't it? pi that was told to put together and take all the il A: That's correct. Pi information the Public Health Service had collected ] Q: The U.S. Public Health Service bears [4] up to that point in time and put it in the tables 5] responsibility for the health of a variety of [5] that appeared in the back of that book. So if you 31 people and organizations, including the Indian [6! call that a part of a committee. I guess yes, the 71 reservations. Merchant Marines, that type of thing, 7i answer is yes. But I wasn't -- it wasn't my 3] don't they? [8] decision at that time as to what the standard would 31 A: They don't do the Merchant Marine (9i be. o] anymore. That -- under President Reagan they took [ioi Q: Was Dr. Joseph Wagner one of the members j that responsibility away from us. But they do the [11] of the group that had decision-making authority? 21 federal prisons still and Indian reservations. [12] A: I think his name's in the criteria 31 Q: The U.S. Public Health Service has 1 [i3i document as being there. I don't think my name 4] addressed the potential hazards of asbestos and how [14] appears in the criteria document as being on any si to control those hazards since at least the 1930s, i [is] committee. But I did work for Dr. Joseph Wagner at 51 haven't they? :[i6) that time. n A: Yes, sir. - [i7] Q: Was Dr. Joseph Wagner one of the members 3] Q: The United States Government first issued i [is] who had decision-making authority for that 1972 3j any type of regulation and enforceable regulation [19] NIOSH criteria document? 31 concerning the exposure levels to asbestos in 1960, [20] A: I believe he was. l didn't they? -7 pi] Q: Now, when NIOSH issues their criteria ; A: I think I now have information under the [22] documents and makes recommendations to OSHA, those l Walsh-Healey that they actually -- the first was [23] recommendations are based upon the best available i 1952. But it's in that same time period. I [24] science and what NIOSH believes is best for the recently found some reference in the Walsh-Healey [25] workers from a health perspective, isn't it? ige 74 - Page 77 (22) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, P March 18, ' [1] A: That's correct. [2] Q: In that 1972 criteria document there was p] a permissible exposure level recommended for [4] asbestos exposure in the workplace, wasn't there? pi A: Yes, sir. [6] Q: Would you agree, sir, that in 1972, that Pi OSHA, NIOSH, the U.S. Public Health Service, they [si were all aware of the potential hazards of asbestos pi and how those hazards should be dealt with in the .101 workplace? rill A: All of the hazards of asbestos? I don't [i2l think in 1972 they were aware of everything they ;i31 know today about asbestos, but I'm not sure I [u] understand your question. I need a little [is] clarification on it. (i6i Q: In your opinion, sir. were NIOSH. OSHA [i7] and the U.S. Public Health Service aware of all the [is] scientific data and medical research concerning [19] asbestos hazards and how those hazards should be [20] controlled in the workplace as of 1972? [21] A: I believe -- [22] MR. HAINES: Object to form. [23] THE WITNESS: I believe they would [24] have known or should have known. [25] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) In 1972, this warning* 1 11 Pago 78 I | [i] A: At that point in my career, yes, sir. Pa? i pi Q: Those were recommendations of exposure i [3] levels that you yourself would have been willing to [4i work in or to have had your family work in. isn't : [5] that true? i [6] A: At that time, yes. [7] Q: Would you agree, sir, that that group. [8] that decision-making group from the 1972 criteria [9] document, while addressing asbestosis, were also [ioi concerned about the potential cancer risk of [11] workers in the workplace? [12] A: Yes. sir. [13] Q: Has anyone made you aware, sir, of [14] Dr. Egleman's sworn testimony that the members of [is] that committee weren't concerned or did not care [i6] whether workers developed cancer? [it] MR. HAINES: Object to the form. [is] THE WITNESS: I can't tell you what [19] Dr. Egleman -- you know, what was in his [20] mind, but I know what my opinion is. [21] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) And your opinion is [22] that those individuals were very concerned about [23] the health and safety of workers in the workplace. [24] isn't it? [25] A: That they were concerned, yes. Page 79 Pag [1] that was required by OSHA was required not only to [i] Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [2] be put on thermal insulation products but it was Pi or depositions with any corporate representatives [3] also required to be posted in the workplace [3] from Armstrong World Industries or Armstrong Cork [4] wherever asbestos might be used, wasn't it? [4] Company? [5] A: I believe that's correct. [5] A: I don't recall having done that. [6i Q: In fact, the OSHA regulations are [6] Q: Have you reviewed any documents or any [7] directed toward the employer of the individual m depositions of any corporate representatives of the [8] worker, aren't they? 1 [a] Ruberoid Company or GAF? [9] A: Yes, sir. [9] A: I don't recall doing that, no, sir. [10] Q: Are you also aware, sir, that under the 1 tioi Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [11] laws of the state ofTexas since 1958, that [ii] or depositions of corporate representatives of the [12] exposure levels to asbestos were required to be [121 Dana Corporation? [13] kept below five million panicles per cubic foot of [i3] A: I don't believe so. [14] air? ; [i4] Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [is] A: I have heard that. I have not seen that [is] ordepositions of corporate representatives of [16] law, to the best of my knowledge. [i6] Flexitallic? [17] Q: Have you been provided any industrial I [i7] A: I don't believe so. [is] hygiene information or dust sampling results that i[is] Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [19] would indicate that Mr. Raper was ever exposed to I [is] or depositions of corporate representatives of [20] levels of asbestos above the TLV or PEL in pc] Turner and Newell? [21] existence at the time of that exposure? ;[2i] A: I don't believe so. [22] A: No. . [22] Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [23] Q: Did you agree with the recommendations [23] or depositions of corporate representatives of the [24] that were made in the 1972 criteria documents by [24] CertainTeed Company? [25] NIOSH? [25] A: I don't believe so. BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (23) Page 78 - Pagt Kit^iAKO a. uciVLtrs, F1U. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL I------------- ---------------------------------- ------------- ---- ----------------- Pagu 82 | Pago 84 [i] Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [i] Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any [Z] or depositions of corporate representatives of the pi Riley Stoker Company? (4i A: I don't believe so. i [2] studies on fiber release of any product ; pi manufactured byT&N? ! [4] A: Not to my knowledge. Pi Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [5] Q: ByT&N I mean Turner & Newell. [6] or depositions of corporate representatives of 3M? [6] A: Right. [7] A: I don't believe so. I -- with the last [7] Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any pi question, 3M as relates to asbestos? [si studies on the fiber release manufactured by pi Q: Yes, sir. [ioi A: No. [9]Flexitallic? [ioi A: Not to my knowledge. [ii] Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [11] Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any [i21 or depositions of corporate representatives of [13] National Gypsum? [12] studies on the fiber release of any product [13] manufactured by Dana? [14] A: Corporate documents? I've been in a [14] A: Not to my knowledge. [is] trial that dealt with National Gypsum, but I don't [is] Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any [16] recall reviewing any of their corporate documents. [16] studies on the fiber release of any product [17] Q: Have you reviewed any depositions of any [17] manufactured by National Gypsum or U.S. Gypsum? [is] employee of National Gypsum, to your knowledge? [18] A: Not to my knowledge. [i9] A: I don't believe so. [19] Q: Have you ever visited a facility that :2oi Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents 21] or depositions of corporate representatives of the 22] U.S. Gypsum Company? 23] A: I don't believe so. [20] manufactured joint compound or wallboard? [21] A: I believe I have. But ask me which [22] facility -- it would have been in the early 70s -- [23] I can t tell you. 24] Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any [24] Q: Have you ever visited or inspected a 25] studies on the fiber release of any products* [i] * * 4 * 6 * * * * [i[2i]5]* f*a*c*ili*ty17of the National Gypsum Company?1 Page 83 Page 85 [i] manufactured by Armstrong World Industries or [1] A: I don't believe so. unless they were 12] Armstrong Cork Company? [2] owned previously by another organization. pi A: I don't believe so. [3] Q: Have you ever visited or inspected a [4] Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any [4] facility owned by the U.S. Gypsum Company? Pi studies on the fiber release of any product [5] A: Again, my answer would be the same unless [6] manufactured by the Ruberoid or GAF companies? [6] they were owned by a different name. I don't PI A: I don't believe so. [7] recall going into any. [a] MR. HAINES: Gary, you can shorten it [8] Q: Have you ever visited or inspected a [9! to one question and I won't object to being [9] facility operated by the Armstrong World Industries [ioi compound, if you want to. [ioi Company or Armstrong Cork Company? [ii] MR. ELL1STON: I appreciate that, but i[ii] A: I don't believe so. unless they were [i2l at the time I need to examine him in the [i2]owned by another company prior to that. [i3l trial I expect all these companies will not M3] Q: I think that company has gone by [u] be sitting there.Therefore, I'd rather i [i4] Armstrong Cork Company or Armstrong World is] separate them. [is] Industries, Inc. since the late 1800s. .16] MR. HAINES: That's probably true. [i6] A: I don't recall ever going in there. [17] (Recess taken.) i[i7] Q: Have you ever inspected or visited a is] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Sir, have you [i8i facility owned or operated by Ruberoid or GAF? ;i9l conducted or reviewed any studies on the fiber [i9] A: Not to my knowledge, 2oi release of any product manufactured by CertainTeed? i [20] Q: Have you ever been to any facility owned 2i] A: Not to my knowledge. pi] or operated by Flexitallic? 221 Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any i [22] A: Until today I never heard of Flexitallic. 23] studies on the fiber release of any product [23] Q: That might eliminate a few additional mi manufactured by Riley Stoker? j [24] questions. . -5] A: Not to my knowledge. [25] Have you reviewed -- I'm sorry. Have you age 82 - Page 85 (24) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, PI March 18, V [i] visited or inspected a facility owned by PI CertainTeed? pi A: I may have. I can't remember which one. [4] Q: Have you visited or inspected any pi facility owned or operated by Riley Stoker? [6] A: No, not to my knowledge. [7] Q: Would you agree, sir, that you cannot [8i testify to the state of mind, motivation or thought pi processes of any representative or employee of [ioi Armstrong World Industries or Armstrong Cork ini Company? [i21 A: Yes. [13] Q: In fact, sir, regardless which company I [14] put in the question, you can't testify to the state [isi of mind, motivation or thought processes of any [i6] company representative or employee, can you? [in A: Correct. [is] Q: Can you identify any manufacturer who was [i9i manufacturing ceiling tile that contained asbestos [20] after 1985? [21] A: No, sir. [22] Q: Can you identify any company that was [23] manufacturing joint compound that contained [24] asbestos after 1985? [25] A: No, sir. Page 86 : ! [ii of 1972 that indicated there was asbestos being Pag* i [2] used in that workplace? pi A: Other than what might be contained in the W material that I gave. I'm not aware of any. [5] Q: And you re not aware of any from your [6] review of that material, are you? [7] A: No. [8] Q: Would you also agree, sir. that under the Pi OSHA regulations, that the employer was required to [ioi have the employee have a physical examination each in] year if they were being exposed to asbestos? [121 A: I'd have to go back to the regulation. [i3i And I think that's correct, but I don't know the -- [i4j Q: You would agree that under OSHA. any [is] employee being exposed to asbestos was required to [16] be medically monitored after 1972 by their [17] employer, wouldn't you? [18] A: Yes. sir. [19] Q: You've not been given any information [20] that Mr. Raper was medically monitored or required [21] to have a physical examination each year after [22] 1972, have you? [23] A: No. [24] - Q: In fact. sir. under OSHA, that if an [25] employee was being exposed to asbestos above the1 11 [1] Q: You brought some literature today [2] concerning friction products. Have you ever pi published or gathered literature on fiber release [4] from floor tiles or flooring material? [5] A: Not to my knowledge. [6] Q: Have you ever published or gathered pi literature on fiber release from ceiling tiles? [si A: I don't believe so. [9] Q: Have you ever published or gathered any [ioi literature on fiber release from gaskets? [in A: I don't believe so. [12] Q: Have you ever published or gathered [13] literature on fiber release from adhesives, [u] sealants or coatings? [is] A: I don't believe so. [16] Q: Would you agree, sir, that gaskets, [17] flooring materials, adhesives, sealants and (isi coatings would all be classified as nonfriabie [19] products under the EPA? [20] A: Again, in answer to the earlier question, [21] I don't know the exact definition, but I believe [22] that that would be the case. [23] Q: Have you been provided any information [24] that indicates that Mr. Raper ever encountered any [25] warning signs in any of his workplaces after June Page 87 Page [1] permissible exposure levels and engineering [2] controls were not feasible, they were required to [3] be given respiratory protection, weren't they? [4] A: Correct. [5] Q: And based on all you saw. Mr. Raper was [6] never required by his employer to wear respiratory m protection, was he? [8] A: I did not see that. [9] Q: Are you aware, sir, of any [10] epidemiological study that has looked at the [11] mortality or morbidity of flooring applicators or [12] flooring mechanics? ; [i3] A: No. i [i4] Q: Are you aware of any epidemiological \ [is] study that has looked at the morbidity or mortality j [i6] of workers who are using ceiling tiles or applying [i7] sealant material? I [is] A: There have been studies that may have [i9] included those, but nothing specific to that i [20] particular job. :pi] Q: Would you agree, sir, that the first [22] epidemiological study that identified a risk of [23] asbestos-related disease in workers working with or [24] around joint compound was the study in the mid [25] 1970s, specifically 1975, by Dr. Selikoff's group? BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (25) Page 86 - Page K1U1AKU A- LJUVUiN, PiUL>. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL [i] A: I believe that's true, but I -- PI Q: Would you also agree, sir, that the first p] study that indicated that persons in the household [4] of asbestos workers might be at risk of [5] asbestos-related disease was a study, the [6] Anderson-Lillis study of 1976? Pi MR. HAINES: Object to form. !8] THE WITNESS: I believe that was the Pi first study. [io] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Have you reviewed or [ii] conducted any studies on fiber release from [12] automotive gaskets, meaning gaskets used in [13] automotive combustion engines? [u] A: I don't believe so. [is] Q: As I understand it, sir, you've not had [16] any communication with anyone concerning [17] Mr. Raper's case other than Plaintiff's attorney; lie] is that correct? [i9] A: That's correct. po] Q: In other words, you have not had any pi] communication with any of the co-workers, his [22] physicians or the families themselves; have you? P3] A: You mean directly talk to them? [24] Q: Yes. PS] A: No, sir. Page 90 Page 92 [1] clear that up for both of us. [2] After the 1972 criteria document, each PI additional criteria documents, when there were [4] recommended levels of exposure given to OSHA by Pi NIOSH, those levels were to protect against all 16] asbestos-related diseases, including the cancers, [7] weren't they? [8] A: If you recall the 1976 criteria document [9] that I and John Dement wrote for NIOSH, it said [10] that the concentration we recommended, that being [11] the 0.1. which is the current OSHA standard, was [12] based upon technological feasibility and phase [13] contrast microscopy to reduce the risk, but we [14] could not guarantee it would eliminate the risk of [is] cancer. [16] So the level was not based upon the [17] health effect, it was based upon a technological [ia] feasibility of measuring at that concentration. [19] MR. ELLISTON: Objection, nonresponsive. [20] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Isn't it true, sir. [21] that when NIOSH made recommendations to OSHA [22] concerning permissible exposure levels, those [23] recommendations were made for all types of -- all [24] types of asbestos-related disease, including the [25] cancers?I Page 91 Page 93 [1] Q: Based on the information you've been [1] MR. HAINES: Object to form. [2] given, are you aware, sir, whether Mr. Raper was [2] THE WITNESS: Well. yes. they were. [3] ever diagnosed with any non-malignant, PI with that provision that I put on. [4] asbestos-related disease such as asbestosis or [4] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Well, you would agree, [5] asbestos-related pleural plaques prior to receiving [5] sir, that NIOSH didn't recommend different levels [6] his cancer diagnosis? [6] to protect against asbestosis and then a different p] A: I don't know of any. [7] level to protect against cancers? [a] Q: Sir, would you agree that it has been Pi A: If that's your question, that's correct, PI your recommendation for the last quarter century i [9] Q: Would you also agree that in the 1940s [io] that in-place asbestos products that are in good | [io] and 1950s and 1960s, no doctor or scientist with [til condition that have not been damaged should be left [i i] U.S. Public Health Service ever recommended that [i2] alone and left in place? i [i2] asbestos not be used onboard government ships and ;i3] A: That has been my opinion. But monitored. [i3]aircraft because of any potential hazard? [14] Q: When NIOSH was making recommendations to I [i4] A: I don't know the answer to that. I don't [is] OSHA about the permissible exposure levels, those [[is] know if anybody did or did not, but I don't know of ;i6] were levels that were being recommended for all [is] anybody doing it. [17] types of asbestos-related diseases, including the j[i7] Q: You've never seen any evidence that [18] cancers, weren't they? [iai anybody with U.S. Public Health Service ever spoke [19] A: I think the 1992 really didn't address | [is] up and said, don't use asbestos onboard Naval ships [so] the cancer issue to any extent. But all the rest | [20] or military aircraft, have you? 21] of them, after that point in time, were, yes, sir. [2i] A: I don't know of any.The answer is no. 22] MR. HAINES: You said '92. i [22] Q: Would you likewise agree, sir, that you 23] THE WITNESS: I mean '72. I'm sorry. [23] cannot cite any textbook that was published in the '24] Not '92, '72. [24] 30's, '40s, '50s or even the '60s that advocated 25] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) I'll see if I can [25] banning asbestos? Page 90 - Page 93 (26) Min-lJ-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, P March 18, : Page 94 j Pac [il A: Well, I think Dr. Hueper's textbook, ! [1] or recommendation that asbestos be banned from use [21 1942, certainly talked about the risk, but I don't Pi think he ever said anything about banning the use w of asbestos. [S] Q: Therefore, you would agree, sir, you Pi could not identify any textbook that advocated ! [21 in industry in the 1970s? i PI A: I think they recommended substitution [4! when possible, but never an outright statement of [51 banned. [6] Q: It has been the opinion and the [7] banning asbestos in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s or [8] 1960s, can you? Pi A: Not that I recall. [io] Q: Can you identify any textbook that PI recommendation of the U.S. Public Health Service 181 from the 1930s right up through the 1970s that you [91 should control the dust levels, and by controlling [10] the dust levels, control disease, when dealing with ini advocated banning asbestos in the 1970s? (i21 A: Well, I think that -- by your definition [11] asbestos, hasn't it? [12] A: Reduce the risk of disease, yes. sir. [13] of textbook, would you include the annals of the [13] Q: Sir, since you retired from NIOSH. would [u] New York Academy of Sciences in 1965 as a textbook? [14] you estimate that you have testified, either in [i5i Because you kind of skipped over the '60s. [161 Q: Well, let me go back to this for a [15] deposition or trial, approximately 50 times? [16] A: That's probably correct. [i7] second. Go back to your question for a second. [iai I am specifically dealing with textbooks. [17] Q: Would you agree, sir, that at this point [18] in time approximately 60 to 75 percent of your [19] and we'll talk about the annals in just a moment. [19] income comes from litigation? [20] A: Okay. [20] A: I would guess that would be correct. [21] Q: Which -- [22] A: A textbook, by your definition, is a [23] textbook used for training people? [24] Q: Correct. [21] Q: When you went through the material for [22] this case, did you make any notes yourself? [23] A: No, sir. [24] Q: Would you agree, sir, that an individual [25] A: Okay.* 11 [25] just looking at dust can't tell whether that dust Page 95 Pag [il Q: Are you aware of any textbook that [i] contains asbestos or not? [2] advocated banning asbestos in the 1970s? pi A: I agree with you. PI A: Not with -- not right now, no. I can't Pi Q: You have to look at the dust or the [4] tell you anything. [4] particles under a microscope to determine whether [5] Q: Did Mount Sinai, in their -- did Mount [5] they're asbestos or not, don't you? [6] Sinai or the New York Academy, did they advocate [6] A: That's correct. [7] banning asbestos in the 1960s or 1970s? m Q: Would you also agree, sir, that the first [8] A: Well, in the discussion section, I think [8] large-scale epidemiological study about asbestos [9] it was Mr. Roach representing industry, said that Pi was done by Dr. Merewether in 1930 over in England [10] the only safe level that would protect all workers : [iai on textile workers? [11] was zero, which I would say would be essentially tn] A: I certainly think that's the biggest of [12] the recommendation, not to use it, or ban it. So I [i2l the first studies done, yes, sir. [i3l don't think he used the word ban, but he said that [i3] Q: And, again. Dr. Merewether was dealing [14] was the only safe concentration. [H] with textile workers who were working with raw [is] Q: Did Dr. Seiikoff himself ever publish the [is] asbestos in poorly-ventilated plants rather than in [16] opinion that asbestos should not be used in ; [i6] end-product users, wasn't he? [17] industry in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s? [i7] A: That's correct. [is] A: I don't know that he did, no, sir. i [ia] Q: And, of course, what Dr. Merewether [19] Q: Did any member of the U.S. Public Health ! [i9] recommended was that you suppress the dust levels [20] Service publish the opinion in the 1950s, 1960s or i[20] and control the disease, wasn't it? [2ii 1970s that asbestos should not be used in industry? ! [21] A: Yes, sir. [22] A: Other than the statement in the criteria [22] Q: And at that study Dr. Merewether did not [23] document that I alluded to before that you said was : [23] identify any mesotheliomas, did he? [24] nonresponsive, I don't think so. [24] A: Not to my knowledge. [25] Q: Did NIOSH come out and issue the opinion [25] Q: In fact. Dr. Merewether did not report BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (27) Page 94 - Page RICHARD A- OUVUtN, PtuD. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, el aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Pago 98 | Page 100 [il any cancers in that study, did he? j [i] further and recommended a tentative threshold limit H A: That's correct. [21 value, didn't he? Pi Q: Sir, I've heard you mention Dr. Hoffman Pi A: It wasn't called a threshold limit value Hi or Mr. Hofman's report before, and I want to just Hi at that time, it was just a guidance limit. I think Pi ask you a few questions about that. [5]he called it. [6j The Hoffman report of 1918, that was a [6i Q: What Dr. Dreessen said in his 1938 study [7] governmental document, wasn't it? [7] was that if you kept the dust levels below five [8] A: That was from the -- I believe the Bureau [8] million particles per cubic foot, that you would [9] of Labor Statistics, by the Department of Labor. Pi expect almost the total disappearance of disease. [ioi Q: And that document referred to asbestos [10] didn't he? [ii] workers but did not refer to end-product users, did [11] A: The disease asbestosis, yes. sir. He did (121 it? [12] report some cases below that concentration, but [i3j A: I don't believe it did. [13] that's essentially what his conclusion was. [u) Q: So that document would take [H] Q: And. again, this Dr. Dreessen s study was [is] U.S. Government's knowledge about asbestos at least [is] reported on textile workers and it was reported in ;i6) back to 1918, wouldn't it? [i6] a U.S. Government publication under the seal of the ;i7] A: I believe so. At least the Department of [in U.S. Surgeon General, wasn't it? [is] Labor, that pan of the government. [is] A: Well. I don't know if it was under the i9] Q: Now, if we go to 1935, we have [19] seal. I've never heard it put that way. But it Ml Dr. Lanza's study, which was the first large-scale [20] was a U.S. Government publication of the Public 21] epidemiological study of the United States, wasn t [21] Health Service. 22] it? [22] Q: And the Surgeon General was in charge and 23] A: The one when he was with Metropolitan? [23] the head of the U.S. Public Health Services: is 24] Q:1935. [24] that correct? 25i A: Yes, I think so. [25] A: Yes, that's correct.I Page 99 Page 101 [1] Q: Is that correct? [1] Q: Then in 1946 we have the first [2] A: I said yes. [2] large-scale epidemiological study concerning pipe Pi Q: Okay. P] covers or people working with thermal insulation [4] A: I think so. [4] products in the United States, don't we? [5] Q: Dr. Lanza's 1935 study in the U.S., [5] A: Are you referring to theFleischer study? [8] again, was dealing with textile workers who were, [6] Q: Yes. sir. [7] for all practical purposes, working with pure [7] A: Yes, sir. [8] asbestos dust in factories, wasn't it? [8] Q: And the Fleischer-Drinker study, again, [91 A: That's correct. PI was a study conducted by the U.S. Navy and the [10] Q: And Dr. Lanza, again, recommended that [io]U.S. Maritime Commission, wasn't it? [11] you suppress the dust and control disease? ,[iij A: I believe that's correct. :i2] A: I believe that's correct. I [i2] Q: In the Fleischer-Drinker study, did they 131 Q: And then, in 1938, U.S. Public Health [i3] report any mesotheliomas? [i4] Service, with Dr. Dreessen, does a study of l [i4] A: No, sir. is] asbestos textile workers? i [is] Q: Did-the Fleischer-Drinker study report is] A: That's when the study was reported. [16] any lung cancers or malignancies of any type that ;i7i Q: And Dr. Dreessen did not report any [17] they associated with asbestos? [is] mesotheliomas, did he? I [is] A: I don't believe so. [i9] A: No, sir. - I [i9l Q: In your opinion, sir, is cigarette smoke 20) Q: Dr. Lanza did not report any ; [20] fibrogenic? 21] mesotheliomas? ' i [21] A: Fibrogenic? 22] A: Correct. [[22] Q: Yes, sir. 23] Q: And Dr. Dreessen went beyond just the I [231 A: It can cause -- I'm not sure that I can 24] standard recommendation that you should suppress [24] answer that question, whether it's fibrogenic or 25] the dust and control disease, he went a step '[25] not. *age 98 - Page 101 (28) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et al. v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, P March 18, 3 Page 102 I Page [1] Q: Let me rephrase the question for you. j [i] association with lung cancer, there has been a [2] Would you agree, sir. that cigarette smoke causes a | [21 debate whether interstitial fibrosis or asbestosis Pi fibrotic reaction in the lungs? | [3] is necessary before there is an increased risk of [4] A: It can. [4] lung cancer in an asbestos-exposed individual? Pi Q: Would you agree, sir, that interstitial [5] A: That is correct. [6i fibrosis progresses more rapidly in a smoker than a [6] Q: Would you also agree, sir. that if we [7] nonsmoker? m followed Dr. Selikoff's epidemiological research [si MR. HAINES: Object to form, [8] back to 1968. when he first divided his workers pi THE WITNESS: I believe that would be [9] between smokers and nonsmokers, that all the way up [io] true. [10] until 1979 Dr. Selikoff basically reported that [ill Q: (By Mr. Elliston) In fact, the [11] nonsmoking asbestos workers did not have an [121 epidemiological studies by Dr. Selikoff, published [12] increased risk of lung cancer above the general [i3] in the 1960s and 1970s, indicate that asbestosis [13] population? [u] tends to progress more rapidly and become more [i4j A: Give me the dates again. I'm not -- [is] severe in smokers than nonsmokers, doesn't it? [is] Q: Okay. [16] A: I believe that's correct. [16] A: You're saying '79. [17] Q: Would you also agree, sir, that the risk [17] Q: I apologize. I'm getting too [18] of Gl-tract cancer in asbestos workers has not been [18] shorthanded, trying to shorthand this. [19] shown to be any greater than the general population [19] Would you agree, sir. that up until 19~9. [20] if they are non-smokers? [20] throughout all of Dr. Selikoff's publications on [21] A: I can't answer that question. [211 his research. Dr. Selikoff indicated that a [22] Q: You would agree, sir, that at least for [22] nonsmoking asbestos worker did not have an [23] laryngeal cancers, there has been no showing of an [23] increased risk of lung cancer above the general [24] excess risk of laryngeal cancer among asbestos [24] population? [25] workers unless they are a smoker, wouldn't you?1 11 [25] A: Could you just tell me what publication Page 103 Page [1] A: I believe that's correct. [1] in 79 you're referring to? Because I'm having -- [2] Q: Would you also agree, sir. that the [2] that Selikoff stated that in? I'm trying to figure [3] average latency period for mesothelioma is 35 pi out when -- [4] years? [4] MR. HAINES: He's asking you about [5] A: Somewhere in that neighborhood. [5] all the publications prior to '79. Whether [6] Q: Would you also agree, sir, that the [6] he said that or not -- m average latency period for lung cancer, if it is m Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Let me approach it [8] related to asbestos, is in the range of 20 to 25 [8] this way, Dr. Lemen.You would agree that in 1964 [9] years? [9] and '65 Dr. Selikoff did not divide those [10] A: I would think that would be correct. In [io] insulation workers between smokers and nonsmokers, [11] both of those, you're saying, average? [ii) did he? [12] Q: Yes, sir, I am. [12] A: Well, he wrote a paper -- before '65? [13] A: Okay. I agree with you. [13] Q: Yes. Stay with me for just a second. [14] Q: What is your opinion, sir, for the i[i4] A: Correct. [is] average latency period for asbestosis? [is] Q: I know you're trying to read, and I'm [16] A: That depends upon the dosage. [16] going to try to break it out for us so we can get [17] Q: Would you agree, sir, that the more [17] there. [is] severe the dose or the exposure, the more rapid or [is] Would you agree, sir, that in his -- at [19] shorter the latency period? [19] the symposium and in the annals that were published [20] A: The higher the exposure or the [20] after the symposium, that Dr. Selikoff did not [21] concentration to the individual, the shorter the [21] distinguish between smokers and nonsmokers in his [22] latency period. [22] cohort of insulators? [23] Q: Would you agree, sir, that throughout the i [23] A: I believe that's correct. [24] research and development of knowledge about [24] Q: In 1968 Dr. Selikoff did divide the [25] asbestos and its potential relationship or [25] workers between smokers and nonsmokers and BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (29) Page 102 - Page : KICJtiAKU A- UbiVLtiN, PliJX March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Page 06 | Page 108 [i] published the opinion that the nonsmokers did not [i] limits. And there possibly are safe levels, but I (21 have an excess risk of lung cancer above the pi can't quantify them for you. Pi general population? [3] Q: Fair enough. Let me rephrase my question [4] A: I believe that was his finding. [4j for you. Pi Q: In 1972 he went to France, to an IARC [5] Would you agree, sir, that medical [6i meeting, and again reported that nonsmokers [6] science today cannot identify a safe level for any [7] basically did not have an increased risk of lung [7] carcinogen? Pi cancer over the general population, even though [8] A: For all individuals I believe that's Pl they had been exposed to asbestos, didn't he? [9] true. Because of the -- there are many factors [io] A: I believe that -- you're talking about [10] that go into an individual's susceptibility, et (ill his publication and the biological effects of -- [11] cetera, so I believe I would have to answer your (i2l yes, sir. [12] question yes. ;i3l Q: Then in 1976 he again presented his data [13] Q: In using that criteria, there is no known !i4i at the New York Academy of Science meeting and [u] safe level to automobile exhaust that we encounter iis] again indicated that nonsmoking asbestos workers [is] every day. is there? [16] did not have an increased risk of lung cancer above [16] A: Not for all individuals, that's correct. [17] the general population, didn't he? [17] Q: You would also agree, sir. there's no [is] A: I'd have to go back to his paper, but [is] safe level to -- of exposure to cigarette smoke. [i9l that's generally my recollection. [19] whether direct or indirect, isn't that true? [20] Q: In any event, in 1979 Dr. Selikoff did [20] A: Yes. pi] publish a paper indicating that, in his opinion, [21] Q; Sir. isn't it true that whether dust is ;22] that there was an increased risk of lung cancer [22| actually visible to the individual depends on a lot [23] among nonsmoking asbestos workers that could be [23] of things, including the light in the area, how ;24] somewhere between 1 and 9 and, therefore, they [24] large the particles are and what type of particles [25] selected 5 and published that as the increased risk [25] they are, things of that nature?l Page 107 Page 109 [i] fora nonsmoking asbestos worker; isn't that true? [i] A: I would agree with that. Pi A: What was the name of that paper? Can you p] Q: Would you also agree, sir, that the pi tell me which one? [3] exposure that an individual receives from dust will [4] Q: I can't give you the title of the paper, [4] depend a lot on the wind or the ventilation in that Pi but it's my recollection, sir, that it was [5] area? Pi published in the annals that were published that [6] A: Those all have effects, yes, sir. [7] year, the 1979 annals. I'd have to go back and m Q: And would you agree, sir, as to whether [8] look. But the figure of 5 is certainly what he [8] someone truly has an exposure above the threshold [9] reported. But I'm not sure of the exact era that pi level or permissible exposure level will depend not [10] that was reported. [10] just on how much dust they see but, in addition to [11] Would you agree, sir, that in the paper [11] how long they're in the area, how close they are to [12] where they reported the five times increased risk [12] the operation, ventilation, things of that nature? [13] for nonsmoking asbestos workers, they also [i3i A; I would agree. [14] indicated that the risk, in actuality, could be I [i4] Q: Sir, have you published any opinions or ;is) anywhere between 1 and 9 because there were so few i [is] criticisms of the filter, the fit, the marketing, i6] nonsmoking asbestos workers who had developed lung l [i6] the design or the manufacture of any type of ;i7] cancer? . i [i 7] respiratory protective device or mask? ;is] A: I think that's true. j [is] A; I have not personally published. I have fi9] Q; In your opinion, sir, is there any safe i [i9] worked on respirator test programs and so forth in 20] level or is there any known safe level to any j [20] NIOSH recommendations, but they are not my 21] carcinogen? , [2i] publications, they're NIOSH publications, 22] A: To any carcinogen? j [22] Q: Have you published any opinions or 23] Q: Yes, sir. ' [23] criticisms of any specific brand or type of 24] A; Well, we certainly put recommendations in [24] respirator or mask yourself? 25] our criteria documents, RELs, recommended exposure [25] A; Again, not personally, no, sir. Page 106 - Page 109 (30) Min-U Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, ei aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, P: March 18,1 Page 110 j Page til Q: Do you claim to be an expen in the [i] Q: I'm sorry. Would you agree, sir, that [2] manufacture, design or marketing of respiratory P] the U.S. Surgeon General reports that tobacco smoke Pi protective devices? P] contains 43 different carcinogens? (4) A: No, sir. [4] A: Somewhere in that neighborhood. I'd have H MR. ELL1STON: Why don't we take a [5] to go back and look at the Surgeon General's [6) quick break, [6] report, which I have a copy of. But it contains m (Recess taken.) [7] multiple carcinogens. And if 43 is the number. [] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Sir, what is your best [8] I'll take your word for it. [9] estimate of vour total income in 1998 from your [9] Q: Would you agree, sir. that the [ioi work testifying and consulting in the asbestos no] U.S. Public Health Service recommended warnings on [ii] litigation? [11] tobacco products in the mid '60s? [i2l A: Just as pertains to asbestos? [12] A: I believe that's correct. [i3i Q: Yes, sir. [13] Q: Have you ever drafted or prepared a [i4] A: I'd have to go to my accountant, but I [u] warning or instruction or label for any type of ;is] think that I -- after expenses and paying taxes [is] product that was actually placed in the stream of ri6] and -- is that -- what are you talking about, gross [16] customers? [i7] or -- [17] A: When I was director of the Division of [is] Q: Yes, sir. Let's -- I don't want to get [is] Standards Development and Technology Transfer. And [19] into all your expenses. What was your gross [19] when I co-wrote the criteria document that John [20] income, vour best estimate, from consulting and [20] Dement and I did in 1976. we had -- well, we didn't [21] testifying in asbestos litigation in 1998? [21] include it there, but I worked on the 1972 [22] A: A little over S100,000. [22] recommendation. And then all the criteria [23] Q: Sir, I noticed in your designation there [23] documents under my supervision that were put out [24] was a mention of smoking. Would you agree that [24] between 1981 and of 1987 that contained warning [25] smoking causes 30 to 33 percent of all cancer in [25] labels, yes, I had a hand in writing those.I Page 111 Page [1] America, cancer deaths in America? [1] Q: Let me divide this up for us. [2] A: I think it's the biggest cause of cancer [2] Have you, as an individual and private Pi deaths in the United States. I don't want to put a [3] citizen, ever drafted or prepared a warning [4] percentage on it because I'm not sure. [4] instruction or label for any type of product that [5] Q: Are you aware, sir, whether the [5] was placed in the stream of customers? [] U.S. Surgeon General has estimated that smoking [6] A: No. [7] causes over 30 percent of all cancer deaths in [7] Q: Even while you were at NIOSH. did NIOSH [8] America? [8] ever recommend any instructions or labels forany [9] A: I agree with that. I'm just not wanting I [9] individual products? [10] to put a finite number. But I certainly think that I [io] A: You mean like, for example, Armstrong [11] smoking is the greatest cause of lung cancer in the [ii] ceiling tile? Would that be an example of a [12] world, probably. i(i2] specific product? [13] Q: Okay. You've answered a little [i3] Q: Yes, sir, it would. [14] differently than I asked. So, in fairness to you, : [i4] A: Ours were generic recommendations, so the [is] I'll divide it up. Would you agree that smoking [is] answer would be no. [16] has been shown to be a cause of 87 percent or more [16] Q: Did NIOSH -- I understand NIOSH [17] of all lung cancer deaths? [17] recommended warnings be placed on certain types of [is] A: I would agree with that. [ib] products; is that correct? [19] Q: Would you agree that smoking has been [19] A: That's correct. [20] shown to be a cause of 30 percent or more of all [20] Q: Did NIOSH go further than that and [21] cancer deaths in America? [21] recommend labeling or instructions for various [22] A: Again, I can't answer that exactly, but I [22] products? [23] think that's somewhere in the neighborhood. I'd [23] A: They gave generic label instructions in [24] have to go back to the Surgeon General's report and i [24] their criteria documents. I don't think we, when I [25] do that. : (25i was at NIOSH, we ever made a specific label for a BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (31) Page 110-Page RICHARD A- LEMEN, Ph.D. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL [i] specific product, if that's what you're asking. [21 MR. ELLISTON: I'll pass the witness, pi Thank you, sir. [4j MS. SIENI: No questions. (51 CROSS-EXAMINATION [6i BY MR. BAHR: [7i Q: Doctor, my name is Kevin Bahr. I [ei represent Kelly Moore, pi Based on your review of the materials [io] furnished to you by the plaintiffs' attorneys in [i ii this case, are you aware of the nature and [i2l circumstances surrounding plaintiffs' alleged [i31 exposure to joint compounds? [i4] A: Other than the material that I wasgiven? [is; Q: Correct. [16] A: No. [17] Q:Can you tell us what your awareness is [is] regarding plaintiff's exposure to joint compounds [191 based on what you have reviewed? [20] A: Just that he was exposed, but I don't [21] know concentrations or anything of that nature. [22] Q: Have you reviewed any materials or [23] documents or depositions of corporate [24] representatives concerning anything related to [25] Kelly Moore? Page 114 Page 116 i [i] first paragraph shows that, yeah, it was a [21 brake manufacturing plant as opposed to end [3i users.That's the 19 -- I [4] THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's consistent [5] with what I remember. I would like to have [6] a copy because -- I'm sure I've got one, [7] but it would be easier if I could -- since [8j I've given you copies. [9] MR. HARTON: And I think that's [io] all -- yeah, yeah. I mean, those are all [ii! the questions I have. I don't know if (12) anyone has anything else. [13] MR. HAINES: I've just got a couple li4) of follow-ups if you all are all done. [15] DIRECT EXAMINATION [is] BY MR. HAINES: [i7] Q: Dr. Lemen. I want to clear up a couple of [is] points, make sure we're clear on. Earlier today we [191 were talking about the criteria document in 1972 [20] and in '76, and you were attempting to explain one [2i! of your answers about technological feasibility and [22] the levels. Please explain to me what happened in [23] 1976 with regard to technological feasibility and [24] the standard that was recommended in that criteria [25] document.I [i] A: Not to my knowledge. PI Q: You personally haven't conducted or Pi reviewed any industrial hygiene studies regarding [4] any fiber release issues concerning products (si manufactured by Kelly Moore? [6i A: No. [7] MR. BAHR: Those are all my [8] questions.Thank you. Pi MR. HAINES: Did you have some [10] questions? [11] MR. HARTON: Well, actually, what [12] I've done, just so you'll know, is I've [13] sent the notebook down to be copied. If I [14] can get the notebook back up, that way I [is] will have a copy, I can just use that at (i6! trial.And that's going to make it a lot [17] easier than me running back through those [is] articles, if that's all right. And that's [i9i what I've done.Therefore, about the only pc] thing I've got is I've asked people to [2il make -- find a copy of the Brachmann [221 article. Remember that? And if you want a [23] copy of this. I'll make it for you. But I (24i think earlier we said -- believed it to be [25] a manufacturing facility. I think the Page 1 15 Page 117 [M A: The standard that was recommended in the [2] 1976 criteria document was based upon the Pi statistical abilities of the NIOSH analytical [4] method for counting fibers in an environment -- in [5] an environment containing asbestos and the ability [6] to statistically have a reliable concentration that [7] you could rely upon.And the lowest concentration [8] at that time that we could determine was 0.1 i pi fibers. And we stated that even at that (loi concentration there may be disease, which we know ;[ii] now from doing risk assessment we project that ; [i2] there is a risk of developing disease at or below j [i3i the concentration. I [i4] Q: In 1972 or in 1976, was it ever thought, I [is] by the NIOSH or by yourself in your capacity j [i6] working for NIOSH, that that level of .1 would | [i7] entirely prevent cancer from arising from asbestos [is] exposure? [i91 MR. ELLISTON: Objection, form, i [20] THE WITNESS: Well, the .1 didn't i PH come into existence until 1976, and it j [22] wasn't after that period of time, that's ; [23] true. :[24] Q: (By Mr. Haines) I'm sorry. It wasn't [25] after what time? Page 114 - Page 117 (32) Min-L Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, Pt March 18,1' Pago 118 [i] A: .1 was first recommended by NIOSH in Pi 1976, and subsequent to that and at that time it [3] was never stated that it would completely reduce m the risk, but it would substantially lower the [5] risk, in our opinion. [6] Q: Right. With regard to some of these m articles that discuss the manufacturing of brake [a] parts, such as this Biachmann article in 1940 which [9] discusses grinders and drillers of brake bands, can [10] you discuss for us why that would be relevant or [11] applicable to end users? What is the significance [12] of an article like this in the context of an end [13] user brake mechanic? [14] MR. ELL1STON: Object, form. [is] THE WITNESS: I believe that it shows [16] that when working with the brake lining, ; [i] A: There may be some, but I'm not aware of ; ra them. i ra MR. ELLISTON: That's all I have. [4] Thank you. [si (Deposition concluded at 11:50 a.m.) [6] . [7] M [9] [10] [11] [121 [13] [14] [15] [17] drilling holes in it or grinding it, that [is] there could be exposure. So that's [16] [17] [19] strictly applicable if somebody were [18] [20] grinding or drilling as an end-product user [19] pi] of the material. [20] [22] MR. HAINES: That's all the questions [21] [23] I have for you.Thank you. [22] [24] MR. HARTON: One. I'm following up [23] [25] on that. [24] Page Page 119 ^ [1] RECROSS-EXAMINATION [2] BY MR. HARTON: PI Q: Do you know, based on your review of the W Raper testimony, if he ever either ground or [5] drilled any brake linings? [6] A: I don't know. [7] MR. HARTON: Okay, thanks. [1] INDEX TO EXAMINATIONS [2] [3] Examinalion Page [4] [5] Cross-Examination by Mr. Harton [6] Cross-Examination by Mr. Falk [a] MR. FALK: I just have one follow-up [9j also. [7] Cross-Examination by Mr. Gustafson [8] Cross-Examination by Mr. Johnson [10] RECROSS-EXAMINATION [9] Cross-Examination by Mr. Elliston [11] BY MR. FALK: [10] Cross-Examination by Mr. Bahr [12] Q: Are you aware of any studies or :(ii] Direct Examination by Mr. Haines [13] industrial hygiene surveys concerning exposure ; [12] Recross-Examination by Mr. Harton [14] levels while working on aircraft brakes? [13] Recross-Examinalion by Mr. Falk [is] A: I haven't seen any. : [14] Recross-Examination by Mr. Elliston [16] Q: Do you know if the brakes on the aircraft [IS] [17] that Mr. Raper worked on even contained asbestos? ![16] [18] A: No, I don't know that. i [17] [19] MR. FALK: Thank you. [20] MR. ELLISTON: One last question. [21] - RECROSS-EXAMINATION [22] BY MR. ELLISTON: ![18] ;[19] ![20] [21] [23] Q: Sir, are you aware of any fiber release [22] [24] studies or testing that has been done related to [25] friction products used on cranes, overhead cranes? [231 [24] [25] 5 50 67 70 74 114 116 119 119 120 Page BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (33) Page 118 - Page I UU1AKL) A. LCMilN, PlU>. larch 18,1999 1) INDEX TO EXHIBITS 21 Defendant's 3] Exhibit *1 Description Page 1 Notice of Taking Deposition 51 2 CV 7 61 3 Medical File on Kenneth Raper 5 8 7) 4 Time Line 15 31 5 Medical Reports and Depositions ot 3] Mr. Raper and Co-Workers 15 31 >1 (Original Exhibits 1 - 3 and 5 and photocopies 21 of Exhibit 4 have been attached to the original franscript. 3] 1] 31 31 7] 3] 3] 31 '1 21 31 lJ 3] KENNETH DALE RAPER, ei aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Page 12:2 j ! 111 I STATE OF GEORGIA: COUNTY OF FULTON: Page 123 j PI I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript ! PI was reported, as stated in the caption, and the [41 questions and answers thereto were reduced to : pi typewriting under mv direction: that the foregoing i PI pages 1-123 represent a true, complete, and correct PI transcript of the evidence given upon said hearing, [8] and I further certify that I am not of kin or [9] counsel to the parties in the case; am not in the [101 employ of counsel for any of said parties; nor am I [HI in anywise interested in the result of said case. [121 Disclosure Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-1 l-28(d):The [131 parry taking this deposition will receive the [14| original and one copy based on our standard and [151 customary per page charges. Copies to other [16] parties will be furnished based on our standard and [17] customary per page charges. Incidental direct [185 expenses of production may be added to either party [19] where applicable. Our customary appearance fee [20) will be charged to the party taking this [21] deposition. [221 This, the 18th day of March. 1999. [23! [24) Diane M. Bachus. RPR. CCR -B-2089 My Commission Expires on the [251 16th Day ofAugust, 2002 age 122 - Page 123 (34) I Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KiiiMMiiM DALE KATtn, a aa. v. OWENSCORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL KiC-llxVKU A. UcjVUuN, P March 18,1 [1] IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 [2] DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS [3] KENNETH DALE RAPER and ) [4] MARGARITE ELLEN RAPER, ) [5] Plaintiffs, ) [6] vs. ) ) CAUSE NO. 98-8060-C [7] OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS ) CORPORATION, e! al,, M ) Defendants. ) PI [10] [11] DEPOSITION OF [12] RICHARD A. LEMEN, Ph.D. [13] [14] March 18. 1999 [15] 9:03 a m. [16] [17] 4000 SunTrust Plaza [18] 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia [19] [20] [21] Diane Bachus, B-2089 [22] [23] BROWN REPORTING, INC. [24] 1740 PEACHTREE STREET. N W ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30309 [25] (404) 876-8979 Page [1] APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL [21 On behalf ot the Plaintitt: [3] PATRICK HAINES, Esq. [4] Baron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 [5] 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas. Texas 75219-4281 [6] [7] On behalf ot the Defendant: Allied Signal, as Successor in Interest to the [8] Bendix Corporation: [9] ERIC K. FALK. Esq. Davies. McFarland & Carroll, P C. [to] The Tenth Floor, One Gateway Center Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-1416 ["I [12] On behalf ot the Defendant Daimler-Chrysler Corporation: [13] OLLIE M. HARTON. Esq. [i4t Hawkins & Parnell 4000 SunTrust Plaza [15] 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta. Georgia 30303-3243 [16] [17] On behalf ot the Defendant Pittsburgh Coming: : [18] ; IVAN A. GUSTAFSON : [19] Blasingame, Burch, Garrard, i Bryant & Ashley, P.C. I (20[ 440' College Avenue North : P.O. Box 832 1(21] Athens, Georgia 30603 [22] [23] [24] I [25] Pt BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (35) Page 1 - Pa KiLTLrVKU A- A-C.iVLC.iN, PfuD. March 18, 1999 m appearances of counsel, cont. [2] On behalt ot the Defendant (31 Kelly Moore: w KEVIN J. BAHR, Esq. Hawkins & Parnell (51 4000 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street. N.E. [6] Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3243 On behalt of the Defendant [8] GEORGIA PACIFIC: PI JONATHAN W. JOHNSON. Esq. Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough. L.L.P. [10] First Union Plaza, Suite 1400 999 Peachtree Street, N.E. [11] Atlanta. Georgia 30309 [12] On behalt of the Detendant NARCO: [13] C. DENNIS BARROW, JR. [14] Vinson & Elkins. L.L.P. 2300 First City Tower. 1001 Fannin [IS] Houston, Texas 77002-6760 [16] On behalf ot the Defendant [17] Pneumo Abex Corporation: ;is] FRANCESCA M. SIENI, Esq. Smith. Abbot, L.L.P. :i9) 100 Maiden Lane New York, New York 10038 201 211 22] .23] 24] 25] 'age 3 - Page 5 (36) KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Paga3 ; pi APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. CONT. ; pi On behait ot the Detendant : pi Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; Asbestos Claims Management Corporation, f/k/a National [4] Gypsum Company; U.S. Gypsum Company; GAF Corporation; Dana Corporation; Quigley . [5) Company, Inc.: Flexitallic. Inc.; the Synkoloid Company: [6] GARY ELLISTON. Esq. m DeHay & Elliston, L.L.P. NationsBank Plaza, Suite 3500 [81 901 Main Street Dallas. Texas 75202 Page 4 [101 ['ll [12] [13] [14) [15] (16) (18) [191 (201 1211 [221 [231 [24] [251 [il (Defendant's Exhibit 1 was marked for [2] identification.) Pi RICHARD A. LEMEN.Ph.D., Hi having been first duly sworn, was examined and Pi testified as follows: [6] CROSS-EXAMINATION m BY MR. HARTON: 1 [si Q: Dr. Lemen, I'm Ollie Harton. I'm going [91 to ask you some questions today. But before we get [io]farther, I want to say a few things. [ill MR. HARTON: This is a deposition i [121 being taken pursuant to agreement of i [i3] counsel. All objections except as to the '[u] form of the question and responsiveness of [is] the answer will be reserved until the time l [16] of trial.This-deposition is being taken [i7] pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil i [is] Procedure and can be used for all purposes l[i9] permitted thereunder. ! [20] Dr. Lemen, I don't know what you want | [2i] to do about reading and signing, but the ;[22] trial starts sometime next week. ![23] MR. HAINES: I guess we'll go ahead [24] and waive signature. [25] MR. HARTON: If that's all right. Page 5 Min-U Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DATE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL KlOlAKU A- EkiVLEN, Pi March 18, 1 Page 6 ] Pa [i] waive signature. If you want to read it, ! [i] information on Mr. Raper? PI it's going to make things difficult. i [2] A: I'll give you everything that I've been (3]Potentially you may testify at trial. But ; [3] provided on Mr. Raper is in this packet right here. w if you want to waive -- [4j And there is -- there are two things on the !5] MR. HAINES: Given the time frame, it H medical. [6] will be better to waive, [6] Q: Okay. If it's all right, collectively m Q: (By Mr. Harton) What I'd like to do, [7] we'll mark this as Exhibit 3. (ai first of all. is show you what is one of the pi A: Yes. Pi amended notices of deposition, which is Exhibit 1. [9] (Defendant's Exhibit 3 was marked for (io) and ask you if you've seen that before, sir. [10] identification.) [ii] A: No. [11] Q: (By Mr. Harton) It's a cover letter to [i2] Q: If we could, let me run through what I [12] you. obviously. So everyone knows, the report by (i3i call the attachments at the back. And I know [13] Dr. Robb -- well, actually, two. one dated [i4] you've brought a number of documents with you. and [14] 11/24/98. another 2/18/98. What I will call the [is] we ll see what they are. [is] work history sheets that Baron & Hudd prepares on a [i6] But you brought, first of all, I think, a [i6] regular basis for their clients. And this is just [i7i CV. You have one. Is this a -- obviously, this [i7i job sites, products information. And Volume -- [is] is a CV of vours. Do you know when this -- oh, [i8i A: The rest are all Mr. Raper s two [19] it's December '98? Is that the right vintage? [19] depositions and co-worker depositions. [20] A: Right. [20] Q: Those are 1 and II of Raper. Co-worker [21] Q: This is newer than the ones I've got. [21] depositions of Mr. Ivie, Washington and Bridges and [22] A: Probably. [22] Lewis. [23] Q: What additions do you have on this that [23] Have you been provided any other [24] weren't on the earlier one? [24] information on Mr. Raper? [25] A: Possibly some publications and -- very [25] A: No. that's it. [1] few additions. It's just that when my computer [2] prints it out, it prints out a new date on it. So Pi it doesn't necessarily mean that it's changed, but [4] I think that I probably added a chairperson of [5] Science & Technology Advisory Committee and the [6] Carpenters Health & Safety Fund, and I think I may [7] have added a couple of publications. [a] I think -- I don't know which version you [9] have. [10] Q: Mine's August. [11] A: But I think probably the last three or [121 four publications. But that's the most current one [13] I have. [14] Q: All right. Can we mark this, take this [is] as an exhibit? [16] A: Yes, you can have that. [17] Q: Might as well mark that while we're at it [is] and we can look through there. [19] A: Is there anybody by phone? [20] Q: No, not that I'm aware of. [21] (Defendant's Exhibit 2 was marked for [22] identification.) [23] Q: (By Mr. Harton) Second, the entire [24] medical file on Kenneth Dale Raper. [25] Have you been provided any medical Page 7 [1] Q: No other medical records? [2] A: No, sir. PI Q: No chest X-rays? [4] A: No. [5] Q: Do you have -- some people do, some [6] people don't. We've requested -- if you have a [7] list of the cases where you've testified in since , [8] 1989, do you have any summary of -- : [9] A: I didn't bring anything, no, sir. : [io] Q: Do you have anything like that that would [11] just simply indicate that either the deposition -- [12] A: I have put together a complete list. ;[i3] Q: How about this way. Last time I know I j[i4] talked -- I think it was in August of last year, I [[isi think. Where have you testified in trial since [16] August of 1998? [17] A: Well, last year, calendar year, I didn't [is] look it up. I've testified five times in trial. [19] And I've given, I think, 16 depositions in the last [20] year. Most of the trials were -- that I testified [21] in were fact witness as well as state-of-the-art, [22] principally dealing -- a lot of them dealing with [23] Pittsburgh Corning. And this year I've testified [24] probably in about six trials since January, or [25] somewhere in that neighborhood, both as a Pat BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (37) Page 6 - Pag muiAKU a. xxivm>, PiuL). March 18,1999 KENNETH DALE KAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL [i] state-of-the-art and fact witness.The latest H trial that I testified in was the paper mill trial PI in Louisiana as a rebuttal witness, not as a -- I w was brought in as rebuttal for that trial. [S] And, also, last week I testified in a [q Pittsburgh Corning trial in Austin, Texas. And do 17] you want me to keep going? la] Q; No. Let me ask you some questions that [9] might help narrow at least my focus. For the years io] '98 and '99, have you testified in a case where you ti] were asked opinions regarding brakes or brake 121 linings? 13] A: The paper mill case. 14] Q: Other than the paper mill case, is that is] the only trial in '98, '99? 16] A: I think that's the only trial that I 17] testified in that dealt with brakes. is] MR. HAINES: Just to be clear, it was 19] not brakes specifically but the Borg-Warner 20] case, which was the clutch facing case. It ?i] was technically not a brake case but pretty 22] close. And that was in early '98. 23] Q: (By Mr. Harton) Okay. Other depositions 24] that you've given in brake lining cases in '98 or 25] '99? Page 10 [i] extra copy of the time line, which is the principal : [2] thing that I rely upon in state-of-the-art. But [3j you can have those copies. [4] MR. HARTON: Let me go off the record [5] for a minute. [6] (Discussion off the record.) m Q: (By Mr. Harton) What I'm going to mark [] as the next exhibit, as opposed to vour large [9] notebook that you bring -- and I understand that [io] should we want a copy of the entire notebook you ini can make that for us? [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: But as the next exhibit or as a portion [14] of it I'm just going to put your time line in. if [is] that's all right. [16] A: And that you can keep. [17] Q: No. 8, any other objects or evidence that [is] you consider -- [19] A: I pulled out of my files specific [20] references dealing with brakes, and that is not [21] included in this notebook. [22] Q: Okay. [23] A: There's a MedLine search in there. [24] there s a NIOSH search and a selected number of [25] articles that I pulled.1 2 * 4 5 [] 7 Page 12 [1] A: I think those pretty much cover it, to [2] the best of my knowledge. a] Q: Did you give both depositions and trial 4] testimony -- ;s] A: Yes. .6] Q: -- in both -- m A: Yes. ;s] Q: -- of the Borg-Warner case and in the [9] Boglusa case? 10] MR. HAINES: I don't think you were 11] deposed in Borg-Warner. 2] THE WITNESS: I don't think I was '3] either, but I spent about six days in this i4] room in the paper mill, as you remember, is] Q: (By Mr. Harton) Luckily, I don't. i6i A: You popped your head in a few times, I i7] think. . iB] Q: Do you have any -- going down the list of i9] things to produce, any charts, exhibits or :o] photographs that you've considered in connection 1] with this case? That would be No. 7. 2] A: Well, usually when I testify I bring 3] along this book that I've used in most every case 4] for state-of-the-art, which is -- does have .1 exhibits in it. It has my time line. I brought an Page " 1 Page 13 [1] Q: Are these articles included in vour time [2] line, do you know? PI A: Some are and some aren't. [4] Q: We should mark this and get copies of [5] that. [] A: Okay. If I could. I'd like to make the [7] copies of that. I mean, I can do that real [a] quickly, but I can have them to you tomorrow, Pi probably. But you can mark it. I mean -- i[io] Q: That's fine. Other than these articles [it] and what you've produced as your -- in response to I[i2] No. 7, your large notebook, I will call it, that ; [i3] you're bringing with you to trial, is there any I [i4] other information that you have considered in [is] connection with this case, the Raper case? I[i6] A: No. ![i7] Q: No. 9 is asking for standards, ; [is] regulations, books, treatises or other supporting I [i9] written or computerized data that you've relied [20]upon in connection with the testimony that you're | [21] going to give in this case. [22] MR. HAINES: Let me just interpose an [23] objection as to the breadth of that [24] request. Obviously, Dr. Lemen has lots of [26] learning treatises, which he can tell you age 10 - Page 13 (38) Min-U Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, P March 18, 1 [i] about. If you don't have a copy, I'm sure [21 we can find a copy if he has one. But I do pi object to the overbreadth of the request. [4] THE WITNESS: I would say my pi knowledge on asbestos comes from a lot more [6] material than what I've produced here m today. And so to answer that question I [8] would say there are many books I've read [9] and other things. But to bring those would [10] necessitate bringing my entire library, [11] so -- [12] Q: (By Mr. Harton) No. 10. all notes. [13] documents, records, photographs, letters or other [14] written material of any kind that's been provided [is] to you by anyone with regard to this case. Is [16] there anything else? [17] A: No. [is] Q: Billing records. [191 A: I haven't made any billings on this case [20] to this point in time. [21] Q: How much time have you spent on this case [22] so far? [23] A: Weil, I've read through the materials [24] that I was given. I would say that I've possibly [25] spent six hours at maximum, something like that. Page 14 j Pa? [i] lawyers or groups of lawyers, i [2] Do you have anything that's responsive to : [3] No. 12? [4] A: No. [5] Q: That being done, let's talk about -- [6] first of all, I represent Chrysler Corporation. [7] Have you been provided any documents with respect [8] to Chrysler Corporation? [91 A: No. [10] Q: Have you ever been to a Chrysler [11] Corporation facility where they're making cars? [12] A: During the time I worked for NIOSH. I had [13] worked on several occasions with the Joint Labor [u] Management Committees of the auto workers from the [is] three major car companies. And in the process of [16] that I've been into a Chrysler plant, but it's been [17] 15,20 years ago at least. And I don't -- I think [is] it was a Chrysler plant, but it was in Detroit. [19] Q: An automobile plant? [20] A: Yeah, right. [21] Q: The time you went into this automobile [22] plant, were you at all focused on air sampling for [23] asbestos? [24] A: Mainly it was an orientation that we took [25] as a pan of the tour of the plant. And it wasn't Page 15 Pag [1] MR. HARTON: Let me get this marked, [1] really as a compliance activity or anything.The [2] if I can, and then give it back to you. [2] only time that I've ever been in an auto plant that [3] Can you mark that? Pi really had anything to do with a health hazard [4] (Defendant's Exhibits 4 and 5 marked [4] evaluation was when I was working on the models, H for identification.) [5] model makers, and there was some concern of the [6] Q: (By Mr. Harton) What we've marked as [6] models for the cars and disease that was occurring m Exhibit 9 -- or 4, I'm sorry, these are the m among the model makers. And that was back in the [8] articles. Is this something you prepared for the [8] late '70s. [9] Raper case or was this prepared in connection with [9] Q: What was the disease they were worried [10] other litigation? [10] about with these model plants? [11] A: I pulled the material out of this -- [11] A: I'm trying to remember right now. It [12] that's in that notebook for the Raper case. And I [12] was -- I think it was a concern about solvent [13] actually had prepared the literature searches [13] exposure. [u] earlier for another case. So you'll see the date ; [i4] Q: It wasn't asbestos or asbestos exposure? [is] on those are several months old. But I put the [is] A: No. [16] notebook together specifically for this case. : [i6i Q: Have you been given any -- what I call [17] Q: What are your charges for your time? i [17] test results on tests of brake linings that would [is] A: I charge for a deposition minimum daily j [is] attempt to quantify the amount of asbestos that may [19] fee of SI,500, and then if it goes over -- that's [19] be released by either installing or using brake [20] based on S300 an hour, and 250 for preparation [20] liners? [21] time. ' . '[2i] A: If you look at the notebook that he has, [221 Q: Have you -- No. 12, the last one, this is [22i Exhibit 4, the Lorimer paper -- I think it may be [23] dealing with presentations, videotapes, recordings [23] the number one or two paper in there, and the Rohl, [24] or writings you may have made in connection with [24] R-O-H-L -- is that how you pronounce it? Rohl. [25] seminars, speeches or presentations given to [25] And they do give some figures. And then there are BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (39) Page 14 - Page KlUlAKi; A- LtMtlN, PiuD. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Pago 18 Page 20 [ii others in there that do talk about amount of fibers [i] Q: Have you been given any unpublished. [21 released during the repair. But that's the [21 un-peer-reviewed literature attempting to quantify PI information. It's nothing that I've collected, Pi the amount of asbestos fibers released by using M it's material that I've relied upon. [4] brake linings? [51 Q: The information that you have been given [5] A: No, none other than what I've brought [61 would have been, then, in effect, published [6] with me. m peer-reviewed reports? [7] Q: I'm talking about being given as opposed [81 A: Yes. [8] to what you found.That question I did mean to [9] MR. HAINES: I'm not sure he pi say -- [10] testified that was given to him. I think [10] A: No. sir. [HI that was -- [11] Q: All right.You've -- I'm not sure which [12] THE WITNESS: No. I pulled this. No [12] exhibit this is. [13] one gave that to me. I pulled that myself. [is] What is -- Exhibit 5 includes the various [H] Q: (By Mr. Harton) Let me change the [i4j depositions of Mr. Raper. his co-workers and [15] question.The information that you've -- I'll [is] others? [16] start over.The information that you have [16] A: Exhibit 5 includes everything that I was [17] quantifying the amount of asbestos released by [17] given by plaintiff's attorneys, two medical repons [18] working with or installing brake linings has come [is] by Dr. Robb, the rest are depositions of -- two of [19] from the published peer review literature? [19] Mr. Raper. and then the rest are co-worker [201 A: And also NIOSH repons, which are like [20] depositions. [211 the CIB that you're looking at right now, which is [21] Q: Based upon all the information you've [22] not a published peer review but a NIOSH document [22] received in the Raper case, do you have any [23] that -- [23] information to -- that would support an opinion [24] Q: Let me run through these. One of the [24] that you may express at trial that Mr. Raper worked [25] anicles in here is the Current Intelligence [25] with automobile brake linings after 1965? Page 19 Page 21 [11 Bulletin 5 ofAugust 1975? [i] A: I don't believe I have anything -- I'm [21 A: Yes, sir. Pi really not being asked to talk about his exposure, [3] Q: It would have some attempt to quantify [3] but I don't think I have anything. M the amount of asbestos fibers released by or around [4] MR. HAINES: Right. No. Dr. Lemen is [5] garage mechanics. [si not being presented for that particular 16] This CIB No. 5, August 1975, deals with [6] opinion. [7] tests that were done on brake drums, dust from m Q: (By Mr. Harton) So from what you have [81 brake drums. Is that right? [8j done, your review of all of the depositions, [91 A: That's correct. [9] Mr. Raper's deposition and his co-workers' [10] Q: The Rohl anicle I think you referred to 1 [io] depositions, focusing on those only, you have no ;ii] is asbestos exposure during brake lining [ii] information to say that he worked with automobile 12] maintenance and repair? ,[i2] brake linings after 1965, right? [13] A: Yes. i[i3i A: No. :i"] Q: That's a 1976 anicle? I[u] Q: Okay. Let's talk about -- let's talk l'S] A: Right. [is] about levels of exposure. Based on what you've MS] Q: The Lorimer-Rohl article, I think also a [i6i seen in Exhibit 5, you would agree that Mr. -- or [17] 1976 anicle, -- . [i7] is it your opinion that Mr. Raper was diagnosed [18] A: Yes, that's correct. I think from there [is] with mesothelioma? [191 on back there are literature reviews. 20] Q: So all of the peer-reviewed literature [i9! A: That's correct. [20] Q: Have you done anything to attempt to 21] that you could find quantifying the amount of ;[2i] independently verify in any way this diagnosis, or 721 asbestos released by working with brake -- or I [221 are you just using these repons as the basis for 23] should say friction products is all after 1965, [23] your opinion? 24] right? [24] A: I'm relying upon these repons. First of 251 A: I believe that's correct. [25] all. I'm not a medical doctor, so I'm not being Page 18 - Page 21 (40) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Ki^NiNtiH DALE RARER, et aL. v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. EEMEiN, P March 18,1 [i] brought in to verify a diagnosis or to substantiate [z] that. I'm making the presumption that the Pi diagnosis is correct, w Q: You would agree that as a Ph.D. [5] epidemiologist, that asbestos-related diseases are [6i dose-related? [7i A: Yes, I do. [8] Q: And, for instance, mesothelioma, there [91 has to be some dose before the disease could be [ioi related to asbestos exposure? [iij A: Yes. there does. [12] Q: You would agree that in the ambient air [i3i in urban environments, be it Atlanta, Dallas or, I [1 think, any city in this country, there would be [is] some asbestos in the air? [16] A: There's generally a background level of [in asbestos, depending upon the urbanization of the [is] city. And probably in Atlanta it's getting a lot [is] bigger. [20] Q: Yes, it 's getting larger in Atlanta as [2il the city grows. [22j Gosh, lose my train of thought. [231 Do you know of any attempt to quantify or [24] prove that ambient air concentrations of asbestos [25) can cause any asbestos-related disease? Page 22 j Pac i !M attempted to prove it.The National Cancer i [2] Institute, about 20 years ago, did put out their [3] cancer maps, if you recall those, and they [4] published those. Those were not an attempt at [5] causation but were an attempt to show where there [6] were high rates of lung cancer versus low rates of [7] lung cancer based upon geographic location. But [8i they weren't an attempt to show causal association. [9] they were just an attempt to map it out. So I [10] don't -- I think the answer to your question is no. [11] Q: All right.Well. I'll take no and strike [12] everything else. then. Move to strike everything [13] else. No, that's all right. [i4i Now, obviously -- or do you have [is] opinions -- obviously, I represent a brake [16] manufacturer -- excuse me. I represent Chrysler [17] Corporation. Excuse me. Let me get this straight. [is] We may have brakes on our cars because we want then [19] to stop. [20] Do you have any information about the [21] types of asbestos that would have been used in the [22] brake linings we would have manufactured or used? [23] A: I don't know specifically for Chrysler, [24] but I do know that in my career I was involved [25] quite heavily in doing studies of a major brake Page 23 Pag, [i] A: Well, there have been community studies [i] manufacturing facility, that being Ravbestos [21 that have been done concerning asbestos and Pi Manhattan. And, principally, the type of asbestos Pi disease. Been studies around the Canadian asbestos Pi used in that manufacturing facility -- whether or [4] mines and mills.The latest, I guess, is a paper W not cites later used that I don't know -- was [si that was in New England Journal of Medicine, 15] chrysotile asbestos. But there were some mixed [6] looking at cancer rates in proximity. The original [6] exposures. [7] paper that Chris Wagner did about mesothelioma in [7] Q: And the mixed exposures you're referring [a] South Africa actually looked at community [8j to would have been at the Raybestos Manhattan [91 exposures. So there have been some studies that [9] plant? [ioi did that. Newhouse in England looked at some : [io] A: In manufacturing of the material, yes. [iij community studies done around asbestos factors. [ii] Q: And so you don't have any information [i2l Q: Poor questions. I'm trying to exclude -- ! [iz] that Chrysler would have used any brakes that had [13] A: Those type of things? |[i3] anything other than chrysotile in it; is that [14] Q: Yes. And, really, so you know, I know [14] right? [is] those things are out there. I don't deny that. [is] A: I do not have any other type of [16] But, for instance, for someone who would live in -- [i6] information. I don't know what type of brakes. I [17] be it Atlanta or Dallas or in some city where [i7i don't even know where Chrysler bought the brakes. [is] they're not next to a factory, they're not next to [is] Q: Now, there are obviously different types [is] a mine where asbestos ore is being taken out of the [19] of asbestos, both amphiboles and serpentine and [20] earth, do you know of any studies in urban [20] chrysotile asbestos. In your opinion, can [21] environments, let's say, without those other [21] chrysotile asbestos cause mesothelioma? [22] potential contaminants, that have attempted to [22] A: I've published in this American Journal [23i prove that ambient air concentrations can cause [23] of Health, British Occupational Hygiene Journal in [24] asbestos-related diseases? [24] '97.Those are included in my time line.They're [25] A: I don't know of any that have been [25] also included in papers that are in the notebook BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (4l) Page 22 - Page iUUliUO) A- UbMiiJN, Ph.D. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Pagti 26 j Page 28 [1] here. And my opinion is yes, chrysotile can cause ni Q: Obviously, there are those who believe [2] asbestos-related disease. Pl that chrysotile, to cause mesothelioma, either Pl Q: And by chrysotile, I'm attempting to [3] there must be intense, enormous concentrations or w refer to pure chrysotile without any contaminant of [4] it can't cause it at all. You're aware of that? ts] any type. ts] A: I am aware of the scientific debate. [6j A: Very rarely do we find pure chrysotile, [6] Q: So you would agree that there's a debate [7] because most chrysotile is contaminated with [7] in the scientific community about that? [8] amphiboles such as tremolite.And there have been [8] A: Yes, I believe that chrysotile can cause 19] very few, if any, studies that I know of that have Pi mesothelioma.That's correct. 10] looked at pure chrysotile, because they haven't [io] Q: Thank you. 11] been really able to identify pure chrysotile. (ni MR. HAINES: Better cut back on your 12] Q: Do you know anything about the processing [12] coffee. 13] that's done with chrysotile ore, once it's taken [13] Q: (Bv Mr. Harton) You know where I'm going 14] from the mine, before it can be used in other [u] and I appreciate the help, but you know how records is] products? Have you studied that? [is] are. So excuse me. 16] A: What do you mean by processing? I'm not lie) Now. brake linings, let's talk about 17] sure I understand the question, [i7] brake linings and regulations, I guess, for a is] Q: My understanding is, is that they take [ia] minute. i9] chrysotile ore and dig it out, for instance, like [19] Today, 1999. brake linings can be ?o] you would coal, strip mining? [20] manufactured and used with asbestos in them in the ?i] A: Well most of the -- with few exceptions, [2ij United States, right? raj most of the mines for asbestos in the world are [22] A: That's correct. ] strip-type mines. And there are some underground [23] Q: There is no regulation that has ever >4] mines, but those are very few and not really used [24] prohibited brake linings from containing asbestos? is] for commercial purposes anymore, to my knowledge. [25] A: Well. I don t know how you would classify Page 2'7 Page 29 ;ij Q: After the ore is taken out, they have to [i] this, but when EPA tried to ban the use of asbestos 2] process it before they can get it to the point that [21 and then it was overturned by the 5th Circuit. I 3] it can be used or incorporated into any products? [3] don't know if -- there was an attempt to do it. but 4] A: They take it into a mill, where they [4] it was not upheld in the courts. 5] grind the ore away from the fibers and separate the [5] Q: But at least the regulations that have ] fibers, trying to get all of the non-asbestos ore [6] been enforced by our government have never banned [7] out of the material, and then it is shipped for [7] the use of asbestos in brake linings, right? lei process manufacturing. [a] A: With that one exception. And I don't ;9] Q: Do you know anything about the various pi think it banned the use. but it did try to ban the io] grades of chrysotile ore that have been used in [io] use of asbestos in general. I don't think it was in different -- [i ii specific for brake linings. 2] A: There are different grades. I'm not [i2] Q: But the -- I just want to make a i3] really an expert on the different grades. I know [i3i distinction so you understand. I'm talking about u] they are listed in the company, but I haven't [Hi regulations that were enforced as opposed to si really compared one grade to another grade. [is] proposed legislation that was not enacted, 6] Q: Have you ever seen any studies that j [i6] A:Iagree. 7] indicate that, based upon a test of a brake lining, [i7] Q: With regulations that have been enforced a) anyone has ever found tremolite in a brake lining? i [is] by our government, they have never banned the use 9] A: I don't know. - [i9] of asbestos in brake linings? 0] Q: Have you ever seen any tests or studies i[2G] A: To the best of my knowledge, that's 1] on dust from brake linings that indicate anyone pi] correct. ' 7) ever found tremolite in the dust from a brake (221 Q: Other than -- there was one study in 3] lining? [23j Exhibit 4 -- let me get to it -- CIB bulletin, M A: I don't know. I have not seen any lists, [24] August 1975. i] put it that way. [25] A: Yes, sir. age 26 - Page 29 (42) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, P March 18,: [1] Q: Do you have any other government -- I [2] guess I'll call them studies of dust that would be p] in brake drums? [] A: I didn't include everything, but there [5] are a number of health hazard evaluations that [6] NIOSH has done that have been in response to [7] looking at asbestos exposure in brakes. [8] As a matter of fact. NIOSH did a very Pi large study looking at prevention of -- and [10] prevention and suppression of dust. And I think, [11] as he was just pointing out, there's the EPA [12] guidelines that are included in that also. [13] But I did not try and put together a [14] complete list of all the health hazard evaluations. [is] There are many of those, and they don t really add [16] to -- I mean, there are some in there, but it's not [17] comprehensive. [is] Q: So you'll know, I may -- I'm going to ask [19] some questions now. I'll look through some of [20] this. I may have some more after I look through pi] that as opposed to me trying to guess what you're [22] doing. But let me look through this. It will make [23] things a lot easier and a lot less confusing. [24] You would agree that in 1999 there is a [25] permissible exposure limit to asbestos that 's* 1 11 Page 30 | Pa; ! m Q: But after abatement contractors go into a : pi school, they have to test the air to make sure that ! [3] the quantity of asbestos is below some number : M before they can send the kids back? [5] A: I can tell you in answer to that that the [6] .01 was a recommendation that NIOSH made for m abatement. I don't know if EPA adopted that, but [8] that was one that we made based upon background [9] level of asbestos and the ability of the microscope [10] to measure down to that concentration. ['ll Q: And this recommendation you said that [12] NIOSH made, would that have been back nud 80 s. I (131 think, or do you remember? [14] A: It was around the mid '80s. I can t give [15] you an exact date. [16] Q: I know we didn't go through it. It s on [17] your CV. What was your position until the mid [18] '80s at NIOSH? [19] A: I was director of the Division of [20] Standards Development and Technology Transfer, [21] which was the division that formulated the policv [22] recommendations of the institute. And that was one [23] of them. [24] Q: The United States, in making their PELs, [25] or OSHA, I should say, making its PEL. they have [1] permitted in this country; is that right? [2] A: Yes, sir. Pi Q: That is . 1 fiber per cc. on a time [4] weighted average, is that right? [5] A: Yes, sir. [6] Q: The OSHA PEL is done by a PCM count, m right? [a] A: Phase contrast microscopy. [9] MR. HAINES: If you just left it as [10] PCM it would be easier. [11] THE WITNESS: I just want to make [12] sure that what you meant by PCM was the [13] same thing I meant by PCM. [14] MR. FALK: If you'd been here [is] yesterday you would have known about that. [is] Q: (By Mr. Harton) You're aware that there [i7] are even regulations dealing with the ambient -- [is] excuse me, let me start over. [19] You're aware that the EPA has created [20] regulations governing post- abatement air in [21] schools that they define as clean air, right? [22] A: Yes, sir. [23] Q: And that is .01 fiber per cc., right? [24] A: I can't tell you exactly off the top of [25] my head. Page 31 Pac [1] not made a distinction between amphibole asbestos [2] and serpentine; right? Pi A: That's correct. [4] Q: But you are aware that there are other (5) governments, Britain, Canada for instance, that : pi make a distinction between the two types of fibers : [7] in coming up with a PEL? [8] A: I think now the U.K. and Britain have ! [9] banned all uses of asbestos.They used to make a [io] distinction, but I don't think that they do now. I [i i] think that they just promulgated new regulations [i2] that are about 11 countries that have now [i3i officially banned the use of all forms -- new -- [i4] how do I want to say it -- importation or use of i[is] asbestos in the future. But, yes, I agree with [i6] you, there are countries that distinguish between [i7] the various types of asbestos, i[is] Q: Now, Mr. Raper, do you know when -- [i9l assume -- do you believe that he stopped using car [20] brakes or working with them in 1965, based on your [21] review of this information? [22] A: I don't know the exact date, but [23] somewhere in that neighborhood, yes. [24] Q: Do you know of any articles that would be [25] published either -- including your time line. BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (43) Page 30 - Pag IUULtUU-1 A. UtiVUiN, Ptl-L>. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL m No. 3 -- pi A: Can I look at the time line for just a pi second? [4i Q: Okay, that's fine. -- that would attempt Pi to study epidemiologically end users of brake [6i linings before 1965? m A: There were case reports prior to 1965. [8] Epidemiologic studies, I think the answer is no. 01 Q: So prior to 1965 there were no io] epidemiological studies of the end users of brake hi linings, indicating that they had an increased risk 12] of getting any asbestos-elated disease? 13] A: There were case reports, but the 14] epidemiologic studies, I think the answer is no. is] Q: Okay. I went through and looked at some 16] of your old time lines and tried to pull some of 17] the articles. And can you tell me which ones they is] are? Could you just take a minute? We can i9] either -- I'd just like to talk about those for a so] minute. 21] A: You mean case reports. 22] Q: The case reports you're talking about. 23] A: Let me get over here to the right page. 24] The first one I think that I mentioned 25] was the Fulton Report of 1935.* 1 2 * * 5 * 7 8 [1] Q: I'm going to stop you for just a minute [2] because I've got that one. PI MR. FALK: Fulton, did you say? [4j MR. HARTON: Fulton. [5] THE WITNESS: Fulton, 1935. !6] MR. FALK: That's the Commonwealth of [7] Pennsylvania? [8] MR. HARTON: Yeah. Pi THE WITNESS: I would just guess io] that. til Q: (By Mr. Harton)The Fulton study, would i2] you agree with me that this was -- if you look at ;i3] page -- I've got a copy of it here. Is this the u] Fulton -- it's not a good copy, but let me just is] show it to you.This is a copy. 16] A: Yes, that's it. 17] Q: It's a poor-quality reproduction. I'm ia] sorry. 19] A: Right. - 20] Q: In attempting to read -- I've put a :i] little red mark there. Let me just quote this 22] incident, see if you can agree with what I said. 23] It says -- this article says, quote,The industry 4] in this state consists mainly of several 5] fabricating plants engaged in the making of Pay 34 j Pag 36 [i] asbestos cloth, brake lining, insulating tape, pi asbestos rope and wick and other miscellaneous > [3] products. W Right? [5] A: That's correct. [6] Q: So the Fulton article really deals with I [7] what I will call the manufacturing of brake linings [8] as opposed to end users, right? [9] A: That's correct. (loi Q: If you will go to the next article, in) A: 1935. another article by -- in Great [12] Britain. [13] Q: Is that the HMSO? [14] A: Yeah, that's Her Majesty's Stationary [is] Office. Basically, the equivalent report that [i6[ would come out, like OSFLA or Public Health Service. [i7] They talk in that report about the sawing, grinding [is] and turning of brakes. [i9l Q: Do you agree with me that this -- [20] principally, the HMSO study -- I've got a copy if [21] you want to look at it. again, it's a bad [22] quality -- principally dealt with the manufacturing [23] of products in the industry as opposed to end [24] users. [25] MR. HAINES: Object, vague as to Page 35 [1] "principally." [2] THE WITNESS: Well. I think131 technically your answer is correct, but it [4] applies to the end user, because they re [5] talking about grinding and turning of the [6] brakes. And that's how I would interpret [7] it. ; [8] Q: (By Mr. Harton) Would you go to the next [9] article please, sir. ;[io] A: 1939, the George and Leonard. Do you I[ii] have that one? This is in brake manufacturing [i2] workers. ![13] Q: Yeah.This is brake manufacturing I [i4| workers, right? |[is] A: Right. [i6] Q: Go to the next one. j[i7] A: 1940, article by Stone. Do you have that i[is] one? To answer your question, brake lining j [i9] manufacturing workers, j[20] Q: All right. Next? I [2i] A: 1941, the Brachmann paper. Do you have i [22] that one? [23i Q: No, I do not. [24] A: The risk of asbestosis among brake [25] grinders and drillers.That was published in -- Pag 37 'age 34 - Page 37 (44) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 JtvENiNLTH DALE RAPEK, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, PJ March 18,1 [i] I've got these articles, I just didn't -- [21 Q: Could you get that one? Because that's p] one that -- one way or another somehow it just [4] didn't -- [5] MR. HAINES: Do you have it here with [6] you? m THE WITNESS: No. [8] Q: (By Mr. Harton) Just get us a copy for [9] it. I've got a search out for it, but we haven't lio] been able to locate it yet. [11] A: I'm pretty sure I have it. It may take [12] me a while because a lot of my articles are on [13] microfiche and it's sometimes hard to -- [14] Q: Do it when you can. I understand. I've [is] tried to find it as well and had troubles. [16] A: It was abstract, as you see in my [17] reference, and to -- let's see. it was in the [is] Journal -- [19] Q: Obviously, do you have any recollection [20] as to whether, when they're talking about grinders [21] and drillers of brake bands, they're talking about [22] the manufacturing process or end users? [23] A: I'm pretty sure they re talking about the [24] manufacture. But I'd have to go back and look at [25] that to make sure. Page 38 j Pag PI when? PI A: I first went in the Raybestos plant in PI the early '70s. I did a mortality study of workers [4] in that plant. The first publication is listed on [5] my CV of that plant. It actually appeared as a [6] report to the Congress of the United States and m appeared in the Congressional repons, the results [8] of a morality study.Then we continued to analyze [91 and published, in 1976,1 think, in the New York [101 Academy of Sciences' Occupational Cancer Symposium [11] the update of that. And that senior author on that [12] second publication was Robinson. It's listed in my [13] CV. So I was also involved in the industrial [14] hygiene survey of the Raybestos Manhattan plant. [15] This is the plant in Manheim. Pennsylvania. [16] Then I also was involved in the [17] industrial hygiene and medical survey in the plant [18] -- Raybestos plant in Charleston. South Carolina. [19] Q: We ll focus on the Pennsylvania plant. [20] A: The Pennsylvania plant was the one that 1 [21] spent the most time in. [22] Q: The Pennsylvania plant, that's one that [23] you would have started the study of the plant [24] workers. I would say, in the 1970s? [25] A: Yes, sir.* 1 11 [1] Q: I understand. We can look at it when you Page 39 [1] Q: Now, brake products, would they be Pagi [2] get it. [3] If you would go to the next article, [2] defined as friable or nonfriable under the EPA p] definition? W please, sir. [4j A: I think the brake products in the final [5] A: My time line only carries me up to the [5] form would be considered nonfriable. But I'm not [6] passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, [6] an expert on the EPA definition. [7] and the articles that were in the notebook carry on [7] Q: Do you know anything at all about any [8] after that. So that's all I have in my time line, [8] trade associations or other organizations that [9] luckily. 19] Chrysler may have been a member of? [10] Q: So we've discussed all the 1965 and [10] A: I haven't specifically looked at [11] earlier articles that deal with brake linings in [11] Chrysler, no, sir. [12] any way under your time line? [13] A: There may be others, but I haven't [14] included them in my time line. [12] Q: Now, mesothelioma is a disease. I : [is] think -- was it first linked to asbestos exposure [i4] by, I think. Dr. Wagner around I960? [is] Q: Okay. Well, they're not on your time [16] line? [is] A: Well, there were reports of mesothelioma [16] as early as 1943 from Germany.There were repons [17] A: That's correct. . [17] from the Canadian asbestos mines in 1952,1 think [is] Q: The case -- earlier we talked about case [is] that was. And there were other case reports that [19] reports. Are"the case reports you were referring [20] to earlier about maybe a brake lining worker [19] occurred prior to Dr. Wagner's paper in I960. And [20] his paper in 1960 was related -- the first [21] getting asbestos-related disease, are those the [22] articles we just went through? [23] A: Yes, sir. [24] Q: Your work at the Raybestos Manhattan [25] plant, that was, I think, in the 1970s or '80s or [21] comprehensive epidemiological evaluation of workers [22] engaged in the mining, milling and community (231 exposures dealing with asbestos. [24] Q: So Dr. Wagner's work, that is, I think, [25] published in I960, was the first epidemiological BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (45) Page 38 - Page Auv^ri^iiW a. iX.nCiN, r*HJL>. March 18,1999 KENNETH DALE KAPEK, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Page 42 Page 44 [1] study that linked asbestos exposure to the disease [1] A: Well, when I was at NIOSH, yes. Prior to [2] mesothelioma? [2] my coming and even after I came, for a while they Pi A: By that time that was the conclusion that i pi were also looking at total dust by using the [4] he came to, yes, sir. j (4] impinger method of sampling for particles per cubic I5i Q: And Dr.Wagner, in 1960,1 think, was i pi foot.And when I first came to NIOSH, we also, in [6) studying mines in South Africa? [6] addition to the phase contrast microscopy, is used m A: That's correct. 1 [7] these gigantic, high-volume samplers that we would [8] Q:Was that principally crocidolite? [8] sit in the middle of an area of an asbestos plant [9j A: That's correct. [9] that would pull very high volumes of air through. (io) Q: At what point in time were there [io] And those were looking at weight of dust and total 111] epidemiological studies that attempted to determine [iii dust that was in the atmosphere. So -- but for 112] that chrysotile could cause mesothelioma? [12] personal samples, the only type that I ever took (13! A: Let me just refer to this. Wagner did [13] were the membrane filter. PCM-type samples. (i4] mention chrysotile but didn't find any disease. [14] Q: In the work that you or others would have (is] And he attributed that to the fact that they had [is] done. I assumed for you. at NIOSH. did they always ;i6] shorter latencies and there was a large turnover. (is) use direct preparation techniques? 17] But then McDonald looked at chrysotile in the [i7] A: I'm not sure I know what you mean by is] Canadian mills and mines in the early '70s. So I [is] direct preparation. 19] think most of the data on chrysotile [19] Q: For instance, there are a number of 20] epidemiologically, case reports started occurring [20] different types of techniques to sample for 21] when McDonald started looking at the chrysotile [21] particulate matter in the air. be it asbestos or 22] mines and mills in the Canadian area. [22] something else. One I know that the phase contrast 23] Q: What -- which is the first article you [23] microscopy requires is taking a filter, adding 24] have on your time line, just so I'll know? [24] personal samples, for instance, having air drawn 25] A: Well. Cartier, 1957.* [i] * * 4 * * 7 * 9 [25] with particulate matter in it.Then they count Page 43 Page 45 [i] Q: I mean the epidemiological McDonald [i] what's on the filter.That's what 1 call the (21 study.There have been so many.That's what I'm pi direct method. S3] trying to find. [3] A: The answer to that is yes. And it was (4] A: McDonald. I'm sorry. [4] directly related to the NIOSH 7400 analytical ;5] Q: Is that the early '70s? [5] methodology. 6] A: 1973. Let me get -- asbestosis.The [6] Q: Because that's what's required? [7] first article that I have in my time line appeared [7] A: Right. (8i in IARC Scientific Publication No. 8 on the [a] Q: You do not accept other types of methods [9] chrysotile mines and mills. And there were two [9] for comparison to OSHA PEL. would you? 10] papers, actually, one on asbestosis and the second [10] A: I don't know what you're getting at, so I 11] one on cancer from the mills, and they were both [11] don't know if I can answer that. But that's an 12] IARC scientific publications. I have those. I (12! area that is somewhat beyond the area of my 13] mean, I didn't bring them. I[i3] expertise. 14] And then McDonald has another paper in [i4] Q: Well, for instance, when you or others at ;s] 1977 on exposure relationships and mesothelioma [is] NIOSH were out there sampling to determine 16] and the proceedings of the Asbestos Symposium in [i6] workplace exposures, you would comply with the OSHA 17] Johannesburg, South Africa. And then there are a [i7] requirements for sampling dust in the air, and that aj series of other -- jliaj would be 7400, the direct method? 9] Q: Others, that's fine. I'm just looking i [i9] A: Well, OSHA was using our methodology, oj for the earliest, and that's all I need. I think l [20] yes, sir. i] you answered that.. 1 pi] Q: So it would comply with your own 21 When you would do air samplings, -- and i [22] methodology, right? Either way? 3) I'm sure a lot of them were done while you were at [23i A: We developed the methodology that was 11 NIOSH -- did NIOSH always use the phase contrast 24) later employed by OSHA in their sampling. 1 microscopy in counting fibers? 125] Q: In sampling. age 42 - Page 45 (46) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KKiNiNJUill JL4VLfc RaPER, et ax. V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL xux^tiAKJJ A. i r-:vtt-.iN, March 18,1 Page 46 ! pac [i] Have you ever sampled or looked at the | m -- or some of them would have contained asbestos. [zi dust in brake drums to determine how much of that ! PI right? [3] dust is converted to forsterite? i Pi A: Yes. [4] A: NIOSH has. I have not personally. ! W Q: The bonding agents, mastics, resins, [5] Q: Are those articles at all in either [5] whatever they are. would affect the aerosol dynamic [6] Exhibit 4 or your time line? [6] properties of the asbestos fibers if they're ever [7] A: I think they're mentioned in there. But : m released? [8] I don't know specifically if they determine the [] A: They could. [9] amount of forsterite that's produced. I think it PI Q: And if bonding agents or mastics were ;iq] depends upon the use of the brake and the heat of [10] still attached to an asbestos fiber, that could ;i i] the brake as to the amount of forsterite. I don't [11] prevent it from being inhaled and retained in the [i2] know that I've ever seen it totally quantified, if [12] lungs? ri3] that's what you're gening at. But I'll certainly [13] A: It could, yes. sir. [u] agree with you that it does occur and to an extent. [14] Q: I'm going to look through your articles [is] Q: I'll look through 4 and see if there are [is] and things like this. I'm sure 1 11 have some [16] quantifications, and we ll talk about that in a [16] questions. But I'd like to look through this, and [17] minute. I'm not going to bore you with it now. [17] at some point in time I'm going to take -- I'll [is] But on that same line, in looking at the [is] just do this later. 119) drum dust, do you know of quantifications of the [19] A: What is that? [20] amount of fibers, asbestos fibers, now that would [20] Q: Your disclosure, one of the things we [21] be greater than five microns in length that have [21] get. Maybe I can just ask you this now. I'm going [22] been seen in various studies? [22] to talk about these articles. I represent [23] A: I think that -- you mean after the brake [23] Chrysler, and we've got a case next week. And 1 [24j is used or -- [24] don't know if you've seen this, but this is the [25] Q: Brake drums and discs. [25] disclosure that I have given.* 1 11 Page 47 Pag [1] A: In the composition of the brake? [1] A: I think this is a standard disclosure. [2] Q: After it's been used. [2] Q: Yeah, it's a standard disclosure. [3] A: I think the Lorimer paper goes into some [3] Let me ask a question and you can tell me [4] quantification, talks about the average amount of [4] if I'm wrong. I'm trying to find out if I've [5] fibers found in the brake dust. I think his [5] touched on the areas you were going to testify' [6] greatest concentrations were found three to five [] about Chrysler Corporation. For instance, when you [7] feet away from the brake drum after it had been [7] get to trial, is there anything I haven't covered? [8] blown, and the average concentration was somewfiere [8] And if there is. let me know. [9] around 15 fibers per cc. greater than five micron. i pi MR. HAINES: Object to the question [10] There's a table in there if you want me to point it [10] of having him anticipate, without knowing [11] out. [11] how he's going to respond to questions that [12] Q: Yeah, I think I found it. Let me look [12] we ask him. And to say, well, have you [is] through this. I'm just talking about the size and [13] testified as to anything about Chrysler, I [i4] length of the fibers, that they were -- [14] don't think that's a proper question. [is] A: Well, they were only counting greater [is] MR. ELL1STON: Excuse me. At this [16] than five micron in length. So they weren't |[i6] point I want to register an objection. [17] counting below five micron in length. So what I ] [i7] Plaintiff's counsel is going beyond simply [is] was referring to would have referred to those that ! [is] stating an objection to the form. Under [19] were greater than five micron. l [i9] the new rules, anything beyond "objection [20] Q: The manufacturing process for making the | [20] to form" is inappropriate. So I object to [21] brake lining, that would obviously include various i [2i] plaintiff's counsel going beyond that [22] bonding resins and Lord-only-knows-what to make it 1(22] objection. [23] stay together, right? ' (23i MR. HAINES: Duly noted. [24] A: Right. ![24] Q: (By Mr. Harton) You can respond. You [25] Q: And part of the brake lining is obviously ; [25] can respond. Dr. Lemen. BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (47) Page 46 - Pag< A- cxaVLcix, fn.D. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Page 50 Pago 52 ['] A: I've -- as far as I know, unless I'm [21 asked questions that I can't anticipate, you've ! ID initiated the study of the chrysotile mines in the i [2] Siberian area of Russia. It's a joint study with [31 covered everything. But, I mean, I have to put [3] NIOSH, the Finnish Institute and the Russian [4] that in, because if plaintiff's counsel asked me a i [4| Institute. And the only results so far, to my [5] question and you haven't anticipated it, I will -- [51 knowledge, that have been published are the [61 and I knew the answer, I would give an answer. [6] industrial hygiene samples of several hundreds of m MR. HARTER: Well, let me look [71 samples that were taken in that. And that is [81 through some articles and I'll let some [8] bigger, as far as volume, than the McDonald. But [91 other folks talk to you. [9] the epidemiology and medical are still ongoing, to [101 CROSS-EXAMINATION [10] the best of my knowledge. [HI BY MR. FALK: [HI Q: So I think the first part of vour answer [121 Q: Good morning. Doctor. My name is Eric [13J Falk, I represent Allied Signal. [12] was that if we looked at published epidemiology you [13J would agree that the McDonald Quebec cohort is the [HI My first question to you is, has anybody [14] largest published cohort? [15] shown you any documents pertaining to Allied Signal [15] A: I agree. [16] or its predecessor, the Bendix Corporation? [16! Q: Are you familiar with the articles of the [171 A: I don't believe so. ['71 McDonald group published in '97 and '98. about five [18] Q: Okay. Have you ever conducted or worked [18] or six of them? [19j on any industrial hygiene surveys at airline [19J A: I think I've read every one that Corbett [20] maintenance facilities? [20] and his wife Allison have put together. And I know [211 A: Specifically looking at asbestos, no. [21] both of them pretty well, so -- [221 But I have at airline maintenance facilities, and [22] Q: Okay.Then maybe we can short-circuit [23] I've published on -- just so the record is [23] this. And rather than breaking out the articles. [24] straight -- on principally looking at [24] I'm going to try to summarize the results. You [251 cardiovascular disease among airline refueling [25] tell me if my summaries are wrong, and if we're Page 51 Pago 53 HI operations, around airline maintenance facilities. [1] right we're going to move on. [2] And we've published on that from exposure to carbon 12) A: Okay. [31 monoxide, but not as it relates to asbestos. (31 Q: They found that the excess of lung cancer [4] Q: Okay. And I take it, then, you certainly [4] mesothelioma arose predominantly from the central [51 have not participated in any industrial hygiene [51 area of theTheford mines, correct? [6] surveys at either Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport or Love [6] A: I believe that's correct. [7] Airfield? [7] Q: And they also found there was a high [8] A: That's correct. [8] level of tremolite contamination in the central [9] Q: Okay. I want to look at the -- talk to [10] you a bit about chrysotile epidemiology. And I [91 area of the Thetford mines, correct? [10] A: I believe that's true. (HI want to focus on epidemiology. And let's put off [H] Q: And they found that even within the [12] to the side for a moment animal studies and then [121 central area of the Thetford mines, the excess does [131 we'll get back to that. ; (131 not arise until you get to exposures that are [14] Would you agree that the McDonald cohort [14] roughly at five to six million particles per cubic [15] in Canada is the largest ongoing chrysotile-only '[15] foot: is that correct? [16] cohort? [16] A: Somewhere in that neighborhood. I can't [17] A: I would agree that it's probably the .[[171 remember the exact number. [181 largest. I don't know of others that are larger. [181 Q: Or if we wanted to just put it in some [19! We do have a study ongoing that was initiated by :[19] kind of lingo, the old ACGIH standard, roughly in [20] NIOSH while I was still at NIOSH. [20] that neighborhood? 21] Q: Is that the South Carolina -- : [21] A: I believe that's what they were using. 22] A: No, no. Well, that's one that was done. [22] The authors concluded that it was -- from an 231 But we have an ongoing study, which the results [23] epidemiological point of view, the tremolite, that 24] have not been published yet. And I'm not a part of [24] was the reason for the excess in mesothelioma, 251 it anymore because I'm not at NIOSH. But I [25] correct. I believe that is a part of the Jage 50 - Page 53 (48) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, Pi March 18, 1 Page 54 Pag [1] conclusion. But I think that McDonald also [i] copies of the pre-published articles. pi concluded that they had found -- if I can remember Pi Q: And have you read Dr. Hesterberg's work PI exactly how they put it, they had found [3] on man-made mineral fibers? [4j mesothelioma to occur in ones that did not have [4] A: Yes. sir. Pi tremolite contamination, but very few. [5] Q: If we were to look solely at Pi Q: Okay. Those were from the peripheral [6] epidemiology, is it still your opinion, that is. [7] areas ofThetford? m from an epidemiological point of view, there is a Pi A: Yes, sir. [8] lower risk of mesothelioma among chrvsotile [91 Q: And they did not find an excess rate in [9] populations as opposed to amphibole populations? [10] the peripheral areas, correct? [10] A: In the 1996 publication that I did with [11] A: They did not find it, as compared to a [11] Leslie. Stayner and Dankovic in the American [12] standard population. But they did find [12] Journal of Public Health, we concluded that [13] mesothelioma. [13] mesothelioma can occur in chrvsotile populations. [u] Q: One of the things that the McDonald's [14] but it is at a lower rate than it would occur in an [is] focused on as they looked at the possibility of [is] amphibole population, but still at a significant [i6] tremolite contamination was bio-persistence and [16] level. [i7i durability of fibers: correct? [17] Q: Do you still agree that case reports are [is] A: That's correct. [is] not as strong as an epidemiological study? [i9] Q: And tremolite would fit, would be a [i9] A: Of course. po] candidate that would fit the issue of [2oi Q: Kind of a handy layman s analogy that [21] bio-persistence and durability, correct? [21] I've used. [22] A: If you're talking about, simply put, [22] And I'll throw this out to you. and you [23] residence time in the lung, that's correct. [23] tell me whether you like it or not. is that a case [24] Q: Chrvsotile is not as bio-persistent and [24] report can frame the question, the epidemiology [25] is not as durable, correct? [2=] provides the answer. Does that sound acceptable?1 Page 55 Pag ;i] A: Chrvsotile gets into the lung and gets [1] A: Case reports are usually what we use to [2] out of it quicker than the amphibole-type fibers. [2] generate hypotheses for conducting epidemiological [3] Q: And you re familiar with the clearance [3] studies. So I think we're saying the same thing. [4] rates and the studies on the clearance rates for [4] Q: Do you agree with the proposition that an [5] chrvsotile. correct? [5] epidemiologist should look for a relative risk of Pi A: Yes, sir. [6] two or greater in order to associate an agent with [7] Q: Are you familiar with any studies [7] a disease? [8] pertaining to man-made mineral fibers, their [a] A: I don't agree with that specifically, no. [9] biopersistence and durability and their possible [9] Q: Okay. Do you agree that that is a view [io] impact on the development of mesothelioma? [io] held by many epidemiologists in your field? [i i] A: By man-made mineral fibers, do you I(ii] A: I won't put many. I'll put that it is a [12] include such things -- are you talking just [12] view held by some epidemiologists in my field. [13] epidemiology now or are you talking animal studies? [13] Q: What relative risks do you look for? [14] Q: This would be animal studies. i [i4] A: It depends on the size of the cohort. [is] A: If you're talking -- do you include [is] You could have a significant excess relative risk [16] refractory ceramic fiber in that definition? [16] if you had a large cohort and a large exposure [17] Q: Yes, fiberglass refractory ceramic fiber. [17] than, say, even at 1.5 or even lower. It depends [is] A: There are fairly new animal studies on :[is] upon the population you're studying.And I think [19] refractory fibers coming out of Geneva-sponsored [19] that arbitrarily assigning 2 as the cutoff point is [20] studies by I guess it's Thermal Insulation [20] not something that I would do, and it's not [21] Manufacturers Association that have shown pi] something that we did when I was at NIOSH. [22] mesothelioma occurring in fairly high numbers in [22] Q: Are you aware of any epidemiological [23] animals that have been exposed to respirable [23] study of automobile mechanics or brake repair [24] refractory ceramic fibers.And those are just in [24] workers, end users, not manufacturing plants, [25] the process of being published. I happen to have [25] showing an increased risk of mesothelioma in the BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (49) Page 54 - Page iUUlAKU A. JUbMUbN, Ptl.U. March 18,1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Paga 58 j Page 60 [1] populations? ! hi MR. HARTON: I don't know if you -- [2] A: Epidemiologic studies? pi thanks. p] Q: Um-hum. pi Q: (By Mr. Falk) Other than the Phoenix [4] A: I would have to go back and look at my w ground water case, which I know is not an asbestos pi book. I can't answer that question right now. [S] case, have there been any other cases where your [6] MR. HARTON: This one? Here. Go PI testimony has been excluded or limited? [7) ahead. PI A: Not to my knowledge. [si Q: (By Mr. Falk) One of the MedLine PI Q: Okay. [9) summaries you have in your book is the Woitowitz [91 A: There have been cases w here there's ;ioi and Rodelsperger 1994 article. [101 summary judgment, but I don't think it was directed [ill You have a MedLine summary of that [HI at me particularly ;i2] article in your notebook. Have you read the [12] Q: I don't want to get into the Phoenix ii3] article itself? (131 ground water case, not unless we have about an hour [i4i A: I have sometime ago. I haven't read it [14] to talk on that. [is] recently. [15] Are you aware of any attempts to quantify i6i Q: Do you recall what the author's [16] the projected mortality in brake repair workers? i7) conclusion was? [17] A: No. i8i A: Well, if you know exactly where it's at [181 Q: I want to take a look at some of the i9! in here, it would help me. [19] articles that you cited in your article with 20] Q: It's one of the larger, bold print. [20] Drs. Dankovic and Stavner. 21] MR. HARTON: Towards the front, yeah. [21] A: Yes. sir. 22] Very early. (221 Q: Okay. Do you have that article with you? 23i THE WITNESS: It was one of the very [23] A: Yeah. It's somewhere around here. >4] first ones. I remember that. Yeah, okay. [241 Q: Just so we can read from it together 25] Okay.* [i] * * * * 6 * * 9 ______ [25] without me looking over your shoulder. Page 59 [i] Q: (By Mr. Falk) When was the last time you [21 looked at that article. Doctor? Pi A: I can't remember. [4j Q: Okay. Do you recall the conclusions of ;5i the authors of that article? [6] A: As in the summary, yes, sir. [7i Q: The conclusions were that they found no ;ai increased risk of mesothelioma in the car mechanics [9]in Germany? io] A: That none occurred, that's correct, in Q: Are you aware that Drs. Woitowitz and 121 Rodelsperger have been studying car mechanics, i3i their exposure and disease rate, in Germany since i4j the mid 1980s? si A: I don't know when they started. si Q: Are you aware of any of their prior work? 7] A: Not other than what's in here. 8] Q: Is it still true that you don't think of 9] yourself an as expert in dust dispersion and oi aerosol dynamics? ] A: I've never presented myself as that. >l Q: You have not participated in any fiber si release testing of friction products? i A: No, sir. Here is the book back, unless l you want -- [i] A: I don't know how it fell apart, but -- in [21 fact. I've got it right here. Pi Q: If you could turn to Table 1. [4) A: Yes. [si Q: Okav.There are two articles I'm [6i interested in that you put in the table as showing [7] excesses of either lung cancer, mesothelioma or i [si both.The first one is the Finkelstein article. Pi A: The automotive, yes, sir. no] Q: Do you have a copy of that with you? [ii] A: No.I don't. 1121 Q: Okay. I'll pass it over. I just want to ' [i3j go through that rather quickly. ; [i4j Is it true that, if you turn to page 128 [is] of the article, they found that among men there I [i6! were no diseases associated with a significantly '[i7] increased SMR? i[i8] MR. HAINES: Hang on. Doctor, do you [i9l need a minute to review the article? i[20) Q: (By Mr. Falk) I'm sorry. Page 128, I'm [2i] looking at. [22i A: Let me just look at it for a minute. [23i Okay. What is your question? [24i Q: Is true that Dr. Finkelstein found among [25) men there were no diseases associated with a Page 61 age 58 - Page 6l (50) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, P March 18,1 Page 62 Pac [1] significantly-increased SMR except for laryngeal [i] Q: The next one I want to talk about in [2] cancer? : pi Table 1 is the McDonald anicle. pi A: I'm having trouble reading this. j pi A: Right. [4] Q: It's as good a copy as I could get. ! [4[ Q: Okay.This is the study of the [5] A: You're talking overall, or what are H Connecticut friction plant. [6] you -- you need to point that out. It's probably : [6] A: Is this Connecticut or is this the -- [7] my bifocals. [7] Q: I think it's Connecticut. [a] Q: That's quite all right. Okay. [a] A: I thought -- yeah. Okay. Pi A: You say 128. [9] Q: Okay. [10] Q: Right. Okay. Right here. Among -- [io] A: It was -- Connecticut w~as one plant, [11] first off, they studied two automotive pans plants [ii] yeah. [12] in Ontario, correct? [12] Q: Yes. Okay. First off, the McDonald's [13] A: Right. [13] found no mesotheliomas in that plant, correct? [14] Q: And brake pans were made at those [14] A: That's what they report, yes. sir. [is] plants, correct? [is] Q: Okay. And turning to lung cancer, the [16] A: To my knowledge, that's correct. [i6] increased mortality that they found was due mostly [17] Q: Okay. And here on page 128 they say that 117] to the people that had worked one year or less at [is] among men, no diseases except for laryngeal cancer [is] the factory, correct? [19] were associated with a significantly increased SMR. [19] A: Well, I don't know if you said it the [20] Have I read that pan correctly? [20] right way.They say that excluding men who had [21] A: That's correct. [21] worked for less than a year, there was possible [22] Q: And then they go on to say that there [22] evidence of some increased risk of lung cancer with [23] were no trends of increasing SMR with increasing [23] increasing exposure. So it was occurring in those [24] length of employment. [24] that were greater than one year. [25] A: Right. [25] MR. HAINES: That's actually the Page 63 Pac [1] Q: Have I read that correctly? [1] opposite of what he said. [2] A: Yes, sir. [2] THE WITNESS: I think, if I've -- you [3] MR. HAINES: Can I see it? pi said less than one year. K] MR. FALK: Sure. When you're done ' w Q: (By Mr. Falk) Less than or equal to one [5] with that I have a few more questions on [5] year. [6] that article, if you don't mind me looking [6] A: Right here. Unless they've misstated it [7] over your shoulder. [7] in there. [si THE WITNESS: No. [si Q: Let's go to page 155 of the anicle. And [9] Q: (By Mr. Falk)Turn to page 129. ; [9] they talk about that the most confusing aspect of [10] They then did a case control analysis in [10] the study is the fact that the only subcohon with [11] order to analyze whether there was an association [11] SMRs clearly above expectation comprises men [12] between the employment and the asbestos-related [12] employed for less than one year. [13] diseases that they thought they had found, correct*1 1 [13] Correct? [14] A: Right. i [i4] A: That's total SMRs.That's in contrast to [is] Q: And they concluded the case control j [is] what you were asking about lung cancer, [16] analysis revealed no association between the risk j [16] Q: Then they go on to say, thus, were it not [17] of lung cancer and employment in a department where | [i7] for the subjects with minimal employment or dust or [is] asbestos had been used or duration of employment. j [is] dust exposure or both, the morality experience of [19] A: Correct. | [i9] this cohort would be close to expected. [20] Q: And they go on and they say that even | (20) A: That's what they say there. [21] within the laryngeal cancers, none of the laryngeal |[2i] Q: Okay. Workers who work less than one [22] cancers had worked in an area where asbestos had i [22] year, we call those transient workers. Would that [23] been used. I [23] be a good way to phrase it? [24] Correct? i(24] A: They may not like to be called that. [25] A: Right. I[25] Q: I understand. Scientifically, you tend BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (51) Page 62 - Pag* ULCHaKD A- LEMEN, Ph-D. larch 18,1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Page *36 i Page 68 *l to call them transient workers? ; in Coming? 2] A: Yes. pi A: No. Jl Q: Transient workers generally just have, pi Q: As a housekeeping question, part of ] perhaps because of their lifestyles, just higher [4] Exhibit 5 was Volume I of the Raper deposition. Is s] risks for many diseases, many conditions, correct? pi that the one that you had brought with you and the 3] A: That's possible. [6i one we had marked, or the one that we sent was a 1 Q: Okay. Pi copy of one? 3] THE WITNESS: Can we go off the is] A: Did I maybe make a copy? It's what was 9) record for just a second? [9] sent to me. And the first part is missing every ]] (Recess taken.) [io] other page. So it's only a portion of it. And I l Q: (By Mr. Falk) Doctor, do you still agree ini didn't call back and ask for another copy because I ?! that, with regard to fiber length, the [i2] didn't really rely that much upon it. 3] preponderance of the evidence up until the 1980s ns] Q: So you received the Volume I of the Raper i] was that fibers less than five microns in length [i4] deposition in alternate page format, if you will? si did not lead to asbestos-related disease? [is] A: Exactly like it is there, yes, sir.And 3] A: There's a preponderance of the evidence [16] that's just the first pan of it.The second page l to answer yes, but there is some evidence there may [17] is four-page format. 3j be disease in these smaller, but that was the [i8i Q: With respect to the classification of ?l preponderance of the evidence. [19] persons called commercial airline mechanics, is )l Q: And you still believe that the longer [20] that occupation one that has been identified by a l fibers tend to be more carcinogenic than shorter [2il government agency or state agency, to your n fibers? pal knowledge, to have been at risk from or at risk for 31 A: Yes, sir. [23] asbestos-related diseases? 3] Q: You mentioned the Camus article. Are you [24] A: I don't know. I don't know of any. s] familiar with any follow-ups or letters to the --* i] * 3 4 * ] 7 [25i Q: Are you aware -- and I guess it would beI Page 6'7 Page 69 i] A: The what article? [1] true. then, in your years of government work and 2i Q: I call it Camus, [2] following the literature, you're not aware of any si A: Camus? pi pronouncement or proclamation from any government il Q: Camus. I call it Camus because of the [4] agency stating that commercial aircraft mechanics 91 French author. [5] were an at-risk group for asbestos-related si A: Well, I didn't take French. I call it [6] diseases, is that right? 7] Camus. [7] A: I don't know of any. ] Q: It could be either one. P] Q: Did you review the work history of 91 You mentioned that earlier. Are you pi Mr. Raper? o) aware of any of the follow-up or letters to the [io] A: Only as presented in the material that I il editor that have come since that article? [iil received. 21 A: Well, I know the editorial that [i2] Q: Did you notice if he worked at a micarda 3] accompanied the article. I have not read the i [i3] plant for some period of time? 4] follow-up letters. ;[i4] A: I'd have to look at it again. si MR. FALK: Okay.That's all I have, I [is] MR. JOHNSON: I've taken the ] sir. Thank you. [i6i deposition out of there. 7] CROSS-EXAMINATION [i7] THE WITNESS: It should be on this, I si BY MR. GUSTAFSON: j [is] think. Where did you see that? I'm just 91 Q: Dr. Lemen, I'm Ivan Gustafson of 1(19] trying to -- 20] Pittsburgh Corning. [2oi Q: (By Mr. Gustafson) I believe it was 63, 'l Have your opinions changed about [2il 64, maybe the third or fourth. 21 Pittsburgh Coming since this time last week? [22] A: You said micarda. 31 A: No. [23] Q: Micarda plant in Hampton, South Carolina. il Q: Have you seen anything new in the last [24] MR. HAINES: Herndon Motor Freight, 3i seven days to change your opinion about Pittsburgh [25] Hampton. South Carolina. age 66 - Page 69 (52) Min-U Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 jviu\jNET.H. OAJJfc AAfAic, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL 1C1AKJD A- UviVLfciS, E: March 18,1 Page 70 Pag [i] Q: (By Mr. Gustafson) Before that page. I [21 hate to do this, but let me come over there, pi A: Okay. I saw Westinghouse, but I [4] wasn't -- yes, sir. ' m manufactured after 1986 would have contained Pl asbestos? ' (31 A: I don't know the answer.They could have. By law they could have. But I don't know. [5] Q: Are you familiar with that product, [5] Q: Do you know whether Georgia Pacific ever [6] micarda? (61 manufactured any joint compound that contained [7] A: No, sir. [si MR. GUSTAFSON: That makes it short, Pl asbestos? [8] A: I don't know. pi All right.That's it. 01 Q: Are you aware of any studies regarding [io] MR. FALK: Good job. [10] the impact of working with or around joint mi MR. HAINES: Next. [i21 CROSS-EXAMINATION ("1 compounds on the health of the workers? [12] A: I know that there are studies that show [is] BY MR. JOHNSON: [13] that carpenters and other people employed that [i4i Q: Dr. Lemen, my name is Jonathan Johnson. [14] would use joint compounds but have other exposures [is] I'm here today representing Georgia Pacific. I [15] are at increased risk of developing [i6i just have a few questions for you. [16] asbestos-related diseases. [17] In this case have you been given any [17] Q: Okay. Do you know of any studies that [18] documents to review that directly refer to Georgia [18] would say that people other than those you just [19] Pacific or a company called Bestwall? [19] mentioned would be at risk just because they happen [20] A: Other than what I've shown here, that s [20] to be in the vicinity? !2i] the only material I've been given. [21] A: Dr. Selikoff did some research in his (22i Q: Do you have any reason to believe that [23] Mr. Raper worked with or around any joint compound? [221 group on looking at bystanders, if that's what [23] you're getting at. And so there are studies out [24] MR. HAINES: Object to the form. [24] showing that workers that didn't work directly with [25] Go ahead. [25] an asbestos product but were working in the1 11 Page 71 Pag, [1] THE WITNESS: It's my understanding [1] vicinity of others that were working with asbestos [2] that he did. But I haven't been asked to [2] products were at an increased risk of developing [3] specifically identify the products or Pl disease. [4] anything of that nature. [4] Q: Okay. And what specifically are the 15] Q: (By Mr. Johnson) What's your [5] studies by Dr. Selikoff that you're referring to? [6] understanding that he did based on? [6] A: Well, the one that shows that they're at [7] A: The material that I read in here of his [7] risk by looking at exposure is a study that Reitze, [8] work history. And that's it. [8] R-E-I-T-Z-E -- I think it's listed in my time [91 Q: And that does include Mr. Raper's Pl line -- has conducted, looking at people directly [10] deposition, does it not? [10] applying asbestos insulation and then looking at [11] A: Yes, it does. [11] welders and others that are not directly in the [12] MR. HAINES: It does. ; [i2] area but around the area that have higher exposure (131 Q: (By Mr. Johnson) Did you see that in [is] levels to asbestos. And that's the type of work [i4] Mr. Raper's deposition he testified that he -- his I [i4] that he was doing. [is] claim with respect to joint compounds was during [is] Q: Okay. Did that study include anything [16] the time period 1986 to 1998? I [i6] with respect to joint compounds? [17] MR. HAINES: Object to form. i(i7i A: I don't know. I don't think so. [is] THE WITNESS: I don't remember the I [is] Q: Do you think there may be differences [19] exact dates. I [i9] between asbestos insulation and joint compounds? [20] Q: (By Mr.Johnson) Do you have any i [20] A: Yes. [21] knowledge as to whether any of the joint compounds '[2i] Q: Sir, do you have any knowledge as to [22] that Mr. Raper may have worked around contained any [22] whether joint compounds would contain friable [231 asbestos at all? i [23] asbestos? [24] A: I don't know. [24] A: You mean friable? [25] Q: Do you know whether any joint compounds [25] Q: Friable, sorry. BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (53) Page 70 - Page ------ --------- ---March 18, 1999 A. 1,1. / KEJNNEXtl UA1X KAPER, el ai. V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL [1] A: I don't know exactly. I'm not an expert Pi on joint compounds. Pi MR. JOHNSON: Okay.Thank you, sir. w CROSS-EXAMINATION [si BY MR. ELL1STON: [6j Q: Dr. Lemen, as you know, my name is Gary m Elliston and I'm here on behalf of several [8] companies. Pi Would you agree, sir, that the U.S. (10] Public Health Service has been in existence since (11] 1798? (12] A: Yes, sir. (13] Q: The U.S. Public Health Service recently (14] celebrated their 200th anniversary, didn't they? (is] A: Yes, sir. [16] Q: How long were you a member of that [17] organization? (is] A: From 19 -- September of 1970 to March 1 ri9] of 1996. (20] Q: The Surgeon General is actually the head 211 of the U.S. Public Health Service, isn't he? 22] A: Yes. 231 Q: He or she? 24] A: He or she. 25] Q: The United States Public Health Service Page 74 Page 76 Ii] Act to a 1952 mention. I could provide that to [2] you. I don't have it with me. P] Q: The first time the U.S. Government [4] created or issued or published any type of warning [5] to be used in the workplace or on products [6] containing asbestos was in 1972, when OSHA [7] regulations were created: correct? [8] MR. HAINES: Object to form. [9] THE WITNESS: Are you referring to [io] the -- including in the 1972 criteria [i i] document that NIOSH put out to OSHA. or are [12] you saying just for the OSHA standard? But [13] '72 is correct, in either case. [14] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Okay, sir. You [is] actually participated on the committee that issued [16] the 1972 criteria document for NIOSH. didn't you? [17] A: My role in that criteria document was not [is] a decision-making role but one of putting together (i9] the tables that appeared in the appendix of the [2oi criteria document showing the technical feasibility [2i l of achieving the recommendation. But I did not [22] have any role in making the decision what the [23] standard was at that time. [24] Q: Were you a member of the committee? [25] A: I don't know that you'd call it -- II Page 75 Page 77 [il has studied asbestos and its potential health [i] wasn't a member of a committee. I was a worker [2] hazards since the 1930s, hasn't it? Pi that was told to put together and take all the 13] A: That's correct. Pi information the Public Health Service had collected 14] Q: The U.S. Public Health Service bears [4] up to that point in time and put it in the tables [5] responsibility for the health of a variety of [5] that appeared in the back of that book. So if you [6] people and organizations, including the Indian [6] call that a part of a committee, I guess yes, the [7] reservations, Merchant Marines, that type of thing, [7] answer is yes. But I wasn't -- it wasn't my [8] don't they? [8i decision at that time as to what the standard would [9] A: They don't do the Merchant Marine Pi be. 10] anymore.That -- under President Reagan they took [10] Q: Was Dr. Joseph Wagner one of the members 11] that responsibility away from us. But they do the [11] of the group that had decision-making authority? 12] federal prisons still and Indian reservations. [12] A: I think his name's in the criteria ;i3l Q: The U.S. Public Health Service has [13] document as being there. I don't think my name ;i4] addressed the potential hazards of asbestos and how I [14] appears in the criteria document as being on any is] to control those hazards since at least the 1930s, [15] committee. But I did work for Dr. Joseph Wagner at :i6] haven't they? [16] that time. i7] A: Yes, sir. i[i7] Q: Was Dr. Joseph Wagner one of the members ?i8] Q: The United States Government first issued [i8i who had decision-making authority for that 1972 ;i9] any type of regulation and enforceable regulation i [i9] NIOSH criteria document? 20] concerning the exposure levels to asbestos in 1960, ; [20] A: I believe he was. 21] didn't they? . pi] Q: Now, when NIOSH issues their criteria 22] A: I think I now have information under the [22] documents and makes recommendations to OSHA, those 23i Walsh-Healey that they actually -- the first was [23] recommendations are based upon the best available 24] 1952. But it's in that same time period. I [24] science and what NIOSH believes is best for the si recently found some reference in the Walsh-Healey [25] workers from a health perspective, isn't it? 'age 74 - Page 77 (54) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aE v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. EEMEN, E March 18,: Page 78 Pai [i] A: That's correct. ! d! A: At that point in my career, yes. sir. Pi Q: In that 1972 criteria document there was ! PI Q: Those were recommendations of exposure P] a permissible exposure level recommended for i PI levels that you yourself would have been willing to W asbestos exposure in the workplace, wasn't there:11 11 * [i] * * 4I [54] 6w*o8rk* i*n*o*r*to4 have had your family work in. isn't [5] A: Yes, sir. [6] Q: Would you agree, sir, that in 1972, that [5] that true? [6] A: At that time, yes. [7] OSHA, NIOSH, the U.S. Public Health Service, they [7] Q: Would you agree, sir, that that group, [8] were all aware of the potential hazards of asbestos [8] that decision-making group from the 1972 criteria [9] and how those hazards should be dealt with in the [9] document, while addressing asbestosis, were also [10] workplace? [10] concerned about the potential cancer risk of [ii] A: All of the hazards of asbestos? I don't [HI workers in the workplace? [is] think in 1972 they were aware of everything they [12] A: Yes, sir. [13] know today about asbestos, but I'm not sure I (131 Q: Has anyone made you aware, sir, of [14] understand vour question. I need a little [14] Dr. Egleman's sworn testimony that the members of [is] clarification on it. [15] that committee weren't concerned or did not care [16] Q: In your opinion, sir, were NIOSH. OSHA [16] whether workers developed cancer? [17] and the U.S. Public Health Service aware of all the [171 MR. HAINES: Object to the form. [is] scientific data and medical research concerning [18] THE WITNESS: I can't tell you what [19] asbestos hazards and how those hazards should be [19] Dr. Egleman -- you know, what was in his [20] controlled in the workplace as of 1972? [20] mind, but I know what my opinion is. [21] A: I believe -- [21] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) And your opinion is [22] MR. HAINES: Object to form. [22] that those individuals were very concerned about [23] THE WITNESS: I believe they would [231 the health and safety of workers in the workplace, [24] have known or should have known. [25] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) In 1972, this warning [241 isn't it? [25] A: That they were concerned, yes. Page 79 Pac [1] that was required by OSHA was required not only to [i] Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [2] be put on thermal insulation products but it was PI or depositions with any corporate representatives P] also required to be posted in the workplace p] from Armstrong World Industries or Armstrong Cork [4] wherever asbestos might be used, wasn't it? [4] Company? [5] A: I believe that's correct. [5] A: I don't recall having done that. [6] Q: In fact, the OSHA regulations are [6] Q: Have you reviewed any documents or any m directed toward the employer of the individual m depositions of any corporate representatives of the [8] worker, aren't they? [8] Ruberoid Company or GAF? PI A: Yes, sir. i [9] A: I don't recall doing that, no, sir. [10] Q: Are you also aware, sir, that under the | [io] Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [11] laws of the state ofTexas since 1958, that : [ii] or depositions of corporate representatives of the [12] exposure levels to asbestos were required to be | [12] Dana Corporation? [13] kept below five million particles per cubic foot of i[i3] A: I don't believe so. [14] air? [i4] Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [is] A: I have heard that. I have not seen that i [is] or depositions of corporate representatives of [16] law, to the best of my knowledge. j [i6] Flexitallic? [17] Q: Have you been provided any industrial I [i7] A: I don't believe so. [ia] hygiene information or dust sampling results that j [is] Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [19] would indicate that Mr. Raper was ever exposed to ! [i9] or depositions of corporate representatives of [20] levels of asbestos above the TLV or PEL in i [20] Turner and Newell? pi] existence at the time of that exposure? j[21] A: I don't believe so. P2] A: No. I[22] Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents P3] Q: Did you agree with the recommendations ; [23] or depositions of corporate representatives of the [24] that were made in the 1972 criteria documents by [24] CertainTeed Company? [25] NIOSH? [25i A: I don't believe so. BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (55) Page 78 - Pag* KlcJtlAKL* A. LUMEN, Pil-l). March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Pago 82 : Page 84 m Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [i] Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any [2] or depositions of corporate representatives of the PI studies on fiber release of any product [3] Riley Stoker Company? p] manufactured by T&N? (41 A: I don't believe so. [4] A: Not to my knowledge. [5] Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [5] Q: By T&N I mean Turner & Newell. [6] or depositions of corporate representatives of 3M? [6] A: Right. [7] A: I don't believe so. I -- with the last pi Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any (8) question, 3M as relates to asbestos? [8] studies on the fiber release manufactured by (9] Q: Yes, sir. p] Flexitallic? [10] A: No. [io] A: Not to my knowledge. [111 Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [ii] Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any (12] or depositions of corporate representatives of [i2] studies on the fiber release of any product [13] National Gypsum? [is] manufactured by Dana? [14] A: Corporate documents? I've been in a [u] A: Not to my knowledge. [15] trial that dealt with National Gypsum, but I don't [15] Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any [16] recall reviewing any of their corporate documents. [16] studies on the fiber release of any product [17] Q: Have you reviewed any depositions of any [17] manufactured by National Gypsum or U.S. Gypsum? [18] employee of National Gypsum, to your knowledge? [is] A: Not to my knowledge. [19] A: I don't believe so. [is] Q: Have you ever visited a facility that [20] Q: Have you reviewed any corporate documents [20] manufactured joint compound or wallboard? [21] or depositions of corporate representatives of the [21] A: I believe I have. But ask me which 22] U.S. Gypsum Company? [22] facility -- it would have been in the early 70s -- 23] A: I don't believe so. [23] I can't tell you. 24] Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any [24] Q: Have you ever visited or inspected a 25] studies on the fiber release of any products [25] facility of the National Gypsum Company?1 11 Page 33 Page 85 [1] manufactured by Armstrong World Industries or [1] A: I don't believe so, unless they were [2] Armstrong Cork Company? [2] owned previously by another organization, [3] A: I don't believe so. pi Q: Have you ever visited or inspected a W Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any [4] facility owned by the U.S. Gypsum Company? [5] studies on the fiber release of any product [5] A: Again, my answer would be the same unless 16] manufactured by the Ruberoid or GAF companies? [6] they were owned by a different name. I don't [7] A: I don't believe so. [7i recall going into any. (8] MR. HAINES: Gary, you can shorten it [a] Q: Have you ever visited or inspected a [9] to one question and I won't object to being [9] facility operated by the Armstrong World Industries [10] compound, if you want to. [10] Company or Armstrong Cork Company? [Hi MR. ELLISTON: I appreciate that, but [11] A: I don't believe so, unless they were [12] at the time I need to examine him in the [12] owned by another company prior to that. [13] trial I expect all these companies will not [i3l Q: I think that company has gone by [14] be sitting there.Therefore, I'd rather [i4] Armstrong Cork Company or Armstrong World [15] separate them. [is] Industries, Inc. since the late 1800s. [16] MR. HAINES: That's probably true. [16] A: I don't recall ever going in there. [17] (Recess taken.) [17] Q: Have you ever inspected or visited a [18] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Sir, have you [is] facility owned or operated by Ruberoid or GAF? [19] conducted or reviewed any studies on the fiber [19] A: Not to my knowledge. 20] release of any product manufactured by CertainTeed? [20] Q: Have you ever been to any facility owned 21] A: Not to my knowledge. pi] or operated by Flexitallic? 22] Q: Have you conducted or reviewed any 122] A: Until today I never heard of Flexitallic. 23] studies on the fiber release of any product [23! Q: That might eliminate a few additional '4] manufactured by Riley Stoker? [24] questions. S] A: Not to my knowledge. [25] Have you reviewed -- I'm sorry. Have you 'age 82 - Page 85 (56) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KJiNNJfc'lH UALt KAPER, et ai- V. OWTNS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL itICJIAKL) A. EEaVLtaN, Pi March 18,1 [i] visited or inspected a facility owned by [zi CertainTeed? Pi A: I may have. I can't remember which one. [4i Q: Have you visited or inspected any [5] facility owned or operated by Riley Stoker? [6i A: No, not to my knowledge. [7] Q: Would you agree, sir, that you cannot [ai testify to the state of mind, motivation or thought PI processes of any representative or employee of [ioi Armstrong World Industries or Armstrong Cork [ill Company? [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: In fact, sir, regardless which company I [u] put in the question, you can t testify to the state [is] of mind, motivation or thought processes of any [16] company representative or employee, can you? [17] A: Correct. [is] Q: Can you identify any manufacturer who was [19] manufacturing ceiling tile that contained asbestos [20] after 1985? pi] A: No, sir. [22] Q: Can you identify any company that was [23i manufacturing joint compound that contained [24] asbestos after 1985? [25] A: No. sir. Page 86 Pag [1] of 1972 that indicated there was asbestos being [2] used in that workplace? pi A: Other than what might be contained in the g] material that I gave. I'm not aware of any. [5] Q: And you're not aware of any from vour [6] review of that material, are you? [7] A: No. [8] Q: Would you also agree, sir, that under the pi OSHA regulations, that the employer was required to [10] have the employee have a physical examination each [11] year if they were being exposed to asbestos? [12] A: I'd have to go back to the regulation. [13] And I think that's correct, but I don't know the -- [14] Q: You would agree that under OSHA. any [is] employee being exposed to asbestos was required to [16] be medically monitored after 1972 by their [17] employer, wouldn't you? [ia] A: Yes, sir. [19] Q: You've not been given any information [20] that Mr. Raper was medically monitored or required [21] to have a physical examination each year after [22] 1972, have you? [23] A: No. [24] Q: In fact, sir. under OSHA, that if an [25] employee was being exposed to asbestos above the1 [1] Q: You brought some literature today [2] concerning friction products. Have you ever Pi published or gathered literature on fiber release [4] from floor tiles or flooring material? [5] A: Not to my knowledge. [6] Q: Have you ever published or gathered [7] literature on fiber release from ceiling tiles? [8] A: I don't believe so. [9] Q: Have you ever published or gathered any [io] literature on fiber release from gaskets? [ii] A: I don't believe so. [121 Q: Have you ever published or gathered ini literature on fiber release from adhesives, [14] sealants or coatings? [is] A: I don't believe so. [16] Q: Would you agree, sir, that gaskets, [17] flooring materials, adhesives, sealants and [ia] coatings would all be classified as nonffiable [19] products under the EPA? [20] A: Again, in answer to the earlier question, [21] I don't know the exact definition, but I believe [22] that that would be the case. [23] Q: Have you been provided any information [24] that indicates that Mr. Raper ever encountered any [25] warning signs in any of his workplaces after June Page 87 Pag* [1] permissible exposure levels and engineering [2] controls were not feasible, they were required to [3i be given respiratory protection, weren't they? [4] A: Correct. [5] Q: And based on all you saw, Mr. Raper was [6] never required by his employer to wear respiratory [7] protection, was he? [8] A: I did not see that. [9] Q: Are you aware, sir. of any [ioi epidemiological study that has looked at the [ii] mortality or morbidity of flooring applicators or [i2l flooring mechanics? [13] A: No. [14] Q: Are you aware of any epidemiological [is] study that has looked at the morbidity or mortality [i6i of workers who are using ceiling tiles or applying [i7] sealant material? : [is] A: There have been studies that may have [i9l included those, but nothing specific to that [20] particular job. ;[2i] <J: Would you agree, sir, that the first [22] epidemiological study that identified a risk of [23] asbestos-related disease in workers working with or [24] around joint compound was the study in the mid [25] 1970s, specifically 1975, by Dr. Selikoff's group? BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (57) Page 86 - Page March 18, 1999 KENNETH HAUi RAPER, el ai. v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL [ii A: I believe that's true, but I -- Pi Q: Would you also agree, sir, that the first Pi study that indicated that persons in the household [4] of asbestos workers might be at risk of [5] asbestos-related disease was a study, the [6] Anderson-Lillis study of 1976? [7] MR. HAINES: Object to form. [] THE WITNESS: I believe that was the Pi first study. [io[ Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Have you reviewed or [ii] conducted any studies on fiber release from [i2l automotive gaskets, meaning gaskets used in [131 automotive combustion engines? [i4) A: I don't believe so. [i5i Q: As I understand it, sir. you've not had [i6i any communication with anyone concerning [i7i Mr. Raper's case other than Plaintiff's attorney; [i8i is that correct? [i9] A: That's correct. [2oi Q: In other words, you have not had any [?i] communication with any of the co-workers, his [221 physicians or the families themselves; have you? [23] A: You mean directly talk to them? [24] Q: Yes. [25] A: No, sir.* 1 2 * * 5 [] * * * 10 11 Page 90 I Page 92 j [i) clear that up for both of us. i pi After the 1972 criteria document, each i pi additional criteria documents, when there were [4] recommended levels of exposure given to OSHA by [5] NIOSH, those levels were to protect against all i [6] asbestos-related diseases, including the cancers, [7] weren't they? (si A: If you recall the 1976 criteria document Pi that I and John Dement wrote for NIOSH, it said [ioi that the concentration we recommended, that being ini the 0.1, which is the current OSHA standard, was [i2] based upon technological feasibility and phase [i3i contrast microscopy to reduce the risk, but we (mi could not guarantee it would eliminate the risk of [is; cancer. [16] So the level was not based upon the [17] health effect, it was based upon a technological [is] feasibility of measuring at that concentration. [19] MR. ELLISTON: Objection, nonresponsive. [20] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Isn't it true. sir. [21] that when NIOSH made recommendations to OSHA [22] concerning permissible exposure levels, those [23] recommendations were made for all types of -- all [24i types of asbestos-related disease, including the [25] cancers?1 11 Page 91 Page 93 [1] Q: Based on the information you've been [1] MR. HAINES: Object to form. [2] given, are you aware, sir, whether Mr. Raper was [2] THE WITNESS: Well, yes, they were, Pi ever diagnosed with any non-malignant, pi with that provision that I put on. (4i asbestos-related disease such as asbestosis or [4] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Well, you would agree, [5] asbestos-related pleural plaques prior to receiving [5] sir, that NIOSH didn't recommend different levels [] his cancer diagnosis? [6] to protect against asbestosis and then a different [7i A: I don't know of any. [7] level to protect against cancers? [8! Q: Sir, would you agree that it has been pi A: If that 's your question, that's correct. PI your recommendation for the last quarter century [91 Q: Would you also agree that in the 1940s [10] that in-place asbestos products that are in good [10] and 1950s and 1960s, no doctor or scientist with [11] condition that have not been damaged should be left [11] U.S. Public Health Service ever recommended that ;i2l alone and left in place? [12] asbestos not be used onboard government ships and [is] A: That has been my opinion. But monitored. : [is] aircraft because of any potential hazard? ;i4] Q: When NIOSH was making recommendations to [14] A: I don't know the answer to that. I don't [i5i OSHA about the permissible exposure levels, those i [is] know if anybody did or did not, but I don't know of ;is] were levels that were being recommended for all [i6] anybody doing it. [i7i types of asbestos-related diseases, including the ;[i7] Q: You've never seen any evidence that fia] cancers, weren't they? I [is] anybody with U.S. Public Health Service ever spoke ri9] A: I think the 1992 really didn't address i [i9] up and said, don't use asbestos onboard Naval ships so] the cancer issue to any extent. But all the rest i [20] or military aircraft, have you? -ii of them, after that point in time, were, yes, sir. [2i] A: I don't know of any.The answer is no. 22i MR. HAINES: You said '92. [22i Q: Would you likewise agree, sir, that you 23i THE WITNESS: I mean '72. I'm sorry. [23i cannot cite any textbook that was published in the 24] Not '92, '72. [24] 30's, '40s. '50s or even the '60s that advocated 2=] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) I'll see if I can [25] banning asbestos? `age 90 - Page 93 (58) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE KAPEK, ei aju v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Kl^tlAKD A. LEMEN, P March 18,1 Page 94 j Pat [i] A: Well, I think Dr. Hueper's textbook, H 1942, certainly talked about the risk, but I don't PI think he ever said anything about banning the use W of asbestos. [5] Q: Therefore, you would agree, sir, you I t1! or recommendation that asbestos be banned from use : [2] in industry in the 1970s? pi A: I think they recommended substitution [4] when possible, but never an outright statement of [5] banned. [6] could not identify any textbook that advocated [6] Q: It has been the opinion and the m banning asbestos in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s or m recommendation of the U.S. Public Health Service [si 1960s, can you? [8] from the 1930s right up through the 1970s that you pi A: Not that I recall. [9] should control the dust levels, and by controlling [io] Q: Can you identify any textbook that [10] the dust levels, control disease, when dealing with in] advocated banning asbestos in the 1970s? [i21 A: Well, I think that -- by your definition [11] asbestos, hasn't it? [12] A: Reduce the risk of disease, yes. sir. ;i3] of textbook, would you include the annals of the [13] Q: Sir. since you retired from NIOSH. would [i4] New York Academy of Sciences in 1965 as a textbook? [14] you estimate that you have testified, either in ns] Because you kind of skipped over the 60s. [15] deposition or trial, approximately 50 times? ;i6i Q: Well, let me go back to this for a [16] A: That's probably correct. [i7] second. Go back to your question for a second. [17] Q: Would you agree, sir. that at this point [is] I am specifically dealing with textbooks, [18] in time approximately 60 to 75 percent of your [191 and we ll talk about the annals in just a moment. [19] income comes from litigation? [20] A: Okay. [20] A: I would guess that would be correct. [21] Q:Which -- [21] Q: When you went through the material for [22] A: A textbook, by your definition, is a [221 this case, did you make any notes yourself? [23] textbook used for training people? [23] A: No. sir. [24] Q:Correct. [24] Q: Would you agree, sir. that an individual [25] A: Okay. [25] just looking at dust can t tell whether that dust1 11 Page 95 Pac [1] Q: Are you aware of any textbook that [1] contains asbestos or not? [2] advocated banning asbestos in the 1970s? [2] A: I agree with you. PI A: Not with -- not right now. no, I can't pi Q: You have to look at the dust or the [4] tell you anything. [4] particles under a microscope to determine whether [5] Q: Did Mount Sinai, in their -- did Mount [5] they re asbestos or not. don't you? [6] Sinai or the New York Academy, did they advocate [6] A: That's correct. [7] banning asbestos in the 1960s or 1970s? [7] Q: Would you also agree, sir, that the first [8] A: Well, in the discussion section, I think [8] large-scale epidemiological study about asbestos [9] it was Mr. Roach representing industry, said that PI was done by Dr. Merewether in 1930 over in England [10] the only safe level that would protect all workers [10] on textile workers? [11] was zero, which I would say would be essentially [11] A: I certainly think that's the biggest of [12] the recommendation, not to use it, or ban it. So I [12] the first studies done, yes, sir. [13] don't think he used the word ban, but he said that [13] Q: And. again, Dr. Merewether was dealing [u] was the only safe concentration. [14] with textile workers who were working with raw [is] Q: Did Dr. Selikoff himself ever publish the [is] asbestos in poorly-ventilated plants rather than in [i6i opinion that asbestos should not be used in [is] end-product users, wasn't he? [i7] industry in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s? [i7] A: That's correct. [is] A: I don't know that he did, no, sir. [is] Q: And, of course, what Dr. Merewether [19] Q: Did any member of the U.S. Public Health [i9] recommended was that you suppress the dust levels [20] Service publish the opinion in the 1950s, 1960s or [201 and control the disease, wasn't it? [21] 1970s that asbestos should not be used in industry? [21] A: Yes, sir. [22] A: Other than the statement in the criteria [22] Q: And at that study Dr. Merewether did not [23] document that I alluded to before that you said was [23] identify any mesotheliomas, did he? [24] nonresponsive, I don't think so. [24] A: Not to my knowledge. [25] Q: Did NIOSH come out and issue the opinion [25] Q: In fact. Dr. Merewether did not report BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (59) Page 94 - Pag< RICHARD A- CLMEN, Ph.D. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Paga 98 ! Page 100 [i] any cancers in that study, did he? j [i] further and recommended a tentative threshold limit ra A: That's correct. Pi value, didn't he? [3] Q: Sir, I've heard you mention Dr. Hoffman PI A: It wasn't called a threshold limit value w or Mr. Hofman's report before, and I want to just [4] at that time, it was just a guidance limit, I think H ask you a few questions about that. [5] he called it. [6] The Hoffman report of 1918, that was a [6i Q: What Dr. Dreessen said in his 1938 study m governmental document, wasn't it? [7] was that if you kept the dust levels below five pi A: That was from the -- I believe the Bureau [8] million particles per cubic foot, that you would pi of Labor Statistics, by the Department of Labor. Pi expect almost the total disappearance of disease. [io] Q: And that document referred to asbestos [10] didn't he? in] workers but did not refer to end-product users, did [11] A: The disease asbestosis, yes. sir. He did [12] it? [12] report some cases below that concentration, but [13] A: I don't believe it did. [13] that's essentially what his conclusion was. [14] Q: So that document would take [14] Q: And. again, this Dr. Dreessen s study was (isi U.S. Government's knowledge about asbestos at least [is] reported on textile workers and it was reported in 116] back to 1918, wouldn't it? [16] a U.S. Government publication under the seal of the [in A: I believe so. At least the Department of [17] U.S. Surgeon General, wasn't it? ]i8] Labor, that parr of the government. [is] A: Well. I don't know if it was under the [19] Q: Now, if we go to 1935, we have [19] seal. I've never heard it put that way. But it [20] Dr. Lanza's study, which was the first large-scale [20] was a U.S. Government publication of the Public [21] epidemiological study of the United States, wasn t [21] Health Service. [22] it? [22i Q: And the Surgeon General was in charge and [23] A: The one when he was with Metropolitan? [23] the head of the U.S. Public Health Services: is [24] Q:1935. [24] that correct? [25] A: Yes, I think so.1 [25] A: Yes, that's correct. Page 99 Page 101 [1] Q: Is that correct? [ii Q: Then in 1946 we have the first [2] A: I said yes. [2] large-scale epidemiological study concerning pipe PI Q: Okay. PI covers or people working with thermal insulation [4] A: I think so. [4j products in the United States, don't we? [5] Q: Dr. Lanza's 1935 study in the U.S., [5] A: Are you referring to the Fleischer study? [6] again, was dealing with textile workers who were, Pi Q: Yes, sir. [7] for all practical purposes, working with pure m A: Yes, sir. [8] asbestos dust in factories, wasn't it? [8] Q: And the Fleischer-Drinker study, again, [9] A: That's correct. [9] was a study conducted by the U.S. Navy and the [io] Q: And Dr. Lanza, again, recommended that [10] U.S. Maritime Commission, wasn't it? ;ii] you suppress the dust and control disease? [11] A: I believe that's correct. [12] A: I believe that's correct. [12] Q: In the Fleischer-Drinker study, did they [13] Q: And then, in 1938, U.S. Public Health [13] report any mesotheliomas? [u] Service, with Dr. Dreessen, does a study of [14] A: No, sir. [is] asbestos textile workers? [isi Q: Did the Fleischer-Drinker study report [16] A: That's when the study was reported. [16] any lung cancers or malignancies of any type that [17] Q: And Dr. Dreessen did not report any [17] they associated with asbestos? [is] mesotheliomas, did he? ;[is] A: I don't believe so. [i91 A: No, sir. - [19] Q: In your opinion, sir, is cigarette smoke 20] Q: Dr. Lanza did not report any [20] fibrogenic? 21] mesotheliomas?? i [21] A: Fibrogenic? 22] A: Correct. : [22i Q: Yes, sir. 23] Q: And Dr. Dreessen went beyond just the [23] A: It can cause -- I'm not sure that I can 24] standard recommendation that you should suppress [24] answer that question, whether it's fibrogenic or 25] the dust and control disease, he went a step [25] not. Page 98 - Page 101 (60) Min-L-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 ut\t.r. rVrlLX'lixv, a iiL. V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL KlCOiAKU A* UtAUciS, P March 18,1 Page 102 ! Page [1] Q: Let me rephrase the question for you. [i] association with lung cancer, there has been a [2] Would you agree, sir, that cigarette smoke causes a p] debate whether interstitial fibrosis or asbestosis pj fibrotic reaction in the lungs? pi is necessary before there is an increased risk of m A: It can. [4] lung cancer in an asbestos-exposed individual? [si Q: Would you agree, sir, that interstitial Pi A: That is correct. Pi fibrosis progresses more rapidly in a smoker than a [6] Q: Would you also agree, sir. that if we Pi nonsmoker? [7] followed Dr. Selikoff's epidemiological research p] W1R. HAINES: Object to form, [] back to 1968, when he first divided his workers pi THE WITNESS: I believe that would be pi between smokers and nonsmokers, that all the way up [10) true. [10] until 1979 Dr. Selikoff basically reported that [11] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) In fact, the [11] nonsmoking asbestos workers did not have an [121 epidemiological studies by Dr. Selikoff, published [12] increased risk of lung cancer above the general [is] in the 1960s and 1970s, indicate that asbestosis [13] population? [i4i tends to progress more rapidly and become more [14] A: Give me the dates again. I'm not -- [is] severe in smokers than nonsmokers, doesn't it? [is] Q: Okay. [16] A: I believe that's correct. [16] A: You're saying '79. [17] Q: Would you also agree, sir. that the risk [17] Q: I apologize. I'm getting too [is] of Gl-tract cancer in asbestos workers has not been [is] shorthanded, trying to shorthand this. [19] shown to be any greater than the general population [19] Would you agree, sir. that up until 1979. [20] if they are non-smokers? [20] throughout all of Dr. Selikoff's publications on [2ii A: I can't answer that question. [21] his research. Dr. Selikoff indicated that a [22] Q: You would agree, sir, that at least for [22] nonsmoking asbestos worker did not have an [23] laryngeal cancers, there has been no showing of an [23] increased risk of lung cancer above the general [24] excess risk of laryngeal cancer among asbestos [24] population? [25] workers unless they are a smoker, wouldn't you?1 11 [25] A: Could you just tell me what publication Page 103 Page [1] A: I believe that's correct. [1] in 79 you're referring to? Because I'm having -- [2] Q: Would you also agree, sir, that the [2] that Selikoff stated that in? I'm trying to figure p] average latency period for mesothelioma is 35 p] out when -- (4j years? [4] MR. HAINES: He's asking you about [5] A: Somewhere in that neighborhood. [5] all the publications prior to '79. Whether [6] Q: Would you aiso agree, sir, that the [] he said that or not -- [7] average latency period for lung cancer, if it is [7] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Let me approach it [8] related to asbestos, is in the range of 20 to 25 [8] this way, Dr. Lemen.You would agree that in 1964 [9] years? [9] and '65 Dr. Selikoff did not divide those [10] A: I would think that would be correct. In i [io] insulation workers between smokers and nonsmokers, [11] both of those, you're saying, average? f[ii] did he? [12] Q: Yes, sir, I am. [i2] A: Well, he wrote a paper -- before '65? [13] A: Okay. I agree with you. [14] Q: What is your opinion, sir, for the [i3i Q: Yes. Stay with me for just a second. I [i4] A: Correct. [is] average latency period for asbestosis? I [is] Q: I know you're trying to read, and I'm [is] A: That depends upon the dosage. j[i6] going to try to break it out for us so we can get [i7] Q: Would you agree, sir, that the more i [i7] there. [is] severe the dose or the exposure, the more rapid or | [is] Would you agree, sir, that in his -- at [19] shorter the latency period? [20] A: The higher the exposure or the [21] concentration to the individual, the shorter the [221 latency period. [23] Q: Would you agree, sir, that throughout the [24] research and development of knowledge about [25] asbestos and its potential relationship or [i9] the symposium and in the annals that were published i [20] after the symposium, that Dr. Selikoff did not ; [2i] distinguish between smokers and nonsmokers in his I [22] cohort of insulators? ; (23] A: I believe that's correct. [24] Q: In 1968 Dr. Selikoff did divide the [25] workers between smokers and nonsmokers and BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (6l) Page 102 - Page : March 18, 1999 Ax.iNiN,in i/rnx iwi-tn, et ai. v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et al. Page 106 ! Page 108 [i] published the opinion that the nonsmokers did not [i] limits. And there possibly are safe levels, but I [21 have an excess risk of lung cancer above the PI can't quantify them for you. Pi general population? Pi Q; Fair enough. Let me rephrase my question [4] A: I believe that was his finding. 1 [4] for you. [5] Q: In 1972 he went to France, to an IARC [si Would you agree, sir, that medical [6] meeting, and again reported that nonsmokers ;s] science today cannot identify a safe level for any [7] basically did not have an increased risk of lung [7] carcinogen? [si cancer over the general population, even though [8] A: For all individuals I believe that's Pi they had been exposed to asbestos, didn't he? [9] true. Because of the -- there are many factors io] A: I believe that -- you're talking about [10] that go into an individual's susceptibility, et hi his publication and the biological effects of -- [11] cetera, so I believe 1 would have to answer your i2] yes, sir. [12] question yes. '3] Q: Then in 1976 he again presented his data [13] Q; In using that criteria, there is no known i4] at the New York Academy of Science meeting and [14] safe level to automobile exhaust that we encounter is] again indicated that nonsmoking asbestos workers [is] even' day. is there? 6] did not have an increased risk of lung cancer above [i6] A: Not for all individuals, that's correct. 7] the general population, didn't he? [it] Q: You would also agree, sir, there s no a] A: I'd have to go back to his paper, but lie] safe level to -- of exposure to cigarette smoke. 9] that's generally my recollection. [19] whether direct or indirect, isn't that true? ;oi Q: In any event, in 1979 Dr. Selikoff did [20] A: Yes. >i] publish a paper indicating that, in his opinion. [21] Q: Sir. isn't it true that whether dust is 2] that there was an increased risk of lung cancer [22] actually visible to the individual depends on a lot 3] among nonsmoking asbestos workers that could be [231 of things, including the light in the area, how 4] somewhere between 1 and 9 and. therefore, they [24i large the panicles are and what type of panicles 5] selected 5 and published that as the increased risk* 1 2 3 * 5 [25] they are. things of that nature?* 11 Page 107 Page 109 1] for a nonsmoking asbestos worker; isn't that true? [i] A: I would agree with that. 2] A; What was the name of that paper? Can you P] Q: Would you also agree, sir. that the 3] tell me which one? [3] exposure that an individual receives from dust will 4] Q: I can't give you the title of the paper, [4] depend a lot on the wind or the ventilation in that 5] but it's my recollection, sir, that it was [5] area? .6] published in the annals that were published that [6] A; Those all have effects, yes, sir. [7] year, the 1979 annals. I'd have to go back and tn Q: And would you agree, sir, as to whether (ai look. But the figure of 5 is certainly what he [a] someone truly has an exposure above the threshold 9] reported. But I'm not sure of the exact era that [91 level or permissible exposure level will depend not o] that was reported. [10] just on how much dust they see but, in addition to 1] Would you agree, sir, that in the paper [11] how long they're in the area, how close they are to 2] where they reported the five times increased risk ]i2) the operation, ventilation, things of that nature? 3] for nonsmoking asbestos workers, they also [i3] A: I would agree. 4j indicated that the risk, in actuality, could be [H] Q: Sir, have you published any opinions or 5] anywhere between 1 and 9 because there were so few [is] criticisms of the filter, the fit, the marketing, 6i nonsmoking asbestos workers who had developed lung [16] the design or the manufacture of any type of 7] cancer? [17] respiratory protective device or mask? ib] A: I think that's true. [is] A: I have not personally published. I have 9] Q: In your opinion, sir, is there any safe [i9] worked on respirator test programs and so forth in a] level or is there any known safe level to any i [20] NIOSH recommendations, but they are not my 1] carcinogen? - [21] publications, they're NIOSH publications. 2] A; To any carcinogen? [22] Q: Have you published any opinions or }] Q: Yes. sir. ; [23] criticisms of any specific brand or type of t] A: Well, we certainly put recommendations in [24] respirator or mask yourself? ] our criteria documents, RELs. recommended exposure [25] A: Again, not personally, no, sir. age 106 - Page 109 (62) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 IsJnNiNfclH DALE RAPER, et ai. v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. EEMEN, PE March 18,1` Page 110 | Page [il Q: Do you claim to be an expert in the I [i] Q: I'm sorry.Would you agree, sir, that PI manufacture, design or marketing of respiratory i pi the U.S. Surgeon General repons that tobacco smoke Pi protective devices? ; pi contains 43 different carcinogens? K1 A: No, sir. ! [4] A: Somewhere in that neighborhood. I'd have [5i MR. ELLISTON: Why don't we take a : [si to go back and look at the Surgeon General's [6i quick break, ; [6j report, which I have a copy of. But it contains m (Recess taken.) ; [7i multiple carcinogens. And if 43 is the number, [8] Q: (By Mr. Elliston) Sir, what is your best [8i I'll take your word for it. [91 estimate of vour total income in 1998 from your Pi Q: Would you agree, sir. that the [ioi work testifying and consulting in the asbestos (ioi U.S. Public Health Service recommended warnings on [ill litigation? [ii] tobacco products in the mid '60s? [12] A: Just as pertains to asbestos? [i2i A: I believe that's correct. [13] Q: Yes. sir. [i3i Q: Have you ever drafted or prepared a [14] A: I'd have to go to my accountant, but I [i4] warning or instruction or label for any type of [is] think that I -- after expenses and paying taxes [is] product that was actually placed in the stream of [i6i and -- is that -- what are you talking about, gross [16] customers? [i7] or -- [17] A: When I was director of the Division of [is] Q: Yes, sir. Let's -- I don't want to get [iai Standards Development and Technology Transfer. And [i91 into all your expenses. What was your gross [i9] when I co-wrote the criteria document that John [2oi income, vour best estimate, from consulting and [201 Dement and I did in 1976, we had -- well, we didn't [2il testifying in asbestos litigation in 1998? [21] include it there, but I worked on the 1972 [221 A: A little over SI00.000. [22] recommendation. And then all the criteria [23] Q: Sir, I noticed in vour designation there [23] documents under my supervision that were put out [24] was a mention of smoking. Would you agree that [24] between 1981 and of 1987 that contained warning (25i smoking causes 30 to 33 percent of all cancer in [25] labels, yes. I had a hand in writing those. 3age 111 Page [1] America, cancer deaths in America? [i] Q: Let me divide this up for us. [2] A: I think it's the biggest cause of cancer [2! Have you. as an individual and private [3] deaths in the United States. I don t want to put a [3] citizen, ever drafted or prepared a warning [4] percentage on it because I'm not sure. ["] instruction or label for any type of product that [5] Q: Are you aware, sir, whether the [5] was placed in the stream of customers? [6] U.S. Surgeon General has estimated that smoking [6] A: No. 7] causes over 30 percent of all cancer deaths in [7] Q: Even while you were at NIOSH, did NIOSH [6] America? [8] ever recommend any instructions or labels for any [9] A: I agree with that. I'm just not wanting [9] individual products? [10] to put a finite number. But I certainly think that [10] A: You mean like, for example, Armstrong ["I smoking is the greatest cause of lung cancer in the [11] ceiling tile? Would that be an example of a [12] world, probably. ;('2] specific product? [13] Q: Okay. You've answered a little ;[i3] Q: Yes, sir, it would. [14] differently than I asked. So, in fairness to you, i [14] A: Ours were generic recommendations, so the [15] I'll divide it up. Would you agree that smoking K'S] answer would be no. [16] has been shown to be a cause of 87 percent or more : lie] Q: Did NIOSH -- I understand NIOSH ['7 of all lung cancer deaths? ![171 recommended warnings be placed on certain types of [18] A: I would agree with that. I [181 products; is that correct? [19] Q: Would-you agree that smoking has been !(19] A: That's correct. [20] shown to be a cause of 30 percent or more of all [20] Q: Did NIOSH go further than that and [21] cancer deaths.in America? [21] recommend labeling or instructions for various [22] A: Again, I can't answer that exactly, but I [22] products? [23] think that's somewhere in the neighborhood. I'd [23] A: They gave generic label instructions in [24] have to go back to the Surgeon General's report and [24] their criteria documents. I don't think we, when I [25] do that. [25] was at NIOSH, we ever made a specific label for a BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (63) Page 110 - Page 1 K1U1AKU A. LtMEN, PinD. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNEVG FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Page 114 Page 116 [ij specific product, if that's what you're asking. [ij first paragraph shows that, yeah, it was a [2i MR. ELLISTON: I'll pass the witness. I pi brake manufacturing plant as opposed to end Pi Thank you, sir. i pi users.That's the 19 -- i4] MS. SIENI: No questions. [4] THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's consistent rs] CROSS-EXAMINATION [5] with what I remember. I would like to have ;s! BY MR. BAHR: [6] a copy because -- I'm sure I've got one, [7] Q: Doctor, my name is Kevin Bahr. I [7] but it would be easier if I could -- since [8j represent Kelly Moore. [] I've given you copies. [91 Based on your review of the materials Pi MR. HARTON: And I think that's !io] furnished to you by the plaintiffs' attorneys in [10] all -- yeah, yeah. I mean, those are all ;m this case, are you aware of the nature and [11] the questions I have. 1 don't know if ;i2) circumstances surrounding plaintiffs' alleged [12] anyone has anything else. ;i3! exposure to joint compounds? [13] MR. HAINES: I've just got a couple fuj A: Other than the material that I wasgiven? [u] of follow-ups if you all are all done. ;is) Q: Correct. [is] DIRECT EXAMINATION ;i6i A: No. [is] BY MR. HAINES: i7] Q: Can youtell us what vour awareness is [i7] Q: Dr. Lemen. I want to clear up a couple of -is] regarding plaintiff's exposure to joint compounds [is] points, make sure we're clear on. Earlier today we [19] based on what you have reviewed? [i9] were talking about the criteria document in 1972 [20] A: Just that he was exposed, but I don't [20[ and in '76, and you were attempting to explain one [21] know concentrations or anything of that nature. 22] Q: Have you reviewed any materials or [21] of vour answers about technological feasibility and [22] the levels. Please explain to me what happened in 23] documents or depositions of corporate [23] 1976 with regard to technological feasibility and [24] representatives concerning anything related to [24] the standard that was recommended in that criteria 25) Kelly Moore? [25] document.* I Page 11 !> Page 117 [1] A: Not to my knowledge. [t] A: The standard that was recommended in the [2] Q: You personally haven't conducted or [2] 1976 criteria document was based upon the [3] reviewed any industrial hygiene studies regarding [3] statistical abilities of the NIOSH analytical [4] any fiber release issues concerning products [4] method for counting fibers in an environment -- in [5] manufactured by Kelly Moore? [5] an environment containing asbestos and the ability [6] A: No. [] to statistically have a reliable concentration that [7] MR. BAHR; Those are all my m you could rely upon. And the lowest concentration [8j questions. Thank you. [8] at that time that we could determine was 0.1 [9] MR. HAINES: Did you have some t [9] fibers. And we stated that even at that [io] questions? I [io] concentration there may be disease, which we know ;ti] MR. HARTON; Well, actually, what i [i ii now from doing risk assessment we project that [i2] I've done, just so you'll know, is I've [i2] there is a risk of developing disease at or below i3] sent the notebook down to be copied. If I [13] the concentration. [i4] can get the notebook back up, that way I [14] Q: In 1972 or in 1976, was it ever thought, ;i5] will have a copy, I can just use that at [isi by the NIOSH or by yourself in your capacity i6i trial. And that's going to make it a lot i [i6] working for NIOSH, that that level of. 1 would [i7] easier than me running back through those !li 7] entirely prevent cancer from arising from asbestos [is] articles, if that's all right. And that's [ia] exposure? [19] what I've done.Therefore, about the only [i9] MR. ELLISTON: Objection, form. [20] thing I've got is I've asked people to I[2o] THE WITNESS: Well, the .1 didn't 2i] make -- find a copy of the Brachmann j [2ij come into existence until 1976, and it .22] article. Remember that? And if you want a [22] wasn't after that period of time, that's [23] copy of this. I'll make it for you. But I i [23] true. ,24] think earlier we said -- believed it to be [24] Q: (By Mr. Haines) I'm sorry. It wasn't 25] a manufacturing facility. I think the [25] after what time? Page 114 - Page 117 (64) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH. DALE KAPEK, el ajL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. 1EMEN, P March 18, ] Page 118 [1] A: . 1 was first recommended by NIOSH in [2] 1976, and subsequent to that and at that time it p] was never stated that it would completely reduce K) the risk, but it would substantially lower the [5] risk, in our opinion. [6] Q: Right. With regard to some of these [7] articles that discuss the manufacturing of brake [a] parts, such as this Brachmann article in 1940 which Pi discusses grinders and drillers of brake bands, can [10] you discuss for us why that would be relevant or [11] applicable to end users? What is the significance [12] of an article like this in the context of an end [13] user brake mechanic? [14] MR. ELLISTON: Object, form. [is] THE WITNESS: I believe that it shows [is] that when working with the brake lining. [i7] drilling hoies in it or grinding it, that [is] there could be exposure. So that's [19] strictly applicable if somebody were [20] grinding or drilling as an end-product user (2ii of the material. [22] MR. HAINES: That's all the questions [23] I have for you.Thank you. [1] A: There may be some, but I'm not aware of [2] them. PI MR. ELLISTON: That's all I have, m Thank you. [5] (Deposition concluded at 11:50 a.m.) [6] [7] IB] P! [10] [111 [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [24] MR. HARTON: One. I'm following up [25] on that. [23] [24] [11 RECROSS-EXAMINATION [2] BY MR. HARTON: [3] Q: Do you know, based on your review of the [<*] Raper testimony, if he ever either ground or [51 drilled any brake linings? [6] A: I don t know. IT] MR. HARTON: Okay, thanks. [8] MR. FALK: I just have one follow-up [9] also. [10] RECROSS-EXAMINATION Page 119 [25] [1] INDEX TO EXAMINATIONS [21 [3] Examination Page [4] [5] Cross-Examinalion by Mr. Harton [6] Cross-Examination by Mr. Falk [7] Cross-Examination By Mr. Gustatson [8] Cross-Examination by Mr. Johnson [9] Cross-Examination by Mr. Elliston 5 50 67 70 74 (HI BY MR. FALK: [12] Q: Are you aware of any studies or [10] Cross-Examination by Mr. Bahr [ii] Direct Examination by Mr. Haines 114 116 [13] industrial hygiene surveys concerning exposure [14] levels while working on aircraft brakes? [15] A: I haven't seen any. [16] Q: Do you know if the brakes on the aircraft (17] that Mr. Raper worked on even contained asbestos? [18] A: No, I don't know that. [19] MR. FALK: Thank you. [20] MR. ELLISTON: One last question. [211 . RECROSS-EXAMINATION [22] BY MR. ELLISTON: [23] Q: Sir, are you aware of any fiber release [24] studies or testing that has been done related to [25] friction products used on cranes, overhead cranes? [12] Recross-Examination by Mr. Harton [13] Recross-Examination by Mr. Falk ; [14] Recross-Examination by Mr. Elliston i [15] [[16] ' i [171 [181 : [is] [[20] - i [21] : [22] [23] [24] [25] 119 119 120 Page Page BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (65) Page 118 - Page UCHAKD A. JLEMEN, PK.D. -larch 18,1999 1] INDEX TO EXHIBITS 3 Defendant's 3] Exhibit Description Page 4] 1 Notice of Taking Deposition 5 5] 2 CV 7 6] 3 Medical File on Kenneth Raper 8 7] 4 Time Line 15 a] 5 Medical Reports and Depositions of 9] Mr. Raper and Co-Workers 15 0] ij (Original Exhibits 1 - 3 and 5 and photocopies 2] ot Exhibit 4 have been attached to the original transcript. 3] 4] 3] SI 71 8] 91 31 11 21 31 41 31 KENNETH DAUB RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL Page 122 i [i] STATE OF GEORGIA: COUNTY OF FULTON: Page 123 pi I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript pi was reported, as stated in the caption, and the [41 questions and answers thereto were reduced to [5] typewriting under my direction: that the foregoing [6i pages 1-123 represent a true, complete, and correct Pi transcript of the evidence given upon said hearing. [B] and I further certify that I am not of kin or pi counsel to the parties in the case; am not in the [ioi employ of counsel for any of said panics: nor am I nil in anywise interested in the result of said case. [12] Disclosure Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-1 l-28(d):The [13] panv taking this deposition will receive the [14] original and one copy based on our standard and [is] customary per page charges. Copies to other [i6] panics will be furnished based on our standard and [in customary per page charges. Incidental direct [is] expenses of production may be added to either pany [19] where applicable. Our customary appearance fee [20] will be charged to the panv taking this pi] deposition. [221 This, the 18th day of March, 1999. [23] [24] Diane M. Bachus, RPR. CCR "B-2089 My Commission Expires on the [25] 16th Day of August. 2002 'age 122 - Page 123 (66) Min- U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Lawyer's Notes KEiNiMiiia. OAEE RAPER, et ac v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL KiCELAKD A. EEMEN, PE March 18, IS # #8-2089 123-24,24 $ SI ,500 15:19,19 $100,000 110:22, 22 S300 15:20, 20 o 0.1 92:11:117:8:92:11: 117:8 01 31:23:32:6:31:23: 32:6 1 I 5:1:6:9:31:3:61:3:64:2; 74:18: 106:24; 107:15: 117:16. 20; 118:1:5:1:6:9: 31:3:61:3:64:2:74:18: 106:24: 107:15: 117:16, 20: 118:1 1-123 123:6.6 1.5 57:17, l"I7 II 10 14:12. 12 II 33:12. 12 11/24/98 8:14. 14 11:50 120:5. 5 12 15:22: 16:3: 15:22; 16:3 128 61:14. 20:62:9. 17; 61:14.20: 62:9, 17 129 63:9.9 15 16:17:47:9: 16:17; 47:9 155 65:8.8 16 9:19.19 16th 123:25.25 1798 74:11,11 1800s 85:15,15 18th 123:22. 22 1974:18; 116:3; 74:18; 116:3 1918 98:6,16,6,16 1930 97:9,9 1930s 75:2. 15:94:7; 96:8:75:2, 15; 94:7; 96:8 1935 34:25; 35:5; 36:11; 98:19, 24; 99:5; 34:25; 35:5; 36:11;98:19, 24; 99:5 1938 99:13:100:6; 99:13; 100:6 1939 37:10.10 1940 37:17; 118:8; 37:17; 118:8 1940s 93:9:94:7; 93:9. 94:7 1941 37:21,21 1942 94:2.2 | 1998 9:16:71:16; 110:9. | 21; 9:16; 71:16; 110:9.21 1943 41:16,16 1946 101:1.1 1950s 93:10; 94:7; 95:20; 93:10; 94:7:95:20 1952 41:17:75:24:76:1; 41:17; 75:24; 76:1 i 1999 28:19:30:24; ! 123:22; 28:19; 30:24; 123:22 2 1957 42:25,25 1958 79:11, 11 1960 41:14. 19. 20. 25: 42:5:75:20: 41:14,19. 20. 25:42:5:75:20 1960s 93:10; 94:8:95:7. I-7. 20:102:13:93:10; 94:8:95:7.17, 20: 102:13 1964 105:8.8 2 7:21; 57:19:7:21: 57:19 2/18/98 8:14,14 20 16:17:24:2; 103:8: 16:17; 24:2: 103:8 2002 123:25. 25 200th 74:14. 14 25 103:8.8 260 15:20. 20 1965 19:23:20:25:21:12; 33:20; 34:6.7.9: 39:10: 94:14: 19:23:20:25; 21:12:33:20: 34:6. ". 9: 39:10:94:14 1968 104:8: 105:24; 104:8; 105:24 1970 74:18. 18 1970s 39:25:40:24: 89:25:94:11:95.2.". 1" 21:96:2.8; 102:13:39:25; 40:24:89:25:94:11; 95:2. 7. 17. 21:96:2.8: 102:13 3 3 8:7. 9: 34:1:8:". 9: 34:1 30 110:25: 111:7. 20: 110:25: 111:". 20 30's 93:24. 24 35 103:3:110:25: 103:3: 110:25 3M 82:6.8. 6. 8 4 1972 76:6. 10. 16:77:18: 78:2.6. 12. 20.25:79:24: 80:8:88:1. 16.22:92:2; 106:5: 112:21: 116:19: 117:14:76:6. 10. 16: 77:18:78:2.6. 12. 20. 25: "9:24; 80:8: 88:1. 16.22: 92:2: 106:5: 112:21: 116:19: 117:14 1973 43:6.6 4 15:4.7: 17:22: 29:23: 46:6. 15; 15:4.7: 17:22: 29:23:46:6. 15 4CIS 93:24. 24 43 112:3. ", 3, " 5 1975 19:1.6: 29:24: 89:25; 19:1,6:29:24; 89:25 1976 19:14,17:40:9: 90:6:92:8; 106:13; 112:20; 116:23; 117:2,14, 21: 118:2; 19:14,17; 40:9; 90:6:92:8; 106:13; 112:20; 116:23; 117:2. 14, 21; 118:2 5 15:4; 19:1.6:20:13. 16: 21:16:68:4: 106:25: 107:8:15:4; 19:1,6; 20:13, 16:21:16:68:4; 106:25; 1C7:8 50 96:15. 15 50s 93:24.24 5th 29:2,2 1977 43:15, 15 6 1979 104:10,19; 106:20; 107.7; 104:10, 19; 106:20; 107:7 160 96:18,18 1980s 59:14:66:13; I 60s 93:24; 94:15; 112:11; 95:17; 59:14; 66:13; 95:17 ! 93:24; 94:15; 112:11 1981 112:24,24 | 63 69:20,20 1985 86:20, 24,20. 24 | 64 69:21,21 1986 71:16; 72:1; 71:16; i 65 105:9, 12,9, 12 72:1 1987 112:24.24 7 1989 9:8.8 1992 91:19. 19 1994 58:10. 10 7 11.21; 13-12:11:21; 1.3:12 1996 56:10:74:19; 56:10; 70s 17:8:40:3:42:18; 74:19 43:5:84:22; 17:8:40:3; 42:18; 43:5: 84:22 72 76:13:91:23,24; 76:13:91:23.24 7400 45:4.18,4.18 75 96:18.18 76 116:20,20 79 104:16; 105:1.5: 104:16: 105:1.5 108:22:112:15:115:1 : 8:13; 15:13:23:8:40:5 : 43:10:64:25; 74:20: 75:23:76:15; 108:22; 112:15:115:11 add 30:15. 15 added ":4,7; 123:18: ': 123:18 adding 44:23.23 8 addition 44:6; 109:10 44:6: 109:10 8 12:17;43:8: 12:1" 43:8 80's 32:12. 12 80s 32:14. 18: 39:25: 32:14. 18: 39:25 87 111:16. 16 additional 85:23; 92: 85:23:92:3 additions 6:23: ":1; 6 7:1 address 91:19.19 addressed "5:i-i. i t addressing 80:9,9 9 adhesives 87:13.1" 1" 9 13:1" 15:7; 106:24: adopted 32:7. `T 10":15: 13:1": 15:": Advisory 7:5. 5 106:24: 107:15 advocate 95:6. 6 9-11-28(d 123:12. 12 advocated 93:21:91: 92 91:22. 24. 22. 24 11:95:2:93:24:9-1:6. 1 97 25:24: 52:1": 25:24: 95:2 52:1" aerosol 48:5; 59:20; 98 6:19: 10:10. 15. 22. 24: 48:5: 59:20 52; 1 "; 6:19; 10:10. 15. 22. affect 48:5. 5 24:52:1" Africa 23:8: 42:6; 43:1 99 10:10. 15. 25. 10. 15. 23:8:42:6:43:1" 25 again 36:21:69:14:8= 87:20;9": 13:99:6. 10: A 100:14: 101:8: 104:1-1: 106:6. 13. 15: 109:25: 1 11:22:36:21:69:14: a.m 120:5. 5 85:5; 8":20:97:13:99:i abatement 31:20; 32:1, 7; 31:20; 32:1,7 abilities 117 3.3 10; 100:14: 101:8; 104 106:6, 13. 15; 109:25; 111:22 ability 32:9; 117:5; 32:9; 117:5 against 92:5; 93:6.7; 92:5; 93:6,7 able 26:11; 38:10; 26:11; 38:10 agency 68.21,21; 69; 68:21.21:69:4 above 65:11; 79:20; agent 57 6,6 88:25; 104:12.23: 106:2, agents 48:4,9,4,9 16; 109:8:65:11:79:20; ago 16:17;24:2;58:14 88:25; 104:12, 23; 106:2. j 16:17; 24:2; 58:14 16; 109:8 j agree 21:16; 22:4,12; abstract 38:16,16 28:6; 29:16; 30:24; 33:1 Academy 40:10; 94:14; ! 35:12,22; 36:19; 46:14 95:6; 106:14; 40:10; 94:14; 95:6; 106:14 | 51:14,17:52:13,15; j 56:17; 57:4.8,9; 66:11: accept 45:8,8 acceptable 56:25,25 accompanied 67:13,13 accountant 110:14,14 ! 74:9; 78:6:79:23; 80:7; j 86:7; 87:16; 88:8, 14; i 89:21; 90:2; 91:8; 93:4, ! 22; 94:5; 96:17, 24; 97: 7; 102:2, 5,17, 22; 103: ACGIH 53:19,19 6, 13,17, 23; 104:6,19: achieving 76:21,21 Act 39:6; 76:1; 39:6; 76:1 activity 17:1, l actuality 107.14,14 105:8, 18: 107:11; 108: | 17; 109:1.2,7, 13; 110 111:9, 15, 18, 19; 112:1 21:16; 22:4. 12; 28:6; 29:16; 30:24; 33:15; actually 8:13; 15:13: 35:12, 22; 36:19; 46:14 23:8;40:5;43:10;64:25: 51:14, 17:52:13, 15: 74:20:75:23:76:15; 56:17; 57:4,8,9:66:11 BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (1) #R-2089 - agi March 18, 1999 ru.L/. KENNETH OAJ-fc. RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL 74:9; 78:6; 79:23; 80:7; j analyze 40:8; 63:11; j 17; 39:3; 42:23:43:7; ; 23:107:1,13,16; 110:10, 53:22; 59:5 86:7; 87:16; 88:8,14; 40:8;63:11 | 58:10,12,13; 59:2,5; j 12.21; 117:5,17; 119:17 auto 16:14:17:2; 16:14; 89:21; 90:2; 91:8; 93:4,9, Anderson-Lillis 90:6,6 60:19.22:61:8.15,19; asbestos-elated 34:12. 17:2 22; 94:5; 96:17,24; 97:2, | animal 51:12; 55:13,14, 63:6; 64:2; 65:8; 66:24; 12 automobile 16:19, 21; 7; 102:2,5,17,22; 103:2, 6,13,17,23; 104:6,19; 105:8,18; 107:11; 108:5, 17; 109:1.2,7,13; 110:24; 111:9,15,18,19; 112:1,9 agreement 5:12,12 j 18; 51:12; 55:13,14,18 j animals 55:23,23 annals 94:13,19; 105:19; 107:6.7:94:13,19; 105:19:107:6,7 , i 67:1,11, 13:115:22; 118:8,12:19:10,14.16, 17; 35:23 36:6.10,11: 37:9,17; 39:3; 42:23:43:7; 58:10,12. 13:59:2, 5; 60:19,22:61:8,15,19; > asbestos-exposed 104:4,4 asbestos-related 22.5. 25; 23:24; 26:2; 39:21: 63:12; 66:15:68:23:69:5; 72:16:89:23; 90:5; 91:4. 5. ahead 5:23; 58:7; 70:25; i anniversary 74.14,14 63:6; 64:2; 65:8; 66:24: 17:92:6.24:22:5.25: 5:23; 58:7; 70:25 answered 43:21:111:13; 67:1,11.13; 115:22; 23:24:26:2:39:21:63:12; air 16:22;22:12.15, 24; 43:21; 111:13 118:8.12 66:15; 68:23:69:5; 72.16; 23:23:31:20, 21; 32:2; anticipate 49:10:50:2; articles 12:25:13:1.10: 89:23:90:5:91:4,5,17; 43:22; 44:9. 21. 24; 45:17; 49:10:50:2 15:8: 18:25:33:24:34:17: 92:6, 24 79:14; 16:22: 22:12.15. 24; 23:23; 31:20, 21; 32:2: 13:22;44:9,21,24:45:17; '9:14 anticipated 50:5. 5 anymore 26:25:51 25: 75:10: 26:25: 51:25:75:10 anywise 123:11,11 38:1. 12: 39:". 11.22: 46:5:48:14.22; 50:8: 52:16. 23. 56:1:60:19; 61:5: 115:18: 118:7: 12:25: 13:1, 10: 15:8: asbestosis 37:24:43:6. 10:80:9:91:4; 93:6: 100:11:102:13:103:15; 104:2: 37:24:43:6. 10: 80:9:91:4:93:6; 100.11: 20:25:21:11:57:23: 108:14:16:19.21:20:25; 21:11:57:23; 108:14 automotive 61:9:62:11; 90:12, 13:61:9; 62:11; 90:12. 13 available 7".23.23 average 31: i: 47: i. 8: 103:3.". 11. 15:31:4; 47:4.8; 103:3.". 11. 15 aware " 20:28:4.5: 31:16. 19:33:4:57:22: 59:11. 16; 00:15; 6": 10: 68:25; 69:2: "2:9; ~8:8. 12. 1"9:10:80:13:88:4.5: aircraft 69:4; 93:13.20: apart 6i:l. 1 18:25:33:24:34:1": 38:1. 102:13: 103:15: 104:2 89:9. 14:91:2:95:1: 111:5; 119:14. 16:69:4:93:13. 20; 119:14. 16 Airfield 51:7,7 apologize 104:1". 17 appearance 123:19.19 12: 39:7. 11.22: 46:5: 48:14.22: 50:8:52:16. 23: 56:1:60:19:61:5; 115:18: aspect 65:9.9 assessment l l~:l 1.11 114:11: 119:12. 23: 120:1: " 20: 28:4.5:31:16. 19: 33:4: 57:22; 59:11. 16: airline 50:19. 22. 25: appeared 40:5.7:43:7; 118:7 assigning 57:19.19 60:15:6": 10: 68:25. 69:2: 51:1;68:19:50:19, 22. 25; 51:1; 68:19 Airport 51:6,6 alleged 11-4:12.12 Allied 50:13,15.13.15 Allison 52:20. 20 76:19:77:5:40:5.7:43:7: 76:19: "7:5 appears 77:14.14 appendix "6.19.19 applicable 118:11, 19: 123:19:118:11. 19: 123:19 asbestos 14:5; 16:23: 17:14. 14. 18: 18:17; 19:4. 11,22: 20:3:22:10. 15. 1". 24:23:2,3.11.19:24:21: 25:2. 5. 19 20. 21:26:22: 28:20. 24: 29:1.7. 10. 19: 30:7. 25:32:3.9; 33:1.9. associate 57:6.6 associated 61:16. 25: 62:19: 101:17:61:16. 25; 62:19; 101:1" association 24:8: 55:21; 63:11. 16; 104:1:24:8: 55:21:63:11. 16: 104:1 "2:9: 78:8. 12.1". 79:10; 80:13:88:4. 5:89:9. 14: 91:2:95:1: 111:5: 114:11; 119:12. 23: 120:1 awareness 114:1". l" away 2'7:5: 47:7; "5:11; 2": 5:47:7:75:11 illuded 95:23,23 almost 100:9,9 alone 91:12,12 along 11:23,23 alternate 68:14.14 always 43:24:44:15; applicators 89.11.11 applies 37 4.4 applying 73:10: 89:16: "3:10: 89:16 appreciate 28:14; 83:11: 28:14:83:11 15. 17:36:1.2:41:13. 17. 23:42:1:43:16:44:8.21: 46:20:48:1.6. 10: 50:21: 51:3:60:4:63:18. 22; 71:23:72:2.7.25; 73:1. 10.13.19. 23:75:1. 14. 20; 76:6: 78:4.8. 11.13. associations 41:8.8 assume 33:19.19 assumed 44:15.15 at-risk 69:5.5 Atlanta 22:13. 18. 20; 23:17:22:13. 18. 20:23:1" B Bachus 123:24. 24 back 6:13; 15:2: 1":"; 19:19. 28:11:32:4. 12; 13:24:44:15 approach 105 7,7 19: 79:4. 12.20: 82:8: atmosphere 44:11.11 38:24; 51:13; 58:4; 59:24; ambient 22:12. 24:23:23; approximately 96:15. 86:19.24:88:1. 11. 15. 25: attached 48:10.10 68:11:77:5:88:12:94:16. >1:17; 22:12. 24:23:23,' >1:17 amended 6:9.9 America 111:1,1,8,21, 1, 1,8,21 American 25:22; 56:11; 25:22; 56:11 among 17:7; 37:24; 50:25; 56:8;6l:15,24; 52:10, 18; 102:24; 106:23; .7:7:37:24; 50:25; 56:8; 18. 15. 18 arbitrarily 57:19.19 area 42:22;44:8:45:12. 12:52:2:53:5.9,12: 63:22:73:12.12:108:23; 109:5. 11:42:22:44:8: 45:12.12:52:2:53:5,9. I 12; 63:22:73:12,12: 108:23:109:5,11 areas 49:5; 54:7,10; 49:5; 54:7. 10 90:4:91:10:93:12. 19.25; 94:4,7. 11; 95:2. 7. 16.21; 96:1. 11:97:1. 5.8.15; 98:10. 15:99:8. 15; 101:17; 102:18. 24; 103:8, 25; 104:11,22:106:9, 15, 23; 107:1, 13, 16; 110:10. 12.21; 117:5, 17; 119:17; 14:5:16:23:17:14.14,18; 18:17:19:4.11,22:20:3; 22:10. 15. 17,24:23:2.3, 11, 19; 24:21; 25:2, 5, 19. attachments 6:13.13 attempt 1~:18; 19:3; 21:20; 22:23; 24:4, 5.8.9; 29:3: 34:4; 17:18; 19:3; 21:20:22:23:24:4,5,8,9; 29:3; 34:4 attempted 23:22; 24:1; 42:11; 23:22; 24:1; 42:11 1 attempting 20:2; 26:3; 35:20: 116.20; 20:2; 26.3; 35:20;116:20 1": 98:16: 104:8; 106:18; 107:7; 111:24; 112:5; 115:14, 17; 6:13: 15:2: 17:7; 19:19:28:11:32:4, 12; 38:24; 51:13; 58:4; 59:24; 68:11; 77:5; 88:12; 94:16, 17;98:16; 104:8; i 106:18; 107:7; 111:24; 112:5; 115:14, 17 i background 22:16:32:8; 22:16:32:8 >1:15,24; 62:10, 18; 102:24; 106:23 amount 17:18; 18:1,17; 19:4, 21; 20:3; 46:9,11, 20; 47:4; 17:18; 18:1,17; 19:4, 21; 20:3; 46:9,11, 20; 47:4 | arise 53:13,13 j arising 117:17,17 I Armstrong 81:3,3; 83:1, ; 2; 85:9,10. 14.14; 86:10, j 10; 113:10:81:3,3:83:1, ! 2:85:9,10,14,14; 86:10, | 10; 113:10 20. 21; 26:22; 28:20, 24; , 29:1.7,10,19:30:7.25; 32:3.9:33:1,9,15. 17; ! 36:1,2:41:13,17,23; 42:1; 43:16; 44:8,21; 46:20:48:1.6,10; 50:21: 51:3:60:4. 63:18, 22; : attempts 60:15,15 attorney 90:17,17 attorneys 20:17; 114:10; : 20:17; 114:10 attributed 42:15.15 August 7:10:9:14, 16; bad 36:21,21 I BAHR 114:6,7; 115:7; ! 114:6,7; 115:7 i ban 29:1,9:95:12,13; 29:1,9:95:12,13 j bands 38:21; 118:9; | 38:21; 118:9 amphibole 33:1; 56:9, 15; 33:1; 56:9,15 - amphibofe-type 55:2,2 imphiboles 25:19,26:8; 5:19; 26:8 nalogy 56:20.20 arose 53:4,4 ! around 19:4; 233,11; ! 32:14:4l:14;47:9:51:l; i 60:23: 70:23; 71:22; : 72:10:73:12:89:24; 19:4; 23:3. 11:32:14:41:14; ' 71:23;72:2,7, 25;73:1, 19:1,6:29:24:123:25; 10.13.19, 23; 75:1,14, 7:10:9:14, 16:19:1,6; 20; 76:6; 78 4.8, 11,13, : 29:24; 123:25 i 19; 79:4,12. 20:82:8; Austin 10:6,6 86:19.24:88:1,11,15,25; 90:4:91:10: 93:12, 19. 25; 94:4.7. 11:95:2,7, 16.21; author 40:11; 67:5; 40:11; 67:5 j banned 29:6,9,18; 33:9, ! 13; 96:1,5; 29:6,9,18: : 33:9,13:96:1,5 banning 93:25; 94:3,7, ; 11:95:2.7; 93:25; 94:3, 7, 11; 95:2.7 nalysis 63:10,16,10, : 47:9; 51:1; 60:23; 70:23; 96:1, 11:97:1,5,8.15; author's 58:16,16 Baron 8:15,15 6 71:22:72:10:73:12; 89:24 98:10. 15:99:8. 15; authority 77:11,18,11, based 15:20; 20:21: nalytical 45:4; 117:3; article 19:10,14,16.17; 101:17; 102:18.24: 103:8. 18 21:15: 24:7; 27:17; 32:8; 5:4: 117:3 35:23: 36:6. 10. 11; 25: 104:11.22; 106:9. 15. authors 53 22: 59:5; 33:20; 71:6; 77:23; 89:5; greement - based (2) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 IVJ^iNtlll l)AI K MATXA, Cl ai. V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL mvjiaaK A- fl. March 18, IS 91:1; 92:12,16,17; 114:9, | 115:21:118:8 | called 65:24; 68:19; | carcinogens 112:3,7,3, 111:10; 46:13; 51:4:9' 19; 117:2; 119:3; 123:14, brake 10:11,21,24; | 70:19;100:3,5;65:24; I 7 97:11; 107:8, 24; 111: 16; 15:20; 20:21; 21:15; 17:17,19; 18:18; 19:7, 8, ; 63:19; 70:19; 100:3, 5 cardiovascular 50:25, CertainTeed 81:24: 24:7; 27:17; 32:8; 33:20; 11,22:20:4.25:21:12; | came 42:4; 44:2, 5:42:4; | 25 83:20; 86:2:81:24:83: 71:6; 77:23; 89:5; 91:1; 92:12,16,17; 114:9,19; 117:2; 119:3; 123:14,16 Basically 36:15; 104:10: 106:7; 36:15:104:10; 106:7 basis 8:16; 21:22; 8:16; 21:22 bears 75:4.4 become 102:14,14 behalf 74:7." 24:15,22,25:27:17.18. 21,22; 28:16, 17, 19.24; 29:7,11,19; 30:3; 34:5, 10; 36:1,7; 37:11, 13, 18, 24; 38:21:39:11.20:41:1. 4:46:2.10.11,23.25; 47:1,5,7,21,25:57:23; 60:16:62:14: 116:2; 118:7,9, 13.16: 119:5; 10:11.21.24:17:17.19: 18:18: 19:7,8. 11.22: 20:4.25:21:12: 24:15.22. : 44:2,5 i Camus 66:24; 67:2, 3, 4. 4 7; 66:24; 67:2, 3,4, 4.7 can 5:18:7:14,16.18; 12:3,11,16:13:7,8.9. 25: 14:2; 15:2,3; 22:25:23:23: 25:20; 26:1,14; 27:2,3: 23:8.19:32:4,5; 34:2. 17. 13:35:22; 38:14; 39:1; 4 5:11:48:21; 49:3. 24. 25: 52:22: 54:2:56:13.24: 60:24:63:3:66:8:83:8; care 80:15,15 career 24:24:80:1; 24:24:80:1 Carolina 40:18:51.21: 69:23. 25; 40:18; 51:21: 69:23.25 Carpenters 7:6:72:13: 7:6: "2:13 carries 39:5.5 carry 39 7.7 cars 16:11: 17:6: 24:18: 86:2 certify 123:2.8,2.8 cetera 108:11, ll chairperson 7:4.4 change 18:14:67:25: 18:14:67:25 changed 7:3:67:21;' 67:21 charge 15:18:100:22 15:18: 100:22 charged 123:20. 20 believes 77:24.24 25: 27:17. 18.21.22; below 32:3:47:17:79:13: 100:7,12:117:12:32:3; 47:17; 79:13:100:7,12; 117:12 Bendix 50:16.16 best 11:2: 29:20; 52:10: 77:23. 24:79:16: 110:8. 20: 11:2: 29:20:52:10: 77:23. 24:79:16: 110:8. 20 Bestwall 70:19.19 better 6:6:28:11:6:6; 28:11 beyond 45:12; 49:17.19. 21; 99:23; 45:12:49:17, 28:16. 17. 19. 24; 29:7.11. 19: 30:3:34:5. 10; 36:1.7; 37:11. 13. 18. 24:38:21: 39:11.20:41:1.4:46:2. 10.11. 23. 25:47:1. 5.7. 21.25:57:23:60:16: 62:14: 116:2: 118:".9. 13. 16; 119:5 brakes 10:11.17.19: 12:20: 24:18: 25:12. 16. 17: 30:7:33:20; 36:18: 37:6: 119:14. 16; 10:11. 17, 19: 12:20: 24:18: 25:12, 16. 17: 30:7; 33:20; 36:18:37:6; 119:14. 16 19.21:99:23 bifocals 62:7,7 bigger 22:19:52:8; 22:19:52:8 brand 109:23. 23 breadth 13:23. 23 break 105:16: 110:6; 105:16; 110:6 biggest 97:11: 111:2: 97:11:111:2 Billing 14:18,18 billings 14:19.19 bio-persistence 54:16. breaking 52:23.23 Bridges 8:21.21 bring 9:9: 11:22: 12:9: 14:9:43:13:9:9: 11:22: 12:9; 14:9:43:13 21.16.21 bringing 13:13:14:10: bio-persistent 54:24,24 13:13; 14:10 biological 106:11,11 Britain 33:5,8; 36:12; biopersistence 55 9,9 33 5,8; 36:12 bit 51:10, 10 blown 47:8,8 Boglusa 11:9,9 bold 58:20, 20 bonding 47:22; 48:4,9; 47:22:48:4,9 book ll:23;58:5,9; 59:24; 77:5; 11:23; 58:5, 9; 59:24:77:5 books 13:18; 14:8; 13:18; British 25:23,23 brought 6:14, 16; 10:4; 11:25; 20:5; 22:1:68:5; 87:1; 6:14, 16; 10:4; 11:25; 20:5; 22:1; 68:5; 87:1 Budd 8:15, 15 Bulletin 19:1; 29:23; 19:1; 29:23 Bureau 98:8.8 bystanders 72:22,22* 1 14:8 bore 46:17,17 c Borg-Warner 10:19; 11:8, 11; 10:19; 11:8, 11 calendar 9:17,17 both 9:25; 11:3,6; 25:19; i call 6:13; 8:14; 1312; 43:11: 52:21,-61:8; 65:18; ; 17:16; 30:2; 36:7; 45:1: 92:1; 103:11; 9:25; 11:3, 6; 1 65:22; 66:1; 67:2, 4,6; 25:19; 43:11:52:21:61:8; : 68:11:76:25;77:6:6:13: 65:18:92:1; 103:11 8:14; 13:12; 17:16; 30:2; 86:16. 18. 22:91:25:94:8. 10: 101:23.23: 102:4; 105:16: 107:2: 114:17: 115:14. 15: 118:9:5:18: ~ 14. 16. 18: 12:3. 11. 16: 13:7.8.9.25:14:2:15:2. 3: 22:25: 23:23:25:20: 26:1. 14:27:2.3: 28:8. 19: 32:4.5:34:2. 1". 18: 3 5:22: 38:14: 39:1: 45:11; 43:21; 49:3.24. 25; 52:22: 54:2; 56:13. 24:60:24; 63:3:66:8:83:8:86:16, 18. 22:91:25:94:8. 10: 101:23.23: 102:4: 105:16; 107:2:114:17; 115:14. 15: 1 18:9 Canada 33:5; 51:15; 33:5;51:15 Canadian 23 3:41:17; 42:18. 22; 23:3:41:17: 42:18. 22 16:11:17:6: 2-1:18 Cartier 42:25.25 case 10:10. 13. 14. 20. 20.21: 11:8.9.21.23: 13:15. 15.21: 14:15. 19. 21: 15:9. 12. 14. 16; 20:22; 34". 13.21.22:39:18. 18. 19:41:18:42:20:48:23: 56:1". 23: 57:1:60:4.5. 13:63:10.15:70:1": 76:13:87:22: 90:1": 96:22: 114:11: 12.3:9. 11; 10:10. 13. 14.20. 20.21: 11:8.9.21.23; 13:15. 15. 21: 14:15. 19. 21: 15:9. 12. 14.16: 20:22; 34:7. 13.21. 22: 39:18. 18. 19: 41:18: 42:20:48:23:56:17.23: 57:1:60:4. 5. 13:63:10. 15; "0:1"; 76:13:87:22: 90:1": 96:22: 11-1:11: 1239. 11 charges 15:1"; 123:1 1"; 15:1": 123:15. 1" Charleston k):18.18 charts 11:19. 19 chest 9:3. 3 Chris 2.3:7" Chrysler 16:6.8.10. 18 24:16. 23: 28:12. 1 tl 9. 11: 18:23: 49:6. I 16 6>. 8. 10. 16. 18:24: 23 25:12. 1": 41:9. 11 18 23: 19.6. 13 chrysotile 25:5.13.2 21 26:1.3.4.6.7, 10. 13 19: 2" 10: 28:2.8: 12 12. 1-1. 1". 19.21:4 51 10: 52: 1:54:24:55: 56:8. 13: 2 5:5. 13.20.. 26 1. 3. i. 6." 10. 11. 19 2": 10: 28:2.8:42:1 1-1 1". 19. 21: 43:9; 51 cancer 23:6; 24:1, 3. 6. cases 9:"; 10:24:60:5.9: 52 1; 5 i:2 i: 55:1,5; 56 40:10: 43:11: 53:3: 61:7: 100:12:9:7; 10:24:60:5.9: 13 62:2. 18:63:17:64:15. 22; 100:12 65:15:80:10. 16:91:6. 20; 92:15: 102:18. 24; 103:7: 104:1.4. 12. 23; 106:2,8. 16, 22; 107:17; 110:25; 1 11:1.2.7. 11. 17,21; 1.17:17;23:6; 24:1,3.6,7; 40:10; 43:ll;53:3;6l:7; 62:2. 18:63:17:64:15, 22; 65:15;80:10. 16;91:6. 20; 92:15: 102:18. 24; 103:7; 104:1.4.12,23; 106:2.8. 16. 22:107:17; 110:25; 111:1.2,7,11, 17,21; causal 24:8.8 causation 24:5.3 cause 22:25:23:23; 25:21; 26:1; 28:2. 4.8: 42:12; 101:23; 111:2. 11, 16.20:22:25:23:23: 25:21; 26:1; 28:2,4.8: 42:12: 101:23; 111:2. 11. 16,20 causes 102:2: 110:25; 111:7:102:2:110:25; 111:7 117:17 cc 31:3. 23; 47:9; 31:3, cancers 63:21.22;.91:18; 23:47:9 92:6, 25; 93:7; 98:1; CCR 123:24,24 101:16; 102:23:63:21,22; ceiling 86:19; 87:7, 91:18; 92:6. 25; 93:7; 98:1; : 89:16; 113:11; 86:19; 101:16; 102:23 87:7:89:16; 113:11 candidate 54:20,20 celebrated 74:14,14 capacity 117:15. 15 central 53:4,8, 12,4,8, caption 123 3,3 12 chrysotile-only 511 15 CIB 18:21; 19:6; 29:23 18:21:19:6:29:23 cigarette 101:19; 102 108:18:101:19:102:2: I 108:18 : Circuit 29:2.2 circumstances 114:1 ! 12 ; cite 93:23.23 | cited 60:19,19 cites 25:4,4 citizen 113:3,3 city 22:14, 18,21;23:1 22:14.18.21;23:17 ! Civil 5:17, 17 claim 71:15; 110:1; 71:15; 110:1 clarification 78:15, l" classification 68:18, car 16:15:33:19; 59:8,12; century 91:9,9 classified 87:18,18 16:15:33:19; 59:8, 12 ceramic 55:16,17,24, classify 28:25,25 carbon 512,2 16.17.24 clean 31:21,21 bought 25:17,17 36:7:45:1:65:22:66:1: carcinogen 107:21,22; certain 113:17,17 Clear 10:18; 92:1; 116 Brachmann 37 21; 67:2.4,6:68:11:76:25; 108:7; 107:21. 22: 108:7 certainly 46:13; 514: 18: 10:18:92:1; 116:1' 115:21; 118:8:37:21: 77:6 carcinogenic 66.21.21 94:2; 97:11; 107:8.24; clearance 55 3.4,3. BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (3) Basically - cleara; March 18, 1999 i ir-\ k -AZ. iWlTJLXi, Cl <ii* V. OWESS-CORN1NG FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL clearly 65:11,11 89:24; 70:23; 72:6; 83:10; | 10,20 I 50:4,123:9,10; 5:13; damaged9l:ll. ll clients 8:16,16 84:20:86:23:89:24 ! contain 73.22,22 i 49:17,21:50:4:123:9,10 i Dana 81:12; 84:13; 81.12; close 10:22; 65:19; compounds 71:15,21, contained 48:1; 71:22: ! count 31:6; 44:25; 31:6; i 84:13 109:11:10:22; 65:19; 25; 72:11,14; 73:16,19, 72:1,6; 86:19,23; 88:3; | 44:25 i Dankovic 56:11,60:20; 109:11 22; 74:2; 114:13,18; 112:24; 119:17; 48:1; counting 43:25; 47:15, 56:11;60:20 cloth 36.1,1 71:15,21,25;72:11,14: 1 71:22;72:1.6; 86:19, 23; 17; 117:4:43:25:47:15, data 13:19:42:19:78:18: clutch 10:20,20 co-worker 8:19,20; 20:19; 8:19,20; 20:19 co-workers 20:14; 21:9; 90:21: 20:14; 21:9; 90:21 co-wrote 112:19,19 73:16,19,22:74:2; ; 114:13,18 comprehensive 30:17; 41:21; 30:17; 41:21 comprises65:ll, ll computer 7.1, l ; 88:3; 112:24; 119:17 containing 28:24; 76:6: 117:5; 28:24; 76:6:117:5 ' contains 97:1; 112:3.6: 97:1; 112:3,6 contaminant 26:4.4 17:117:4 countries 3312.16.12. 16 country 22:14:311: 22:14; 31:1 COUNTY 123:1, 1 106:13; 13:19:42:19; -8:18:106:13 date 7:2: 15:14:32:15: 33:22:-:2; 15:14;32:15: 33:22 dated 8:13.13 coal 26:20. 20 coatings 87:14.18,14. 18 coffee 28:12, 12 cohort 51:14.16:52:13. 14: 57:14.16:65:19; 105:22:51:14,16; 52:13. 14:57:14. 16:65:19: 105:22 collected 18:3: 77 3: 18:3; 77:3 computerized 13:19.19 concentration 32:10: 47:8; 92:10, 18:95:14; 100:12; 103:21: 117:6,7. 10, 13;32:10: 47:8:92:10. 18; 95:14; 100:12; 103:21; 117:6, 7. 10, 13 concentrations 22:24: 23:23: 28:3; 47:6: 114:21: 22:24:23:23: 28:3: 47:6; 114:21 concern 17:5.12.5.12 contaminants 23:22.22 contaminated 26:7.7 contamination 53 8: 54:5. 16: 53:8; 54:5. 16 context 118:12.12 continued 408.8 contractors 32: l. l contrast 31:8: 43:24: 44:6. 22; 65:14:92:13: 31:8:43:24: 44:6. 22; 65:14:92:13 couple 7:7; 116:13. 17; 7:7; 116:13. 17 course 56:19:97:18: 56:19; 97:18 courts 29:4. 4 cover 8:11: 11:1:8:11: 11:1 covered 49:7: 50:3: 49:": 50:3 covers 101:3.3 cranes 119:25. 25. 25. 25 dates -1:19: 10-*: 14; 71:19: 104:14 day 108:15: 123:22. 25: 108:15: 123:22. 25 days 11:13: 6~:25: 11:13: 6":25 deal 39:11.11 dealing 9:22. 22: 12:20: 15:23: .31:17: 41:2.3: 94:18: 96:10:9": 13: 99:6; 9:22. 22: 12:20: 15:23: 31:1-: 41:23:94:18: collectively 8:6.6 concerned 80:10.15.22. combustion 90.13.13 25, 10.15.22.25 coming 33:7; 44:2: 55:19; concerning 23 2; 75 20; 33:7; 44:2; 55:19 78:18:87:2:90:16: 92:22: commercial 26:25; 68:19; 69:4; 26.25; 68:19: 69:4 Commission 101.10; 123:24: 101:10; 123:24 Committee 7:5:76:15. 24:77:1.6, 15: 80:15; 7:5; 76:15. 24; 77:1,6.15; 80:15 Committees 16:14.14 Commonwealth 35:6.6 communication 90:16, 21, 16.21 community 23:1.8, ll; 28:7; 41:22; 23:1,8, 11; 28:7; 41:22 companies 16:15; 74.8; 836,13; 16:15; 74:8; 83:6, 13 company 27.14; 70.19; 81:4,8, 24; 82:3, 22; 83:2; 84:25:85:4,10,10,12,13, 14:86:11,13,16, 22; 27:14; 70:19; 81:4,8, 24; 101:2: 114:24: 115:4; 119:13:23:2:75:20; 78:18:87:2:90:16:92:22: 101:2; 114:24; 115:4: 119:13 concluded 53:22; 54:2: 56:12:63:15: 120:5: 53:22: 54:2; 56:12:63:15: 120:5 conclusion 42:3: 54:1; 58:17: 100:13: 42:3. 54:1; 58:17; 100:13 conclusions 59:4.7. 4.- condition 91:11,11 conditions 66:5. 5 conducted 50:18,739; 82:24;83:4,19, 22:84:1, 7, 11, 15;90:11; 101:9; 115:2; 50:18:73:9:82:24; 83:4.19, 22: 84:1,7. 11, 15:90:11; 101:9; 115:2 conducting 57:2,2 confusing 30:23; 65:9: 30:23; 65:9 82:3,22; 83:2:84:25:85:4, Congress 40:6,6 10, 10,12, 13, 14; 86:11, 13,16.22 compared 27:15; 54-11; 27:15:54:11 comparison 45:9,9 . complete 9:12; 30:14; 123:6; 9:12; 30:14; 123:6 Congressional 40.7,7 Connecticut 64:5,6,7, 10, 5,6,7,10 connection 11:20; i 13:15, 20; 15:9,24; 11:20; 13:15, 20; 15:9, 24 consider 12:18,18 completely 118:3,3 considered 11:20: compliance 17:1,1 13:14; 41:5; 11:20; 13.14; comply 45:16.21,16,21 41:5 composition 47.1, l consistent 116.4,4 control 63:10. 15:75:15: created 31:19: 76:4.7; 96:9. 10; 97:20; 99:11.25: 31:19:76:4.- 63:10. 15:75:15:96:9. 10; criteria 76:10.16.17. 20: 97:20; 99:11.25 "7:12.14. 19.21:78:2: controlled 78:20.20 controlling 969,9 controls; 89:2.2 converted 46:3.3 copied ] 15:13.13 79:24:80:8:92:2.3.8; 95:22: 107:25: 108:13: 112:19. 22:113:24: 116:19. 24: 117:2:76:10. 16. 17. 20: T7:12, 14. 19. 21:78:2:79:24:80:8:92:2. copies 12:3:13:4. 3.8:95:22: 107:25: 56:1: 116:8: 123:15: 12:3: 108:13: 112:19, 22: 13:4.7:56:1; 116:8: 113:24: 116:19. 24: 11~:2 123:15 criticisms 109:15.23, copy 12:1, 10: 14:1.2: 15. 23 35:13. 14. 15; 36:20:38:8; crocidolite42:8.8 61:10; 62:4; 68:7,8. 11; CROSS-EXAMINATION 112:6: 115:15.21.23: 5:6; 50:10:67:17; 70:12; 116:6: 123:14: 12:1. 10; 74:4: 114:5:5:6; 50:10; 14:1.2; 35:13. 14. 15: 36:20:38 8:61:10; 62:4; 67:17; 70:12:74:4; 114:5 68:7.8. 1 1; 112:6:115:15, 21,23; 116:6: 123:14 cubic 44:4; 53:14; 79:13; 100:8:44:4; 53:14; 79:13; 100:8 Corbett 52:19,19 Cork81:3;83:2; 85:10, current 7:12; 18:25; 92:11; 7:12; 18:25:92:11 14; 86:10; 81:3; 83:2; 85:10, 14:86:10 customary 123:15,17, 19,15.17.19 Corning 9:23; 10:6; 67:20, 22:68:1;9:23; 10:6; customers 112:16; 67:20,22:68:1 ! 113:5; 112:16; 113:5 corporate 81:1,2.7,10, cut 28:11, 11 11,14, 15 18,19,22.23; 1 cutoff 57:19, 19 82:1.2,5.6,11,12,14,16, i CV 6:17, 18; 32:17; 40:5, 20, 21; 114:23; 81:1, 2,7, ! 13; 6:17,18; 32:17; 40:5, 10, 11, 14. 15, 18, 19, 22, 13 23:82:1,2,5,6,11,12,14, 16, 20,21; 114:23 Corporation 16:6, 8, 11; D 24:17;49:6; 50:16:81:12; 16:6, 8. 11; 24:17; 49:6; daily 15:18,18 50:16;81:12 Dale 7:24. 24 correctly 62:20: 63:1; Dallas 22:13:23:17; . 96:10:9-: 13:99:6 deals 19:6; 36:6: 19:6: 36:6 dealt 10:1-; 36:22; 78:9: 82:15; 10:17; 36:22; 78:9: 82:15 deaths 111:1, 3.7.17 21. 1.3.-. 17. 21 debate 28:5.6; 104:2; 28:5.6; 10i:2 December 6:19.19 decision 76:22: -7:8: 76:22: 77:8 decision-making 76:18; --7:11,18: 80:8; ~6:18; -711. 18:80:8 Defendant's 5:1; ~:21; 8:9: 15:4; 5:1; 7:21; 8:9; 15:4 define 31:21,21 defined 41:2.2 definition 413,6; 55:16; 87:21:94:12, 22:41:3.6; 55:16; 87:21:94:12. 22 Dement 92:9; 112:20; 92:9; 112:20 deny 23:15,15 department 63:17; 98:9, 17, 63:17; 98:9, 17 depend 109:4,9,4,9 depending 22:17,17 depends 46:10; 57:14, 17; 103:16; 108:22; 46:10; 57:14, 17; 103:16, 108:22 deposed li:li, ll deposition 5:11,16; 6:9; 9:11; 15:18; 21:9:68:4, 14; 69:16:71:10.14:96:15; 120:5; 123:13,21:5:11, 16:6:9:9:11; 15:18:21:9: compound 70:23; 72:6; consists 35:24,24 62:20; 63:1 22:13:23:17 68:4. 11:69:16:71:10. 14; 83:10; 84:20; 86:23; consulting 110:10.20. counsel 3:13:49:17,21; Dallas-Ft 51:6.6 96:15; 120:5; 123:13.21 clearly - deposition (4) Min-lJ-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, Pfc March 18, If depositions 8:19,19,21: | 23:3; 26:2; 34:12; 39:21; 9:19; 10:23; 11:3; 20:14, ! 41:12; 42:1,14; 50:25: 18, 20; 21:8,10; 81:2.7, ! 57:7; 59:13; 66:15.18: 11,15,19,23; 82:2.6, 12, I 73:3; 89:23; 90:5; 91:4: 17,21; 114:23; 8:19,19, 92:24:96:10.12; 97:20; 21; 9:19:10:23; 11:3; 99:11,25:100:9.11: 20:14, 18.20:21:8, 10; 117:10.12; 17:6,9:22:9, 81:2.7.11.15,19,23; 25:23:3:26:2; 34:12: 82:2,6,12,17,21; 114:23 39:21:41:12; 42:1.14: design 109:16; 110:2; 109:16; 110:2 designation 110:23.23 determine 42:11; 45:15; 46:2.8; 97:4:117:8:42:11; 45:15:46:2.8:97:4; 117:8 Detroit 16:18,18 developed 45:23:80:16: 107:16:45:23:80:16: 107:16 developing 72:15:73:2: 117:12; 72:15:73:2: 117:12 Development 32:20: 55:10:103:24: 112:18: 32:20; 55:10: 103:24: 112:18 device 109:1". 17 devices 110:3.3 diagnosed 21:17; 91:3: 21:17; 91:3 diagnosis 21:21: 22:1, 3: 91:6:21:21:22:1.3:91:6 Diane 123:24. 24 differences "3:18.18 50:25: 57:7; 59:13:66:15. 18:73:3:89:23; 90:5; 91:4; 92:24:96:10.12:97:20: 99:11.25: 100:9. 11: 117:10.12 diseases 22:5:23:24: 61:16, 25:62:18:63:13: 66:5:68:23:69:6:72:16: 91:17; 92:6; 22:5:23:24: 61:16. 25:62:18:63:13: 66:5: 68:23:69:6; "2:16; 91:17:92:6 dispersion 59:19.19 distinction 29:13:33:1. 6. 10:29:13:33:1.6. 10 distinguish 3316; 105:21; 33:16; 105:21 divide 105:9. 24: 111:15: 113:1: 105:9. 24: 111:15: 113:1 divided 104:8,8 Division 32:19. 21: 112:17; 32:19. 21: 112:1" doctor 21:25: 50:12: 59:2:61:18:66:11:93:10: 114:7:21:25:50:12; 59:2; different 25:18: 27:11. 61:18:66:11:93:10: 114:7 12. 13:44:20:85:6:93:5. 6: 112:3: 25:18; 27:11.12. 13:44:20:85:6:93:5.6: 112:3 document 18:22:76:11. 16. 1". 20; "": 13. 14. 19; 78:2:80:9:92:2.8:95:23; 98:7. 10. 14; 112:19: differently 111:14.14 116:19. 25: 117:2: 18:22: difficult 6:2.2 76:11. 16. 17,20: 77:13, dig 26:19.19 14. 19:78:2:80:9:92:2.8: direct 44:16. 18: 45:2,18; 108:19: 116:15: 123:17; 95:23: 98:7, 10, 14; 112:19; 116:19,25; 117:2 44:16. 18:45:2. 18; documents 6:14; 14:13; 108:19; 116:15; 123:17 directed 60:10; 79:7; 60:10; 79:7 16:7;50:15;70:18;77:22: | 79:24:81:1,6, 10, 14, 18, ' 22:82:1.5, 11,14, 16, 20; , 92:3; 107:25; 112:23; direction 123 5,5 i 113:24; 114:23;6:14; directly 45:4:70:18; i 14:13; 16:7;50:15;70:18; 72:24; 73:9.11:90:23; j 77:22;79:24;81:1.6, 10. 45:4; 70:18; 72:24; 73:9, ! 14,18, 22; 82:1, 5, 11,14, 11;90:23 director 32:19; 112:17; 32:19:112:17 j 16. 20; 92:3; 107:25; | 112:23; 113:24; 114:23 ; done 16:5; 19:7; 21:8. 20; disappearance 100:9,9 disclosure 48:20,25; 49:1,2; 123:12; 48:20, 25; 49:1,2; 123:12 discs 46:25725 discuss 118:7,10.7,10 discussed 39:10,10 discusses 118:9,9 | 23:2, 11; 26:13; 30:6; 31:6; I 43:23;44:15; 51:22:63:4; j 81:5:97:9, 12; 115:12,19; ! 116:14; 119:24; 16:5; i 19:7:21:8,20:23:2. 11; 26:13; 30:6; 31:6; 43:23; 44:15:51:22:63:4:81:5; 97:9, 12: 115:12. 19: 116:14:119:24 Discussion 12:6:95:8; dosage 103:16.16 12:6:95:8 dose 22:9; 103:18; 22:9; disease 17:6,9: 22:9, 25: 103:18 dose-reiated 22:6.6 down 11:18:32:10; 115:13; 11:18; 32:10: 115:13 Dr 5:8,20; 8:13; 13:24; 20:18: 21:4; 41:14.19,24; 42:5:49:25; 56:2:61:24: 67:19:70:14; 72:21:73:5; 74:6:77:10.15,17:80:14, 19:89:25:94:1:95:15; 97:9,13.18.22.25:98:3. 20:99:5.10.14.1". 20. 23; 100:6.14: 102:12: ! : ; earlier 6:24; 15:14:39:11, 18. 20:67:9:87:20: 115:24:116:18:6:24; 15:14; 39:11.18. 20; 67:9: 87:20:115:24; 116:18 earliest 43:20. 20 early 10:22:40:3:41:16: 42:18:43:5: 58:22:84:22: 10:22:40:3:41:16:42:18; 43:5: 58:22:84:22 37:4:38:22;57:24: lit 118:11.12: 34:5,10;3 23:37:4:38:22; 57:24. 116:2: 118:11, 12 end-product 97:16; 98:11; 118:20:97:16; 98:11:118:20 enforceable 75.19.1 enforced 29:6.14. l" 14.17 engaged 35:25: 41:2 35:25:41:22 engineering 89:1.1 104:7.10. 20.21:105:8.9. 20. 24: 106:20: 116:17: 5:8. 20:8:13: 13:24:20:18: 21:4: 41:14. 19. 24:42:5: 49:25: 56:2:61:24:67:19: "0:14:72:21:73:5; 74:6: ': 10, 15. 17:80:14. 19: 89:25:94:1:95:15:97:9. 13. 18.22.25:98:3. 20; 99:5. 10. l-i. 17. 20. 23: 100:6. 14; 102:12: 104:7. 10. 20.21; 105:8.9. 20. 24: 106:20: 116:1" earth 23:20. 20 easier 30:23:31:10: 115:17; 116"; 30:23: 31:10: 115:1"; 116" editor 67:11.11 editorial 67:12.12 effect 18:6:92:1": 18:6: 92:17 effects 106:11: 109:6; 106:11; 109:6 Egleman 80:19.19 Egleman's 80:14.14 engines 90:13.13 England 23:5. 10:9" 23 5. 10: 9":9 enormous 28:3,3 enough 108:3.3 entire "23:12:10; u "23; 12:10: 14:10 entirely l l":l". l" environment 11": i. 5 environments 22:13 23:21:22:13: 23:21 drafted 112:13:113:3: either 9:11: 11:13: 1": 19: EPA 29:1; 30:11: 31:1 112:13: 113:3 28:2:33:25:34:19:45:22: 32:": 41:2.6: 8": 19: 2` drawn 44:24.24 Dreessen 99:14.17, 23: 100:6:99:14. 1". 23: 100:6 Dreessen's ioo:i i. 14 drilled 119:5. 5 drillers 37:25: 38:21: 118:9: 37:25:38:21: 118:9 drilling 118:l". 20. l". 20 46:5; 51:6: 61:": 67:8: "6:13:96:14: 119:4: 123:18:9:11: 11:13: 1": 19: 28:2:33:25: 34:19: 45:22: 46:5: 51:6: 61:"; 67:8: 76:13:96:14: 119:4: 123:18 eliminate 85:23; 92:14: 85:23:92:14 30:11:31:19: 32:": 41 8": 19 Epidemiologic 34 8. 58:2: 34:8. 14; 58:2 epidemiological 34: 41:21.25:42:11:43:1 53:23:56 ". 18; 57:2.. 89:10. 14.22:97:8:98 101:2: 102:12: 104:7: Drs 59:11:60:20: 59:11: ELUSION 49:15: "4:5. 34:10:41:21. 25;42:1 60:20 ": 76:14: 78:25:80:21: 43:1:53:23:56:7,18: arum 46:19:47:7: 46:19: 83:11. 18:90:10:91:25: 22:89:10. 14,22:97:8 47:" 92:19. 20:93:4; 102:11: 98:21; 101:2; 102:12; arums 19:7.8: 30:3: 46:2. 25: 19:7.8; 30:3; 46:2. 25 aue 64:16.16 auly 5:4:49:23; 5:4; 49:23 curability 54:17. 21; 55:9; 54:17, 21; 55:9 durable 54:25,25 duration 63:18,18 105:7:110:5,8:114:2: 117:19: 118:14; 119:20. 22; 120:3:49:15:74:5.7; 76:14:78:25:80:21; 83:11, 18:90:10:91:25; 92:19,20:93:4; 102:11: 105:7; 110:5,8; 114:2; 117:19; 118:14; 119:20, 22:120:3 else 14:16; 24:12,13; 104:7 epidemiologically 3 42:20: 34:5: 42:20 epidemiologist 22:5 57:5; 22:5:57:5 epidemiologists 57: 12, 10, 12 epidemiology 51:10 52:9, 12; 55:13; 56:6,. During 16:12; 18:2; 44:22; 116:12: 14:16; 51:10,11;52:9,12; 55 19:11:71:15:16:12:18:2; 24:12, 13:44:22; 116:12 56:6,24 19:11;71:15 ; employ 123:10,10 equal 65:4,4 dust 19:7:27:21,22: employed 45:24; 65:12; equivalent 36:15,15 30:2,10:44:3,10.11; 45:17;46:2,3,19; 47:5; 59:19:65:17, 18; 79:18; 96:9,10,25,25:97:3,19; 99:8, 11,25; 100:7; 72:13; 45:24; 65:12; 72:13 employee 82:18; 86:9, 16:88:10,15,25; 82:18; 86:9,16; 88:10,15,25 era 107:9,9 Eric 50:12,12 essentially 95:11; 100:13; 95:11; 100:13 108:21; 109:3, 10; 19:7; employer 79 7; 88:9, 17; ^ estimate 96:14; 110:' 27:21,22:30:2, 10; 44:3, j 89:6;79:7;88:9, 17; 89:6 ! 20; 96:14; 110:9, 20 10.11:45.17; 46:2, 3,19; j employment 62:24; estimated 111:6,6 47:5; 59:19:65:17. 18; ; 63:12, 17. 18:65:17; et 108:10, 10 79:18:96:9,10,25.25; I 62:24; 63:12,17,18:65:17 evaluation 17:4; 41:. 9^:3, 19:99:8, 11,25; enacted 29:15.15 17:4:41:21 100:7; 108:21; 109:3, 10 j encounter 108:14,14 evaluations 30:5,14 dynamic 48:5, 5 encountered 87 24.24 14 dynamics 59:20.20 end 34:5,10; 36:8. 23: even 25:17; 31:17; 4- BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (5) depositions - e CUA^tlAi&U A. JuCJ.VLC,i.\, i*nJD. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL 53:11; 57:17,17; 63:20; 93:24; 106:8; 113:7; 117:9; 119:17; 25:17; 31:17; 44:2; 53:11; 57:17, 17; 63:20:93:24; 106:8; 113:7; 117:9; 119:17 event 106:20,20 everyone 8:12,12 evidence 12:17; 64:22; 66:13.16,17,19; 93:17; 123:7; 12:17:64:22; 66:13,16,17,19; 93:17; 123:7 exact 32:15:33:22; 53:17; 71:19; 87:21; 107:9; 32:15; 33:22: 53:17:71:19; 87:21:1079 exactly 31:24; 54:3; 58:18:68:15:74:1; 111:22;31:24: 54:3: 58:18; 68:15:74:1:111:22 examination 88:10.21: 116:15:88:10.21; 116:15 examine 83:12,12 examined 5:4,4 example 113:10.11.10, U except 5:13:62:1.18: 5:13:62:1.18 . exception 29:8,8 exceptions 26:21,21 excess 533, 12, 24; 54:9: 57:15; 102:24; 106:2: 533, 12. 24; 54:9:57:15; 102:24: 106:2 excesses 61:7.7 exclude 23:12.12 excluded 60:6.6 excluding 64.20.20 excuse 24:16.17:28.15: 31:18; 49:15; 24:16,17; 28:15:31:18; 49:15 exhaust 108:14,14 Exhibit 5:1; 6:9; 7:15,21; 8:7, 9; 12:8, 13; 15:7; 17:22; 20:12. 13, 16; 21:16; 29:23; 46:6; 68:4; 5:1; 6:9; 7:15, 21; 8:7,9; 12:8, 13; 15:7; 17:22; 20:12.13,16:21:16; 29:23; 46:6; 68:4 exhibits 11:19,25; 15:4; 11:19. 25; 15:4 existence 74:10; 79:21; 117:21;74:10;79:21; . 117:21 expect 83:13; 100:9; 83:13:100:9 ' expectation 65:11,11 expected 65:19,19 - expenses 110:15,19; 123:18; 110:15,19; 123:18 experience 65:18,18 expert 27:13; 41:6: 59:19: 74:1; 110:1; 27:13; 41:6; 59:19; 74:1; 110:1 expertise 45:13,13 Expires 123:24,24 explain 116:20,22,20, 22 exposed 55:23; 79:19; 88:11,15,25:106:9; 114:20:55:23:79:19; 88:11,15,25; 106:9; 114:20 exposure 17:13.14; 19:11:21:2.15; 22:10; 30:7. 25:41:13:42:1; 43:15:51:2: 57:16; 59:13: 64:23:65:18:73:7,12; 75:20:78:3. 4: ^9:12.21: 80:2:89:1:91:15; 92:4. 22: 103:18.20: 107:25: 108:18: 109:3.8.9: 114:13. 18: 117:18; 118:18:119:13: 17:13. 14: 19:11:21:2. 15:22:10: 30:7. 25:41:13:42:1; 43:15:51:2: 57:16:59:13: 64:23:65:18:73:7.12: 75:20:78:3.4:79:12.21: 80:2:89:1:91:15:92:4. 22: 103:18, 20: 107:25: 108:18:109:3.8.9: 114:13. 18; 117:18: 118:18: 119:13 exposures 23:9: 25:6. 7: 41:23:45:16:53:13: 72:14: 23:9: 25:6.": 41:23: 45:16: 53:13:72:14 express 20:24. 24 extent 46:14: 91:20; 46:14: 91:20 extra 12:1.1 F fabricating 35:25,25 facilities 50:20, 22; 51:1; 50:20, 22; 51:1 facility 16:11:25:1,3: 84:19.22,25:85:4,9,18, 20;86:1,5; 115:25; 16:11; 25:1.3:84:19, 22,25; 85:4,9. 18. 20; 86:1, 5; 115:25 facing 10:20,20 fact 9:21; 10:1; 30:8; 42:15; 61:2; 65:10:79:6; 86:13; 88:24; 97:25; 102:11;9:21; 10:1; 30:8; 42:15;61:2; 65:10; 79:6; 86:13:88:24; 97:25; 102:11 factories 99:8,8 factors 23:11; 108:9; 23:11: 108:9 factory 23:18; 64:18; 23:18:64:18 Fair 108:3.3 fairly 55.18, 22, 18, 22 fairness 111:14.14 FALK 31:14; 35:3,6; 1 find 14:2; 19:21:26:6; 78:22:80:17:90:7:93:1; 50:11,13; 58:8; 59:1; 60:3; 1 38:15:42:14; 43:3; 49:4; | 102:8:117:19:118:14; 61:20:63:4,9; 65:4; 66:11; 54:9,11,12:115:21:14:2; 5:14:41:5:49:18.20: 67:15:70:10; 119:8, 11, : 19:21:26:6:38:15:42:14; : 70:24:71:17:76:8:78:22; 19; 31:14; 35:3,6; 50:11, 43:3:49:4:54:9,11,12: 80:17:90:7:93:1:102:8; 13; 58:8; 59:1:60:3:61:20: 115:21 117:19:118:14 63:4,9; 65:4:66:11:67:15; 70:10; 119:8,11,19 familiar 52:16. 55:3,7; 66:25; 70:5; 52:16; 55:3,7": 66:25; 70:5 families 90:22.22 family 80.4.4 far 14:22: 50:1:52:4.8: 14:22: 50:1:52:4,8 farther 5:10.10 feasibility 76:20:92:12, 18: 116.21.23:76:20: 92:12. 18: 116:21.23 feasible 89:2. 2 federal "5:12.12 fee 15:19: 123:19: 15:19: 123:19 feet 47:7. 7 fell 61:1. 1 few 5:10:7:1: 11:16; 26:9. 21.24; 54:5:63:5:70:16: 85:23:98:5: 107:15:5:10: 7:1: 11:16:26:9. 21.24: 54:5:63:5:70:16:85:23: 98:5; 107:15 fiber 31:3. 23: 48:10; 55:16. 17: 59:22:66:12: 82:25:83:5. 19, 23:84:2, finding 106.4.4 fine 13:10; 34:4:43:19; 13:10:34:4:43:19 finite lll.io, 10 Finkelstein 6l :8.24.8, 24 Finnish 52:3.3 first 5:4: 6:8. 16. 16:6; 21:24:34:24:40:2.4: 41:13.20.25:42:23:43:7: 44:5:50:14:52:11:58:24: 61:8:62:11:64:12:68:9. 16; "5:18. 23:76:3:89:21: 90:2.9:9":". 12:98:20: 101:1: 104:8: 116:1: 118:1:5:4:6:8. 16: 16:6: 21:24:34:24:40:2.4; 41:13.20. 25: 42:23: 43:": 44:5:50:14:52:11:58:24: 61:8:62:11:64:12:68:9. 16:75:18. 23; 76:3:89:21: 90:2.9:97:". 12:98:20; 101:1: 104:8: 116:1: 118:1 fit 54:19. 20: 109:15; 54:19.20; 109:15 five 9:18: 46:21:47:6. 9. 16, 17. 19: 52:17; 53:14: 66:14: 79:13: 100:7; 107:12:9:18:46:21:47.6. format 68:14. 17, 14. 17 forms 33:13.13 formulated 32:21.21 forsterite 46:3,9.11,3. 9. 11 forth 109:19.19 found 20:8; 2": 18. 22: 47:5.6. 12:53:3.~ 11: 54:2. 3: 59:7:61:15. 24: 63:13:64:13. 16: "5:25: 20:8: 27:18. 22:47:5.6. 12:53:3.-. 11:54:2.3: 59:7:61:15. 24:63:13: 6-4:13. 16: "5:25 four": 12. 12 four-page 68: l". l~ fourth 69:21.21 frame 6:5; 56.24:6:5; 56:24 France 106:5. 5 Freight 69:24. 24 French 67:5,6. 5.6 friable 41.2: "3:22. 24. 25:-41:2; 73:22.24.25 friction 19.23:59:23: 64:5:87:2: 119:25; 19:23: 59:23:64:5:87:2: 119:25 8. 12. 16:87:3.7. 10, 13; 9. 16. 17. 19:52:17; 53:14; front 58:21.21 90:11: 115:-*: 119:23: 66:14:79:13: 100:7; 31:3,23:48:10: 55:16. 1": 107:12 59:22:66:12:82:25:83:5. Fleischer 101:5, 5 19. 23:84:2.8. 12. 16: 87:3.7, 10. 13:90:11; Fleischer-Drinker 101:8. 12. 15.8. 12. 15 115:4; 119:23 fiberglass; 55:17,17 Flexitallic 81:16:84:9; . 85:21.22:81:16:84:9: fibers 18:1; 19:4:20:3; 85:21.22 27:5,6; 33:6; 43:25; 46:20, ; floor 87:4,4 20: 47:5,9, 14; 48:6; 54:17:55:2,8,11.19. 24; 56:3:66:14,21,22; 117:4. flooring 87.4.17:89:11, | 12:87:4,17;89:11, 12 9: 18:1; 19:4; 20:3; 27:5,6; 1 focus 10:9:40:19; 51:11; 33:6; 43:25; 46:20. 20; 10:9; 40:19; 51:11 47:5.9. 14: 48:6; 54:17; , focused 16:22; 54:15; Fulton 34:25; 35:3. 4.5. 11. 14:36:6: 123:1:34:25; 35:3.4.5. 11. 14:36:6; 123:1 Fund 7:6, 6 furnished 114.10: 123:16; 114:10; 123:16 further 100:1; 113:20; 123:8; 100:1; 113:20; , 123:8 ; future 33:15,15 G 55:2,8.11,19. 24; 56:3; 66:14,21,22; 117:4,9 fibrogenic 101:20,21, 24,20,21,24 fibrosis 102:6; 104:2; 102:6; 104:2 fibrotic 102:3,3 field 57:10, 12, 10, 12 figure 105:2; 107:8; 105:2; 107:8 figures 17:25,25 file 7:24, 24 files 12:19, 19 filter 44:13, 23: 45:1; 109:15; 44:13. 23; 45:1; 109:15 : 16:22:54:15 i focusing 21:10,10 folks 50:9,9 ; follow-up 67:10,14; : 119:8;67:10,14; 119:8 follow-ups 66:25, | 116:14; 66:25; 116:14 followed 104:7,7 ! following 69:2; 118:24; I 69:2:118:24 ; follows 5:5,5 ' foot 44:5; 53:15; 79:13; 100:8:44:5; 53:15:79:13; ; 100:8 foregoing 123:2, 5.2,5 form 5:14:41:5: 49:18, : GAF 81:8; 83:6; 85:18; 81:8:83:6:85:18 i garage 19:5,5 Gary 74:6; 83:8; 74:6; j 83:8 i gaskets 87:10,16; 90.12, ! 12:87:10,16;90:12,12 j gathered 87 3,6,9,12,3, 6,9,12 ! gave 18:13:88:4; 113:23; : 18:13; 88:4; 113:23 general 29:10; 74:20; i 100:17, 22; 102:19; 104:12.23; 106:3,8. 17; 111:6; 112:2:29:10; 74:20; 100:17,22; 102:19; final 41:4, 4 20; 70:24:71:17:76:8; 104:12. 23; 106:3,8. 17; event - general (6) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 AjuMNtui Jvu-tK, et a. v- OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aI. itie-nAKU a. i.f vtt..\, rr. March 18, 1` 111:6; 112:2 j ground 60:4,13; 119:4; j 38:8:49:24; 58:6,21; 60:1; j hypotheses 57:2,2 indicating 34:11:106 General's 111:24; 112:5; j 60:4,13:119:4 ! 115:11:116:9:118:24; 34:11:106:21 111:24; 112:5 generally 22:l6;66:3; group 52:17; 69:5; 72:22; ! 119:2,7 ! 77:11; 80:7, 8; 89:25: I hate 70:2, 2 I indirect 108:19.19 individual 79:7; 96:2 106:19; 22:16; 66:3; 106:19 I 52:17:69:5:72:22:77:11; : hazard 17:3:30:5,14; : 80:7,8:89:25 i 93:13:17:3:30:5,14; IARC 43:8,12:106:5: 103:21:104:4:108:22 109:3:113:2.9:79:': generate 57:2,2 , groups 16:1,1 , 93:13 generic 113:14,23,14, I grows 22:21, 21 ' hazards 75:2.14.15: 23 guarantee 92:14,14 | 78:8,9,11,19,19:75:2. Geneva-sponsored guess 5:23; 23:4:28:17; 14.15:78:8,9.11,19.19 55:19,19 30:2, 21; 35:9; 55:20: I head il:l6;31:25;74:20; geographic 24:7,7 68:25:77:6:96:20:5:23; 100:23:11:16:31:25; George 37:10, 10 23:4:28:17; 30:2.21:35:9; 74:20: 100:23 Georgia 70:15.18:72:5; 123:1:70:15, 18:72:5; 123:1 Germany 4l:l6; 59:9.13: 41:16; 59:9. 13 gets 55:1.1,1.1 55:20:68:25:77:6:96:20 guidance 100:4.4 guidelines 30:12.12 GUSTAFSON 67:18.19; 69:20:70:1.8:67:18. 19; 69:20:70:1.8 Health 7:6:17:3:25:23; 30:5.14:36:16:39:6; 56:12; 72:11:74:10, 13. 21.25:75:1.4.5. 13:77:3. 25; 78:7. 1': 80:23; 92:17; 93:11.18:95:19:96:7: 99:13: 100:21,23: 112:10: Gl-tract 102:18.18 Gypsum 82:13.15.18. 76: 17:3:25:23:30:5.14: gigantic 44:'.7 Given 6:5:9:19: 10:24: 14:24; 15:25: 17:16: 18:5. 10:20:1.7, 17:48:25; 70:17. 21:88:19:89:3: 91:2; 92:4: 114:14: 116:8: 22:84:1-. 1". 25:85:4: 82:13.15. 18.22:84:17. 17,25:85:4 H 36:16: 39:6; 56:12;'2:11: 74:10. 13.21. 25:75:1.-I. 5. 13:'7:3. 25:78:'. 1': 80:23:92:1': 93:11, 18: 95:19:96:7; 99:13: 100:21.23: 112:10 123:7; 6:5; 9:19: 10:24: 14:24; 15:25: 17:16: 18:5. 10: 20:1.7, 17:48:25: 70:17,21:88:19:89:3; 91:2:92:4: 114:14: 116:8: 123:7 HAINES 5:23:6:5: 10:18: 11:10: 13:22: 18:9:21:4: 28:11:31:9: 36:25:38:5: 49:9.23:61:18:63:3: 64:25:69:24:70:11.24: '1:12. 17:76:8:78:22: heard 79:15:85:22:98:3: 100:19:'9:15:85:22: 98:3: 100:19 hearing 123:7.7 heat 46:10,10 heavily 24:25. 25 goes 15:19:47:3: 15:19: 80:1': 83:8. 16:90:': held 57:10. 12. 10. 12 47:3 good 35:14; 50:12: 62:4: 65:23:70:10:91:10; 35:14:50:12:62:4:65:23; 70:10:91:10 Gosh 22:22.22 91:22:93:1: 102:8: 105:4: 115:9: 116:13. 16; 117:24: 118:22: 5:23:6:5: 10:18: 11:10: 13:22: 18:9:21:4: 28:11:31:9; 36:25:38:5: 49:9. 23:61:18:63:3: help 10:9: 28:14: 58:19: 10:9: 28:14: 58:19 hereby 123:2. 2 Herndon 69:24. 24 Hesterberg's 56 2.2 43:8,12:106:5 identification 5:2:7:22: 8:10:15:5:5:2:7:22:8:10: 15:5 identified 68:20:89:22: 68:20:89:22 identify 26:11:71:3: 86:18. 22:94:6. 10:9~:23: 108:6: 26:11:71:3:86:18. 22:94:6. 10:9':23: 108:6 118:20. 20 impact 55:10; ~2:10: 55:10: '2:10 impinger 44: i. ) importation 33:14.1 i in-place 91: lo. 10 inappropriate 49:20.20 Inc 85:15.15 incident 35:22.22 Incidental 123:1'. 1" include 30:4:47:21: 55:12. 15:71:9:73:15: 94:13: 112:21:30:4: 47:21:55:12. 15:71:9: 73:15:9-1:13; 112:21 included 12:21: 13:1: 25:24.25: 30:12: 39:14: 89:19: 12:21: 13:1:25:2). 25:30:12: 39:14:89:19 includes 20:13. 16.13. 16 including 33:25;'5:6; 96:24: 103:21; 104:4: 108:22: 109:3:113:2. > individual's 108:10. individuals 80:22:10 16:80:22: 108:8, 16 industrial 40:13.17: 50:19:51:5: 52:6; 79:1 115:3: 119:13:40:13. : 50:19: 51:5: 52:6: 79:1 115:3: 119:15 Industries 81 3:83:1 85:9. 15; 86:10: 81:3:8 85:9. 15:86:10 industry 35:23: .36:2.3 95:9. 1~. 21; 96:2: 35:2 36:23:95:9. 1'. 21:96 information 8:1. l~. 2 1.3:l-: 18:3. 5. 15. 16: 20:21.23: 21:11:24:2( 25:11. 16: .33:21;'5:22 ":3: 79:18: 87:23: 88: 91:1:8:1. 1'. 24: 13:14 18:3. 5. 15. 16; 20:21.2 21:11:24:20:25:11. It 33:21:75:22; 77:3;'9: 8':23:88:19:91:1 inhaled 48:11,11 initiated 51:19: 52:1; 51:19:52.1 inspected 84:24:85 - 17:86:1.-1:84:24:85:3 1': 86:1.4 installing 17:19; 18:l; I': 19: 18:18 governing 31:20.20 government 29:6.18; 30:1:68:21:69:1,3:75:18; 76:3:93:12:98:18; 100:16, 20; 29:6,18; 30:1: 68:21:69:1,3:75:18; 76:3; 93:12; 98:18; 100:16, 20 Government's 98:15,15 governmental 98.7,7 governments 33 5,5 grade 27:15,15,15,15 grades 27:10,12,13,10, 12,13 Great 36:11, ll greater 46:21; 47:9,15, 19:57:6:64:24; 102:19; 46:21;47:9,15,19; 57:6; 64:24; 102:19 greatest 47:6; 111:11; 47:6; 111:11 grind 27:5,5 4 grinders 37:25; 38:20; 118:9; 37:25:38:20; 118:9 grinding 36:17; 37:5; 118:17, 20; 36:17; 37:5; 118:17, 20 64:25:69:24:70:11.24; high 24:6;44:9; 53'; 71:12. 17:76:8:78:22: 80:17:83:8.16:90:7: 53:22:24:6:44:9:53:7; 55:22 91:22;93:1; 102:8: 105:4: 115:9; 116:13, 16; 117:24; 118:22 Hampton 69:23, 25, 23, 25 hand 112:25.25 handy 56:20,20 high-volume 44:7.7 higher 66:4:73:12: 103:20;66:4;73:12; 103:20 himself 95:15,15 history 8:15; 69:8; 71:8; 8:15:69:8:71:8 Hang 61:18,18 HIMSO 36:13,20,13,20 happen 55:25:72:19; 55:25:72:19 happened 116:22,22 : Hoffman 98:3,6,3.6 Hofman's 98:4,4 i holes 118:17, 17 . hard 38:13,13 HARTER 50:7.7 ; hour 15:20:60:13; 15:20; 60:13 HART0N 5:7,8.11,25; hours 14:25, 25 6:7; 7:23; 8:11; 10:23; I household 90:3,3 11:15; 12:4,7; 14:12; 15:1, 6: 18:14:21:7; 28:13: ! housekeeping 68:3,3 31:16:35:4.8. 11:37:8; i Hueper's 94:1,1 38:8; 49:24:58:6.21:60:1: : hundreds 52:6,6 115:11; 116:9; 118:24; Hygiene 25.23:40:14, 119:2.7:5:7,8, 11.25: 17; 50:19:51:5; 52:6; 6:': 7:23:8:11; 10:23: 79:18; 115:3; 119:13: 11:15; 12:4.': 14:12: 15:1. 25:23:40:14,17:50:19; 6: 18:14:21:7: 28:13; 51:5:52:6:79:18; 115:3; 76:10:91:17; 92:6,24: 108:23:33:25:75:6: 76:10:91:17:92:6.24: 108:23 income 96:19; 110:9.20; 96:19,110:9. 20 incorporated 27:3,3 increased 34:11; 57:25; 59:8; 61:17; 62:19:64:16, 22:72:15:73:2: 104:3.12. 23:106:7,16,22, 25; 107:12: 34:11:57:25: 59:8;61:17;62:19;64:16, 22;72:15;73:2:104:3,12. 23; 106:7,16, 22, 25; 107:12 increasing 62:23,23; 64:23:62:23, 23:64:23 independently 21:21,21 Indian 75:6,12,6,12 indicate 9:11; 27:17.21; 79:19; 102:13; 9:11; 27:17,21:79:19; 102:13 indicated 88:1; 90:3; 104:21; 106:15; 107:14; 88:1;90:3; 104:21; 106:15; 107:14 instance 22:8; 23:16: 26 19:33:5: 44:19. 24: 45 1-1:49:6; 22:8: 23: H 26 19:33:5; 44:19, 24; 45 14:49:6 Institute 24 :2; 32:22; 52 3,4:24:2; 32:22; 52: '4 instruction 112.14; ; 113:4; 112:14; 113:4 i instructions 113:8,21 23,8,21,23 insulating 36:1,1 Insulation 55:20; 73:1 19;79:2;101:3;105:10: 55:20;73:10,19:79:2; 101:3:105:10 insulators 105:22,22 Intelligence 18:25,25 intense 28:3, 3 interested 61:6; 123:1 : 61:6; 123:11 interpose 13:22,22 interpret 37:6,6 interstitial 102:5; 104: 102:5: 104:2 gross 110:16. 19,16. 19 31:16:35:4.8, 11:37:8: 119:13 indicates 87 24. 24 into 16:16,21:27:3.4; BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (7) General's - ir March 18, 1999 t-g.i./- OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL 32:1; 47:3; 55:1; 60:12; j knowledge 11:2; 14:5; learning ;13:25,25 27:17,18.23; 36:1; 37:18; 47:22,22 35:7; 108:10; 110:19; ; 26:25; 29:20; 52:5,10; ! least 10:9; l6:17;29:5: ; 39:20:47:21,25; 118:16; I Lorimer 17:22; 47:3: 117:21; 16:16,21; 27:3,4; i 60:7; 62:16; 68:22; 71:21; i 75:15; 98:15,17:102:22; 10:24:19:11:27:17,18, i 17:22:47:3 32:1; 47:3; 55:1; 60:12; 35:7; 108:10; 110:19; 117:21 involved 24:24; 40:13, 16; 24:24; 40:13,16 issue 54:20; 91:20; 95:25; 54:20; 91:20; 95:25 issued 75:18:76:4,15: 75:18:76:4,15 issues 77:21:115:4; '7:21; 115:4 ivan 67:19.19 Ivie 8:21. 21 j 73:21; 79:16; 82:18; I 83:21, 25; 84:4,10. 14.18; i 85:19; 86:6; 87:5; 97:24; 98:15: 103:24; 115:1; 11:2; 14:5; 26:25; 29:20; 52:5,10:60:7:62:16; 68:22:71:21:73:21; 79:16; 82:18; 83:21. 25; 84:4, 10.14.18; 85:19: 86.6:87:5:97:24; 98:15: 103:24: 115:1 known 31:15:78:24.24: 107:20:108:13:31:15; 78:24.24: 107:20: 108:13 10:9; 16:17; 29:5; 75:15; j 98:15.17; 102:22 I left 31:9;91:11,12;31'-9; 91:11,12 legislation 29:15,15 LEMEN 5:3,8. 20:13:24: 21:4; 49:25; 67:19:70:14: 74:6; 105:8; 116:17; 5:3,8, 20:13:24:21:4:49:25; 67:19; 70:14; 74:6: 105:8; 116:17 length 46:21:47:14.16, 17:62:24:66:12. H: 46:21: 47:14,16. I-; 23; 36:1:37:18:39:20; 47:21,25:118:16 linings 10:12; 17:17; 18:18; 20:4. 25: 21:12: 24:22: 27:21:28:16,17, 19. 24:29:7.11.19; 34:6, 11:36:7;39:11;119:5: 10:12:17:17:18:18:20:4. 25:21:12:24:22:27:21; 28:16, 17.19.24:29:7, 11. 19:34:6.11:36:7:39:11: 119:5 linked 41:13: 42:1: 41:13: 42:1 Lorimer-Rohl 19:16.16 lose 22:22. 22 lot 9:22: 14:5:22:18: 30:23.23:38:12:43:23: 108:22: 109:4: 115:16: 9:22; 14:5; 22:18: 30:23. 23; 38:12; 43:23: 108:22; 109:4: 115:16 lots 13:24.24 Louisiana 10:3.3 Love 51:6.6 low 24:6. 6 lower 56:8. 14: 5".I~; knows 8:12.12 62:24:66:12. 14 list 9:7. 12: 11:18: 30:14; 118:4:56:8. 14:5": 1": J Leonard 37:10.10 9:7, 12: 11:18:30:14 118:4 L Leslie 56:11.11 listed 27:1): 40:4. 12: lowest 117:"." January 9:24. 24 Ob 8:17:70:10:89:20: 3:17; 70:10:89:20 Johannesburg 4317, 17 John 92:9: 112:19:92:9: 112:19 JOHNSON 69:15:70:13. 14:71:5.13.20:74:3: >9:15:70:13, 14:71:5. 13, 20:74:3 label 112:14; 113:4.23. 25:112:14:113:4.23.25 labeling 113:21.21 labels 112:25; 113:8: 112:25: 113:8 Labor 16:13:98:9. 9. 18: 16:13:98:9.9. 18 Lanza 99:10.20.10.20 Lanza's 98:20; 99:5: 98:20; 99:5 less 30:23: 64:1" 21: 65:3.4.12,21:66:14; 30:23:64:17.21:65:3,4, 12.21:66:14 letter 8:11.11 letters H:;3: 66:25; 67:10. 14:14:13:66:25; 67:10. 14 level 22:16:32:9; 53:8: 56:16; 78.3:92:16:93:7: 95:10; 107:20. 20: 108:6, 14, 18: 109:9.9; 11":16; 73:8:27:14:40:4.12:73:8 lists 27:24.24 literature 15:13: 18:19. 19:19. 20; 20:2:69:2:8":1. 3.7. 10. 13: 15:13: 18:19; 19:19, 20:20:2:69:2:87:1. 3.7.10,13 litigation 15:10:96:19: 110:11.21; 15:10:96:19; 110:11.21 little 35:21; 78:14: 110:22: 111:13:35:21; Luckily 11:15; 39:9: 11:15: 39:9 lung 24:6."; 53:3:54:23: 55:1:61:": 63:1": 64:15. 22:65:15: 101:16; 103:"; 104:1.4. 12. 23: 106:2.". 16. 22: 107:16: 111:11. 1"; 24:6. ": 53:3: 54:23:55:1: 61:7:63:17:64:15. 22: 65:15: 101:16; 103:": 104:1.4. 12. 23: 106:2.7. 16. 22: 107:16; 111:11,1" Joint 16:13; 52:2:70:23: large 12:8: 13:12; 30:9: 22:16; 32:9:53:8: 56:16: 78:14: 110:22; 111:13 lungs 48:12: 102:3: '1:15.21,25:72:6. 10, 14: '3:16. 19. 22: 74:2:84:20: 36:23:89:24: 114:13. 18: 16:13:52:2; 70:23:71:15. 21.25:72:6. 10. 14:73:16, 19,22; 74:2:84:20; 86:23: 39:24: 114:13. 18 42:16; 57:16. 16: 108:24: 12:8: 13:12:30:9:42:16: 57:16. 16: 108:24 large-scale 97:8:98:20: 101:2:97:8:98:20: 101:2 larger 22:20:51:18. 58:20; 22:20:51:18: 58:20 78:3:92:16; 93:7:95:10: 107:20,20; 108:6. 14. 18; 109:9.9; 11 716 levels 21:1 5:73:13: 75:20:79:12. 20:80:3; 89:1:91:15. 16:92:4,5. 22:93.5:96:9. lO^"7.^; live 23:16. 16 locate 38:10.10 location 24:7 7 long 74:16: 109:11; 74:16; 109:11 longer 66:20.20 48:12: 102:3 M M 123:24.24 Mainly 16:24:35:24; Jonathan 70.14.14 Joseph 77:10.15,17,10, 15, 17 Journal 23:5; 25:22,23; 38:18:56:12; 23:5; 25:22, 23:38:18; 56:12 judgment 60:10,10 June 87:25, 25 K keep 10:7; 12:16; 10:7; 12:16 Kelly 114:8, 25; 115:5; 114:8,25:115:5 Kenneth 7:24.24 kept 79:13; 100:7; 79:13; 100:7 - Kevin 114:7,7 kids 32:4,4 \ kin 123:8,8 kind 14:14;53:19; 56:20; 94:15; 14:14:53:19; largest 51:15. 18; 52:14; 51:15.18:52:14 laryngeal 62:1.18; 63:21,21:102:23.24; 62:1,18:63:21,21: ; 102:23,24 last 7:11; 9:13, 14, 17, 19; 10:5; 15:22; 59:1:67:22, i 24:82:7:91:9:119:20; | 7:11; 9; 13,14,17,19; ' 10:5; 15:22: 59:1;67:22, 24; 82:7; 91:9; 119:20 | late 17:8:85:15; 17:8; i 85:15 I latencies 42:16,16 ! latency 103 3,7,15,19, ; 22,3,7,15,19.22 i later 25:4; 45:24; 48:18; j 25:4; 45:24; 48:18 [ latest 10:1:23:4; 10:1; , 23:4 : law 72:4; 79:16:72:4: ! 79:16 > laws 79-ll.ll 100:7; 108:1; 116:22; look 7:18:9:18: 17:21: 16:24:35:24 119:14:21:15; 73:13: 75:20; 79:12.20:80:3; 89:1; 91:15, 16;92:4. 5, 22;93:5;96:9,10; 97:19; ` 100:7; 108:1; 116:22; 119:14 Lewis 8:22. 22 library 14:10,10 *1 lifestyles 66:4.4 30:19,20, 22; 34:2: 35:12: 36:21:38:24:39:1:46:15; 47:12:48:14. 16:50:7; : 51:9; 56:5; 57:5. 13; 58:4; 60:18:61:22:69:14:97:3; 107:8: 112:5:7:18; 9:18; 17:21; 30:19. 20, 22:34:2; 35:12; 36:21;38:24;39:1; I 46:15:47:12; 48:14,16; ! 50:7; 51:9; 56:5; 57:5, 13; maintenance 19:12; 50:20.22:51:1; 19.12; 50:20. 22:51:1 Majesty's 36:14,14 major 16:15; 24:25; 16:15:24:25 ! makers 17:5,7,5.7 makes 70:8; 77:22; 70:8; 77:22 light 108:23.23 ! 58:4; 60:18; 61:22:69:14; making 16:11, 22:2; likewise 93:22,22 ; limit 30:25; 100:1,3,4; 97:3; 107:8; 112:5 j looked 23:8, 10:26:10; ; 32:24. 25; 35:25; 47:20; ! 76:22:91:14; 16:11; 22:2; 30:25; 100:1.3,4 I 34:15:41:10; 42:17;46:1; ! 32:24, 25; 35:25; 47:20; limited 60:6,6 ; 52:12; 54:15; 59:2:89:10, 76:22:91:14 limits 108:1 I ; line 11:25; 12:1.14; 13:2; ! 15; 23 8.10: 26:10; 34:15; 41:10; 42:17; 46:1; 52:12; I 54:15:59:2:89:10,15 malignancies 101:16,16 I man-made 55:8,11; | 25:24:33:25: 34:2; 39:5, 8, 12, 14,16; 42:24; 43:7; j looking 18:21; 23:6; 30:7, I i 56:3; 55:8, 11; 56:3 Management 16:14,14 i i 46:6, 18:73:9; 11:25; 12:1, 14: 13:2:25:24:33:25; 34:2: 39:5,8, 12, 14, 16; 42:24; 43:7:46:6, 18; 73:9 : i ] 9;42:21;43:19;44:3,10; 46:18; 50:21, 24; 60:25; 61:21; 63:6; 72:22; 73:7,9, 10:96:25; 18:21; 23:6; 30:7,9; 42:21:43:19; 44:3, ; Manhattan 25:2,8; 39:24:40:14; 25:2,8; 39:24:40:14 Manheim 40:15,15 liners 17:20, 20 10:46:18:50:21,24; manufacture 38 24: 56:20;94:15 lawyers 16:1, l, 1, l lines 34:16, 16 60:25;6l:21:63:6; 72:22; 109:16; 110:2; 38:24; <new 50:6.6 layman's 56.20. 20 lingo 53:19, 19 73:7.9. 10; 96:25 109:16;110:2 mowing 49:10,10 lead 66:15.15 lining 10:24:19:11: Lo rd-on ly-knows-what manufactured 24:22; unvolved - manufactured (8) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEMEN, PE March 18,1` 28:20; 72:1,6; 83:1,6,20, 24:84:3,8,13,17,20; 115:5; 24:22; 28:20; 72:1, 6; 83:1,6,20,24; 84:3,8, 13,17,20; 115:5 manufacturer 24:16; 86:18; 24:16; 86:18 Manufacturers 55:21.21 manufacturing 25:1,3, 10; 27:8; 36:7,22; 37:11, 13,19; 38:22;47:20; 57:24:86:19,23:115:25: 116:2: 118:7:25:1,3,10; 27:8:36:7. 22:37:11. 13, 19; 38:22:47:20; 57:24: 86:19. 23:115:25:116:2: 118:7 many 14:8:30:15:43:2: 57:10.11:66:5.5: 108:9: 14:8:30:15:43:2: 57:10. 11:66:5. 5: 108:9 map 24:9.9 maps 24:3.3 March 74:18:123:22; 74:18: 123:22 Marine 75:9.9 Marines 75:', 7 Maritime 101:10.10 mark 7:14. l':8": 12:7: 13:4,9:15:3:35:21:7:14. 17:8:7:12:7:13:4.9: 15:3: 35:21 marked 5:1; 7:21; 8:9: 15:1.4. 6: 68:6; 5:1; ":21; 8:9: 15:1.4.6:68:6 marketing 109:15:110:2: 109:15: 110:2 mask 109:17.24. 17.24 mastics 48:4.9,4.9 material 14:6.14:15:11: 18:4:25:10; 27:7; 69:10; 70:21; 71:7; 87:4; 88:4.6; 89:17:96:21; 114:14: 118:21: 14:6, 14; 15:11; 18:4:25:10: 27:7; 69:10; 70:21; 71:7; 87:4; 88:4,6; 89:17:96:21; 114:14; 118:21 materials 14:23; 87:17; 114:9, 22; 14:23; 87:17; 114:9,22 matter 30:8; 44:21, 25; 30:8; 44:21,25 maximum 14:25,25 may 6:3;7:6;15:24; 17:18, 22; 20:24; 24:18; 30:18, 20; 38:11; 39:13; 41:9; 65:24; 66:17; 71:22; 73:18; 86:3:89:18; 117:10; 120:1; 123:18; 6:3; 7:6; 15:24; 17:18, 22; 20:24:24:18; 30:18, 20; 38:11; 39:13; 41:9; 65:24; 66.17;71:22; 73:18:86:3; 89:18; 117:10; 120:1; 123:18 maybe 39:20:48:21; 52:22; 68:8; 69:21; 39:20; 48:21: 52:22; 68:8; 69:21 McDonald 42:17,21; 43:1.4.14; 51:14; 52:8, 13,17; 54:1:64:2;42:17, 21; 43:1,4.14; 51:14: 52:8. 13,17; 54:1:64:2 McDonald's 54:14; 64:12: 54:14:64:12 mean 7:3; 13:7.9; 20:8; 26:16; 30:16; 34:21; 43:1. 13:44:17:46:23; 50:3; 73:24:84:5:90:23:91:23: 113:10:116:10:7:3: 13:'. 9: 20:8: 26:16: 30:16; 34:21:43:1. 13:44:17: 46:23: 50:3: 73:24: 84:5: 90:23:91:23: 113:10: 116:10 meaning 90:12.12 meant 31:12.13.12.13 measure 32:10. io measuring 92:18,18 mechanic 118:13.13 mechanics 19:5:57:23: 59:8. 12:68:19:69:4: 89:12: 19:5: 57:23: 59:8. 12:68:19:69:4:89:12 medical ~:24. 25:8:5; 9:1:20:17:21:25:40:17: 52:9:78:18: 108:5:7:24. 25: 8:5:9:1: 20:1~: 21:25; 40:17; 52:9: '8:18: 108:5 medically 88:16, 20.16. 20 Medicine 23:5. 5 MedLine 12:23: 58:8.11: 12:23: 58:8. 11 meeting 106:6. 14.6.14 member 41:9; 74:16; 76:24:77:1:95:19:41:9: 74:16; 76:24:77:1:95:19 members 77:10.17; 80:14: 77:10. 17: 80:14 membrane 44:13,13 men 61:15. 25:62:18; 64:20;65:11:61:15, 25; 62:18:64:20; 65:11 mention 42:14; 76:1; 98:3; 110:24; 42:14; 76:1: 98:3; 110:24 mentioned 34:24:46:7; 66:24:67:9:72:19; 34:24; 46:7; 66:24; 67:9; 72:19 Merchant 75:7,9,7,9 Merewether 97:9,13,18, 22, 25,9,13,18,22.25 mesothelioma 21 18; 22:8; 23:7; 25:21; 28:2,9; 41:12.15:42:2,12:43:15; 53:4. 24; 54:4.13:55:10. 22; 56:8.13; 57:25:59:8; 61:7; 103:3; 21:18; 22:8; 23:7; 25:21: 28:2. 9; 41:12. 15:42:2. 12:43 15; 53 4. 24:54:4. 13:55:10. 22; 56:8, 13: 57:25: 59:8:61:7; 103:3 misstated 65:6,6 need 43:20:61:19:62 mesotheliomas 64:13; 97:23:99:18,21:101:13; mixed 25:5,7,5.7 i 78:14:83:12:43:20; model 17:5,7.10.5,7.10 61:19:62:6:78:14; 83 64:13; 97:23:99:18,21; 101:13 method 44:4; 45:2,18: 117:4:44:4:45:2,18; 117:4 methodology 45:5.19, 22, 23, 5,19, 22, 23 methods 45:8.8 Metropolitan 98:23.23 micarda 69:12.22.23: 70:6:69:12.22. 23; 70:6 microfiche 38:13.13 micron 47 9.16.17.19. 9. 16. 17. 19 microns 46:21; 66:14: 46:21:66:14 microscope 32:9:9T:4: 32:9:97:4 microscopy 31:8: 13:25: 44:6.23:92:13:31:8: 43:25: 44:6.23:92:13 mid 32:12. 14, 17: 59:14; 89:24: 112:11; 32:12. 11. 17; 59:14:89:24:112:11 middle 44:8.8 Might 7:17:10:9:79:4: 85:23:88:3; 90:4:7:17: 10:9:79:4:85:23:88:3: 90:4 military 93:20. 20 mill 10:2. 13. 14: 11:14: 27:4:10:2. 13. 14: 11:14: 2':4 milling 41:22. 22 million 53:14:79:13; 100:8: 53:14: 79:13; 100:8 mills 23:4:42:18. 22: 43:9. 11: 23:4; 42:18. 22; models 17:4.6.4.6 moment 51:12:94:19; 51:12; 94:19 monitored 88:16.20: 91:13:88:16. 20:91:13 monoxide 51:3.3 months 15:15.15 Moore 114:8. 25:115:5: 114:8. 25: 115:5 morbidity 89:11.15.11. 15 more 14:5:30:20:63:5: 66:21: 102:6. 14. l i: 103:1". 18: 111:16. 20: 14:5:30:20:63:5:66:21: 102:6. 14. 14: 103:1". 18: 111:16. 20 morning 50:12.12 mortality 40:3.8:60:16; 64:16; 65:18: 89:11. 15: 40:3.8:60:16:64:16: 65:18:89:11. 15 most": 12:9:20: 11:23: 26:". 21.'22: 40:21:42:19: 65:9:': 12: 9:20; 11:23: 26". 21.22; 40:21:42:19: 65:9 mostly 64:16. 16 motivation 86:8.15.8. 15 Motor 69:24. 24 Mount 95:5. 5. 5. 5 Move 24:12:53:1:24:12; 53:1 much 11:1; 14:21:46:2: 68:12: 109:10: 11:1: 14:21:46:2:68:12: 109:10 multiple 112:', 7 neighborhood 9 25: 33:23:53:16.20:103: 111:23: 112:4; 9:25: 33:23:53:16.20:103: 111:23: 112:4 new ":2: 23:5: 33:11. 40:9: 49:19: 55:18:6' 94:14:95:6: 106:14:7. 23:5:33:11. 1.3:40:9: 49:19:55:18:67:24: 94:14:95:6: 106:14 Newell 81:20: 84:5: 81.20:84:5 newer 6:21. 21 Newhouse 23:10. io next 5:22: 12:8. 13: 2 18: 36:10: 3':8. 16. 20 39:3: 48:23:61:1: "0:1 5:22: 12:8, 13: 23:18. 36:10:3" 8. 16. 20:39 48:23:64:1; "0:11 NIOSH 12:24: 16:12: 18:20.22:30:6.8: 32:( 12. 18:43:24.24:44:1 15:45:4. 15: 46:4: 51:1 20.25: 52:3: 57:21: 76 16:77:19.21.24:78:7 79:25:91:14:92:5.9.. 93:5:95:25:96:13: 109:20.21; 113:'.". 1 16. 20. 25: 117:3. 15. 1 118:1: 12:24: 16:12: 18:20. 22; 30:6.8; 32:< 12. 18:43:24,24:44:1 15: 45:4. 15; 46:4; 51:1 20.25: 52:3; 57:21:76 16:77:19.21.24:78:7. 79:25:91:14:92:5.9. 2 9.3:5:95:25:96:13: 109:20.21; 113:7,7, 1< 4 3:9, 11 must 28:3,3 16,20,25; 117:3, 15, 1 mind 63:6:80:20; 86:8. 15; 63:6; 80:20:86:8. 15 myself 18:13; 59:21; 18:13:59:21I 118:1 i non-asbestos 27:6, ( mine 23:19; 26:14:23:19; i non-malignant 91:3, 26:14 Mine's 7:10,10 N : non-smokers 102:20 j none 20:5; 59:10; 63:2 mineral 55:8, ll: 56:3; 55:8. 11;56:3 mines 23:4:26:22,23, 24; 41:17; 42:6,18, 22; 43:9; 52:1; 53:5, 9,12; 23:4;26:22, 23. 24; 41:17; 42:6,18, 22:43:9; 52:1; 53:5,9,12 minimal 65:17,17 minimum 15:18,18 mining 26:20; 41:22; 26:20:41:22 minute 12:5:28:18; 34:18, 20; 35:1; 46:17; 61:19.22; 12:5; 28:18; 34:18, 20; 35:1;46:17; 61:19,22 miscellaneous 36:2.2 name 50:12; 70:14; 74:6; I 77:13; 85:6; 107:2; 114:7; i 50:12; 70:14; 74:6; 77:13; ! 85:6:107:2:114:7 ` name's 77:12,12 narrow 10:9,9 i National 24:1;82:13.15, ! 18:84:17,25;24:1;82:13, i 15,18;84:17,25 j nature 71:4; 108:25; > 109:12; 114:11,21:71:4; 108:25; 109:12; 114:11, : 21 : Naval 93:19,19 Navy 101:9.9 necessarily 73.3 necessary 104:3,3 ! 20:5; 59:10; 63:21 | nonfriable4l:2,5; 87 j 41:2.5:87:18 I nonresponsive92:l j 95:24:92:19:95:24 | nonsmoker 102:7,7 I nonsmokers 102:15; 104:9; 105:10,21,25; 106:1,6:102:15; 1043 105:10,21,25;106:l,i i nonsmoking 104:11. i 106:15,23:107:1,13, ! 104:11.22; 106:15, 23 107:1. 13. 16 nor 123:10, 10 notebook 12:9,10,2 13:12: 15:12, 16; 17:2 25:25; 39:7; 58:12; missing 68:9,9 necessitate 14:10,10 115:13. 14: 12:9, 10,2 BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (9) manufacturer - noteb< Al'^CLAJUJ A. UHVAluN, March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL 13:12; 15:12,16; 17:21; ; 8:13; 14:2; 15:22; 17:23; I 27:1,5,6,10;23:19; 65:8; 68:10,14,16; 70:1; 111:7, 16.20; 96:18: 25:25; 39:7; 58:12; ! 18:13,24; 27:15:29:8,22; 26.13,19:27:1,5,6,10 123:15,17 110:25; 111:7.16. 20 115:13,14 ; 32:8,22:34:24:35:2: organization 74.17; pages 123:6,6 percentage 111.4.4 noted 49:23,23 notes 14:12; 96:22; 14:12; 96:22 notice 69:12,12 noticed 110:23,23 notices 6:9,9 number 6:14; 12:24; ' 37:11.16.18,22:38:2,3, 3:40:20, 22:43:10.11; 44:22:48:20;51:22; 52:19; 54:14:58:6,8.20. 23:61:8:64:1,10. 17. 24: 65:3.4.12,21; 67:8:68:5, 6.6.7, 20:73:6; 76:18; 77:10,17; 83:9; 86:3; 85:2; 74:17; 85:2 organizations 41:8. : 75:6:41:8:75:6 orientation 16:24.24 original! 23:6; 123:14: 23:6:123:14 OSH A 31:6; 32:25; 36:16; paper 10:2.13,14:11:14; 17:22,23:23:4,7; 37:21; 41:19, 20:43:14:47:3; 105:12; 106:18.21: 107:2. 4.11; 10:2, 13. 14:11:14; 17:22.23: 23:4.7; 37:21; 41:19. 20; 43:14: 47:3; 105:12:106:18.21:107:2. perhaps 66.4.4 period69.13:~l:16; 75:24:103:3.7 15.19.22: 117:22:69:13:71:16: 75:24; 103:3.7 15. 19. 22: 117:22 peripheral 54:6.10.6.10 17:23; 30:5; 32:3; 44:19; 98:23:107:3:116:6.20: 45:9.16, 19.24:76:6.11. 4. 11 permissible 30:25:78:3: 53:17:111:10:112:7; 118:24:119:8.20: 123:14: 12:77:22:78:7.16:79:1. papers 25:25:43:10: 89:1:91:15; 92:22; 109:9; 6:14; 12:24; 17:23; 30:5; 6:8.17. 24:7:12:8:13: 6; 88:9. 14. 24; 91:15; 25:25:43:10 30:25:78:3:89:1:91:15: 32:3:44:19:53:17; 14:2; 15:22: 1~:23; 18:13, 92:4. 11. 21; 31:6: 32:25; paragraph 116:1.1 92:22: 109:9 111:10:112:7 numbers 55:22. 22 o O.C.G.A 123:12.12 24:27:15:29:8. 22:32:8. 22:34:24:35:2:37:11.16, 18. 22; 38:2.3.3:40:20. 22:43:10. 11; 44:22: 48:20:51:22:52:19: 54:14:58:6.8. 20.23: 61:8:64:1. 10. 17. 24: 65:3.4. 12.21:67:8:68:5. 36:16:45:9. 16. 19. 24; 76:6.11. 12; 77:22:78:7. 16:79:1.6:88:9.14.24: 91:15; 92:4. 11.21 others 18:1: 20:15: 39:13:43:19:44:14: 45:14:51:18:73:1. 11: 18:1:20:15:39:13:43:19: part 16:25:47:25:51:24: 52:11:53:25:62:20:68:3. 9. 16:77:6:98:18; 16:25; 4":25: 51:24: 52:11: 53:25:62:20:68:3.9. 16: ":6: 98:18 participated 51:5. 59:22: permitted 5:19; 31: l: 5:19:31:1 personal 44:12. 2 i. 12. 24 personally 46: i: 109:18. 25: 115:2: 46: i: 109:18. 25: 115:2 object 14:3; 36:25:49:9. 6.6.7.20:73:6:76:18: 44:14:45:14:51:18:73:1. 76:15:51:5:59:22:76:15 persons 68:19: SX):3: 20; 70:24; 71:17. 76:8: "10. 17:83:9:86:3: 11 particles 44:4: 53:14: 68:19:90:3 78:22:80:17:83:9:90:7: 98:23: 107:3: 116:6, 20; Ours 11-3:14.14 79:13: 97:4: 100:8: perspective 25.25 93:1; 102:8; 118:14; 14:3; .36:25:49:9. 20:70:24; .71:17; 76:8; 78:22:80:17: 83:9:90:7:93:1; 102:8: 118:14 objection 13:23:49:16. 18. 19.22; 92:19:117:19: 13:23:49:16. 18. 19.22: 92:19:117:19 objections 5:13.13 118:24; 119:8. 20. 123:14 ones 6:21:34:17, 54:4; 58:24: 6:21:34:17: 54:4: 58:24 ongoing 51:15.19.23: 52:9:51:15.19. 23:52:9 only 10:15. 16: 17:2: 21:10: 39:5; 44:12: 47:15: 52:4:65:10:68:10:69:10: 70:21:79:1:95:10. 14: out 7:2. 2: 12:19: 15:11: 23:15. 19:24:2.9: 26:19: 27:1.7:30:11:36:16: 38:9: 45:15:47 11:49:4:52:23: 55:2. 19:56:22:62:6; 69:16; 72:23; 76:11: 95:25: 105:3. 16: 112:23: 7:2. 2: 12:19: 15:11: 23:15. 19: 24:2.9: 26:19:27:1.7; 30:11:36:16: 38:9:45:15: 108:24.24:44:4:53:14: ~9:13:97:4: 100:8: 108:24.24 particular 21:5:89:20: 21:5:89:20 particularly 60:11.11 particulate -14:21.25, 21. 25 parties 123:9.10. 16. 9. 10. 16 pertaining 50:15; 55:8: 50:15: 55:8 pertains 11012.12 Ph.D 5:3:22:1:5:3:22:4 Phase 31:8: 43:2 i: 44:6, 22:92:12:31:8:43:24: 44:6. 22:92:12 Phoenix 60:3.12.3.12 phone 7:19. 19 objects 12:17.17 obviously 6:17; 8:12: 115:19: 10:15. 16: 1~:2; 47:11:49:4:52:23:55:2. 21:10: 39:5:44:12:47:15: 19: 56:22:62:6:69:16: parts 62:11. 14: 118:8: 62:11. l i: 118:8 photographs 1120; 14:13: 11:20: 14:13 13:24:24:14.15: 25:18: 28:1:38:19:47:21.25: 6:17; 8:12:13:24; 24:14. 15:25:18: 28:1; 38:19: 52:4:65:10; 68:10; 69:10; 70:21; 79:1; 95:10. I t: 115:19 Ontario 62:12.12 72:23: T6:l 1:95:25: 105:3. 16; 112:23 outright 96:4.4 over 15:19; 18:16: 31:18; party 123:13. 18, 20, 13. 18. 20 pass 61:12:114:2:61:12: 114:2 phrase 65:23.23 physical 88:10,21.10. 21 physicians 90:22.22 P47:21,25 occasions 16:13.13 occupation 68:20.20 Occupational 25:23; 39:6; 40:10; 25:23; 39:6; 40:10 occur 46:14; 54:4; 56:13. 14:46:14; 54:4:56:13,14 occurred 41:19; 59:10; 41:19; 59:10 occurring 17:6; 42:20; 55:22; 64:23; 17:6; 42:20; 55:22; 64:23 off 12:4, 6; 31:24; 51:11; 62:11; 64:12; 66:8; 12:4.6; 31:24; 51:11; 62:11; ' 64:12; 66:8 Office 36:15,15 ' officially 33:13,13 old 15:15; 34:16; 53:19; 15:15; 34:16; 53:19 Ollie 5:8, 8 onboard 93:12,19,12. 19 operated 85:9.18.21; 86:5:85:9. 18,21:86:5 operation 109:12.12 operations 511, l opinion 20:23; 21:6,17, 23:25:20: 26:1; 56:6: 67:25:78:16:80:20. 21; 91:13; 95:16, 20. 25; 96:6; 101:19; 103:14; 106:1,21; : 107:19; 118:5; 20:23; l 21:6.17, 23; 25:20; 26:1; 56:6; 67:25; 78:16; 80:20, ; 21;91:13;95:16, 20,25; 96:6; 101:19; 103:14; ; 106:1,21; 107:19; 118:5 opinions 10:11; 24:15; 67:21; 109:14, 22; 10:11; ; 24:15; 67:21; 109:14,22 opposed 12:8: 20:7; 29:14; 30:21; 36:8. 23: 56:9; 116:2; 12:8; 20:7; 29:14; 30:21; 36:8, 23. 56:9: 116:2 opposite 65:1.1 order 57:6; 63:11; 57:6: 34:23:60:25:61:12:63:7: 70:2; 94:15; 97:9: 106:8; 110:22; 111:7; 15:19; 18:16: 31:18; 34:23: 60:25:61:12:63:7; 70:2; 94:15:97:9; 106:8, 110:22:111:7 overall 62:5,5 overbreadth 14:3.3 overhead 119:25,25 : overturned 29:2,2 ' own 45:21,21 ; owned 85 2.4,6,12,18, ! 20; 86:1, 5; 85:2,4, 6,12, 18, 20:86:1,5 Pacific 70:15,19; 72:5; 70:15, 19; 72:5 packet 8:3 3 page 34:23:35:13:61:14, 20; 62:17; 63:9:65:8; 68:10. 14. 16:70:1; passage 39:6.6 paying 110:15.15 PCM 31:6,10.12,13,6, 10.12, 13 PCM-type 44:13,13 peer 18:19, 22.19, 22 peer-reviewed 18:7; 19:20; 18:7; 19:20 PEL 31:6; 32:25; 33:7; 45:9; 79:20; 31:6; 32:25; 33:7; 45:9; 79:20 PELS 32:24.24 Pennsylvania 35.7; 40:15, 19, 20,22; 35:7; 40:15, 19,20,22 people 9:5,6; 64:17; 72:13, 18; 73:9; 75:6; 94:23; 101:3; 115:20; 9:5, 6:64:17:72:13,18; 73:9; 1 75:6;94:23; 101:3; 115:20 per 313. 23; 44.4; 47:9; 53:14; 79:13; 100:8; 123:15. 17; 31:3. 23; 44:4; 47:9; 53:14; 79:13; 100:8; pipe ioi:2.2 Pittsburgh 9:23: 10:6; 67:20, 22. 25; 9:23: 10:6; 67:20.22,25 place 91:12,12 ; placed 112:15; 113:5.17; : 112:15; 113:5, 17 ! plaintiff's 20:17 4917, i 21; 50:4; 90:17: 114:18; ! 20:17; 49:17, 21; 50:4; j 90:17, 114:18 I plaintiffs 114:10,12,10, ! 12 j plant 16:16,18.19,22, | 25; 17:2; 25:9; 39:25; 40:2, i 4,5,14,15,17,18.19,20, j 22, 23; 44:8; 64:5,10,13; | 69:13,23; 116:2; 16:16, i 18. 19, 22, 25; 17:2; 25:9; ' 39:25:40:2,4, 5. 14. 15, : 17,18,19,20,22.23; 44:8; 64:5, 10, 13; 69:13, 23; 116:2 plants 17:10: 35:25: 57:24:62:11, 15; 97:15; once 26:13.13 63:11 123:15, 17; 34:23; 35:13; 123:15, 17 17:10; 35:25; 57:21: one 6:8. 17. 24; 7:12: ore 23:19; 26:13, 19: 61:14.20:62:17:63:9; percent 96:18; 110:25: 62:11, 15:97:15 noted - plants (10) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH. 1_>AJJE RATER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL RICHARD A. LEiYtEN, Pn March 18, IS plaques 91:5,5 | prevent 48:11; 117:17; proper 49:14,14 50:3; 51:11; 52:20; 53:18: rather 52:23:61:13: please 37:9; 39:4; 1 48:11:117:17 [ properties 48:6,6 54:3,22; 57:11.11:61:6: 83:14:97:15:52:23: 116:22; 37:9; 39:4; 116:22 j prevention 30:9,10,9, proposed 29:15,15 76:11;77:2.4;79:2:86:14: 61:13:83:14:97:15 pleural 91:5, 5 point 14:20; 27:2; 42:10: 47:10; 48:17; 49:16; 53:23; 56:7; 57:19; 62:6; 77:4; 80:1; 91:21; 96:17; 14:20; 27:2; 42:10; 47:10: 48:17; 49:16; 53:23:56:7; 57:19; 62:6; 77:4; 80:1; 91:21; 96:17 pointing 30:11,11 points 116:18,18 policy 32:21,21 | 10 j previously 85:2,2 | principal 12:1,1 j principally 9:22:25:2; 36:20. 22; 37:1; 42:8: 50:24; 9:22; 25:2; 36:20, 22; 37:1:42:8; 50:24 print 58:20. 20 prints 7:2. 2, 2,2 prior 34:7, 9: 41:19:44:1: 59:16:85:12:91:5: 105:5: 34:7,9:41:19:44:1: 59:16: proposition 57:4,4 protect 92:5; 93:6,7; 95:10; 92:5; 93:6,7; 95:10 protection 89:3,7,3.7 protective 109:17; 110:3; 109:17; 110:3 prove 22:24: 23:23: 24:1: 22:24: 23:23; 24:1 p rovide 76:1,1 p rovided ":25:8:3.23: 14:14: 16:7:79:17:87:23; 93:3; 100:19; 107:24: 11 1:3, 10:112:23:9:12: 12 14; 15:15:24:2:27:25 30 13; 35:20; 50:3:51:11 52 20; 53:18: 54:3. 22: 11. 11:61:6: 76:11: 7T 2.4 : 79:2; 86:11:93:3: 100:19; 107:24:111:3.10: 112:23 putting 76:18.18 Q raw 97:14.14 Raybestos 25: l. 8: 39:24:40:2.14.18; 25: 8; 39:24:40:2. 14, 18 reaction 102:3.3 read 6:1:14:8.23; 35: 52 19; 56 2:58:12 . 14: 60 24:62: 20:63:1 : 67: "1 ": 105 15:6:1: 19:8 35 20: 52. 19: 56:2 : 58: N 60:21: 62:20:63:1: 6" 13:71: 105:1 5 Poor 23:12. 12 poor-quality 35:17,1" poorly-ventilated 97:15. 15 popped 11:16.16 85:12:91:5: 105:5 prisons 75:12.12 private 1132.2 Probably 6:22:7:4.11: 9:24: 13:9:22:18: 51:17: ":25:8:3. 23: 14:14: 16:7: 79:17:87:23 provides 56:25. 25 provision 93:3.3 proximity 23:6.6 quality 36:22.22 quantification 4" i. i quantifications i6:I6. 19. 16,19 reading 5:21:62:3: 5: 62:3 Reagan "5:10, io real 13:". " really i" i.3:21:2: population 54:12: 56:15: 5": 18:102:19:104:13,24: 106:3.8. 17: 54:12: 56:15: 57:18; 102:19; 104:13.24; 106:3.8, 17 populations 56:9.9. 13: 58:1:56:9.9. 13; 58:1 62:6; 83:16:96:16: 111:12:6:22:7:4.11:9:24: 13:9: 22:18:51:17:62:6; 83:16; 96:16; 111:12 Procedure 5:18,18 proceedings 43:16.16 process 16:15:27:2.8: Public 36:16; 56:12; 74:10. 13.21.25:75:4. 13; :3:78:7. 17:93:11. 18: 95:19:96:7:99:13; 100:20. 23: 112:10; 36:16; 56:12:74:10. 13.21.25; "4:4. 13:77:3:78:7.17: 93:11. 18:95:19; 96:7: quantified 46:12.12 quantify 17:18:19:3: 20:2:22:23:60:15: 108:2; 1": 18; 19:3:20:2:22:23: 60:15: 108:2 quantifying 18:1"; 19:21: 18:1": 19:21 23:14: 26:11.24: 2":18 15; 30:15; 36:6:68:12: 91:19: 17:1.3: 21:2: 23 26:11.24: 2": 13. 15: 30:15; 36:6:68:12:91: reason 53:24; "0:22: 53:24:70:22 portion 12:13:68:10; 38:22:47:20:55:25: 99:13: 100:20. 23; 112:10 quantity 32:3. 3 rebuttal 10:3.4.3.4 12:13; 68:10 16:15; 27:2.8: 38:22: publication 40:4.12: quarter 91:9.9 recall 24:3: 58:16; 59: position 32:17.17 47:20; 55:25 43:8: 56:10: 100:16. 20; Quebec 52:13. 13 81:5.9:82:16:85:". 16 possibility 54:15. 15 possible 55:9: 64:21: 66:6:96:4; 55:9; 64:21: 66:6; 96:4 Possibly 6:25; 14:24: 108:1:6:25: 14:24; 108:1 post 31:20. 20 posted 79:3. 3 potential 23:22:75:1,14: R78:8; 80:10:93:13; 103:25; 23:22:75:1, 14; 78:8; 80:10; 93:13: 103:25 Potentially 6 3.3 practical 99.7,7 pre-published 56:1,1 predecessor 50:16,16 predominantly 53:4,4 preparation 15:20; 44:16, 18; 15:20; 44:16.18 prepared 15:8,9,13; 112:13; 113:3; 15:8,9,13; 112:13; 113:3 prepares 8:15,15 processes 86:9.15.9.15 processing 26:12.16. 12.16 proclamation 69:3. 3 produce 11:19.19 produced 13:11; 14:6: 46:9; 13:11: 14:6:46:9 product 70:5: "2:25: 83:5.20. 23:84:2. 12. 16; 112:15; 113:4. 12: 114:1; 70:5:72:25:83:5.20. 23: 84:2. 12. 16; 112:15; . 113:4, 12: 114.1 production 123:18.18 products 8:17; 19:23; ! 26:15; 27:3; 36:3. 23:41:1, : 4; 59:23; 71:3; 73:2: 76:5; : 79:2; 82:25; 87:2, 19; j 91:10; 101:4; 112:11; | 113:9. 18,22; 115:4; j 119:25; 8:17; 19:23; 26:15:27:3; 36:3.23:41:1. 4; 59:23; 71:3; 73:2; 76:5; 79:2; 82:25; 87:2.19; 91:10; 101:4; 112:11; 104:25: 106:11:40:4. 12: 43:8: 56:10; 100:16. 20: 104:25; 106:11 publications 6:25; 7:7, 12:43:12: 104:20: 105:5; 109:21.21:6:25:7:7.12; 44:12: 104:20: 105:5: 109:21.21 publish 95:15, 20: 106:21:95:15. 20: 106:21 published 18:6, 19. 22; 24:4: 25:22:33:25; 37:25; 40:9: 41:25; 50:23: 51:2. 24: 52:5,12, 14,17; 55:25: 76:4:87:3.6,9, 12:93:23; | 102:12; 105:19; 106:1,25; i 107:6.6; 109:14, 18.22; 18:6, 19. 22; 24:4; 25:22; 33:25; 37:25; 40:9; 41:25: ; 50:23; 51:2.24; 52:5, 12. 14, 17; 55:25; 76:4; 87:3, 6,9. 12; 93:23; 102:12: 105:19; 106:1,25; 107:6, 6;109:14,18,22 pull 34:16;44:9;34:16; quick 110:6.6 quicker 55:2. 2 quickly 13:8:61:13: 13:8: 61:13 quite 24:25:62:8: 24:25: 62:8 quote 35:21. 23. 21.23* i R-E-l-T-Z-E 73:8.8 R-O-H-L 17:24. 24 ; range 103:8.8 Raper 7:24; 8:1,3, 20. 24; 13:15; 15:9.12:20:14.19, 22.24:21:17:33:18:68:4, i 13:69:9:70:23:71:22: ] 79:19:87:24:88:20:89:5; j 91:2; 119:4,17; 7:24:8:1, ! 3,20,24: 13:15; 15:9,12; ! 20:14. 19,22,24:21:17; | 33:18; 68:4, 13:69:9: ; 70:23; 71:22; 79:19: ' ! I I ! 1 1 ' 92:8:94:9: 24:3; 58:16. 59:4:81:5.9:82:16:85 16:92:8:94:9 receive 123:13. 13 received 20.22:68:13 69:11: 20:22:68:13:69 receives 109:3, 3 receiving 91:5, 5 recently 58:15:74:13: 75:25; 58:15: 74:13; 75 Recess 66:10; 83:17: I10:7;66:10;83:17; 11 recollection 38:19; 106:19; 107:5:38:19; 106:19; 107:5 recommend 93:5; 11? 21:93:5; 113:8,21 recommendation 32: 11:76:21:91:9; 95:12; 96:1,7;99:24; 112:22; 32:6,11:76:21:91:9; 95:12; 96:1,7; 99:24; 112:22 reco mmendations preponderance 66:13, 113:9, 18,22; 115:4; 44:9 87:24; 88:20; 89:5; 91:2: 32:22:77:22, 23; 79:23 16,19,13,16,19 119:25 presentations 45:23,25. programs 109:19,19 23,25 presented 21:5; 59:21; 69:10; 106:13; 21:5; 59:21:69:10; 106:13 j progress 102:14,14 progresses 102:6,6 prohibited 28 24, 24 President 75:10,10 project 117:11, 11 presumption 22:2.2 projected 60:16.16 pretty 10:21; 11:1; 38:11, promulgated 33:11.11 pulled 12:19,25; 15:11; 18:12.13:12:19,25; 18:11:18:12,13 pure 26:4,6,10,11; 99:7; 26:4.6,10,11;99:7 purposes 5:18; 26:25; 99:7; 5:18; 26:25:99:7 pursuant 5:12,17; 123:12:5:12, 17; 123:12 j 119:4,17 | 80:2:91:14; 92:21,23; Raper's 8:18; 21:9; 71:9, j 107:24; 109:20; 113:14 14; 90:17; 8:18; 21:9:71:9, 32:22:77:22,23; 79:23 14;90:17 80:2; 91:14; 92:21, 23; rapid 103:18,18 rapidly 102:6,14,6.14 rarely 26:6,6 107:24; 109:20; 113:14 j 1 recommended 78:3; 91:16; 92:4, 10; 93:11; ' 96:3; 97:19; 99:10; 10C | rate 54:9: 56:14; 59:13; 1 107:25: 112:10: 113:17 : 54:9; 56:14; 59:13 116:24; 117:1; 118:1; 23:52:21; 10:21; 11:1; pronounce 17:24. 24 put 9:12: 12:14: 15:15: rates 23:6: 24:6, 6; 55:4, 78:3:91:16:92:4, 10; 38:11,23:52:21 pronouncement 69:3.3 24:2; 2":25; 30:13:35:20; : 4:23:6:24:6.6; 55:4.4 93:11:96:3; 97:19; 99: BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (11) plaques - recommend RICHARD A. LfcMEN, PJxD. March 18,1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL 100:1; 107:25; 112:10; 113:17; 116:24; 117:1; 118:1 { 8,12,16;87:3,7,10,13; | 12; 88:9,15,20; 89:2,6; i 90:11; 115:4; 119:23 | 45:6; 79:1,1,3,12; 88:9, ! released 17:19; 18:2,17; ! 15, 20; 89:2,6 1 23:33:2; 34:23; 35:19; 36:4,8; 37:14,15, 20; 45:7,22; 47:23.24; 48:2; s record 12:4,6; 50:23; 66:9; 12:4,6; 50:23; 66:9 recordings 15:23,23 records 9:1:14:13,18; 19:4.22; 20:3; 48:7; 17.19; i requirements 45.17,17 18:2.17; 19:4, 22; 20:3; j 48:7 I relevant 118:10,10 j requires 44:23,23 research 72:21; 78:18; 103:24; 104:7,21; 72:21; 53:1; 58:5; 61:2; 62:8,10, sate 95:10, 14: 107:19. 10,13.25; 63:14, 25; 64:3, ! 20: 108:1,6, 14. 18; 95:10. 20; 65:6; 69:6; 70:9:84:6; 14; 107:19,20; 108:1.6. 95:3:96:8:115:18:118:6; 14.18 28:14; 9:1; 14:13,18: 28:14 ; reliable 117:6,6 78:18; 103:24; 104:7,21 5:25:6:19, 20; 7:14; 8:3.6; Safety 7:6: 39:6; 80:23: relied 13:19; 18:4; 13:19; reservations 75:7,12,7, i 12:15; 16:20; 17:11; 7:6; 39:6:80:23 RECROSS 18:4 12 18:21; 19:8,15.24;20:11; same 31:13: 46:18: 57:3; EXAMINATION 119:1, RELs 107:25, 25 reserved 5:15.15 21:4, 12:24:11.13; 25:14: 75:24:85:5:31:13:46:18; 10,21, 1, 10,21 rely 12:2; 68:12; 117:7; residence! 54:23.23 28:21:29:7:31:1.4.7.21. 57:3:75:24:85:5 red 35:21,21 12:2:68:12; 117:7 resins 47:22; 48:4; 47:22: 23; 33:2; 34:23:35:19: sample 44:20. 20 reduce 92:13:96:12: relying 21:24. 24 48:4 36:4.8:37:14.15, 20: sampled 46:1.1 118:3:92:13;96:12:118:3 remember 11:14:17:11; respect 16:7; 68:18: 45:7.22; 47:23.24:48:2; samplers 44:7. ' reduced 123:4.4 32:13:53:17; 54:2: 58:24; 71:15:73:16:16:7:68:18: 53:1:58:5:61:2:62:8. 10. samples t4:12.13. 24: refer 26:4; 42:13; 70:18: 59:3:71:18:86:3:115:22: 71:15; 73:16 10.13.25:63:14.25:64:3. 52:6, 7; 44:12. 13. 24: 98:11:26:4:42:13; 70:18: 116:5; 11:14: 17:11: respirable 55:23,23 20:65:6:69:6:70:9:84:6: 52:6. 7 98:11 32:13: 53:17; 54:2; 58:24; respirator 109:19,24. 95:3.96:8: 115:18: 118:6 sampling 16 22; 11: : reference 38:17; 75:25; 59:3:71:18:86:3: 115:22: 19,24 Riley 82:3:83:24:86:5. 45:15. 17. 24. 25:~9:18; 38:17:75:25 116:5 respiratoiy 89:3.6; 82:3:83:24:86:5 16:22; 44:4:45:15. 17. 24. references 12:20.20 repair 18:2:19:12: 57:23; 109:17; 110:2:89:3,6: risk 34:11:37:24: 56:8: 25: T9:18 referred 19:10; 47.18: 60:16; 18:2; 19:12: 57:23; 109:17: 110:2 57:5.15.25:59:8:63:16; samplings 4 3:22.22 98:10: 19:10:47:18; 98:10 60:16 respond 09:11, 24, 25. 64:22; 68:22. 22:72:15. saw 70:3: 89:5: '0:3:89:5 referring 25:7; 39:19: rephrase 102:1; 108:3: 11.24,25 19: 73:2.7:80:10; 89:22: sawing .36:1'. l' 47:18; 73:5:76:9; 101:5; 105:1:25:7:39:19; 47:18: 73:5; 76:9:101:5; 105:1 refractory 55:16,17.19. 24,16. 17. 19. 24 refueling 50:25, 25 regard 14:15: 66:12; 116:23; 118:6; 14:15: 66:12: 116:23: 118:6 regarding 10:11:72:9: 114:18: 115:3: 10:11: 72:9:114:18; 115:3 regardless 86:13.13 register 49:16,16 102.1:108:3 report 8:12: 34:25:36:15. 17:40:6: 56:24:64:14: 97:25; 98:4.6; 99:17. 20: 100:12: 101:13. 15; 111:24; 112:6; 8:12; 34:25:36:15. 17; 40:6; 56:24:64:14: 97:25; 98:4, 6:99:17. 20: 100:12: 101:13, 15; 111:24; 112:6 reported 99:16; 100:15. 15; 104:10: 106:6; 107:9. 10.12:123:3:99:16; 100:15. 15; 104:10: 106:6: 107:9. 10. 12: 123:3 response 13:11; 30:6; 13:11:30:6 responsibility 75 5.11. 5, 11 responsive 16:2. 2 responsiveness 5:14. 14 rest 8:18: 20:18. 19; 91:20:8:18:20:18. 19: 91:20 result 123:11. 11 results 17:17; 40:7; 51:23; 52:4 24; 79:18; 17:17; 40:7 51:23; 52:4, regular 8:16,16 reports 18:7.20:20:17; 24; 79:18 regulation 28:23; 75:19, 21:22. 24; 34:7, 13,21.22; retained 48:11,11 19; 88:12; 28:23; 75:19, 39:19. 19; 40:7:41:15,16, retired 96:13,13 19; 88:12 i 18:42:20; 56:17; 57:1; : revealed 6316,16 regulations 13:18; 28:17; 29:5, 14, 17; 31:17, 20; 33:11; 76:7; 79:6; 88:9; 13:18; 28:17; 29:5,14,17; 31:17, 20; 33:11; 76:7; 79:6:88:9 Reitze 73:7,7 related 22:10; 41:20; 45:4; 103:8; 114:24; i 112:2; 18:7, 20; 20:17; | 21:22,24:34:7, 13,21,22; | 39:19,19; 40:7; 41:15.16, | 18;42:20; 56:17; 57:1; 112:2 ! represent 16:6; 24:15, 16; 48:22; 50:13; 114:8; i 123:6; 16:6; 24:15,16; | 48:22; 50:13; 114:8; 123.6 I I i ! i review 18:19, 22:21:8: 33:21;61:19;69:8; 70:18; 88:6; 114:9; 119:3; 18:19, 22; 21:8; 33:21:61:19; 69:8; 70:18; 88:6; 114:9; 119:3 reviewed 81:1,6,10,14, 18, 22; 82:1 5, 11, 17,20, 24;83:4, 19 22;84:1,7, 90:4:92:13. 14:94:2; saying 57:3:76:12: 96:12:102:1~ 24; 104:3. 103:11; 104:16: 5":3: 12. 23: 106:2.7. 16. 22, '6:12: 103:11: 104:16 25: 107:12. 14; 117:11. 12; school 32:2. 2 118:4. 5; 34:11:37:24; schools 31:21.21 56:8; 57:5. 15, 25; 59:8; Science 7:5:77:24: 63:16:64:22:68:22. 22: 106:14; 108:6;':5: ":2 t: 72:15. 19:73:2. 7:80:10; 106:14: 108:6 89:22; 90:4:92:13. 14; Sciences 40:10; 94:14: 94:2:96:12; 102:17. 24; 40:10:94:14 104:3. 12.23: 106:2,7, 16, scientific 28:5, '; 43:8. 22. 25; 107:12,14; 117:11. 12:78:18; 28:5,7: 43:8. 12:118:4,5 12: 78:18 risks 57:13; 66:5; 57:13; 66:5 Scientifically 65 25,25 scientist 93:10.10 Roach 95:9,9 , seal 100:16, 19,16. 19 : Robb 8.13; 20:18; 8:13; : 20:18 Robinson 40:12,12 ! Rodelsperger 58:10; I 59:12; 58:10; 59:12 ! Rohl 17:23,24; 19:10; 17:23,24;19:10 | role 76:17,18,22, 17, 18, | 22 sealant 89.17,17 sealants 87:14,17,14, 17 ; search 12:23, 24; 38:9; I 12:23. 24; 38:9 searches 15:13,13 Second 7:23; 34:3; 40:12; 43:10; 66:9; 68:16; 94:17, 17; 105:13; 7:23; 1 34:3; 40:12:43:10:66:9; 119:24; 22:10; 41:20; 45:4; 103:8; 114:24; 119:24 relates 51:3; 82:8; 51:3; ! representative 86:9,16, I 9,16 representatives 81:2,7, : 11,15, 19,23; 82:2,6,12, 11, 15; 85:25:90:10; | 114:19,22; 115:3; 81:1,6, j 10.14,18,22:82:1,5.11, | 17,20,24;83:4,19,22; 1 room 11:14,14 ! rope 36:2, 2 : roughly 53:14,19,14,19 i 68:16; 94:17, 17; 105:13 section 95:8,8 selected 12:24; 106:25; 12:24; 106:25 82:8 . relationship 103:25,25 relationships 43:15,15 21; 114:24; 81:2,7,11,15, j 84:1,7,11, ;:5; 85:25; I 19, 23; 82:2,6,12,21; 90:10; 114:19,22; 115:3 ! 114:24 reviewing 82:16,16 j RPR 123:24,24 j Ruberoid 81:8; 83:6; I 85:18; 81:8; 83:6; 85:18 j Selikoff 72:21; 73 5; 95:15; 102:12: 104:10,21; j 105:2,9, 20,24; 106:20; relative 57.5,13,15,5, 13,15 . release 59:23:82:25; 83:5. 20, 23; 84:2,8.12. representing 70:15; : 95:9; 70:15; 95:9 reproduction 35:17,17 request 13:24; 14:3; i reviews 19.19,19 ! Rules 5:17; 49:19; 5:17; | : RICHARD 5 3,3 right 5:25; 6:19, 20; 7:14; 8:3.6; 12:15; 16:20; 17:11; ! ' 49:19 run 6:12; 18:24:6:12; 18:24 i 72:21;73:5;95:15; , 102:12; 104:10, 21; 105:2, 9.20,24; 106:20 Selikoff's 89:25. 104:7, 16; 87:3, 7, 10. 13; 90:11; 13:24; 14:3 ! 18:21; 19:8. 15, 24; 20:11; running 115:17,17 20;89:25; 104:7, 20 115:4:119:23; 59:23; requested 9:6,6 21:4, 12: 24:11, 13:25:14; i Russia 52:2,2 seminars 15:25,25 82:25:83.5.20, 23; 84:2. required 45:6; 79:1,1,3. 28:21; 29:7; 31:1,4,7, 21. Russian 52:3.3 send 32:4.4 record - send (12) Min-UScript BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KEJNNJtiJtt iJALE RAPEK, et ai. v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL R1CHAKU A- EhMJbiN, Pt March 18,1\ senior 40:11.11 signing 5:21,21 I 89:25:94:18 sent 68:6,9; 115:13:68:6, signs 87:25,25 i speeches 15:25,25 9:115:13 separate 27:5; 83:15; 27:5:83:15 September 74:18,18 ; simply 9:11; 49:17; | 54:22:9:11:49:17; 54:22 Sinai 95:5,6,5,6 1 sit 44:8.8 l spent 11:13; 14:21,25; i 40:21; 11:13; 14:21,25; | 40:21 : spoke 93:18,18 series 43:18,18 sites 8:17.17 standard 49:1.2; 53:19: serpentine 25:19; 332; 25:19; 33:2 Service 36:16; 74:10,13, 21.25:75:4.13:77:3; 78:7.17:93:11,18; 95:20: 96:7:99:14; 100:21: 112:10; 36:16:74:10, 13. 21.25:75:4. 13:77:3: 78:7. 17:93:11. 18; 95:20: 96:7; 99:14: 100:21; 112:10 Services 100:23.23 seven 67:25. 25 several 15:15:16:13: 35:24:52:6: 74:7: 15:15; 16:13:35:24: 52:6;74:7 severe 102:15:103:18: 102:15: 103:18 sheets 8:15.15 shipped 27:7.7 ships 93:12. 19, 12, 19 sitting 83:14.14 six 9:24; 11:13; 14:25; 52:18:53:14:9:24; 11:13: 14:25; 52:18; 53:14 size 47:13: 57:14: 47:13: 57:14 skipped 94:15. 15 smaller 66:18.18 smoke 101:19: 102:2: 108:18: 112:2: 101:19: 102:2: 108:18: 112:2 smoker 102:6. 25.6. 25 smokers 102:15: 104:9: 105:10.21.25: 102:15; 104:9: 105:10.21.25 smoking 110:24. 25: 111:6. 11. 15. 19: 110:24. 25: 111:6. 11. 15. 19 SMR 61:17. 62:1. 19.23: 61:17:62:1. 19. 23 SMRs 65:11. 14. 11. 14 ! 54:12; 76:12,23; 77:8: : 92:11:99:24:116:24: 117:1:123:14.16:49:1.2: 53:19; 54:12:76:12,23; ^7:8:92:11:99:24: 116:24: 117:1: 123:14, 16 standards 13:17; 32:20: 112:18: 13:17;32:20: 112:18 Start 18:16:31:18: 18:16: 31:18 started 40:23:42:20. 21: 59:15:40:23:42:20.21: 59:15 starts 5:22. 22 state 35:24: 68:21: T9:11: 86:8. 14; 123:1:35:24: 68:21:79:11:86:8.14; 123:1 state-of-the-art 9:21: 10:1: 11:24: 12:2:9:21; 10:1; 11:24: 12:2 short 70:8.8 solely 56 5. 5 Stated 105:2: 117:9; short-circuit 52:22.22 shorten 83:8.8 shorter 42:16:66:21: 103:19.21:42:16:66:21: 103:19.21 shorthand 104:18.18 shorthanded 104:18,18 shoulder 60:25: 63 7; 60:25:63 " show 6:8; 24:5.8:35:15: 72:12; 6:8: 24:5, 8; 35:15: 72:12 showing 57:25; 61:6; 72:24;76:20; 102:23; 57:25:61:6:72:24:76:20: 102:23 solvent 17:12. 12 somebody 118:19. 19 somehow 38:3. 3 someone 23:16: 109:8: 23:16: 109:8 sometime 5:22:58:14: 5:22; 58:14 sometimes 38:13.13 somewhat 45:12, 12 somewhere 9:25; 33:23; 47:8; 53:16:60:23: 103:5: 106:24: 111:23: 112:4: 9:25; 33:23; 47:8; 53:16: 60:23; 103:5; 106:24; 111:23:112:4 ; sorry 15:7; 35:18: 43:4; 118:3: 123:3: 105:2: 11T:9; 118:3: 123:3 statement 95:22; 96:4: 95:22:96:4 States 28:21:32:24: (0:6; "4:25:75:18:98:21; 101:4: 111:3:28:21: 32:24; 10:6; 74:25: "5:18: 98:21: 101:4: 111:3 stating 49:18; 69:4: 49:18:69:4 Stationary 36:14.14 statistical 117:3.3 statistically 1176,6 Statistics 98:9,9 ! stay 47:23; 105:13; shown 50:15: 55:21; 70:20: 102:19; 111:16,20; 50:15:55:21:70:20; 102:19; 111:16, 20 shows 73:6; 116:1; 118:15:73:6; 116:1; 118:15 Siberian 52:2,2 side 51:12,12 SIENI 114:4,4 Signal 50:13,15,13,15 signature 5:24; 6:1; 5:24: 6:1 , significance 118:11,11 significant 56:15; 57:15; 56:15:57:15 significantly 61:16; 62:19:61:16; 62:19 significantly-increased 61:20;73:25;85:25; ' 47:23:105:13 91:23: 112:1; 117:24; ' Stayner 56:11:60:20; 15:7:35:18:43:4:61:20; ! 56:11:60:20 73:25; 85:25; 91:23: 112:1;117:24 sound 56:25,25 ; step 99:25,25 | still 48:10: 51:20; 52:9: 56:6,15,17; 59:18:66:11, South 23:8; 40:18; 42:6; ; 20:75:12; 48:10; 51:20; 43:17; 51:21; 69:23, 25; i 52:9:56:6,15, 17;59:18; 23:8; 40:18; 42:6; 43:17; j 66:11,20:75:12 51:21:69:23,25 ; Stoker 82:3; 83:24; 86:5; specific 12:19:29:11; | 82:3;83:24;86:5 89:19; 109:23:113:12,25; 114:1:12:19:29:11; 89:19; 109:23; 113:12.25; 114:1 specifically 1019; 15:16:24:23:41:10:46:8; 50:21; 57:8:71:3:73:4: i Stone 37:17,17 ! stop 24:19; 35:1; 24:19; : 35:1 ` ; stopped 33:19,19 : Straight 24:17; 50:24; 24:17; 50:24 89:25:94:18; 10:19: stream 112:15; 113:5; 15:16; 24:23; 41:10; 46:8; 112:15; 113:5 62:1. 1 50:21: 57:8:71:3:73:4; : strictly 118:19.19 strike 24:11,12,11,12 116:6, 18:14:1; 18:9: Strip 26:20,20 strip-type 26:23,23 strong 56:18,18 studied 26:15; 62:11; 75:1:26:15:62:11;75:1 studies 23:1,3,9,11.20: 24:25:26:9: 27:16. 20: 30:2:34:8. 10.14:42:11: 46:22:51:12:55:4.7.13. 14.18. 20: 57:3:58:2: 72:9. 12. 17. 23:73:5: 82:25:83:5. 19. 23:84:2. 8. 12. 16; 89:18:90:11: 97:12: 102:12: 115:3: 119:12. 21:23:1.3.9. 11. 20 2-1 :25: 26:9: 2": 16. 20 30 2:34:8. 10. l-i;42:11: 46 22 51:12: 55:-i.~. 13. 14 18.20: 57:3: 58:2: "2 9. 2.17.23:73:5: 82 25 83:5. 19. 23:84:2. 8. 12. 16:89:18:90:11: 97 12 102:12: 115:3: 119:12. 24 20:11:26:17; 31:12; 3: 38:11.23.25:43:23; 44:17; 48:15:63:4; 78: 101:23:107:9; 111:4; 116:6.18 Surgeon 74:20; 100: 22:111:6. 24: 112:2.5 74:20:100:17. 22; 111 24: 112:2.5 surrounding 114:12 survey 40:14. l". 14. surveys 50:19: 51:6: 119:13: 50:19; 51:6; 119:13 susceptibility I08:U sworn 5: i: 80:14; 5:4 80:14 Symposium 40:10; 43:16: 105:19, 20:40: 43 16: 105:19. 20 T Study 29:22:30:9:34:5: T&N 84:3. 5.3.5 35:11:36:20:40:3.8. 23: table 4": 10:61:3. 6:6 42:1: 43:2:51:19. 23:52:1. 4": 10: 61:3. 6: 64:2 2: 56:18: 57:23:64:4: tables "6:19; 77:4:76 65:10:73:7. 15:89:10. 15. 22.24:90:3. 5.6,9:9~:8. 22:98:1.20.21:99:5. 1 l. 16:100:6. 14; 101:2. 5.8. 9. 12. 15:29:22:30:9: 34:5:35:11:36:20:40:3.8. 23; 42:1:43:2:51:19. 23: 52:1,2: 56:18: 57:23:6-i:i: 65:10:73:7. 15:89:10. 15. 22. 24:90:3.5.6.9:97:8. 22:98:1.20.21:99:5. 14. 16: 100:6. 14; 101:2. 5.8. 9. 12. 15 talk 16:5: 18:1: 21:2. 1 14:28:16: 34:19; 36:1" 46:16:48:22; 50:9: 51: 60:14:6-1:1:65:9:90:2 9-1:19: 16:5: 18:1:21:2 l-i:28:16: 34:19:36:1' 46:16: 98:22: 50:9; 51: 60:14;6-i:l; 65:9; 90:2 94:19 talked 9:1-1; 39:18; 9-1 9:14:39:18; 94:2 Studying 42:6; 5" 18: 59:12: 42:6; 57:18; 59:12 subcohort 65:10.10 subjects 65:17.17 subsequent 118:2,2 talking 20:7; 29:13; 34:22; 3~5;38:20. 21, 47:13; 54:22:55:12, 1; 15:62:5:106:10; 110:1 116:19: 20:7; 29:13; 34:22:37:5; 38:20, 21, substantially 118.4,4 47:13:54:22; 55:12, 1; substantiate 22:1, l substitution 96:3,3 summaries 52:25; 58:9; 52:25:58:9 15; 62:5; 106:10; 110:1 116:19 talks 47:4,4 ; tape 36:1, l summarize 52:24,24 i taxes 110:15,15 summary 9:8; 58:11; technical 76:20,20 59:6; 60:10; 9:8; 58:11; technically 10:21; 37 59:6:60:10 | 10:21; 37:3 supervision 112:23,23 support 20:23, 23 supporting 13:18,18 suppress 97:19; 99:11, 24;97:19; 99:11, 24 suppression 30:10,10 sure 14:1; 18:9; 20:11; 26:I'7; 31:12; 32:2; 38:11, 23.25:43:23:44:17; 48:15:63:4:78:13; 101:23: 107:9; 111:4: i techniques 44:16,2C ; 16.20 technological 92:12. 116:21,23:92:12,17; 116:21,23 Technology 7 5; 32:1 112:18;7:5:32:20; 111 tend 65:25; 66:21; 65 66:21 tends 102:14.14 tentative 100:1, l BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script (13) senior - tentat lUUdAfiL/ A. mvitcs, PLX>. March 18, 1999 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL test 17:17; 27:17; 32:2; 109:19; 17:17; 27:17; tobacco 112:2,11,2,11 today 5:9; 14:7; 28:19; trying 17-.11; 23:12; 27:6; 60:13; 65:6; 85:1, 5,11; 30:21; 43:3; 49:4;69:19; 102:25; 50:1; 59:24; V 32:2; 109:19 i 70:15;78:13;85:22;87:1; 104:18; 105:2,15; 17:11; 60:13; 65:6; 85:1,5,11; testified 5:5; 9:7,15,18, j 108:6; 116:18; 5:9; 14:7; 23:12; 27:6; 30:21; 43:3; 102:25 vague 36:25,25 20,23; 10:2, 5,10.17; j 28:19; 70:15; 78:13; 18:10; 49:13;71:14: I 85:22; 87:1; 108:6; 116:18 96:14; 5:5;9:7,15,18,20, 23; 10:2,5,10,17; 18:10; 49:13; 71:14;96:14 testify 6:3; 11:22:49:5; 86:8,14; 6:3; 11:22; 49:5; 86:8, 14 testifying 110:10,21,10, 21 testimony 11:4; 13 20; 50:6; 80:14; 119:4; 11:4: 13:20; 60:6; 80:14:119:4 testing 59:23:119:24; 59:23: 119:24 tests 17:17; 19:7:27:20: 17:17: 19:7:27:20 Texas 5:17:10:6: "9:11: 5:17; 10:6; 79:11 ! together 9.12; 15:16; i 30:13; 47:23; 52:20; 60:24; 76:18; 77:2; 9:12; I 15:16; 30:13; 47:23; I 52:20; 60:24; 76:18; 77:2 told 77:2.2 tomorrow 13:8,8 took 16:24:44:12:75:10; 16:24;44:12; 75:10 top 31:24.24 total 44:3,10:65:14; 100:9:110:9:44:3, 10: 65:14: 100:9; 110:9 totally 46:12.12 touched 49:5.5 tour 16:25.25 extbook 93:23:94:1. 6. 10,13.14.22. 23:95:1; toward 797, 7 Towards 58.21.21 >3:23; 94:1, 6,10,13.14. trade 41:8.8 22,23:95:1 extbooks 94:18.18 extiie 97:10.14:99:6.15; 00:15:97:10, 14; 99:6. 5; 100:15 hanks 60:2; 119:7;60:2; 19:7 Theford 53:5. 5 'herefore 83:14:94:5; .06:24: 115:19:83:14; >4:5; 106:24; 115:19 hereto 123:4.4 hereunder 5:19,19 train 22:22. 22 training 94:23, 23 transcript 123:2.7. 2.7 Transfer 32:20:112:18; 32:20:112:18 transient 65:22:66:1,3; 65:22; 66:1.3 treatises 13:18.25.18. 25 tremolite 26:8: 27:18. 22; 53:8. 23:54:5. 16. 19, 26:8; 27:18. 22:53:8,23; 54:5. 16, 19 Thermal 55:20:79:2: 01:3; 55:20; 79:2: 101:3 Thetford 53:9,12:54:7; 53:9,12; 54:7 trends 62:23.23 trial 5:16. 22:6:3:9:15. 18:10:2,2,4.6.15,16; 11:3; 13:13: 20:24; 49:7; hird 69:21,21 82.15:83:13;96:15; hough 106:8,8 thought 22:22; 63:13; ,4:8; 86:8,15; 117:14; 22:22; 63:13:64:8; 86:8, '.5; 117:14 three 7:11; 16:15; 47:6; 7:11; 16:15; 47:6 threshold 100:1,3; i09:8; 100:1,3; 109:8 ; 115:16; 5:16, 22:6:3; 9:15, 1 18:10:2,2,4,6,15,16; 11:3; 13:13; 20:24; 49:7; ! 82:15:83:13:96:15; ; 115:16 | trials 9:20, 24,20, 24 ! tried 29:1; 34:16; 38:15; ! 29:1; 34:16; 38:15 i trouble 62:3,3 49:4; 69:19; 104:18; 105:2,15 turn 61:3,14; 63:9; 61:3. 14; 63:9 Turner 81:20; 84:5; 81:20; 84:5 turning 36:18; 37:5; 64:15; 36:18; 37:5:64:15 turnover 42:16.16 unpublished 20:1, l up 9:18; 33:7; 39:5; 66:13; 77:4:92:1:93:19; 96:8; 104:9.19:111:15:113:1; 115:14: 116:17; 118:24; 9:18; 33:7; 39:5; 66:13: 77:4; 92:1;93:19;96:8; 104:9,19:111:15:113:1: 115:14:116:17; 118:24 value 100:2,3,2.3 variety 75:5, 5 various 20:13; 27:9, 33:17:46:22; 47:21; 113.21;20:13: 27:9: 33:17:46:22:47:21; 113:21 ventilation 109:4.12,4, 12 two 8:4, 13.18:17:23: update 40:11, ll 20:17, 18:33:6: 43:9; 57:6: upheld 29:4. 4 verify 21:21:22:1:21:21; 22:1 61:5:62:11:8:4.13, 18: 17:23: 20:17,18; 33:6: 43:9; 57:6:61:5:62:11 type 23.13:25.2.15.16; 26:5:44:12; 73:13:75:7. 19:76:4: 101:16; 108:24: 109:16. 23:112:14; 113:4: 23:13:25:2.15.16:26:5: 44:12:73:13:75:7,19; 76:4: 101:16: 108:24: upon 12:2; 13:20; 18:4: 20 21 21:24: 22:17; 247 27:17 32:8; 46:10; 57:18: 68:12 77:23:92:12, 16. 17; 103:16: ll-:2.7: 123:7 12:2; 13:20; 18:4: 20:21 21:24; 22:17: 24:7; 2-: 17 32:8:46:10:57:18; 68:12 77:23:92:12. 16, 17 103:16:117:2.-; 1237 version 7:8.8 versus 24:6.6 vicinity ~2;20: ~3 i: -2:20; 73:1 videotapes 15:23.23 view 53:23; 56:7: 57:9. 12:53:23: 56:7; 5-:9.12 vintage 619.19 visible 108:22. 22 109:16.23: 112:14: 113:4 types 24 21:25:18:33:6. 17; 44:20: 45:8:91:17; 92:23. 24:113:17:24:21; 25:18:33:6. 17:44:20; 45:8:91:17; 92:23. 24; 1 13:17 typewriting 123:5. 5 urban 22:13:23:20: 22:13:23:20 urbanization 22:1-. 17 use 29:1.7.9. 10. 18: 33:13. 14:43:24:44:16; 46:10; 57:1:72:14:93:19: 94:3:95:12:96:1: 1 15:15: 29:1.-.9. 10. 18; 33:13. visited 84:19. 24:85.3. 8. 17: 86:1. 1:84:19. 24: 85:3.8. 17; 86:1.4 Volume 8:17:52:8:68:4. 13: 8:1-; 52:8; 68:4. 13 volumes 44:9.9 w u* l 14:43:24:44:16:46:10: 57.1:72:14:93:19:94:3: 95:12:96:1:115:15 Wagner 23:7; 41:14: 42:5. 13; 7-: 10. 15. 17; U.K 33 8.3 U.S 74:9, 13. 21; 75:4. 13; 76:3:78:7.17,82:22; 84:17:85:4:93:11. 18; 95:19: 967'; 98:15:99:5. 13; 100:16.17, 20,23; 101:9. 10; 111:6:112:2. 10:74:9.13,21;75:4, 13; 76:3:78:7,17; 82:22; 84:17; 85:4; 93:11, 18; 95:19; 96:7;98:15;99:5, used 5:18:11:23; 24:21, 22:25:3.4.12:26:14.24; 27:3. 10: 28:20:33:9:44:6: 46:24:47:2: 56:21:63:18, 23; 76:5:79:4; 88:2; 90:12; 93:12; 94:23:95:13,16, 21; 119:25:5:18: 11:23; 24:21,22; 25 3, 4, 12; 26:14. 24; 27:3, 10; 28:20; i 33:9; 44:6; 46.24; 47:2: i 56:21;63:18, 23; 76:5; 2.3:7; 41.14: 42:5, 13: 77:10. 15. 17 Wagner's 41:19.24.19, 24 waive 5:24:6:1,4.6; 5:24:6:1,4,6 wailboard 84:20,20 Walsh-Healey 75:23,25, 23.25 warning 76:4; 78:25; 13; 100:16, 17, 20,23; 79:4; 88:2; 90:12; 93:12; 87:25; 112:14. 24; 113:3; 101:9, 10; 1 11:6; 112:2,10 I 94:23:95:13,16,21; 76:4:78:25; 87:25; Um-hum 58:3,3 ! 119:25 112:14,24; 113:3 un-peer-reviewed 20:2, user 37:4; 118:13. 20; ; 37:4; 118:13,20 warnings 112:10; 113:17; 112:10; 113:17 under 39:12;41:2;49:18: users 34:5,10:36:8, 24; j Washington 8:21,21 hroughout 103:23; I troubles 38:15,15 75:10, 22:79:10; 87:19; j 38:22; 57:24; 97:16; ! water 60:4,13,4,13 104:20; 103:23; 104:20 i true 53:10; 59:18; 61:14, 88:8, 14, 24; 97:4; 100:16, 1 98:11; 116:3; 118:11; way 9:13; 21:21; 27:25; throw 56:22,22 thus 65:16, 16 i 24; 69:1; 80:5; 83:16; 90:1; ! 18; 112:23; 123:5:39:12; 34:5,10; 36:8, 24; 38:22; I 92:20; 102:10; 107:1, 18; i 41:2; 49:18; 75:10. 22; 57:24;97:16;98:11; I 108:9,19,21:117:23; j 79:10:87:19; 88:8,14,24: 116:3; 118:11 i 38:3; 39:12; 45:22; 64:20; ; 65:23; 100:19; 104:9; 1058; 115:14; 9:13; ile 86:19; 113:11; 86:19; .13:11 iles 87:4,7; 89:16:87:4, ; 89:16 j 123:6; 53:10; 59:18; ! 61:14, 24; 69:1; 80:5; ! 83:16; 90:1; 92:20; 102:10; 107:1, 18; 108:9, l 97:4; 100:16,18; 112:23; . 123:5 underground 26:23,23 United 28:21:32:24; ! uses 33:9,9 using 17:19; 20:3; 21:22; ' 33:19:44:3;45:19;53:21; 89:16; 108:13; 17:19; j 21:21; 27:25; 38:3; 39:12; j 45:22; 64:20; 65:23; 100:19; 104:9; 105:8; I 115:14 imes 9:18; 11:16; 96:15; i 19.21; 117:23; 123:6 40:6:74:25; 75:18; 98:21; 20:3; 21:22; 33:19; 44:3; < wear 89:6.6 07:12; 9:18; 11:16; truly 109:8,8 ! 101:4; 111:3; 28:21: 45:19; 53:21;89:16; week 5:22; 10:5; 48:23; 6:15; 107:12 try 29:9:30:13; 52:24; 32:24:40:6; 74:25:75:18; : 108:13 67:22:5:22; 10:5:48:23; tie 107:4,4 105:16:29:9; 30:13; 98:21; 101:4; 111:3 usually 11:22; 57:1; i 67:22 LV 79:20. 20 52:24: 105:16 unless 50:1; 59:24: 11:22; 57:1 weight 44:10,10 tst - weight (14) Min-U-Script BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 KENNETH DALE RAPER, et aL v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, et aL weighted 31:4,4 107:13,16; 16:14:37:12, welders 73: ll, 11 14,19; 40:3, 24:41:21; weren't 6:24:24:8; 47:16: 57:24;60:16;65:21,22; 80:15:89:3:91:18; 92:7; I 66:1, 3; 72:11.24:77:25; 6:24:24:8; 47:16:80:15; j 80:11,16,23:89:16.23; 89:3:91:18; 92:7 : 90:4:95:10:97:10,14; Westinghouse 70:3,3 what's 45:1. 6; 59:17; 71:5:45:1,6; 59:17;71:3 wherever 794.4 wick 36:2,2 wife 52:20, 20 willing 80:3,3 wind 109:4.4 within 53:11: 63:21; 53:11:63:21 without 23:21; 26:4: 49:10:60:25:23:21:26:4; 49:10: 60:25 witness 9:21; 10:1,3: 11:12: 14:4: 18:12: 31:11: 35:5,9:37:2: 38:7: 58:23: 63:8: 65:2:66:8:69:17; 71:1. 18; 76:9:78:23: 80:18; 90:8:91:23:93:2: 98:11:99:6.15:100:15: 102:18.25:104:8,11: 105:10.25:106:15,23; 107:13,16 working 17:4:18:18: 19:22:33:20:72:10.25; 73:1:89:23:97:14:99:7: 101:3: 117:16; 118:16: 119:14: 17:4:18:18: 19:22:33:20:72:10.25: 73:1:89:23:97:14:99:': 101:3: 117:16; 118:16; 119:14 workplace 45:16; ~6:5; 78:4. 10. 20: 79:3: 80:11. 23: 88:2: 45:16: 76:5: '8:4. 10. 20:79:3:80:11.23: 88:2 workplaces 8^25.25 102:9: 114:2: 116:4: world 26:22:81:3:83:1; 117:20; 118:15:9:21: 10:1,3; 11:12: 14:4: 18:12; 31:11; 35:5,9; 37:2: 38:7; 58:23:63:8:65:2:66:8: 69:17:71:1. 18:76:9; 78:23:80:18:90:8:91:23: 93:2; 102:9: 114:2: 116:4; 85:9. 14:86:10: 111:12: 26:22:81:3:83:1:85:9. 14: 86:10; 111:12 worried 17:9.9 Worth 51:6.6 writing 112:25, 25 117:20: 118:15 writings 15 24.24 Woitowitz 58:9: 59:11: 58:9: 59:11 word 95:13; 112:8:95:13: 112:8 words 90:20. 20 work 8:15:39:24:41:24; 44:14; 56:2: 59:16:65:21; written 13:19:14:14: 13:19; 14:14 wrong 49:4; 52:25: 49:4: 52:25 wrote 92:9: 105:12:92:9: 105:12 69:1.8:71:8:72:24:73:13; 77:15:80:4,4; 110:10; 8:15;39:24;41:24;44:14; X 56:2; 59:16:65:21:69:1,8: 71:8; 72:24; 73:13; 77:15; 80:4,4; 110:10 X-rays 9 3,3 worked 16:12. 13: 20:24; 21:11:50:18; 63:22; Y 64:17,21:69:12:70:23; 71:22; 109:19: 112:21; 119:17; 16:12, 13; 20:24; 21:11;50:18;63:22; 64:17,21;69:12; 70:23; 71:22: 109:19; 112:21; 119:17 worker 39:20; 77:1; 79:8; 104:22; 107:1:39:20; 77:1:79:8; 104:22: 107:1 workers 16:14;37:12, 14. 19:40:3,24:41:21; ! year 9:14.17,17.20,23; | 64:17,21.24:65:3,5. 12. | 22:88:11,21; 107:7:9:14, i 17,17,20,23:64:17,21. I 24:65:3.5,12.22:88:11, j 21; 107:7 years 10:9; 16:17; 24:2; 69:1; 103:4,9; 10:9; 16:17; 24:2;69:1; 103:4,9 yesterday 31:15,15 j York 40:9; 94:14; 95:6; 57:24;60:16;65:21,22; 66:1.3:72:11,24:77:25: 80:11, 16. 23; 89:16, 23; 90:4:95:10; 97:10. 14: 98:11:99:6,15: 100:15; 102:18, 25; 104:8. 11; | 106:14; 40:9:94:14:95:6; ' 106:14 z 105:10.25: 106:15,23: zero 95:11.11 BROWN REPORTING, INC. (404) 876-8979 Min-U-Script RICHARD A- EEMEJN, PR. March 18, 19 (15) weighted - ze Lawyer's Notes 1 1 IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 2 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 3 KENNETH DALE RARER and 4 MARGARITE ELLEN RAPER, ) ) ) 5 Plaintiffs, ) 6 vs . ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 98-8060-C 7 OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS ) CORPORATION, et al., ) 8) Defendants. ) 9 10 11 DEPOSITION OF 12 RICHARD A. LEMEN, Ph.D. 13 14 March 13, 1999 15 9:03 a.m. 16 17 4000 SunTrust Plaza 18 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 19 20 21 Diane Bachus, B-2089 22 23 BROWN REPORTING, INC. 24 1740 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 25 (404) 876-8979 2 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 2 On behalf of the Plaintiff: 3 PATRICK HAINES, Esq. 4 Baron & Budd The Centrum, Suite 1100 5 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Dallas, Texas 75219-4281 6 7 On behalf of the Defendant: Allied Signal, as Successor in Interest to the 8 Bendix Corporation: 9 ERIC K. FALK, Esq. Davies, McFarland & Carroll, P.C. 10 The Tenth Floor, One Gateway Center Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-1416 11 12 On behalf of the Defendant Daimler-Chrysler Corporation: 13 OLLIE M. HARTON, Esq. 14 Hawkins & Parnell 4000 SunTrust Plaza 15 303 Peachtree Street, M.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3243 16 17 On behalf of the Defendant Pittsburgh Corning: 18 IVAN A. GUSTAFSON 19 Blasingame, Burch, Garrard, Bryant & Ashley, P.C. 20 440 College Avenue North P.O. Box 832 21 Athens, Georgia 30603 22 23 24 25 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, CONT. 2 On behalf of the Defendant 3 Kelly Moore: 4 KEVIN J. BAHR, Esq. Hawkins & Parnell 5 4000 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. 6 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3243 7 On behalf of the Defendant 8 GEORGIA PACIFIC: 9 JONATHAN W. JOHNSON, Esq. Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P. 10 First Union Plaza, Suite 1400 999 Peachtree Street, N.E. 11 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 12 On behalf of the Defendant NARCO: 13 C. DENNIS BARROW, JR. 14 Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P. 2300 First City Tower, 1001 Fannin 15 Houston, Texas 77002-6760 16 On behalf of the Defendant 17 Pneumo Abex Corporation: 18 FRANCESCA M. SIENI, Esq. Smith, Abbot, L.L.P. 19 100 Maiden Lane New York, New York 10038 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, CONT. 2 On behalf of the Defendant 3 Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; Asbestos Claims Management Corporation, f/k/a National 4 Gypsum Company; U.S. Gypsum Company; GAF Corporation; Dana Corporation; Quigley 5 Company, Inc.; Flexitallic, Inc.; the Synkoloid Company; 6 GARY ELLISTON, Esq. 7 DeHay & Elliston, L.L.P. NationsBank Plaza, Suite 3500 8 901 Main Street Dallas, Texas 75202 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 5 1 (Defendant's Exhibit 1 was marked for 2 identification.) 3 RICHARD A. LEMEN, Ph.D., 4 having been first duly sworn, was examined and 5 testified as follows: 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. HARTON: 8 Q. Dr. Lemen, I'm Ollie Harton. I'm going 9 to ask you some questions today. But before we get 10 farther, I want to say a few things. 11 MR. HARTON: This is a deposition 12 being taken pursuant to agreement of 13 counsel. All objections except as to the 14 form of the question and responsiveness of 15 the answer will be reserved until the time 1 6 of trial. This deposition is being taken 17 pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil 18 Procedure and can be used for all purposes 19 permitted thereunder. 20 Dr. Lemen, I don't know what you want 21 to do about reading and signing, but the 22 trial starts sometime next week. 23 . MR. HAINES: I guess we'll go ahead 24 and waive signature. 25 MR. HARTON: If that's all right, 6 1 waive signature. If you want to read it, 2 it's going to make things difficult. 3 Potentially you may testify at trial. But 4 if you want to waive - 5 MR. HAINES: G:.ven the time frame, it 6 will be better to waive. 7 Q. (By Mr. Harton) What I'd like to do, 8 first of all, is show you what is one of the 9 amended notices of deposition, which is Exhibit 1, 1.0 and ask you if you've seen that before, sir. 11 A. No. 12 Q. If we could, let me run through what I 13 call the attachments at the back. And I know 14 you've brought a number of documents with you, and 15 we'll see what they are. 16 But you brought, first of all, I think, a 17 CV. You have one. Is this a -- obviously, this 18 is a CV of yours. Do you know when this -- oh, 19 it's December '98? Is that the right vintage? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. This is newer than the ones I've got. 22 A. Probably. 23 Q. What additions do you have on this that 24 weren't on the earlier one? 25 A. Possiblysome publications and -- very 7 1 few additions- It's just that when my computer 2 prints it out, it prints out a new date on it. So 3 it doesn't necessarily mean that it's changed, but 4 I think that I probably added a chairperson of 5 Science & Technology Advisory Committee and the 6 Carpenters Health & Safety Fund, and I think I may 7 have added a couple of publications. 8 I think -- I don't know which version you 9 have . 10 Q. Mine's August. 11 A. But I think probably the last three or 12 four publications. But that's the most current one 13 I have. 14 Q. All right. Can we mark this, take this 15 as an exhibit? 16 A. Yes, you can have that. 17 Q. Might as well mark that while we're at it 18 and we can look through there. 19 A. Is there anybody by phone? 20 Q. No, not that I'm aware of. 21 (Defendant's Exhibit 2 was marked for 22 identification.) 23 Q. (By Mr. Harton) Second, the entire 24 medical file on Kenneth Dale Raper. 25 Have you been provided any medical 8 1 information on Mr. Raper? 2 A. I'll give you everything that I've been 3 provided on Mr. Raper is in this packet right here. 4 And there is -- there are two things on the 5 medical. 6 Q. Okay. If it's all right, collectively 7 we'll mark this as Exhibit 3. 8 A. Yes . 9 (Defendant's Exhibit 3 was marked for 1.0 identification.) 11 Q. (By Mr. Harton) It's a cover letter to 12 you, obviously. So everyone knows, the report by 13 Dr. Robb -- well, actually, two, one dated 14 11/24/98, another 2/18/98. What I will call the 15 work history sheets that Baron & Budd prepares on a 16 regular basis for their clients. And this is just 17 job sites, products information. And Volume - 18 A. The rest are all Mr. Raper1s two 19 depositions and co-worker depositions. 20 Q. Those are I and II of Raper. Co-worker 21 depositions of Mr. Ivie, Washington and Bridges and 22 Lewis. 23 Have you been provided any other 24 information on Mr. Raper? 25 A. No, that'sit. . 9 1 Q. No other medicalrecords? 2 A. No, sir. 3 Q. No chest X-rays? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Do you have -- some people do, some 6 people don't. We've requested -- if you have a 7 list of the cases where you've testified in since 8 1989, do you have any summary of - 9 A. I didn't b.ring anything, no, sir. 10 Q. Do you have anything like that that would 11 just simply indicate that either the deposition - 12 A. I have put together a complete list. 13 Q. How about this way. Last time I know I 14 talked -- I think it was in August of last year, I 15 think. Where have you testified in trial since 16 Augu s t of 1998? 17 A. Well, last year, calendar year, I didn't 18 look it up, I've testified five times in trial. 19 And I've given, I think, 16 depositions in the last 20 year. Most of the trials were -- that I testified 21 in were fact witness as well as state-of-the-art, 22 principally dealing -- a lot of them dealing with 23 Pittsburgh Corning. And this year I've testified 24 probably in about six trials since January, or 25 somewhere in that neighborhood, both as a 10 1 state-of-the-art and fact witness. The latest 2 trial that I testified in was the paper mill trial 3 in Louisiana as a rebuttal witness, not as a -- I 4 was brought in as rebuttal for that trial. 5 And, also, last week I testified in a 6 Pittsburgh Corning trial in Austin, Texas. And do 7 you want me to keep going? 8 Q. No. Let me ask you some questions that 9 might help narrow at least my focus. For the years 10 '98 and '99, have you testified in a case where you 11 were asked opinions regarding brakes or brake 12 linings ? 13 A. The paper mill case. 1 4 Q. Other than the paper mill case, is that 15 the only trial in '98, '99? 16 A. I think that's r.he only trial that I 17 testified in that dealt wt h brakes. 18 MR. HAINES: Just to be clear, it was 19 not brakes specifically but the Borg-Warner 20 case, which was the clutch facing case. It 21 was technically not a brake case but pretty 22 close. And that was in early '98. 23 Q. (By Mr. Harton) Okay. Other depositions 24 that you've given in brake lining cases in '98 or 25 99? i 11 1 A. I think those pretty much cover it, to 2 the best of my knowledge. 3 Q. Did you give both depositions and trial 4 testimony -- 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. -- in both - 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- of the Borg-Warner case and in the 9 Boglusa case? 10 MR. HAINES: I don't think you were 11 deposed in Borg-Warner. 12 THE WITNESS: I don't think I was 13 either, but I spent about six days in this 14 room in the paper mill, as you remember. 15 Q. (By Mr. Harton) Luckily, I don't. 16 A. You popped your head in a few times, I 17 think. 18 Q. Do you have any -- going down the list of 19 things to produce, any charts, exhibits or 20 photographs that you've considered in connection 21 with this case? That would be No. 7. 22 A. Well, usually when I testify I bring 23 along this book that I've; used in most every case 24 for state-of-the-art, which is -- does have 25 exhibits in it. It has my time line. I brought an 12 1 extra copy of the time line, which is the principal 2 thing that I rely upon in state-of-the-art. But 3 you can have those copies. 4 MR. HARTON: Let me go off the record 5 for a minute. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 Q. (By Mr. Harton) What I'm going to mark 8 as the next exhibit, as opposed to your large 9 notebook that you bring --- and I understand that 10 should we want a copy of the entire notebook you 11 can make that for us? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. But as the next exhibit or as a portion 14 of it I'm just going to put your time line in, if 15 that's all right. 16 A. And that you can keep. 17 Q. No. 8, any other objects or evidence that 18 you consider - 19 A. I pulled out ofmy files specific 20 references dealing with brakes, and that is not 21 included in this notebook. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. There's aMedLine search in there, 24 there's a NIOSH search and a selected number of 25 articles that I pulled. . 13 1 Q. Are these articles included in your time 2 line, do you know? 3 A. Some are and some aren't. 4 Q. We should mark this and get copies of 5 that. 6 A. Okay. If I could, I'd like to make the 7 copies of that. I mean, I can do that real 8 quickly, but I can have them to you tomorrow, 9 probably. But you can mark it. I mean -10 Q. That's fine. Other than these articles 11 and what you've produced as your -- in response to 12 No. 7, your large notebook, I will call it, that 13 you're bringing with you to trial, is there any 14 other information that you have considered in 15 connection with this case, the Raper case? 16 A. No. 17 Q. No. 9 is asking for standards, 18 regulations, books, treatises or other supporting 19 written or computerized data that you've relied 20 upon in connection with the testimony that you're 21 going to give in this case. 22 MR. HAINES: Let me just interpose an 23 , objection as to the breadth of that 24 . request. Obviously, Dr. Lemen has lots of 25 learning treatises, which he can tell you 14 1 about. If you don't have a copy, I'm sure 2 we can find a copy if he has one. But I do 3 object to the overbreadth of the request. 4 THE WITNESS: I would say my 5 knowledge on asbestos comes from a lot more 6 material than what I've produced here 7 today. And so to answer that question I 8 would say there are many books I've read 9 and other things.. Bur to bring those would 10 necessitate bringing my entire library, 11 so -- 12 Q. (By Mr. Harton) No. 10, all notes, 13 documents, records, photographs, letters or other 14 written material of any kind that's been provided 15 to you by anyone with regard to this case. Is 16 there anything else? 17 A. No . 18 Q. Billing records. 19 A. I haven't made anybillings on this case 20 to this point in time. 21 Q. How much time have you spent on this case 22 so far? 23 . A. Well, I've read through the materials 24 that I was given. I would say that I've possibly 25 spent six hours at maximum, something like that. 15 1 MR. HARTON: Let me get this marked, 2 if I can, and then give it back to you. 3 Can you mark that? 4 (Defendant's Exhibits 4 and 5 marked 5 for identification.) 6 Q. (By Mr. Harton) What we've marked as 7 Exhibit 9 -- or 4, I'm sorry, these are the 8 articles. Is this something you prepared for the 9 Raper case or was this prepared in connection with 1.0 other litigation? 11 A. I pulled the material out of this - 12 that's in that notebook for the Raper case. And I 13 actually had prepared the literature searches 14 earlier for another case. So you'll see the date 15 on those are several months old. But I put the 16 notebook together specifically for this case. 17 Q. What are your charges for your time? 18 A. I charge for a deposition minimum daily 19 fee of $1,500, and then if it goes over -- that's 20 based on $300 an hour, and 250 for preparation 21 time . 22 Q. Have you -- No. 12, the last one, this is 23 dealing with presentations, videotapes, recordings 24 or writings you may have made in connection with 25 seminars, speeches or presentations given to . 16 1 lawyers or groups of lawyers. 2 Do you have .anything that's responsive to 3 No. 12? 4 A. No. 5 Q. That being done:, let's talk about - 6 first of all, I represent Chrysler Corporation. 7 Have you been provided any documents with respect 8 to Chrysler Corporation? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Have you ever been to a Chrysler 11 Corporation facility where they're making cars? 12 A. During the time I worked for NIOSH, I had 13 worked on several occasions with the Joint Labor 14 Management Committees of the auto workers from the 15 three major car companies. And in the process of 16 that I've been into a Chrysler plant, but it's been 17 15, 20 years ago at least. And I don't -- I think 18 it was a Chrysler plant, but it was in Detroit. 19 Q. An automobile plant? 20 A. Yeah, right. 21 Q. The time you went into this automobile 22 plant, were you at all focused on air sampling for 23 asbestos? 24 . A. Mainly it was an orientation that we took 25 as a part of the tour of the plant. And it wasn't 17 1 really as a compliance activity or anything. The 2 only time that I've ever been in an auto plant that 3 really had anything to do with a health hazard 4 evaluation was when I was working on the models, 5 model makers, and there was some concern of the 6 models for the cars and disease that was occurring 7 among the model makers. And that was back in the 8 late '70s. 9 Q. What was the disease they were worried 10 about with these model plants? 11 A. I'm trying to remember right now. It 12 was -- I think it was a concern about solvent 13 exposure. 14 Q. It wasn't asbestos or asbestos exposure? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Have you been given any -- what I call 17 test results on tests of brake linings that would 18 attempt to quantify the amount of asbestos that may 19 be released by either installing or using brake 20 liners ? 21 A. If you look at the notebook that he has. 22 Exhibit 4, the Lorimer paper -- I think it may be 23 the number one or two paper in there, and the Rohl, 24 R-O-H-L -- is that how you pronounce it? Rohl. 25 And they do give some figures. And then there are 18 1 others in there that do talk about amount of fibers 2 released during the repair. But that's the 3 information. It's nothing that I've collected, 4 it's material that I've relied upon. 5 Q. The information that you have been given 6 would have been, then, in effect, published 7 peer-reviewed reports? 8 A. Yes. 9 MR. HAINES: I'm not sure he 10 testified that was given to him. I think 11 that was - 12 THE WITNESS: No, I pulled this. No 13 one gave that to me. I pulled that myself. 14 Q. (By Mr. Harton) Let me change the 15 question. The information that you've -- I'll 16 start over. The information that you have 17 quantifying the amount of asbestos released by 18 working with or installing brake linings has come 19 from the published peer review literature? 20 A. And also NIOSH reports, which are like 21 the CIB that you're looking at right now, which is 22 not a published peer review but a NIOSH document 23 that -- 24 Q. Let me run through these. One of the 25 in here is the Current Intelligence 19 1 Bulletin 5 of August 1975? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. It would have some attempt to quantify 4 the amount of asbestos fibers released by or around 5 garage mechanics. 6 This CIB No. 5, August 1975, deals with 7 tests that were done on brake drums, dust from 8 brake drums. Is that right? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. The Rohl article I think you referred to 11 is asbestos exposure during brake lining 12 maintenance and repair? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. That's a 1976article? 15 A. Right. 16 Q. The Lorimer-Rohl article, I think also a 17 1976 article, - 18 A. Yes, that's correct. I think from there 19 on back there are literature reviews. 20 Q. So all of the peer-reviewed literature 21 that you could find quantifying the amount of 22 asbestos released by working with brake -- or I 23 should say friction products is all after 1965, 24 right? 25 A. I believe that's correct. 20 1 Q. Have you been given any unpublished, 2 un-peer-reviewed literature attempting to quantify 3 the amount of asbestos fibers released by using 4 brake linings? 5 A. No, none other than what I've brought 6 with me. 7 Q. I'm talking about being given as opposed 8 to what you found. That question I did mean to 9 say - 1.0 A. No, sir. 11 Q. All right. You've -- I'm not sure which 12 exhibit this is. 13 What is -- Exhibit 5 includes the various 14 depositions of Mr. Raper, his co-workers and 15 others? 16 A. Exhibit 5 includes everything that I was 17 given by plaintiff's attorneys, two medical reports 18 by Dr. Robb, the rest are depositions of -- two of 19 Mr. Raper, and then the rest are co-worker 20 depositions . 21 Q. Based upon all the information you've 22 received in the Raper case, do you have any 23 information to -- that would support an opinion 24 that you may express at trial that Mr. Raper worked 25 with automobile brake linings after 1965? . 21 1 A. I don't believe I have anything -- I'm 2 really not being asked to talk about his exposure, 3 but I don't think I have anything. 4 MR. HAINES: Right. No, Dr. Lemen is 5 not being presented for that particular 6 opinion. 7 Q. (By Mr. Harton) So from what you have 8 done, your review of all of the depositions, 9 Mr. Raper's deposition and his co-workers' 1.0 depositions, focusing on those only, you have no 11 information to say that he worked with automobile 12 brake linings after 1965, right? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Okay. Let's talkabout -- let's talk 15 about levels of exposure. Based on what you've 16 seen in Exhibit 5, you would agree that Mr. -- or 17 is it your opinion that Mr. Raper was diagnosed 18 with mesothelioma? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Have you done anything toattempt to 21 independently verify in any way this diagnosis, or 22 are you just using these reports as the basis for 23 your opinion? 24 . A. I'm relying upon these reports. First of 25 all, I'm not a medical doctor, so I'm not being 22 1 brought in to verify a diagnosis or to substantiate 2 that. I'm making the presumption that the 3 diagnosis is correct. 4 Q. You would agree that as a Ph.D. 5 epidemiologist, that asbestos-related diseases are 6 dose-related? 7 A. Yes, Ido. 8 Q. And, for instance, mesothelioma, there 9 has to be some dose before the disease could be 10 related to asbestos exposure? 11 A. Yes, there does. 12 Q. You would agree; that in the ambient air 13 in urban environments, be it Atlanta, Dallas or, I 14 think, any city in this country, there would be 15 some asbestos in the air? 16 A. There's generally a background level of 17 asbestos, depending upon the urbanization of the 18 city. And probably in Atlanta it's getting a lot 19 bigger. 20 Q. Yes, it's getting larger in Atlanta as 21 the city grows. 22 Gosh, lose my train of thought. 23 Do you know of any attempt to quantify or 24 prove that ambient air concentrations of asbestos 25 can cause any asbestos-related disease? 23 1 A. Well, there have been community studies 2 that have been done concerning asbestos and 3 disease. Been studies around the Canadian asbestos 4 mines and mills. The latest, I guess, is a paper 5 that was in New England Journal of Medicine, 6 looking at cancer rates in proximity. The original 7 paper that Chris Wagner did about mesothelioma in 8 South Africa actually looked at community 9 exposures. So there have been some studies that 10 did that. Newhouse in England looked at some 11 community studies done around asbestos factors. 12 Q. Poor questions. I'm trying to exclude - 13 A. Those type of things? 14 Q. Yes. And, really, so you know, I know 15 those things are out there. I don't deny that. 16 But, for instance, for someone who would live in - 17 be it Atlanta or Dallas or in some city where 18 they're not next to a factory, they're not next to 19 a mine where asbestos ore is being taken out of the 20 earth, do you know of any studies in urban 21 environments, let's say, without those other 22 potential contaminants, that have attempted to 23 prove that ambient air concentrations can cause 24 asbestos-related diseases? 25 A. I don't know of any that have been . 24 1 attempted to prove it. The National Cancer 2 Institute, about 20 years ago, did put out their 3 cancer maps, if you recall those, and the-y 4 published those. Those were not an attempt at 5 causation but were an attempt to show where there 6 were high rates of lung cancer versus low rates of 7 lung cancer based upon geographic location. But 8 they weren't an attempt to show causal association, 9 they were just an attempt to map it out. So I 10 don't -- I think the answer to your question is no. 11 Q. All right. Well, I'll take no and strike 12 everything else, then. Move to strike everything 13 else. No, that's all right. 14 Now, obviously -- or do you have 15 opinions -- obviously, I represent a brake 16 manufacturer -- excuse me. I represent Chrysler 17 Corporation. Excuse me. Let me get this straight. 18 We may have brakes on our cars because we want them 19 to stop. 20 Do you have any information about the 21 types of asbestos that would have been used in the 22 brake linings we would have manufactured or used? 23 A. I don't know specifically for Chrysler, 24 but I do know that in my career I was involved 25 quite heavily in doing studies of a major brake 25 1 manufacturing facility, that being Raybestos 2 Manhattan. And, principally, the type of asbestos 3 used in that manufacturing facility -- whether or 4 not cites later used that I don't know -- was 5 chrysotile asbestos. But there were some mixed 6 exposures. 7 Q. And the mixed exposures you're referring 8 to would have been at the Raybestos Manhattan 9 plant ? 10 A. In manufacturing of the material, yes. 11 Q. And so you don't have any information 12 that Chrysler would have used any brakes that had 13 anything other than chrysotile in it; is that 14 right? 15 A. I do not have any other type of 16 information. I don't know what type of brakes. I 17 don't even know where Chrysler bought the brakes. 18 Q. Now, there are obviously different types 19 of asbestos, both amphiboles and serpentine and 20 chrysotile asbestos. In your opinion, can 21 chrysotile asbestos cause mesothelioma? 22 A. I've published in this American Journal 23 of Health, British Occupational Hygiene Journal in 24 '97. Those are included in my time line. They're 25 also included in papers that are in the notebook 26 1 here. And my opinion is yes, chrysotile can cause 2 asbestos-related disease.. 3 Q. And by chrysotile, I'm attempting to 4 refer to pure chrysotile without any contaminant of 5 any type. 6 A. Very rarely do we find pure chrysotile, 7 because most chrysotile is contaminated with 8 amphiboles such as tremolite. And there have been 9 very few, if any, studies that I know of that have 10 looked at pure chrysotile, because they haven't 11 been really able to identify pure chrysotile. 12 Q. Do you know anything about the processing 13 that's done with chrysotile ore, once it's taken 14 from the mine, before it can be used in other 15 products? Have you studied that? 16 A. What do you mean by processing? I'm not 17 sure I understand the question. 18 Q. My understanding is, is that they take 19 chrysotile ore and dig it out, for instance, like 20 you would coal, strip mining? 21 A. Well most of the -- with few exceptions, 2 2 most of the mines for asbestos in the world are 23 strip-type mines. And there are some underground 24 mines, but those are very few and not really used 25 for commercial purposes anymore, to my knowledge. 27 1 Q. After the ore is taken out, they have to 2 process it before they can get it to the point that 3 it can be used or incorporated into any products? 4 A. They take it into a mill, where they 5 grind the ore away from the fibers and separate the 6 fibers, trying to get all of the non-asbestos ore 7 out of the material, and then it is shipped for 8 process manufacturing. 9 Q. Do you know anything about the various 10 grades of chrvsotile ore that have been used in 11 different - 12 A. There are different grades. I'm not 13 really an expert on the different grades. I know 14 they are listed in the company, but I haven't 15 really compared one grade to another grade. 16 Q. Have you ever seen any studies that 17 indicate that, based upon a test of a brake lining, 18 anyone has ever found tremolite in a brake lining? 19 A. I don 1t know. 20 Q. Have you ever seen any tests or studies 2 1 on dust from brake linings that indicate anyone 22 ever found tremolite in the dust from a brake 23 lining? 24 . A. I don't know. I have not seen any lists, 25 put it that way. 28 1 Q. Obviously, there are those who believe 2 that chrysotile, to cause mesothelioma, either 3 there must be intense, enormous concentrations or 4 it can't cause it at all. You're aware of that? 5 A. I am aware of the scientific debate. 6 Q. So you would agree that there's a debate 7 in the scientific community about that? 8 A. Yes, I believe that chrysotile can cause 9 mesothelioma. That's correct. 10 Q. Thank you. 11 MR. HAINES: Better cut back on your 12 coffee. 13 Q. (By Mr. Harton) You know where I'm going 14 and I appreciate the help, but you know how records 15 are. So excuse me. 16 Now, brake linings, let's talk about 17 brake linings and regulations, I guess, for a 18 minute. 19 Today, 1999, brake linings can be 20 manufactured and used with asbestos in them in the 21 United States, right? 22 ' A. That's correct. 23 Q. There is no regulation that has ever 24 prohibited brake linings from containing asbestos? 25 A. Well, I don't know how you would classify 29 1 this, but when EPA tried to ban the use of asbestos 2 and then it was overturned by the 5th Circuit, I 3 don't know if -- there was an attempt to do it, but 4 it was not upheld in the courts. 5 Q. But at least the regulations that have 6 been enforced by our government have never banned 7 the use of asbestos in brake linings, right? 8 A. With that one exception. And I don't 9 think it banned the use, but it did try to ban the 10 use of asbestos in general. I don't think it was 11 specific for brake linings. 12 Q. But the -- I just want to make a 13 distinction so you understand. I'm talking about 14 regulations that were enforced as opposed to 15 proposed legislation that was not enacted. 16 A. I agree. 17 Q. With regulations that have been enforced 18 by our government, they have never banned the use 19 of asbestos in brake linings? 20 A. To the best of my knowledge, that's 21 correct. 2 2 Q. Other than -- there was one study in 23 Exhibit 4 -- let me get to it -- CIB bulletin, 24 August 1975. 25 A. Yes, sir. . 30 1 Q. Do you have any other government -- I 2 guess I'll call them studies of dust that would be 3 in brake drums? 4 A. I didn't include everything, but there 5 are a number of health hazard evaluations that 6 NIOSH has done that have been in response to 7 looking at asbestos exposure in brakes. 8 As a matter of fact, NIOSH did a very 9 large study looking at prevention of -- and 10 prevention and suppression of dust. And I think, 11 as he was just pointing out, there's the EPA 12 guidelines that are included in that also. 13 But I did not try and put together a 14 complete list of all the health hazard evaluations. 15 There are many of those, and they don't really add 16 to -- I mean, there are some in there, but it's not 17 comprehensive. 18 Q. So you'll know, I may -- I'm going to ask 19 some questions now. I'll look through some of 20 this. I may have some more after I look through 21 that as opposed to me trying to guess what you're 22 doing. But let me look through this. It will make 23 things a lot easier and a lot less confusing. 24 You would agree that in 1999 there is a 25 permissible exposure limit to asbestos that's 32 1 Q. But after abatement contractors go into a 2 school, they have to tes: the air to make sure that 3 the quantity of asbestos is below some number 4 before they can send the kids back? 5 A. I can tell you in answer to that that the 6 .01 was a recommendation that NIOSH made for 7 abatement. I don't know if EPA adopted that, but 8 that was one that we made based upon background 9 level of asbestos and the ability of the microscope 10 to measure down to that concentration. 11 Q. And this recommendation you said that 12 NIOSH made, would that have been back mid 80's, I 13 think, or do you remember? 14 A. It was around the mid '80s. I can't give 15 you an exact date. 16 Q. I know we didn't go through it. It's on 17 your CV. What was your position until the mid 18 '80s at NIOSH? 19 A. I was director of the Division of 20 Standards Development and Technology Transfer, 21 which was the division that formulated the policy 22 recommendations of the institute. And that was one 23 of them. 24 Q. The United States, in making their PELs, 25 or OSHA, I should say, making its PEL, they have 1 permitted in this country; is that right? 31 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. That is .1 fiber per cc. on a time 4 weighted average, is that right? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. The OSHA PEL is done by a PCM count, 7 right ? 8 A. Phase contrast microscopy. 9 MR. HAINES.: If you just left it as 10 PCM it would be easier. 11 THE WITNESS: I just want to make 12 sure that what you mea.nt by PCM was the 13 same thing I meant by PCM. 14 MR. FALK: If you'd been here 15 yesterday you would have known about that. 16 Q. (By Mr. Harton) You're aware that there 17 are even regulations dealing with the ambient - 18 excuse me, let me start over. 19 You're aware that the EPA has created 20 regulations governing post- abatement air in 21 schools that they define as clean air, right? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. And that is .01 fiber per cc., right? 24 A. I can't tell you exactly off the top of 25 my head. 33 1 not made a distinction between amphibole asbestos 2 and serpentine; right? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. But you are aware that there are other ' 5 governments, Britain, Canada for instance, that 6 make a distinction between the two types of fibers 7 in coming up with a PEL? 8 A. I think now the U.K. and Britain have 9 banned all uses of asbestos. They used to make a 10 distinction, but I don't chink that they do now. I 11 think that they just promulgated new regulations 12 that are about 11 countries that have now 13 officially banned the use of all forms -- new - 14 how do I want to say it --- importation or use of 15 asbestos in the future. But, yes, I agree with 16 you, there are countries that distinguish between 17 the various types of asbestos. 18 Q. Now, Mr. Raper, do you know when - 19 assume -- do you believe that he stopped using car 20 brakes or working with them in 1965, based on your 21 review of this information? 22 A. I don't know the exact date, but 23 somewhere in that neighboxrhood, yes. 24 Q. Do you know of any articles that would be 25 published either -- including your time line, 1 No. 3 -- 34 2 A. Can I look at the time line for just a 3 second? 4 Q. Okay, that's fine. -- that would attempt 5 to study epidemiologically end users of brake 6 linings before 1965? 7 A. There were case reports prior to 1965. 8 Epidemiologic studies, I think the answer is no. 9 Q. So prior to 1965 there were no 1-0 epidemiological studies of the end users of brake 11 linings, indicating that they had an increased risk 12 of getting any asbestos-elated disease? 13 A. There were case reports, but the 14 epidemiologic studies, I think the answer is no. 15 Q. Okay. I went through and looked at some 16 of your old time lines and tried to pull some of 17 the articles. And can you tell me which ones they 18 are? Could you just take a minute? We can 19 either -- I'd just like to talk about those for a 20 minute. 21 A. You mean case reports. 22 Q. The case reports you're talking about. 23 . A. Let me get over here to the right page. 24 The first one I think that I mentioned 25 was the Fulton Report of 1935. . 35 1 Q. I'm going to stop you for just a minute 2 because I've got that one. 3 MR. FALK: Fulton, did you say? 4 MR. HARTON: Fulton. 5 THE WITNESS: Fulton, 1935. 6 MR. FALK: That's the Commonwealth of 7 Pennsylvania? 8 MR. HARTON: Yeah. 9 THE WITNESS: I would just guess 10 that . 11 Q. (By Mr. Harton) The Fulton study, would 12 you agree with me that this was -- if you look at 13 page -- I've got a copy of it here. Is this the 14 Fulton -- it's not a good copy, but let me just 15 show it to you. This is a copy. 16 A. Yes, that's it. 17 Q. It's a poor-quality reproduction. I'm 18 sorry. 19 A. Right. 20 Q. In attempting to read -- I've put a 21 little red mark there. Let me just quote this 22 incident, see if you can agree with what I said. 23 It says -- this article says, quote, The industry 24 in this state consists mainly of several 25 fabricating plants engaged in the making of . 36 1 asbestos cloth, brake lining, insulating tape, 2 asbestos rope and wick and other miscellaneous 3 products. 4 Right ? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. So the Fulton article really deals with 7 what I will call the manufacturing of brake linings 8 as opposed to end users, right? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. If you will go to the nextarticle. 11 A. 1935, another article by -- in Great 12 Britain. 13 Q. Is that the HMSO? 14 A. Yeah, that's Her Majesty's Stationary 15 Office. Basically, the equivalent report that 16 would come out, like OSHA or Public Health Service. 17 They talk in that report about the sawing, grinding 18 and turning of brakes. 19 Q. Do you agree with me that this - 20 principally, the HMSO study -- I've got a copy if 21 you want to look at it, again, it's a bad 22 quality -- principally dealt with the manufacturing 23 of products in the industry as opposed to end 24 users. 25 MR. HAINES: Object, vague as to 37 1 "principally." 2 THE WITNESS: Well, I think 3 technically your answer is correct, but it 4 applies to the end user, because they're 5 talking about grinding and turning of the 6 brakes. And that's how I would interpret 7 it. 8 Q. (By Mr. Harton) Would you go to the next 9 article please, sir. 10 A. 1939, the George and Leonard. Do you 11 have that one? This is in brake manufacturing 12 workers. 13 Q. Yeah. This is brake manufacturing 14 workers, right? 15 A. Right. 16 Q. Go to the next one. 17 A. 1940, article by Stone. Do you have that 18 one? To answer your question, brake lining 19 manufacturing workers. 20 Q. All right. Next? 21 A. 1941, the Brachmann paper. Do you have 22 that one? 23 , Q. No, I do not. 24 - A. The risk of asbestosis among brake 25 grinders and drillers. That was published in- -- 38 1 I've got these articles, I just didn't -- 2 Q. Could you get that one? Because that's 3 one that -- one way or another somehow it just 4 didn't - 5 MR. HAINES: Do you have it here with 6 you ? 7 THE WITNESS: No. 8 Q. (By Mr. Harton) Just get us a copy for 9 it. I've got a search out for it, but we haven't 10 been able to locate it yet. 11 A. I'm pretty sure I have it. It may take 12 me a while because a lot of my articles are on 13 microfiche and it's sometimes hard to -- 14 Q. Do it when you can. I understand. I've 15 tried to find it as well and had troubles. 16 A. It was abstract, as you see in my 17 reference, and to -- let's see, it was in the 18 Journa1 -- 19 Q. Obviously, do you have any recollection 20 as to whether, when they're talking about grinders 21 and drillers of brake bands, they're talking about 22 the manufacturing process or end users? 23 A. I'm pretty sure they're talking about the 24 manufacture. But I'd have to go back and look at 25 that to make sure. 39 1 Q. I understand. We can look at it when you 2 get it. 3 If you would go to the next article, 4 please, sir. 5 A. My time line only carries me up to the 6 passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 7 and the articles that were in the notebook carry on 8 after that. So that's all I have in my time line, 9 luckily. 10 Q. So we've discussed all the 1965 and 11 earlier articles that deal with brake linings in 12 any way under your time line? 13 A. There may be others, but I haven't 14 included them in my time line. 15 Q. Okay. Well, they're not on your time 16 line? 17 A. That's correct 18 Q. The case -- earlier we talked about case 19 reports. Are the case reports you were referring 20 to earlier about maybe a brake lining worker 21 getting asbestos-related disease, are those the 22 articles we just went through? 23 A. Yes, sir. 24 .Q. Your work at the Raybestos Manhattan 25 plant, that was, I think, in the 1970s or '80s or 40 1 when ? 2 A. I first went in the Raybestos plant in 3 the early '70s. I did a mortality study of workers 4 in that plant. The first publication is listed on 5 my CV of that plant. It actually appeared as a 6 report to the Congress of the United States and 7 appeared in the Congressional reports, the results 8 of a mortality study. Then we continued to analyze 9 and published, in 1976, I think, in the New York ID Academy of Sciences' Occupational Cancer Symposium, 11 the update of that. And that senior author on that 12 second publication was Robinson. It's listed in my 13 CV. So I was also involved in the industrial 14 hygiene survey of the Raybestos Manhattan plant. 15 This is the plant in Manheim, Pennsylvania. 16 Then I also was involved in the 17 industrial hygiene and medical survey in the plant 18 -- Raybestos plant in Charleston, South Carolina. 19 Q. We'll focus on the Pennsylvania plant. 20 A. The Pennsylvania plant was the one that I 21 spent the most time in. 22 Q. The Pennsylvania plant, that's one that 23 you would have started the study of the plant 24 workers, I would say, in the 1970s? 25 A. Yes, sir. . 41 1 Q. Now, brake products, would they be 2 defined as friable or nor.friable under the EPA 3 definition? 4 A. I think the brake products in the final 5 form would be considered nonfriable. But I'm not 6 an expert on the EPA definition. 7 Q. Do you know anything at all about any 8 trade associations or other organizations that 9 Chrysler may have been a member of? 10 A. I haven't specifically looked at 11 Chrysler, no, sir. 12 Q. Now, mesothelioma is a disease. I 13 think -- was it first linked to asbestos exposure 14 by, I think, Dr. Wagner around 1960? 15 A. Well, there were reports of mesothelioma 1 6 as early as 1943 from Germany. There were reports 17 from the Canadian asbestos mines in 1952, I think 18 that was. And there were other case reports that 19 occurred prior to Dr. Wagner's paper in 1960. And 20 his paper in 1960 was related -- the first 21 comprehensive epidemiological evaluation of workers 22 engaged in the mining, milling and community 23 exposures dealing with asbestos. 24 Q. So Dr. Wagner's work, that is, I think, 25 published in 1960, was the first epidemiological 42 1 study that linked asbestos exposure to the disease 2 mesothelioma? 3 A. By that time that was the conclusion that 4 he came to, yes, sir. 5 Q. And Dr. Wagner, in 1960, I think, was 6 studying mines in South Africa? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. Was that principally crocidolite? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. At what point intime were there 11 epidemiological studies that attempted to determine 12 that chrysotile could cause mesothelioma? 13 A. Let me just refer to this. Wagner did 14 mention chrysotile but didn't find any disease. 15 And he attributed that to the fact that they had 16 shorter latencies and there was a large turnover. 17 But then McDonald looked at chrysotile in the 18 Canadian mills and mines in the early '70s. So I 19 think most of the data on chrysotile 20 epidemiologically, case reports started occurring 21 when McDonald started looking at the chrysotile 22 mines and mills in the Canadian area. 23 . Q. What -- which is the first article you 24 have on your time line, just so I'll know? 25 A. Well, Cartier, 1957. . 43 1 Q. I mean the epidemiological McDonald 2 study. There have been so many. That's what I'm 3 trying to find. 4 A. McDonald. I'm sorry. 5 Q. Is that the early '70s? 6 A. 1973. Let me get -- asbestosis. The 7 first article that I have in my time line appeared 8 in IARC Scientific Publication No. 8 on the 9 chrysotile mines and mills. And there were two 10 papers, actually, one on asbestosis and the second 11 one on cancer from the mills, and they were both 12 IARC scientific publications. I have those. I 13 mean, I didn't bring them. 14 And then McDonald has another paper in 15 1977 on exposure relationships and mesothelioma 16 and the proceedings of the Asbestos Symposium in 17 Johannesburg, South Africa. And then there are a 18 series of other -19 Q. Others, that's fine. I'm just looking 20 for the earliest, and that's all I need. I think 21 you answered that. 22 When you would do air samplings, -- and 23 I'm sure a lot of them were done while you were at 24 NIOSH -- did NIOSH always use the phase contrast 25 microscopy in counting fibers? 44 1 A. Well, when I was at NIOSH, yes. Prior to 2 my coming and even after I came, for a while they 3 were also looking at total dust by using the 4 impinger method of sampling for particles per cubic 5 foot. And when I first came to NIOSH, we also, in 6 addition to the phase contrast microscopy, is used 7 these gigantic, high-volume samplers that we would 8 sit in the middle of an area of an asbestos plant 9 that would pull very high volumes of air through. 10 And those were looking at weight of dust and total 11 dust that was in the atmosphere. So -- but for 12 personal samples, the only type that I ever took 13 were the membrane filter, PCM-type samples. 14 Q. In the work that you or others would have 15 done, I assumed for you, at NIOSH, did they always 16 use direct preparation techniques? 17 A. I'm not sure I know what you mean by 18 direct preparation. 19 Q. For instance, there are a number of 20 different types of techniques to sample for 21 particulate matter in the air, be it asbestos or 22 something else. One I know that the phase contrast 23 microscopy requires is taking a filter, adding 24 personal samples, for instance, having air drawn 25 with particulate matter in it. Then they count 45 1 what's on the filter. That's what I call the 2 direct method. 3 A. The answer to that is yes. And it was 4 directly related to the NIOSH 7400 analytical 5 methodology. 6 Q. Because that's what's required? 7 A. Right. 8 Q. You do not accept other types of methods 9 for comparison to OSHA PEL, would you? 10 A. I don't know what you're getting at, so I 11 don't know if I can answer that. But that's an 12 area that is somewhat beyond the area of my 13 expertise. 14 Q. Well, for instance, when you or others at 15 NIOSH were out there sampling to determine 16 workplace exposures, you would comply with the OSHA 17 requirements for sampling dust in the air, and that 18 would be 7400, the direct method? 19 A. Well, OSHA was using our methodology, 20 yes, sir. 21 Q. So it would comply with your own 22 methodology, right? Either way? 23 . A. We developed the methodology that was 24 later employed by OSHA in their sampling. 25 Q. In sampling. . 46 1 Have you ever sampled or looked at the 2 dust in brake drums to determine how much of that 3 dust is converted to forsterite? 4 A. NIOSH has. I have not personally. 5 Q. Are those articles at all in either 6 Exhibit 4 or your time line? 7 A. I think they're mentioned in there. But 8 I don't know specifically if they determine the 9 amount of forsterite that's produced. I think it 10 depends upon the use of the brake and the heat of 11 the brake as to the amount of forsterite. I don't 12 know that I've ever seen it totally quantified, if 13 that's what you're getting at. But I'll certainly 14 agree with you that it does occur and to an extent. 15 Q. I'll look through 4 and see if there are 16 quantifications, and we'll talk about that in a 17 minute. I'm not going to bore you with it now. 18 But on that same line, in looking at the 19 drum dust, do you know of quantifications of the 20 amount of fibers, asbestos fibers, now that would 21 be greater than five microns in length that have 22 been seen in various studies? 23 A. I think that -- you mean after the brake 24 is.used or -- 25 Q. Brake drums and discs. . 47 1 A. In the composition of the brake? 2 Q. After it's been used. 3 A. I think the Lorimer paper goes into some 4 quantification, talks about the average amount of 5 fibers found in the brake dust. I think his 6 greatest concentrations were found three to five 7 feet away from the brake drum after it had been 8 blown, and the average concentration was somewhere 9 around 15 fibers per cc. greater than five micron. IQ .There's a table in there if you want me to point it 11 out. 12 Q. Yeah, I think I found it. Let me look 13 through this. I'm just talking about the size and 14 length of the fibers, that they were - 15 A. Well, they were only counting greater 16 than five micron in length. So they weren't 17 counting below five micron in length. So what I 18 was referring to would have referred to those that 19 were greater than five micron. 20 Q. The manufacturing process for making the 2 1 brake lining, that would obviously include various 22 bonding resins and Lord-on.Ly-knows-what to make it 23 stay together, right? 24 A. Right. 25 Q. And part of the brake lining is obviously 48 1 -- or some of them would have contained asbestos, 2 right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. The bonding agents, mastics, resins, 5 whatever they are, would affect the aerosol dynamic 6 properties of the asbestos fibers if they're ever 7 released? 8 A. They could. 9 Q. And if bonding agents or mastics were 10 still attached to an asbestos fiber, that could 11 prevent it from being inhaled and retained in the 12 lungs ? 13 A. It could, yes, sir. 14 Q. I'm going to look through your articles 15 and things like this. I'm sure I'll have some 16 questions. But I'd like to look through this, and 17 at some point in time I'm going to take -- I'll 18 just do this later. 19 A. What is that? 20 Q. Your disclosure, one of the things we 21 get. Maybe I can just ask you this now. I'm going 22 to talk about these articles. I represent 23 Chrysler, and we've got a case next week. And I 24 don't know if you've seen this, but this is the 25 disclosure that I have given. 49 1 A. I think this is a standard disclosure. 2 Q. Yeah, it's a standard disclosure. 3 Let me ask a question and jfou can tell me 4 if I'm wrong. I'm trying to find out if I've 5 touched on the areas you were going to testify 6 about Chrysler Corporation. For instance, when you 7 get to trial, is there anything I haven't covered? 8 And if there is, let me know. 9 MR. HAINES: Object to the question 10 of having him anticipate, without knowing 11 how he's going to respond to questions that 12 we ask him. And to say, well, have you 13 testified as to anything about Chrysler, I 14 don't think that's a proper question. 15 MR. ELLISTON: Excuse me. At this 16 point I want to register an objection. 17 Plaintiff's counsel is going beyond simply 18 stating an objection to the form. Under 19 the new rules, anything beyond "objection 20 to form" is inappropriate. So I object to 21 plaintiff's counsel going beyond that 22 objection. 23 . MR. HAINES: Duly noted. 24 Q- (By Mr. Harton) You can respond. You 25 can respond, Dr. Lemen. . 50 1 A. I've -- as far as I know, unless I'm 2 asked questions that I can't anticipate, you've 3 covered everything. Bur, I mean, I have to put 4 that in, because if plaintiff's counsel asked me a 5 question and you haven't anticipated it, I will - 6 and I knew the answer, I would give an answer. 7 MR. HARTER: Well, let me look 8 through some articles and I'll let some 9 other folks talk to you. 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. FALK: 12 Q. Good morning. Doctor. My name is Eric 13 Falk, I represent Allied Signal. 14 My first question to you is, has anybody 15 shown you any documents pertaining to Allied Signal 16 or its predecessor, the Bendix Corporation? 17 A. I don't believe so. 18 Q. Okay. Have you ever conducted or worked 19 on any industrial hygiene surveys at airline 20 maintenance facilities? 21 A. Specifically looking at asbestos, no. 22 But I have at airline maintenance facilities, and 23 I've published on -- just so the record is 24 straight -- on principally looking at 25 cardiovascular disease among airline refueling 51 1 operations, around airline maintenance facilities. 2 And we've published on that from exposure to carbon 3 monoxide, but not as it relates to asbestos. 4 Q. Okay. And I take it, then, you certainly 5 have not participated in any industrial hygiene 6 surveys at either Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport or Love 7 Airfield? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Okay. I want to look at the -- talk to 10 you a bit about chrysotile epidemiology. And I 11 want to focus on epidemiology. And let's put off 12 to the side for a moment animal studies and then 13 we'll get back to that. 14 Would you agree that the McDonald cohort 15 in Canada is the largest ongoing chrysotile-only 16 cohort? 17 A. I would agree that it's probably the 18 largest. I don't know of others that are larger. 19 We do have a study ongoing that was initiated by 20 NIOSH while I was still at NIOSH. 21 Q. Is that the South Carolina - 22 'A. No, no. Well, that's one that was done. 23 But we have an ongoing study, which the results 24 have not been published yet. And I'm not a part of 25 it anymore because I'm not at NIOSH. But I . 52 1 initiated the study of the chrysotile mines in the 2 Siberian area of Russia. It's a joint study with 3 NIOSH, the Finnish Institute and the Russian 4 Institute. And the only results so far, to my 5 knowledge, that have been published are the 6 industrial hygiene samples of several hundreds of 7 samples that were taken in that. And that is 8 bigger, as far as volume, than the McDonald. But 9 the epidemiology and medical are still ongoing, to 10 the best of my knowledge. 11 Q. So I think the first part of your answer 12 was that if we looked at published epidemiology you 13 would agree that the McDonald Quebec cohort is the 14 largest published cohort? 15 A. I agree. 16 Q. Are you familiar with the articles of the 17 McDonald group published in '97 and '98, about five 18 or six of them? 19 A. I think I've read every one that Corbett 20 and his wife Allison have put together. And I know 21 both of them pretty well, so -22 Q. Okay. Then maybe we can short-circuit 23 this. And rather than breaking out the articles, 24 I'm going to try to summarize the results. You 25 tell me if my summaries are wrong, and if we're 53 1 right we're going to move on. 2 A. Okay. 3 Q. They found that the excess of lung cancer 4 mesothelioma arose predominantly from the central 5 area of the Theford mines, correct? 6 A. I believe that's correct. 7 Q. And they also found there was a high 8 level of tremolite contamination in the central 9 area of the Thetford mines, correct? 1.0 A. I believe that's true. 11 Q. And they found chat even within the 12 central area of the Thetford mines, the excess does 13 not arise until you get to exposures that are 14 roughly at five to six million particles per cubic 15 foot; is that correct? 16 A. Somewhere in that neighborhood. I can't 17 remember the exact number.. 18 Q. Or if we wanted to just put it in some 19 kind of lingo, the old ACGIH standard, roughly in 20 that neighborhood? 21 A. I believe that's what they were using. 22 The authors concluded that it was -- from an 23 epidemiological point of view, the tremolite, that 24 was.the reason for the excess in mesothelioma, 25 correct. I believe that is a part of the 54 1 conclusion. But I think that McDonald also 2 concluded that they had found -- if I can remember 3 exactly how they put it, they had found 4 mesothelioma to occur in ones that did not have 5 tremolite contamination, but very few. 6 Q. Okay. Those were from the peripheral 7 areas of Thetford? 8 A. Yes, sir. 9 Q. And they did net find an excess rate in 10 the peripheral areas, correct? 11 A. They did not find it, as compared to a 12 standard population. But they did find 13 mesothelioma. ' 14 Q. One of the things that the McDonald's 15 focused on as they looked at the possibility of 16 tremolite contamination was bio-persistence and 17 durability of fibers; correct? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. And tremolite wouldfit, would be a 20 candidate that would fit the issue of 21 bio-persistence and durability, correct? 22 A. If you're talking about, simply put, 23 residence time in the lung, that's correct. 24 Q. Chrysotile is not asbio-persistent and 25 is not as durable, correct? . 55 1 A. Chrysotile get3 into the lung and gets 2 out of it quicker than the amphibole-type fibers. 3 Q. And you're familiar with the clearance 4 rates and the studies on the clearance rates for 5 chrysotile, correct? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. Are you familiar with any studies 8 pertaining to man-made mineral fibers, their 9 biopersistence and durability and their possible 10 impact on the development of mesothelioma? 11 A. By man-made mineral fibers, do you 12 include such things -- are you talking just 13 epidemiology now or are you talking animal studies? 14 Q. This would be animal studies. 15 A. If you're talking -- do you include 16 refractory ceramic fiber in that definition? 17 Q. Yes, fiberglass refractory ceramic fiber. 18 A. There are fairly new animal studies on 19 refractory fibers coming out of Geneva-sponsored 20 studies by I guess it's Thermal Insulation 21 Manufacturers Association that have shown 22 mesothelioma occurring in fairly high numbers in 23 animals that have been exposed to respirable 24 refractory ceramic fibers.. And those are just in 25 the process of being published. I happen to have 56 1 copies of the pre-published articles. 2 Q. And have you read Dr. Hesterberg's work 3 on man-made mineral fibers? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. If we were to look solely at 6 epidemiology, is it still your opinion, that is, 7 from an epidemiological point of view, there is a 8 lower risk of mesothelioma among chrysotile 9 populations as opposed to amphibole populations? 10 A. In the 1996 publication that I did with 11 Leslie, Stayner and Dankovic in the American 12 Journal of Public Health, we concluded that 13 mesothelioma can occur in chrysotile populations, 14 but it is at a lower rate than it would occur in an 15 amphibole population, but still at a significant 16 level. 17 Q. Do you still agree that case reports are 18 not as strong as an epidemiological study? 19 A. Of course. 20 Q. Kind of a handy layman's analogy that 21 I've used. 22 And I'll throw this out to you, and you 23 tell me whether you like it or not, is that a case 24 report can frame the question, the epidemiology 25 provides the answer. Does that sound acceptable? 57 1 A. Case reports are usually what we use to 2 generate hypotheses for conducting epidemiological 3 studies. So I think we're saying the same thing. 4 Q. Do you agree with the proposition that an 5 epidemiologist should look for a relative risk of 6 two or greater in order to associate an agent with 7 a disease? 8 A. I don't agree with that specifically, no. 9 Q. Okay. Do you agree that that is a view 1 held by many epidemiologists in your field? 11 A. I won't put many. I'll put that it is a 12 view held by some epidemiologists in my field. 13 Q. What relative risks do you look for? 14 A. It depends on the size of the cohort. 15 You could have a significant excess relative risk 16 if you had a large cohort and a large exposure 17 than, say, even at 1.5 or even lower. It depends 18 upon the population you're studying. And I think 19 that arbitrarily assigning 2 as the cutoff point is 20 not something that I would do, and it's not 21 something that we did when I was at NIOSH. 22 Q. Are you aware of any epidemiological 23 study of automobile mechanics or brake repair 24 workers, end users, not manufacturing plants, 25 showing an increased risk of mesothelioma in the 58 1 populations ? 2 A. Epidemiologic studies? 3 Q. Um-hum. 4 A. I would have to go back and look at my 5 book. I can't answer that question right now. 6 MR. HARTON: This one? Here. Go 7 ahead. 8 Q. (By Mr. Falk) One of the MedLine 9 summaries you have in your book is the Woitowitz 10 and Rodelsperger 1994 article. 11 You have a MedLine summary of that 12 article in your notebook. Have you read the 13 article itself? 14 A. I have sometime ago. I haven't read it 15 recently. 16 Q. Do you recall what the author's 17 conclusion was? 18 A. Well, if you know exactly where it's at 19 in here, it would help me. 20 Q. It's one of the larger, bold print. 21 MR. HARTON: Towards the front, yeah. 22 Very early. 23 THE WITNESS: It was one of the very 24 first ones. I remember that. Yeah, okay. 25 Okay. 59 1 Q. (By Mr. Falk) When was the last time you 2 looked at that article, Doctor? 3 A. I can't remember. 4 Q. Okay. Do you recall the conclusions of 5 the authors of that article? 6 A. As in the summary, yes, sir. 7 Q. The conclusions were that they found no 8 increased risk of mesothelioma in the car mechanics 9 in Germany? 10 A. That none occurred, that's correct. 11 Q. Are you aware that Drs. Woitowitz and 12 Rodelsperger have been studying car mechanics, 13 their exposure and disease rate, in Germany since 14 the mid 1980s? 15 A. I don't know when they started. 16 Q. Are you aware of any of their prior work? 17 A. Not other than what's in here. 18 Q. Is it still true that you don't think of 19 yourself an as expert in dust dispersion and 20 aerosol dynamics? 21 A. I've never presented myself as that. 22 Q. You have not participated in any fiber 23 release testing of friction products? 24 A. No, sir. Here is the book back, unless 25 you want 60 1 MR. HARTON: I don't know if you - 2 thanks. 3 Q. (By Mr. Falk) Other than the Phoenix 4 ground water case, which I know is not an asbestos 5 case, have there been any other cases where your 6 testimony has been excluded or limited? 7 A. Not to my knowledge. 8 Q- Okay. 9 A. There have been cases where there 1s 10 summary judgment, but I don't think it was directed 11 at me particularly. 12 Q. I don't want to get into the Phoenix 13 ground water case, not unless we have about an hour 14 to talk on that. 15 Are you aware of any attempts to quantify 16 the projected mortality in brake repair workers? 17 A. No . 18 Q. I want to take a look at some of the 19 articles that you cited in your article with 20 Drs. Dankovic and Stayner,, 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. Okay. Do you have that article with you? 23 A. Yeah. It's somewhere around here. 24 Q. Just so we can read from it together 25 without me looking over ycur shoulder. 61 1 A. I don't know how it fell apart, but -- in 2 fact, I've got it right here. 3 Q. If you could turn to Table 1. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. There are two articles I'm 6 interested in that you put in the table as showing 7 excesses of either lung cancer, mesothelioma or 8 both. The first one is the Finkelstein article. 9 A. The automotive, yes , sir. 10 Q- Do you have a copy of that with you? 11 A. No, I don't. 12 Q. Okay. I'll pass it over. I just want to 13 go through that rather quickly. 14 Is it true that, if you turn to page 128 15 of thearticle, they found that among men there 16 were no diseases associated with a significantly 17 increased SMR? 18 MR. HAINES: Hang on. Doctor, do you 19 need a minute to review the article? 20 Q. (By Mr. Falk) I'm sorry. Page 128, I'm 21 looking at. 22 A. Let me just look at it for a minute. 23 Okay. What is your question? 24 Q. Is true that Dr. Finkelstein found among 25 men there were no diseases associated with a . 62 1 significantly-increased SMR except for laryngeal 2 cancer? 3 A. I'm having trouble reading this. 4 Q. It's as good a copy as I could get. 5 A. You're talking overall, or what are 6 you -- you need to point that out. It's probably 7 my bifocals . 8 Q. That's quite all right. Okay. 9 A. You say 12.8 . 10 Q. Right. Okay. Right here. Among - 11 first off, they studied two automotive parts plants 12 in Ontario, correct? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. And brake parts were made at those 15 plants, correct? 16 A. To my knowledge, that'scorrect. 17 Q. Okay. And here on page 128 they say that 18 among men, no diseases except for laryngeal cancer 19 were associated with a significantly increased SMR. 20 Have I read that part correctly? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. And then they go on to say that there 23 were no trends of increasing SMR with increasing 24 length of employment. 25 A. Right. . 63 1 Q. Have I read that correctly? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 MR. HAINES: Can I see it? 4 MR. FALK: Sure. When you're done 5 with that I have a few more questions on 6 that article, if you don't mind me looking 7 over your shoulder. 8 THE WITNESS: No. 9 Q. (By Mr. Falk) Turn to page 129. 10 They then did a case control analysis in 11 order to analyze whether there was an association 12 between the employment and the asbestos-related 13 diseases that they thought they had found, correct? 14 A. Right. 15 Q. And they concluded the case control 16 analysis revealed no association between the risk 17 of lung cancer and employment in a department where 18 asbestos had been used or duration of employment. 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. And they go on and they say that even 21 within the laryngeal cancers, none of the laryngeal 22 cancers had worked in an area where asbestos had 23 been used. 24 Correct? 25 A. Right. 64 1 Q. The next one I want to talk about in 2 Table 1 is the McDonald article. 3 A. Right. 4 Q. Okay. This is the study of the 5 Connecticut friction plant. 6 A. Is this Connecticut or is this the -- 7 Q. I think it's Connecticut. 8 A. I thought -- yeah. Okay. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. It was -- Connecticut was one plant, 11 yeah. 12 Q. Yes. Okay. First off, the McDonald's 13 found no mesotheliomas in that plant, correct? 14 A. That's what they report, yes, sir. 15 Q. Okay. And turning to lung cancer, the 16 increased mortality that they found was due mostly 17 to the people that had worked one year or less at 18 the factory, correct? 19 A. Well, I don't know if you said it the 20 right way. They say that excluding men who had 21 worked for less than a year, there was possible 22 evidence of some increased risk of lung cancer with 23 increasing exposure. So it was occurring in those 24 that were greater than one year. 25 MR. HAINES: That's actually the 65 1 opposite of what he said. 2 THE WITNESS: I think, if I've -- you 3 said less than one year. 4 Q. (By Mr. Falk) Less than or equal to one 5 year. 6 A. Right here. Unless they've misstated it 7 in there. 8 Q. Let's go to page 155 of the article. And 9 they talk about that the most confusing aspect of 10 the study is the fact that the only subcohort with 11 SMRs clearly above expectation comprises men 12 employed for less than one year. 13 Correct ? 14 A. That's total SMRs. That's in contrast to 15 what you were asking about lung cancer. 16 Q. Then they go on to say, thus, were it not 17 for the subjects with minimal employment or dust or 18 dust exposure or both, the mortality experience of 19 this cohort would be close to expected. 20 A. That's what they say there. 21 Q. Okay. Workers who work less than one 22 year, we call those transient workers. Would that 23 be a good way to phrase it? 24 A'. They may not like to be called that. 25 Q. I understand. Scientifically, you tend 66 1 to call them transient workers? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Transient workers generally just have, 4 perhaps because of their lifestyles, just higher 5 risks for many diseases, many conditions, correct? 6 A. That's possible. 7 Q. Okay. 8 THE WITNESS: Can we go off the 9 record for just a second? 10 ( Recess taken.) 11 Q. (By Mr. Falk) Doctor, do you still agree 12 that, with regard to fiber length, the 13 preponderance of the evidence up until the 1980s 14 was that fibers less than five microns in length 15 did not lead to asbestas-related disease? 16 A. There's a preponderance of the evidence 17 to answer yes, but there is some evidence there may 18 be disease in these smaller, but that was the 19 preponderance of the evidence. 20 Q. And you still believe that the longer 21 fibers tend to be more carcinogenic than shorter 22 fibers? 23 A. Yes, sir. 24 Q. You mentioned the Camus article. Are you 25 familiar with any follow-ups or letters to the -- 67 1 A. The what article? 2 Q. I call it Camus. 3 A. Camus? 4 Q. Camus. I call it Camus because of the 5 French author. 6 A. Well, I didn't cake French. I call it 7 Camus. 8 Q. It could be either one. 9 You mentioned that earlier. Are you 10 aware of any of the follow-up or letters to the 11 editor that have come since that article? 12 A. Well, I know the editorial that 13 accompanied the article. I have not read the 14 follow-up letters. 15 MR. FALK: Okay,. That's all I have, 16 sir. Thank you. 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. GUSTAFSON: 19 Q. Dr. Lemen, I'm Ivan Gustafson of 20 Pittsburgh Corning. 21 Have your opinions changed about 22 Pittsburgh Corning since this time last week? 23 A. No. 24 .Q. Have you seen anything new in the last 25 seven days to change your opinion about Pittsburgh 68 1 Corning ? 2 A. No. 3 Q. As a housekeeping question, part of 4 Exhibit 5 was Volume I of the Raper deposition. Is 5 that the one that you had brought with you and the 6 one we had marked, or the one that we sent was a 7 copy of one? 8 A. Did I maybe make a copy? It's what was 9 sent to me. And the first part is missing every 10 other page. So it's only a portion of it. And I 11 didn't call back and ask for another copy because I 12 didn't really rely that much upon it. 13 Q. So you received the Volume I of the Raper 14 deposition in alternate page format, if you will? 15 A. Exactly like it is there, yes, sir. And 16 that's just the first part of it. The second page 17 is four-page format. 18 Q. With respect to the classification of 19 persons called commercial airline mechanics, is 20 that occupation one that has been identified by a 21 government agency or state agency, to your 22 knowledge, to have been at risk from or at risk for 23 asbestos -related diseases ? 24 A. I don't know. I don't know o f any. 25 Q. Are you aware -- and I guess it would be 69 1 true, then, in your years of government work and 2 following the literature, you're not aware of any 3 pronouncement or proclamation from any government 4 agency stating that commercial aircraft mechanics 5 were an at-risk group for asbestos-related 6 diseases, is that right? 7 A. I don't know of any. 8 Q. Did you review the work history of 9 Mr. Raper? 10 A. Only as presented in the material that I 11 received. 12 Q. Did you notice if he worked at a micarda 13 plant for some period of time? 14 A. I'd have to look at it again. 15 MR. JOHNSON: I've taken the 16 deposition out of there. 17 THE WITNESS: It should be on this, I 18 think. Where did you see that? I'm just 19 trying to -20 Q. (By Mr. Gustafson) I believe it was 63, 21 64, maybe the third or fourth. 22 A. You said micarda. 23 Q. Micarda plant in Hampton, South Carolina. 24 MR. HAINES: Herndon Motor Freight, 25 Hampton, South Carolina. 70 1 Q. (By Mr. Gustafson) Before that page. I 2 hate to do this, but let me come over there. 3 A. Okay. I saw Westinghouse, but I 4 wasn't -- yes, sir. 5 Q. Are you familiar with that product, 6 micarda ? 7 A. No, sir. 8 MR. GUSTAFSON: That makes it short. 9 All right. That's it. 10 MR. FALK: Good job. 11 MR. HAINES: Next. 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. JOHNSON: 14 Q. Dr. Lemen, my name is Jonathan Johnson. 15 I'm here today representing Georgia Pacific. I 16 just have a few questions for you. 17 In this case have you been given any 18 documents to review that directly refer to Georgia 19 Pacific or a company called Bestwall? 20 A. Other than what I've shown here, that's 21 the only material I've been given. 22 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that 23 Mr. Raper worked with or around any joint compound? 24 ' MR. HAINES: Object to the form. 25 Go ahead. 71 1 THE WITNESS: It's my understanding 2 that he did. But I haven't been asked to 3 specifically identify the products or 4 anything of that nature. 5 Q. (By Mr. Johnson) What's your 6 understanding that he did based on? 7 A. The material that I read in here of his 8 work history. And that's it. 9 Q. And that does include Mr. Raper's 10 deposition, does it not? 11 A. Yes, it does . 12 MR. HAINES: It does. 13 Q. (By Mr. Johnson) Did you see that in 14 Mr. Raper's deposition he testified that he -- his 15 claim with respect to joint compounds was during 16 the time period 1986 to 1998? 17 MR. HAINES: Object to form. 18 THE WITNESS: I don't remember the 19 exact dates. 20 Q. (By Mr. Johnson) Do you have any 21 knowledge as to whether any of the joint compounds 22 that Mr. Raper may have worked around contained any 23 asbestos at all? 24 A. I don't know. 25 Q. Do you know whether any joint compounds 72 1 manufactured after 1986 would have contained 2 asbestos ? 3 A. I don't know the answer. They could 4 have. By law they could have. But I don't know. 5 Q. Do you know whether Georgia Pacific ever 6 manufactured any joint compound that contained 7 asbestos ? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. Are you aware of any studies regarding 10 the impact of working with or around joint 11 compounds on the health of the workers? 12 A. I know that there are studies that show 13 that carpenters and other people employed that 14 would use joint compounds but have other exposures 15 are at increased risk of developing 16 asbestos-related diseases. 17 Q. Okay. Do you know of any studies that 18 would say that people other than those you just 19 mentioned would be at risk just because they happen 20 to be in the vicinity? 21 A. Dr. Selikoff did some research in his 22 group on looking at bystanders, if that's what 23 you're getting at. And so there are studies out 24 showing that workers that didn't work directly with 25 an asbestos product but were working in the 73 1 vicinity of others that were working with asbestos 2 products were at an increased risk of developing 3 disease. 4 Q. Okay. And what specifically are the 5 studies by Dr. Selikoff that you're referring to? 6 A. Well, the one that shows that they're at 7 risk by looking at exposure is a study that Reitze, 8 R-E-I-T-Z-E -- I think it's listed in my time . 9 line -- has conducted, looking at people directly 10 applying asbestos insulation and then looking at 11 welders and others that are not directly in the 12 area but around the area that have higher exposure 13 levels to asbestos. And that's the type of work 14 that he was doing. 15 Q. Okay. Did that studyinclude anything 16 with respect to joint compounds? 17 A. I don't know. I don't think so. 18 Q. Do you think there may be differences 19 between asbestos insulation and joint compounds? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Sir, do you have anyknowledge as to 22 whether joint compounds would contain friable 23 asbestos? 24 . A. You mean friable? 25 Q. Friable, sorry. . 74 1 A. i don't know exactly. I'm not an expert 2 on joint compounds. 3 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you, sir. 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. ELLISTON: 6 Q. Dr. Lemen, as you know, my name is Gary 7 Elliston and I'm here on behalf of several 8 companies. 9 Would you agree, sir, that the U.S. 10 Public Health Service has been in existence since 11 1798? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 Q. The U.S. Public Health Service recently 14 celebrated their 200th anniversary, didn't they? 15 A. Yes, sir. 1 6 Q. How long were you a member of that 17 organization? 18 A. From 19 -- September of 1970 to March 1 19 of 1996. 20 Q. The Surgeon General is actually the head 21 of the U.S. Public Health Service, isn't he? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. He or she ? 24 A. He or she. 25 Q. The United States Public Health Service 75 1 has studied asbestos and its potential health 2 hazards since the 1930s, hasn't it? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. The U.S. Public Health Service bears 5 responsibility for the health of a variety of 6 people and organizations, including the Indian 7 reservations. Merchant Marines, that type of thing, 8 don't they? 9 A. They don't, do the Merchant Marine 10 anymore. That -- under President Reagan they took 11 that responsibility away from us. But they do the 12 federal prisons still and Indian reservations. 13 Q. The U.S. Public Health Service has 14 addressed the potential hazards of asbestos and how 15 to control those hazards since at least the 1930s, 16 haven't they? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. The United States Government first issued 19 any type of regulation and enforceable regulation 20 concerning the exposure levels to asbestos in 1960, 21 didn't they? 22 A. I think I now have information under the 23 Wals.h-Healey that they actually -- the first was 24 1952. But it's in that same time period. I 25 recently found some reference in the Walsh-Healey 76 1 Act to a 1952 mention. I could provide that to 2 you. I don't have it with me. 3 Q. The first time the U.S. Government 4 created or issued or published any type of warning 5 to be used in the workplace or on products 6 containing asbestos was in 1972, when OSHA 7 regulations were created; correct? 8 MR. HAINES: Object to form. 9 THE WITNESS: Are you referring to 10 the -- including in the 1972 criteria 11 document that NIOSH put out to OSHA, or are 12 you saying just for the OSHA standard? But 13 '72 is correct, in either case. 14 Q. (By Mr. Elliston) Okay, sir. You 15 actually participated on the committee that issued 16 the 1972 criteria document for NIOSH, didn't you? 17 A. My role in that criteria document was not 18 a decision-making role but one of putting together 19 the tables that appeared in the appendix of the 20 criteria document showing the technical feasibility 21 of achieving the recommendation. But I did not 22 have any role in making the decision what the 23 standard was at that time. 24 Q. Were you a member of the committee? 25 A. I don't know that you'd call it -- I 77 1 wasn't a member of a committee. i was a worker 2 that was told to put together and take all the 3 information the Public Health Service had collected 4 up to that point in time and put it in the tables 5 that appeared in the back of that book. So if you 6 call that a part of a committee, I guess yes, the 7 answer is yes. But I wasn't -- it wasn't my 8 decision at that time as to what the standard would 9 be . 10 Q. Was Dr. Joseph Wagner one of the members 11 of the group that had decision-making authority? 12 A. I think his name's in the criteria 13 document as being there. I don't think my name 14 appears in the criteria document as being on any 15 committee. But I did work for Dr. Joseph Wagner at 16 that time. 17 Q. Was Dr. Joseph Wagner one of the members 18 who had decision-making authority for that 1972 19 NIOSH criteria document? 20 A. I believe he was. 21 Q. Now, when NIOSH issues their criteria 22 documents and makes recommendations to OSHA, those 23 recommendations are based upon the best available 24 science and what NIOSH believes is best for the 25 workers from a health perspective, isn't it? . 78 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. In that 1972 criteria document there was 3 a permissible exposure level recommended for 4 asbestos exposure in the workplace, wasn't there? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. Would you agree, sir, thatin 1972, that 7 OSHA, NIOSH, the U.S. Public Health Service, they 8 were all aware of the potential hazards of asbestos 9 and how those hazards should be dealt with in the 10 workplace ? 11 A. All of the hazards of asbestos? I don't 12 think in 1972 they were aware of everything they 13 know today about asbestos, but I'm not sure I 14 understand your question. I need a little 15 16 Q. In your opinion, sir, were NIOSH, OSHA 17 and the U.S. Public Health Service aware of all the 18 scientific data and medical research concerning 19 asbestos hazards and how those hazards should be 20 controlled in the workplace as of 1972? 21 A. I believe - 22 MR. HAINES: Object to form. 23 . THE WITNESS: I believe they would 24 have known or should nave known. 25 Q. (By Mr. Elliston) In 1972, this warning 79 1 that was required by OSHA was required not only to 2 be put on thermal insulation products but it was 3 also required to be posted in the workplace 4 wherever asbestos might be used, wasn't it? 5 A. I believe that's correct. 6 Q. In fact, the OSHA regulations are 7 directed toward the employer of the individual 8 worker, aren't they? 9 A. Yes, sir. 1.0 Q. Are you also aware, sir, that under the 11 laws of the state of Texas since 1958, that 12 exposure levels to asbestos were required to be 13 kept below five million particles per cubic foot of 14 air? 15 A. I have heard that. I have not seen that 16 law, to the best of my knowledge. 17 Q. Have you been provided any industrial 18 hygiene information or dust sampling results that 19 would indicate that Mr. Raper was ever exposed to 20 levels of asbestos above the TLV or PEL in 21 existence at the time of that exposure? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Did you agree with the recommendations 24 that were made in the 1972 criteria documents by 25 NIOSH? 80 1 A. At that point in my career, yes, sir. 2 Q. Those were recommendations of exposure 3 levels that you yourself would have been willing to 4 work in or to have had your family work in, isn't 5 that true? 6 A. At that time, yes. 7 Q. Would you agree, sir, that that group, 8 that decision-making group from the 1972 criteria 9 document, while addressing asbestosis, were also 10 concerned about the potential cancer risk of 11 workers in the workplace? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 Q. Has anyone made you aware, sir, of 14 Dr. Egleman's sworn testimony that the members of 15 that committee weren't concerned or did not care 16 whether workers developed cancer? 17 MR. HAINES: Object to the form. 18 THE WITNESS: I can't tell you what 19 Dr. Egleman -- you know, what was in his 20 mind, but I know what my opinion is. 21 Q. (By Mr. Elliston) And your opinion is 22 that those individuals were very concerned about 23 the health and safety of workers in the workplace, 24 isn't it? 25 A. That they were concerned, yes. 81 1 Q. Have you reviewed any corporate documents 2 or depositions with any corporate representatives 3 from Armstrong World Industries or Armstrong Cork 4 Company? 5 A. I don't recall laving done that. 6 Q. Have you reviewed any documents or any 7 depositions of any corporate representatives of the 8 Rube roid Company or GAF? 9 A. I don't recall doing that, no, sir. 10 Q. Have you reviewed any corporate documents 11 or depositions of corporate representatives of the 12 Dana Corporation? 13 A. I don't believe so. 14 Q. Have you reviewed any corporate documents 15 or depositions of corporate representatives of 16 17 A. I don't believe so. 18 Q. Have you reviewed any corporate documents 19 or depositions of corporate representatives of 20 Turner and Newell? 21 A. I don't believe so. 22 ' Q. Have you reviewed any corporate documents 23 or depositions of corporate representatives of the 24 CertainTeed Company? 25 A. I don't believe so. 82 1 Q. Have you reviewed any corporate documents 2 or depositions of corporate representatives of the 3 Riley Stoker Company? 4 A. I don't believe so. 5 Q. Have you reviewed any corporate documents 6 or depositions of corporate representatives of 3M? 7 A. I don't believe so. I -- with the last 8 question, 3M as relates to asbestos? 9 Q. Yes, sir. 10 A. No. 11 Q. Have you reviewed any corporate documents 12 or depositions of corporate representatives of 13 National Gypsum? 14 A. Corporate documents? I've been in a 15 trial that dealt with National Gypsum, but I don't 16 recall reviewing any of their corporate documents. 17 Q. Have you reviewed any depositions of any 18 employee of National Gypsum, to your knowledge? 19 A. I don't believe so. 20 Q. Have you reviewed any corporate documents 21 or depositions of corporate representatives of the 22 (J.S. Gypsum Company? 23 A. I don't believe so. 24 Q. Have you conducted or reviewed any 25 studies on the fiber release of any products . 83 1 manufactured by Armstrong World Industries or 2 Armstrong Cork Company? 3 A. I don't believe so. 4 Q. Have you conducted or reviewed any 5 studies on the fiber release of any product 6 manufactured by the Ruberoid or GAF companies? 7 A. I don't believe so. 8 MR. HAINES: Gary, you can shorten it 9 to one question and I won't object to being 10 compound, if you want to. 11 MR. ELLISTON: I appreciate that, but 12 at the time I need to examine him in the 13 trial I expect all these companies will not 14 be sitting there. Therefore, I'd rather 1 5 separate them. 16 MR. HAINES: That's probably true. 17 (Recess taken.) 18 Q. (By Mr. Elliston) Sir, have you 19 conducted or reviewed any studies on the fiber 20 release of any product manufactured by CertainTeed? 21 A. Not to my knowledge. 22 Q. Have you conducted or reviewed any 23 studies on the fiber release of any product 24 manufactured by Riley Stoxer? 25 A. Not to my knowledge. 84 1 Q. Have you conducted or reviewed any 2 studies on fiber release of any product 3 manufactured by T&N? 4 A. Not to my knowledge. 5 Q. By T&N I mean Turner & Newell. 6 A. Right. 7 Q. Have you conducted or reviewed any 8 studies on the fiber release manufactured by 9 Flexitallic? 10 A. Not to my knowledge. 11 Q. Have you conducted or reviewed any 12 studies on the fiber release of any product 13 manufactured by Dana? 14 A. Not to my knowledge. 15 Q. Have you conducted or reviewed any 16 studies on the fiber release of any product 17 manufactured by National Gypsum or CJ.S. Gypsum? 18 A. Not to my knowledge. 19 Q. Have you ever visited a facility that 20 manufactured joint compound or wallboard? 21 A. I believe I have. But ask me which 22 facility -- it would have been in the early '70s - 23 I can't tell you. 24 Q. Have you ever visited or inspected a 25 facility of the National Gypsum Company? 85 1 A. I don't believe so, unless they were 2 owned previously by another organization. 3 Q. Have you ever visited or inspected a 4 facility owned by the U.S. Gypsum Company? 5 A. Again, my answer would be the same unless 6 they were owned by a different name. I don't 7 recall going into any. 8 Q. Have you ever visited or inspected a 9 facility operated by the Armstrong World Industries 10 Company or Armstrong Cork Company? 11 A. I don't believe so, unless they were 12 owned by another company prior to that. 13 Q. I think that company has gone by 14 Armstrong Cork Company or Armstrong World 15 Industries, Inc. since the late 1800s. 16 A. I don't recall ever going in there. 17 Q. Have you ever inspected or visited a 18 facility owned or operated by Ruberoid or GAF? 19 A. Not to my knowledge. 20 Q. Have you ever been to any facility owned 21 or operated by Fiexitallic? 22 A. Until today I never heard of Fiexitallic. 23 Q. That might eliminate a few additional 24 questions. 25 Have you reviewed -- I'm sorry. Have you 86 1 visited or inspected a facility owned by 2 CertainTeed? 3 A. i may have. X can't remember which one. 4 Q. Have you visited or inspected any 5 facility owned or operated by Riley Stoker? 6 A. No, not to my knowledge. 7 Q. Would you agree, sir, that you cannot 8 testify to the state of mind, motivation or thought 9 processes of any representative or employee of 10 Armstrong World Industries or Armstrong Cork 11 Company ? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. In fact, sir, regardless which company I 14 put in the question, you can't testify to the state 15 of mind, motivation or thought processes of any 16 company representative or employee, can you? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. Can you identify any manufacturer who was 19 manufacturing ceiling tile that contained asbestos 20 after 1985? 21 A. No, sir. 22 Q. Can you identify any company that was 23 manufacturing joint compound that contained 24 asbestos after 1985? 25 A. No, sir. !l 87 1 Q. You brought some literature today 2 concerning friction products- Have you ever 3 published or gathered literature on fiber release 4 from floor tiles or flooring material? 5 A. Not to my knowledge. 6 Q. Have you ever published or gathered 7 literature on fiber release from ceiling tiles? 8 A. I don't believe so. 9 Q. Have you ever published or gathered any 1.0 literature on fiber release from gaskets? 11 A. I don't believe so. 12 Q. Have you ever published or gathered 13 literature on fiber release from adhesives, 14 sealants or coatings? 15 A. I don't believe so. 1 6 Q. Would you agree, sir, that gaskets, 17 flooring materials, adhesives, sealants and 18 coatings would all be classified as nonfriable 19 products under the EPA? 20 A. Again, in answer to the earlier question, 21 I don't know the exact definition, but I believe 22 that that would be the case. 23 Q. Have you been provided any information 24 that indicates that Mr. Raper ever encountered any 25 warning signs in any of his workplaces after June 88 1 of 1972 that indicated there was asbestos being 2 used in that workplace? 3 A. Other than what might be contained in the 4 material that I gave, I'm not aware of any. 5 Q. And you're not aware of any from your 6 review of that material, are you? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Would you also agree, sir, that under the 9 OSHA regulations, that the employer was required to 10 have the employee have a physical examination each 11 year if they were being exposed to asbestos? 12 A. I'd have to go back to the regulation. 13 And I think that's correct, but I don't know the -14 Q. You would agree that under OSHA, any 15 employee being exposed to asbestos was required to 16 be medically monitored after 1972 by their 17 employer, wouldn't you? 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. You've not been given any information 20 that Mr. Raper was medically monitored or required 21 to have a physical examination each year after 22 1972, have you? 23 A. No. 24 Q. In fact, sir, under OSHA, that if an 25 employee was being exposed to asbestos above .the 89 1 permissible exposure levels and engineering 2 controls were not feasible, they were required to 3 be given respiratory protection, weren't they? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. And based on all you saw, Mr. Raper was 6 never required by his employer to wear respiratory 7 protection, was he? 8 A. I did not see that. 9 Q. Are you aware, sir, of any 10 epidemiological study that has looked at the 11 mortality or morbidity of flooring applicators or 12 flooring mechanics? 13 A. No . 14 Q. Are you aware of any epidemiological 15 study that has looked at the morbidity or mortality 16 of workers who are using ceiling tiles or applying 17 sealant material? 18 A. There have been studies that may have 19 included those, but nothing specific to that 20 particular j ob. 21 Q. Would you agree, sir, that the first 22 epidemiological study that identified a risk of 23 asbestos-related disease in workers working with or 24 around joint compound was the study in the mid 25 1970s, specifically 1975, by Dr. Selikoff's group? 90 1 A. i believe that's true, but I -- 2 Q. Would you also agree, sir, that the first 3 study that indicated that: persons in the household 4 of asbestos workers might be at risk of 5 asbestos-related disease was a study, the 6 Anderson-Lillis study of 1976? 7 MR. HAINES: Object to form. 8 THE WITNESS: I believe that was the 9 first study. 10 Q. (By Mr. Elliston) Have you reviewed or 11 conducted any studies on fiber release from 12 automotive gaskets, meaning gaskets used in 13 automotive combustion engines? 14 A. I don't believe so. 15 Q. As I understand it, sir, you've not had 16 any communication with anyone concerning 17 Mr. Raper's case other than Plaintiff's attorney; 18 is that correct? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. In other words, youhave not had any 21 communication with any of the co-workers, his 22 physicians or the families themselves; have you? 23 A. You mean directly talkto them? 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. No, sir. 91 1 Q. Based on the information you've been 2 given, are you aware, sir, whether Mr. Raper was 3 ever diagnosed with any non-malignant, 4 asbestos-related disease such as asbestosis or 5 asbestos-related pleural plaques prior to receiving 6 his cancer diagnosis? 7 A. I don't know of any. 8 Q. Sir, would you agree that it has been 9 your recommendation for the last quarter century 10 that in-place asbestos products that are in good 11 condition that have not been damaged should be left 12 alone and left in place? 13 A. That has been my opinion. But monitored. 14 Q. When NIOSH was making recommendations to 15 OSHA about the permissible exposure levels, those 16 were levels that were being recommended for all 17 types of asbestos-related diseases, including the 18 cancers, weren't they? 19 A. I think the 1992 really didn't address 20 the cancer issue to any extent. But all the rest 21 of them, after that point in time, were, yes, sir. 22 MR. HAINES: You said '92. 23 THE WITNESS: I mean '72. I'm sorry. 24 . Not 92, ' 72 . 25 Q. (By Mr. Elliston) I'll see if I ca.n 92 1 clear that up for both of us. 2 After the 1972 criteria document, each 3 additional criteria documents, when there were 4 recommended levels of exposure given to OSHA by 5 NIOSH, those levels were to protect against all 6 asbestos-related diseases, including the cancers, 7 weren't they? 8 A. If you recall the 1976 criteria document 9 that I and John Dement wrote for NIOSH, it said 10 that the concentration we recommended, that being 11 the 0.1, which is the current OSHA standard, was 12 based upon technological feasibility and phase 13 contrast microscopy to reduce the risk, but we 14 could not guarantee it would eliminate the risk of 15 cancer. 16 So the level was not based upon the 17 health effect, it was based upon a technological 18 feasibility of measuring at that concentration. 19 MR. ELLISTON: Objection, nonresponsive. 20 Q. (By Mr. Elliston) Isn't it true, sir, 21 that when NIOSH made recommendations to OSHA 22 concerning permissible exposure levels, those 23 recommendations were made for all types of -- all 24 types of asbestos-related disease, including the 25 cancers ? 93 1 MR. HAINES: Object to form. 2 THE WITNESS: Well, yes, they were, 3 with that provision that I put on. 4 Q. (By Mr. Elliston) Well, you would agree, 5 sir, that NIOSH didn't recommend different levels 6 to protect against asbestosis and then a different 7 level to protect against cancers? 8 A. If that's your question, that's correct. 9 Q. Would you also agree that in the 1940s 10 and 1950s and 1960s, no doctor or scientist with 11 U.S. Public Health Service ever recommended that 12 asbestos not be used onboard government ships and 13 aircraft because of any potential hazard? 14 A. I don't know the answer to that. I don't 15 know if anybody did or did not, but I don't know of 16 anybody doing it. 17 Q. You've never seen any evidence that 18 anybody with U.S. Public Health Service ever spoke 19 up and said, don't use asbestos onboard Naval ships 20 or military aircraft, have you? 21 A. I don't know of any. The answer is no. 22 Q. Would you likewise agree, sir, that you 23 cannot cite any textbook that was published in the 24 30's, '40s, '50s or even the '60s that advocated 25 banning asbestos? 94 1 A. Well, I think Dr. Hueper's textbook, 2 1942, certainly talked about the risk, but I don't 3 think he ever said anything about banning the use 4 of asbestos. 5 Q. Therefore, you would agree, sir, you 6 could not identify any teixtbook that advocated 7 banning asbestos in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s or 8 1960s, can you? 9 A. Not that I recall. 10 Q. Can you identify any textbook that 11 advocated banning asbestos in the 1970s? 12 A. Well, I think that -- by your definition 13 of textbook, would you include the annals of the 14 New York Academy of Sciences in 1965 as a textbook? 15 Because you kind of skipped over the '60s. 16 Q. Well, let me go back to this for a 17 second. Go back to your question for a second. 18 I am specifically dealing with textbooks, 19 and we'll talk about the annals in just a moment. 20 A. Okay. 21 Q. Which - 22 A. A textbook, by your definition, is a 23 textbook used for training people? 24 Q. Correct. 25 A. Okay. 95 1 Q. Are you aware of any textbook that 2 advocated banning asbestos in the 1970s? 3 A. Not with -- not right now, no, I can't 4 tell you anything. 5 Q. Did Mount Sinai, in their -- did Mount 6 Sinai or the New York Academy, did they advocate 7 banning asbestos in the 1960s or 1970s? 8 A. Well, in the discussion section, I think 9 it was Mr. Roach representing industry, said that 10 the only safe level that would protect all workers 11 was zero, which I would say would be essentially 12 the recommendation, not to use it, or ban it. So I 13 don't think he used the word ban, but he said that 14 was the only safe concentration. 15 Q. Did Dr. Selikoff himself ever publish the 16 opinion that asbestos should not be used in 17 industry in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s? 18 A. I don't know that he did, no, sir. 19 Q. Did any member of the U.S. Public Health 20 Service publish the opinion in the 1950s, 1960s or 21 1970s that asbestos should not be used in industry? 22 A. Other than the statement in the criteria 23 document that I alluded to before that you said was 24 nonresponsive, I don't think so. 25 Q. Did NIOSH come out and issue the opinion 96 1 or recommendation that asbestos be banned from use 2 in industry in the 1970s? 3 A. I think they recommended substitution 4 when possible, but never an outright statement of 5 banned. 6 Q. It has been the opinion and the 7 recommendation of the U.S. Public Health Service 8 from the 1930s right up through the 1970s that you 9 should control the dust levels, and by controlling 10 the dust levels, control disease, when dealing with 11 asbestos, hasn't it? 12 A. Reduce the risk of disease, yes, sir. 13 Q. Sir, since you retired from NIOSH, would 14 you estimate that you have testified, either in 15 deposition or trial, approximately 50 times? 16 A. That's probably correct. 17 Q. Would you agree, sir, that at this point 18 in time approximately 60 to 75 percent of your 19 income comes from litigation? 20 A. I would guess that would be correct. 21 Q. When you went through thematerial for 2 2 this case, did you make any notes yourself? 23 A. No, sir. 24 Q. Would you agree, sir, that an individual 25 just looking at dust can't tell whether that dust 97 1 contains asbestos or not? 2 A. I agree with you. 3 Q. You have to look at the dust or the 4 particles under a microscope to determine whether 5 they're asbestos or not, don't you? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Would you also agree, sir, that the first 8 large-scale epidemiological study about asbestos 9 was done by Dr. Merewether in 1930 over in England 10 on textile workers? 'll A. I certainly think that's the biggest of 12 the first studies done, yes, sir. 13 Q. And, again, Dr. Merewether was dealing 14 with textile workers who were working with raw 15 asbestos in poorly-ventilated plants rather than in 16 end-product users, wasn't he? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. And, of course, what Dr.Merewether 19 recommended was that you suppress the dust levels 20 and control the disease, wasn't it? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. And at that study Dr. Merewether did not 23 identify any mesotheliomas, did he? 24 A. Not to my knowledge. 25 Q. In fact, Dr. Merewether did not report 98 1 any cancers in that study, did he? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Sir, I've heard you mention Dr. Hoffman 4 or Mr. Hofman's report before, and I want to just 5 ask you a few questions about that. 6 The Hoffman report of 1918, that was a 7 governmental document, wasn't it? 8 A. That was from the -- I believe the Bureau 9 of Labor Statistics, by the Department of Labor. 10 Q. And that document referred to asbestos 11 workers but did not refer to end-product users, did 12 it? 13 A. I don't believe it did. 14 Q. So that documentwould take 15 U.S. Government's knowledge about asbestos at least 16 back to 1918, wouldn't it? 17 A. I believe so. At least the Department of 18 Labor, that part of the government. 19 Q. Now, if we go to 1935, we have 20 Dr. Lanza's study, which was the first large-scale 21 epidemiological study of the United States, wasn't 22 it?' 23 A. The one when he was with Metropolitan? 24 ~ Q'. 193 5 . 25 A. Yes, I think so. 99 1 Q. Is that correct? 2 A. I said yes. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. I think so. 5 Q. Dr. Lanza's 1935 study in the U.S., 6 again, was dealing with textile workers who were, 7 for all practical purposes, working with pure 8 asbestos dust in factories, wasn't it? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. And Dr. Lanza, again, recommended that 11 you suppress the dust anci control disease? 12 A. I believe that's correct. 13 Q. And then, in 1938, U.S. Public Health 14 Service, with Dr. Dreessen, does a study of 15 asbestos textile workers? 16 A. That's when the study was reported. 17 Q. And Dr. Dreessen did not report any 18 mesotheliomas, did he? 19 A. No, sir. 20 Q- Dr. Lanza did not report any 21 mesotheliomas ? 22 A. Correct. 23 . Q- And Dr. Dreessen went beyond just the 24 standard recommendation that you should suppress 25 the dust and control disease, he went a step . 100 1 further and recommended a tentative threshold limit 2 value, didn't he? 3 A. It wasn't called a threshold limit value 4 at that time, it was just a guidance limit, I think 5 he called it. 6 Q. What Dr. Dreessen said in his 1938 study 7 was that if you kept the dust levels below five 8 million particles per cubic foot, that you would 9 expect almost the total disappearance of disease, 10 didn't he? 11 A. The disease asoestosis, yes, sir. He did 12 report some cases below chat concentration, but 13 that's essentially what his conclusion was. 14 Q. And, again, this Dr. Dreessen's study was 15 reported on textile workers and it was reported in 16 a U.S. Government publication under the seal of the 17 U.S. Surgeon General, wasn't it? 18 A. Well, I don't know if it was under the 19 seal. I've never heard it put that way. But it 20 was a U.S. Government publication of the Public 21 Health Service. 22 Q. And the Surgeon General was in charge and 23 the head of the U.S. Public Health Services; is 24 that correct? 25 A. Yes, that's correct. . 101 1 Q. Then in 1946 we have the first 2 large-scale epidemiological study concerning pipe 3 covers or people working with thermal insulation 4 products in the United States, don't we? 5 A. Are you referring to the Fleischer study? 6 Q. Yes, sir. 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 Q- And the Fleischer-Drinker study, again, 9 was a study conducted by the U.S. Navy and the 10 U.S. Maritime Commission, wasn't it? 11 A. I believe that's correct. 12 Q. In the Fleischer-Drinker study, did they 13 report any mesotheliomas? 14 A. No, sir. 15 Q. Did the Fleischer-Drinker study report 16 any lung cancers or malignancies of any type that 17 they associated with asbestos? 18 A. I don't believe so. 19 Q. In your opinion, sir, is cigarette smoke 20 fibrogenic? 21 A. Fibrogenic? 2 2 Q. Yes, sir. 23 A. It can cause -- I'm not sure that I can 24 answer that guestion, whether it's fibrogenic or 25 not . 102 1 Q. Let me rephrase the question for you. 2 Would you agree, sir, that cigarette smoke causes a 3 fibrotic reaction in the lungs? 4 A. It can. 5 Q. Would you agree, sir, thatinterstitial 6 fibrosis progresses more rapidly in a smoker than a 7 nonsmoker ? 8 MR. HAINES: Object to form. 9 THE WITNESS: I believe that would be 10 true . 11 Q. (By Mr. Elliston) Infact, the 12 epidemiological studies by Dr. Selikoff, published 13 in the 1960s and 1970s, indicate that asbestosis 14 tends to progress more rapidly and become more 15 severe in smokers than nonsmokers, doesn't it? 16 A. I believe that's correct. 17 Q. Would you also agree, sir, that the risk 18 of Gl-tract cancer in asbestos workers has not been 19 shown to be any greater than the general population 20 if they are non-smokers? 21 A. I can't answer that question. 22 Q. You would agree, sir, that at least for 23 laryngeal cancers, there has been no showing of an 24 excess risk of laryngeal cancer among asbestos 25 workers unless they are a smoker, wouldn't you? 103 1 A. I believe that's correct. 2 Q. Would you also agree, sir, that the 3 average latency period for mesothelioma is 35 4 years ? 5 A. Somewhere in that neighborhood. 6 Q. Would you also agree, sir, that the 7 average latency period for lung cancer, if it is 8 related to asbestos, is in the range of 20 to 25 9 years ? 1.0 A. I would think that would be correct. In 11 both of those, you're saying, average? 12 Q. Yes, sir, I am. 13 A. Okay. I agree with you. 14 Q. What is your opinion, sir, for the 15 average latency period for asbestosis? 16 A. That depends upon the dosage. 17 Q. Would you agree, sir, that the more 18 severe the dose or the exposure, the more rapid or 19 shorter the latency period? 20 A. The higher the exposure or the 21 concentration to the individual, the shorter the 22 latency period. 23 Q. Would you agree, sir, that throughout the 24 research and development of knowledge about 25 asbestos and its potential relationship or 104 1 association with lung cancer, there has been a 2 debate whether interstitial fibrosis or asbestosis 3 is necessary before there is an increased risk of 4 lung cancer in an asbestos-exposed individual? 5 A. That is correct. 6 Q. Would you also agree, sir, that if we 7 followed Dr. Selikoff's epidemiological research 8 back to 1968, when he first divided his workers 9 between smokers and .nonsmokers, that all the way up 10 until 1979 Dr. Selikoff basically reported that 11 nonsmoking asbestos workers did not have an 12 increased risk of lung cancer above the general 13 population 2 14 A. Give me the dates again. I'm not -15 Q. Okay. 16 A. You're saying '79. 17 Q. I apologize. I'm getting too 18 shorthanded, trying to shorthand this. 19 Would you agree, sir, that up until 1979, 20 throughout all of Dr. Selikoff's publications on 21 his research, Dr. Selikoff indicated that a 22 nonsmoking asbestos worker did not have an 23 increased risk of lung cancer above the general 24 population? 25 A. Could you just tell me what publication 105 1 in '79 you're referring to? Because I'm having - 2 that Selikoff stated that; in? I'm trying to figure 3 out when -- 4 MR. HAINES: He:'s asking you about 5 all the publications prior to '79. Whether 6 he said that or not -- 7 Q. (By Mr. Elliston) Let me approach it 8 this way, Dr. Lemen. You would agree that in 1964 9 and '65 Dr. Selikoff did not divide those 10 insulation workers between smokers and nonsmokers, 11 did he? 12 A. Well, he wrote a paper -- before '65? 13 Q. Yes. Stay with me for just a second. 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. I know you're trying to read, and I'm 1 6 going to try to break it out for us so we can get 17 there. 18 Would you agree, sir, that in his -- at 19 the symposium and in the annals that were published 20 after the symposium, that Dr. Selikoff did not 21 distinguish between smokers and nonsmokers in his 22 cohort of insulators? 23 A. I believe that'scorrect. 24 . Q. In 1968 Dr.Selikoff did divide the 25 workers between smokers and nonsmokers and . 106 1 published the opinion that the nonsmokers did not 2 have an excess risk of lung cancer above the 3 general population? 4 A. I believe that was his finding. 5 Q. In 1972 he went to France, to an IARC 6 meeting, and again reported that nonsmokers 7 basically did not have an increased risk of lung 8 cancer over the general population, even though 9 they had been exposed to asbestos, didn't he? 10 A. I believe that -- you're talking about 11 his publication and the biological effects of - 12 yes, sir. 13 Q. Then in 19 76 he again presented his data 14 at the New York Academy cf Science meeting and 15 again indicated that nonsmoking asbestos workers 16 did not have an increased risk of lung cancer above 17 the general population, didn't he? 18 A. I'd have to go back to his paper, but 19 that's generally my recollection. 20 Q. In any event, in 1979 Dr. Selikoff did 21 publish a paper indicating that, in his opinion, 22 that there was an increased risk of lung cancer 23 among nonsmoking asbestos workers that could be 24 somewhere between 1 and 9 and, therefore, they 25 selected 5 and published that as the increased risk 107 1 for a nonsmoking asbestos worker; isn't that true? 2 A. What was the name of that paper? Can you 3 tell me which one? 4 Q. I can't give you the title of the paper, 5 but it's my recollection, sir, that it was 6 published in the annals that were published that 7 year, the 1979 annals. I'd have to go back and 8 look. But the figure of 5 is certainly what he 9 reported. But I'm not sure of the exact era that 10 that was reported. 11 Would you agree, sir, that in the paper 12 where they reported the five times increased risk 13 for nonsmoking asbestos workers, they also 14 indicated that the risk, in actuality, could be 15 anywhere between 1 and 9 oecause there were so few 16 nonsmoking asbestos workers who had developed lung 17 cancer? 18 A. I think that's true. 19 Q. In your opinion, sir, is there any safe 20 level or is there any known safe level to any 21 carcinogen? 22 A. To any carcinogen? 23 Q. Yes, sir. 24 A. Well, we certainly put recommendations in 25 our criteria documents, RELs, recommended exposure 108 1 limits. And there possibly are safe levels, but I 2 can't quantify them for you. 3 Q. Fair enough. Let me rephrase my question 4 for you. 5 Would you agree, sir, that medical 6 science today cannot identify a safe level for any 7 carcinogen? 8 A. For all individuals I believe that's 9 true. Because of the -- there are many factors 10 that go into an individual's susceptibility, et 11 cetera, so I believe I would have to answer your 12 question yes. 13 Q. In using that criteria, there is no known 14 safe level to automobile exhaust that we encounter 15 every day, is there? 16 A. Not for allindividuals, that's correct. 17 Q. You would also agree, sir, there's no 18 safe level to -- of exposure to cigarette smoke, 19 whether direct or indirect, isn't that true? 20 A. Yes . 21 Q. Sir, isn't it true that whether dust is 22 actually visible to the individual depends on a lot 23 of things, including the light in the area, how 24 large the particles are and what type of particles 25 they are, things of that nature? 109 1 A. I would agree with that. 2 Q. Would you also agree, sir, that the 3 exposure that an individual receives from dust will 4 depend a lot on the wind or the ventilation in that 5 area ? 6 A. Those all have effects, yes, sir. 7 Q. And would you agree, sir, as to whether 8 someone truly has an exposure above the threshold 9 level or permissible exposure level will depend not 1.0 just on how much dust they see but, in addition to 11 how long they're in the area, how close they are to 12 the operation, ventilation, things of that nature? 13 A. I would agree. 14 Q. Sir, have you published any opinions or 15 criticisms of the filter, the fit, the marketing, 16 the design or the manufacture of any type of 17 respiratory protective device or mask? 18 A. I have not personally published. I have 19 worked on respirator test programs and so forth in 20 NIOSH recommendations, but they are not my 21 publications, they're NIOSH publications. 22 Q. Have you published any opinions or 23 criticisms of any specific brand or type of 24 respirator or mask yourself? 25 A. Again, not personally, no, sir. 110 1 Q. Do you claim to be an expert in the 2 manufacture, design or marketing of respiratory 3 protective devices? 4 A. No, sir. 5 MR. ELLISTON: Why don't we take a 6 quick break. 7 (Recess taken.) 8 Q. (By Mr. Eiliston) Sir, what is your best 9 estimate of your total income in 1998 from your 10 work testifying and consulting in the asbestos 11 1itigation? 12 A. Just as pertains to asbestos? 13 Q. Yes, sir. " 14 A. I'd have to go to my accountant, but I 15 think that I -- after expenses and paying taxes 16 and -- is that -- what are you talking about, gross 17 or -- 18 Q. Yes, sir. Let's -- I don't want to get 19 into all your expenses. What was your gross 20 income, your best estimate, from consulting and 21 testifying in asbestos lit:igation in 1998? 22 A. A little over$100,000. 23 Q. Sir, I noticed in your designation there 24 was a mention of smoking. Would you agree that 25 smoking causes 30 to 35 percent of all cancer in 111 1 America, cancer deaths in America? 2 A. I think it's the biggest cause of cancer 3 deaths in the United States. I don't want to put a 4 percentage on it because I'm not sure. 5 Q. Are you aware, sir, whether the 6 U.S. Surgeon General has estimated that smoking 7 causes over 30 percent of all cancer deaths in 8 America? 9 A. I agree with that. I'm just not wanting 1.0 to put a finite number. But I certainly think that 11 smoking is the greatest cause of lung cancer in the 12 world, probably. 13 Q. Okay. You've answered a little 14 differently than I asked. So, in fairness to you, 15 I'll divide it up. Would you agree that smoking 16 has been shown to be a cause of 87 percent or more 17 of all lung cancer deaths? 18 A. I would agree with that. 19 Q. Would you agree that smoking has been 20 shown to be a cause of 30 percent or more of all 21 cancer deaths in America? 22 A. Again, I can't answer that exactly, but I 23 think that's somewhere in the neighborhood. I'd 24 have to go back to the Surgeon General's report and 25 do that. 112 1 Q- I'm sorry. Would you agree, sir, that 2 the U.S. Surgeon General reports that tobacco smoke 3 contains 43 different carcinogens? 4 A. Somewhere in that neighborhood. I'd have 5 to go back and look at the Surgeon General's 6 report, which I have a copy of. But it contains 7 multiple carcinogens. And if 43 is the number, 8 I'll take your word for it. 9 Q. Would you agree, sir, that the 10 U.S. Public Health Service recommended warnings on 11 tobacco products in the mid '60s? 12 A. I believe that's correct. 13 Q. Have you ever drafted or prepared a 14 warning or instruction or label for any type of 15 product that was actually placed in the stream of 16 customers ? 17 A. When I was director of the Division of 18 Standards Development and Technology Transfer. And 19 when I co-wrote the criteria document that John 20 Dement and I did in 1976, we had -- well, we didn't 21 include it there, but I worked on the 1972 22 recommendation. And then all the criteria 23 documents under my supervision that were put out 24 between 1981 and of 1987 that contained warning 25 labels, yes, I had a hand in writing those. . 113 1 Q. Let me divide this up for us. 2 Have you, as an individual and private 3 citizen, ever drafted or prepared a warning 4 instruction or label for any type of product that 5 was placed in the stream of customers? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Even while you were at NIOSH, did NIOSH 8 ever recommend any instructions or labels for any 9 individual products? 10 A. You mean like, for example, Armstrong 11 ceiling tile? Would that be an example of a 12 specific product? 13 Q. Yes, sir, it would. 14 A. Ours were generic recommendations, so the 15 answer would be no. 16 Q. Did NIOSH -- I understand NIOSH 17 recommended warnings be placed on certain types of 18 products; is that correct? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Did NIOSH go further than that and 21 recommend labeling or instructions for various 22 products ? 23 A. They gave generic label instructions in 24 their criteria documents. I don't think we, when I 25 was at NIOSH, we ever made a specific label for a 114 1 specific product, if that's what you're asking. 2 MR. ELLISTON: I'll pass the witness. 3 Thank you, sir. 4 MS. SIENI: No questions. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. BAHR: 7 Q. Doctor, my name is Kevin Bahr. I 8 represent Kelly Moore. 9 Based on your review of the materials 10 furnished to you by the plaintiffs' attorneys in 11 this case, are you aware of the nature and 12 circumstances surrounding plaintiffs' alleged 13 exposure to joint compounds? 14 A. Other than the material that I was given? 15 Q. Correct. 16 A. No . 17 Q. Can you tell us what your awareness is 18 regarding plaintiff's exposure to joint compounds 19 based on what you have reviewed? 20 A. Just that he was exposed, but I don't 21 know concentrations or anything of that nature. 22 Q. Have you reviewed any materials or 23 documents or depositions of corporate 24 representatives concerning anything related to 25 Kelly Moore? 115 1 A. Not to my knowledge. 2 Q. You personally haven't conducted or 3 reviewed any industrial hygiene studies regarding 4 any fiber release issues concerning products 5 manufactured by Kelly Moore? 6 A. No. 7 MR. BAHR: Those are all my 8 questions. Thank you. 9 MR. HAINES.: Did you have some 10 questions ? 11 MR. HARTON: Well, actually, what 12 I've done, just so you'll know, is I've 13 sent the notebook down to be copied. If I 14 can get the notebook back up, that way I 15 will have a copy, I can just use that at 16 trial. And that's going to make it a lot 17 easier than me running back through those 18 articles, if that's all right. And that's 19 what I've done. Therefore, about the only 20 thing I've got is I've asked people to 21 make -- find a copy of the Brachmann 22 article. Remember that? And if you want a 23 copy of this. I'll make it for you. But I 24 think earlier we said -- believed it to be 25 a manufacturing facility. I think the 116 1 first paragraph shows that, yeah, it was a 2 brake manufacturing plant as opposed to end 3 users. That's the 19 - 4 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's consistent 5 with what I remember. I would like to have 6 a copy because -- I'm sure I've got one, 7 but it would be easier if I could -- since 8 I've given you copies. 9 MR. HARTON: And I think that's 10 all -- yeah, yeah. I mean, those are all 11 the questions I have. I don't know if 12 anyone has anything else. 13 MR. HAINES: I've just got a couple 14 of follow-ups if you all are all done. 15 DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. HAINES: 17 Q. Dr. Lemen, I want to clear up a couple of 18 points, make sure we're clear on. Earlier today we 19 were talking about the criteria document in 1972 20 and in '76, and you were attempting to explain one 21 of your answers about technological feasibility and 22 the levels. Please explain to me what happened in 23 1976 with regard to technological feasibility and 24 the standard that was recommended in that criteria 25 document. 117 1 A. The standard that was recommended in the 2 1976 criteria document was based upon the 3 statistical abilities of the NIOSH analytical 4 method for counting fibers in an environment -- in 5 an environment containing asbestos and the ability 6 to statistically have a reliable concentration that 7 you could rely upon. And the lowest concentration 8 at that time that we could determine was 0.1 9 fibers. And we stated that even at that 10 concentration there may be disease, which we know 11 now from doing risk assessment we project that 12 there is a risk of developing disease at or below 13 the concentration. 14 Q. In 1972 or in 1976, was it ever thought, 15 by the NIOSH or by yourself in your capacity 16 working for NIOSH, that that level of .1 would 17 entirely prevent cancer from arising from asbestos 18 exposure ? 19 MR. ELLISTON: Objection, form. 20 THE WITNESS: Well, the .1 didn't 21 come into existence until 1976, and it 22 wasn't after that period of time, that's 23 true . 24 Q. (By Mr. Haines) I'm sorry. It wasn't 25 after what time? 118 1 A. .1 was first recommended by NIOSH in 2 1976, and subsequent to that and at that time it 3 was never stated that it would completely reduce 4 the risk, but it would substantially lower the 5 risk, in our opinion. 6 Q. Right. With regard to some of these 7 articles that discuss the manufacturing of brake 8 parts, such as this Bracnmann article in 1940 which 9 discusses grinders and drillers of brake bands, can 10 you discuss for us why that would be relevant or 11 applicable to end users? What is the significance 12 of an article like this in the context of an end 13 user brake mechanic? 14 MR. ELLISTON: Object, form. 15 THE WITNESS: I believe that it shows 16 that when working with the brake lining, 17 drilling holes in it or grinding it, that 18 there could be exposure. So that's 19 strictly applicable if somebody were 20 grinding or drilling as an end-product user 21 of the material. 22 MR. HAINES: That's all the questions 23 I have for you. Thank you. 24 MR. HARTON: One. I'm following up 25 on that . 119 1 recross-examination 2 BY MR. HARTON: 3 Q. Do you know, based on your review of the 4 Raper testimony, if he ever either ground or 5 drilled any brake linings? 6 A. I don't know. 7 MR. HARTON: Okay, thanks. 8 MR. FALK: I just have one follow-up 9 also. 10 11 BY MR. FALK: RECROSS-EXAMINATION 12 Q. Are you aware of any studies or 13 industrial hygiene surveys concerning exposure 14 levels while working on aircraft brakes? 15 A. I haven't seen any. 16 Q. Do you know if the brakes on the aircraft 17 that Mr. Raper worked on even contained asbestos? 18 A. No, I don't know that. 19 MR. FALK: Thank you. 20 MR. ELLISTON: One last question. 21 RECROSS-EXAMINAT ION 22 BY MR. ELLISTON: 23 Q. Sir, are you aware of any fiber release 24 studies or testing that has been done related to 25 friction products used on cranes, overhead cranes? 120 1 A. There may be some, but I'm not aware of 2 them. 3 MR. ELLISTON: That's all I have, 4 Thank you. 5 (Deposition concluded at 11:50 a.m.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 index to examinations 2 3 Examination 4 5 Cross-Examination by Mr. Harton 6 Cross-Examination by Mr. Falk 7 Cross-Examination by Mr. Gustafson 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Johnson 9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Elliston 10 Cross-Examination by Mr. Bahr 11 Direct Examination by Mr. Haines 12 Recross-Examination by Mr. Harton 13 Recross-Examination by Mr. Falk 14 Recross-Examination by Mr. Elliston 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 121 Page 5 50 67 70 74 114 116 119 119 120 122 1 INDEX TO EXHIBITS 2 Defendant's 3 Exhibit Description Page 4 1 Notice of Taking Deposition 5 5 2 CV 7 6 3 Medical File on Kenneth Raper 8 7 4 Time Line 15 8 5 Medical Reports and Depositions of 9 Mr. Raper and Co-Workers 15 10 11 (Original Exhibits 1-3 and 5 and photocopies 12 of Exhibit 4 have been attached to the original transcript. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 1 STATE OF GEORGIA: COUNTY OF FULTON: 2 I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript 3 was reported, as stated in the caption, and the 4 questions and answers thereto were reduced to 5 typewriting under my direction; that the foregoing 6 pages 1-123 represent a true, complete, and correct 7 transcript of the evidence given upon said hearing, 8 and I further certify that I am not of kin or 9 counsel to the parties in the case; am not in the 10 employ of counsel for any of said parties; nor am I 11 in anywise interested in the result of said case. 12 Disclosure Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-ll-28(d): The 13 party taking this deposition will receive the 14 original and one copy based on our standard and 15 customary per page charges. Copies to other 16 parties will be furnished based on our standard and 17 customary per page charges. Incidental direct 18 expenses of production may be added to either party 19 where applicable. Our customary appearance fee 20 will be charged to the party taking this 21 depo sition. 22 This, the 18th day of March, 1999. 23 24 Diane M. Bachus, RPR, CCR #B-2089 My Commission Expires on the 25 16th Day of August, 2002 .