Document e4w5yVBZ1dQz9GvZdYMr0wBe

COPT FORK GATE MT-PWHD-011219 MT-PWHD-011220 MC-594 (4'82) MT-PWHD-011221 MC-594 (4/82) MT-PWHD-011??? ' T- ro r\ ,rs MT-PWHD-011223 o h < oo i 0) c (0 ;o i cc i ll i i MT-PWHD-011994 MC-594 (4/82) HAIGHT, DICKSON, BROWN 8 BONESTEEL LAWYERS FULTON HAIGHT ROBERT L. DICKSON HAROLD HANSEN BROWN MICHAEL J. BONESTEEL GEORGE C. MCCARTHY GARY C. OTTOSON ELLIOTT O. OLSON KIM H. COLLINS RONALD C. KLINE CHRISTOPHER ROLIN DEAN V. AMBROSE ROY G. WEATHERUP WILLIAM K. KOSKA PETER O. EZZELL DENNIS K. WHEELER STEVEN L. HOCH JOHN W. SHELLER WILLIAM G. BAUMGAERTNER STEPHEN D. FLAHERTY JEFFERY J. CARLSON FORD R. SMITH JOHN E. CLOUGH RALPH A. CAMPILLO BRUCE A. ARMSTRONG +4ALL R. MARSTON PIETER A. DUBRAWSKI DELOS E. BROWN MICHAEL J. LEAHY LORI R. BEHAR DAVID F. PETERSON ROBERT L. KAUFMAN DEBRA E. POLE WILLIAM J. SAYERS EDWARD L. COMPTON, JR. MICHAEL MCCARTHY EDWARD M. COFFMAN RALPH V. PALMIER! ROXANNE M. WILSON BARRY Z. BRODSKY LINDA J. L. HUNTER GARY M. AARDEMA GARY A. BAGUE ROSANNE M. NOLAN JOSEPH R. ZAMORA J. R. SEASHORE CHARLES S. GOLDMAN LEE MARSHALL WILLIAM G. SCHWEIZER ALEXANDER S. POLSKY KEVIN R. CRISP DAVID J. FLEMING MARIA ELIZABETH TICSE BRUCE L. CLEELAND C. DUFFY BUCHANAN DONALD S. RALPHS HAROLD K. PICKERING SIDNEY A. MOSS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION (1893-1963) DENIS J. MORIARTY DESMOND J. HINDS FREDERICK J. UFKES KELLY C. MCSPADDEN RAYMOND A. BRANKER JOSEPH L. GATTUSO MARYANN R. MARZANO SUZANNE E. KEATING DAVID L. JONES MARTIN C. BOBAK DAVID REESE JENNINGS THOMAS N. CHARCHUT JULES SOLOMON ZEMAN KATHRYN M. FORGIE SCOTT T. TROPIO MARY J. UEKI WILLIAM A. HANSSEN ROBERT M. DATO VICTOR ANDERSON BE EDWARD P. KERNS MAUREEN A. MCKINLEY ROBERT W. HELSTOWSKI TIMOTHY A. GONZALES HORACE W. GREEN WILLIAM E. IRELAND THOMAS M. MOORE RICHARD S. HALL AMOR A. ESTEBAN GEROLD C. DUNN (1911-1980) February 11, 1985 201 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD P. O. BOX 680 SANTA MONICA, CA 90-406 (213) 458-1000 1800 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92701 (714) 953-9345 TELECOPIER (213) 393-1581 TELEX 705837 OF COUNSEL GEORGE CLARK LYON CHARLES B. SMITH WILLIAM M. FITZHUGH IN REPLY REFER TO: Mr, Hoch Santa Monica Ms. Pau^af Moore ManviLle Corporation Post/Office Box 5723 Denver, Colorado 80217 Re: JM Government Litigation Dear Paula: I have received your memorandum of February 5, 1985. I will try to get to you the line and page designations of those that are missing as soon as possible. As to Cliff Krieger, a signature and corrections were waived on this deposition as he chose not to reread it. SLH:slw \ MT-PWHD-011225 CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - MANVILLE LITIGATION SUPPORT SYSTEM CONFIDENTIAL OFFLINE PRINT REQUEST USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P.5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 TIME: 141528 SESSION HISTORY SET 1 - 56 DOCUMENTS IN GOVTRS D0CN0=MWBOOOO1 SET 2-33 DOCUMENTS IN GOVTRS DOCNO=CLSOOOOB SET 3-24 DOCUMENTS IN GOVTRS D0CN0=UMWOOOO1 SET 4-38 DOCUMENTS IN GOVTRS D0CN0=JK000001 SET 5-40 DOCUMENTS IN GOVTRS D0CNQ=CVKOOOO1 Kn xllk ' r r ' , /.. \l w tv CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL Manviile LZ MT-PWHD-011226 CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RUEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 1 TIME: 141528 DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0000 STARTING PAGE: 0000 ENDING PAGE: OOOO TOPIC: TABLE OF . CONTENTS JM V USA DEPOSITION SUMMARY OF CLIFFORD V. KRIEGER LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS) OCTOBER 3, 1984 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA VOLUME 1 TOPIC PARAGRAPH (EXAMINATION BY HOCH.SL FOR JMC. ) - KRIEGER'S.CV BACKGROUND, PP. 4-9 1 - LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS): FUNCTION, SIZE, CODES. AND SHOPS, PP. 9-12 2 - KRIEGER'S.CV STAFF, PP. 12-13 3 - KRIEGER'S.CV JOB DESCRIPTION/SAFETY ORDERS, PP. 13-19 4 - CHAIN OF COMMAND/ENFORCEMENT POWER, PP. 19-20 5 - DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAFETY AND INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE, PP. 20-23 6 - LAGGERS/ASBESTOSIS CLAIMS, PP. 23-27 7 - DISCUSSIONS WITH AY.W/UNION MEETING/POSTER, PP. 27-31 8 - TRIPS TO SHIPYARDS WITH MEEKER,0, PP. 31-35 9 - TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE, PP. 35-40 10 - ROBBINS',HM SIGNATURE, PP. 40-43 11 - STUDY OF MEDICAL RECORDS BY HETZEL,VL, PP. 44-48 12 - INFORMATION SENT TO THE BUREAU OF EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION (DOL), PP. 48-53 13 - RESPONSE FROM SCHROEDER,AB, BUREAU OF EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION (DOL), PP. 53-55 14 - FURTHER ATTEMPTS TO GET MEDICAL PROGRAM GOING, PP. 55-56 15 - EXAMINATIONS BY ELLESTAD,ME, PP. 56-60 16 - EXAMINATION PROGRAM FOR A LARGER GROUP OF INSULATORS/ APPROVAL OF FUNDING, PP. 60-63 17 - EXAMINATION PROGRAM TAKEN OVER BY NAVY,PP. 63-66 18 - REPORT ON MEETING WHERE SELIKOFF.IJ SPOKE, PP. 66-68 19 - INTERIM PERIOD WITHOUT AN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST AT LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS), PP.68-72 20 - MEETINGS WITH SELIKOFF.IJ, PP. 72-74 21 - "DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY SAFETY PRECAUTIONS FOR SHORE ACTIVITIES," PP. 74-80 22 - CONTACT WITH MANNING.S, PP. 80-82 23 - NAVAL SHIP SYSTEMS COMMAND (NVSHP) INSTRUCTION 5100.26, PP. 82-84 24 CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZl 1 MT-PWHD-011227 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P, 5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 2 TIME: 141528 - VISIT TO PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD (PSNS), PP. 84-87 25 - ORDERING ASBESTOS PRODUCTS, PP. 87-90 26 - REASON FOR MEMO, PP, 90-91 27 - LOCKER ROOMS, PP. 91-95 28 (EXAMINATION BY MAHONEY,J FOR USA.) - DUTIES AND PROBLEMS AS SAFETY SUPERINTENDENT/AWARDS, PP..95-100 29 - STAND-UP SAFETY MEETINGS/KRIEGER'S,CV PHILOSOPHY ON SAFETY, PP. 100-104 30 - REVIEW OF TESTIMONY/HETZEL,VL PREPARED EXHIBIT 5 ATTACHMENTS. PP. 104-108 31 - DEPOSITION TO BEAUREGARD.RE CASE, PP. 108-110 32 - FUNDING BY LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS),PP 110-112 33 - 1964 AND 1967 MEETINGS, PP. 112-115 34 - TYPES OF VESSELS/MARR.WT AND MANNING,S/SHOP 56, PP. 115-119 35 (EXAMINATION BY HOCH.SL FOR JMC. ) - PREPARATION OF THE ATTACHMENT TO PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 5, PP. 119-121 36 - CONTACTING MANUFACTURERS ABOUT ASBESTOS/KNOWLEDGE THAT ASBESTOS WAS DANGEROUS, PP. 121-122 37 (EXAMINATION BY MAHONEY,U FOR USA.) - X-RAYS IN 1956 FOR PIPE COVERERS AND INSULATORS, PP. 123-129 38 - EXHIBIT INDEX 9999 DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER,CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0001 STARTING PAGE: 0004 ENDING PAGE: 0009 TOPIC: KRIEGER'S,CV BACKGROUND (EXAMINATION BY HOCH.SL FOR JMC.) (COLLOQUY RE: QUESTION ABOUT THE NOTICE IN THIS CASE; NO STIPULATION THAT THIS DEPOSITION WILL APPLY IN THE DENVER CASES BECAUSE THAT MOTION IS PENDING. PP. 4-5.) Krieger.CV has no questions about the nature of a deposition. Has testified before in a deposition and in court. Was employed at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) from May of 1956 to 1974; left in the latter part of November 1974, but was not off the payrolls until January or February of 1975 due to accumulated leave. Krieger's.CV position was Safety Superintendant; had a GS grade of 13; is retired now. Is appearing today (OCTOBER 3, 1984) pursuant to a subpoena that was served on him. Has had an opportunity to speak, at separate times, with Mahoney,J and Hoch.SL about this depostion. Has stated to Hoch.SL that he has emphysema. Graduated from high school; his additional education was obtained from non-credit extension schools such as Port Hueneme and engineering school. Worked 31 years with the government (USA). Started at Bethlehem Steel Company (BSC) after high school, in the 1930's and left in 1944; was a welder, a weighmaster, and his last job was chief fire inspector. Went to Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (PANS); was a Safety Inspector, GS7. From there went to Naval Aviation Supply Depot, Philadelphia; was a Safety Engineer, GS9. Came to Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) as a GS12. After retirement from Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), was employed at California University in Long Beach, California as Environmental Health and Safety Officer. Krieger's.CV duties were to advise faculty and staff on safety procedures and to do some training of first-line supervisors, and Inspect the campus for hazards. Was employed CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL Manville u MT-PWHD-011228 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB , SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/8G PAGE 3 TIME: 141528 there from 1974 to approximately 1981. Is retired now, October 3, 1984. Resides at 6522 Farinella Drive, Huntington Beach, Ca1ifornia. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVKOOOOI WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0002 STARTING PAGE: 0009 ENDING PAGE: 0012 TOPIC: LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD Krieger.CV was at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) approximately (LBNS): 18 years. Understood the function of Long Beach Naval Shipyard FUNCTION, (LBNS) to be the repair of ships: destroyers, destroyer escorts, SIZE, CODES, carriers, one battleship, cruisers, all vessels of the United AND SHOPS States NAVY. Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) was operated by the United States Government (USA), the Department of NAVY. Krieger.CV was, in fact, paid by the United States Government (USA). Guesses that the physical size of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) was probably 350 acres during the 18 years he was there. The work force size varied from 7,000 to 9,000 workers, depending on world events. During Krieger's.CV time at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), the codes were the same. A code system was used: 100 was the shipyard commander and the people that worked for him; 150 was the Industrial relations office; 300 was production; 700 was medical; 500 was supply; 200 was planning and engineering. Within those codes, individuals would have specific numbers which would delineate their job title and description. Code 185 was Safety Superintendent, Krieger's.CV position. The term "Shop" in relation to Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) meant that the Production Department was broken up into shops, and were also numbered. The most important shops would be: 31 Shop, inside machinists; 38 , outside machinists; 67, electronics; 51, electricians; 99, temporary services, and 56, pipe fitters. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVKOOOOI WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0003 STARTING PAGE 0012 ENDING PAGE: 0013 TOPIC: KRIEGER'S.CV STAFF Krieger.CV had a staff which varied in size during the 18 years at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). The smallest staff was probably two safety inspectors and a compensation clerk; has no idea when that was. The largest staff accumulated when a big ship, like the New Jersey, was in, and Krieger.CV was given four safety inspectors for temporary help. Normally there would be two safety inspectors and a compensation clerk. Cannot remember exactly when this would have been but throughout the entire 18 years he worked, it fluctuated with the workload. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVKOOOOI WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0004 STARTING PAGE: 0013 ENDING PAGE: 0019 TOPIC: KRIEGER'S.CV JOB DESCRIPTION Krieger's.CV job descripton did not change much during the 18 /SAFETY ORDERS years at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). The job description of the Safety Superintendent was, generally, to advise and counsel the supervisors on safety practices, and to oversee the workers' compensation program. In terms of the workers' compensation program, if a person was injured and went to the dispensary or to a doctor, Krieger.CV and/or his staff was responsible for helping them process a workers' compensation claim, forward it to San Francisco to the Bureau of Employee Compensation (DOL) Regional Office, and to follow up to get their workers' compensation: this was a responsibility of Krieger's.CV office from 1956 to 1974. In terms of the responsibilities of advising and counseling supervisors on safety practices, it was also Krieger's.CV responsibility to prepare safety orders which would go up the chain of command to be signed by the shipyard commander. If the safety orders involved a department, they had to go through the department head for their "chop", their "chop" would be attached before it went to the shipyard commander. From the shipyard commander, the safety order would be issued as a policy or regulation and come back down to the supervisors. The supervisors had stand-up safety meetings during Krieger's.CV 18 years at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Krieger's.CV office put out a memo by Monday afternoon. The first thing Tuesday morning the Supervisors would hold their safety meetings; they had the publication and had time to talk on their own about the particular situation they were going to work with. (OBJECTION CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZl 1 MT-PWHD-011229 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 4 TIME: 141528 (OBJ): SPECULATION RE: WHAT SHOP SUPERVISORS DID. P. 15.) (COLLOQUY RE: STIPULATION ABOUT OBJECTIONS. P. 15.) Krieger.CV thought he was giving the format: whether the supervisors followed it or not he has no knowledge. (OBJECTION (OBJ): LEADING RE: THE ANSWER JUST READ BACK IS SOMETHING KRIEGER.CV CAME TO KNOW FROM 18 YEARS AT THE LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS) AS TO HOW THE INFORMATION WAS TO FLOW TO THE WORKERS: IS THAT CORRECT? P. 16.) Krieger.CV was trying to say that he put out a publication that should take five minutes, leaving the supervisors ten minutes to talk about their own individual situations. Krieger's.CV Information had to be general and cover a hundred trades or more; the specifics had to come from the supervisors. The purpose of providing supervisors with Safety Memoranda was to provide them with a subject and material to talk about at the safety meetings. As Safety Officer, believed that the need to educate workers on safety matters was the reason for the safety meetings: received instructions from supervisors on safety at a later date. In Krieger's.CV opinion, as Safety Superintendent Advisor at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), education was more important than enforcement. (OBJECTION (OBJ): ASKING EXPERT WITNESS QUESTIONS RE: IN KRIEGER'S.CV OPINION, AS SAFETY SUPERINTENDENT ADVISOR AT LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS) WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT, EDUCATION OR ENFORCEMENT? PP. 17-18.) (COLLOQUY RE: KREIGER'S.CV NOTICE AS AN EXPERT WITNESS OR A FACT WITNESS. PP. 18-19.) DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0005 STARTING PAGE: 0019 ENDING PAGE: 0020 TOPIC: CHAIN OF COMMAND/ENFORCE Within the Safety Department, Krieger.CV answered to the MENT POWER Industrail Relations Officer who answered directly to the Commanding Officer. Krieger.CV understands the term "enforcement power" to mean someone who can give disciplinary action. The Safety Supervisor had no enforcement power. The immediate supervisor, in "those days" the leading man, who is now foreman, had the enforcement power in terms of making a worker follow a safty rule or regulation. The chain of command in the old terminology was: leading man reported to quarterman who answered to chief quarterman who answered to foreman who answered to a master, who was head of the shop. Present terminology would be foreman to general foreman, to "something in between", and to superintendent. Does not know when the change in terminology took place; is just a change in the names. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0006 STARTING PAGE: 0020 ENDING PAGE: 0023 TOPIC: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAFETY (OBJECTION (OBJ): VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS RE: BASED ON KNOWLEDGE OF AND INDUSTRIAL FIELD OF SAFETY. WAS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DISCIPLINES OF HYGIENE SAFETY AND INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE? PP. 20-21.) In the military, there are line and staff; line has authority, staff has no authority, staff is advisory. The industrial hygienist would be advisory, the same as a safety officer. Safety was primarily reponsible for conditions that resulted in traumatic injuries. Industrial hygiene was responsible for systematic types of injury, including loss of hearing; so they would be responsible for any fumes, dust, that type of thing. There was an Industrial Hygiene department at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Krieger's.CV department and the Industrial Hygiene Department worked together from time to time on certain projects. (OBJECTION (OBJ): VAGUE RE: CAN KRIEGER.CV DESCRIBE WHAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE CHAIN OF COMMAND OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE TO BE? P. 22.) The Industrial Hygiene Department answered to the medical officer who answered to the shipyard commander. The Industrial Hygiene Department was regionalized just prior to Krieger's.CV departure from Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in 1974. Does not know if that changed the chain of command: the best source of that information would be the industrial hygienist. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0007 STARTING PAGE: 0023 ENDING PAGE: 0027 TOPIC: LAGGERS/ASBESTO SIS CLAIMS During Krieger's.CV tour with Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), the heads of the Medical Department were: Thompson, Robbins,HM, CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZ MT-PWHD-011?3f) CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 5 TIME: 141528 Watkins.P, Smith, and Felton. Cannot remember the name of the person who preceded him as Safety Officer, it was someone there on a temporary basis for about three or four months. Sheehan,J was the Industrial Hygienist when Krieger.CV began working at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) . Never had the opportunity of viewing any of Sheehan's,J work. Has become familiar, during his 18 years, with the work done by insulators, laggers and pipe coverers; usually referred to them as laggers. They referred to themselves officially as heat, frost, insulator workers. The job of a 1 agger did not change during the 18 years Krieger.CV was at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Understands laggers applied insulation on pipes, valves, boilers; removed insulation prior to other mechanics working "on the stuff." They operated out of Shop 56. Before he came to Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), Krieger.CV did not have any knowldge or information concerning whether or not asbestos was considered to be a potential health hazard to laggers; believes the first time he came to that knowledge was in 1956. A couple of claims for workers' compensation came in from Shop 56 laggers who were diagnosed as having asbestosis; that was the first time Krieger.CV heard of asbestosis. Did make inquiries as to what asbestosis was and how it was caused. Recalls talking to Ay,W who was the Business Agent of the Heat, Frost, Insulator Workers of America (IUHF), the laggers union. In 1956, all the laggers that worked for Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) were not in the union. (OBJECTION (OBJ): LINE OF QUESTIONING RE: DOES KRIEGER.CV RECALL THE NAMES OF ANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE FIRST DIAGNOSED AS HAVING ASBESTOSIS? P. 26.) Recalls there were about seven individuals diagnosed as having asbestosis. Eades.L, Phipps,A, Zapato.G are the three that stick in Krieger's.CV mind. Brewer,C claimed workers' compensation, but it was never proven that he had asbestois; his claim went to San Francisco and he probably went to San Francisco for an examination. Recalls Brewer.C had emphysema; does not think Brewer's,C claim was ever approved. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0008 STARTING PAGE: 0027 ENDING PAGE: 0031 TOPIC: DISCUSSIONS WITH AY,W/UNION (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO GROUNDS STATED RE: CAN KRIEGER.CV RECOUNT MEETING/POSTER THE GENERAL DISCUSSIONS HE HAD WITH AY,W IN 1956 RELATIVE TO THESE WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS? P. 27.) Krieger.CV does not recall anything specific about the discussions he had with Ay,W in 1956 relative to these workers' compensation claims. Did talk about asbestosis. Ay.W got in touch with Selikoff.IJ, an expert in the asbestos field, who furnished much information on the disease, not on the prevention. Ay,W invited Krieger.CV to speak-at a union meeting which Krieger.CV did. Told those at the meeting about the workers' compensation cases that were being handled and the percentage of disability the claimants had, and that it was due to not protecting themselves by wearing respirators while they were working with asbestos. Stemming from those conversations at the meeting, Krieger.CV and Ay.W designed a poster. (INTRODUCED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1: POSTER, "WEAR YOUR RESPIRATOR" DEVELOPED BY KRIEGER.CV AND AY.W.) (COLLOQUY RE: DISAGREEMENT ON THE AUTHENTICATION OF RECORDS: MARKING OF EXHIBITS. PP. 28-30.) Krieger.CV has looked at Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 and it is the poster for which he and Ay.W gave information to Bransford.A, the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) artist who created it. Bransford.A signed the poster. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, and the date underneath his name is April 1957. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 was given out to all the union members by Ay.W and posted throughout the 56 Shop where the laggers would see it. By "posted", means they put the poster on the bulletin boards and at the entrance to the shop. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0009 STARTING PAGE: 0031 ENDING PAGE: 0035 TOPIC: TRIPS TO SHIPYARDS WITH About the time the poster. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, was made (APRIL MEEKER,0 1957), Krieger.CV went with Meeker,0 back East; cannot remember when. (INTRODUCED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2: LETTER FROM KRIEGER.CV TO TURNBALL,A, JANUARY 3, 1963.) Krieger.CV recognizes this carbon copy of a letter. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2; it must be a carbon copy because there is no signature. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZll MT-PWHD-011231 CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB.SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 6 TIME: 141528 is a letter which Krieger.CV wrote to Turnball.A, the Assistant Director, Safety Division, Office of Industrial Relations in Washington, District of Columbia. The date on Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 was changed from 1962 to 1963, a "3" was written in; assumes Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 was written in 1963. Krieger.CV is talking about October 1962 in paragraph 1, page 2 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, so the letter could not possibly be dated January 3, 1962 correctly which is why he is assuming it is 1963. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, page 2, paragraph 2 makes reference to a tour Krieger.CV made with a master pipe fitter "about four years ago." Assumes the trip with Meeker,0 was in 1959. Krieger.CV recalls he and Meeker,0 went to Philadelphia, Boston, Portsmouth; may have gone to New York and South but does not remember. Visited naval shipyards to see what they were doing about handling asbestos. Discovered they were in about the same boat as Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), that they knew the problem existed and were handling it. Krieger.CV thinks that he and Meeker,0 "picked up" the wetting-down process from one shipyard, types of ventilation from another, and ways of handling the problem. It was required to make a report after return from a trip. The report would have gone to Hendrickson,D, Industrial Relations Officer, Krieger's.CV superior, but does not recall making such a report. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS , PARA NUMBER: 0010 STARTING PAGE: 0035 ENDING PAGE: 0040 TOPIC: TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE Krieger.CV is familar with Marr.WT who was the Industrial Hygienist at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Would guess Marr.WT came to Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) around 1957, 1958; does not recall when Marr.WT left. Did work with Marr.WT on problems concerning asbestos. Is familiar with a paper Marr.WT published but did not have anything to do with that paper. Krieger.CV supplied Marr.WT with information on the claims; Marr.WT went out and did the field work, got his information together and wrote a paper. Took Marr.WT to meet Phipps,A who was out on workers' compensation due to asbestosis; was at the meeting. At a later date, Marr.WT went back for another meeting with Phipps,A when a tape was made. At the first meeting, Phipps,A talked about his condition, how he felt, where he had worked and lived prior to coming to work at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Krieger.CV was not present at the later meeting of Marr.WT and Phipps,A at which a tape was made. Does not recall hearing the tape; might have read a transciption of that tape but does not remember. (INTRODUCED PLAITIFF'S EXHIBIT 3: TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE MADE BY MARR.WT WITH PHIPPS,A PAGES 7L, 7M, 7N OF ATTACHMENTS TO A COVER LETTER FROM ROBBINS,HM, MEDICAL OFFICER, LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS) TO MEDICAL OFFICER, PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD (PANS), AUGUST 28, 1959.) Krieger.CV has seen Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, pages 7L, 7M, 7N, before but does not remember when. Marr.WT made a tape with Phipps,A, and as Krieger.CV recalls, this is it. (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO GROUNDS STATED RE: IS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3, PAGES 7L. 7M, 7N, A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE MARR.WT MADE WITH PHIPPS,A? P. 38.) Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, pages 7L, 7M, 7N, refreshes Krieger's.CV recollection as the transcript that he may have seen sometime in the past. (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO FOUNDATION RE: DOES PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3, PAGES 7L. 7M, 7N, REFRESH KRIEGER'S.CV RECOLLECTION AS BEING THE TRANSCRIPT HE MAY HAVE SEEN SOMETIME IN THE PAST? P. 39.) Krieger.CV does not recall when in the past he has seen Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, pages 7L, 7M, 7N. Although Krieger.CV has not heard the tape, knows Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, pages 7L, 7M, 7N, is a transcription of the tape because recognizes Phipps',A history; did not have many people coming from Oklahoma. The paragraph on page 7L of Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, "I was raised on a farm, done farm work up till I was about 16. Went into town..." fits only Phipps,A; recognizes this as Phipps,A background. Knew that Marr.WT went out and made a tape with Phipps,A; knows Marr.WT used the tape in his training programs. From the description, is assuming that this is Phipps,A, and that Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, pages 7L, 7M, 7N, is the transcription of the tape. Does not know if this is a transcription of the tape. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS CONFIDENTIAL___CONFIDENTIAL Manviile LZ MT-PWHD-0119/59 CONFIDENTIAL............. CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 7 TIME : 141528 PARA NUMBER: 0011 TOPIC: ROBBINS.HM SIGNATURE STARTING PAGE: 0040 ENDING PAGE: 0043 Krieger.CV thinks he would recognize Robbins' HM signature. (WITHDRAWS PLAINTIFF' S EXHIBIT 3 AND REPLACES IT WITH A MORE COMPLETE PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3.) (COLOOUY RE EVEN IF KRIEGER.CV IS ABLE TO RECOGNIZE SOMEONE'S SIGNATURE, HE STILL CANNOT IDENTIFY OR RELATE THE TAPE WITH THE TRANSCRIPT, BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER HEARD THE TAPE. PP. 40-42.) Is pretty sure that the handwriting on page 1 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 is Robbins',HM. (OBJECTION (OBU): FOUNDATION RE: DOES KRIEGER.CV RECOGNIZE THE SIGNATURE ON PAGE 1 OF PLAINIFF'S EXHIBIT 3 TO BE THAT OF ROBBINS,HM? PP. 42-43.) Has seen Robbins',HM signature a hundred times before and the signature on page 1, Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 looks like his signature. Recognizes Robbins,HM as the Medical Officer of Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0012 STARTING PAGE: 0044 ENDING PAGE: 0048 TOPIC: STUDY OF MEDICAL Krieger's.CV best estimate of the number of insulators at Long RECORDS BY Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) during 1956 to 1960 would be about HETZEL,VL 160. When he received workers' compensation claims, advised Robbins.HM they had been received: does not think that Robbins,, HM took any action in response. Knows Hetzel.VL; Hetzel.VL was a civilian assigned to Krieger's.CV office on a two-week training cruise. Krieger.CV asked Hetzel.VL to make a study of the medical records regarding the validity of the diagnostic reading of the x-rays on the laggers or insulators because there were discrepancies from year to year. Was aware, prior to asking Hetzel.VL to make the study, that the laggers were having x-rays taken about once a year. Became familiar with that because Krieger.CV looked over some of the records and compiled the records for about five or six years and was not satisfied with the written diagnoses; had no medical background, incidentally. This investigation occurred as a result of the workers' compensation claims coming into Krieger's.CV office. (INTRODUCED PLAINTIFFF'S EXHIBIT 4: REPORT ENTITLED "LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS) STUDY OF ASBESTOS WORKERS IN RELATION TO ASBESTOSIS, " HETZEL.VL, JUNE 3-16, 1961.) Believes that the date on top of Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 is June, 1961; it says 3 dash 16 which would indicate the two weeks Hetzel.VL was assigned to Krieger's.CV office. Recalls seeing Plaintiff's Exhibit 4; it is the report received from Hetzel.VL. The report. Plaintiff's Exhibit 4, did reflect the kind of inconsistencies in the x-rays when Krieger.CV looked at the records of them. Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 indicates that there was a table attached to this report which is not attached but Krieger.CV does not recall what the table, the basis for Hetzel's.VL study, was. Believes he called Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 to the attention of Robbins.HM, the Medical Officer. Did have some discussion with Robbins.HM about Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 but does not recall what was said or any action that Robbins.HM took as a result of the discussion on this report. Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0013 STARTING PAGE: 0048 ENDING PAGE: 0053 TOPIC: INFORMATION SENT TO THE Krieger.CV tried to get some diagnostic procedure that would be BUREAU OF valid in his response to receiving Hetzel's.VL report. Plaintiff's EMPLOYEE Exhibit 4. Went to the United States Department of Labor (DOL) COMPENSATION for money and eventually, he thinks, went to his own boss for it. (DOL) Opened some conversations with the Bureau of Employee Compensation (DOL) in San Francisco. Dealt with Gray.EB and Schroeder,AB. Krieger's.CV purpose was to get them to give "us" money so "we" could have "these" people run through a battery of tests to diagnose "them". Did not care where the tests were done. Did gather further information together to send to the Bureau of Employee Compensation (DOL); sent the results of this study. (INTRODUCED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 5: LETTER FROM KRIEGER.CV TO GRAY.EB, AUGUST 9, 1962 AND ATTACHMENTS; A CHART ENTITLED "INCIDENCE OF POSITIVE CHEST X-RAY FINDINGS IN PIPE COVERERS AND INSULATORS VERSUS YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT IN SHIPYARD", A CHART ENTITLED "SUPPLEMENTAL", AND A LISTING ENTITLED "REASSIGNED AFTER CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL Manville Lzn MT-PWHD-011233 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 8 TIME: 141528 MEDICAL EVALUATION".) (OBJECTION (OBJ): ATTACHMETS ARE HEARSAY RE: PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 5. P. 49.) (COLLOQUY RE: 35 PAGES OF THE "REASSIGNED AFTER MEDICAL EVALUATION" LISTING, PAGES 1866 THROUGH 1902, PAGE 1901 MISSING. P. 50.) Is familiar with the letter dated August 9, 1962, in Plaintiff's Exhibit 5; it is a letter Krieger.CV wrote to Gray.EB: the attachments to the letter. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, were sent with the letter to Gray.EB. The information in the chart marked "Incidence of Positive Chest X-ray Findings" came from the medical and personnel records because Hetzel.VL worked in both the Personnel Department and the Medical Department on this study. This chart was part of the information Krieger.CV asked Hetzel.VL to document during his two-week tour. Krieger.CV just told Hetzel.VL about his doubts as to the validity of the reading of the x-rays because of the contradictory readings in order to ascertain who might be afflicted with asbestosis. By contadictory readings, Krieger.CV was referring to the fact that he noticed on certain years all of the readings were negative and in other years, they were all, or most of them, positive. Instructed Hetzel.VL to look at the medical records of the 1 aggers and at their personnel files which was information obtained at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in the regular course of business. From the individual reports, the compilation entitled "Incidence of Positive Chest X-rays," Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, was found. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, the chart entitled "Supplemental," was a list of the workers who were already on workers' compensation or who had applied for it. The exception was Brewer,C who was diagnosed as having emphysema: he was not receiving workers' compensation. This list came from infomation in Krieger's.CV workers' compensaion claim files. The addition of the numbers listed under "Number of Employees" on the chart entitled "Incidence of Positive Chest X-rays," Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, which totals 104, would have been all of the laggers that were studied. Is sure there were others that may not have been studied, including those that were there only a year, apprentices, or whatever. The cover letter of Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 indicated copies were sent to Code 700, Robbins.HM; and Code 956, Meeker,0 who was the Master Mechanic of Shop 56. Does not recall but is sure he had a discussion with Robbins.HM concerning Plaintiff's Exhibit 5. To the best of Krieger's.CV knowledge, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 represents accurate information concerning what was found in the files. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0014 STARTING PAGE: 0053 ENDING PAGE: 0055 TOPIC: RESPONSE FROM SCHROEDER,AB, Krieger.CV received a response from the Bureau of Employees BUREAU OF Compensation (DOL) to Plaintiff's Exhibit 5; they eventually told EMPLOYEE him they could not furnish monies for diagnostic procedures. COMPENSATION (INTRODUCED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 6: LETTER FROM SCHROEDER,AB TO (DOL) KRIEGER.CV, SEPTEMBER 18, 1962.) Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 is a copy of the letter that was sent back to Krieger.CV by the Bureau of Employee Compensation (DOL) in response to his letter of August 9, 1962, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, bearing the signature of Schroeder,AB. Had dealings with Schroeder.AB before this time, August 1962. On "sticky" compensation cases, Krieger.CV would call or go to see Schroeder.AB; had regular communications with Schroeder.AB. (REFERS TO PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 6, PARAGRAPH 2. Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 was read correctly. Did not call or speak to Schroeder.AB about that comment after receiving Plaintiff's Exhibit 6. Did not pursue further with Schroeder.AB or anyone at the Bureau of Employees Compensation (DOL) the possibility of getting funding from them; Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 was Krieger's.CV rejection. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0015 STARTING PAGE: 0055 ENDING PAGE: 0056 TOPIC: FURTHER ATTEMPTS TO As a result of the rejection, Krieger.CV took further action in an GET MEDICAL attempt to get a medical program going. Talked to Ellestad.ME who PROGRAM GOING headed the Heart and Lung Department of Memorial Hospital about somebody coming over and reading the x-rays or setting up some kind of a pilot program; Is assuming he did this after Plaintff's Exhibit 6 but does not know. Went to Memorial Hospital because it CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL Manville u MT-PWHD-011234 CONFIDENTIAL............CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 9 TIME: 141528 was close to Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) and it was a community thing. As a result, Ellestad.ME and his assistant got involved in coming over and reading the x-rays, and then eventually took some laggers to Memorial Hospital and ran them through vital capacity tests and came up with the diagnoses that were sent to the Medical Officer. Thinks this went on for a period of a couple of years or more. This was a pilot program at first. Then Krieger.CV sought to have funding from the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) for a regular program. Thinks that would have been the sequence that occurred. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0016 STARTING PAGE: 0056 ENDING PAGE: 0060 TOPIC: EXAMINATIONS BY ELLESTAD.ME (INTRODUCED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 7: MEMORANDUM FROM KRIEGER.CV, CODE 185 TO HENDRICKSON,D, CODE 150, JUNE 5, 1963, WITH ATTACHMENT ENTITLED "PROPOSED PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF OUR LAGGERS BY ELLESTAD.ME AT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, LONG BEACH," UNDATED.) (OBJECTION (OBJ): HEARSAY WITHIN HEARSAY RE: PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 7, P. 57.) Krieger.CV has looked over Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 and it is a true and correct copy of the memorandum he authored to Hendrickson,D on June 5, 1963. Code 150 was Hendrickson,D. Krieger's.CV signature appears on page 2 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 7. Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 contains information Krieger.CV knew to be true as of June 5, 1963. Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 did not ask for all the insulators to be examined by Ellestad.ME. Ellestad.ME was willing to give clinical examination to 15 suspected cases for a fee of 110 dollars. These were people suspected of having serious cases of asbestosis. Believes this was in fact at some point funded by the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS); these people were examined by Ellestd.ME and reports of those examinations were returned to the Medical Department, not to Krieger.CV. Does not know what happened to those reports when they went to the Medical Department. Does not recall a visit by the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) in or around June 13, 1963. The names Enterline and Cralley.LJ do not ring any bells with Krieger.CV. This program with Ellestad.ME expanded to cover other laggers but cannot recall when. Believes they put them through the vital capacity tests and took x-rays. To Krieger.CV vital capacity testing is synonymous with pulmonary function testing. In 1956, Sheehan,J ran vital capacity testing on insulators but not as sophisticated as E11estad's,ME. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0017 STARTING PAGE: 0060 ENDING PAGE: 0063 TOPIC: EXAMINATION PROGRAM FOR A (INTRODUCED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 8: LETTER FROM ELLESTAD.ME TO LARGER GROUP KRIEGER.CV, MAY 27, 1965.) (INTRODUCED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 9: OF INSULATORS/A MEMORANDUM FROM KRIEGER.CV TO CODE 150, HENDRISKCON,D, JUNE 10, PPROVAL OF 1965.) Krieger.CV has reviewed Plaintiff's Exhibit 8; is a copy FUNDING of a letter he got from Ellestad.ME in which Ellestad.ME proposed to do the examination for 60 men. Refreshes recollection that sometime after May 1965 was the time when the examinations started for a large group of insulators. As a result of Plaintiff's Exhibit 8, Krieger.CV then authored Plaintiff's Exhibit 9, which is a true and correct copy of the memorandum he forwarded to his boss, Hendrickson,D, requesting permission to fund the program. That money was funded by Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Recalls the funding was based on Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 not on Krieger's.CV request. Plaintiff's Exhibit 9. Krieger.CV "wanted ten extra men in here, because I wanted five men working with plastics and five men working with glass, and I do not think they were funded." What was funded was only the insulators working with asbestos. A copy of Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 went to Ellestad.ME: the Medical Director: Code 940, which would would have been the group superintendent; Meeker's.O boss; Meeker, 0; and Ay.W. The printing on the bottom of Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 is Krieger's.CV. It says "Webb approved, 150. Sent forward to 700 for action, Cliff." It means that Hendrickson,D had approved probably the 3,000 dollars for the study, and the money would have been transferred to the Medical Department for action. Krieger.CV would be out of the picture completely; the scheduling and running of the tests and reaching of results would not have been his CONFIDENTIAL___CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZll MT-PWHD-011235 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 10 TIME: 141528 bailiwick. As far as Krieger.CV knows, the program went forward for a time; believes it was probably terminated, the following year. It was picked up by the NAVY hospital. Does not know where the results of E11estad's,ME work went. Based on the custom and practice of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) it would have gone in the workers' medical files. The NAVY is very strict about medical information remaining between medical doctors, not laymen. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0018 STARTING PAGE: 0063 ENDING PAGE: 0066 TOPIC: EXAMINATION PROGRAM TAKEN Krieger.CV believes the examination program was picked up by the OVER BY THE NAVY. Can remember a station wagon full of four men at a time, NAVY running out to the NAVY hospital for the vital capacity tests and x-rays; does not know how many went. Has no knowledge as to what happened to the results of those tests. (OBJECTION (OBJ): SPECULATIVE RE: BASED ON HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICE OF THE NAVY AT LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS), DOES KRIEGER.CV BELIEVE, LIKEWISE THESE RECORDS OF THE TEST RESULTS WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE WORKERS' MEDICAL FILES? PP. 63-64.) Either the records of the test results went to the workers' medical files or the Medical Department kept a special file on asbestosis. Was not privy to any of the quarterly reports filed by the Medical Department to the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED). Did not receive any official information after the program was switched to the NAVY that workers were complaining that they were not getting results of these tests. Ay,W again mentioned that he did not think the workers were getting enough information. Did not take any action as a result of Ay's.W information. Ay.W took action and talked to Hendrickson,D but that is all Krieger.CV knows personal 1y. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0019 STARTING PAGE: 0066 ENDING PAGE: 0068 TOPIC: REPORT ON MEETING WHERE Krieger.CV attended a conference at the New York Academy of SELIKOFF,IJ Science (NYAS) where Selikoff.IJ spoke in or around 1964 in New SPOKE York. The trip was paid for by the NAVY. Had to submit paper work to get approval for the trip. Hendrickson,D approved the trip. Heard Selikoff.IJ speak at the meeting; attended all the meetings. To Krieger's.CV knowledge there was not anyone else from the United States Government (USA) present at that meeting. Learned that asbestos was bad, which was his personal belief prior to this time, 1964; this was just affirmed by the Russians, English and Africans. A copy of Krieger's.CV report was subpoenaed from Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), and should be in the possession of counsel. Krieger.CV filed a report after his return, which was the custom and practice of the NAVY. Does not recall the title. It was a rather lengthy report; attached about 25 or 30 pages of the papers received at the meeting, all of which dealt with asbestos; no other subjects were discussed at this meeting. Gave this report to Hendrickson,D. Would not think it was carbon copied to anyone else. Does not know if Hendrickson,D gave it to anyone else. Does not know if Hendrickson,D had to report to his superior on trips such as this one but does not think he would. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0020 STARTING PAGE: 0068 ENDING PAGE: 0072 TOPIC: INTERIM PERIOD WITHOUT AN Krieger.CV is not familiar with the quarterly Bureau of Medicine INDUSTRIAL and Surgery (BUMED) reports that the Medical Department would have HYGIENIST AT to file. Is sure that the Industrial Relations Department and the LONG BEACH Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) have to file annual, semiannual NAVAL SHIPYARD or quarterly reports to the NAVY but does not know. Does not (LBNS) recall any of the comments in the report given to Hendrickson,D. Thought Marr.WT left Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) before the meeting in 1964 when Selikoff.IJ spoke, but cannot be sure. Following the departure of Marr.WT, there was a period of time when there was no industrial hygienist at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Manning,S was the next Industrial hygienist. Later on there was a Manning.R who was over Manning.S; Krieger.CV thought Manning.R came into Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) and CONFI DENT IAL___CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZ MT-PWHD-011236 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 11 TIME: 141528 later became regional, but maybe he was hired as Regional Industrial Hygienist. Does not recall when Manning,S came to Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). During the period of time when there was no industrial hygienist at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), the physical instruments and all the equipment went to the chief chemist. Krieger.CV got the library. Did not get any of Marr's.WT notes or records, just books. Does not have any idea what happened to Marr's.WT notes and records. The Safety Department did not fill in as industrial hygienist but handled complaints, even investigated complaints along with laboratory personnel. Nobody in the Safety Department was qualified as an industrial hygienist so they could not take tests, run experiments or perform industrial hygiene investigations. The Chemistry Department did do some studies on ventilation and acids. Krieger.CV called the Chemistry Department in on those particular complaints, like in the plating shop. There was nobody qualified to do any dust samplings relative to asbestos concentrations during the time period when there was no industrial hygienist at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Watkins.G was the head of the Medical Department during the time there was no industrial hygienist. (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO GROUNDS STATED RE: DOES KRIEGER.CV KNOW IF THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT PLACED UPON THE LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS) BY THE NAVY OR THE UNITED - STATES GOVERNMENT (USA) IN GENERAL, TO TAKE DUST SAMPLINGS PERIODICALLY FOR ASBESTOS DURING THIS TIME WHEN THERE WAS NO INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST? P. 72.) Krieger.CV does not recall any reqirements for Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) to take dust samplings by the NAVY or the United States Government (USA) during the time when there was no industrial hygienist. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVKOOOOI WITNESS: KRIEGER CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0021 STARTING PAGE: 0072 ENDING PAGE: 0074 TOPIC: MEETINGS WITH SELIKOFF,IJ In 1967, Krieger.CV again attended a meeting where Selikoff.IJ spoke in Chicago at the national convention of the Heat, Frost, Insulator Workers of America (IUHF), also known as the Asbestos Workers Union. Was accompanied by Watkins.G. Heard Selikoff.IJ speak about the fact that asbestos was dangerous; Selikoff.IJ placed a lot of emphasis on smoking, and practically guaranteed that if a person smoked and worked with asbestos that he would get mesothelioma. Watkins.G and Krieger.CV had two meetings with Selikoff.IJ; discussed asbestos and asbestos health problems, which is all Selikoff.IJ ever talked about. Ay,W and Carmines,,C, another member from the local, went to that meeting with Krieger.CV and Watkins.G. Thinks it was a result of the trip to the convention that Watkins.G hired Manning,S as the industrial hygienist. Anything that was done thereafter concerning asbestos control was as a result of that billet being filled and Manning,S functioning as industrial hygienist. (OBJECTION (OBJ): VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS RE: ANYTHING THAT WAS DONE THEREAFTER CONCERNING ASBESTOS CONTROL WAS AS A RESULT OF THAT BILLET BEING FILLED AND MANNING,S FUNCTIONING AS INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST? PP. 73-74.) DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVKOOOOI WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0022 STARTING PAGE: 0074 ENDING PAGE: 0080 TOPIC: "DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Krieger.CV is familiar with a document entitled "Department of the SAFETY PRECAUTI Navy Safety Precautions for Shore Activities." (INTRODUCED ONS FOR SHORE PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 10: COVER SHEET AND PAGES 20-22 OF DOCUMENT ACTIVITIES" ENTITLED "DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY SAFETY PRECAUTIONS FOR SHORE ACTIVITIES," "NAVSO" P2455, APRIL, 1965.) (OBJECTION (OBJ): MAHONEY,J STATES STANDING OBJECTION (OBJ) TO USE OF PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 10. P. 75.) (COLLOQUY RE: PUTTING IN ALL 20 PLUS CHAPTERS TO ASK A SINGLE QUESTION. PAGE NUMBERS NOT IDENTIFYING THAT THE PAGE COMES FROM THIS DOCUMENT. P. 75.) Krieger.CV has looked at Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 and is familiar with the document entitled "Department of the NAVY Safety Precautions for Shore Activities." It was used at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). It was not used as of April 1965 but sometime after that; guesses six to eight months later. Does not know the significance of "NAVSO P2455"; it is evidently something to do with industrial relations. Looks like "NAVSO P2455" was promulgated by the Department of NAVY Industrial Relations Division. Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 would CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL Manville Lzn MT-PWHD-011237 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 12 TIME: 141528 be a document that would filter down to the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) and all naval activities. Recalls the type of information appearing in the "Safety Precautions for Shore Activities". Estimates "Safety Precautions for Shore Activities" was probably 30 chapters, 800 pages long. It dealt with everything: how to cut a lawn, how to spray the shrubbery, how to put a scaffold up, radioactive material; each chapter was devoted to a different subject. (MAHONEY,J STATES OBJECTION (OBJ) TO KRIEGER,CV ANSWERING NO QUESTION ON THE FLOOR, P. 77.) When this document was received by the Industrial Relations Department, the entire volume would be distributed to all codes. This was done as often as it was published. At some late date, it was supplemented by Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) instructions or comments concerning what the Industrial Relations Department of the NAVY had set down. Can read that pages 20-22 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 deal with asbestosis: this would have been for action by Code 700, this was not traumatic, not safety. The Safety Department in Washington, District of Columbia mixed the two together. The departments would pick out what applied to them. In the normal course and practice of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in and around 1965, Krieger.CV would receive from the Industrial Relations Department of the NAVY a large multi-volume document ' entitled "Department of the NAVY Safety Precautions for Shore Activities." In and around 1965, it was the custom and practice of the Industarial Relations Deparment to send that document to other departments within Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS); one of the other departments would be the Medical Department. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0023 STARTING PAGE: 0080 ENDING PAGE: 0082 TOPIC: CONTACT WITH MANNING,S Krieger.CV and Manning,S did not work together on any project relative to asbestos control. If Manning,S wanted to schedule a meeting with the insulators, he had to go through the Industrial Relations Department. Manning,S normally came to Krieger.CV; recalls Manning,S coming to him. Attended the asbestos meetings with Manning,S. Manning,S would come to Krieger.CV to ask the Training Department to schedule the meetings, which was the Training Department's function. Some of the meetings were held, and Krieger.CV attended them. Recalls the first meeting was probably within a month after Manning,S came to Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS); there were additional meetings as long as Manning,S was at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO GROUNDS STATED RE: DURING MANNING'S,S TERM AT LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS), DID MANNING,S COMPLAIN TO KRIEGER.CV ABOUT PROBLEMS MANNING,S WAS HAVING FUNCTIONING AS INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST? PP. 81-82.) Manning,S did complain to Krieger.CV about problems he was having functioning as industrial hygienist; Manning,S was unhappy with his job. (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO GROUNDS STATED RE: CAN KRIEGER.CV TELL WHAT MANNING,S COMPLAINED ABOUT? P. 82.) Manning,S complained to Krieger.CV that Manning.R "leaned" on him. Has no specific situations. Manning,R and Manning,S did not get along very well. (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO GROUNDS STATED RE: DID MANNING,S EVER COMPLAIN TO KRIEGER.CV ABOUT LACK OF EQUIPMENT? P. 82.) Does not recall Manning.S complaining about lack of equipment. (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO GROUNDS STATED RE: DID MANNING,S EVER COMPLAIN TO KRIEGER.CV ABOUT LACK OF ASSISTANCE OR SUPPORT FROM THE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT? P. 82.) Manning,S did complain about the lack of secretarial assistance and that he had no assistance for field work. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0024 STARTING PAGE: 0082 ENDING PAGE: 0084 TOPIC: NAVAL SHIP SYSTEMS (INTRODUCED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 11: NAVAL SHIP SYSTEMS COMMAND COMMAND (NVSHP) INSTRUCTION 5100.26, FEBRUARY 9, 1971.) (COLLOQUY RE: (NVSHP) PAGE 8 OF PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 11 IS MISSING. P. 83.) Krieger.CV INSTRUCTION has reviewed Plaintiff's Exhibit 11; it refreshes his recollection 5100.26 of Naval Ship Systems Command (NVSHP) Instruction 5100.26. Became familiar with it on February 9, 1971 when it came through his office and he read it. Does not remember whether he made any attempt at the time this instruction. Plaintiff's Exhibit 11, was received to ascertain whether or not Long Beach Naval Shipyard CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZ MT-PWHD-011238 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 13 TIME: 141528 (LBNS) was in compliance with this instruction. Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 was an instruction, to Krieger's.CV knowledge, that Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) was required to comply with. Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) would have been ordered to come up to compliance with Instruction 5100.26, Plaintiff's Exhibit 11, but it should have been done between the shop and the industrial hygienist. Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 did not have any particular bearing on the Safety Department so it would not have been in Krieger's,CV sphere of responsibility to see that it was followed up; it would have been the responsibility of the production officer and the medical officer. (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO GROUNDS STATED RE: DOES KRIEGER,CV KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT AND THE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT DID TAKE THE ACTIONS REFERRED TO UPON RECEIPT OF PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 11? P. 84.) Krieger.CV does not recall if the Production Department and the Medical Department took the actions referred to upon receipt of Plaintiff's Exhibit 11. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0025 STARTING PAGE: 0084 ENDING PAGE: 0087 TOPIC: VISIT TO PUGET SOUND NAVAL Krieger.CV did visit Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) in 1972. SHIPYARD (PSNS) The purpose of that visit was asbestos because Krieger.CV went with Ay,W. Believes they went there to look at some ventilation and some downdraft tables. Believes he made recommendations that certain changes in procedures be accomplished and certain equipment be bought. The downdraft tables and ventilation were used in the Pad Department, where asbestos pads were made by laggers, 56 Shop of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS). Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) also had such a shop. Thinks Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) had an overhead ventilation system; there was an updraft, and used a wetting process. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) used stainless steel tables with downdraft; they used a dry process. A1 so.recommended purchasing "SearsRoebuck" type vacuum cleaners for cleaning up asbestos dust. Does not remember that these vacuum cleaners were ever purchased. Thinks everything was wet down and swept up. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0026 STARTING PAGE: 0087 ENDING PAGE: 0090 TOPIC: ORDERING ASBESTOS Does not remember if, at some point in time, it came to PRODUCTS Krieger's.CV attention that the NAVY had ceased ordering asbestos-containing products for use at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Does not recall that the NAVY at some point in time wanted to purge asbestos from its supply system. (INTRODUCED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 12: MEMORANDUM FROM KRIEGER.CV TO CODE 100 VIA CODE 150. HENDRICKSON,D, NOVEMBER 13, 1974.) (COLLOQUY RE: CLEARER COPY MADE. PP. 87-88.) Krieger's.CV signature is at the bottom of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12. Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of the memorandum from Krieger.CV on November 13, 1974. In November 1974, the NAVY did not have a policy of not ordering asbestos products. Krieger.CV was attempting, in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 12, to have the shipyard commander come up with a policy saying, "do not use any asbestos products." Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 was written by Krieger.CV about ten days before he left Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Does not know if this memorandum. Plaintiff's Exhibit 12, was ever answered or if any action took place. (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO GROUNDS STATED RE: DID IT COME TO KRIEGER'S.CV ATTENTION BEFORE NOVEMBER 13, 1974, THAT BOTH ASBESTOS AND NON-ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS WERE STOCKED AND ORDERED UNDER THE SAME STOCK NUMBER? P. 89.) Before November 13, 1974, to Krieger's.CV knowledge, both asbestos and non-asbestos containing materials were stocked and ordered under the same stock number. Over a period of years, Code 185 objected to the fact that the two types of products were under the same stock number. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0027 STARTING PAGE: 0090 ENDING PAGE: 0091 TOPIC: REASON FOR MEMO Krieger.CV cannot recall when Ay,W died; visited Ay,W every day the hospital, but does not remember whether he went to the in CONFI DENT IAL__ .CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZll MT-PWHD-011239 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB , SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 14 TIME : 141528 hospital from the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) or the university. Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 was a result of Ay,W and Krieger.CV finding asbestos-containing material and non-asbestos containing materials stacked and stocked together. (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO GROUNDS STATED RE: DID AY,W TELL KRIEGER.CV THAT IT WAS AY'S.W UNDERSTANDING THAT LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS) WAS NOT TO USE ASBESTOS ANY MORE? PP. 90-91.) Ay.W would have only taken Krieger.CV down to look at the asbestos-containing material still in Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), some of which had been newly ordered, to prove Ay's.W point that Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) was still getting asbestos products. Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 was sent to the Production Department: the Supply Department: Code 920, which included the metal-working departments; Code 930, the machinists; Code 200, planning; and Code 400, maintenance and public works. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0028 STARTING PAGE: 0091 ENDING PAGE-: 0095 TOPIC: LOCKER ROOMS Between 1970 and 1974, the asbestos workers had a locker room in which they changed, which was not the same locker room facility they had in the 1960's. The change took place in the early 1970's. Krieger.CV had been to the locker room in the 1960's; it was quite large, and contained about 300 lockers with benches. It was not for just the pipe coverers; it was for all of Shop 56, including the pipefitters who would normally be dealing with asbestos containing products. (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO GROUNDS STATED RE: WOULD THE LAGGERS AND THE PIPE FITTERS EVER BE IN THAT SAME LOCKER ROOM TOGETHER CHANGING WORK CLOTHES? P. 92.) The 1 aggers and the pipe fitters would be in the same locker room changing work clothes. Did acutally observe this occurring on one occasion. Krieger.CV went to see what the situation was and went back and recommended a new locker room; this was in the late 1960's or early 1970's. Recommended separate locker rooms because, in the late 1960's, he had ordered protective clothing, individual respirators, coveralls, booties, and throw away gloves to be issued twice a day. Wanted a separate room to put clean clothes in and throw this protective gear away; it was only worn once. Made the recommendation to Meeker,0 and thinks he, or somebody, complied. Another facilty was made available; does not know when, but it was prior to Krieger's.CV leaving Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) (1974). An issue room was put in to issue the clean clothing and to gather the contaminated clothing. The workers had clean and dirty lockers that were segregated. This was done sometime between the late 1960's to 1974, is specifically unsure of when that occurred. (OBJECTION (OBJ): FORM OF THE QUESTION RE: WHEN, IF AT ALL, DID IT COME TO KRIEGER'S.CV ATTENTION THAT TRADES OTHER THAN LAGGERS MAY BE EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS IN CONCENTRATIONS THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY PROVE TO BE HARMFUL TO THEM WHILE WORKING AT LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS)? P. 94.) After leaving Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) (1974), it came to Krieger's.CV attention that trades other than laggers may be exposed to asbestos in concentrations that could prove to be harmful to them while working at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Had a lot of contacts who told Krieger.CV what was going on in Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVKOOOOI WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0029 STARTING PAGE: 0095 ENDING PAGE: 0100 TOPIC: DUTIES AND PROBLEMS AS (EXAMINATION BY MAHONEY,J FOR USA.) Krieger.CV signed on at Long SAFETY SUPERINT Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in May of 1956 as Safety ENDENT/AWARDS Superintendent. Had a career with the NAVY at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (PANS) and at the Naval Aviation Supply Depot in Philadelphia before coming to Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Worked for Bethlehem Steel (BSC) after Krieger.CV "eventually" graduated from high school. Krieger's.CV understanding of his job duties as Safety Superintendent at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) was to set up a safety program for the employees involving traumatic injuries. This safety program did not involve health hazards like systemic illnesses. Krieger's.CV duties involved working with medical officers, gas-free engineers, radiation safety engineers, and with the diving office. Did not involve CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZ\ MT-PWHD-011240 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5.TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 15 TIME: 141528 working with the security office for driver training or with the Rigging Department for testing cranes. Was not Krieger's.CV responsibility to make sure that men driving trucks in the yard were driving safely; that was the responsibility of the Security Department. Krieger.CV probably did testify to that effect on his deposition given in the Beauregard,RE case. In 1956, one of the problems which Krieger.CV confronted, in terms of safety, was whether or not silica was a factor or hazard in sandblasting operations at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Determined with the help of the Chemistry Department that the problem was granite, not silica; there was less than one percent silica in the ground-up granules. Also in his early years at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), Krieger.CV processed the claims for workers' compensation on hearing problems. During his first year as Safety Officer, Krieger.CV spent most of his time with safety issues that dealt with electrical lines on the deck. Electrical hazards were a big problem. Another problem was whether or not the ladders which the men were using were safe and secure. Is talking about oxygen lines, acetylene lines, electrical lines, high pressure air lines, fresh-water lines, potable-water lines, salt water fire lines, telephone lines; all of these things were on the deck. Getting all of these lines out of the walkways came within Krieger's.CV jurisdiction as Safety Superintendent so the men would not trip over them or that they would not malfunction. Krieger.CV was concerned with the safety of the workers at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) from the first day he arrived. Felt he did a good job at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Has over 20 Secretary of NAVY Safety Awards for achievement in safety and two civilian meritorious awards, which is the second highest award for a civilian, awarded by the Secretary of the NAVY. Is talking about over a 30 year span. The over 20 safety awards were given annually so Krieger.CV must have missed about eight years out of his 31 years with the government (USA). DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0030 STARTING PAGE: 0100 ENDING PAGE: 0104 TOPIC: STAND-UP SAFETY MEETINGS When Krieger.CV arrived at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), there /KRIEGER'S.CV were weekly stand-up safety meetings conducted by the supervisors. PHILOSOPHY ON Did not attend those safety meetings, but furnished the bulletin SAFETY for the supervisors to use at the stand-up safety meetings. The first part of the bulletin was a review of the more serious accidents for the week before, and any observations of dangerous conditions the safety inspectors had made on their tours; not wearing hard hats, not wearing ear plugs, or that type of thing. The injuries which occurred included: finger, hand, head, foot injuries; broken bones from falls down ladders and falls into the dry dock. There might be about six or seven hundred accidents. Thinks accidents were reduced quite a bit, would think 60 percent, during Krieger's.CV tenure at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) of which part was due to the education program along with the publicity. A lot of it would depend on how strong the commanding officer was at the time. Equipment played a part in Krieger's.CV success. The NAVY went from hammering scaffolds together to Tube Lox staging which is steel staging bolted together; it is very secure, which was a big improvement. As the technique of the workers increased, safety became more prevalent. Krieger's.CV philosophy on safety is a belief in education. "Engineering out" the hazards of any given product is the most important part of safety. (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO FOUNDATION RE: DOES KRIEGER.CV BELIEVE IN ENGINEERING OUT THE HAZARDS OF ANY GIVEN PRODUCT? P. 103.) This is Krieger's.CV personal philosophy on safety; after having 41 years experience in safety. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0031 STARTING PAGE: 0104 ENDING PAGE: 0108 TOPIC: REVIEW OF TESTIMONY/HETZE (OBJECTION (OBJ): VAGUE AS TO TIME RE: WHILE AT LONG BEACH NAVAL L,VL PREPARED SHIPYARD (LBNS). WITH WHAT FREQUENCY DID KRIEGER.CV VISIT SHOP 56? EXHIBIT 5 P. 104.) Krieger.CV probably visited Shop 56 ten times a year ATTACHMENTS while at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Went on board a ship undergoing ripout only once in his tenure at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). 7,000 to 9,000 men were at Long Beach Naval CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZll MT-PWHD-011241 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 16 TIME: 141528 Shipyard (LBNS) at any given time; up to 9,000, down to 7,000 or lower. After seeing these exhibits, believes the number of insulators at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) was closer to 100; would have estimated 160 but was evidently wrong. Has stated that there was a medical program in existence at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) when he arrived, in 1956. (OBJECTION (OBJ): VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS RE: HAS KRIEGER,CV STATED THAT THERE WAS A MEDICAL PROGRAM IN EXISTANCE AT LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS) WHEN HE ARRIVED IN 1956? P. 105.) Also stated that the insulators or pipe coverers received x-ray examinations in 1956. Does not believe he looked at any of the files of the industrial hygienist in 1956. Did become concerned about insulators and pipe coverers while at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Did take steps to secure what he felt was better medical diagnoses for these insulators. (REFERS TO PLANTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4.) Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 is dated June 3, 1961. Remembers that Hoch.CV asked him if June 3 to June 16, 1961 represented the two-week period that Hetzel.VL was at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Remembers that Hetzel.VL came into Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) for only two weeks. Krieger.CV had Hetzel.VL write Plainiff's Exhibit 4 while he was at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) on that two-week stint. (REFERS TO PLAINTIFF'S EXHBIT 5). Looked at Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, "Reassigned After Medical Evaluation;" has attributed it to the work of Hetzel.VL. Has said Hetzel.VL was only at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) from June 3, 1961 to June 16, 1961. Plaintff's Exhibit 5 is a letter from Krieger.CV to Gray.EB. Krieger.CV has attributed the attachments to the letter in Plaintiff's Exhbit 5 to Hetzel.VL. Hetzel.VL either prepared the attachments or they were prepared, assembled for his benefit. Hetzel.VL did not rotate back into Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). To the best of Krieger's.CV knowledge, Hetzel.VL did prepare the attachments to the August 9, 1962 letter. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0032 STARTING PAGE: 0108 ENDING PAGE: 0110 TOPIC: DEPOSITION TO BEAUREGARD,RE Krieger.CV remembers that he gave a deposition in the CASE Beauregard.RE case in which JMC was a named defendant on June 22, 1979. Does not recall that he was questioned about the letter to Gray.EB and the attachments. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5. (REFERS TO EXHIBIT 355 FROM THE BEAUREGARD,RE DEPOSITION)(REFERS TO PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 5.) Patterson was Krieger's.CV assistant. Evidently cannot remember now (OCTOBER 3, 1984) who prepared this report. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0033 STARTING PAGE: 0110 ENDING PAGE: 0112 TOPIC: FUNDING BY LONG BEACH The refusal of Gray.EB to cooperate led Krieger.CV to find a NAVAL SHIPYARD different way to have the diagnosis performed, so he went to (LBNS) Ellestad.ME. The Ellestad.ME program was funded by the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). In 1964, Krieger.CV went to a conference at which Selikoff.IJ spoke; this was funded by Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) and no one said he could not go. In 1967 he again traveled to hear Selikoff.IJ speak in Chicago and this was also funded by Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Traveled east with Meeker,0 and visited various shipyards, and this was funded by Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). This was part and parcel of Krieger's.CV responsibilities as Safety Officer to accumulate information which would help the safety of the men and women at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVK00001 WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0034 STARTING PAGE: 0112 ENDING PAGE: 0115 TOPIC: 1964 AND 1967 MEETINGS (REFERS TO PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 12.) Krieger.CV does not recognize a project known as the "Philadelphia Study FA 287." Does not recall a project called the Asbestos Elimination Substitution Personnel Protection Program started by the NAVY. Did not have anything to do with specifications or procurement. Did not talk to any representative from JMC when he attended the meeting in 1964. (COLLOQUY RE: CLARIFICATION OF WHAT MEETING IS BEING TALKED CONFI DENT IAL___CONFIDENT IAL Manville LZ! MT-PWHD-011242 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 17 TIME: 141528 ABOUT. PP. 112-113.) At the 1974 New York meeting, at which Selikoff.IJ spoke. Krieger.CV does not recall any representative of JMC taking the podium to warn of the hazards of UMCs' products. Brought the report of the meeting back to Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) and gave a copy of it to Ay,W and to the Medical Department. If UMC had started putting warnings on its products in 1964 and had been at that meeting and told Krieger.CV of the warnings, he would have brought that information back to Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). In 1967, Krieger.CV, again at the expense of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), attended another meeting in Chicago. There were not, to Krieger's.CV knowledge, any members of the asbestos manufacturing industry at that meeting. They would have had to be invited. It was a union meeting and they selected their own speakers, and Selikoff.IJ was a very popular speaker in those days. (OBJECTION (OBJ): ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE RE: DID ANY REPRESENTATIVES OF JMC STAND UP AT THAT MEETING AND WARN THE PEOPLE OR ADVISE THE PEOPLE PRESENT AT THAT MEETING OF THE HAZARDS OF ITS PRODUCTS? P. 114.) To Krieger's.CV knowledge, no representative of JMC stood up at that meeting and warned or advised of the hazards of its products. Has said earlier that it was at this 1967 meeting that Selikoff.IJ stressed that asbestos workers should not smoke. This meeting was not the first time Krieger.CV heard the word mesothelioma but that is the first time that Selikoff.IJ emphasized the smoking in connection with asbestos work. There was someting like one case of mesothelioma in 10,000 but where asbestos workers are concerned, it was six cases in 10,000; this is what Selikof.IJ was dwelling on. JMC at no time in Krieger's.CV career as Safety Officer discussed with him the health hazards related to exposure to asbestos; JMC did not come to Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) and talk to him. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVKOOOOI WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV- LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0035 STARTING PAGE: 0115 ENDING PAGE: 0119 TOPIC: TYPES OF VESSELS/MARR,WT ' Krieger.CV recalls that the types of NAVY vessels of which he was AND MANNING,S/ aware and which were repaired at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) SHOP 56 were; battleships; aircraft carriers, all sizes; cruisers, light and heavy; destroyers and destroyer escorts; auxiliary ships, oil skimmers, tugs, "LST's"; every kind except submarines. Had a lot going on as Safety Officer at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). During Krieger's.CV 18 years, spent something less than one percent of his time on asbestos-related matters. (OBJECTION (OBJ): CALLS FOR EXPERT OPINION RE: WHAT IS KRIEGER'S.CV OPINION OF MARR.WT AS A PROFESSIONAL? P. 117.) Marr.WT was an excellent professional. Had opportunity to observe Marr.WT at work at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Was at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) all the time Marr.WT was there but cannot remember how long he was there. But from his observation of Marr.WT, in Krieger's.CV judgement, Marr.WT was excellent. Knew Manning,S who was also an industrial hygienist; had occasion to observe his work at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Thinks the relative sizes of Shop 56 at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) and Shop 56 at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) would be comparable. Spent some time at Shop 56 at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS), thinks Shop 56 was probably the same size. If men who worked in Shop 56 in the 1960s were to say to this "court" that amosite was effectively eliminated in the 1960s, Krieger.CV could not call them liars or anything because does not remember. The men in Shop 56 would be in a better position to observe what they were using in the shop than Krieger.CV. Based on his experiences as Safety Officer for 18 years at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), Krieger.CV thinks that the NAVY was, on the whole, a safety conscious organization. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVKOOOOI WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER; 0036 STARTING PAGE: 0119 ENDING PAGE: 0121 TOPIC: PREPARATION OF THE ATTACHMENT (EXAMINATION BY HOCH.SL FOR JMC.) (REFERS TO PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT TO PLAINTIFF'S 5.) Krieger.CV thought that the attachments to Plaintiff's EXHIBIT 5 Exhibit 5 were originally done by Hetzel.VL. The deposition transcript. Exhibit 355 from the Beauregard,RE deposition, referred to Patterson, one of Krieger's.CV assistants; it was written some 22 years ago. Does not have a specific recollection CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL ManvHle Lzn MT-PWHD-011243 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 18 TIME: 141528 of who prepared that 55 page document in Plaintiff's Exhibit 5. Krieger's.CV recollection is that maybe Patterson prepared some of this information and fed it to Hetzel.VL. Hetzel.VL did not come into Krieger's.CV office and work for two weeks to give Krieger.CV two pages of information in two weeks: which is why Krieger.CV said he thought Hetzel.VL did it. Regardless of who prepared it. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 came out of Krieger's.CV office and he is responsible for the whole thing. The material came from the medical and personnel records of Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) at Krieger's.CV direction, control, and supervision. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVKOOOOI WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0037 STARTING PAGE: 0121 ENDING PAGE: 0122 TOPIC: CONTACTING MANUFACTURERS Krieger.CV made a trip with Ay.W to an asbestos company in San ABOUT ASBESTOS/ Pedro to look at the way they were handling insulation materials KNOWLEDGE THAT and how they were venting their saws. Does not know who the ASBESTOS WAS company was but it was San Pedro and they were preparing the round DANGEROUS pipe covering sections. Does not recall anything else. Did not pick up the phone and call JMC or write JMC a letter. (OBJECTION (OBJ): FORM OF THE QUESTION RE: DID KRIEGER.CV HAVE A PERSONAL BELIEF THAT HE HAD A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE ASBESTOS HAZARD WAS, AS A LAY PERSON, TO INSULATORS AT LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD (LBNS), AFTER HAVING HEARD SELIKOFF.IJ AND HAVING THE EXPERIENCE HE HAD WITH COMPENSATION CLAIMS? PP. 122-123.) Krieger.CV knew before he went to New York that asbestos was dangerous because he had compensation cases to prove it, including biopsies on the men's lungs with the particles in them. So al1 Krieger.CV got when he went to the meeting in New York was reaffirmation that asbestos was dangerous. Had this knowledge during the time he was an employee of the United States NAVY. (OBJECTION (OBJ): NO GROUNDS STATED RE: KRIEGER.CV DID NOT NEED A MANUFACTURER TO STAND UP AT THAT MEETING AND TELL HIM THAT ASBESTOS COULD BE DANGEROUS. IS THAT CORRECT? P. 122.) Krieger.CV did not need a manufacturer to tell him that asbestos could be dangerous. Came back to Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) with this information and made a report to his superior. DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVKOOOOI WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 0038 STARTING PAGE: 0123 ENDING PAGE: 0129 TOPIC: X-RAYS IN 1956 FOR PIPE (EXAMINATION BY MAHONEY,J FOR USA.) Prior to Krieger's.CV arrival COVERERS AND at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) in 1956, certain insulators INSULATORS and pipe coverers were being x-rayed and were receiving pulmonary function tests or vital-capacity tests. (REFERS TO PLAINTIFF'S EXHBIT 5.) It could be twice a year or it could be once a year that the insulators and pipe coverers had x-rays. Krieger.CV does not recall that he testfied in the case Hogard.RJ versus Johns-Manvi1le Products Corporation (JMPC). There are indications that some of the men were x-rayed twice a year In 1956 at Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). (COLLOQUY RE: TIME FRAME OF THE QUESTION. PP. 124-125.) (MAHONEY,J READS FROM THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT OF HOGARD.RJ VERSUS JOHNS-MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION (JMPC), PP. 125-126.) Krieger.CV believes that was the x-ray program that was in existence in 1956 when he came to Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS). Krieger's.CV opinion is that Selikoff.IJ was not a spokesmen for the asbestos industry; he was a spokesman for the workers. (COLLOQUY RE: READING AND SIGNING THIS DEPOSITION. PP. 126-129.) DOCUMENT NUMBER: CVKOOOOI WITNESS: KRIEGER.CV LBNS PARA NUMBER: 9999 STARTING PAGE: 0000 ENDING PAGE: 0000 TOPIC: EXHIBIT INDEX NUMBER DESCRIPTION PLAINTIFF'S 1 OTH: Poster, "Wear Your Respirator" developed by Krieger.CV and Ay.W. p. 28 2 COR: Krieger.CV to Turnball.A, January 3, 1963 p. 32 3 COR: Robbins,HM, Medical Officer, Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) to Medical Officer, CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL ManviUe LZl MT-PWHD-011244 CONFIDENTIAL............ CONFIDENTIAL LP05R052 - USERID: RLEG062 COMMAND: P,5,TEXTB,SORT DATABASE: GOVTRS . DATE: 04/16/86 PAGE 19 TIME: 141528 Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (PANS), August 28, 1959 p . 38 3 OTH: Transcript of tape made by Marr.WT with Phipps,A, pages 7L, 7M. 7N of attachments to a cover letter from Robbins,HM, Medical Officer, Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) to Medical Officer, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (PANS), August 28, 1959, undated. pp. 38, 41 4 RPT: "Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS) Study of Asbestos Workers in Relation to Asbestosis," Hetzel.VL, dune 3-16, 1961. pp. 46, 48, 106 5 COR: Krieger.CV to Gray.EB, August 9, 1962 pp. 49, 53, 107, 110, 119, 123 5 OTH: A chart entitled "Incidence of Positive Chest X-Ray Findings in Pipe Coverers and Insulators Versus Year of employment in Shipyard" pp. 49, 53, 107, 110, 119, 123 5 OTH: A chart entitled "Supplemental" pp. 44, 53, 107, 110, 119, 123 5 OTH: Listing entitled "Reassigned After Medical Evaluations." pp. 49, 53, 107, 110, 119, 123 6 COR: Schroeder.AB to Krieger.CV, September 18, 1962. p. 54, 55 7 IOM: Krieger.CV, Code 185, to Code 150, Hendrickson,D, dune 5, 1963 p. 57 7 OTH: Document entitled "Proposed Physical Examination of Our Laggers by Ellestad.ME at Memorial Hospital, Long Beach," Undated p. 57 8 COR: Ellestad.ME to Krieger.CV, May 27, 1965. p. 60. 9 IOM: Krieger.CV, to Code 150, Hendrickson,D dune 10, 1965. p. 60 10 MAN: Cover Page and Page 20-22 of "Department of the NAVY Safety Precautions for Shore Activities," "NAVSO" P2455, April 1965. p. 74. 11 INS: Naval Ships Command (NAVSHIPS) Instruction 5100.26, Febrtuary 9, 1971. p. 83. 12 IOM: Krieger.CV to Code 100 via Code 150, Hendrickson,D, November 13, 1974. pp. 87, 90. 112 CONFIDENTIAL__ CONFIDENTIAL Manville LZIl MT-PWHD-011245 CLIFF KREIGER Deposition taken June 21, 1979 Mr. Kreiger was formerly the Safety Superintendent for the Long Beach Naval Shipyard from 1956 through 1974. He was one of the individuals who worked with Bill Marr prior to 1964 on the asbestos problems found in the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. During the course of his career there he had association with all of the industrial hygienists who worked there and worked particularly closely with Webb Ay (insulator foreman) on a variety of asbestos related problems. He was instrumental, along with Mr. Ay, in suggesting substitutes for asbestos in the mid 60's. Prior to his leaving he issued a series of memorandums which indicated that there still are problems at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard relative to asbestos and somewhat in support of Sheldon Manning's predicament as the industrial hygienist in the early 1970's. He is an extremely affective and good witness on Navy problems. MT-PWHD-011246 Krieger establishes: 1. Description of Safety Superintendent/Officer at LBNS 2. Difference between Industrial Hygiene and Safety in theory and in operation at LBNS 3. Chain of command, line vs. staff 4. Safety department had more help than Industrial Hygiene 5. Safety had responsibility for compensation claims 6. First knowledge of a health hazard re: asbestos 7. Actions taken in regard to claims for asbestos disability 8. Action taken in regards to warning insulation workers; suggestions on substitution; Ellstadt pulmonary function 9. Co-operation with Marr 10. Safety did not replace Industrial Hygiene function during the periods of there were no Industrial Hygienists 11. Was in attendence at two conferences of Dr. Selikoff 12. Supports S. Manning complaints 13. Hazard pay issue 14. Asbestos purge failures - witness #1 - prefer live MT-PWHD-01124 Manville To: ,-r, n-. Lee Polk cvPaula Moore'"-' Internal Correspondence 2-17 Date: 2-20 Copies: - Subject: Long Beach Witnesses I have the following information on the location of the Long Beach witnesses: 1. Hogard, Richard J. - his last known address was P.0. Box 252, St. James, Missouri. This information is taken from his deposition dated November 20, 1979. Directory Assistance shows no listing for a "Hogard" at that address. There are 2 listings for the last name "Hogard" in the St. Louis area, which is where Richard Hogard grew up. The first is for Larry Hargaru in St. Marys, Missouri (Phone number-. (314) 547-5765), end a Robert Hogard in Marthasville, Missouri (Phone number: (314) 433-2313). These may be relatives of Richard Hogard. Mr. Hogard, as of 1979, had been married 5 times, but had no children. He also liked to move around a lot. I checked in the case file for Hogard, but there is no recent information. Since this file is on appeal, we may be able to get information from his attorney of record, Robert Steinberg, of the firm Rose, Klein Marias, 888 West 6th Street, Los Angeles, CA.* *2. a - last known address: 6522 Farinella Drive, Huntington Beach, California. This information is from Mr. Krieger's deposition dated June 21, 1979. There is no telephone listing at that address. His last known employment was at Long Beach State University; however, he is no longer there. By calling Directory Assistance in the state of California, I found a listing for a 'Cliff Krieger' in Olinda, California, address: 5996 Happy Valley Road. Phone number: (916) 357-2400. There is also a 'C. Krieger' in Enterprise, California, address: 1113 Echo Road, phone number (916) 222-2173. These numbers and towns are in the Redding, California area, which is northern California, and since Mr. Krieger is old enough to have been retired for a couple of years, it is very possible that he moved to this area. MT-PWHD-011248 -2- Langston, Roosevelt - address: 1810 West 137th Street, Compton, California: phone: (2171 ^37-0971. t obtained his address from a deposition dated January 19, 1982. The address was confirmed by directory Aasrstanceun_ August 22, 1984. According to the 1982 deposition, Mr. Langston was employed at the Naval Weapons Station at Seal Beach, California, as supervisor of personnel staff specialist. Manning, Sheldon H. - Mr. Manning's address is 15403 Piuma Avenue, Norwalk, California. His telephone number is (213) 868-1054. His address was obtained from his deposition dated December 12, 1980, and was confirmed by Directory Assistance in August 1984. Workman, James H. - last known address, 4333 Albury Ave., Lakewood, California. This information was obtained in his deposition dated April 20, 1982. There is no telephone listing at the Albury address. There is a listing for a "J. Workman" at 12100 Monticito Avenue, Rosemore Seal Beach, California. The telephone number at the Monticito Avenue address is (213) 430-0756. As of 1982, Mr. Workman was still employed at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Scoggins, Doris - last - known -address is- 805*-S,-.Pannes Avenue, Compton, California. I received a phone number through Directory Assistance for a "D. Scoggins," no address listed. The phone number is (213) 864-5009. The information on Mr. Scoggins' address came from medical records that were in his case file. There is no date on the medical records, only that they were reviewed in May of 1982. It also appears that he was still at Long Beach Naval Shipyard as of 1981. 7, Dolan, J. W. As you requested, I checked Directory Assistance in the Los Angeles area, and there is a list ing for a "J. Dolan" at 234 North Hoover, Los Angeles; phone number (213) 382-5974. If you wish me to follow up on any of this information, please let me know. ofk MT-PWHD-011249 Manville To See Distribution* From: Paula Moore Copies Karen Miley Anita Christen Subiect: Clifford Krieger Internal Correspondence Date: March 9, 1984 T ^ to _ ^ ^ \ - While coding the deposition summaries for the GOVPPL data base, I came across a reference to the 1964 Selikoff Con ference at the New York Academy of Science, in the summary of Clifford Krieger. Mr. Krieger was the Safety Officer at LBNS from 1956 to 1974, and was a civilian employee of the Navy. In this capacity, he attended the Conference that took place October, 1964, in New York. Although he is not "uniformed Navy" as Denny would have preferred, I felt that documentation of his presence at this conference was significant. I have attached the references from his testimony in the 6/21/79 deposition and the 5/5/80 Hogard trial, along with a copy of the exhibit referred to in the deposition. The exhibit is one of our "HS" documents pulled from GOVDOC and was used as an exhibit to Sheldon Manning's deposition that was taken in Manning's case. As I do further coding, I will keep an eye out for any other "Navy types" that may have been in attendance. /pm *Distribution i/D. R. J. H. H. R. R. B. L. H. Markusson D. Batson K. Green K. Jarvis L. Marsh A. Orr L. Wilson Diemer Gaul MT-PWHD-011250 ( JCScc(700) Sot 700-107-70 13 July 1970 KEEOPsASDCM From Senior Medical Officer Tot Industrial Hygienist ` Subji lour moao of 30 June 1970 regarding the Inlustrial Hygiene Prograa at the Long Beach Eaval Shipyard 1* four menorandtw has been received, the contents reviewed and as you are avere discussion vas held in ay office on 7 July 1970* The oriticisms that you level at personnel fomorly and presently employed at the Shipyard are significant of your frustrations. I am taking this opportunity to oozeent on your mer.orandvtu 2. Part 4 or badiground material la considered to be an affront to the previous Kodical Officers and your predecessors in the office of Industrial Hygienist. Except for certain portions in this sootion whero personnel records would indicate you are in error I have no first haal knowledge of the situation therefore I will cake general oocrents only. By the ease token, you are impertinent in your assumptions that certain Kodical Officers were indifferent and lacking in understanding of what an Industrial Hygiene program should be. Tour sooond hand reporting of Hr. Sheehan does you no credit. Tou are generous in your appraisal of Hr. Booster and that fact is appreciated. 4s I mentioned personnel records indicate ecce discrepancy in your reporting. 4 program of education in the dangers of asbostos dust was started in 1956 some wo years prior to Mr. Karr's ronortinr aoPcJa.""...... . '* HrrTfiegor attended the conference at the American Acadccrroi oclAdca in October of 1964 aa Rr. Tfjrr-h/id departed tha .Shipyard in September of 1964. if the *expert* as you cay stayed hcce it was at a plaoo other than CEe Shipyard. When >lr. Karr left the ahipyard he was a GS-L2 - Step 6 not a GS-11 as you imply, it is regrettable that your office vas not equippod at the tine of your reporting aboard, this would not be an unusual situation when a billet had not boon filled for some period of time. 4 quali fied individual such as yourself should experience no difficulty in making his noedt known and operating accordingly. Secretarial help has alvuys been available to you on a nooded basis. 4s you centionod the previous Kodical Officer did vich that all written reports bear his signature. This did not prevent you from preparing reports and submitting thorn to him for editing. Tou are in error when you state that all quarterly reports wore assigned to you, you are responsible only for the report of Occupational Health Services. There are several other quarterly reports of which you have no knowledge. 3. Ve shall now deal with your present status and the recocmendations you proseat. I have required you to submit.weekly reports to ce outlining the duties performed, therefore, I sa well aware of what your activity has 803 MT-P\/\/wn_ JCSieo(700) Ser 700-107-70 ' 13 Jul 1970 boon* With regard to your request for regular secretarial help, you are aware of the continuing austerity program throughout the Havy, ve are affooted by this and as of KovemSer 1970 our employment allowance vlll bo 21 rather than the prosont 22. It appears at present that the holp provided to you on a needed basis la sufficient, hovrover, should your program gain impetus I will approach the Shipyard Commander with a request for an Increase In our billet structure* lour request for promotion will be evaluated by the Wage and Classification sootlea of tho Industrial Relations Division* Iou will be contacted by that office, your qualifications plus past and present performances can be presented at that tine. Within our allowed billet structure it is not coneidorod feasible to have another trained Industrial Hygienist on the staff, your temporary absencos do not constitute an undue hardship as evidenced by your recent six-week absence lour comments that tho majority of shipyard workers are dissatisfied with the health services provided by ay staff is of concern to me* Such employees should be encouraged to bring their specific occplaint to myself or the Administrative Offior so that appropriate action can be taken to correct the shortcomings* A oj contribution you can lend to this effort will be most woleone. We are both aware that s certain snount of crltlclen is levelled at any program be it nodical, administrative, or whatever* lour comment regarding our meeting of 31 Kay 1970 indicating that the pharmacist be trained in fundamental aspects of Industrial Hygiene is not voll taken, it was not and is not the intent to sake him a part of your staff but rather to relieve you of some duties that he could perform in addition to his own so that his present billet could be strengthened for possible procotion. lour cerement regarding a college degree is totally irrelevant* So mention of this proposal vas made to him so that his hopes for promotion would not be elevatod with resultant disappointment if the situation did not cone about. However, you took it upon yourself to advise him that you could not be promoted unless he vas added to your staff* Therefore the *cruel hoax* that you mention has been perpetrated only ty you and your comments, if indeed it has been perpetrated* The matter of issuing ear plugs and strict compliance with current BUHE3 Instruction is under consideration, elrlereuLJllanufljalliUthfc.3natructi^-vill be carried out* Tftrether or not you will oantlnuo-lo JLsflua_.the_ plur.s will be decided andrnrfU give you cy decision within a short period of time* Tou vreFC'-te^preoent me with s reccmnenied criteria for the runaing"bf-urine porphyrin examinations, upon that presentation I will decide whether or not you will continue to porform tho examination* I fed that the entire Occupational Health Services Report is of interest to you if only in an educational endeavor to keep you statisti cally Informod and you will continue to prepare it* lour request for private tolophone eorvice is recognized as valid and will be acted upon except for the portion requesting eutovon privileges, such privileges are limited and my offioe has the only autovon service in the department. This is available to you if the need arises. The paa9 office will be notified of your authority to pass visitors to your office. Tour earnouts regarding your improper listing in the telepliono directory are childish and not worthy of reply except to note that a ooTreated listing for the next edition has boon sub mitted* Iou have been advised in the past to submit your wants regarding 804 j I X <i * j -ti i t MT-PWHD-011252 JCStcc(700) Ser 700-107-70 ' 13 Jul 1970 replica and equipment to the Adnlniatrative Officer, vlthln reason there la no restriction placed on you. I feel veil qualified to decide on your need for travel and training and will continue to do bo, regardless of vhether you are avnre of it or not, funds are act aside for you to attend the Industrial Hygienist Conference each year. lou have attended the Western Industrial Health Conference and will ooatlnue to do so vlthln the Halta of funds allotod. Any further training or travel trill be considered on an individual basis. 4. In the discussion portion of your cecorandim you expressed a pessi mistic attitude tovard expecting tangible benefits free your suggestions. I regret that you have this attitude. In this portion you again rention promotion and venture the opinion that the Administrative Officer is responsible for your present grade level. This is not fact, neither he nor tyoelf are responsible for grading you but ae previously set forth this is a function of the Vcgo & Classification personnel. His suggestion that you have an expanded progran before requesting reclassification v&e thought to bo in your best interest. In this portion you again ccation denial of your TAD to Detroit, you vould again hold the Administrative Officer responsible, it has been eephasicod to you that the Shipyard Cocmandor denied this typo of travel under the direction of the Kaval Ships System Corr.nnd. lou conclude by remarking that this Shipyard never vas and never vill be interested in a strong Industrial Hygiene Program, you go on to any that perhaps your services oould be used to better advantage elceuhcre, I resoat your conclusion as I an doeply interested in the Industrial Hygiene Program. I ragret th*t von, have auah deep frustrations indeed your frustrations contributed to yourllineaa and if roufeox nTVI nhnnl! A..take sueh-meaeuras ipary to protooTyour be^itht - 5. I an available for further discussion if you feel it is indicated. /. JOSS' C. BMUH CDH, KC, USi Senior Medical Officer 3 805 COI'Y C\){i 110\ Superior Court of the State of California, For the County of Los Angeles. t RICHARD E. BEAUREGARD, et al., * Plaintiffs, vs. No. C 137466 VOLUME I i % JOHNS-KANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. DEPOSITION OF CLIFFORD V. KRIEGER % June 21, 1979 * VIRGIN, SEIMS & RADOGNA CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 1830 WEST 8TH STREET, SUITE 301 LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90057 487-7910 389 2131 MT-PWHD-011254 121 1 A. Yes. o Q. The sentence Iwant to draw your attention to, 3 and then you can read the whole memo if you like, is as 4 follows: "A program o* education in the dangers of asbestos 5 dust was started in 1956, some two years prior to Mr. Marr 6 reporting aboard." 7 It is underlined in red. You may read it. 8 Read the whole document. 9 A. I don't believe it. 10 Q. You don't believe that what is written there 11 by Dr. Smith is true? 12 A. That's true. 13 MS. ROCK: Why don't you read the article and 14 respond to any questions. 15 MR. McKAY: Identify what page number. 16 MR. VAN DAM:1 Page 803 to the Manning exhibits. 17 THE WITNESS: This is costing me $150 a day, and I 18 am not to worry about the time? 19 Seriously, I feel guilty about the whole damn 20 thing. I have done nothing wrong. 21 BY MR. VAN DAM: 22 Q. Let me explain something to you. I am not 23 suggesting that you have done anything wrong. I am trying 24 to find out whatever you know about what was going on in 25 that shipyard while you were there. I don't know what you 26 I feel ouilty about. I' 27 ! | MS. ROCK: I will object to any question at this 28 point until the witness has had a chance to read the article. VIRGIN. SEIJAS a RADOGNA MT-PWHD-011255 122 1 MR. VAN DAM: Off the record. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 MR. VAN DAM: Back on the record. 4 Q. Now, Mr. -- 5 MS. ROCK: I would request that you identify this 6 document for the record with either a marking from this 7 deposition or a designation as received in a prior deposition. 8 MR. VAN DAM: I just identified it. It is page 803 9 through 805 of the exhibits to Sheldon Manning's deposition. 10 0- Nov;, you have had a chance to read that memo 11 in its entirety; is that correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Now, you have told me that this statement in 14 here about the program of education and dangers of asbestos 15 dust being started in 1956, is wrong. 16 A. That's right. That's wrong. 17 Q. Was there,from yourobservation in the year 18 1956, any program of any kind with regard to education on the 19 dangers of asbestos dust in the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 20 A. Certainly not by me, and that's what he says. 21 Q. Well, let me clarify something here. 22 The sentence that I read to you, as you will 23 recall from reading it, doesn't have your name in it. 2< A. Sorry about that. I felt it did. 25 To my knowledge, there was no program as Oi, mentioned in that memo. o- p. In 19 56? 20 A. In 19 56 . VIRGIN. SEIJAS & RADOGNA MT-PWHD-011 ] 0. How frequently did you deal in 19 56, in the 2 seven months that you were there, with Mr. Sheehan? 3 A. Twice. 4 0. In the `entire seven months? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Did you attempt to find out when you first 7 came to the shipyard what various educational programs having 8 to do with safety were in existence as of the time you got 9 to the shipyard? 10 A. I looked through the safety records. You are 11 talking about hygiene records? 12 0. Do you segregate in your mind -- 13 A. Totally, rightthrough the middle. 14 0. Let me finish myquestion. 15 (Continuing) -- your function as safety 16 superintendent from hygiene matters, and you put the issue 17 of asbestos control in the field of hygiene; is that right? 18 A. Exactly. 19 Q. When you startedworking for theshipyard in 20 1956, did you do anything to find out what sort of hygiene 21 programs were in existence? 22 A. Ho, I did not. 23 0. So as you sit here today, you don't know .| 24 whether or not a hygiene program having to do with education j 25 in the dangers of asbestos dust was in existence in 1956? J 25 A. I do n' t. j 27 Q. How, did you ever become personallyinvolved ; 2R in such a program at any time? VIRGIN. SE1JAS flc RADOGNA MT-PWHD-011257 AA4 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. When? In conjunction with Bill Marr? 3 A. After we discovered -- yes. 4 Q. Prior to 1960? 5 A I believe. 6 Q. And, by the way, does reviewing this letter 7 refresh your recollection as to when Mr. Marr came to the 8 shipyard? 9 A I think it was mentioned in there, wasn't it? 10 Q. The sentence I read refers to 1956, as some 11 two years prior to Mr. Marr's reporting aboard which leads 12 me to believe it was sometime in 1958. 13 Does that comport with your recollection? 14 A It could be. 15 0. You just don't know? 16 A. I don't remember. 17 Q. The next sentence inthis letter states, 18 "Mr. Krieger attended the conference at the American Academy 19 of Science in October of 1964, as Mr. Marr had departed the 20 shipyard in September of 1964." 21 Is that the New York conference you went to? 22 A Yes. . 23 0. 21 conference? Did Dr.Selikoff deliver a paper at that 25 A. Yes. 0. And do you know what the subject of the paper 27 wa: 28 A Well, it had to do with asbestos exposure to VIRGIN. SEIJAS Be RADOGNA MT-PWHD-011258 125 1 rats, as I recall. 2 0- Was there anything discussed in the conference 3 about asbestos exposure to people? 4 A. Yes. * 5 0- What do you rememberbeing said? 6 A. There was a lot of argument that -- whether 7 Amosite was worse than Chrysotile, and Chrysotile was worse 8 than -- what is it? 9 Q. Crocidolite? 10 A. Crocidolite and so forth. There was a discuss ion 11 about which was worse. They were trying -- in fact, I think 12 the idea at that time was to see if there wasn't a safe 13 asbestos. 14 Q. Do you recall there being speakers addressing 15 the issue of whether there was a safe asbestos? 16 A. Well, there were no conclusions drawn to 17 this effect. I said these were the questions that were 18 posed in the conference. 19 Q. Did the various participants in the conference 20 also discuss what workers who work in an environment in 21 which there is some asbestos dust could do to protect 22 themselves? 23 A. I don't remember them. 24 0. It was after this meeting in October of 1964, 25 that you came back to Long Beach and had a meeting with the 26 laggers in Shop 56? 27 A. Yes, sir. 28 0. In that meeting, did you tell them everything VIRGIN. SEIJAS & RADOGNA MT-PWHD-011259 126 1 that you had learned in the conference in New York? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did you at that tine issue any orders to 4 supervisors about what they were specifically supposed to do 5 about the things that you had learned? 6 A. We had meetings with the laggers and the 7 supervisors, and they were the only ones involved. There 8 were only about three or four supervisors involved. 9 Q. Do you know who they were? 10 A. Web Ay. , 11 Q. Aside from Web Ay? 12 A Yes, I know -- no, I don't. 13 Q. Was attendance at the meeting or meetings, 14 whichever it'may have been,, by the laggers mandatory? 15 A If they were aboard, yes, sir. If they were 16 sick we -- we had a follow-up program to pick up those that 17 were absent, and if they were absent the second time we 18 didn't catch them -- we didn't have a third go around. 19 Q. What time period separated the first go 20 around and the second go around? 21 A About a week. 22 Q. Was there a separate meeting held on each 28 shift? 21 A At that particular time, I think we brought 75 then all in from the graveyard shift and the daylight shift 26 and paid the swing shift overtime for that particular r> - I meeting, as I recall. 78 Q. So the word went out to everybody that the '/IPRIN SFIIAS & RADOGNA MT-P\A/Hn_ni ioro 121 1 meeting was going to occur, and they were required to attend? 2 A. Exactly. 3 0. Now, did you have the same kind of meeting 4 after your attendance *at the Chicago conference? 5 A. That's when the medical department -- sometime 6 in this period the medical department took over these meetings 7 and held them every six months. 8 Q. From time to time while Sheldon Manning and 9 you were both at the shipyard, did you hear him voice 10 complaints about his inability to get sufficient help and 11 cooperation from the medical people? 12 MS. ROCK: Object to the leading question. 13 BY MR. VAN DAM: 14 0. Go ahead and answer. 15 A Yes. 16 Q. As a matter of fact, he complained about that 17 a lot in the early years, didn't he? 18 MS. ROCK: Object to the leading question. 19 THE WITNESS: That's what that letter is all about. 20 BY MR. VAN DAM: 21 Q. The letter that you are pointing to is the 22 one that starts at page 303? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. During thecourse of your association with 25 Mr. Sheldon Manning, did you come to be close friends? y, A. Define close friends. 0. Do you see Mr. Manningsocially? 23 A. No. VIRGIN. SEIJAS 8c RADOGNA MT-PWHD-011261 H. Af Cl/Ktiooi t SUP HR I OR COUtn' OP THE STATU OP CALIFORNIA FOR THU COUNTY OF LOS ANGULUS 3 DEPARTMENT NO- 4 HON. EARL F. RILEY, JUDGE 5 6 RICHARD J. HOGARD, 7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. '9 JOHNS--MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Etc., ot al.. 10 Defendants. 11 12 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 137 466 13 14 REPORTERS * DAILY TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 15 Monday, Hay 5, 1980 16 17 APPEARANCES: 18 (See Volume 1) 19 20 21 22 23 VOLUME NCL__ 24 Pncjf"j 1925 - 7073, Incl. 25 23 27 23 DIANA R. GRACE, CSR a 1672 a nd THELMA A. ROBERTS, CSR #785 Official Reporters MT-PWHD-011262 I'Jal Q Was there a time when the testing of workers 1 ceased at the Long Beach Memorial Hospital? 2 3 A Yes, 3ir. 4 Q And can you tell me approximately when that was. 5 pin aae? 6 A It 3eemed to me about three or four years later. 7 Q In other words, it started perhaps in the early 8 Sixties and ended three or four years later? 9 And then it was brought back in-house, that's righ ,,. 10 11 MR. NORBY: Nothing further at this time. Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Mr. Haight? 13 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. HAIGHT: 16 Q Mr. Krieger, do you recall attending the New 17 York Academy of Science presentation of Dr. Selikoff in October 18 of 1964? 19 A Yes, sir. That is what we talkedabout. 20 Q Was that the first time you met Dr. Selikoff? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And were you invited to that? 23 A Yes, I was. 24 Q By Dr. Selikoff? d ' ` A Yi23 . Do you have any memory of how he got in touch 27 with you? 28 \ Webby Ay recommended to him that he invite me. MT-PWHD-01126 J.JJ3 Q All right. When you returned to the shipyard 1 after that conference, did you have meetings with the workers 2 cn the subject matter of the conference? 3* A Yes. As X stated, I met with Mr. Meeker and a ;'r, 5 and then v/a had the regular nesting. Q And you discussed the subject that was raised 6 at that conference with all of the workers? 7 A That's right. 8 Q All right. Now, do you recall if at that 9 particular tine Mr. Marr had just left the shipyard or had 10 been transferred? 11 A I believe so. 12 Q And Mr. Manning had not yet come on as the 13 industrial hygienist? is that correct? 14 A I don't remember. 15 16 Q All right. There was a period of time when -- after Mr. Marr left and before Mr. Manning came when there 17 18 was no industrial hygienist; is that correct? 19 A Yes, sir. Q 20 any idea? 21 A 22 23 Q Do you recall how long that was? Do you have I said about a year. And during that period of time did you attempt 24 to fill in on the hygiene program? A 'To, I did not, I I ..i r - 3' an von : i 27 A Well, as I stated in my deposition, if there was 28 an eoargency. then the gas-free engineer and myself would be MT-PWHD-01126- 1962 I Q All right. During the period late Fifties and 2 e. 'r!y !'3G0's were there shinya ret safety meetings of any kind? 3 A Yes. , 4 Q And did you attend those meetings? 5 A By and large, no. 6 Q There were meetings that wereheld by the 7 various departments? 8 A They were held bysupervisors. There were 9 stand-up- safety meetings held by the supervisors, the 10 irr -Mate supervisors. 11 Q And those took place every, what, month or so? 12 A At first they were weekly, I believe. 13 Q I believe you indicated that then it became 14 every month or so? . 15 A. They became monthly, yes. 16 Q You didn't feel there was any necessity for any 17 meetings any more often than once a month? 18 A Well, they were having very little effect on 19 the number of accidents we were having. 20 Q As far as the content of what was said at 21 those meetings, I take it that you had really no say over that. 22 That was done by the supervisors; is that correct? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q And you did not attend those meetings? Very few. d You indicated that you did attend a meeting of 27 shipyard pipe coverers and insulators sometime after you returnejd 28 from the New York Academy of Science meeting, which was held MT-PWHD-01126E i* Q It was attended by a number of people? 1 A Yea. Moat of tho.n from Ru3aia and Canada, 2 3 Africa; probably a lot of Americans. I don't knew. I don't ' I* 4 knew who they were. ' 5 Q There were incus try representatives there, too? A. I don't know, sir. 6 7 Q You did not meet any? A. I did not. 8 9 Q And the hazards associated with asbestos exposure wore discussed at that meeting; is that correct? 10 A Yes, they were. 11 12 Q And, I take it, you weren't shocked by anything 13 you heard at that meeting? 14 A No. 15 0 Was there anything particularly -- one of the 16 subjects that was discussed at the meeting was the hazard 17 present to insulators? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And you heard Or. Selikoff speak at the meeting? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And you heard from him personally about the 22 results of some studies that he had done previously? 23 A Yes.He addressed the group, yes. 24 Q And he did discuss the studies that were done? 25 1 Yes, he did, 20 < Do you recall i\iri a ; rising the group that as 27 a result -- that hi9 study that was done included over 1500 28 members of the insulators union local in the New York-New Jersey MT-PWHD-011266 area? 1 A I don't remember that specifically, no, sir 2 Q Do you remember his advising the group that 3 he arrived at certain findings with respect to the extent of 4 -'`a 5 disease that these insulators had experienced over their working life? 6 A The whole discussion was on the fact that 7 people were getting asbestosis from breathing asbestos. 8 Q And that included insulators? 9 A It was mostly insulators, yes, sir. 10 Q And you knew from your experience at Long Beach 11 that insulators were getting asbe3tosis at Long Beach? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q And that was your experience when you got to 14 the shipyard in 1956? 15 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q You knew then that there were, what, eight or ten people that were disabled? 18 19 A Something less than 10, yes, sir. Q Some of them had died; is that correct? 20 A By the time I got there? 21 Q Well, I amsorry. Withdraw thatquestion. 22 23 A No. 24 Q I believe Mr.Phipps passed awayafter you got ?r' f- - ? , V: ' '' i, he did. 27 Q Did you discuss with anyindustryrepresentatives 28 at Mount Sinai Dr. Selikoff's remarks? MT-PWHD-01126/ 1 A No, I did not. 2 0 Did my industry representatives approach you 3 as a representative from the Long Beach Naval Shipyard about 4 the subject of.the conference? 5 A No, they did not. 6 Q Now, when you got back from that meeting, I 7 believ'a you told us sometime around six months later you shared 8 the matters that you heard at the conference with some of the i 9 people at Long Beach Naval Shipyard; is that correct? 10 A Ye3, sir. 11 Q And I believe you said you met first with some 12 of the supervisors? 13 A I think first we met with Meeker and Webby Ay. 14 Q And who was Meeker, again? 15 A He was. the head of Shop 56. 16 Q And then you had a meeting with, I believe you 17 said, the laggers? 18 A Yes. 19 Q That would bethepipecoverers and insulators? 20 A Yes. 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 MT-PWHD-011268 1* l*W(Uf 4.0; Coho 165 Coda 300 Suoj; Asbestos Produces; used in the Lor*2 beach hovel Shipyard Asbestos products are avail obi a for use ir* the Shipyard and ore stored i. building 59. Of the hundreds of boxes observed thosa containing nsbosto. products era nixed with those that do r.ot contain osbc&tos, oven on the Kama pellet. Since these products have the soma stock number they or iosuod et roodon with no consideration to their content. After the block or preformed pipe covering is removed iron the carton 'thorn is no identifying markings on the material to show that it contains UUUU4CO8 *. The boxes are poorly marked with a 5"x7" warning on ono of the six panule of a box approximately 3'x3'>f2'. Thosa materials contain about 15% is./ asbestos end must be handled, cut and sawed to fit thu job. It is estimated chat 307. of the pipe covering and block used contains asbestos, This block and preformed covering cannot be effectively wot for use. Insulation cement (mud) is either completely asbestos free or 1CiC% asbestos. The bags are clearly marked and 56 Shop uses the asbestos free until ch^y run out end then use the asbestos product only on an emergency basis, about 30% of the mud used is pure asbestos. After tho fiber is put into bags or drums for wetting end mixing the hazard is almost non exiseaac. All cloth, filler and thread used is glass or coramic fiber, but there .-ire many larger rolls of asbostos cloth in storago and ready for is nun in Hu fitting 59. Yhifc loose asbestos also endanger:; tho supply and trucking /K-roonnoi in chat the cloth.is loosoly wrapped in corn burlap. Shop 56 should have the autKoricy to refuse ar.bcsfoc containing products "/ and have the authority to purchase safe products locally, / s Those personnel in supply involved with this product should be indoctrinated or* tho hazards of asbestos by the Xedical Department on an annual but.is. Shop 26. has switched to glass for their work and the supply of asbestos i shop stores, Building 126^will'bo disposed of immediately. 1 F25199 > ! 124 MT-PWHD-01126 i Shop 31 is !. using glass for all of chair annealinu and preheating, Shop 41 still ujt.es asbestos, wire inserted cloth for boiler casing door gnskots. ft is 06timatcd that 75 sq. ft. is used each month. Tho employees working with this product in Shop 41 are indoctrinated by the Xcdicai epoxtingnt^ % Until Navy supply system is completely purged of asbestos products chero will always remain the danger of asbestosis. 11;e uninitiated will still use asbestos for curtains as a shield against heat, cold or drafts, and situations will always arise where asbestos must be used in an "emergency" situation, 60 the educational process must continue to be stressed. \ F25190 125 MT-PWHD-011270 EIO:rm(iS5.2) 13 November 1974 T* O NliNOKANDUM From: Code 185 To: Code 100 Vie: Code 150 Subj: Asbestos products carried in Supply Department Ref: (a) NAVSHIPSINST 5100.26, para 2a(19) (b) BUMEOINST 6260.14, para 4e (c) NAVSHIPYDL3EACHINST 5100.27C, SAFSU? #2053,2, para 3k Enel: (1) Code 185 memo dated 27 7ob 1974 (2) Recommended policy statement 1. References (a), (b) and (c) all require the use of suitable replacement materials for asbestos containing material whenever practicable. Enclosure (1) is evidence of this Division's efforts to restrict the use of asbestos material within this shipyard. 2. A current problem exists in that asbestos material continues to ' be stocked, ordered.and used even though acceptable substitutes arc available. It is this Division's contention that the asbestos pi-oni.-m will never be resolved until, ns-a beginning, wo cease in..inline: such material. Guidance provided by the references and savings in future compensation costs dictate that asbestos free material bo ucil^uou whenever practicable. Presently there are con (10) former shipyard cmployees/bf ; their survivors receiving continuing injury component. on for occupational asbestosis (estimated cosc approximately $100 choun.uiu - dollars per year). . .. ' * *.** a, 3. To alleviate this problem, it is requested that the Shipyard Coin.anb_.* issue a policy statement on this subject. Enclosure (2) is a suggested statement of policy. t'upy tu; Code 300 500 920 % 930 200 400 . *25191 123 9 -. MT-PWHD-011271 v-c{? is? C- 'YV?-, 'V April I, 1974 U. t. DtTtrtMM of Uki Office cf Federal taplcyccc' Compensation 430 Celln Cici Avmw '^ Ui funclici, Cell fertile Ic: rile Ko. 413-411-244 j/d L' 1 have been active la the field of asbostot coacrol atnee 1934. For long periods of tlae the Industrial Hygiene billet wee abolished la the long Beech Keval Shipyardand, consequently by default the re sponsibilities to provide Industrial Pytieno service fell on the When Kr. Kenning came aboard the Shipyard as the Industrial Hygienist we formed a close partnership In the fight t. control coxle health basards In the Shipyard for Mr.^Kamtr- had Utt bsTkin^f-wO^s own oonplt 1*" theVndica? Ptna^tasnc. ""** r"** t/* Together we studied the problems of control of Injurious substances in the working environment, especially asbestos. Ve went to engineer- in/ chares aboard ships when asbestos insulation was being reeoveoT^"* The s psci> s' were clouded with dust. Asbestcs cloth was being used at the time in the fabric*qj-t shop and on the mixint barge; we were there together repeatedly. We inspected certain bofler snow areas where Oesbcstos was used. In those days wafers jeno-arr. of tho full offoets * * asbestos exposure so wo did not borhtr to rear a respirator. Later -a w resUsed that the only dotanco against tae aooscos oust ard during insulation roeoval aboard ships vaa a rood duf respirator, wore ros-^flitp-^ r* *A Mr. Manning had an wnlortunats ^JTVoncs'with respoet to wooring his rosplrator. In tho Shipyard !. functioo of buying, lsauiag cleaning, or sanitation of rosplratora is in tho hands of the Central Tool. Shoo. Tho duat rosplratora Issued at the time were Mnvucivrtd by Mike Safety Appliance Company and wera called Duse roe iMpuawti. the 4--ro*>*d the model by increasing tho also of tho filter and filter holder they called it Duat Foe 44. Both filter holders would got la tho same respirator. In the Interest ef false economy tho small filter holders f were not recoiled and os a result two slsos of filters and two sisos of filter holdoro wort being used at the same time. The people that issued the sefety equipment were not always properly Indoctrinated. They Issued Mr. Manning a pocket of small flit-? hold*- a. As o result Mr. Manning wbllo wearing a respirator was breathing raw unflltared air during sampling 1m heavy concentrations of asbestos dust. Ho dif mtt for yysrs v-tll * Flpeceverer and Insulates.. KrVCharlea Ay, polar*d thTmlJt a*e TIT.------------------ 1- MT-PWHn.n-l 'i 07o Km4Uii te eay i)m mil tlltn kildtr M (liter 41i*rH*t*4 4toa the Safety Issue Shapt v'* Ut 4uu(i had beta dsns. . . ' I have watched Mr* Nrulnt'i derllee In exertional capacity vhieh Ikus especially soclcuM^ In the last six nanthe. Is was short of IrNtk and Just could toe keep up ee Inspection port Is s sad conducted Tours mt vis1tint high ranking dlgnltarlos. fortunately, Mr. Meaning realised that kit physical condition oat serious and sought the hose puloosery funceloo specialist la the area. Dr. Ofcar ^alshrn WTttJncs ProMssor of Medicine at University of Southern California Meetcal Center. Be has a world vide reputation. As a result of a day and nos-haIf work up, his condition was diagnosed as pulnonanr ty-hvtstvi aehostofls. fibrosis and pleural thickening. rflTtxtirclon-l capacity la 551 of a nan his age and weight. Ad ditionally It was discovered that he had a genetic defect that pre disposes hia to lung danage when exposed to Irritants. I jean attest to t^-_fet that Mr, Manning has bean axaaaad to menu irj) _of_-* f \ ~~' i n the merer ay. to s__lnrb-- . i dust, furo*s; jidtoxic pat con- <fTixoosV It Is ny opinion th*t this 1* a case mi job related disability. Mr. Manning's condition la due to hie exposure in the long leach Naval Shipyard. Sc. vrSJtieca gafe:y Superintendent Long leech Navel Shipyard B3 T01022337 -11 * MT-PWHD-011973 ,o N> MT-PWHD-011274 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 DEPARTMENT NO. 4 -Af 5 6 RICHARD J. HOGARD, HON. EARL F. RILEY, JUDGE file copy 7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. '9 JOHNS-MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Etc., et al.. 10 Defendants. 11 No. C 137 466 12 13 14 REPORTERS' DAILY TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 15 Monday, Hay 5, 1980 16 17 APPEARANCES: 18 (See Volume 1) 19 20 21 22 23 VOLUME NO, 15 24 Page: 1923 - 2073, Inal, 25 23 27 28 DIANA R. GRACE, CSR #1672 and - THELMA A. ROBERTS, CSR #785 Official Reporters PRODUCED gJSI w 83~ MT-PWHD-011275 1 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, MAY 5, 1300; 10:00 A.M. 2 3 4 (The following proceedings were held 5 in open court, out of the presence of 6 the j ury:} 7 8 THE COURT: In the Eogard matter, anything for the 9 record before the jury ccrr.es out? 10 MR. STEINBERG: Nothing further, Your Honor. 11 MR. HAIGHT: No, Your lienor. 12 MR. NORDY: No, !cour Honor. 13 THE CCdRT; May we have the jury, please. 14 15 (The following proceedings were held 16 in open court in the presence of the 17 jury:) 18 19 THE COURT: I will congratulate you. You all got back, 20 and you got back on time. Good for you. 21 Defense may call their next witness. 22 MR. NORBY: Yes. I would like to call Mr. Krieger, 23 please. 24 25 26 called as a t .tx:ct3 by the defendant Reybestes"Manhattan, wa3 27 sworn and testified as fellows: 28 MT-PWHD-011276 15 2 S 1 THE CLERx.: Would you please state and spell your name 2 3 TL3 WITNESSj Clifford V, Krieger, K-r-i-e-g-e-r. 4 THE CLERKs Thank you. 5 6 7 BY MR. NGR3Y 8 Q Mr. Krieger, what area do you live in, sir? 9 A Huntington Beach. 10 Q And how long have you lived there, approximately 11 A Seven or eight years. 12 a And what is your present employment, Mr. Krieger? 13 A California State University, Long Beach. 14 Q And in what capacity are you employed at Long 15 Beach. State? 16 A Environmental health and safety officer. 17 Q And do you teach there? Do you teach there 18 at Long Beach? 19 A Yes. 20 0 And approximately how many courses do you teach, 21 Mr. Krieger? , 22 A One course. 23 Q And what is that course on? 24 A Industrial supervision. 25 '2 How long have vcu naan epoloy*.:-! at Long Beach 26 27 A Five and a half years. 28 G What was your employment before Long Beach State? MT-PWHD-011277 ID 2 7 A I was at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. 1 2 Q And would you tell ns that years you ware at 3 the Long 3each Naval Shipyard, please? 4 A 1956 to 1974. 5 nw t'ou want from the shipyard to Long Beach State? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q And: before you were at the Long Beach Naval 8 Shipyard, between 1956 and 1974,,where were you employed? 9 A Philadelphia, naval aviation supply office and 10 depot. 11 Q And what work did you do at the Philadelphia 12 Naval Shipyard? 13 A At the shipyard? 14 Q Oh, did you work at the shipyard? 15 A Yeah, I worked at the shipyard before I went 16 to the naval aviation supply office. 17 Q Okay. And so the supply was separated from 18 the shipyard, was it? 19 A Yes, it was. 20 Q Okay. But you were: employed in Philadelphia 21 for the Navy before 1544 and 1956? 22 A Right. 23 Q And what was your job title at the Philadelphia 24 Naval Shipyard? 25 h At the shirvarc? 26 w Yean. 27 A I was a safety inspector. 28 Q Now, did you have anv special training for your PRODUCED MT-PWHD-011278 192 3 1 work with the Navy during that period of tine? 2 A Well, I was trained from time to tins with 3 different courses throughout the years. I also took sons 4 independent courses. 5 Q Did you take any safety courses at the Navy, 6 wnile you were with the Navy or the shipyard, at either supply 7 or otherwise? 8 A Well, like conferences. We'd go to conferences, 9 We'd have training at different areas. An example might be 10 Edward's arsenal, to study radiological safety, that type of 11 thing. 12 Q Did you take a Navy safety course? 13 A Numerous Navy safety courses. 14 Q And commencing when? Was that before your 15 employment in Philadelphia, during, or after? 16 A During my employment in Philadelphia, yes. 17 Q And then you came to work in the Long Beach 18 Naval Shipyard in approximately 1956; is that correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And you stayed there until 1974? 21 A Right. 22 Q And in what capacity were you at the Long 23 Beach Naval Shipyard? 24 A I was a safety superintendent. 25 Q Would you axelain to me what the duties were cf 26 a safety superintendent at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard in 27 1956? 28 A Well, I had to set up a MT-PWHD-011279 1923 1 continuing safety program that would involve safety on the 2 ships, and in the shops, and 'n the warehouse, and so forth, 3 mostly dealing with traumatic safety. 4 Q Traumatic a3 contrasted with what, Mr. Krieger? 5 A Systemic; in other wordsr the difference between 6 an accidental type of injury and an illness. 7 Q In other words, would you characterize -- if 8 somebody fell down and broke a leg on the job -- 9 A Traumatic. 10 Q And would you give us an example of the other 11 type? 12 A The illness? 13 Q Yes. 14 A Asbestosis. 15 Q That's why we arehere. That's one of the 16 illnesses you dealt with; is that correct? 17 A Yeah, that'sabout the only large volume we 18 had. We had some other complaints but they were minor. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCEQ-83 MT-PWHD-011280 1 9 70 1 & And at tha tire you came to the Long Beach Naval 2 Shipyard, who was your superior at tha shipyard? 3 A David Hendrickson. 4 Q. And what was his title? 5 A Industrial relations officer. 6 (X Do you know who Mr. Hendrickson's superior was? 7 A The commanding officer. 8 & Of the shipyard? 9 A Yes. . 10 (X At the time you came to the Long Beach Naval 11 Shipyard, was there any safety manual than in existence? 12 A I am sorry. I didn't hear it. 13 , QL At the time you came to the Long Beach Naval 14 Shipyard, was there a safety manual in existence? 15 A No, there was not. 16 Q, And was one of the first problems you dealt with, 17 when you were dealing with a problem, pertaining to silica dust^ 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q. And what.were your responsibilities in regard 20 to silica dust? 21 A Well, somebody brought attention ~- to my 22 attention that there was a possibility that there wa3 silica 23 in the sand we were using for blasting; and I took it up with 24 the industrial hygienist, and we found out that this was not 25 v.:a a granite withou: 26 My next series of questions, sir, are going to 27 deal with maybe the first one or two years that you were ap the, 28 Long Beach Naval Shipyard, to give you somfli type of frame of MT-PWHD-011281 1931 1 reference. So when I say, "During that period of time," we 2 will say one or two years after you started work at the Long i : 3 Beach Naval Shipyard, if that is convenient for you. 4 A I understand. 5 ft During that period of time, did you have occasion i 6 to meet various people at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 7 A. Yes. 8 ft And did you have occasion to meet a Mr. Meeker? 9 A. Yes. 10 ft And who was Mr. Meeker? i 11 A. He was the head of the pipefitters shop, 12 ft And is there a number designation for that? 13 A 9--56. 14 ft Okay. And what was done at Shop 56? j 15 A Pipe fitting, pipe covering and insulating, 16 copper work, pipe work and antennaes. 17 ft And what was Mr. Meeker's job title at Shop 56? 18 A At that time he was the master of the shop. He 19 was later known as the superintendent. 20 ft And did he -- Was he a civilian employee? 21 A Yes, he was. 22 ft And did he answer or did hereport to you on 23 matters pertaining to safety? 24 A No. We discussed matters,but hedid not 25 report to me . . 26 ft Okay. Did you, during that period of time, have 27 occasion to nest Mr. Webster Ay? 28 A Yes, I did. MT-PWHD-011282 1932 1 QL And who was Mr, Webster Ay? 2 A He was a foreman -- he may have been a foreman ; 3 at that time, I don*t know. But he eventually became a 1 j 4 foreman in the pipe covering shop- He was also the head of the 5 Metal Trades Council, 6 Ql Can you tell me what the Metal Trades Council 7 was during that period of time? 8 A That was a group of unions within the shipyard, 9 Ql During that period of time we referred to, did i 10 you have occasion to deal with asbestos and asbestosis, injury?; 11 A Yes, I did. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED JM -83 MT-PWHD-011283 1 Q T *5 1 Q And were there certain people at the shipyard at that tinse, during that period of time*, who had Workers' 2 3 Compensation claims for the disease asbestosis? 4 A Yes, there was. 5 Q And can you tell me approximately how many 6 people, as of the period of time we are referring to, had the -- 7 had claims at that time? 8 A Less than 10. 9 Q And at the time you came on there was there in 10 existence or -- well, during the period of time was there 11 an x-ray program at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 12 A Yes, there was. 13 Q Can you describe that x-ray program for us? 14 A Prior to my comingthere? 15 Q Right, at the time, as you found it in 1956. 16 A X-rays were given, I believe, every six months 17 only to those people involved with pipe covering and insulating. 18 Q Do you know -- was that the program that was 19 in existence as of the time you came there? 20 A Yes. 21 Q As part of your job duties and responsibilities 22 did you make any determinations as to whether that program 23 was or was not working? 24 A It was not part of my job, but I questioned the 25 26 d what was the problem., if you would define 27 it for us, please? 28 A well , because sometimes the x-rays were read PRODUCED JM - S3 MT-PWHD-011284 1934 1 positive and sometimes they were read negative. So in going 2 back over the period of years, ve ascertained that maybe 3 different doctors read x-rays differently. 4 Q I am sorry. Were you through with your answer? 5 ye 3. 6 Q When you say an x-ray is positive or negative, 7 would you explain what that means, please, Mr. Krieger? 8 A Well, in going back over the years -- and I want 9 you to know I have no medical background whatsoever, but I can 10 read when it says that there -- when it says "negative," that 11 means nothing. And when it says there were markings, I suspected 12 that they were talking about positive markings. 13 Q Okay. Do you know what the purpose of the x-ray 14 program was at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 15 A I would assume it was to see if there was 16 anything wrong with the workers' lungs. 17 Q And you said there was some inconsistency between 18 the positive and negative, I believe. What did you mean by that 19 A From period to period there would be inconsistencies. 20 Q What was that, Mr. Krieger? 21 A Well, like at one particular tine it would say 22 positive; and then it would say negative; and negative, and 23 then it would say positive. 24 Q Were these x-rays over in the medical department? 25 26 Ana from time to time 27 Who was the director cc the medical department 28 at the time you were there, in the period we have talked about? MT-PWHD-011285 1935 1 A This would be Captain Thompson, I believe. 2 Q Okay. And was he a medical doctor? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And was that job always occupied by a medical 5 doctor during the time you were there from *56 to *74? 6 A No. From '56 to -- yeah, from '56 to '74. We 7 got a civilian in *74. 8 Q Okay. Approximately how many medical directors 9 were there during that period of time, Mr. Krieger? 10 A Four. i 11 Q Now, did you at some time during the early years 12 of your tenure there do anything with reference to the 13 establishment of other and different medical exams or x-ray 14 reports or tests? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And would you tell us what that was, Mr. Krieger? 17 A I recommended that we go to Memorial Hospital 18 Clinic and involve the Heat, Frost, Insulator workers with 19 x-rays and studies of their lungs, vital capacity tests. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MT-PWHD-011286 1936 1 ft Was this related to a3bestosis? 2 A. Yes, It was the diagnosis. i j 3 ft During this period of time that you were employed I 4 at Long Beach Naval Shipyard, were you also at that time teach- j 5 ing outside of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 6 A.. Yes, I was. 7 ft And where were you teaching? 8 JL I taught at City College for about five or six 9 years and then I taught at Cal State University, Long Beach, 10 for about nine years. 11 & And during any of those courses that you taught, j I did you lecture in the disease of asbestosis or safety 12 | 13 procedures relating to the handling of asbestos? ! 14 &. Yes, I did. 15 ft Can you tell us when yourearliest lecture was 16 in regard to asbestosis or safe handling of asbestos? 17 A. Ho, I can't. 18 ft 19 like that? Can you give us a time frame, a decade, something 20 A It seems to me it would have been at Cal State 21 University, which would be fourteen years age 22 . 23 24 25 ft. Who was Captain Robbins? iL Medical director, ft. During what period of time? it I don't remember, sir, 26 ft Who was Dr. Jose Smith? 27 A. Medical director. 28 ft Do you know what period of time he was there? PRODUCED JM-83 MT-PWHD-011287 1937 1 .. ' ft. I believe he left in '74. -.1. don*t remember ... 2 when:-h came* . " ' . 3 . . ft Were-any of your responsibilities dealing with 4 safety .. orders, in, the shipyard? : ...... \. .. 5 . ft. . Yes, they- were ... . . 6 . Q. Were they pertaining to anything that came . 7 within your jurisdiction? 8 Ik Yes, " 9' Q. Now, was one of your problems communicating -- , 10 or one of your functions, I guess,... communicating safety 11 practices with regard, to. handling asbestos to the workers? 12 . ft. Yes.': . , . 13 0> And can you tell me during that period of time 14 we have been talking about how you went .about doing that? 15 ft. What I*d like to straighten out first is the 16 fact that this particular problem you are talking about was 17 the medical department's responsibility, and from time to time 18 I got involved, but it was the primary responsibility of the 19 medical department and they, from time to time, gave training 20 to the pipe covers and insulators, like every six months, 21 discussing asbestos, smoking --. I'm sorry, the dangers of . 22 asbestos, the dangers of smoking when you are working with 23 asbestos, using protective gear, that type of thing. 24 MR. STEINBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to request that 25 answer cs ssriossn. at least tc that portion which is not 26 within tea witness's knowledge with respect to wnat the medical 27 department did* . ' 28 THE COURT? I think you are going to have to lay a MT-PWHD-011288 1938 1 foundation as to how he knows that* 2 MR. KORBY: Withdraw the question* .. 3 (X Do you know if there were - safety meetings set 4 up with the medical directors present at those meetings? 5 6 7 k. Yes# there were* . Q. Did you attend any of those? A. Yes. i 8 0. Would you tell me what was discussed at the t 9 meetings you attended# Mr. Krieger? - 10 . ' MR. STEINBERGs Objected to# Your Honor, as to time. 11 THE COURTS Fix your time. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ;1 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCE JM - 83 MT-PWHD-011289 1939 1 . .. . .' .BYiMH,.Okay,;,\At what time did.you- ' 2 attend- the -safety /.-meetings, . Mr.' Krieger?'' .: 3 .. & ;I caaft tsll yoa that., . . .. . 4 ft, . Can. you -give ua a. .year range, whether it was in 5 the- Sixties or .ap to. that period of time,, up to the. end of the 6 Sixties,. l.ets say? . . ... ..... 7 A I would say it was late Sixties and Seventies, 8 yes, definitely,. . 9 ft ..Okay,, Can you tell me what you heard discussed 10 at the meetings during: the. iate: Sixties,, if you would? 11 A, 'Just as. I . said before, the fact that asbestos , 12 was dangerous and that smoking with asbestos was fatal, and 13 that -- or primarily that, and that the person should protect 14 themselves,.', . ... ' . . : . 15 ft During this early period of time, did you have 16 occasion to discuss any problems pertaining to safe handling 17 of asbestos with Mr. Webster Ay, the head of the local 18 committee? 19 MR. STEINBERG* Objected to as vague and ambiguous. 20 I'm not sure I understand the question as to time. 21 MR.. NORBY* Let me withdraw it. 1 22 THE COURT* Very well. 23 ft BY MR. NORBY* During the period of time we 24 have talked about, your early period at Long Beach Naval 25 Shipyard,' *'56, *5?,. *"58, "did- you have, occasion -co discuss'' 26 safe.handling of asbestos and those problems wren Mr. Webster 27 28 A Yes. PRQBtfCED JM -83 MT-PWHD-011290 1940 1 MR. NORBYs May X approach the witness? 2 . THE COURT: The invitation is still open. 3 MR. NORBY: Yes. 4 Qi I'm going to show you something -- it appears 5 to be a picture. I'd like to mark it as defendants' next in 6 order. 7 THE COURT: That's Raybestos-Manhattan 1008. 8 Q. BY MR. NORBY:I'm going to show you what I have 9 marked in the left-hand corner as 1008 and ask you.if you 10 recognize that, Mr. Krieger. 11 A. Yes, I do. 12 Ql Would you describe it for us,please. 13 A. It is a poster showing deathwith his sickle/ 14 scythe and itsays, "Is this your future?" 15 In other words, death or with your family, 16 wear your respirator. 17 Ql And do you know who the artist was that did that 18 poster, Mr. Krieger? 19 A Artie Bransford. 20 Qi And do you know in whatyear he prepared that 21 poster? 22 A April of 1957. 23 Qi Now, I notice down atthe bottom it has your 24 name in there as Mr. Krieger; is thatcorrect? 25 A Yes* does 26 Qi It also has Mr. Ay's name on there, too, as head 27 of Local 20, Business Agent; is that correct? 28 * Xes- produced _ JHT^83 MT-PWHD-011291 1941 1 ...'.ft . "'Canvyim step-down here: for a minute so we ..can 2 describe, this' 'esdiibi-t:-^ .10GS?. .' . -- ' 3 . ' ' . Can you#., first, of .all, tell .ms what size that 4 was a.fc.the .Long-Beach Naval .Shipyard? .. . 5 . . ..Approximately', the same size*. ..... 6 ft Can you tell me where it was posted? 7 2L Throughout the shop, the asbestos handling 8 shop., -and it was ^given; out-..at. union meetings, as I recall. 9 .ft, . " ` find do you remember how many .of them,,, 10 approximately, .appeared in, the .Long. Beach: Naval. Shipyard? 11 JL Ho,: I; do .not. . ... . . 12 ft Do you know if any of them ended up in the pad 13 shop- or Slop, 56? -: : 1 . .. . . . , 14 ' -A. ..' '. ' ,Yes,,v r , , '' ' . ' 15 ft Now, you were pointing, I think -- we couldn't 16 see the picture. Can you tell me what this is? It is not 17 very clear, this picture on the left. 18 A. It is death, 19 ft The grim reaper? 20 & That's it, the grim reaper. 21 ft. And do you know who was instrumental in 22 developing that picture? 23 A. Mr. Ay, Webster Ay. 24 . . .. . .. 'I ' ' . ft And did he tell you what he was -- You can 25 resvi* sue stand,' if. you - would. . ; . . ' : . 26 Would you tell us, did he ever relate to you 27 what Itfite' was. trying, to' 28 MR. STEINBERG* Objected to as calling for hearsay. PRODUCED 'ill;-'IJ. . MT-PWHD-011292 1 Your Honor 2 THE COURT* Sustained. 3 Ql by MR. HORBYs At the time that picture was 4 developed, Mr. Krieger, did you yourself feel that that was 5 an appropriate way to get any massage pertaining to safe 6 handling of asbestos out to the workers? 7 A. No. 8 q. can you tell us why youdid notbelieve in this 9 particular method of communication to the workers? 10 A. I don't believe in scaretactics forsafety. 11 Q. What approach did you prefer to use with the 12 workers, Mr. Krieger? 13 A. Education. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MT-PWHD-011293 1943 4I Q./ Meaning what in this, time fraise? ' . 2 " ;A' . Well., I would rath*ar .call.'them in,', talk to therm 3 or go to them, a.s the case may be,. .and. discuss-hazards . rather 4 than, this type of thing. .. . . .. : 5' Q . Okay. And did. you put into effect some sort- 6 of educational, program .that dealt with the, --1 dealing with 7 asbestos in a safe manner? 8 A' Yes. . . 9 Q Would you describe that program for us, 10 Mr. Kriecer? ,1 '' 11 . A Well, I believe- the.first, part involved going . 12 to the union meetings. I think once or twice I went to the 13 union meetings in Long Beach and -.discussed" the .fact. that we 14 had people with asbestosisrand they got it,probably from not 15 being protected., . 16 And then later we brought -- because that was 17 only involving union members, we brought the educational 18 program into the shop, 56 Shop. It would involve all laggers, 19 union and nonunion. 20 Q When you say "laggers," is that an expression? 21 A Heat, Frost, Insulator workers, yes. 22 Q As I understand it -- or let me ask yous Were 23 there some insulators there who were not members of the union? 24 A At the union meeting? 25 0 xns. 26 A . No, I wouldn*t .think so. 27 .Q Okay, Did yea take any steps, or do you recall 28 any steps, to insure the fact that union personnel or union ------ ---- :------ :------ -------------------- PRODUCED Jftl - 83 MT-PWHD-011294 194 1 members would attend these meetings, Mr. Krieger? 1 A No, 2 3 Q While you vers at fcha Long Naval Sfe />r. 4 did you take any steps to further your own education with 5 regard to asbestos and ashestosis? A Yes. 6 7 Q Did you attend any of Dr. Selikoff's seminars or meetings? 8 9 A Yes, I did. 10 Q Can you tell me when you first did that, Mr. Krieger? 11 A No, I can't. 12 13 Q Can you give us a time frame, decade, half 14 decade or thereabouts, please, as best you can? 15 A My guess would be late Fifties or early Sixties. 16 Q And did you, in any way, impart the information 17 that you received at the Selikoff seminars to the workers at 18 the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 19 A When I came back, we discussed this conference 20 with Mr. Meeker and Mr. Ay. And then -- you understand that 21 when we had an industrial hygienist, the industrial hygienist 22 and the medical department had these conferences. And I would 23 also probably discuss it with them. 24 Q Okay. There was, at the time you came there. 25 also an industrial hvni I believe "cu said? 26 27 28 was? And can you tell me whr the industrial hygienist MT-PWHD-01129E 1945 A 1 Q 2 3A 4Q 5A 6Q 7A 8Q 9A 10 left. Jim Sheehan. And after Mr. Sheehan, who was it? Bill Marr. And how long was Mr. Bill Marr there? I don't remember. Do you recall when he left? Yes. And when did he leave? I don't ~ I recall him leaving, not when he 11 Q Okay. I believe you drew a distinction a moment 12 ago that I would like to explore, hygienists as contrasted with 13 your job. 14 Would you draw that distinction between the 15 director of safety, which you were and the industrial 16 hygienist, say, during the early Sixties, Mr. Krieger? 17 A Industrial hygienists are trained in an 18 entirely different field, certified by an industrial hygiene 19 board. Their education is more on the medical end of it, 20 whereas a safety -- I am an engineer, for instance. Our 21 education is more, again, to the traumatic-type *-hing, how 22 to build a scaffold, how to run lines safely, this type of 23 thing. 24 25 26 27 28 MT-PWHD-011296 1946 . / Q. More to preventingthe traumatic type of injury; 1 .is: .'.that/ correct? 2 ,\ ;. A 'That's right* 3 . . ' ..Q - Mr.,-..'.Marr-'s. responsibilities, .as contrasted with 4 yours,# ,was wnal 5 Kri.eger? , A . Well, ha was responsible for prevention of . 6 systemic types of things. In other words# loss of hearing 7 would be one, the protection against loss of hearing? and# 8 again, ..protecting the people against toxic paints and asbestos 9 .and that sort of thing.. 10 ...: : .. . Q So that when, you are . talking about some, of these 11 see-tings with, union . leaders,. would" those- be morefrequently 12 13 attended bv Mr, Marr or by yourself?.. . 14 A I don't think Mr. Marr was involved in the ' union meetings. I think I was the only one. involved in the . . 15 16 union meetings. Then they were brought back into the 17 shipyard and everyone was involved. Q Okay. Can you tell me -- excuse me. 18 19 A And then Mr. Marr would have taken over. Q Approximately when were the meetings brought 20 back into the shipyard, Mr. Erieger? 21 ' . 22 A Well# I think it was during Mr. Marr's tenure. 23 That has got to be in the record someplace. I just don't 24 recall when it was. 25 When Mr - Mari left, vai th jra a period, of. time- 26 -XS -- w \' '' *" v*^p. { ^ ' . 27 A That's right. 28 Q And do you recalls Did.an industrial hygienist M - 83 MT-PWHD-011297 1947 *5A.2 1 eveatmally, come, in to-/taka; .the former, responsibilities of 2 Mr., jsarr?'.' 2'i / . : ' ' . ... 3' 'A/' ' 'Yes-.,1 . -. " 4 .' Q '!And.Whd/was! that? / -. / . '. 5 ." . A- -/'Mr. -Sheldon 'Manning.-'. "v ; . - ' 6 2 . . Can you ..recall approximately When, he came, Mr. 7 Krieger? 8 .A Mo# ,1 can't, f. 9 Q- Do you know how much of a time period, there . 10 wasWa between Sr. .Mart-.'.leaving, and Mr. Maiming, coming on? 11 12 . A. ' Q .,My .guess would fee about. a year. . In 1356 approximately how often were x-rays 13 being taken, of the' employees to determine/lung; problems? . 14 A . It shosld have ...been every six. months.. 15 Q When was the first time that respirators became 16 mandatory in the shipyard? 17 A About 1956. By "mandatory" this means instructions 18 were given that they should be worn. That doesn't mean they 19 were ''worn. /..' . 20 Q You had occasion to walk through the shipyard 21 and see places where-respirators.were and. were n t used; is . 22 that correct? 23 A That's right. 24 Q And sometimes you would see the wearing of 25 respirators ana sometimes you would nou? . 26 A That's right. ': 27 Q And would you take any steps, upon encountering 28 a worker- that was not wearing a respirator, or did you feel that M -83 MT-PWHD-011298 194 8 i was . ia.. your area , of .responsibility? .. 2 ;& ''I. was ;3,ofc .a: supervisor.of .any men,..' .If I. did 3 anythingr it. would have been- to. contact the .supervisor. 4 . . . Q. .Did-you,, with regard to .your dealings, deal 5 more with. the.. workers themselves. or more with - -supervisors of 6 workers'? : ; . 7 A With the supervisors. 8 . Q, Okay,... And why was thatMr. Krieger? . , ' 9 A .'"Why was that? . : 10 Q. ' 'Yes. .... : ;. ' . 11 A There were. 8,000 . to .10,0GG workers and., about 500 12 supervisors, so it was easier to deal with the shop heads becaus a 13 bow ya ara talking about aavbe 20' or 30 men, . . ' ' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 '4 -..4 MT-PWHD-011299 6.1 1349 1 :. ft Okay. Then would- you tell .them to pass the 2 word on? 3A Yes. Can I make a comment here? ': 4 ft - Sure.. Please do. .. ... . 5 A Everybody'gets the:idea that safety people can 6 crack down on somebody or that we .have, . police- authority or 7 something of that nature 8 ' n A safety person is advisory only. The supervisor 9 is - .completely responsible for theworkers, \ - . < . \ 10 ft Okay. Well.,' let.1 .s .discuss that for just a . . IV moment. . . .. ' 12 In other words , you felt your capacity was 13 advisory only? 14 A .- That's right. ' '. . 15 ft And if you saw a problem, you felt you could 16 advise rather than -- I think you used the word "police" the 17 actual problem that was going on; is that correct? 18 A That's right. 19 & And so you wouldadvisepeople that were in a 20 position to do something about some of the problems you were 21 having; is that correct? 22 A That's right. 23 fit But that you could notcompel yoursuperiors 24 to issue an order or do something. Is that a fair statement? 25 A 1. don't think it-is a fair statement. My .' 26 superiors issued a lot of instructions that I wrote; like the 27 shipyard commander issued eventually.'asafety:' manual.. ' 28 ft Can you tell us when the safety manual was issued JM -83 MT-PWHD-011300 1950 ,1 .;.by.'the; shipyard . commander? . . . :. . . '. 2 .a. v:: . I cant ' tell, you- . ' . . ; 3 : . ' ft. . '. .Can. you give .ns, .'again,-.'the-time frame that 4 you are comfortable with? 5 .A.;, .... .Again, . I would assume in the late Sixties. . 6 ft Now, were you aware at one time of the existence 7 of a tape recording pertaining to an employee by the name of 8 Phipps? P-h-i-p-p-s, I guess. 9 MR. STEINBERG* Objection* assumes facts not in evidence 10 that there was such a tape recording, 11 MR. NORBY* 1*11 withdraw the question, 12 ft Do you know whether or not Mr. Marr did anything 13 with regard to tape recordings of any employees? 14 A Yes. .. . .. 15 ft Can you tell us what that is, please? 16 A I believe he went over to Mr, Phipps's house 17 and made a tape describing how badly he felt, because he was 18 completely disabled due to asbestosis. 19 ft And did Mr. Marr take a tape recording of 20 Mr. Phipps? 21 A Yes. 22 ft And what subject matter did it cover, Mr. Krieger? 23 A I believe it was aimed at the apprentice, to tell 24 them of the hazards of asbestos. 25 y . ft . And do you know where that tape is now? . .. 26 A I have no idea. 27 ft Do you know what Mr. Marr did with that tape 28 recording of Mr. Phipps? MT-PWHD-011301 1951 1 A. Well, he used it in some of his meetings. I 2 did not attend any of those meetings, but I believe he used 3 it in his meetings. 4 MR. STEINBERG: Object to the answer as speculation, 5 Your Honor. i i 6 THE COURT: It may go out. 7 0; BY MR. NORBY: Do you know what Mr. Marr's 8 custom arid practice would have been with regard to the 9 utilization of that tape? 10 MR. STEINBERG: Objected to as to form, that there was 11 a custom and practice. 12 THE COURT: Well, let's do it this way: Do you know 13 what he. did? Without making any assumption on the subject. 14 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 15 0. BY MR. NORBY: Did you hear the tape yourself, 16 Mr. Krieger? 17 A. No, sir; I did not. 18 0 Was there a time when some people, some doctors 19 visited the shipyard in the Sixties with an eye towards 20 investigating or looking at the asbestos problem or asbestosis 21 problem? 22 2L X don't recall. 23 0, Do you remember the names ofCralley, 24 Enterline and Rusher? 25 it. Ho, sir. i 1 26 0. Did you ever communicatewith the shipyard 27 commander about the problems of asbestos and asbestosis? 28 A. Yes. _PRODUCEDI M - 83 MT-PWHD-011302 1952 1 Ql Can you tall me when you first did that# 2 to. Kriegsr? 3 A. No, I can11. 4 5 Can you give us a time frame that's comfortable 5 for you? 6 A. I really don't remember the first time I would 7 have talked to a shipyard commander about it. 8 MR. NORBY* May I have a moment. Your Honor? 9 THE COURT* Certainly. 10 Ql BY MR, NORBYs Do you remember how long Mr. 11 Meeker remained the head of Shop 56? 12 A. No, I can't remember when he left. 13 Ql Incidentally, the pad shop is the equivalent 14 of Shop 56, or is it a part of Shop 56? 15 A. It is a very small part of Shop 56. 16 Ql When Mr. Manning came, did you play any part 17 in his training or education to become of the head of 18 industrial hygiene? 19 A. No, sir. I showed him the shipyard, but I 20 couldn't train him. 21 Ql I believe you indicated that early on there was 22 a period of time when the workers were sent to Long Beach 23 Memorial Hospital? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Ql I'm not sure we f ix-a.d a tIra frame or. that 26 Would that he early on in your tenure? 27 A. In the Sixties, early sixties. 28 ft Did you do that in connection with a JM - 83 MT-PWHD-011303 1953 1 Dr* at the Long Beach Memorial Hospital? 2 A. Dr. Ellestad made the studies, yes. 3 Q. And do you know whether or not there were any 4 pulmonary function tests established with regard to that 5 study? 6 A Yea, there were. 7 Q And do you know who financed those pulmonary 8 function tests? 9 A The medical department. 10 Qt Of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 11 A Yes. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED JM - 83 MT-PWHD-011304 1954 Q Was there a time when the testing of workers 1 ceased at the Long Beach Memorial Hospital? 2 3 A Yes, 3ir. 4 Q And can you tell me approximately when that was. 5 please? 6 A It seemed to me about three or four years later. 7 Q In other words, it started perhaps in the early 8 Sixties and ended three or four years later? 9 And then it was brought back in-house, that's 10 ngn*^. 11 MR. NORBY: Nothing further at this time. Your Honor. 12 THE COURT* Mr. Haight? 13 14 15 BY MR. HAIGHTs CROS S-EXAMINATION 16 Q Mr. Krieger, do you recall attending the New 17 York Academy of Science presentation of Dr. Selikoff in October 18 of 1964? 19 A Yes, sir. That is what we talked about. 20 0; Was that the first time you met Dr. Selikoff? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q And were you invited to that? 23 A Yes, I was. 24 Q By Dr. Selikoff? 25 A Yes. 26 2 Do you have any memory of how he got in touch 27 with you? 28 A Webby Ay recommended to him that he invite roe. PRODUCES- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jfi/I -83 MT-PWHD-011305 1955 Q All right. When you returned to the shipyard 1 after that conference, did you have meetings with the workers 2 on the subject matter of the conference? 3 A Yes. As I stated, I met with Mr. Meeker and 4 Mr. Ay; and then wa had the regular nesting. 5 Q And you discussed the subject that was raised 6 at that conference with all of the workers? 7 A That's right. 8 Q All right. Now, do you recall if at that 9 particular time Mr. Marr had just left the shipyard or had 10 been transferred? 11 A I believe so. 12 13 Q And Mr. Manning had not yet come on as the 14 industrial hygienist; is that correct? 15 A I don't remember. 16 Q All right. There was a period of time when ~ 17 after Mr. Marr left and before Mr. Manning came when there 18 was no industrial hygienist; is that correct? 19 A Yes, sir. Q 20 any idea? 21 Do you recall how long that was? Do you have A 1 said about a year. 22 23 Q And during that period of time did you attempt 24 to fill in on the hygiene program? 25 A No, I did not. 26 Q Did anyone? 27 A Well, as I stated in my deposition, if there was 28 an emergency. then the gas-free engineer and myself would be MT-PWHD-01130( 1955 called in to the situation. And there were very few times 1 when we did this. But I could not substitute as an industrial 2 hygienist. 3 4 Q You were not trained as an industrial hygienist? 5 A That'3 right, sir. ' Q Did you know how to take dust samples? 6 7 A No, I do not. Q Did you at that time? 8 K 9 A And still don't. Q Okay. You did not take any dust samples? 10 A I did not, sir. 11 MR. HAIGHT: Your Honor, could you give me the 12 13 number for the Johns-Manvilie next exhibit? 14 THE COURT: I think it is 538. 15 MR. HAIGHT: Thank you. 16 Q Mr. Krieger, referring to this exhibit I have 17 just marked with a 538, it bears your name at the bottom. 18 Do you recognize that memorandum? Take a minute and look at 19 it, if you need to. A Yes, sir. 20 21 Q What is that document? 22 A It's a letter from the safety superintendent, 23 myself, to the industrial relations officer, Mr. Hendrickson. 24 Q Ahd what is the date of that letter? 25 A 10 June, 1965, 26 Q And without reading the entire thing, what do 27 you request in that letter? 28 A Well, the first paragraph we talk about Dr. eliestab PRODUCED JM -83 MT-PWHD-011307 1957 from Long Beach Memorial Hospital has been running tests on 1 our asbestos workers for the past two years; and I am asking 2 that ha continue to do this. 3 Q And that is a request for funding so you could 4 continue to run the pulmonary function studies of the 5 workers; is that correct? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q And I think you list in one of the later 8 paragraphs the number of men who would be involved, and the 9 total cost would be $4100? 10 ' A Yes, sir. 11 Q Thank you. 12 Do you remember who it was that started this 13 program of the pulmonary function studies? Was it yourself or 14 Mr. Marr, or do you have any idea? 15 A With Dr. Eliestad? 16 Q Yes. 17 A It was done by Dr. Robbins andmyself. 18 Q Dr. Robbins was the medicaldirector at that 19 time? 20 A 21 Yes, he was. MR. HAIGHT: I have nothing further. Your Honor. 22 23 THE COURT: I am going to have to interrupt you for a break here. Should I do it now? 24 25 All right. Let's take our break at this time. 26 27 (Recess.) 28 MT-PWHD-011308 1953 1 THE COURT: Mr. Steinberg. 2 MR. STEINBERG: Thank you. Your Honor. 3 4 CROSS EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. STEINBERG: 6 Ql Mr. Krieger, I believe you told us you came to 7 the shipyard in 1956; is that correct? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Qt And were there about 8,000 people working at 10 the shipyard at that tine as well? You mentioned that figure 11 earlier. 12 A Approximately; yes, sir. 13 Qi Did that remain fairly constant up until the 14 time you left? 15 A I believe so; yes, sir. 16 Qi And you were the only safety officer of the 17 shipyard from *56 to *74? 18 A 19 a staff. I was the only safety superintendent. I had 20 Qi And how many departments were there in the 21 shipyard entirely, 30, 40, something like that? 22 A Oh, no. My guess would be about 12. 23 Qi And you and your staff were responsible for 24 taking care of the entire shipyard? 25 A Yes, sxr* 26 Qi I take it there were other problems at the 27 shipyard other than an asbestos problem? 28 A Many. jUCED M - 83 l MT-PWHD-011309 1959 1 &. And I believe you indicated in your direct 2 testimony that your primary work as a safety officer dealt 3 with, I believe you told us, traumatic injuries? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 ft That's people falling off scaffolds or tripping 6 over electrical cables? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 ft Was that your primary responsibility? n 9 A Yes, sir. 10 ft And did you feel during the years you were at 11 the shipyard that's where your primary emphasis was? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 ft I take it whatever time you devoted to the 14 asbestos hazard, to the extent it existed in the shipyard, 15 was only a fraction of your time? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 0 Was it true of the entire time you were at the 18 shipyard, the period from '56 to '74? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 ft You were aware that there were other health 21 hazards at the shipyard that had to be looked into, such as 22 toxic materials that had to be protected against? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 ft Was that in your field or was that the field of 25 tlis Indus 13rial hygienist? 26 A Industrial hygienist. 27 ft Did you spend any time at all with those 28 problems? ------------------------------- PRODUCED-------------- mjiui - MT-PWHD-011310 1960 1 A I don't recall. 2 Ql Now, whan you got to the shipyard in 1956, I 3 believe you told us that there were some compensation claims 4 for asbestos disease that you discovered? 5 A. Yes, sir. . 6 Ql And one of them was a Mr, Phippsj is that correct? 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 Ql And he later died from the disease? 9 A Yes, sir. . 10 QL I believe you told us there were several others; 11 is that correct? 12 A Right. 13 Ql And in your experience in Philadelphia,before i 14 ! you came to Long Beach, did you have any experience or exposure 15 to an asbestos hazard or problem? 16 A None whatsoever. 17 Q, Your first contactwith it was at theLong Beach 18 Naval Shipyard? 19 A Yes. 20 Qi And Ibelieve you told us thatin '56 or '57 21 you attended some union meetings? 22 A Yes. 23 Ql Was that more than just a couple ofunion 24 meetings? 25 A Just two, as I recall it. 26 Ql And do you recall attending any union meetings 27 after that at all? 28 A No, I can't. MT-PWHD-011311 1961 1 Qi Okay. 2 A. Yeah. We discussed one in the deposition. I 3 went back to Chicago to a union meeting, to an international 4 meeting. 5 Q. That was some time in the late Sixties; i3 that 6 correct? 7 A. I believe so, sir. 8 Q, But as far a3 the time frame, 1956 to 1960, 9 when you first came to the shipyard, there were just a couple 10 of union meetings that you went to? 11 A. Ye3. 12 Q. Now, whatever department meetings were held 13 in the late Fifties or early 1960's, I take it you were not 14 a part of those department meetings; is that correct? 15 A. I don't understand thequestion. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MT-PWHD-011312 1962 1 Q All right. During the period late Fifties and 2 early 1960*s were there shipyard safety -eatings cf any kind? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And did you attend those meetings? 5 A By and large, no. 6 Q There were meetings that wareheld by the 7 various departments? 8 A They were held bysupervisors. There were 9 stand-up safety meetings held by the supervisors, the 10 immediate supervisors. 11 Q And those took place every, what, month or so? 12 A At first they were weekly, I believe. 13 Q I believe you indicated that then it became 14 every month or so? 15 A They became monthly, yes. 16 Q You didn't feel there was any necessity for any 17 meetings any more often than once a month? 18 A Well, they were having very little effect on 19 the number of accidents we were having. 20 Q As far as the content of what was said at 21 those meetings, I take it that you had really nc say over that. 22 That was done by the supervisors; is that correct? 23 A That * s correct. 24 Q And you did not attend those meetings? 25 A Very few. 26 w You indicated that you did attend a meeting cf 27 shipyard pipe coverers and insulators sometime after you returne|d 28 from the New York Academy of Science meeting, which was held produkfd JM-83 MT-PWHD-011313 in 1964; is that correct? 1 A Yes. 2 3 . Q And at that tir.a ;-!r. harr was already gene 4 from the shipyard; is that correct? 5 A I believe so. . 6 Q And wasn't it a fact that you attended the 7 New York Academy of Science meeting because of the fact there 8 was no industrial hygienist at Long Beach at the time and as 9 a safety officer it was appropriate that you go? 10 A I believe that13correct. 11 Q This was the first time you had heard any 12 lectures by Dr. Selikoff? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q You heard them before that? 15 A Yes, I had met him -- no. I'm sorry. This is 16 the first time I met Selikoff; yes, sir. 17 Q And at the New York Academy of Science meeting 18 in 1964 I take it there were industrial hygienists present 19 from around the country? 20 A I can't answer that question. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MT-PWHD-011314 *1 .s O ** Q It was attended by a number of people? 1 A Yes. Most of them from Russia and Canada, 2 3 Africa? probably a lot of Africans. I don't knew. I don't 4 know who they were. 5 Q There were industry representatives there, coo? A. I don't know, sir. 6 7 Q You did not meet any? 8 A I did not. 9 Q And the hazards associated with asbestos exposure 10 were discussed at that neeting? is that correct? 11 A Yes, they were. 12 Q And, I take it, you weren't shocked by anything 13 you heard at that meeting? 14 A NO. 15 Q Was there anything particularly -- one of the 16 subjects that was discussed at the meeting was the hazard 17 present to insulators? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And you heard Or. Selikoff speak at the meeting? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And you heard from him personally about the 22 results of some studies that he had done previously? 23 A Yes. He addressed the group, yes. 24 Q And he did discuss the studies that were done? 25 A Yes, he did. 26 c Do you recall him advising the group that as 27 a result --- that his study that was done included over 1500 28 members of the insulators union local in the New York-New Jersey PRUMMffiBD J$SM83 MT-PWHD-011315 1955 area? 1 A I don't remember that specifically, no, sir. 2 Q Do you remember his advising the group that 3 he arrived at certain findings with respect to the extent of 4 asbestos disease that these Insulators had experienced over 5 their working life? 6 7 A The whole discussion was on the fact that people were getting asbestosis from breathing asbestos. 8 n 9 Q And that included insulators? A It was mostly insulators, yes, sir. 10 Q And you knew from your experience at Long Beach 11 that insulators were getting asbestosis at Long Beach? 12 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And that was your experience when you got to 15 the shipyard in 1956? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q You knew then that there were, what, eight or 18 ten people that were disabled? 19 A Something less than 10, yes, sir. Q Some of them had died; is that correct? 20 A By the time I got there? 21 22 Q Well, I amsorry. Withdraw thatquestion. 23 A No. 24 Q 25 there? 26 A I believe Mr.Phipps passedaway after you got Y33, he did. i 27 Q Did you discuss with anyindustry representatives 28 at Mount Sinai Dr. Selikoff's remarks? PRODUCED ~ JjeT83 MT-PWHD-011316 1 A No, I did not. 2 Q Did any industry representatives approach you 3 as a representative from the Long Beach Naval Shipyard about 4 the subject of the conference? 5 A No, they did not. 6 Q Now, when you got back from that meeting, I 7 believe you told us sometime around six months later you shared 8 the matters that you heard at the conference with some of the 9 people at Long Beach Naval Shipyard; is that correct? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q And I believe you said you met first with some 12 of the supervisors? 13 A I think first we met with Meeker and Webby Ay. 14 Q And who was Meeker, again? 15 A He was. the head of Shop 56. 16 Q And then you had a meeting with, I believe you 17 said, the laggers? 18 A Yes. 19 Q That would bethepipecoverers and insulators? 20 A Yes. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -/ PRODUCFn JM - 83 MT-PWHD-011317 1967 1 Q. And you suggested to them that they protect 2 themselves? 3 A Yes, Idid. 4 Cl And try to quit smoking? 5 A Yes. 6 Q. And that the way to protect themselves was the 7 wearing of respirators; is that correct? 8 A Yes. * 9 Cl And at that time at the shipyard in 1964, the 10 only respirators that were available were filter-type 11 respirators? 12 A That's right. 13 Qi And those were a Dust foe 66 that was previously 14 described hare? 15 A Well, there were several types available. I 16 would assume the one you mention was part of them. 17 Cl And you felt, did you not -- strike that. 18 You did indicate to the shipyard workers with 19 whom you discussed the problems of asbestos in 1964 that you 20 felt that they would be well-protected by the wearing of a 21 respirator? 22 A Yes. 23 Cl And, in fact, that is the only thing you knew 24 that could protect them, was the wearing of a respirator? 25 A tna t "ci,!*9} yeg # 26 Q. You did not caution them about wearing a 27 respirator at all times, just under certain conditions; is 28 that correct? PRODUCED- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JM -83 MT-PWHD-011318 1968 1 A. Wa felt that during ripout it was an absolute 2 necessity and that curing raining that it was a necessity ant 3 dusty pericas. 4 Q. In other words, you pretty much left it up to 5 the workers to decide for themselves how much dust was in the 6 air and when to put on or take off their respirator, other 7 than situations involving ripout, along with mixing of 8 materials? 9 JL Yes. 10 Qf. That is a fair statement? 11 SL Yes. 12 & Okay. However, you did realize at that time, 13 did you; mot, that there were problems in the wearing of a 14 respirasEcfcr? 15 A*. Yes, sir. 16 Q> A worker could only wear arespirator for a 17 very limited period of time; is that correct? 18 A That is my -- 19 MR. HAIGHT: Just a minute. I am going to object 20 to that,. Your Honor; no foundation. 21 TuE CCtIRT: Sustained at this point:. 22 MS. STEINBERG: All right. 23 QL You mentionedthat there were someproblems 24 wearing a respirator. What are the problems you felt were 25 uu wearing a respirator? 26 A. Well, the complaints we got mostly were the 27 fact that: they were too heavy and it was hard to breathe 28 through a respirator; and they were hot, and you sweat a lot. JM -83 MT-PWHD-011319 1969 : T' 2V . ' " 3 ft .' . A Q. And. .these"were- understandable problems? Yes, .. ; . . ' . i / ' . . ' . 6 ' ' And lsnst it true that you felt that' the ' .. .' ' 4 \wearing of a respirator, was-an..-impossible. task for-eight \ 5 ' hours a-day? - ; *6 MR HAIGHTiObjection. Again, Your Honor, calling .. 7 for a conclusion-of the witness at this point? no foundation, ,, .8 ' ; . MR. STEINBERG* I am .not sure I..understand what the 9 - foundation-is. ' ... ' 10 : . ... THE. COURT* Let me see. you -over. here. . : . 11 12 . . . . 13 . . ' . 14 (The following proceedings were . - held at the bench;:). 1 . . '" . - ; 15 MR, HAIGHT: Your Honor, my objection is predicated 16 on the fact that I have no objection to his telling about 17 what the problems were and what the complaints were, but to 18 jump to the conclusion that it was impossible to wear, which 19 is what the question is, is a conclusion on the witness's 20 part without any foundation. And I don't believe --I don't- 21 think it is an appropriate question. . . 22 .There is no foundation this man is an expert on 23 wearing respirators,, 24 THE COURT: Or that he ever wore one. 25 . -MS, STEINBERG: Yeah-* that's - right* That is ,wha`t he . - 26 said in-his-deposition. I,was. .just .trying-to. frame a question 27 that was in line with the deposition* 28 MR. HAIGHT: Whether he said it in deposition -- ______:_________ ;_____________:___-____ PRODUCED________;___PBnnnt'm_____ _____ M - 83 MT-PWHD-011320 1 MR. STEINBERG* X understand that, I understand that, 2 All right. 3 ' THE COURT: I think the objection has to be sustained, 4 MR. STEINBERG: Yeah. Okay. 5 6 (The following proceedings were 7 held in open court in the 8 presence of the jury*) % 9 10 Q. BY MR. STEINBERG: One of the problems of 11 wearing a respirator was the inability for the worker to 12 communicate with other workers? 13 A. I don't know. Could be. 14 Qi Did you ever try to talk through a respirator? 15 A. Yes. . 16 Q. It is difficult, isn't it? 17 A. But not impossible. 18 Q. Did you at any time do anything to test the 19 effectiveness of respirators? 20 A. That would not be my job. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MT-PWHD-011321 1971 Q Did you know when you recommended the use of 1 a respirator what tests had been done on the available 2 .j respirators at the shipyard to determine the effectiveness? 3 | i A All of the respirators purchased by the shipyard j 4 ware purchased under Government specifications. They were all 5 acceptable for the industry, every one of them. 6 Q Do you know in the late 1950's or middle 1960's, 7 at the tine when you were recommending the use of a respirator, 8 * whether any of those respirators had been approved by the 9 Bureau of Mines as being useful against asbestos fiber? 10 A Z would assume all of them were. 11 Cl Aside from your assumption, do you know or 12 13 did you undertake any study to find out? 14 A Ho, I did not. 15 Q But you made that assumption? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And your caution to the workers was to use the 18 respirators during ripout; is that correct? 19 A Yes Q And to use their judgment in using the 20 respirators at other times? 21 A Yes. 22 23 Q Mr. Marr left in 1964? is that correct? 24 A I believe so. 25 Q And Kr. Manning cane sometime in 1367? 26 A I believe that's right. 27 Q Isn't it true that during that period of time 28 you had no personal knowledge of any meetings with pipe coverers PRODUCED JM -83 MT-PWHD-011322 1372 1 and insulators that were held with them that concerned themselv 2 with the subject of asbestos? 3 A I don * t remember. 4 G Now, at the times that you did meet with pipe 5 coverars and insulators ana studied asbestos hazards with them, 6 it was a time, was it not, when there were actually no warnings 7 at all on the material itself? 8 A I don't recall that. 9 Q Asbestos insulation material I'm referring to. 10 A I don't recall. 11 Q Well, do you recall any warnings on the material^ 12 in the late 1950's? 13 A I don't remember any, no. 14 Q Do you recall any warnings on the materials in 15 1964? 16 A I remember seeing some warnings eventually but 17 I dont know when I first noticed them. 18 Q Fine. Certainly when you discussed any hazards 19 involved in the use of asbestos with pipe coverers and insulators 20 in 1357 that was a time, certainly,,when there was no warning 21 on the material itself; is that correct? 22 A As I said, I don't recall. 23 Q All right. And at that time was there any 24 warning on the containers in which the materials came to the 25 26 A I don't recall. 27 Q Were you familiar with a product called 28 Thermobestos? -jur-w MT-PWHD-011323 1973 A No, I was not. 1 Q Did you ever see a bcx of insulating materials j 2 3 in the shipyard that carried the name Themobestos? 4 A I don't remember. 5 Q Are you familiar with preformed pipe covering? A Have I seen it? 6 7 Q Right. A Yes. 8 fi 9 Q You have seen it applied in the shipyard? A Yes. 10 11 a Seen it applied by insulators? A Yes. 12 13 a And are you familiar with the chemical 14 composition, of any of the preformed pipe covering that was 15 installed, try shipyard workers? 16 A No, I am not. 17 Q Have you ever heard of any of the preformed 18 pipe covering material containing a chemical composition known 19 as calcium silicate? 20 A No, Z don't. 21 a Now, at some time in the shipyard *'Ou did 22 recommend to your superiors the use of substitute products, 23 did you not? 24 A. Yes, I did. 25 a And you recommended that because you felt that 26 the products that contained asbestos fiber were hazardous? 27 A Yes, I did. 28 a They could cause asbestosis? PRODUCED MT-PWHD-01132^ 1974 A Yes. 1 Q And you rccc.r.:rended ifc because you also knew 2 that insulation materials that could be used in the shipyard 3 were historically used without any asbestos as a binder? isn't 4 that correct? 5 A I'm sorry, I missed that. 6 Q You did recommend the use of substitute materials 7 because you knew that substitute materials had been used in 8 n the past -- 9 MR. HAIGHT: Your Honor -- 10 ' Q BY MR. STEINBERG: -- without asbestos fiber as 11 a binder? 12 MR. HAIGHT: Excuse me. I didn't mean to interrupt 13 your question but I would like to have a hearing, if we might, 14 before the question is answered. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED JM - 83 MT-PWHD-011325 1975 1 {The following proceedings 2 were held at the bench:) 3 4 MR. HAIGHT* Your Honor, there'3 absolutely no 5 foundation. This is way beyond the direct. But even beyond 6 that, Mr. Steinberg is adopting a technique of just asking 7 usually leading questions on new subject matter without any 8 foundation whatsoever and getting into opinion testimony and * 9 all other sorts of areas, and I submit there is no foundation 10 for that. 11 This man obviously doesn't know whether there 12 was or was not, in ray opinion, and unless ~ 13 These leading questions of this nature are not 14 proper cross. This is not an adversary witness, frankly, to 15 either one of us, but without foundation and going beyond the 16 direct examination, I don't understand the propriety of these 17 questions. 18 MR. NORBY* I join in the objection and on the 19 additional ground that there is no foundation as to his 20 qualification of expertise. 21 THE COURT* It is certainly beyond the s -ope. 22 MR. STEINBERG* Well, he did answer a previous question 23 that he had recommended substitute products. It came in 24 without objection. I'm just asking him -- 25 MR. HAIGHT* It doesn't change the overall rule. 26 MR. STEINBERG* It is true it is beyond the scope. 27 MR. HAIGHT* All right, beyond the scope. 28 PRODUCED JM - 83 MT-PWHD-011326 1976 1 (The following proceedings were 2 held in open court in the 3 presence of the jury:) 4 5 Qt BY MR. STEINBERG: Did you ever caution shipyard 6 pipe coverers and insulators about avoiding breathing the 7 dust generated by their work? 8 A. Well, that's what it was all about. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED JIS-83 MT-PWHD-011327 1977 1 ft As a practical matter, isn't it true that there 2 was just no way really to avoid breathing the dust? 3 Isn't that correct? 4 MR. HAIGHT: Objection, again. Your Honor; no foundation^ 5 ft BY MR, STEINBERG: You did observe shipyard 6 iaggers working at their trade? 7 A Yes. 8 ft . You did observe them in the engineering spaces * 9 below deck, did you not? 10 A From time to time. 11 ft You observed them in the fire rooms below deck? 12 A Yes. 13 ft You would go on ships from time to time, wouldn't 14 you, Mr. Krieger? 15 A Yes. . 16 ft That was part of your regular routine as a 17 shipyard safety superintendent? 18 A Yes. 19 ft And you did seeshipyard Iaggers working install 20 ing preformed pipecovering, did younot? 21 A No, I don'trecall. 22 ft Well, you saw them installing block material 23 on pipes and on boilers and furnaces, did you not? 24 A Yes. 25 ft And in each of these engineering spaces anu. 26 fire rooms that you observed below deck you would see dust 27 generated in connection with the shipyard Iaggers' work, = 28 would you not? PRODUCED -------------------------- :---------- -- JM - 83------------------- 1 MT-PWHD-011328 1973 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. It was just on 3oma occasions there was more 3 dust than on other occasions? 4 A. I would assume so. 5 & And the shipyard dagger customarily would get 6 dust about his clothing each day that he worked, wouldn't ha? 7 A. I would assume so, yes. 8 & And you saw that? A Yes. 10 Q. And you saw that he got dust from tne materials 11 he was working with on his clothing -- strike that -- on his 12 person as well as on his clothing? 13 A He was wearing protective clothing as well as 14 a respirator. 15 Q. When you say "protective clothing," what was 16 he wearing? 17 A Coveralls. 18 Qt The times he was wearing arespirator, that 19 covered his mouth and his nose? 20 A Yes. 21 Qt And there were ether times when he would not 22 wear a respirator? 23 A I assume so. 24 Qt And the question ofthe effectiveness of the 25 respirator was not something that vou oersonallv tested? is 26 that correct:? , 27 A We checked outrespirators from time to time 28 to see if the men approvedthe type. Wetried to buy the MT-PWHD-011329 1979 1 type they wanted. 2 This was all before we went to the thrcw-avay 3 respirator. 4 Cl You went to the throw-away respirators in the 5 early 1970`s? 6 A. I don't remember. 7 Qi Well, they were not available before 1971 or 8 1972? is that right? * 9 A. Okay. 10 & Is that your recollection? 11 A. I don't remember. 12 ft You have no recollection at all as to when they 13 became available? 14 A. No, I don't. 15 ft You went to .the throw-away respirators because 16 you understood that the mask-type respirator was just not 17 being used? is that correct? 18 A. That's right. 19 ft And it wasn't being used because of the 20 complaints you heard about it at the shipyard from the laggers 21 who had to wear them? isn't that correct? 22 A. Well, they wereuncomfortable. Wediscussed 23 that* 24 ft You couldn't breathe through them? is that 25 correct? 26 A. Of course, youcould breathethrough them. 27 That was the idea of the respirator. 28 a Well, breathing was difficult through them? MT-PWHD-011330 1980 1 is that correct? 2 K After a period of tine, yes. 3 ft And there wars problems in communicatingj isn* t 4 that correct? 5 A. I don't know that. 6 ft 7 occasion? You have worn a respirator yourself on 8 it Yes, I have. a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRODUCED JM -83 MT-PWHD-011331 1981 Q All right. Now, during your time at the 1 shipyard from 1955 to 1974 did you ever see a representative 2 3 of the Johns-2ianvilla Corporation core out and talk to the 4 shipyard pipe coverers and insulators? 5 MR. HAIGHT: Again, Your Honor, that is beyond the direct examination. 6 7 THE COURT: Sustained. Q BY MR. STEINBERG: During the time that you 8 9 met with any shipyard laggers did you have the assistance of anyone from either Johns-Manville or the Raybestos-Manhattan 10 Company instructing the shipyard laggers in the use of their 11 products? 12 13 A I don't know any representative of either 14 company? 15 C2 And, in fact, you don't know any representative 16 of either company that ever came to the shipyard to assist you - 17 A To assist me, no. They could have seen the 18 industrial hygienist, not me. 19 MR. STEINBERG: I have nothing further. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Norby. 21 22 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. NORBY: 24 Q You indicated that you did have a staff as part 25 of your -- under your supervision; is that correct* Mr. Kriager?: 26 A Yes, sir. 27 Q Would you describe that staff, please? . i 28 A Just some safety inspectors, three or four PRODUCED JM - 83 MT-PWHD-011332 982 O safety inspectors. 1 MR. N0P3Y: I have nothing further. 2 MR. HAIGHT Nothing further-. Your Honor. 3 THE COURT: Mr. Steinberg. 4 MR. STEINBERG: Nothing further. . 5 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You ir.ay step down. 6 7 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. MR. HAIGHT: Your Honor, Mr. Sheldon Manning, would 8 you take the stand. 9 10 SHELDON H. MANNING, . 11 12 called as a witness by the defendant Johns-Manvilie, was sworn 13 and testified as follows: 14 15 THE CLERK: Would you please state and spell your name 16 for the record. 17 THE WITNESS: My name is Sheldon H. Manning, M-a-n-n-i-r -g, 18 THE CLERK: Would you spell your first name. 19 THE WITNESS: S-h-e-l-d-o-n. 20 21 22 BY MR. HAIGHT: DIRECT EXAMINATION 23 Q Mr. Manning, during the period of time in the 24 Sixties and Seventies did you work at the Long Beach Naval Shinvard? 2^ 26 Yes. 5j. 27 Q What were the years that you worked there? I 28 a I worked from early Ma^jj^h^ljN^7^to February 25, ------------ ;------------ JM-83-------- MT-PWHD-011333 MT-PWHD-011334 CERTIFIED COPY <p(P'd>iig UNITED STATES DISTRICT r"" \ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALffSlML ; JOHNS-MANVILLESALES CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 81 4561 RFP DEPOSITION OF CLIFFORD V. KRIEGER, a witness, taken the plaintiff, at 11:10 a.m., Wednesday, October 3, 1984, at 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, California, before Judith E. Thiel, CSR #2618, CP, RPR, a Notary Public. by Hutchings No. OLA 5089-84 RENDEL B HUTCHINGS CSR 649 Certified Shorthand Reporters North Figueroa Street Los Angeles. California HU0bs-J448 LOS ANGELES (213)223-1191 SAN CLEMENTE (714)972-9109 SANTA ANA (714)972-9109 SAN DIEGO (619)268-8246 SAN BERNARDINO (714) 381 -3846 SANTA MONICA (213) 223-1191 COMPUTER TRANSCRIPTS a VIDEOTAPE a DEPOSITION SUITES a REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS SERVING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OVER THIRTV YEARS MT-PWHD-011 i IL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, et al. , Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 465-83C Civil No. 688-83C Civil No. 1-84C RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS gg LOS ANGEIIS SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO .SAN BERNARDINO .SANTA MONICA MT-PWHD.ni1^R 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action ) No. 84-C-893 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action ) No. 84-C-894 ) ) ) ) RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS Qg LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONICA MT-P\A/Hn_ni i rsn-7 2 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 For Plaintiff HAIGHT, DICKSON, BROWN & Johns-Manville Sales BONESTEEL 3 Corporation: BY STEVEN L. HOCH 4 For Defendant United JANE MAHONEY States of America: and 5 ELIZABETH F. KROOP DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 6 Also Present ANN TRACEY-O'ROURKE 7 COURT VISION COMMUNICATIONS 8 BY RON B. ROBBINS INDEX 10 WITNESS: Clifford V. Krieqer 11 EXAMINATION BY: 12 Mr. Hoch 13 Ms. Mahoney 14 15 QUESTIONS THE WITNESS WAS INSTRUCTED PAGE LINE 16 10 25 17 15 9 16 8 18 17 9, 20 18 4 19 20 21 21 13 20 22 25 24 17 21 26 19 27 15 22 38 26 42 9 23 43 6 49 17 24 57 10 64 3, 24 25 72 8 74 1 26 75 2 77 18 27 78 25 80 12 28 (Index continued on page 131.) PAGE 4, 119 95, 123 RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS gg LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-m 3 1 2 RON B. ROBBINS, 3 the videotape operator, is sworn by the reporter, as follows: 4 5 MR. ROBBINS: I solemnly swear that I will accurately and 6 completely record all of the proceedings in this action in 7 connection with the deposition of James Harvey Workman and in 8 accordance with all of the provisions set forth in the 9 Stipulation Regarding Depositions entered into by the 10 parties hereto on October 3, 1984. 11 12 THE REPORTER: I am Judy Thiel. I am a certified 13 shorthand reporter. 14 MR. HOCH: Steven Hoch, Haight, Dickson, Brown, 15 Bonesteel, for Johns-Manville. 16 MS. MAHONEY: My name is Jane Mahoney. I'm a lawyer 17 with the Department of Justice. I represent the United 18 States of America. 19 MS. KROOP: My name is Elizabeth Kroop. I'm with the 20 Department of Justice, and I represent the United States of 21 America. 22 MS. O'ROURKE: My name is Ann Tracey-0'Rourke, a 23 paralegal for Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel. 24 25 CLIFFORD V. KRIEGER, 26 a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined 27 and testified as follows: 28 /// RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS JJQ IOS ANGELES SANTA ANA eSAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO >SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONK MT-PWHn-mi^a 4 1 EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. HOCH: 3 Q Please state your full name for the record, 4 sir. 5 A Clifford V. Krieger. 6 Q Mr. Krieger, before we begin your deposition, 7 just a few housekeeping matters. 8 We have an agreement with Counsel that the -- she is 9 looking at his videotape right now to make sure it's 10 properly centered, which I guess it is. Is it? 11 MS. MAHONEY: It's properly centered. 12 MR. HOCH: We went through the qualifications of the 13 videotape operator Monday in the deposition of Mr. Workman. 14 As I understand it, there is no need to go through them 15 again at this time; is that correct? 16 MS. MAHONEY: That is correct. 17 MR. HOCH: There was a lingering question about the 18 notice in this case. We have noticed this case in the 19 Northern District of California case, apparently has also 20 been noticed in all the claims cases, and there is some 21 confusion as to whether or not it's been in fact noticed in 22 the cases pending in Denver, and that will be resolved by 23 whether or not the court has acted upon the government's 24 motion to stay discovery in those cases at this time or not. 25 I will just accede to whatever the court did there. 26 MS. MAHONEY: I don't think it's -- I think what we 27 are saying at this moment is that there is no stipulation, 20 that this deposition will apply in the Denver cases, RENDEl B. HUTCHINCS gg LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONIC MT-PWHn.n-i -i 'i.A n 5 1 as far as we know. The reason why the stipulation does not 2 apply is because that motion is pending. 3 MR. HOCH: I have no idea whether that is correct or 4 not. That is your position. 5 MS. MAHONEY: Okay. 6 MR. HOCH: Let other people work it out at the time. 7 Q Mr. Krieger, my name is Steven Hoch. I'm an 8 attorney representing Johns-Manville Corporation in a 9 lawsuit filed against the United States Government - 10 several lawsuits, as a matter of fact. We are going to 11 take your videotape deposition today, and I just want to go 12 over a few things so that you understand what a deposition 13 is, and if you have any questions about it, you can ask me 14 then. All right? 15 A All right. 16 Q You have been putunder oath by a court 17 reporter who is an officer of the court, and the oath you 18 have taken is the same oath you would take in a court of 19 law, and same force and effect. 20 You understand that, sir? 21 A I do. 22 Q Okay. We are going tobeasking you several 23 questions. When I'm completed, counsel for the government 24 can ask you questions, and we want you to answer all those 25 questions truthfully and accurately, as best you possibly 26 can. 27 It's quite all right if you don't remember something 28 to say so, and we don't want you to guess or speculate on RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS QQ (.Of ANGEIfS SANTA ANA .SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-P\A/Hn_ni 1 r>Al 6 1 anything. 2 Do you understand that, sir? 3 A All right. 4 Q It's going to be -- the deposition will go on 5 for some time, and if you ever want to take a break, please 6 say so; we'll try to take breaks every so often. But 7 sometimes we forget and get carried away. So if you need 3 some time, please speak right up and we'll stop. All 9 rightie? 10 A Thank you. 11 Q Do you have any questions about the nature of a 12 deposition? 13 A None. 14 Q Mr. Krieger, you have testified before in a 15 deposition, haven't you? 16 A Yes, I have. 17 Q And I believe that counsel for the government 18 made you aware at some point in time that you testified in 19 court as well? 20 A I have testified in court, yes. 21 Q Mr. Krieger, were you ever employed at the Long 22 Beach Naval Shipyard? 23 A Yes, I was. 24 Q If so, when, sir? 25 A 26 Q 27 left? I think it was May of '56 to 1974. Do you recall approximately when in '74 you 28 A I left physically the latter part of November, RfNDEl B. HUTCHINGS gQ LOS ANGfUS SANTA ANA SAN CLEMENTE .SAN DIEGO .SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONIC MT-P\A/Hn_ni iriAO 7 1 and I was off their rolls, I believe, in January or 2 February, due to leave, accumulated leave. 3 Q What was your position at the Long Beach Naval 4 Shipyard? 5 A Safety superintendent. 6 Q Did that have a GS grade of some kind? 7 A 13. 8 Q You are now retired, sir? 9 A Yes. 10 Q You are appearing here today pursuant to a 11 subpoena that was served on you? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And prior to coming to this deposition, you 14 have had an opportunity to speak with both Ms. Mahoney and 15 myself about the deposition? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Separate times, of course? 18 A Yes. 19 Q I believe in one of the discussions you 20 mentioned to me that you do have emphysema, and if you do 21 find it difficult at any time, aside from the normal breaks, 22 we understand you may want to take some more breaks; is that 23 all right? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Can you give us a general educational 26 background. 27 A Very little. I graduated from high school, and 28 everything else was usually non-credited extension or BFNnFl B HUTCHINGS flD LOS ANGElift #SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONK 8 1 government-type work. In other words, I would be sent to 2 schools such as Port Hueneme and engineering school, and 3 that sort of thing. I was 31 years with the government. 4 Q What was your work history at the time you 5 came to Long Beach from the time you left high school? 6 A Well, let's see. I went to Bethlehem Steel 7 Company, left Bethlehem Steel Company in -- I started there 8 in the thirties, left there in '44, I think. 9 Q What did you do there? 10 A Well, let's see. I was a welder, I was a 11 weighmaster, I was a chief fire inspector; and that is the 12 last job I had, chief fire inspector. 13 From there I went to Long Beach -- sorry -- I went to 14 Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, safety inspector, GS 7. 15 Q And from there? 16 A Naval Aviation Supply Depot, Philadelphia. 17 Q What was your position there? 18 A Safety engineer. 19 Q What was your GS rating there? 20 A 9. 21 Q From there, sir? 22 A Long Beach Naval Shipyard. 23 Q Did you come into Long Beach as a GS 13? 24 A 12. 25 Q Since your retirement from Long Beach Naval 26 Shipyard, have you -- did you hold any other employment? 27 A Yes. Cal State, Long Beach; Cal State 28 University, Long Beach. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS QJ) LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC/ MT-PWHD-DII^a 9 1 Q What did you do there, sir? 2 A Environmental health and safety officer. 3 Q Can you describe briefly what your duties were 4 there. 5 A To advise faculty and staff on safe procedures 6 and to do some training of first-line supervisors and 7 inspect the campus for hazards. 8 Q How long were you employed there, sir? 9 A Well, let's see. That would have been from '74 10 to about three years ago. 11 Q About 1981? 12 A Yeah, approximately. 13 Q You are retired now? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Can you give us your residence address, sir. 16 A 6522 Farinella Drive, Huntington Beach, 17 California. 18 Q You were at Long Beach approximately 18 years; 19 correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Can you tell us,based upon your tour of duty 22 there at Long Beach, what you understood the function of the 23 Long Beach Naval Shipyard to be? 24 A Repair ships. 25 Q Any specific kind of ships? 26 A Let's see. We had destroyers and destroyer 27 escorts and carriers, one battleship, cruisers. 28 Q All vessels of the United States Navy? RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS gQ LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA SAN CLEMENTE SAN DIEGO SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONIC 10 1 A Yes. 2 Q And the Long Beach Naval Shipyard was operated 3 by the United States Government, the Department of Navy? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And you were in fact paid by the United States 5 Government? 7 A Yes. 3 Q Can you tell me what the physical size of the 9 shipyard was during those 18 years you were there? 10 A No, I couldn't. 11 Q Do you have an estimate? 12 A My guess would be probably 350 acres. 13 Q And what was the work force at the shipyard? I 14 know it varied from time to time -- 15 A Seven to nine thousand. 10 Q Seven to nine thousand? 17 A Seven thousand to nine thousand. 10 Q My assumption was correct, I assume, it would 19 vary from time to time -- 20 A Oh, yes. 21 Q -- what was going on in the world, et cetera? 22 A That's right. 23 Q Now, can you tell us, sir, if the -- how the 24 shipyard is broken down into various operating entities? 25 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 26 Q BY MR. HOCH: Can you describe that to us? 27 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. What point in time, 28 Counsel? RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS QQ LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC 11 1 Q BY MR. HOCHs Well, did it ever change? 2 MS. MAHONEY: From when to when? 3 MR. HOCH: In the 18 years he was there, obviously. 4 THE WITNESS: I have got to understand. Are you 5 talking departments? 6 MR. HOCH: Yeah. 7 THE WITNESS: Yeah. There was the administrative 8 department. 9 MS. MAHONEY: When was this, Mr. Krieger, what point 10 in time? '56? 11 THE WITNESS: Well, from the time I got there until 12 the time I left, the codes were the same. Like we used a 13 code system, and 100 was the shipyard commander and the 14 people that worked for him, and then 150 was the industrial 15 relations office, and -- you want them all? 16 MR. HOCH: No. 17 Q Was there a production department? 18 A Three hundred. Code 300 was production, and 19 like code 700 was medical, and code 500 was supply. Code 20 200 was planning and engineering. 21 Q All right.Within thosecodes, individuals 22 would have specific numbers that would delineate their job 23 title and description? 24 A Exactly. 25 Q What was the code, if any,for the -- your 26 position? 27 A 185. 28 Q That was safety superintendent? RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS gg LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011347 12 1A 2Q 3 sir? 4A 5Q Right. Does the term "shop" have any meaning to you, Yes. Of course, this is in relation to the Long 6 Beach Naval Shipyard. What does that mean, sir? 7 A The production department was broken up into 8 shops, also numbered. 9 Q Can you describe those tous, generally? 10 A Yeah. Let's see. Ithinkthe most important 11 ones would be like 31 shop was inside machinists, and 38 was 12 outside machinists, and 67 were the electronics, and 51 were 13 the electricians, and 99 were the temporary services, and 56 14 were pipe fitters. Like that. 15 Q Did you have a staff that worked with you at 16 some point throughout the 18 years? 17 A Yes. It varied. 18 Q What was the smallest to the largest? 19 A The smallest was probably two safety inspectors 20 and a compensation clerk. 21 Q About when was that? 22 A I have no idea. I don't remember. 23 Q What was the largest staff you had? 24 A For inspectors -- now -- sorry, just a minute. 25 When we had a big ship in, like the NEW JERSEY, I was given 26 temporary help, sometimes four safety inspectors. 27 Q But normally it would be two safety inspectors 28 and a compensation -- RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS gQ LOS ANGflfS .SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011348 13 1 A Two to three safety inspectors and a comp 2 clerk. 3 MS. MAHONEY: Again, Mr. Hoch, are you pinpointing a 4 period in time? 5 MR. HOCH: Just generally. He said he couldn't give g me specifics. 7 THE WITNESS: I can't remember exactly when this would 8 have been. It just fluctuated with the workload of the 9 shipyard. 10 MS. MAHONEY: Throughout the entire 18 years you were 11 there? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 MR. HOCH: That is what I understood him to say. 14 Q Could you give us -- strike that. 15 Mr. Krieger, did your job description change at all 18 during the 18 years at the shipyard? 17 A Not that much, no. 18 Q Can you give us a general job description of 19 the safety superintendent. 20 A Well, I don't think I can. It was about three 21 pages long. 22 Generally, to advise and counsel the supervisors 23 throughout the shipyard on safety practices, and to 24 oversee the workers' compensation program. 25 Q In terms of the compensation program, you were 26 responsible for what, sir? 27 A Well, if a person was injured, go to the 28 dispensary or a doctor and then it was up to us to RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS Qg LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC/ MT-PWHD-011349 14 1 process -- help them process a claim for workers' comp and 2 forward it to San Francisco to the Bureau of Employees 3 Compensation regional office, and to follow up, to try to 4 get their workers' comp. 5 Q Was that a responsiility that your office had 6 from '56 to '74? 7 A Yes. 8 Q In terms of the responsibilities of advising 9 and counseling supervisors on safety practices, was it also 10 your responsibility to issue or promulgate safety orders? 11 A Yes, it was. 12 Sorry. It was my job to prepare them. They had to be 13 signed by -- usually the shipyard commander. 14 Q So you would prepare a safety order and it 15 would go up the chain of command to the commander? 16 A Yes. And also if it involved their 17 departments, it had to go through the department head for 18 their chop, and then their chop would be attached before it 19 went to the shipyard commander. 20 Q And from the shipyard commander, it would come 21 back down to the supervisors; is that correct? 22 A Yes. It would be issued as a policy or as a 23 regulation, or whatever. 24 Q And did you have stand-up safety meetings 25 during the 18 years at the shipyard? 26 A Yes, I did. I didn't, but the supervisors 27 did. 28 Q And did they -- were they instructed to use RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT.PWnn.n-i 4 oca 15 1 those safety orders that were issued from your office up the 2 chain of command? 3 A We put out a memo, tried to get it to them by 4 Monday afternoon, so that by Tuesday morning they could look 5 at it, and the first thing Tuesday morning they would hold 6 their safety meetings, and they had our publication, and 7 then they had time on their own to talk about the particular 8 situation they were going to work with. g MS. MAHONEY: I'm going to object to the witness 10 speculating as to what the supervisor of the shops did, if 11 indeed they did receive the memos, and what they talked 12 about beforehand. 13 I think Mr. Hoch is asking what you know, sir. 14 MR. HOCH: First of all, I think we have -- supposedly 15 have part of the stipulation is we don't have any objections 16 except as to form. I'm not sure if that is a form objection 17 or not. 18 Second of all, I understood him to indicate that that 19 was the knowledge he had as to how things were to work, and 20 it was his responsibility to so get this information to the 21 supervisors. If the government has taken the position that 22 the supervisors didn't get that, I will stipulate to that. 23 MS. MAHONEY: I'm not taking that position; I am just 24 asking Mr. Krieger to testify as to what he knows as facts. 25 THE WITNESS: I thought I was given the format. 26 Whether the supervisors followed it, I would have no 27 knowledge. 28 MR. HOCH: Could I have the question and his answer RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS Qg LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC/ MT-PWHD-011351 16 1 read back, please? - 2 (Record read.) 3 Q BY MR. HOCH: So there is no misunderstanding, 4 Mr. Krieger, the answer that was just read back to you is 5 something that you came to know from your 18 years at the 6 shipyard as to how the information was to flow to the 7 workers; is that correct? 8 MS. MAHONEY: Objection; leading. 9 THE WITNESS: What I was trying to say was that we put 10 out a publication that should take five minutes, leaving 11 them ten minutes to talk about their own individual 12 situation. What I'm trying to say is, my information had to 13 be general and cover a hundred trades or more. The specific 14 had to come from the supervisors. 15 Q BY MR. HOCH: What was the purpose of providing 16 supervisors with safety memorandum? 17 A So that they would have a subject and material 18 to talk about at the safety meetings. 19 Q Was there ever -- strike that. 20 Did you ever suggest to anyone that orders should be 21 given on certain safety instructions with no backup 22 memorandum? 23 A I don't think I understand that. 24 Q All right. Let me rephrase it. 25 Did you have an opinion, sir, while you were the 26 safety officer at the shipyard, concerning the need to 27 educate workers on safety matters? 28 A Yes. RENDEL B HUTCHINGS QJ LOS ANGELES .SANTA ANA .SAN CLEMENTE .SAN DIEGO .SAN BERNARDINO .SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011352 17 1 Q What was your opinion? 2 A Well, this is why we had the safety meetings. 3 At a later date we had instructions for supervisors on 4 safety. 5 Q Did you have an opinion, sir, while you were 6 the safety supervisor at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, 7 concerning the giving of a safety order without educational 8 backup? 9 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 10 THE WITNESS: I don't think I can answer it, anyway. 11 MR. HOCH: Okay. 12 THE WITNESS: Maybe I'm being dense. 13 MR. HOGH: Okay. 14 THE WITNESS: See, the safety office gave no orders to 15 anybody. We didn't have authority. 16 Q BY MR. HOCH: Well, we'll get to enforcement in 17 a bit. I just want to know what your opinion was concerning 18 an order versus education on safety matters, if you have 19 one. 20 MS. MAHONEY: Objection; leading; vague. The witness 21 has indicated he doesn't understand the question. 22 Q BY MR. HOCH: Okay. If you don't understand 23 it, just say so. NOt everything I say is wonderful; I will 24 stipulate to that. 25 A Are you asking me my opinion of whether 26 education or enforcement, which is more important? 27 Q Okay. I'll ask you that question. In your 28 opinion, as a safety superintendent advisor at Long Beach RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS Qg LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011353 18 1 Naval Shipyard, what is more important, education or 2 enforcement? 3 A Education. 4 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 5 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry? 6 MS. MAHONEY: I'm just asking <-- Mr. Krieger, it 7 appears to me that Mr Hoch is asking you expert-witness 8 questions, and it was my understanding that you were brought 9 here today as a fact witness. And then he appears to be 10 asking you opinions within your realm of safety, and I -- 11 I'm objecting, because he wasn't -- you were not noticed as 12 an expert witness. 13 MR. HOCH: Whether he was noticed as an expert witness 14 or not is rather incidental. He's a percipient witness as 15 to what went on at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard over 18 16 years. As such -- and as such being a safety supervisor, 17 what his thought process was and how the safety department 18 was structured around that thought process and operated is 19 certainly relevant to what went on. And I'm not asking him 20 as an expert in the field, although I think he may well be. 21 I'm not qualifying him as such, but what his state of mind 22 was and what his opinions were are certainly relevant as a 23 percipient witness. 24 Now, if you want to say he wasn't an expert in his 25 field, and you want to stipulate he was not, and if that is 26 what the government has as a safety supervisor, a 27 nonexpert -- 28 MS. MAHONEY: No, we're not saying that. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS Qg LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011354 19 1 MR. HOCH: -- I'll accept that stipulation, too. 2 if MS. MAHONEY: No, Mr. Hoch, and I think you are 3 confusing Mr. Krieger. You and I know the legal niceties of 4 whether someone is noticed as a fact witness or an expert i 5 witness, and I'm certainly not impugning Mr. Krieger's t ii 6 qualifications. 7 8 t 9 MR. HOCH: Nor am I. MS. MAHONEY: Your question sir. Q BY MR. HOCH: Would you describe to us, Mr. 10 Krieger, the chain of command in the safety department. 11 A I answered to the industrial relations officer, 12 and he answered directly to the commanding officer. 13 Q And did the -- did you as a safety 14 supervisor -- strike that. 15 Do you understand the term "enforcement power"? 16 A Yes. t 17 Q Could you explain to us what your understanding 18 of that means. 19 A Someone who can give disciplinary action. 20 Q Did the safety supervisor have any enforcement 21 power? 22 A None. 23 Q In terms of making a worker follow a safety 24 rule, regulation, at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, who had 25 enforcement power? 26 A The immediate supervisor. In those days he was 27 a leading man. Now he's a foreman. 28 Q Who did he answer to up the chain of command? ocunci a uitTrHlNir.S (TTI lOS ANGELES SANTA ANA SAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011355 20 1 A You want the old terminology or the new? 2 Q Better give us both. 3 A Okay. 4 The leading man reported to a general foreman -- no, a 5 quarterman. I'm sorry. He answered to a quarterman. The 6 quarterman answered to a chief quarterman. The chief 7 quarterman answered to a foreman, and the foreman answered 8 to a master. That was the head of the shop. 9 Present terminology, foreman, general foreman, 10 something in between, and a superintendent. 11 Q Do you know when that change took place? 12 A No, I don't. 13 Q Was it a change essentially just in names 14 of -- 15 A Just change in the names. 16 Q Now, based on your knowledge of the practices 17 at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard -- strike that. 18 Based on your knowledge of the field of safety, was 19 there a difference between the disciplines of safety and 20 industrial hygiene? 21 MS. MAHONEY: I'm going to object. I don't think 22 there is any foundation. Where have we discussed safety and 23 his knowledge of safety? I think you need to do a little 24 more ground work here, Mr. Hoch. 25 MR. HOCH: I don't think so, I think his work at the 26 government speaks for himself -- his position at the Long 27 Beach Naval Shipyard -- and again you seem to be impugning a 28 government employee and his ability to function in his job. RFNnEL B. HUTCHINGS (ID LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011 21 He is a safety supervisor with responsibility over some seven to nine thousand individuals at the shipyard -- MS. MAHONEY: Let's stop your jury speech -- MR. HOCH: -- and I'm asking him if there is a difference, based on his knowledge of safety, between what a safety officer does, a safety supervisor, and industrial hygienist. MS. MAHONEY: Why don't we, if we could -- if we could end your diatribe -- have the court reporter read your question back, the one to Mr. Krieger, the one before the jury speech, and we'll -- let me listen to it again. MR. HOCH: Oh, certainly. Your privilege. (Record read.) MS. MAHONEY: I will object -- Before you answer, Mr. Krieger, I will just note on the record an objection to the form of the question as vague and ambiguous. Q BY MR. HOCH: Can you answer it, Mr. Krieger? A If you're asking whether the industrial hygienist had any more authority than I did, you got to understand the military. In a military, there are line and staff (indicating). Line has authority; staff has no authority. Staff is advisory. So the industrial hygienist would be advisory, the same as a safety office would be advisory. Is that what you asked? Q No. Was there a difference at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard between what you were supposed to do as a " rm me Akis-.cicc -cantA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011357 22 1 safety officer -- 2 A Oh. 3 Q -- and the industrial hygienist was supposed to 4 do as an industrial hygienist? 5 A Got you. Safety was primarily responsible for 6 conditions that would result in traumatic injuries -- slips, 7 falls, trips, whatever. Industrial hygiene was responsible 8 for systemic type, including, for some reason or other, loss 9 of hearing. So they would be responsible for any fumes, 10 dust, that type of thing. 11 Q Was there -- as those -- strike that. 12 There was an industrial hygiene billet or department 13 at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard; correct? 14 A There was. 15 Q As those -- as your department and the 16 industrial hygiene department functioned, was there any 17 overlap? 18 A we worked together from time to time on certain 19 projects. 20 Q Based on your knowledge of how the industrial 21 hygiene office functioned at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard 22 over the 18 years that you were there, can you describe to 23 us what you understood the chain of command of industrial 24 hygiene to be? 25 MS. MAHONEY: Objection as too vague with reference 26 to time. 27 You have an 18-year time span. 28 Q BY MR. HOCH: You can answer it sir. arkinci " Ul rrruiKir.c rm int AMfififS aSANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011 1 A Industrial hygienist answered to the medical 2 officer, who answered to the shipyard commander. 3 Q Did there come a time during your 18 years at 4 the shipyard when the industrial hygiene department, if you 5 know, was regionalized? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Do you -- 8 A Just prior tomy leaving the shipyard. 9 Q Did that change the chain of command, to your 10 knowledge? 11 A I really don't know. 12 Q Our best source of information, it would be the 13 industrial hygienist; correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Can you tell us, Mr. Krieger, who the heads of 16 the medical department were during your tour with the Long 17 Beach Naval Shipyard? 18 A Yeah. Captain Thompson, Captain Robbins, 19 Captain Watkins, Commander Smith, and Dr. Felton, civilian. 20 Q Who preceded you as a safety officer at the 21 shipyard, if you know? 22 A Well, there was someone there on a temporary 23 basis for about three or four months before I got there. 24 And prior to that -- I can't remember his name. 25 Q When you began working at the shipyard, 26 was there an industrial hygienist at the shipyard? 27 A Yes. 28 Q Do you know who that was? RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS QR LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011 24 1 A Sheehan. 2 Q Jim Sheehan? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Did you ever have the opportunity of viewing 5 any of his work? 6 A Not really. 7 Q Have you become familiar at any time during the 8 18 years or so you were at the shipyard with the work that 9 was done by insulators or laggers or pipe coverers? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Did you use thosetermssynonymously? 12 A We referred to them mostly as laggers. They 13 referred to themselves officially as heat, frost, insulator 14 workers. 15 Q Would you describe generally the work of a 16 lagger at the shipyard. 17 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. What point in time? For 18 18 years, do you want Mr. Krieger to describe the work? 19 Q BY MR. HOCH: Mr. Krieger, did the job of a 20 lagger, as you know it change at all during the 18 years you 21 were in the shipyard? 22 A No. 23 Q Why don't you describe for us your 24 understanding of what they did. 25 A Well, they applied insulation on pipes, valves, 26 boilers. They also removed insulation prior to other 27 mechanics working on the stuff. Basically, that is what 28 they did. They insulated things. RENDEL B HUTCHINCS fTD LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011360 25 1Q 2 number? 3A 4Q Did they operate out of a specific shop Yes, they did. Which one was that? 5 A 56. 6 Q Before you came to the Long Beach Naval 7 Shipyard, did you have any knowledge or information 8 concerning whether or not asbestos was considered to be a 9 potential health hazard -- 10 A No. 11 Q -- to laggers? 12 A No. 13 Q At some point in time while you were at the 14 Long Beach Naval Shipyard, did you come to that knowledge? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Do you recall approximately when the first time 17 that knowledge -- 18 A I believe it was'56. 19 Q And whatoccurred that brought this to your 20 attention? 21 A A couple of claims -- or a number of claims for 22 workers' comp came into the office from the 56 shop, the 23 laggers, and they were diagnosed as having asbestosis. 24 Q Was that the first time you heard of that 25 disease? 26 A Yes. 27 Q Did you make inquiries as to what it was, how 28 it was caused? DEMnci r HiiTrHiNr.*; rm ms angeles .santaana san clemente san diego san Bernardino bSANtamonic MT-PWHD-011361 26 1 A Oh, yeah. 2 Q Do you remember who you talked to? 3 A Well, mostly for thecause -- mostly I talked 4 to Webb Ay, who was the union rep. 5 Q Which union? 6 A I think at that time he was the business agent 7 of the Heat, Frost, Insulator Workers ofAmerica. 8 Q The laggers? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Now, at this time in 1956, all the laggers that 11 worked for the shipyard weren't in the union, were they? 12 A No. 13 Q Do you recall the names of any of the 14 individuals who may have been so first diagnosed as having 15 asbestosis? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Can you tell us who they were? 18 A The first batch were -- 19 MS. MAHONEY: I'm going to object to this whole line 20 of questioning. 21 But go -- you may answer. Go ahead. 22 THE WITNESS: Louie Eades. 23 THE REPORTER: I didn't hear you, sir. 24 THE WITNESS: Louie Eades. 25 Q BY MR. HOCH: E-a-d-e-s? 26 A I don't -- I think so. Phipps. 27 Q P-h-i-p-p-s? 28 A Yes. Guadalupe Zapato. You spell that one. rm. n unTruiurc i nc AMr.Fi F. SANTA ANA SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-0113R9 27 1 Oh, boy. There were about seven of them. Those are three 2 that stick out in my mind. 3 Q Was Cloyce Brewer one of them? 4 A He claimed workers' comp, but itwas never 5 proven that he had asbestosis. 6 Q His claim didn't go anyplace, or it failed? 7 A Well, it went to San Francisco, and I 8 believe -- I would have to guess that he probably went to g San Francisco for an examination. He had emphysema, as I 10 recall, but I don't think his claim was ever approved. 11 Q Okay. 12 What kind of -- can you tell us the general 13 discussions you had with Webb Ay in 1956 relative to these 14 comp claims? 15 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 16 THE WITNESS: I don't remember anything specific on 17 them. 18 Q BY MR. HOCH: Did you talk about asbestosis? 19 A Yes. 20 Q As a result of your discussions with Mr. Ay, 21 did you do anything? 22 A Well, he mostly did it. He got intouch with 23 Selikoff, who is an expert in the asbestos field, who 24 furnished us with much information on the disease, not on 25 the prevention. 26 Q Did he invite you to speak at a unionmeeting? 27 A Yes. And I did. 28 Q Was this after work sometime? RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011363 28 1 A Yes. At night. 2 Q And you did go? 3 A Yes, I did. 4 Q Did you say anything there? 5 * A We told them about the case -- workers' 6 compensation cases that we were handling and the percentage 7 of disability that the fellows had, the claimants, the 8 percentage of disability they had, and that it was due to 9 not protecting themselves whle they were working with 10 asbestos. 11 t Q And by "protecting themselves," did you 12 elaborate on that at all? 13 A Wearing -- they weren't wearing a respirator. . 14 Q Did -- stemming from those conversations at 15 that meeting, did you and Mr. Ay design a poster? 16 A Yes, we did. . 17 Q Let me show you a poster, which we will mark as 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. 19 Will you show that to the witness, please. 20 21 Is that -- MS. MAHONEY: Could we stop -- Mr. Video Operator, 22 could we stop for a moment? We have a disagreement on the t 23 authentication of the records. 24 MR. HOCH: Let's stay on the record, but cut the 25 tape. 26 MS. MAHONEY: Mr. Hoch, it appears as though we have a 27 different copy. This is why we wanted your assistant here. 28 MR. HOCH: Does it really matter? Dckjnci r HI iTrHiNr.S rm me Aur.FlFC .SANTA ANA SAN CLEMENTE SAN DIEGO SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011364 w 29 1 MS. KROOP: You are going to mark this one; is that correct? .2 3 MR. HOCH: I don't care which one you are going 4 to mark. .5 MS. MAHONEY: If you want to go on record with the 6 court as you don't care if the exhibits you have given to 7 the government are the same as the exhibits you are showing to the witness, then let the record reflect that, but I 8 9 thought we went through the exhibits. 10 You give me a moment to assure accuracy for the * 11 judge. 12 MR. HOCH: The exhibits are the same. One of them has 13 a marking from another deposition of Mr. Marr, where the * 14 government was present and participated in the deposition. 15 MS. MAHONEY: All we are asking is -- 16 MR. HOCH: They are exactly the same. * 17 MS. MAHONEY: We are asking for a transcript that will 18 be accurate. 19 MR. HOCH: He will get it very accurate. If you I 20 choose -- Do you want to use either one -- I really don't 21 care. I'll leave it up to you. 22 MS. MAHONEY: At this moment are you going to have the court reporter mark these as we go along? 24 MR. HOCH: I thought what we would do is put a 25 notation on them, to save time -- to save time we can write 26 on the back, if you like -- you can write on the back -- 27 "Exhibit Number 1." If you want to take the time to mark 28 each one as we go along, that is fine. Just trying to make CO CM ** DFNinFi R HI1T(~HINCS rm LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA SAN CLEMENTE SAN DIEGO SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-01 1 T 30 # 1 this a little bit easier so we can go along. At the end of 4 2 the deposition, I then thought we could have the court 3 reporter then officially stamp each one. 4 Would you like to do it as we go along? 5 MS. MAHONEY: I would be more comfortable marking them 6 as we go along. 7 MR. HOCH: Okay. Which one do you want to use? *8 9 10 MS. MAHONEY: Let your assistant show us. MS. O'ROURKE: I'll show him the same one you have. MS. MAHONEY: Seems to have a marking on the bottom, * 11 "F23332." 12 MS. O'ROURKE: Right. 13 MS. MAHONEY: Then do you want Mr. Krieger to hand t 14 that to the court reporter -- 15 MR. HOCH: The court reporter, sure. 16 MS. MAHONEY: -- to be marked? % 17 18 Thank you. MR. HOCH: We'll take a two-minute break for a 19 second. 1 20 (Whereupon the above-mentioned document is marked by 21 the notary public as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 for 22 identification.) 1 23 24 MR. ROBBINS: Shall I start back up again? MR. HOCH: Yes. 25 MR. ROBBINS: You're back on. ) 26 Q BY MR. HOCH: Mr. Krieger, have you looked at 27 that exhibit we have marked as number 1? 28 A Yes, I have. ockinci n MirrrHiKirc im in* amtufifc .canta ANA .SAN ClfMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011366 31 1 Q Is it familiar to you? 2 A Yes, it is. 3 Q Is it the poster that you and Mr. Ay created? 4 A We gave the information to the shipyard artist 5 who created this, yes. 6 Q Mr. Bransford? 7 A Yes. 8 Q There is adateunderneath his name, sir. Is 9 that -- want to make sure I'm reading it right -- April, 10 '57? 11 A Yeah. 12 Q Do you recall what was done with this poster? 13 A It was given out to all the union members by 14 Webbie Ay, and we posted it throughout the shop, 56 shop, 15 where the laggers would see it. 16 Q When you say"posted," what do youmean? 17 A Put it on the bulletin boards and at the 18 entrance to the shop where the men worked. 19 Q At or about the time that this poster was made, 20 did you also have an opportunity to take a trip with one of 21 the master mechanics back East? 22 A I went with Olin Meeker back East. I don't 23 remember when it was. 24 Q Do you recall that it was sometime between the 25 time you came to the shipyard and. 1960, in that time frame? 26 A I would have to guess, but that would be 27 about -- yeah, I would think so. 28 MS. MAHONEY: I will object to the guessing by RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS (ED LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011367 32 1 Mr. Krieger. 2 I don't think they want you to guess. 3 Am I wrong, Mr. Hoch? 4 MR. HOCH: Nobody wants you to guess -- 5 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 6 MR. HOCH: -- Mr. Krieger. Just asking for your best 7 estimate, or best recollection. 8 THE WITNESS: I really -- I went back East with Mr. 9 Meeker. I cannot remember when I went back East with Mr. 10 Meeker. 1 11 MR. HOCH: Excuse me. I'm just looking for an exhibit 12 that might help you refresh your recollection. 13 Can we just take a 60-second break so I can find 14 this? 15 MS. MAHONEY: Certainly. 16 (Whereupon a discussion is held off the record.) .:) 17 18 MR. HOCH: Let's go back on the record now. MR. ROBBINS: Back on. 19 MR. HOCH: You have handed Mr. Krieger a memo -- or a 3 20 letter -- that I would like him to take a look at and then 21 pass it to the court reporter for marking, which would be 22 Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. 23 THE WITNESS: I have read it. 24 MR. HOCH: Would you please pass it to the court 25 reporter so she can mark it. . 26 (Whereupon the above-mentioned document is marked by 27 the notary public as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 for 28 identification.) RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS Qg LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011368 33 1 Q BY MR. HOCH: Mr. Krieger, do you recognize 2 this -- I guess it's a carbon copy of a letter? 3 A Yes, I do. 4 Q Is that what it is? 5 A It must be, because there is no signature on 6 it. 7Q And is this a letter you wrote to Mr. Turnbull, 8 the Assistant Director, Safety Division, Office of 9 Industrial Relations, in Washington? 10 A Yes, it is. 11 Q On the upper right-hand corner of both of these 12 exhibits is a date, and the "2" in "1962" is crossed out and 13 someone wrote "3" -- I don't know who did. 14 Do you have any recollection of when this written? 15 A I would assume it was '63. 16 Q That is your best recollection at this time? 17 A Yes. 18 Q On the second page, the paragraph begins, 19 "About four years ago..." 20 DO you see that? 21 A Let me point smething out in the first 22 paragraph. Since I'm talking about October of '62, the 23 letter couldn't possibly be January, '62. That is why I'm 24 assuming it's '63. 25 Q All right. 26 A I have the paragraph, yes. 27 Q Do you see thatparagraph? 28 A Yes. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS QQ LOS ANGELES .SANTA ANA .SAN CLEMENTE .SAN DIEGO .SAN BERNARDINO .SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011369 34 1 Q It makes reference to a tour that you made with 2 a master pipe fitter, it says "about four years ago." 3 A Yes. 4 Q Does that help refresh your recollection of 5 when this trip with Olin Meeker was? 6 A I assume we -- take four years from '63. 7 Q Can you tell us where you went on that trip and 8 what you observed? 9 A What I can remember of this trip is that we 10 went to Philadelphia, Boston, Portsmouth, maybe New York -- 11 I can't remember -- and we may have gone south, but I don't 12 remember. The only three I recall were Philadelphia, 13 Boston, and Portsmouth. 14 Q Those are naval shipyards youvisited? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And what was the purpose ofthat trip? 17 A To see what they were doing about handling 18 asbestos. 19 Q And what did you discover? 20 A That they were in about the same boat we were 21 in Long Beach, that they had -- they knew that the problem 22 existed, and they were -- I went to see how they were 23 handling it. 24 Q Do you have a recollection at this point in 25 time how they were handling it? . 26 A Oh, I think we picked up wetting-down process 27 from one shipyard, types of ventilation from another 28 shipyard, that type of thing. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS Qg LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011370 35 * 1 Q When you came back from the trip, would it have 2 been your custom and practice to make some kind of report? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Was that required? 5 A Yes. * 6 Q And who would that report have gone to? 7 A Dave Hendrickson, industrial relations 8 officer. * 9 Q He was your superior? 10 A Yes, he was. 11 Q Do you recall making such a report concerning * 12 this trip? 13 A No, I don't. 14 t 15 Q Are you familiar with the name of Bill Marr? A Yes, I am. 16 Q Can you tell me who he is? 17 A He was the industrial hygienist at the 18 shipyard. Long Beach Naval Shipyard. 19 Q Do you recall approximately when he came to the 20 shipyard? * 21 A I would guess around '57, '58. 22 Q And do you recall when he left? 23 * 24 A No, I dont. Q Was it in the sixties? 25 A I really don't remember. I'm sure it's a 26 matter of record, but I just don't remember when he left. 1 27 Q Did you have -- strike that. 28 Did you work with him at all on problems concerning RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011371 36 1 asbestos? 2 A Yes, I did. 3 Q It's correct, sir, that he eventually published 4 a paper -- which we'll discuss a little later -- but are you 5 familiar with the paper he published? 6 A Yes, I am. 7 Q Did you have anything to do with that paper? 8 A No. He was theexpert. 9 Q What did you and Mr. Marr work on together 10 relative to the asbestos situation? 11 A Well, I just supplied the information to him of 12 the claims we had, and he went out and did the field work, 13 got his information together, and wrote a paper on it. And 14 I took him over to meet Mr. Phipps, who was out on workers' 15 comp due to asbestos --asbestosis. 16 Q And were you present at a meeting between those 17 two? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Can you -- 20 A Not when the tape was made. Hewent back and 21 did that on his own. 22 Q Do you recall what was discussed at the meeting 23 you were present at? 24 A Well, he was just talkingabout hiscondition 25 and how he felt and where he had worked and where he 26 lived prior --where he worked and where he lived prior to 27 coming to work at the shipyard. 28 Q Then I think you indicated that Mr. Marr made a RENDEL B HUTCHINGS fUTjTj) LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011372 37 1 tape? 2A 3 date. 4Q Yes, he made a tape with Mr. Phipps at a later And you weren't present when that was made? 5 A No, I was not. 6 Q Did you hear the tape after -- 7 A No. 8 Q -- it was made? 9 A Not to my recollection. 10 Q Did you ever read a transcription of that 11 tape? 12 A 13 Q I might have, but I don't remember. Let me show you an exhibit -- part of an 14 exhibit -- 15 Counsel, I only intend to use the transcript of the 16 tape out of the exhibit that is the Robbins letter dated 28 17 August, '59. Do you wish the whole thing to be put in or 18 just that part I'm showing the witness? The part I intend 19 to show him is labeled -- looks like 7-L, 7-M and 7-N, in 20 handwriting on the bottom. 21 MS. MAHONEY: You are showing him a transcript of the 22 tape which he has never heard, was not present at at the 23 making, and -- 24 MR. HOCH: No. I asked him if he ever saw a 25 transcription of it, and he said he doesn't recall, and I 26 will attempt to refresh his recollection by showing him 27 this. But I don't know if you want to hand him the whole 28 packet of documents or not. It's up to you. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS gQ LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011373 38 t 1 MS. MAHONEY: Why don't we -- you have indicated where 2 in the document is contained. Why don't you show him the t 3 three pages you intend to use. 4 MR. HOCH: Fine. Want to show them first? 5 t 6 MS. O'ROURKE: 7-L, 7-M, 7-N? MS. MAHONEY: Yes. 7 MR. HOCH: Okay. Have that marked Plaintiff's next in 8 order, which will be 3. I will ask Mr. Krieger to look at 9 it and pass it to the court reporter. 10 THE WITNESS: I have seen this before. 11 * 12 MR. HOCH: Let's have it marked first. (Whereupon the above-mentioned transcription is marked 13 by the notary public as Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 for 14 identification.) f 15 MS. MAHONEY: Because of his prior testimony, when did 16 you see it, Mr. Krieger? 1 17 THE WITNESS: I don't remember, but I know I have 18 seen it before. 19 MR. HOCH: Counsel, if you don't mind, there wasn't a t 20 question pending, and I was going to ask him, anyway, so 21 let's just try to get it on the record. 22 Q Is that a copy of the transcription of the 1 23 tape, Mr. Krieger? 24 A This is (indicating) -- Bill Marr made a 25 tape -- . CO CM MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 27 THE WITNESS: -- and, as I recall, this is it, with 28 Mr. Phipps. RENDEL B HUTCHINGS ITT) LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011374 1 Q BY MR. HOCH: Does this refresh your 2 recollection as being the transcript that you may have seen 3 sometime in the past? 4 A Yes. 5 MS. MAHONEY: I'm going to object to that, Mr. 6 Krieger, only for the reason, Mr Hoch, he never listened to 7 the tape, so how can he identify transcription of the tape 8 as being accurate transcription if he never heard the tape? 9 That's all. That is my problem with this line of 10 questioning. 11 Q BY MR. HOCH: Do you recall when in the past 12 you have seen this? 13 A No, I don't. 14 Q Counsel poses an interesting question, Mr. 15 Krieger. How do you know it's a transcription of the tape? 16 A Because I recognize Phipps' history. We didn't 17 have that many people coming from Oklahoma. 18 Q So out of the people in the shipyard who were 19 laggers who filed compensation claims, in your mind this 20 fits Mr. Phipps; he is the only one that it fits? 21 A Apparently -- there is a paragraph here that 22 fits only Mr. Phipps. 23 Q Which paragraph is that? 24 A "I was raised on a farm,done farm work up till 25 I was about 16. Went into town and had done odd jobs for a 26 while. Finally went to work in a little restaurant -- 27 wasn't really a restaurant; it was a hamburger joint," and 28 so forth. RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS fTT) LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011375 40 1 I recognize this as Phipps' background. 2 (I MS. MAHONEY: Mr. Krieger, I think what Mr. Hoch is 3 asking you is, is this a transcript of the tape? And you 4 have stated under oath that you have never heard the tape. 5 How can then -- you then say that this is what was on the 3? 6 tape, if you have never heard the tape? That is like saying 7 you read a transcript of a television show and you say, "I 8 never watched the TV show, but I know this is what the vt 9 transcript of the television show was." 10 THE WITNESS: Well, I knew that Bill Marr went out and 11 made a tape with Phipps. I 12 MS. MAHONEY: Yeah. 13 THE WITNESS: I know he used it in his training 0 14 programs. Up here it says "Bill Marr" (indicating). From 15 the description, I am assuming that this is Phipps we're 16 talking about. ) 17 MS. MAHONEY: Okay. You are assuming that this is an 18 accurate -- that this is the transcription of the tape? 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. ) 20 MS. MAHONEY: I think that is what Mr. Hoch's original 21 question was to you before going afield with your 22 assumptions. I think he wanted you to answer a specific i 23 question. Do you know this is a transcription of the tape? 24 THE WITNESS: Do I know? No. 25 MS. MAHONEY: All right. 26 Q BY MR. HOCH: Let me ask you this, Mr. Krieger, 27 now that Counsel has tramped all over my questions. 28 Would you recognize Dr. Robbins' signature? RENDEL B HUTCHINGS gQ LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA SAN CLEMENTE SAN DIEGO SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011376 41 t 1 A Yes, I think so. 2 Q Why don't we show Mr. -- I would like to show t 3 you, Mr. Krieger, the rest of where this exhibit came out 4 of. It's a multipage document, starts -- marked page 7 and 5 goes to 7-G. -H, -I, -J, -K, -L, -M, -N is the purported t 6 transcript. Out of order is -C and -B, which is the Jackson 7 letter. 8 I would like to show that to counsel for the 9 government, and then to the witness. 10 MS. O'ROURKE: Unless they are somewhere else, I don't 11 have 7-B. -G, -H, -I, -J, and -K. t 12 Q BY MR. HOCH: And there is this letter 13 (indicating) as well, two pages. 14 t MS. O'ROURKE: Oh. Beg your pardon. Okay. Excuse 15 me. 16 MR. HOCH: Just put those all together in order, as I 17 have indicated them. Just pass them back to her. t 18 THE WITNESS: (Witness complies.) 19 MS. O'ROURKE: 7? 20 MR. HOCH: Right. 21 MS. O'ROURKE: -G? 22 MR. HOCH: -G, -H, -I, -J, -K, -L, -M, -N, and -C and t 23 -B, the Jackson letter at the end. 24 MS. O'ROURKE: And then -B and -C? 25 MR. HOCH: Yes. Just like that. You got it. May I t 26 withdraw -- may I withdraw this -- there is a cover page. 27 May I withdraw my last exhibit to make this the entire 28 exhibit? t RENDEL B HUTCHINGS (TD LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011377 42 I 1 MS. MAHONEY: Yes, you may. 2 1 :3 MR. HOCH: This will be Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. Q Will you just take a look at that. 4 A Yes. All of it? '5 Q Just skim over the whole exhibit, so you are \ 6 familiar with it. 7 A Some of this you can't even read. 8 t 9 Q I understand. MS. MAHONEY: Mr. Hoch, while Mr. Krieger is looking ; 10 at that, I will put an objection on the record that even if 11 he is able to recognize someone's signature, that he still 1 12 cannot identify or relate the tape with the transcript. 13 because he never heard the tape. 14 *> But I will permit you -- I'm not going to interfere 15 with your questioning. 16 MR. HOCH: Your objection stands. I understand. I'm 17 sure Mr. Marr will be able to ID it also, but we can go on. >1 : 18 Will you hand that to the court reporter, please. o CM -- ! 19 What she is going to do is remove the markings from the < other page and put them on the cover page here. Okay. 21 (Whereupon the above-mentioned pages are remarked as 22 Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 for identification.) 23 24 MR. HOCH: Back on the record. Q We have handed you, Mr. Krieger, what we have 25 marked now as Plaintiff's Exhibit. 3. Can you read the first 26 page of this exhibit? Is it legible? 1 27 A Yes. 28 Q There is a handwriting above "H. M. Robbins." RENDEL B HUTCHINGS (ID LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011378 43 2 i 3 A Yes. Q Do you recognize that as Dr. Robbins' 4 signature? 5 1 6 A I'm pretty sure it is. MS. MAHONEY: I will object on the basis of 7 foundationi. t8 Q BY MR. HOCH: You have seen his signature 9 before? ' 10 A Oh, yes. 11 t 12 r 13 Q How many times, sir? A Many. Q How many is "many"? k 14 15 A A hundred. Q Does this look like -- 16 A Yes. 17 J 18 Q -- H. M. Robbins' signature? A Yes, it does. i% 19 Q You recognize him as the medical officer of 1 20 Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 21 A Yes. 22 MR. HOCH: Why don't we break now for lunch and go t 23 tape and go off the record. 24 MR. ROBBINS: You're off. 25 (A lunch recess is taken from 12:15 p.m. until 26 2:05 p.m.) 27 MR. HOCH: Ready? 28 MR. ROBBINS: Back on. RFNDFI R HUTCHINGS (TO LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011379 44 1 Q BY MR. HOCH: Mr. Krieger, during the period of 2 1956 to I960, do you have an estimate of the number of 3 insulators at Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 4 A My guess would be about a hundred and sixty. 5 Q Again, we don't want you to guess. Is that an 6 estimate? 7 A That is an estimate. 8 Q Is that your best estimate, based on your 9 recollection of the events back then? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Now, concerning the comp clams that you 12 discussed a few moments ago, when you received these comp 13 claims, did you advise Dr. Robbins they had been received 14 your office? 15 A Yes, I did. 16 Q And in response to that information being 17 passed on to him, do you know if he took any action? 18 A I don't think so. 19 Q You don't think he did? 20 A I don't think he did. 21 Q Do you know a Commander Victor Hertzel -- I 22 can't read it -- H-e-r-t-z-e-1? 23 A It's Hetzel. 24 Q H-e-t-z-e-1? 25 A Yes. . 26 Q Do you know who he is? 27 A Yes. 28 Q Can you tell us who he was? RFNDFI R HUTCHINCS rm IOS ANC.FIFC .SANTA ANA .SAN CLEMENTE .SAN DIEGO .SAN BERNARDINO MT-PWHD-011380 45 n 1 A Yeah. He worked at -- well, he was a civilian. 2 came into the shipyard on a two-week training cruise, and he 3 was assigned to my office. 4 Q Did he perform some task for you? 5 6 A Yes. Q Do you recall -- excuse me -- do you recall 7 when that was? 8 9 A No. Q Can you tell us what task you asked him to 10 perform? < 11 A Yes. I was in doubt as to the validity of the 12 diagnostic reading of the X rays on the laggers, insulators. 13 and -- because there were discrepancies from year to year. . 14 So I asked him to make a study of the medical records 15 regarding this and document it. 16 Q Well, prior to your asking him to make the * 17 study, you were aware, I would assume, from your comments. 18 that the laggers were having X rays taken at some periodic 19 interval at the shipyard? * 20 21 A About once a year. Q How did you become familiar with that? 22 A I had looked over some of the records and * 23 compiled the records for about five or six years, and I 24 wasn't satisfied -- with no medical background. 25 incidentally -- I wasn't satisfied with the written CO CM diagnosis. 27 Q This occurred as a result of the comp claims 28 coming into your office -- t i RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS (TO LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIECO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011381 46 1 A Yes. 2 Q -- this investigation of yours? 3 A Yes. 4 MR. HOCH: I would like to show the witness a 5 memorandum, which we will ask the court reporter to mark as 6 plaintiff's next in order, which I think is 4, dated, I 7 think, 16 June, 1961. It has got the typewritten name of 8 Commander Victor L. Hetzel, USNR, at the top. 9 MS. MAHONEY: I have it. Thank you. 10 MR. HOCH: Fine. 11 Would you just take a look at it and then pass it on 12 to the court reporter. 13 THE WITNESS: (Witness complies.) Yes. 14 (Whereupon the above-mentioned document is marked by 15 the notary public as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 for 16 identification.) 17 Q BY MR. HOCH: Does the date on top of this 18 particular memorandum. Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 -- I believe 19 it's 16 June, 1961 -- 20 A That is what it says. 21 Q It says 3 dash sixteen. 22 Would that indicate the two weeks he was there, 23 perhaps, if you know? 24 A Yes. Yeah, that would be it, two weeks. 25 Q And do you recall seeing this -- that this is 26 the memo you received from Commander Hetzel? 27 A Yes. 28 Q Did you -- in reading this memo, did this RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS fTD LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011382 47 1 reflect the kind of inconsistencies you were seeing in the 2 X rays when you looked at the records of them? 3 A Yes, it did. 4 Q It indicates there is a table that -- is an 5 attachment to this report. Unfortunately, it's not 6 attached. 7 Do you recall what was in the table? 8 A Well, the basis for his study is attached, 9 isn't it? 10 Q It's only a one-page document. That's all that 11 has been found. I will represent that to you, sir. 12 A I thought I saw in the exhibits the backup 13 material for this (indicating). 14 Q Okay. Well, maybe we'll come to it, but off 15 the top of your head, at this point in time, do you recall 16 what it was? 17 A No, I don't. 18 Q As a result of receiving this memorandum, did 19 you pass it on to someone? 20 A Well, I believe I called it to the attention of 21 the medical officer. 22 Q That was? 23 A Dr. Robbins. 24 Q And did you have some discussion with him about 25 that? . 26 A I'm sure I did. 27 Q Do you recall what was said at this point in 28 time? RENDEL B HUTCHINGS CD LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MON 1C MT-PWHD-011383 48 1 A No, I don't. 2 Q Do you recall any action that Dr. Robbins took 3 as a result of either the discussion you had with him or 4 this memorandum specifically? 5 A No, I don't remember it. 6 Q In response to receiving this information, 7 other than discussing it with Dr. Robbins, did you take any 8 action? 9 A Well, eventually I tried to get some diagnostic 10 procedure that would be valid, and, as I recall, I went to 11 the United States Department of Labor for money, and 12 eventually I think I went to my own boss for it. 13 Q Are you saying you opened some conversations 14 with -- was it the Bureau of Employee Compensation in San 15 Francisco? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Did you deal with a Mr. Gray there? 18 A Yes. And Schroeder. 19 Q And Schroeder? 20 A (Nods his head intheaffirmative.) 21 Q Your purpose was to do what sir? 22 A To try to get them to give us some money so we 23 could have the -- these people run through a battery of 24 tests to diagnose them. 25 Q Did you envision these tests would be done at 26 the shipyard? 27 A I didn't care wherethey were done. 28 Q In regard to that, did you gather other. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS fTD LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011384 49 1 further information together or request that other, further 2 information be gathered together to send up to the Bureau of 3 Employee Compensation? 4 A Yes, I believe I sent the results of this 5 test -- or this study -- I'm sorry. 6 Q Can I show you -- show the witness an exhibit I 7 would like to be marked next in order as Plaintiff's 5. 8 It's the letter to Mr. Gray, dated 9 August, 1962, and the 9 attachments, which are two charts, and then the 55 pages of 10 "Reassigned After Medical Evaluation" information. 11 MS. O'ROURKE: What are the two titles? 12 MR. HOCH: "Incidence of Positive Chest X-ray Findings in 13 Pipe Coverers and Insulators Versus Years of Employment in the 14 Shipyard." a chart entitled "Supplemental," and then the 55 pages 15 of the "Reassigned After Medical Evaluation." 16 MS. MAHONEY: I'm going to object to everything but 17 the letter as being hearsay. But you can certainly show it 18 to the witness. 19 (Whereupon a discussion is held off the record.) 20 MS. MAHONEY: Yes. We have it here. 21 MR. HOCH: I ask Mr. Krieger to just review that and 22 then pass it to the court reporter for marking. 23 MR. ROBBINS: Want to stop tape? 24 MR. HOCH: (Shakes his head in the negative.) 25 (Whereupon the above-mentioned document is marked by 26 the notary public as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 for 27 identification.) 28 MR. HOCH: We have had the exhibit marked as 5, rmDFKinPI R MIITrMtKir.t inc ANr.ClFC.CAMTA ANA .CAN CLFMENTE .SAN DIEGO .SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011385 50 1 and the letter is to your right, Mr. Krieger. 2 MS. MAHONEY: Fifty-five pages? 3 MR. HOCH: Fifty-five pages of the "Reassigned After 4 Medical Evaluation" chart. 5 MS. O' ROURKE: I think that says "35." Excuse me. 6 MR. HOCH: Thirty-five? 7 MS. O' ROURKE: Yes. 8 MR. HOCH: It goes from stamped page 1866 through -- 9 so there is no misunderstandings -- 18 -- sorry -- 1902. 10 Q Do you have all that, Mr. Krieger? 11 A Uh-huh. 1901 is missing. Oh, no, sorry about 12 that. 13 Q Okay. 14 A Yeah, I got it. 15 Q First of all, are you familiar with the letter 16 dated 9 August, '62? 17 A Yes. 18 Q That is a letter that indeed you authored and 19 wrote to Mr. Gray? 20 A Right. 21 Q The attachments, going in order, the one that 22 is marked "Incidence of Positive Chest X-ray Findings," was 23 that .attachment to this letter? 24 A These were sent forward with the letter 25 (indicating) . 26 Q Yes, that is what I meant. 27 A Yes. 28 Q The next page says "Supplemental" on top. RFNDFI R HUTCHINCS fTTl LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a$AN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011386 51 1 That too went with the letter? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And as did the 55 pages of "Reassigned After 4 Medical Evaluation"? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Concerning thechart marked"Incidence of 7 Positive Chest X-ray Findings," where did that information 8 come from, sir? 9 A The medical records and the employment records, 10 because Hetzel worked in both personnel and medical 11 department on this study. 12 Q This particular chart was part of the 13 information you asked Commander Hetzel to -- 14 A Yes. 15 Q -- to doduring histwo-week tour? 16 A That's right. 17 Q What instructions did you give him? 18 A Well, I just told him about my doubts as to the 19 validity of the reading of the X rays, as I mentioned in 20 this letter to Gray in paragraph -- because of the 21 contradictory readings in the order -- in order to ascertain 22 who may be afflicted with asbestos, and so forth. 23 Q By "contradictory readings," you were saying 24 what, sir? You meant what? 25 A Well, if you look at.the exhibits -- I can pick 26 any one of them -- you will notice on certain years all of 27 the readings were negative, and then in other years they 28 were all positive, or most of them were positive. RENDEL B HUTCHINCS CTO LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011387 52 1 Q As part of your instructions to Commander 2 Hetzel, you instructed him to look at the medical records of 3 laggers and at their personnel files as well? 4 A I did. 5 Q That wasinformation contained at the shipyard 6 in regular course of business -- 7 A Yes. 8 Q -- at the shipyard? 9 And from the individual reports, this compilation 10 entitled "Incidence of Positive Chest X rays" were found? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Can you describe to us what the chart entitled 13 "Supplemental" was meant to show? 14 A Well, this was just a list of the fellows that 15 were already -- the workers that were already on workers' 16 comp or had applied for it. 17 But you will notice that Brewer was diagnosed as 18 emphysema; he was not receiving workers' comp. But the rest 19 of them were. 20 Q This came from information again from the 21 shipyard files? 22 A These came from my files. 23 Q Compensation -- 24 A He got them from my files. 25 Q Compensation claim files? 26 A Yes. 27 Q Asking you to turn back for a moment to the 28 first chart, "Incidence" -- sorry, I missed -- missed one RENDEL B HUTCHINCS ffD LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011388 1 question I did want to ask you. 2 Under the category, "Number of Employees," if you 3 add that up, according to my trusty calculator, comes to a 4 hundred and four. 5 Would that have been all of the laggers? 6 A Well, all that were studied. 7 Q Were there others that may have not been 8 studied? 9 A Oh, I'm sure there were. Those that were only 10 there a year or were apprentices, or whatever. 11 Q Now the cover letter that was sent to Mr. Gray 12 also indicates copies were sent to two codes, 700 and 956. 13 A Yeah. Or. Robbins and Olin Meeker. 14 Q That would have been Olin Meeker was the shop 15 head -- sorry -- master mechanic of Shop 56? 16 A Yes. And 700 was the doctor. 17 Q Did you ever have any discussions with Dr. 18 Robbins concerning this letter and/or the charts that are 19 attached? 20 A I don't recall. I'm sure I did, but I don't 21 recall it. 22 Q To the best of your knowledge, this represents 23 accurate information concerning what was found in the 24 files? 25 A Yes. 26 Q Thank you, sir. 27 Did you receive some response back from the Bureau of 28 Employee Compensation after this information was forwarded? RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS QQ LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011389 54 1 A Yeah. Eventually they told me they wouldn't -- 2 that they could not furnish monies for diagnostic 3 procedures. 4 Q I show you another exhibit, sir, which we will 5 mark as Plaintiff's 6, on the letterhead of the U.S. 6 Department of Labor, Bureau of Employees Compensation, dated 7 September 18th, 1962. It's a two-page letter purportedly 8 signed by somebody named A. B. Schroeder, 9 S-c-h-r-o-e-d-e-r. 10 Once again we'll ask you to take a look at it and pass 11 it over to the court reporter for marking. 12 (Whereupon the above-mentioned document is marked by 13 the notary public as Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 for 14 identification.) 15 Q BY MR. HOCH: Mr. Krieger, is this the 16 letter that was sent back to you by the Bureau of Employees 17 Compensation in response to your letter of August 9th, 18 1962? 19 A Yes, it was. 20 Q Do you recognize it asa copy of that letter, 21 bearing the signature of Mr. Schroeder? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Did you have any dealings with Mr.Schroeder 24 before this time? 25 A Oh, yes. 26 Q Can you tell us about what those dealings 27 were? 28 A Well, on sticky compensation cases I would call RENDEL B HUTCHINCS QQ LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011390 55 1 him or go up and see him. 2 Q So you had regular communications -- 3 A I did. 4 Q -- before this time? 5 In the second paragraph of this letter, second 6 sentence, it says, quote: "It's the consensus here that 7 while the medical data presented points to a significant 8 problem in industrial safety, there presently is no basis 9 for the initiation of any action by the bureau," unquote. 10 Did I read that correctly? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Did you after receiving this letter call or 13 speak to Mr. Schroeder about that comment? 14 A No. I don't think so. 15 Q Did you pursue with Mr. Schroeder or anyone at 16 that bureau further the possibility of getting funding from 17 them? 18 A No. This was my rejection. 19 Q As a result of that rejection, did you take any 20 further action in an attempt to get a medical program going, 21 as you have previously described? 22 A Yes. 23 Q What didyou do, sir? 24 A I talked to Memorial Hospital -- heart and lung 25 department -- and told Dr. Ellestad, who was heading that up 26 at that time -- now, I don't know when this was, but 27 after -- I'm assuming it was after this (indicating) that I 28 got in touch with Memorial Hospital and talked to Dr. RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS flD LOS ANGELES a SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011391 56 1 Ellestad about maybe somebody coming over and reading the 2 X rays or setting up some kind of a program -- a pilot 3 program, or whatever. 4 Q Is there a reason you went to Memorial 5 Hospital? g A Well, it was close to the shipyard and it was a 7 community thing. 8 Q As a result of those conversations with Dr. g Ellestad, did -- what was done next, if anything? 10 A Well, I don't know if -- what the order would 11 be, but Dr. Ellestad and his assistant got involved in 12 coming over and reading the X rays, and then eventually 13 taking people to Memorial Hospital -- laggers -- some 14 laggers to Memorial Hospital and ran them through 15 vital-capacity tests, and came up with the diagnoses that 16 were sent back to the medical officer. And I think this 17 went on for a period of a couple years or more. 18 Q Is it correct that there was a pilot program at 19 first? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And then you sought to have funding from the 22 shipyard for a regular praogram? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Thatwould have been the sequence that it 25 occurred? 26 A I would think so. 27 MR. HOCH: I would like to show the witness a 28 memorandum from Code 185 to Code 150, dated 5 June, '63, RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS cm LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011392 57 1 two pages, with an attachment, which we will label as 2 Plaintiff's 7. 3 MS. O'ROURKE: You said two pages? 4 MR. HOCH: Two pages, plus an attachment that looks 5 like this (indicating). 6 Do you see it? 7 MS. MAHONEY: You are showing the witness three 8 pages? 9 MR. HOCH: Three pages altogether, correct. 10 MS. MAHONEY: Madam Court Reporter, on the record, I'm 11 going to object to this exhibit which has been marked as P-7 12 as hearsay within hearsay. But Mr. Hoch can question the 13 witness should he see fit. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. 15 (Whereupon the above-mentioned document is marked by 16 the notary public as Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 for 17 identification.) 18 Q BY MR. HOCH: Have you had a chance to look 19 over that exhibit marked Plaintiff's 7? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And is that a true and correct copy of the 22 memorandum that you authored to, I guess it would be, Dave 23 Hendrickson, on 5 June, 1963? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Code 185 was your boss, Dave Hendrickson? 26 A No. Code 185 was me. 27 Q I am sorry. 150 was your boss? 28 A Yes. RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS QQ LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011393 58 1 Q Has your signature on the second page? 2 A Yes. 3 Q This contains information that you knew to be 4 true at the time? 5 A Yes. 6 Q From this memo -- should say, following this 7 memo, did the plan go forward to have the -- all the 8 insulators examined by Dr. Ellestad? 9 A This wasn't asking for all. 10 Q Was asking for which, then, sir? 11 A Dr. Ellestad is willing to give clinical 12 examination to 15 suspected cases for a fee of a hundred ten 13 dollars. 14 Q These were people who you suspected of 15 having -- possibly having asbestosis? 16 A Yes. The more -- I don't know what word I'm 17 looking for -- serious cases. 18 Q And that was in fact funded at some point in 19 time by the shipyard? 20 A I believe this was, yes. 21 Q And these people were examined by Dr. 22 Ellestad? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Were reports of those examinations returned to 25 you? 26 A No. 27 Q Do you know where they went? 28 A To the medical department. RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS fTO LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA - SAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO -SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011394 59 1 Q Do you know what happened to those reports -- 2 A No. 3 Q Let me finish my question. 4 Do you know what happened to those reports when they 5 went to the medical department? 6 A No, I don't. 7 Q Now,it mentions in paragraph three at the 8 bottom that this examination of these 15 suspected cases was 9 to wait, quote, "until 13 June, when the three 10 representatives from the U.S. Public Health Service are here 11 to study our asbestos problem," unquote. 12 Do you recall a visit by the U.S. Public Health 13 Service in and around 13 June, 1963? 14 A I don't. 15 Q Does the name Enterline or Cralley ring any 16 bells with you? 17 A No, it doesn't. 18 Q At some point in time, was this program with 19 Dr. Ellestad expanded to cover other laggers other than the 20 15 we talked about? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And do you recall when that was? 23 A No, I don't. 24 Q What was done for the other laggers, in terms 25 of Dr. Ellestad's examination? 26 A I believe they put them through the 27 vital-capacity test and X rays. 28 Q Is vital-capacity testing also to you RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS QJ) LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011395 60 * 1 synonymous with pulmonary function testing? ; 2 3 A Yes. Q And upon your arrival at the shipyard in 1956, 4 had Jim Sheehan run, to your knowledge, vital-capacity t 5 testing on insulators? 6 A Yes, he did. Not as sophisticated as 7 Gllestad's. f8 MR. HOCH: I would like to show the witness two 9 exhibits, which we will mark Plaintiff's 8 and Plaintiff's 10 9, respectively. The first one is a letter from Dr. t 11 Ellestad to Mr. Krieger, dated May 27th, 1965, which we will 12 date as Plaintiff's 8. 13 And the second is a memorandum of Mr. Krieger, dated * 14 10 June, '65, which we will label as Plaintiff's 9. 15 MS. MAHONEY: We have the May 27, 1965, letter. 16 MS. O'ROURKE: That is Plaintiff's 8. t 17 MR. HOCH: We are just going to cut this -- turn off 18 the tape for a second. 19 Go off. t 20 21 (Whereupon a discussion is held off the record.) (A brief recess is taken.) 22 (Whereupon the above-mentioned documents are marked by t 23 the notary public as Plaintiffs' Exhibits 8 and 9, 24 respectively, for identification.) 25 MR. HOCH: We can go on. 1 26 Q Mr. Krieger, have you had an opportunity to 27 review Exhibit 8? 28 A Yes. 1 M DCkinci d ui iTruiKirrc i ac a ki/*ra rr . A fcJTA Al j A .CAM riBUCIUTC C A Al r iki nritki * nmk.i MT-PWHD-011396 61 1 Q Was in fact that a copy of a letter you got 2 from Dr. Ellestad in which he proposed to do the exam for 60 3 men? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And does that date. May, '65, ring a bell with 6 you, or refresh your recollection -- to coin a legal 7 phrase -- as to the time when the exam started for a larger 8 gorup of insulators? 9 A Sometime after this period, yes. 10 Q And as a result of receiving this letter from 11 Dr. Ellestad, did you then author Exhibit 9? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the 14 memorandum that you forwarded to your boss requesting 15 permission to fund the program? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And that money was funded by the shipyard? 18 A Yes, it was. 19 Q Out of industrial relations? 20 A Pardon me. As I recall, the funding was based 21 on this letter (indicating). It wasn't based on my request. 22 I wanted ten extra men in here, because I wanted five men 23 working with plastics and five men working with glass, and I 24 don't think they were funded. 25 Q So what was funded was only the insulators 26 working with asbestos? 27 A Yes. 28 Q And a copy of this memorandum went to who. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS fjjj LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO eSANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011397 62 * 1 sir? 2 A Dr. Ellestad, the medical director, 940. I 3 can't remember who 940 was. I don't know. Oh, I know. 940 4 would have been the group superintendent. I think they had * 5 grouped by that time, which meant that Meeker now had a 6 boss. And so it went to him, and then it went to Meek -- 7 Mr. Meeker -- and Webb Ay. 48 Q And on the bottom of this exhibit there is some 9 printing. Is that your writing, sir? 10 A It sure is. 4 11 Q Can you tell me if I 'm reading it correctly? 12 It says, "Webb approved, 150. Sent forward to 700 for 13 action. Cliff." 4 14 15 A Yes. Q What does that mean? 16 A Well, it means that Mr. Hendrickson had i 17 approved probably the $3,000 for the study, and the money 18 would have been transferred to the medical department for 19 action, and I would be out of the picture completely. The 4 20 scheduling and the running of the tests and the reading of 21 the results , and so forth, would not have been my 22 bailiwick. * 23 Q As far as you know. the program did go forward 24 for a time; correct? 25 A Yes. l 26 Q Do you know if it was terminated at some time? 27 A Yes. I believe it was later terminated. 28 Probably the following year. i k nrkirvri n i it iTruitl^C MT-PWHD-011398 63 1 Q Is that your best recollection? 2 A Yes. It was picked up by the Navy -- Navy 3 hospital. 4 Q The results from Dr. Ellestad's work, do you 5 know where those went to? 6 A No. 7 Q Based on the custom and practice of the 8 shipyard, do you believe they would have gone to the medical 9 department? 10 A It would have to go to the medical department, 11 yes. The Navy is very strict about medical information 12 being between medical doctors, not laymen. 13 Q Again, based on your knowledge of the custom 14 and practice, would it have gone into the shipyard workers' 15 medical file? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Now, you mentioned that after thisyou believe 18 the Navy picked up this program. 19 A I believe that is true. 20 Q How do you come to that knowledge, sir? 21 A I canremember themrunning a station wagon 22 full of -- like four at a time -- out to the Navy hospital 23 for the vital capacity and X rays. How many went and 24 whatever, I don't know. 25 Q Do you have any knowledge, sir, as to what 26 happened to the results of those tests? 27 A No, I do not, sir. 28 Q Based upon your understanding of the custom and RFISlDFI R HUTCHINGS fTTI im ANC.FIFS .SANTA ANA - SAN CIFMFNTF - SAN MFCn .SAN BFBNARDINO .SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011399 64 1 practice of the Navy at the shipyard, do you likewise 2 believe they would have gone to the workers' medical file? 3 MS. MAHONEY: I'm going to object as speculative. 4 THE WITNESS: Either that, or if they kept a special 5 file on asbestosis. 6 Q BY MR. HOCH: That you don't know? 7 A No, I do not. 8 Q But you do believe it went to the medical 9 department? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Were you privy to anyof the quarterly reports 12 filed by the medical department to Bu Med? 13 A No, I was not. 14 Q At some point in time after the program had 15 been switched to the Navy, did you receive any information 16 that workers were complaining that they weren't getting 17 results of those tests? 18 A Nothing official, no. 19 Q Something you heard at the shipyard? 20 A Webb Ay again mentioned that he didn't think 21 that they were getting the re- -- enough information. 22 Q Can we just pause for a minute, please? 23 (Interruption in the proceedings.) 24 MS. MAHONEY: When you come back on, I am going to 25 object to Mr. Krieger's last answer and move that it be 26 stricken; nonresponsive to the question. 27 Also, there is a hearsay objection associated with 28 that. Thank you. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS flU LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011400 65 1 MR. HOCH: Well, I'll tell you what. If you can 2 produce Webb Ay for me, I think you will get a ruling in 3 your favor, but if you can't -- 4 MS. KROOP: I think we have some other situations like 5 that. 6 MR. HOCH: We have a lot of situations like that, 7 unfortunately. 8 MS. KROOP: He only died once, though, didn't he? 9 MR. HOCH: Only once. 10 MS. MAHONEY: We're on the record. 11 MR. HOCH: Would you note Mr. Hoch laughed. Yes, I 12 laughed to her embarrassment. We can go back on the tape 13 now. 14 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 15 MR. ROBBINS: Back on. 16 MR. HOCH: Did you want to put your objection on 17 tape? 18 MS. MAHONEY: No, I indicated that I thought it proper 19 for you to come back on the tape. 20 MR. HOCH: Fine. Thank you. 21 I'm sorry. 22 Q As a result of Webb Ay informing you that some 23 of the workers were complaining they didn't get results 24 back, did you take any action? 25 A No. 26 Q Do you know ifanyone took any action? 27 A Yeah. Webb. 28 Q Do you knowwhat hedid? RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS gg LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONIC/ MT-PWHD-011401 66 1 A He talked to Dave Hendrickson, and that is as 2 much as I know about it. 3 Q And you know this of your own personal 4 knowledge -- 5 A Yes. 6 Q -- that he did in fact talk to Dave 7 Hendrickson? 8 A Yes, I do. 9 Q In and around 1964, Mr. Krieger, did you attend 10 a conference at the New York Academy of Science where Dr. 11 Selikoff spoke? 12 A I believe that was the date, yes. 13 Q That was in New York? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Was that trip paid for by the Navy? 16 A Yes. 17 Q You had to submit some sort of paper work to 18 get approval for that? 19 A Yes. 20 Q By the way, who would have approved of that 21 trip? 22 A Dave Hendrickson. 23 Q Can you tell us what -- did you hear Dr. 24 Selikoff speak at that meeting? 25 A Yes. Yes, I did. 26 Q Did you read any reports or paper he gave at 27 that meeting? 28 A I attended all the meetings. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS flU LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011402 67 1 Q Do you know, sir, if there was anyone else from 2 the United States Government present at that meeting? 3 A Not to my knowledge. 4 Q Can you tell us what you learned at that 5 meeting? g A Mostly that asbestos was bad. 7 Q That is something that you at least had some 8 personal belief of prior to this time; was that true? g A Yes, but this was just affirmed by the Russians 10 and the English and the Africans. You have a copy of my 11 report from that trip. They subpoenaed it from the 12 shipyard. Yes, you did. 13 Q News to me. 14 A It's this long (indicating). The pages are 15 this long (indicating). 16 Q Well, I will have to check up on that. 17 Excuse me. After you returned from hearing Dr. 18 Selikoff speak, did you file a report? 19 A I sure did. 20 Q And was that custom and practice in the Navy to 21 do so? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And do you recall what the title of that report 24 was? 25 A No, I do not. 26 Q It was a rather lengthy report? 27 A Yes, it was. 28 Q Did you attach some of the papers you had RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS QQ LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MON I MT-PWHD-011403 68 1 received while at that meeting? 2 A Oh, yes, about 25or 30pages of it. 3 Q And those that youwould attach, some of them 4 at least deal with asbestos? 5 A All of them. 6 Q Who -- 7 A There were no other subjects discussed at this 8 meeting. 9 Q And to whom was this report given? 10 A Dave Hendrickson. 11 Q Was it carbon-copied to anyone else? 12 A I wouldn't think so. 13 Q Do you know if Mr. Hendrickson gave it to 14 anyone else? 15 A I do not know. 16 Q Do you know if Mr. Hendrickson, as part of his 17 job, had to report to his superior on trips such as the one 18 you took? 19 A No, sir. 20 Q You do not know or -- 21 A I don't think he would. 22 Q Do you know if the safety department. Long 23 Beach -- strike that. 24 Are you familiar with the -- what the quarterly Bu Med 25 reports are that the medical department would have to file? 26 A No. 27 Q Did the safety department -- excuse me -- did 28 the industrial relations department and the Long Beach Naval RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS fTTT ms ANCFIFS .SANTA ANA .SAN riFMFNTF -CAN Wtfn _CAN icDUiDmun -canta urtuir MT-PWHD-011404 69 1 Shipyard have to file any annual, semiannual, quarterly 2 report to its parent entity in the Navy? 3 A I am sure they did. I don't know. 4 Q You don't know? 5 A (Nods his head in the affirmative.) 6 Q Do you recall any of the comments you made in 7 the report that you gave to Mr. Hendrickson? 8 A No, I don't. 9 Q Was it at or about the time that you went to 10 this meeting and heard Dr. Selikoff speak that Bill Marr 11 left the shipyard? 12 A I thought he was already gone. 13 Q May have been right -- a little bit after he 14 left? 15 A I don't remember. 16 Q Okay. 17 A Are you sure Mr. Manning wasn't there at the 18 time I went to this conference? 19 Q I'm sure, but I can't testify, unfortunately. 20 A I can't remember. 21 Q Following the departure of Mr.Marr, was there 22 a period of time when there was no industrial hygienist at 23 the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 24 A That is true. 25 Q And the next industrialhygienist to occupy 26 that billet was who? 27 A Mr. Manning. 28 Q That is Sheldon Manning? RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS fJQ LOS ANGEUES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011405 70 1 A Sheldon Manning. 2 Q Just in case we forget, just to make the record 3 clear, later on there was a regional industrial hygienist 4 named Robert Manning; is that correct? 5 A I believe he was hired -- I better not say. 6 There was a Robert Manning who was over Sheldon Manning. 7 Q Sorry. Go ahead. 8 A I thought that he came into the shipyard and 9 later became regional, but maybe he was hired as a 10 regional. 11 Q Just so there is noconfusion, we'll be 12 speaking -- if we speak of "Mr. Manning," we are speaking of 13 Sheldon Manning and not Robert Manning. All right? 14 A All right. 15 Q Do you recall approximately when Mr. Manning 16 came to the shipyard? 17 A No, I do not. 18 Q During the period of time when there was no 19 industrial hygienist at the shipyard, what happened to the 20 equipment, if you know, sir, that was in the industrial 21 hygiene laboratory? 22 A The physical equipment, instruments, went to 23 the chief chemist. 24 Q Do you know where any of the other equipment 25 went to? . 26 A No. All the equipment went to the chemist. I 27 got the library. 28 Q Did you get any of Mr. Marr's notes or RPMnFI R HI ITfHINM fTTI inc lurcicc .UMTi ami .C1M ntuPUTt .Ciu nrn .cm BCDUtDniun .c<uti unuir MT-PWHD-011406 1 records? 2A None. Just books. 3 Q Do you have any idea whathappened to his notes 4 and records? 5 A No, I do not. 6 Q During the time that there was no industrial 7 hygienist at the shipyard, did the safety department fill in 8 as industrial hygienist? 9 A No. We handled complaints. Weeven 10 investigated complaints along with the laboratory personnel. 11 Nobody in the safety office was qualified as an industrial 12 hygienist, so we couldn't be -- we couldn't take tests, and 13 we couldn't run experiments or investigations -- industrial 14 hygiene investigations -- and so forth. The chemistry 15 department did do some studies on ventilation, acids, and so 16 forth, that I recall, because I happened to call them in on 17 those -- I called them in on the particular complaints, like 18 in the plating shop, and so forth. 19 Q Was -- to your knowledge, sir, did anyone 20 during the time period when there was no industrial 21 hygienist at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard do any dust 22 samplings relative to asbestos concentrations? 23 A That I can answer: There was nobody qualified 24 to do it. 25 Q During the time there was no industrial 26 hygienist at the shipyard, who was the head of the medical 27 department? 28 A I think it was Dr. Watkins. RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS OH LOS ANGELES .SANTA ANA .SAN CLEMENTE .SAN DIEGO .SAN BERNARDINO .SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011407 72 1 Q George Watkins? 2 A George Watkins. 3 Q Do you know, sir, if there was a requirement 4 placed upon the Long Beach Naval Shipyard by the Navy or the 5 United States Government in general to take dust samplings 6 periodically for asbestos during this time when there was no 7 industrial hygienist there? 8 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 9 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. 10 Q BY MR. HOCH: Sometime in 1967, did you again 11 attend some sort of meeting where Dr. Selikoff spoke? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Can you tell us where that was? 14 A Chicago. 15 Q And what kind of meeting it was? 16 A It was the national convention of the Heat, 17 Frost, Insulator Workers of America. 18 Q That is also known as the asbestos workers 19 union? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And did someone elseaccompany you there? 22 A George Watkins. 23 Q And do you recall the substance -- strike that. 24 Did you hear Dr. Selikoff speak? 25 A Yes. 26 Q Do you recall the substance of what he talked 27 about? 28 A Yeah. The fact that asbestos was dangerous. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS QD LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011408 73 1 and he laid an awful lot of emphasis on smoking, and 2 practically guaranteed that if you smoked and worked with 3 asbestos that you would get mesothelioma. 4 Q Did you and Dr. Watkins have the opportunity to 5 meet Dr. Selikoff and chat with him informally? 6 A Yes. We had two meals with him. 7 Q Was asbestos and asbestos health problems 8 discussed? 9 A Yes. That is all Dr. Selikoff ever talks 10 about. 11 Q Do you recall anyone else who may have come 12 with you from the shipyard to that meeting? 13 A Webster Ay and maybe -- I don't know. I think 14 maybe one other member from the local. 15 Q Charlie Carmines? 16 A I think that sounds -- yeah. 17 Q As a result of -- strike that. 18 After you and Dr. Watkins returned back from the 19 asbestos workers union meeting, do you recall within the 20 next six months or so any changes in any safety or health 21 practices dealing with asbestos occurring at the shipyard? 22 A Well, I think it was as a result of the trip 23 back East that Watkins hired Sheldon Manning as the 24 industrial hygienist. 25 Q Anything that was done thereinafter concerning 26 asbestos control was as a result of that billet being filled 27 and Mr. Manning functioning as industrial hygienist? 28 A Yes. RENDEL B HUTCHINGS QQ LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011409 74 t i? 1 MS. MAHONEY: I'm going to object, if I may -- 2 3 MR. HOCH: Sure. MS. MAHONEY: -- to the question -- 4 MR. HOCH: Any time. t5 MS. MAHONEY: -- as being extremely vague and 6 ambiguous. I'm just objecting to the form. 7 MR. HOCH: Okay. I'm not hurt. 8 Q Are you familiar, Mr. Krieger, with a document 9 entitled -- I've got to find it -- "Department of the Navy 10 Safety Precautions for Shore Activities"? 11 12 A Yes, I am. Q I would like to show the witness this and label 13 it as plaintiff's next in order, which is number 10, and the t one I intend to use has -- bears the logo of NAVSO P-2455, 15 April, 1965, two-page document. 16 MS. O'ROURKE: 1960? t 17 18 MR. HOCH: '65. MS. MAHONEY: Is there a seal on the one you are 19 using? f 20 MR. HOCH: No. The one without the seal. 21 MS. KROOP: How many pages? 22 (Whereupon a discussion is held off the record.) 23 MR. HOCH: Take a look at that Mr. Krieger, and then 24 please hand it to the court reporter and mark it as 25 Plaintiffs Exhibit 10. . 26 (Whereupon the above-mentioned document is marked by 27 the notary public as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 for 28 identification.) RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS fffl IOC AMCflK .CANTA ANA .SAN riFJUFNTF .cam mirn .cam niMAiniMn -camta uniuir MT-PWHD-011410 75 1 ' (Whereupon a discussion is held off the record.) 2 MS. MAHONEY: Madam Court Reporter is ready. 3 While Mr. Krieger is looking at what we have marked -- 4 or you have marked -- as P-10, I will put on the record an 5 objection to the use of this exhibit, because we appear to 6 have a cover page to a document which is larger than the 7 isolated page which we have here. So out of context, I must 8 object to the use of the document. 9 MR. HOCH: Well, I understand that. I was going to 10 say that unfortunately we only have these two pages. 11 However, it would seem rather absurd to put in all 20-plus 12 chapters of this to ask a single question I have. But I'm 13 sure the government will be more than happy at the time of 14 trial to provide the court with a full and complete copy of 15 all 20-odd chapters of this volume. 16 MS. MAHONEY: I guess the problem is, Mr. Hoch, that 17 the page numbers at the bottom doesn't identify that the 18 page comes from the document which purportedly is introduced 19 by the cover sheet. 20 MR. HOCH: Oh, I understand that. I just said, you go 21 back to your office and look at it, you will see that it 22 will. But I'm sure I can clear this up with the witness. 23 Q Have you had a chance to look at that, Mr. 24 Krieger? 25 A Yes, I have. 26 Q Are you familiar with the document entitled 27 "Department of the Navy Safety Precautions for Shore 28 Activities"? RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS QQ IOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011411 76 1 A Yes. 2 Q Is that something that was used at the Long 3 Beach Naval Shipyard? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And was it used as of April, 1965? 6 A Well, no. Sometime after that. My guess would 7 be six to eight months later. 8 Q All right. 9 What is NAVSO P-2455, if you know? 10 A I have -- I don't know. Evidently something to 11 do with industrial relations. 12 Q This was somethingthat waspromulgated -- 13 excuse me. Was this something that was promulgated by the 14 Department of Navy Industrial Relations Department -- or 15 Division? 16 A Looks like it yes. 17 Q And this would be adocument that would filter 18 down to the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Now -- 21 A All naval activities. 22 Q All naval activities. 23 Now, if you will turn to the second page of the 24 exhibit, marked page 20-22, in the middle of the page we 25 find the title "Dusts." 26 Do you recall this page -- strike that. 27 Do you recall first this type of information appearing 28 in the safety precautions for shore activities? RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS QJ) LOS ANGELES #SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011412 77 1A 2Q 3 not? Yes. This was a rather voluminous document, was it 4 A Quite large. 5 Q Can you give us an estimate? 6 A Thirty chapters, probably. 7 Q About how many pages would that be? Just an 8 estimate. 9 A It -- my guess, estimate, 800. 10 Q And what did it deal with? 11 A Everything. 12 Q What do you mean by "everything"? 13 A How to cut the lawn and how to spray the 14 shrubbery and how to put a scaffold up. And, as you can see 15 here, radioactive material, mercury, zinc (indicating). 16 Each chapter was devoted to some different subject. For 17 instance, if this would come into the shipyard -- 18 MS. MAHONEY: I'm going to object at this point, Mr. 19 Krieger. I don't believe there is a question here. I think 20 Mr. Hoch wants you to -- there is no question on the floor, 21 and you are starting to just talk. 22 Q BY MR. HOCH: When this document was received 23 by industrial relations department at the shipyard, what was 24 done with it? 25 A It would be distributed to all codes in the 26 shipyard. 27 Q The entire volume? 28 A Yes. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS {{Q LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011413 78 1 Q And was this done on a regular basis? *2 3 A As often as it was published. Q And would it be supplemented at that time of 4 distribution with local -- I mean -- what I mean by "local," * 5 I mean promulgated from the Long Beach Naval Shipyard 6 instructions or comments concerning what the industrial 7 relations department of the Navy has set down. 8 9 A At some later date it was. Q Do you recognize page 20-22 as dealing with 10 asbestosis? 11 12 A I can read it, yes. Q Do you recognize -- do you have a recollection 13 this was vintage 1965? t 14 A Well, see, this would have been for action by 15 Code 700. This is not traumatic. This is not safety. 16 Unfortunately, the safety department in Washington mixed the t 17 two together. Not unfortunately; that is the way it worked. 18 But then we would pick out -- the departments would pick out 19 what applied to them. i 20 Q So if this volume as published in 1965 did in 21 fact come to Long Beach Naval Shipyard and it contained what 22 I will -- what is represented on page 20-22, the sum total 23 of the volume, including that, would have gone to the 24 shipyard -- 25 t 26 27 MS. MAHONEY: Objection; speculative. Q BY MR. HOCH: -- to the medical department? A Yes. 28 MS. MAHONEY: Objection; speculative. ^ RFNDFI B HUTCHINGS ff 1 ITl IfIC AMTIIIC aCAklTA AMA CAM rifUCklTC -Clki merA .eiu arnM abaima ^*Ki-r MT-PWHD-011414 79 1 Q As you sit here right now, you don't 2 specifically recall receiving this specific (indicating) 3 document, though? 4 A I don't recall it, but we would have gotten a 5 whole publication in the safety office, but so would the 6 medical department, so would the production officer. That 7 is all I'm trying to put across. 8 Q That is fine. I just want to know where it 9 went and how it came in. 10 MS. MAHONEY: All I am trying to say, Mr. Krieger, 11 is -- when I object, is when you speculate, again I don't 12 think the judge wants to hear your assumptions or your 13 speculations. So when we have "woulds" or "ifs," I don't 14 think that is giving the type of evidence to the court that 15 the evidence needs -- that the court needs. 16 MR. HOCH: I will clean that up. Wehave to change 17 the tape, so we will take a minute break or so. 18 Off the record. ig (Whereupon a discussion is held off the record.) 20 MR. HOCH: Go back on. 21 MR. ROBBINS: You're back on. 22 Q BY MR. HOCH: In the normal course and practice 23 of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Mr. Krieger, in and around 24 1965, you would receive the document -- you would 25 receive from the industrial relations department of the Navy 26 a large multivolume document entitled "Department of the 27 Navy Safety Precautions for Shore Activities." 28 A Yes. RFNDFL R HUTCHINCS fm rtc AN<~.FIFC .ClklTi IMi .CAN TIFMFNTF . CAN nltrn .cm ucuiiniun -c*un unm/- MT-PWHD-011415 80 1 Q And in and around that same time period, it 2 was the custom and practice of the industrial relations 3 department to send that to other departments within the 4 shipyard; correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And one of the other departments that you would 7 send it to would be the medical department? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Now, during Mr. Manning's time at the shipyard, 10 did you and he at any time interact on the subject of 11 asbestos and asbestos control? 12 MS. MAHONEY: I'm going to object, unless Mr. Krieger 13 can give us some time frame with Mr. Manning. 14 MR. HOCH: My question was at any time while Mr. 15 Manning was at the shipyard, so it doesn't matter when he 16 was there. 17 MS. MAHONEY: I will still object to the form as 18 vague. 19 MR. HOCH: Doesn't cost anything. 20 Q Go ahead. 21 A I can't answer the question, anyway. I would 22 have to assume that we would. We worked together. 23 Q Well, let me put it this way. Do you have any 24 specific recollections of you and he working on any project 25 relative to asbestos control? . 26 A No. We did not. 27 Q If Mr. Manning wanted to schedule a meeting 28 with the insulators, did he have to go through the RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS fill LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE .SAN DIFCO .can RFBNABniNn -canta unwir MT-PWHD-011416 81 1 industrial relations department? 2 A Yes, he did. 3 Q Would he have normally then come to you? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Do you have a recollection of him doing that? 6 A Yes. I did attend theasbestos meetings with 7 him. 8 Q So he would have come to you to ask you to 9 schedule meetings wherein he could talk about asbestos? 10 A He would come to me to ask the training 11 department to schedule the meetings. 12 Q And that was thetrainingdepartment's 13 function? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And in fact some of those meetings were held? 16 A Oh, yes. 17 Q And you attendedthosemeetings? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Do you recall when the first meeting was? 20 A Right after Manning came aboard. Probably 21 within a month. 22 Q Subsequent tothat first meeting, were there 23 additional meetings as long as Mr. Manning was still at the 24 shipyard? 25 A Oh, yes. 26 Q Now, during Mr. Manning's term at the shipyard, 27 did he ever complain to you about problems he was having 28 functioning as industrial hygienist? RENDEL B HUTCHINGS {JQ LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011417 82 1 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. Objection. 2 MR. HOCH: That is two. She gets two for the price of 3 one. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, he was unhappy with his job. 5 Q BY MR. HOCH: Can you tell us what he 6 complained to you about? 7 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: They leaned on him -- Robert Manning. 9 Q BY MR. HOCH: Can you -- 10 A I have no specific situations. 11 Q That is the phrase he used to you? 12 A They didn't get along very well. 13 Q Did Mr. Manning ever complain to you about lack 14 of equipment? 15 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 16 THE WITNESS: I don't recall that. 17 Q BY MR. HOCH: Did he ever complain to you about 18 lack of assistance or support from the medical department? 19 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 20 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Secretarial, and he had no 21 assistance for field work. 22 MR. HOCH: Excuse me. 23 Q At some point in time, Mr. Krieger, did you 24 become familiar with a NAVSHIPS instruction which was 25 numbered 5100.26? . 26 A I don't know. 27 Q I would like to show you that instruction, 28 which we will mark as Plaintiff's Exhibit 11, and ask you RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS QQ LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO .SANTA MONir MT-PWHD-011418 83 1 to take a look at it and see if it refreshes your 2 recollection. 3 MS. O'ROURKE: Is there a date on that? 4 MR. HOCH: The date is 9 February, 1971. 5 MS. MAHONEY: We appear to bemissing page 8, Mr. 6 Hoch. Let me take a look. Yours is also missing page 8. 7 MR. HOCH: Olney is page 7. 8 Oh, I see. g MS. MAHONEY: So we agree, the record shouldreflect 10 this exhibit jumps from page 7 to page 9. 11 MR. HOCH: Yes, so stipulated. 12 Q Again I will ask you to review it and provide 13 it to the court reporter for marking. 14 (Witness complies.) 15 (Whereupon the above-mentioned document is marked by 16 the notary public as Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 for 17 identification.) 18 Q BY MR. HOCH: Have you had a chance to review 19 that? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Mr. Krieger, does that refresh your 22 recollection as to tihs particular instruction? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And did you become familiar with it on or about 25 9 February, 1971? 26 A Yes. 27 Q Do you recall how you became familiar with it? 28 A When it came through my office and I read it. RENDEL B HUTCHINGS (Q) LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011419 84 1 Q At the time you received this instruction 2 and you read it over, do you recall whether or not you made 3 any attempt to ascertain whether or not at that time this 4 shipyard was in compliance with this instruction? 5 A I don't remember. 6 Q Was this an instruction, to your knowledge, 7 that the shipyard was ordered to comply with -- required to 8 comply with? 9 A Yes. 10 Q It was? 11 A The shipyard would have been ordered to come up 12 to compliance with this, but it should have been done 13 between the shop and the industrial hygienist. 14 Q This particular instructiondidn't have any 15 particular bearing on the safety department, did it? 16 A No. 17 Q So it wouldn't have been in your sphere of 18 responsibility to see that it was followed up? 19 A No. It wouldhave beenthe production officer 20 and the medical officer. 21 Q Do youknowwhether ornot the production 22 department and the medical department upon receipt of this 23 did take the actions referred to? 24 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 25 THE WITNESS: I don't remember. 26 Q BY MR. HOCH: In 1972, did you visit the Puget 27 Sound Naval Shipyard? 28 A Yes. RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS flJJ LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011420 85 1 Q What was the purpose of that visit? 2 A I think it was about asbestos and general 3 subjects. It must have been asbestos, because I went up 4 with Webbie Ay. 5 Are we through with this (indicating)? 6 Q Yes. 7 A I went up with Webb Ay, so it must have been 8 asbestos. 9 Q As a result of that visit, did you recommend to 10 anybody at the shipyard that certain changes in procedures 11 be accomplished and certain equipment be bought? 12 A I believe we went up there with the idea of 13 looking at some ventilation and some downdraft tables. 14 Q And -- 15 A And I believe we made that recommendation. 16 Q Those downdraft tables and ventilation were 17 used where , sir? 18 A Puget. 19 Q I am sorry. In what part of the Puget Sound 20 Shipyard? 21 A In the -- what I call the pad department. 22 THE REPORTER: Called what? 23 THE WITNESS: Pad, p-a-d. 24 Q BY MR. HOCH: Is that where they made asbestos 25 pads? 26 A Yes. 27 Q These were made by laggers? 28 A Yes. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS fTTI LOS AMCfIK .SANTA ANA .SAN CLEMFNTF .CAM mrr.n .cam RCDMiDnnuo -camta unkiii MT-PWHD-011421 86 1 Q It was in one of the shops? 2 A In the 56 shops, yes. 3 Q Did the Long Beach Naval Shipyard have such a 4 shop? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Did they have the same type of ventilation that 7 they had at Puget Sound? 8 A No. 9 Q What was the difference? 10 A Well, the Puget, as I recall, they were 11 stainless steel tables with downdraft -- with holes on the 12 table and the draft would go down through -- the ventilation 13 would go down through. I think ours was overhead. 14 Q Was an updraft? 15 A Yes. And we used wetting process. See, they 16 worked theirs dry; we worked ours wet. 17 Q Did you also recommend purchasing of vacuum 18 cleaners? 19 A Yes. 20 Q What was -- what kind of vacuum cleaners and 21 why the need to purchase them? 22 A For cleaning up. Sears Roebuck type. 23 Q Cleaning up what? 24 A Asbestos dust. 25 Q Do you know if those were ever purchased? 26 A I don't remember that they were. 27 Q Were vacuum cleaners used at all to clean up 28 asbestos dust at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard at the time DPMRPI R Ml ITf'HINr'.S Mil IAS AUrtlKC .CiklTA ANA .CAkiriCkiCkiTC .Ciy nitrA arBUABiMiiA . rinft MT-PWHD-011422 87 you made the recommendation to purchase them? 1 A I think everything was wet down and swept up. 2 Q Did it ever come to your attention, sir, that 3 4 there was -- strike that. At some point in time, did it come to your attention 5 6 that the Navy had ceased ordering asbestos-containing 7 products for use at the shipyard? 8 A I don't remember that. 9 Q Do you recall that there may have -- the Navy 10 at some point in time wanted to purge asbestos from their 11 supply system? 12 A Again, I don't remember that. 13 Q Let me show you, sir, an exhibit which we'll 14 mark now as Plaintiff's 12. It's a memorandum from you, 15 dated 13 November, 1974, one page. Perhaps it will refresh 16 your recollection. 17 MS. MAHONEY: One page, Mr. Hoch? 18 MR. HOCH: One page. 19 MS. MAHONEY: Yes, we have it. Thank you. 20 MR. HOCH: I will show it to the witness and we will 21 ask him to review it and hand it to the court reporter to be 22 labeled. 23 MS. MAHONEY: Madam Court Reporter, which is the 24 number, the next -- 25 THE REPORTER: Twelve. 26 MS. MAHONEY: Thank you. 27 THE WITNESS: This is impossible to read. I'm sorry. 28 Q BY MR. HOCH: Okay. Let me show you -- RENDFL B HUTCHINCS fTTI IM iNfiflK .UN . f AM BEDkl A Df\lklA .CAPITA AiAAIir mumn .mm nnrn MT-PWHD-011423 88 1 A My glasses aren't that good. 2 Q Let me show you another copy that perhaps is 3 clearer. And I will make a copy of that and give it to the 4 court reporter. 5 Is that clearer, sir? 6 A Yes, much better. Yes. 7 (Whereupon the above-mentioned document is marked by 8 the notary public as Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 for 9 identification.) 10 Q BY MR. HOCH: Mr. Krieger, is that your 11 signature at the bottom of the page? 12 A It is. 13 Q Is this a true and correct copy of the memo 14 offered by you on 13 November, 1974? 15 A Yes. 16 Q This paragraph marked number 2, you state, 17 quote: "A current problem exists in that asbestos material 18 continues to be stocked, ordered, and used, even though 19 acceptable substitutes are available," unquote. 20 Can you explain, sir, whether or not that refreshes 21 your recollection as to at that time whether there was some 22 order or rule by the Navy that they did not want to have 23 asbestos products stock ordered and used at the shipyard? 24 A Let me understand that. 25 MS. MAHONEY: Would you like him to restate the 26 question, sir? 27 THE WITNESS: Are you saying did the Navy have a 28 policy of not ordering asbestos products? RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS QQ LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA SAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011424 89 1 Q BY MR. HOCH: At that time. 2 A At that time? Evidently not. 3 Q Was it -- for what purpose, then, is this 4 phrase included in your memorandum? 5 A I start the paragraph out by saying, "The Navy 6 continues to stock, order, and use asbestos products in 7 spite of the fact that there are substitutes available." 8 Q And were you attempting -- what were you 4 9 attempting to tell somebody by that statement? 10 A I wanted the shipyard to -- commander to come 11 up with a policy saying, "Don't use any asbestos products." 4 12 Q To the time that you left the shipyard, do you 13 know if that policy was issued? 14 t A Well, this was written about -- ten days before 15 I left the shipyard. 16 Q So at least no action took place, that you 17 know, within those ten days? 18 A I don't even know if this was ever answered. 19 Q Did it come to your attention before this time 20 that both asbestos and non-asbestos-containing materials 21 were stocked and ordered under the same stock number? 22 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 4 23 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. Q BY MR. HOCH: How did you come to that, sir? 25 A Well, many, many -- over a period of years, we 26 objected to the fact that the two types of products were 27 under the same stock number. 28 Q So this was knowledge that you had going back # RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS QD LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA SAN CLEMENTE .SAN DIECO .SAN Bernardino -canta uoNir MT-PWHD-011425 90 1 a few years, many years in the shipyard? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Was Webb Ay still alive when you left the 4 shipyard? 5 A I asked my wife that this morning. I really g can't remember when he died. 7 Q If you answered, she would say itwashearsay. 8 A I went to visithim in the hospitalevery day, g and when I went from the shipyard -- or the university, I 10 don't remember. I will tell you one thing, though, that 11 memo (indicating) -- this memo (indicating) -- was a result 12 of Webb Ay and I looking at this product. 13 Q Well, let me go back -- 14 A So, then, maybe he was alive. I don't know. 15 Q Let me go back. 16 MS. MAHONEY: You looked at one product? 17 THE WITNESS:This memo is the basis of Webbie and I 18 look -- finding asbestos-containing material and 19 non-asbestos-containing material stacked and stocked 20 together. 21 Q BY MR. HOCH: Even though Counsel asked the 22 question, I'm sure they will object later on when we use it, 23 so I will ask you, whatprompted you to write this memo, 24 sir, Plaitiff's Exhibit 12? 25 A I just said it: Webbie Ay brought me down to 26 look at it. 27 Q Brought you down to look at what, sir? 28 A To the asbestos-containing material that was RENDEL B HUTCHINGS QQ LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011426 91 > 1 still in the shipyard, newly ordered in the shipyard. 2 Q Did he tell you that it was his understanding 3 that they weren't to use it any more? 4 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 5 THE WITNESS: Webbie would only have taken me down <1 6 there to prove his point that we were still getting asbestos 7 products in the shipyard. Q BY MR. HOCH: Was this memo sent to the supply m CO 00 department? 1 10 i ! 11 12 13 A It sure was. Q And to production department? A Yes. Q And to the medical department? 14 AW 15 A Nope. Can I tell you who it went to? Q Yes, please, sir, a lot easier than me 16 guessing. 17 A Well, it was production, and the second is t 18 supply, and 920 group, which would be all of the 19 metal-working departments -- the 930 group, which would be 20 the machinist-type groups. Code 200 was planning, and Code 21 400 was, I believe -- 400 -- I believe it was the shipyard 22 maintenance, public works department-type people. 23 t Q Mr. Krieger, did the asbestos workers have a 24 locker room in which they changed in -- let me finish my 25 question -- I want to talk about the time period between 26 1970 and the time you left the shipyard. f 27 A Yes. 28 Q Had that been the same locker room facility RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS gQ LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011427 92 1 they had in the sixties? 2 A No. 3 Q When did the change take place? 4 A About early seventies. 5 Q In the sixties, can you describe to us -- 6 strike that. 7 In the sixties, had you ever been to that locker 8 room? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q Can you describe to us its physical dimensions 11 and facilities? 12 A Well, it was quite large, probably contained 13 about 300 lockers, with benches -- an ordinary locker room. 14 Now, that wasn't for just the pipe coverers; it was for 15 the -- all of Shop 56. 16 Q And that would have been for other trades other 17 than the laggers? 18 A Yes. Pipe fitters. 19 Q But these were all men that dealtwith 20 asbestos-containing products? 21 A No, the pipe fitters would normally not be 22 messing around with it. 23 Q Would the laggers and the pipe fitters ever be 24 in that same locker room together changing work clothes? 25 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 26 THE WITNESS: Yes, they would. 27 Q BY MR. HOCH: And did you actually observe that 28 occurring? RFNDFI R HI ITCHINCC ml irkc ikircicc .CiUTi AkJi -FAN ritUtPUTC -CA.J mcrn -Cu DCDkiiimikin-CAVJTA wstt.il/- MT-PWHD-011428 93 1 A Yes. 2 Q On more than one occasion? 3 A No. On the occasion that I used to recommend a 4 new locker room. 5 Q You went in there for -- for an inspection of 6 some type? 7 A Just went in to see what the situation was and 8 went back and recommended a new locker room. 9 Q This was in the late sixties? 10 A Yes. No. Yeah. All right. Or early 11 seventies. 12 Q The reason for your recommendation? 13 A So that we could dish -- at that time we had 14 ordered protective clothing -- in the late sixties -- we had 15 ordered protective clothing, individual respirators to be 16 issued twice a day, coveralls (indicating), booties, like 17 that. I think we had throwaway gloves. So we wanted a 18 separate room where they could go in and put their clean 19 clothes and throw these -- you could only wear this 20 protective gear once. 21 Q And did you make that recommendation to 22 somebody 23 A Yes. I think I made it to Mr. Meeker, and I 24 think he complied. I know he complied, or somebody 25 complied. 26 Q Another facility was made available? 27 A Yes. 28 Q Do you know when it was made available? RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS {JQ LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011429 94 1 A NO. 2 Q Was it made available prior to your leaving the 3 shipyard? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Can you describe the changes that were made 6 or -- 7 A Just they were separate -- we put a tool 8 room -- an issue room in there to issue the clean clothing 9 and to gather the contaminated clothing, and they had a 10 clean and dirty locker each, and they were segregated -- it 11 was built onto the building on -- as an addition to the 12 regular locker room. 13 Q This was done sometime between '70-'74? 14 A Late sixties to whenever. 15 Q "To whenever"; you mean to sometime when you 16 left? 17 A Yes. 18 Q You are specifically unsure of when that 19 occurred? 20 A (No response.) 21 Q Yes, you are specificallyunsure? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Mr. Krieger, when, if atall, did it come to 24 your attention that trades other than laggers may be exposed 25 to asbestos in concentrations that could conceivably prove 26 to be harmful to them while working at the shipyard? 27 MS. MAHONEY: Objection to the form. 28 THE WITNESS: After I left the shipyard. RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS (ID LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA aSAN CLEMFNTF .cam niFr.n .cam ptnwiDniun -camta untiir MT-PWHD-011430 95 1 Q BY MR. HOCH: And how did that knowledge come 2 to your information? I should say, how did that information 3 come to your knowledge? 4 A Well, having just left the shipyard, naturally 5 I had a lot of contacts who told me what was going on in the 0 shipyard, and I showed an interest in those days, so it was 7 all word of mouth. 8 MR. HOCH: Excuse me. Thank you. I have no further g questions at this time. 10 Do you want to take a break now? 11 MS. MAHONEY: I would like to take a break. 12 MR. HOCH: Sure. Off the record. 13 (Whereupon a discussion is held off the record.) 14 MR. ROBBINS: You are back on. 15 16 EXAMINATION 17 BY MS. MAHONEY: 18 Q Mr. Krieger, I'll identify myself on the 19 record and -- 20 (Interruption in the proceeding.) 21 MS. MAHONEY: Are you ready. Madam Court Reporter? 22 I was in the process of identifying myself, Mr. 23 Krieger. My name is Jane Mahoney. I'm a lawyer with the 24 Department of Justice. I represent the United States. I'm 25 going to ask you some questions about the questions Mr. Hoch 26 put to you and perhaps some others. 27 As I understand your testimony earlier today, you 28 signed on at Long Beach Naval Shipyard in May of 1956? RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS Em im ANCFIFS .SANTA ANA .SAN TIFMFNTF -SAM mtrn -cam bepmabimma -camta urkMir MT-PWHD-011431 96 1 A Yes. 2 Q As a safetysuperintendent? 3 A Yes. 4 Q You had a career with the Navy at the 5 Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and at the Naval Station in 6 Philadelphia? 7 A Naval Supply Depot -- Naval Aviation Supply 8 Depot. 9 Q Philadelphia? 10 A In Philadelphia. 11 Q Before you came out to Long Beach? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Before that you worked for Bethlehem Steel? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Before you graduated from high school? 16 A Eventually, yes. 17 Q When youarrived at Long Beach Naval Shipyard, 18 could you tell us what your understanding was of your job 19 duties as superintendent at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. 20 A To set up a safety program for the shipyard 21 employees involving traumatic injuries. 22 Q As opposed to some other type of injury? 23 A As opposed to health hazards. 24 Q Would health hazards includesystemic 25 illnesses? 26 A Yes. 27 Q Did your duties involve working with medical 28 officers at Long Beach Naval Shipyard? RENDEL B HUTCHINGS ITO LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA .SAN riFMFMTF .SAM niFGrt -CAM BCDMADOIMO -Camta unm MT-PWHD-011432 97 1 A Yes. 2 Q Gas-free engineers? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Radiation safety engineers? 5 A Yes. 6 Q With the security department for driver 7 training? 8 A No. 9 Q With the rigging department for testing trains? 10 A Cranes. 11 Q Cranes? 12 A No. 13 Q With the diving office? 14 A Yes. 15 Q When you were at Long Beach, none of your 16 responsibilities included making sure that the men who were 17 driving trucks in the yard were driving properly and 18 safely? 19 A No, that was the security department. 20 Q You never testified to that effect on your 21 deposition given in the Beauregard case? 22 A I cannot answer that. I probably did. 23 Q When you got to the shipyard in 1956, would you 24 agree that the first hazard that you were confronted with on 25 the yard in terms of safety was sandblasting and whether or 26 not silica was a factor or hazard in sandblasting operations 27 at Long Beach Naval Shipyard at that time? 28 A That was one of the problems. RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS lill IOC AMGdfl CANTA ANA SAN flFMFNTF .cam nwro - cam KBMADniun .cauti uniuir MT-PWHD-011433 98 11 Q Did you determine with the help of the 1 2 industrial hygienist that it was not a problem and that it 1 3 was granite and not silica? 14 J5 A No. That was with the chemistry department. Q What was the result of your investigation? 6 A That there was less than one percent silica in I 7 the ground-up granules -- granite. J8 Q You worked with the chemistry department on 9 that? 10 J 11 A Yes. Q Did you also in your early years at Long Beach 12 Naval Shipyard work on hearing problems, have anything to do 13 with hearing problems? J 14 A I processed the claims for workers' 15 compensation on the hearing. 16 Q Would you agree that most of your first year as I 17 a safety officer in Long Beach Naval Shipyard was spent with 18 safety issues that dealt with lines on the deck, electrical 19 lines? l 20 A That was a big problem. 21 Q Electrical hazards? 22 A That was a big problem, yes. 23 Q Whether or not the ladders which the men were 24 using were safe and secure? 25 A Yes. i. 26 Q And just overall electrical wiring involving 27 the many operations at the shipyard? 28 A I think that it would be better to clarify what RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS fTD LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA .SAN CLEMENTE .SAN niFC.o .san RFffNARniNn - Santa monic MT-PWHD-011434 99 1 we are talking about. We are talking about oxygen lines, 2 acetylene lines, electrical lines, high-pressure air lines, 3 and fresh-water lines, potable-water lines, saltwater fire 4 lines, telephone lines -- all of these things unfortunately 5 were on the deck where you walk, so it just wasn't 6 electrical lines. 7 Q All these lines came within your jurisdiction 8 as a safety -- as the safety superintendent at Long Beach? 9 A To get them out of the walkways. 10 Q So that the men wouldn't trip on them or that 11 they would not malfunction? 12 A That's right. 13 Q You were then concerned with the safety of the 14 workers at Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 15 A Yes. 16 Q From the first day that you arrived there, that 17 was your concern? 18 A Yes. 19 Q The safety of the men -- 20 A Yes. 21 Q -- and women working there? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Do you feel you did a good job while you were 24 at Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 25 A Yes. 26 Q Did you receive certain citations from the 27 Secretary of the Navy applauding your performance while you 28 were at Long Beach Naval Shipyard? RENDEL B HUTCHINGS dD LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011435 100 1 A Yes. I had over 20 Secretary of Navy safety 2 awards for achievement in safety and two civilian 3 meritorious awards, which is the second highest award you 4 can get for a civilian. 5 Q Who awards that award, Mr. Krieger? 6 A Secretary of the Navy. 7 Q You received those awards in the years 1964 and 8 1966? 9 A No. I'm talking about from the time I was 10 hired until the time I retired. I'm talking a 30-year 11 span. The 20 -- over 20 safety -- Secretary of Navy safety 12 awards are only given annually, so I must have missed about 13 eight years. 14 Q Out of your 31 years -- 15 A Yes. 16 Q -- with the government? 17 I believe you told us earlier that when you arrived at 18 Long Beach Naval Shipyard that there were weekly stand-up 19 safety meetings. 20 A Yes. 21 Q And that these safety meetings were conducted 22 by the supervisors? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Did you attend those safetymeetings? 25 A No. 26 Q You played some part inseeing what was 27 discussed at those safety meetings? 28 A I furnished the bulletin for them to use at the RENDEL B HUTCHINGS QD LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011436 101 1 stand-up safety meeting. 2 Q And as far as you can tell today, you exercised 3 your best judgment on a week-to-week basis as to what was a 4 hot topic to be discussed at any given meeting? 5 MR. HOCH: Counsel, insofar as that question calls for 6 an opinion -- because you have already said this man isn't 7 here as an expert; you tried to preclude me from asking 8 those questions -- I would likewise object. If inasmuch as g you are framing a hypothetical question, it's an incomplete 10 hypothetical question, and on that ground I also object. 11 MS. MAHONEY: Thank you. 12 MR. HOCH: And if in fact you are also propounding 13 this question as an expert, there is no foundation. All of 14 those I don't think are true, since I think your objection 15 to mine was spurious, but if we are going to say it, we'll 16 say it. 17 MS. MAHONEY: I will rephrase my question. 18 Q Mr. Krieger, did -- what influenced -- what 19 activities at the shipyard influenced what type of 20 memorandum or whatever type of memorandum you gave to the 21 supervisors week by week? 22 A Well, the first part of the memorandum was a 23 review of the more serious accidents for the week before, 24 and any observations the safety inspectors had made on their 25 tours as to what they thought was dangerous, whether it 26 would be not wearing hard hats or whether the people weren't 27 wearing their ear plugs, or that type of thing. 28 Q Could you give us some idea of the various RFNDFI B HIITfHINr.5 fTTl lf> AMr.FIFS SANTA ANA aSAN TIFMFNTF .CAM niFr.O .CAM RFBNARniNn .CANTA MONIIf MT-PWHD-011437 102 1 types of injuries which occurred, to your knowledge, during 2 the, say, first two to three years of your tenure as 3 superintendent at Long Beach Naval Shipyard of a traumatic 4 nature? 5 A No. 6 Q You can't tell me the people broke their legs? 7 A Yes. People broke their legs and their feet 8 and their hands. It's a fact that parts of the body are g broken; for instance, fingers are number one (indicating). 10 In the United States, people hurt their fingers more than 11 they do any other part of their body. We were no exception. 12 We had finger injuries, we had hand injuries, we had head 13 injuries, feet injuries. We had broken bones from falls 14 down ladders and falls into the dry dock, this type of 15 thing. 16 But to tell you, you know, we may be talking about six 17 or seven hundred accidents. 18 Q And during your tenure at Long Beach Naval 19 Shipyard, I believe accidents were reduced by 60 percent 20 while you were there 21 A They were reduced quite a bit, yes. I would 22 think so. 23 Q In order to do that -- in order to reduce them 24 to this level, to what do you attribute your success? 25 A Well, part of it would be the education program 26 that we put on, along with the publicity, and a lot of it 27 would depend on how strong the commanding officer was at the 28 time. RFNDFI R HUTCHINCS rm LOS ANGELES .SANTA ANA .SAN CLEMENTE .SAN DIEGO .SAN BERNARDINO .SANTA MONI MT-PWHD-01143R 103 1 Q Did equipment play any part in your success? 2 A Oh, of course. 3 Q Are we talking about hard hats? 4 A No. We are talking about, for instance, the 5 Navy went from hammering scaffold together with wood to 6 Tube, T-u-b-e, Lox, L-o-x -- Tube Lox staging, which means 7 this is steel staging that is bolted together and is very 8 secure. This was a heck of an improvement. 9 So as the technique of the worker increased, safety 10 became more prevalent. 11 Q Do you have a philosophy on safety, Mr. 12 Krieger? 13 A Yeah. I believe in education. 14 Q You believe in engineering out the hazards of 15 any given product? 16 A Yes. That is the most important part of 17 safet. 18 Q The engineering out the hazards? 19 A Yes. 20 MR. HOCH: I will just interpose an objection to the 21 last two questions; don't want to ruin your train of thought 22 on the videotape, but same objections as stated before as, 23 quote, expertness, unquote. If you wish to withdraw yours, 24 I will withdraw mine. 25 Q BY MS. MAHONEY: This is yourpersonal 26 philosophy -- 27 A Yes. 28 Q -- on safety? rmRFNinFI R HUTCHINGS me 4Mrfir< .MNTA ANA .SAN riFMrNTf .CAN nwm .CAM BFPMlsniKIO .ANTA URNir MT-PWHD-011439 104 1 And you have had over a 31-year career in safety? 2 A And more like 41 years. 3 Q Let me ask you this: When you were at Long 4 Beach Naval Shipyard, with what frequency did you visit Shop 5 56? 5 MR. HOCH: Objection; vague as to time. 7 THE WITNESS: I don't know. Probably ten times a 8 year. g Q BY MS. MAHONEY: In any given year during your 10 tenure at Long Beach Naval Shipyard, with what frequency did 11 you go on board ships which were undergoing what we call a 12 ripout? 13 A Once. 14 Q Once in your whole tenure there? 15 A (Nods his head in the affirmative.) 18 Q Were ripouts ever performed on land? Are you 17 aware of ripouts being performed on land? 18 A I don't think I understand, ig Q I will withdraw the question. 20 How many men were at Long Beach Naval Shipyard in any 21 given time? I believe you gave an estimate to Mr. Hoch 22 while you were there -- total population at the yard. 23 A Yeah, I said seven to nine thousand. 24 Q And that it could be up to nine thousand or 25 down to seven thousand during your tenure there? 26 A Or probably lower, yes. 27 Q And the number of insulators that you are aware 28 that were on the yard or at the yard at any given time RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS flD LOS ANGfIIS SANTA ANA SAN CLEMENTE SAN DIEGO SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011440 105 1 during your tenure there? 2 A Well, I told Mr. Hoch that there were a hundred 3 and sixty, but after seeing the studies we made, or the 4 memos I wrote, it was closer to a hundred (indicating) 5 insulators, just going by one of the exhibits that I read 6 (indicating). 7 Q Okay. 8 A In the Dr. Ellestad letter. 9 Q Okay. I'm going to ask you your personal 10 knowledge, though. You would have estimated higher -- 11 A I would have estimated 160, and I was evidently 12 wrong. 13 Q When you arrived at Long Beach Naval Shipyard, 14 I believe you have stated that there was a medical program 15 in existence at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. 16 A Medical program? 17 Q A medical program. 18 A Yes. 19 MR. HOCH: Objection; vague and ambiguous and 20 unintelligible. 21 Q BY MS. MAHONEY: Well, I also believe you also 22 stated that the insulators or the pipe coverers were -- 23 received X-ray examinations when you arrived there. 24 A Yes. 25 Q Did you, Mr. Krieger, when you arrived, look at 26 any of the files of the industrial hygienist when you 27 arrived? 28 A I don't believe so, no. RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS LOS ANGELES *SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011441 106 1 Q You did become concerned about insulators and 2 pipe coverers while you were there? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And you did take steps to secure what you felt 5 was -- for lack of a better word -- better medical treatment 6 for these insulators? 7 A Not medical treatment. Medical diagnoses. 8 Q Medical diagnoses? I'm trying to remember -- I 9 believe you referred to a document which was marked by Madam 10 Court Reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit P-5. Do you recall 11 that? It's the (indicating) -- 12 Does someone have the exhibit? 13 A That's all right. I know what it is. The 14 Hetzel report? 15 Q The Hetzel report. If you would look at P-4 16 again. 17 A (Witness complies.) What number is that? 18 Q P-4,Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 4. 19 A (Witness complies.) Got it. 20 Q Do you have it? Okay. Dated 3-16 June, 1961; 21 is that correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Do you remember that Mr. Hoch asked you, does 24 the 3-16 June, 1961 represent the two-week period that 25 Victor Hetzel was at Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 26 A Yes. 27 Q And do you remember that you stated that he was 28 on a rotating tour and he came into the shipyard for only RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS (TO LOS ANGELES .SANTA ANA .CAM flfUtWTt -CAki mcrr.-CA.J .ci. MT-PWHD-011442 107 1 two weeks? . 2 A Yes. 3 Q And that you had him write this while he was 4 there on that two-week stint? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And then you looked at P-5, which is dated 7 August 9, 1962 -- 8 A Yes. 9 Q -- and you attributedthis -- what we have 10 described -- what Mr. Hoch has described as a 55-page report 11 which lists the X-ray examinations to Commander Hetzel 12 also -- now, if he rotated in for only two weeks in 1961, 13 could you tell me how he could have written this document 14 (indicating) and done the research on these diagnoses? 15 A I don't -- 16 Q Look at the "ReassignedAfter Medical 17 Evaluation." 18 A (Witness complies.) Yes. 19 Q You have attributed them -- you have said these 20 are the work of Victor Hetzel. 21 A Yes. That's what I said. 22 Q If Victor Hetzel was only at Long Beach from 23 June 3rd, 1961, to June 16, 1961 -- 24 A Yes. 25 Q -- that is what you told Mr. Hoch earlier 26 today; is that correct? 27 A Yes, that is what I said. 28 Q And then we looked at P-5, which is dated nrkinri o u.iTruiwr.c rm ncANr.ciK.SANTA ANA .SAN CLEMENTE .SAN DIEGO .SAN BERNARDINO .SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011443 ,7 108 1 August 9, 1962 -- *2 3 A Yes. Q -- and that is a letter you are writing to Mr. 4 Gray, sending him your compilation of information regarding 5 Long Beach Naval Shipyard employees; is that correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q You attributed the attachments to that letter 8 to Victor Hetzel? 9 A Yes. That is what I said. 10 Q Would you look at it again. Did Victor Hetzel 11 prepare the attachments to your letter dated August 9, 12 1962? 13 A Well, he either prepared them or they were 14 prepared for his benefit, assembled them. 15 Q Did he rotate back into Long Beach Naval 16 Shipyard? 17 18 A No. I don't understand. Q Okay. I'm wondering -- 19 A He was there in 1961 of June. A year and some 20 months later I write to Gray using his information. 21 Q Okay. I am just wondering if it's your 22 testimony that he did prepare the attachments to the August f 23 9, 1962, letter that you wrote to Mr. Gray? 24 A To the best of my knowledge, yes. 25 Q Do you remember, Mr.. Krieger, that you gave a a 26 deposition in the Richard E. Beauregard case, a case in 27 which Johns-Manvilie Products Corporation is a named 28 defendant, and that you gave that deposition on June 22, ocK.r^ci D HI iTPHiKir.*: rm me AKir.FLES .SANTA ANA .SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO .SAN BERNARDINO .SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011444 109 1 1979? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And do you remember that you were questioned 4 about this letter that you wrote to Mr. Gray -- 5 A No. 6 Q -- and the enclosures? 7 Do you have the deposition Counsel? 8 MR. HOCH: No, I don't. 9 MS. MAHONEY: Okay. 10 MR. HOCH: But if you are going to read from page 161 11 or thereabouts, I know what is on it. 12 Q BY MS. MAHONEY: Now, put this in some type of 13 context. 14 You were questioned in that deposition that "The 15 letter you have in front of you, which is Exhibit 355, you 16 had a chance to decipher that letter over the break, to the 17 best of your ability, haven't you?" 18 The answer was "Yes." 19 "Having now read it, does it refresh your recollection 20 about why it was written?" 21 Answer, "Yes." 22 "And tell us why it was written." 23 Answer, "I can read the first line or two, which says, 24 'At your request we compiled the enclosed information 25 regarding the Long Beach Naval Shipyard employees known to 26 have been exposed to asbestos and its related products and 27 so forth,'" end of quote. 28 Would you -- could you take out P-5 again, Mr. ------ --- -HUT! tut _CAW rituckiTt .ciM mpr.n .CAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011445 110 1 Krieger? 2 A (Witness complies.) Yes. 3 Q Would you read the first paragraph of that 4 letter, please, aloud, please. 5 A "At your request we compiled the enclosed 6 information regarding Long Beach Naval Shipyard employees 7 known to have been exposed to asbestos and its related 8 products in the work of insulating or preparing materials 9 for insulation." 10 Q Then your answer went on, "This then brings to 11 mind the fact I made the assignment for the study to Mr. 12 Patterson that we discussed earlier." 13 Do you recall Mr. Patterson? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Who is Mr. Patterson? 16 A He was my assistant. 17 Q Can you remember now who prepared this report? 18 A Evidently not. 19 Q You told Mr. Hoch earlier -- you told the court 20 that it was the enclosures attached to this letter to Mr. 21 Gray which triggered or was one of the triggering factors in 22 the Ellestad program at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. 23 A The refusal of Gray to cooperate with us led to 24 us finding a different way to get the diagnosing done. 25 Q So you went to Dr. Ellestad? 26 A Yes. 27 Q And this was funded by the Long Beach Naval 28 Shipyard? RENDEL B HUTCHINGS flD LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011446 Ill 1 A Yes. 2 Q In 1964 you went to a conference at which Dr. 3 Selikoff spoke? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And this wasfunded by Long Beach Naval 6 Shipyard? 7 A Yes. 8 Q No onesaid you could not go? 9 A No. 10 Q And then in 1967 you again traveled to hear Dr. 11 Selikoff in Chicago? 12 A Yes. I guess those are the dates, yeah. 13 Q This was funded by Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And I believe earlier in your testimony you 16 stated you were able to travel East with Mr. Meeker? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And you visited various shipyards? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And this was funded by Long Beach Naval 21 Shipyard? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And this was part and parcel of your 24 responsibilities as safety officer -- 25 A Yes. . 26 Q -- to accumulate information which would help 27 the safety of the men and women at Long Beach Naval 28 Shipyard? ncunci a Ul ITruiwrC fTTI r* Akl^riFC .CANTA ANA _ CAN fl FMFN1TF . CAN niFHO . SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011447 112 1 A Yes. 2 Q All right. 3 You spoke to Mr. Hoch about a 1974 memo which you 4 wrote concerning you and Mr. Ay having found 5 asbestos-containing products at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. 6 A Yes. 7 Q Are you aware, Mr. Krieger, of a project known 8 as the Philadelphia Study, F.A.287? 9 A I don't recognize that. 10 Q Are you aware of a project called the Asbestos 11 Elimination Substitution Personnel Protection Program, 12 started by the Navy? 13 A I don't recall it. 14 Q Do you have anything towithspecifications, 15 Mr. Krieger? 16 A None whatsoever. 17 Q Did you have anything to dowith procurement? 18 A None. 19 Q When you at any of thosemeetings in 1964 -- 20 when you were at the meeting in 1964, did you talk to any 21 representative from Johns-Manvilie? 22 A No, I did not. 23 Q Did anyone from Johns-Manvilie get up atthose 24 meetings and tell the members -- not the members -- the 25 people in attendance at those meetings that their products 26 were hazardous? 27 MR. HOCH: Just for clarification, what meeting are we 28 talking about? pfndfi R HUTCHINGS rm LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA SAN CLEMENTE SAN DIEGO SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MON 1C MT-PWHD-011448 113 1 MS. MAHONEY: 1964. 2 t 3 MR. HOCH: What meeting? The one with Selikoff? MS. MAHONEY: Sorry, the one that Mr. Krieger 4 testified to in 1964. 5 t 6 MR. HOCH: New York Academy of Science? MS. MAHONEY: The one you mentioned, Mr. Hoch, in your 7 direct -- 8 MR. HOCH: Talked about a lot of meetings. There are 9 a lot of things occurred in 1964. I object to your question 10 as being vague as to time. I just don't know what you are 11 talking about. * 12 MS. MAHONEY: Thank you for giving me a chance to 13 rephrase. 14 t Q I believe when you were answering questions for 15 Mr. Hoch you indicated that you went to a meeting in New 16 York in 1964 at which Dr. Selikoff spoke. * 17 18 A I believe that is true, yes. Q And at that meeting, did any representative of 19 Johns-Manville takethe podium and warn the people in t 20 attendance at that meeting of the hazards of 21 Johns-Manville's products? 22 A I don't recall, no. 23 Q If they had done so, would you have brought the 24 word back to the shipyard? 25 A I brought the report of the meeting back to the * 26 shipyard and gave part of it to Webbie Ay and part of it -- 27 and a copy of it to Webb Ay and a copy of it to the medical 28 department. i RFNDEL B. HUTCHINGS (TT1 LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MON1C MT-PWHD-011449 114 t 1 Q So if Johns-Manville had started putting * 2 warnings on its products in 1964 and had been at that 3 meeting and told you that, you would have brought that 4 information back to the shipyard? *5 6 A Yes, I would. MR. HOCH: Just object; assumes a fact not in 7 evidence. t8 Q BY MS. MAHONEY: In 1967, again at the expense 9 of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, you attended another 10 meeting in Chicago? * 11 12 A Yes. Q Were there any members of the asbestos 13 manufacturing industry at that meeting? t 14 15 A Not to my knowledge. Q So you -- 16 A They would have had to be invited. It was a 17 union meeting, and they selected their own speakers. And 18 Selikoff was a very popular speaker in those days. 19 Q Did any representative of Johns-Manville stand 20 up at that meeting and warn the people or advise the people 21 present at that meeting of the hazards of its product? 22 MR. HOCH: Objection; assumes a fact not in evidence. t 23 24 THE WITNESS: I -- not to my knowledge. Q BY MS. MAHONEY: You told Mr. Hoch that it was 25 at that meeting that Dr. Selikoff stressed that workers -- i 26 that asbestos workers should not smoke? 27 A Yes. 28 Q Is that the meeting -- is that the first time i r. UI ,T/-uuirc rrn .*>* Ikirncc -dun Akja .CAM riFMFMTF .CAM niFP.O .CAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011450 r 115 % 1 you heard the word "mesothelioma"? 2 A No, but that is the first time that he 3 emphasized the smoking in connection with asbestos work. In 4 those days -- I'm trying to think what the figures are, but 5 there is something like one case of mesothelioma in 10,000. * 6 But where asbestos workers are concerned, it was six cases 7 of mesothelioma in 10,000. And this is what he was dwelling 8 on, I think. t 9 Q Was there ever a time, Mr. Krieger, when you -- 10 no, strike that. I withdraw the question. 11 12 Give me a moment and I will look at my notes. At any time in your career as a safety officer, did 13 Johns-Manvilie discuss with you the health hazards related 14 to exposure to asbestos? 15 A No. 16 Q They didn't come to the yard and talk to you? 17 t 18 A No. Q I think thatmay be aboutit, Mr. Krieger. 19 Give me one more moment. 20 Make you think back to approximately the beginning of 21 Mr. Hoch's examination -- don't flip that page -- when he 22 was asking you about the business of Long Beach Naval t 23 Shipyard and about the types of U.S. vessels which were 24 repaired at Long Beach. Could you go over the list of -- of 25 U.S. Naval vessels that you were aware of that were t 26 repaired? Not by name, but type. 27 A And try to be as accurateas I was the first 28 time? Battleship. J RENDEL B HUTCHINGS (TTI LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011451 116 1 Q Battleship? 2 A Aircraft carrier, all sizes; cruisers, light 3 and heavy; destroyers and destroyer escorts; auxiliary 4 vehicle -- auxiliary ships -- which might be oil skimmers, 5 tugs, LST's -- you name it. If it wasn't a submarine, we 6 had it. 7 Q No submarines? 8 A No submarines. The pink submarine is in -- 9 anchored outside the Long Beach Naval Shipyard; they use it 10 for making movies. 11 Q No submarines. 12 Now, let me ask you this: You had a lot going on when 13 you were safety officer at Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 14 t 15 A Yes. Q And you -- in the beginning of my examination, 16 I tried to -- I'm trying to give the court some idea of how I 17 many different safety issues you were confronted with as the 18 safety superintendent in Long Beach Naval Shipyard, and I 19 went through you worked with medical officers and you worked 20 with gas engineers and you worked with other people in the 21 yard. And we went through electrical hazards and 22 entrance-and-exit hazards and welding fumes and gas fumes, 23 things like that. t 24 Can you, as you look at your 18 years at Long Beach 25 Naval Shipyard, tell me what percentage of your time you # 26 spent on asbestos-related matters? 27 A Something less than one percent. A small 28 percentage of one percent. f j RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS QD LOS ANGELES a SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011452 1 Q What is your opinion of Bill Marr as a 2 professional? 3 MR. HOCH: Objection. 4 Q BY MS. MAHONEY: Bill Marr -- 5 MR. HOCH: Objection. 6 THE WITNESS: Excellent. 7 MR. HOCH: Excuse me. 8 MS. MAHONEY: Sorry. 9 THE WITNESS: Excellent. 10 MR. HOCH: Objection, inasmuch as it calls for expert 11 opinion. Counsel. I just want to remind you, he may be a 12 fine fellow, but -- 13 Q BY MS. MAHONEY: You had an opportunity to 14 observe William Marr at work at Long Beach Naval 15 Shipyard -- 16 A Yes. 17 Q -- is that correct? 18 And I think you were unclear as to when he arrived at 19 the yard. 20 A That's right. I was unclear. 21 Q Can you give me a ballpark figure of how many 22 years he was at Long Beach while you were at Long Beach? 23 A Well, I was at Long Beach all the time he was 24 there. 25 Q Okay. 26 A Because I was -- Sheehan was there when I got 27 there. 28 Q Uh-huh. RENDEL B HUTCHINCS (Q LOS ANGELES a SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011453 A And my guess would be that within the two-year period -- sometime within a two-year period Sheehan left and Marr came in, and I have no idea -- I can't remember how long Marr was there. Q But from your observation of him as a fellow professional, in your judgment he was excellent? A Yes. Q And you knew Sheldon Manning? A Yes. Q He also was an industrial hygienist? A Yes, he was. Q You had occasion to observe his work at Long Beach Naval Shipyard? A Yes. Q When you went up to Puget Sound on that trip in 1971 or 1972 A Yes. Q -- can you give us an idea -- can you compare for me the relative sizes of shop 56 at Puget Sound vis-a-vis Shop 56 at Long Beach? A No. I would think they would be comparable. Q Did you look at Shop 56 up there? A Oh, yes, I spent some time up there. Q But you can't -- A I can't remember that. Q -- make a ballpark -- A No. But I -- my guess would be that since the shipyard is comparable in size at that time, that they -- B HUTCHINGS rm LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011454 119 * 1 Shop 56 was probably the same size. 2 * Q Mr. Krieger, if men who worked in Shop 56 in 3 the sixties were to say -- were to say to this court that 4 amosite was effectively eliminated from the yard in the 5 1960's, would you call them liars? 6 MR. HOCH: Well, that is a -- 7 THE WITNESS: I couldn't call them anything. I don't 8 remember. t 9 Q BY MS. MAHONEY: Do you have any reason to 10 doubt that? 11 * 12 A No. Q Would they be in a better position to observe 13 what they were using in the shop than you were? 14 t 15 A Yes. (Whereupon a discussion is held off the record.) 16 MS. MAHONEY: One final question. I'm not going to i 17 ask those. 18 Q Based upon your experiences as a safety 19 officer, 18 years at Long Beach Naval Shipyard, do you think * 20 that the Navy was on the whole a safety-conscious 21 organization? 22 A Yes. t 23 24 MS. MAHONEY: I have no other questions. Thank you. 25 EXAMINATION > 26 BY MR. HOCH: 27 Q Mr. Krieger, will you look again at exhibit -- 28 Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, since there seems to be something RENDEL B HUTCHINCS QD LOS ANGELES a SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011455 120 1 that disturbs Counsel about that. 2 Now, the attachments there -- particularly the 3 55-page -- when I was talking to you and asking you 4 questions, you thought it was done by -- originally done by 5 Commander Hetzel; correct? 6 A That is what I thought. 7 Q According to the deposition transcript that 8 Counsel read to you, it referred to one of your assistants, 9 Mr. Patterson; correct? 10 A That is what it evidently testified to. 11 Q Now, this was written some 22 years ago? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And is it correct that you just don't have a 14 specific recollection of who prepared that 55-page 15 document? 16 A If this had its binder on it and had been kept 17 intact, then I would know. My recollection is that maybe 18 Patterson prepared some of this information and fed it to 19 Vic Hetzel. 20 Now, Vic Hetzel did not come into my office and work 21 for two weeks to give me two pages of information in two 22 weeks. That's why I said that I thought that Vic Hetzel did 23 it. 24 Q Regardless of who may have prepared it or even 25 if -- 26 A It came out of my office, and I'm responsible 27 for the whole thing. 28 Q And the material there came from the medical rmDEkinp r Ml rrrHiNr.S ifw AKir.FiFC .SANTA ANA .SAN CLEMENTE .SAN DIEGO .SAN BERNARDINO .SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011456 121 * 1 records and the personnel records of Long Beach Naval 2 Shipyard? * 3 A Exactly. 4 Q It was done atyour direction and control and 5 supervision? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Mr. Krieger,Counsel askedyou whether or not 8 anyone from J-M ever came to talk to you. Did you ever go 9 to talk to anyone from J-M? 10 A I made one trip to a company -- an asbestos 11 company -- in San Pedro, to look at the way they were * 12 handling insulation materials. Who that company was, I do 13 not know, but Webb Ay and I went over to see how they were 14 venting their saws, and this sort of thing. t 15 Q Okay. 16 A But it was in San Pedro, and they were 17 preparing the round (indicating) pipe covering sections. t 18 That's it. 19 Q You don't remember anything else other than 20 that? 21 A No, I don't. 22 Q All right. But you didn't pick up the phone t 23 and call Johns-Manvilie or write them a letter? 24 A No. 25 Q Okay. 1 26 Now, after you had gone to Dr. Selikoff's meeting in 27 New York in 1964 and heard what he had to say and had the 28 experience that you did have with the compensation claims at % RENDEL B HUTCHINCS d3 LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011457 122 1 Long Beach, to that point did you have a personal belief 2 that consistent -- did you have a personal belief that you 3 had a full understanding of what the asbestos hazard was as 4 a lay person to insulators at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard? 5 MS. MAHONEY: Objection as to form. 6 THE WITNESS: I knew before I went to NewYork that 7 asbestos was dangerous, because I had compensation cases to 8 prove it, where we had run biopsies on themen's lungs and 9 found the particles in there. 10 So when I went to New York, all I got was 11 reaffirmation that asbestos was dangerous. 12 Q BY MR. HOCH: And at the time that you had this 13 knowledge, you were a government employee of the United 14 States Navy; is that correct? 15 A That's right. 16 Q And you didn't need a manufacturer to stand up 17 at that meeting and tell you that asbestos could be 18 dangerous; that's what Dr. Selikoff and his other doctors 19 were doing; right? 20 MS. MAHONEY: Objection. 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 Q BY MR. HOCH: And you came back to the Long 23 Beach Naval Shipyard with this information, and, as you told 24 us, you made a report to your superior? 25 A Yes. 26 MR. HOCH: Thank you, Mr. Krieger. No other 27 questions. 28 MS. MAHONEY: I may have one or two more, Mr. Krieger. RFNDEL B HUTCHINGS fTD LOS ANGELES a SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011458  . * t , t 123 1 Just a moment. 2 3 4 BY MS. MAHONEY: EXAMINATION 5 Q I would just like to determine when you arrived 6 at Long Beach Naval Shipyard in 1956 that certain insulators 7 and pipe coverers were being X-rayed at the shipyard? 8 A Yes. Prior to my arrival. 9 Q Prior to your arrival. And they were receiving 10 pulmonary function tests or vital-capacity tests? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Now, do you recall how many times a year they 13 were given those tests? 14 You are referring to P-5 and its enclosures? 15 A Well, I just opened this up to see -- here is a 16 man had chest X rays in '52, then in '54, then in '56, then 17 in '57, two in '58, one in '59, one in '60, two in '61, and 18 so forth, and so forth, and so forth. 19 Q So it could be twice a year or it could be once 20 a year? 21 A Yeah. 22 Q At least that gentleman it seemed to be. 23 So if you had testified in the Hogard trial that the 24 men were receiving them twice a year, that would be 25 consistent with the document you are looking at now? 26 MR. HOCH: Well, I object to that. Counsel, that. A, 27 possibly could misstate his testimony; vague, ambiguous. 28 unintelligible, not giving any time frame. It's as close RENDEL B HUTCHINCS QQ LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONI' MT-PWHD-011459 124 1 to an unethical question as I could possibly think of. 2 MS. MAHONEY: What -- 3 MR. HOCH: As close to unethical as I could possibly 4 think of, as phrased. 5 Q BY MS. MAHONEY: Mr. Krieger, do you remember 6 that you testified in a case called Richard J. Hogard 7 against Johns-Manvilie Products Corporation? 8 A Would you believe that I don't remember that? 9 Q You don't remember that? 10 A I can see that it was quite a testimony, but I 11 don't remember being there. 12 Q All right. 13 A Does the judge understand I'm 70 years old and 14 a little senile? 15 Q He understands that. I understand it. There 16 was testimony -- I have the trial transcript here, which I 17 will show Mr. Hoch, and there is indication in the 18 testimony -- I believe it's line 10, is it, Mr. Hoch? You 19 have it now. -- that you testified that the men were 20 X-rayed twice a year at the time you arrived at Long Beach 21 Naval Shipyard? 22 A Well, there are indications that some of them 23 were. 24 Q Good. That is the only thing I was trying to 25 establish. 26 THE WITNESS: Could we have a copy of that made? 27 (Whereupon a discussion is held off the record.) 28 MR. HOCH: Just so I understand, you are taking the pcwnci n HMTrHINf.S HTI irt Akir.circ _akita am A .CAN CLEMENTE .SAN DIEGO .SAN BERNARDINO SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011460 125 1 position that this comment is discussing the time when he 2 first came to the shipyard? 3 MS. MAHONEY: You have the deposition now, Mr. Hoch, 4 if I can look at it again. 5 6 MR. HOCH: I will return it back to you. MS. MAHONEY: Sorry. I ask the court's indulgence. 7 I believe the question is, Mr. Hoch -- 8 MR. HOCH: No, no, no. I know what he said there. I 9 want to know if the question you asked him and he responded 10 to -- 11 MS. MAHONEY: I am sorry. Yes, I am assuming when I 12 say 1956, and Mr. Krieger has said he signed on in 1956, 13 that that would mean to him at the time he came to Long 14 Beach Naval Shipyard. And the question in the Hogard trial t 15 that was put to you was: 16 Question, "And at the time you came on there, was 17 there in existence or -- well, during the period of time. % 18 was there an X-ray program at the Long Beach Naval 19 Shipyard?" 20 21 Your answer was, "Yes, there was." Question, "Can you describe that X-ray program for 22 us?" "A. Prior to my coming there?" 24 Question, "Right, at the time, as you found it in 1956." 25 Answer was, "X rays were given, I believe, every six months, only to those people involved with pipe covering and 27 insulation." 28 And then the question was, "Do you know, was that the CO CO CM CM a*- RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS QJ) LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011461 126 1 program that was in existence as of the time you came 2 there?" % 3 And your answer was, "Yes." 4 That is all I'm asking you. 5 % A Fine. I'm glad the word "I believe" is in 6 there. 7 Q Okay. And I am asking you, do you -- I'm 8 reading your testimony in, that's all. * 9 MR. HOCH: I will stipulate that that is the testimony 10 from the trial. 11 I MS. MAHONEYj Very good. I think we may have one 12 other question, and that will be it. 13 Q When we were discussing the 1964 conference and t 14 the 1967 conference -- specifically the 1967 conference at 15 which Dr. Selikoff spoke -- did you feel when you attended 16 that meeting that Dr. Selikoff was the spokesman for the 17 asbestos industry? 18 A For the asbestos industry? 19 Q As regards to exposure to thermal insulation, -| 20 exposure to thermal insulation and its health hazards. 21 A No. My opinion is that Dr. Selikoff was not a 22 spokesman for the asbestos industry; he was a spokesman for t 23 the worker types. 24 MS. MAHONEY: Okay. Thank you. I have no other 25 questions. . i 26 MR. HOCH: Nothing further. Can we have the same 27 stipulation we had on the Workman deposition? 28 MS. MAHONEY: I don't know. Can you read this thing? I RFNDFI R HLJTCHINCS fTTI IfK INCFtFS . SANTA ANA .SAN CIFMFNTF .SAN niFP.O .SAN RFRNARDINO .SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011462 127 1 Will you be able to read this thing? 2 THE WITNESS: Read what thing? 3 MS. MAHONEY: Read the deposition and sign it. 4 MR. HOCH: It will be long, but -- 5 THE WITNESS: I'll sign it, but I'm not going to read 6 it. 7 MS. MAHONEY: Would you have difficulty reading a 8 transcript of this length? 9 THE WITNESS: Hell, yes. I'll sign it. 10 MS. MAHONEY: Well, I don't think that's appropriate, 11 to sign it unless you have read it. The point of the 12 signing is -- means that you have read it and what is 13 recorded there is accurate. 14 THE WITNESS: Did I sign that thing you have in front 15 of you? 16 MS. MAHONEY: This is from the trial. 17 THE WITNESS: Did I sign that thing? 18 MS. MAHONEY: You don't -- This is what a stenographer 19 in a court of law -- in court put down. 20 THE WITNESS: Would you believe I don't remember being 21 at that damn thing? 22 MR. HOCH: I have no problems with it. The only 23 problem I have is if there is some -- although I know this 24 would never happen with this court reporter -- but 25 occasionally there may be a transcription or word error, and 26 we do want to have a clear record. 27 MS. MAHONEY: Let's go off the record. 28 MR. HOCH: Let's go off the record. RENDEL B HUTCHINGS QD LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONIC MT-PWHD-011463 128 t 1 2 3 (Whereupon a discussion is held off the record.) MR. HOCH: Let's go back on both. MR. ROBBINS: You're back on. 4 MR. HOCH: Having had a discussion off the record, I 5 think we are going to stipulate that in order to make it 6 easier for Mr. Krieger, when the deposition transcript is 7 completed by the court reporter, if she will hold the A 8 original, send copies marked "Draft" to both the government 9 and ourselves, we will take it upon ourselves to read it and 10 review it, and any questions that we mutually have, we'll i 11 get in contact with Mr. Krieger, and on those specific 12 questions ask him either to read it or we'll read it to him 13 and notify each other of what -- and the court reporter of t 14 what the corrections will be, if any. And at that point in 15 time, the court reporter will then put out a final copy, an 16 original, and that will be deemed to be the copy to be used * 17 at all times. 18 MS. MAHONEY: I ask -- 19 MR. HOCH: Waive signature, et cetera? MS. MAHONEY: No ex parte -- if I may use that o CM 21 expression -- exchanges with Mr. Krieger. I think we should 22 review these things, Mr. Hoch, and then go with a joint -- 23 if there are any questions -- 24 MR. HOCH: Fine. 25 MS. MAHONEY: -- questions to Mr. Krieger -- t 26 MR. HOCH: Fine. Agree that within, say, 15 days of 27 receipt of the now-considered-to-be-draft transcript, you 28 and I will discuss it and we will draft a mutual letter to Dtkinci R UIITri-IIWr^ cm IOC AKJr.nre .CAMTA AklA .CAM riPJUFNTF .QAN niFr.n .CAM RPBNAfiniNin .^ANTA MONir MT-PWHD-011464 1 Mr. Krieger, or conference call, or whatever. 2 MS. MAHONEY: Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Krieger? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, fine. 4 MR. HOCH: We will waive signature, and everything 5 else; correct? Say "correct." 6 MS. MAHONEY: Yes, yes. 7 MR. HOCH: You've got to. 8 Thank you. 9 (The deposition adjourns at 4:55 p.m.) 10 I declare under penalty of perjury that 11 the foregoing is true and correct. 12 Executed at , 9 CITY STATE 13 on 14 CLIFFORD V. KRIEGER 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RENDEL B. HUTCHINCS flj) LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA a SAN CLEMENTE a SAN DIEGO a SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONK MT-PWHD-011465 130 1 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS 3 4 5 6 I,__JUDITH E. THIEL, CSR, a 7 Notary Public in and for the State of California, do hereby 8 certify: 9 That, prior to being examined, the witness named in 10 the foregoing deposition was by me duly sworn to testify the 11 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 12 That said deposition was taken down by me in shorthand 13 at the time and place therein named and thereafter reduced 14 to typewriting under my direction. 15 I further certify that I have no interest in the event 16 of the action. 17 18 WITNESS my hand and seal this____pLQ jd--L________day of 19 October, 19 84. 20 21 22 23 JUDITH E. THIEL, CSR #2618, CP 24 Registered Professional Reporter 25 Notary Public in and for the State of California. 26 27 28 RENDEL B. HUTCHINGS (ID LOS ANGELES aSANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO aSAN BERNARDINO aSANTA MONICA MT-PWHD-011466 131 1 QUESTIONS THE WITNESS WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER PAGE LINE 2 (Continued) 3 82 1, 7, 19 84 24 4 89 22 91 4 5 92 25 94 27 6 101 5 103 20 7 104 6 105 19 8 113 8 114 6, 22 9 117 3 122 5, 20 10 123 26 11 EXHIBITS 12 PLAINTIFF 1S MARKED 13 1 14 Document, "Wear Your Respirator," 1 page 30 15 2 -- Letter to Mr. Turnbull from Mr. Krieger 9 1-3-63, 2 pages 32 16 3 17 Letter to Medical Officer, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 8-28-59, 11 pages 42 18 4 - Letter to Commander Hetzel, 6-16-61, 1 page 46 19 5 20 Letter and enclosures to Mr. Gray, 8-9-62, 39 pages 49 21 6 - Letter to Mr. Krieger, 9-18-62, 2 pages 54 22 7 - Memorandum, 6-5-63, 3 pages 57 23 8 - Letter to Mr. Krieger, 5-27-65, 1 page 60 24 9 - Memorandum, 6-10-65, 1 page 60 25 10 - Department of the Navy Safety Precautions for Shore Activities, 26 2 pages 74 27 11 - NAVSHIPS Instruction 5100.26, 8 pages 83 28 12 -- Memorandum, 11-13-74, 1 page 88 RENDEL B HUTCHINCS (TH LOS ANGELES SANTA ANA aSAN CLEMENTE aSAN DIEGO .SAN BERNARDINO a SANTA MONICA MT-PWHD-011467 --7 Ue. yPo(lC_ 7~ ' 1 *_*' t IN TBE UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION , at ml.. Plaintiffs, RECEIVED MAR 2 1584 U. & CLAIMS COURT v. Civil No. 465-83C DNITED STATES DP AMERICA, Defendant. f- JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, at al.. Plaintiffs, v. ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Civil No. 688-83C JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, at al.. Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Civil No. 1-84C STIPULATION REGARDING VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITIONS XT XS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed, by and between plain tiffs Johns-Man villa Corporation and Johns-Manville Sales Cor poration and defendant United States of America, that any depo MT-PWHD-011461 sitions,in the above-captioned action may* at the request of either party* be videotaped. ' The parties ao agree upon the condition that each auch videotaped deposition shall be con ducted according to the procedures and requirements set forth herein. 1. The request that a deposition be videotaped may be contained in the notice of deposition which shall describe with reasonable particularity the aiatters on which the deponent will be examined. 4 2. At least three business days before commencement of the deposition* the party noticing the deposition shall furnish to the other party copies of any documents used by the witness to refresh his memory before testifying and copies of any docu ments to be used or referred to by the witness while testify ing. At least one business day before commencement of the deposition* the opposing party shall furnish copies of any documents which it intends to use or refer to during cross examination of the witness. Failure strictly to comply with this provision shall not preclude use of a document or the opportunity to adduce testimony related to a document as long as a good faith effort has been made to comply and the omis sion was not Intentional nor reasonably avoidable. 3. All such documents shall be marked for identification prior to commencement of the deposition. .,4 All documents marked for Identification for deposi tions in this action shall be numbered consecutively}. plain tiff's exhibits shall be marked P-1, P-2, ate. and defendant's exhibits shall be marked D-l, D-2, etc* Before or after each deposition, all exhibits shall be bound in sturdy covers suit able to withstand frequent use and handling and bearing an appropriate identification label* Plaintiff's and defendant's exhibits will be bound in covers of different colors. Bach document within any volume of bound exhibits shall be separated with a divider with a numbered tab corresponding to the number of the exhibit* Exhibits shall not be attached to the steno graphic transcripts but such transcripts shall contain an index to documents referred to during the examination of the witness and citations to the pages of the transcript where such testimony appears. 5* Videotaped deposition shall be simultaneously recorded by stenographic means by a competent and duly qualified person. -The party requesting that a deposition be videotaped shall be responsible for providing all necessary equipment for the videotape recording at the date, time and place scheduled for the deposition and shall bear all costs of the original videotape recording. 7* At a reasonable time prior to commencement of a video tape deposition, the party requesting that the deposition be videotaped shall provide to opposing counsel the qualifications of the person or persons to operate the equipment they propose to use*'including (a) the number of years such person has oper ated the equipment} (b) any challenges in the past which have been aiade to his or her qualifications to operate the videotape equipment} (c) an approximation of the number of depositions - the operator has videotaped} (d) a statement as to whether any videotaped deposition which the operator has taken has been excluded at any subsequent hearing or trial on grounds dealing with or relating to the improper taking or recording of the deposition} and (e) a description of the videotape equipment which will be used including the make* model and manufacturer. 8. The videotape recording shall be in color. 9. One-half inch* two-hour cassette* VHS equipment shall be used to record the deposition. 10. Only such lighting as stay be required for the purposes of accurately making a videotape recording of the deposition shall be employed. 11. .The audio recording equipment* Including lapel micro phones* mixer and audio recorder* shall be of sufficient capa city to insure an accurate audio record not only of the testi mony of the witness but of objections which counsel may inter pose. ' 12. Only the deponent will appear on the video recording. The deponent will wear ordinary* business attire and will ap pear in a sitting position in front of a plain background. Mo \ i\i*' ' ** - full length view will be employed. s The video camera shall be fixed at approximately the same level as the witness* bead and shoulders and at an appropriate distance so as to avoid distor tion. The camera field of vision shall remain stationary at all times during the deposition* and will not pan or soon such \ as to alter the image size or the apparent distance between the camera and the witness or any other person at the deposition; provided* however* that the camera field may be shifted and refocused to Include any chart* model* or other demonstrative evidence used to illustrate or explain a witness' testimony* but only during such time as the testimony is directed to such chart* model* or other demonstrative evidence. Once the witness and videotape operator are sworn* and counsel have had a reasonable opportunity to approve the field of view on a video monitor and the- audio and video recording of the appearances of counsel* there shall be no changes in camera angle, lighting* field of view or sound levels. . 13. .Before the witness is sworn* the videotape operator shall take an oath* on camera* before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the United States or of the place where the examination is held in the following form: X solemnly swear that Z will accurately and completely record all of the proceed ings in this action in connection with the deposition of (state deponent's name] and in accordance with all of the provi sions set forth in the Stipulation Regard ing Depositions entered into by the par ties hereto on [Insert date]. MT-PWHD-01147 6.* -. 14:. Only the parties# thsir counsel and persons necessary * to conduct the deposition or to assist the parties and counsel shall be permitted to attend any deposition. 15. All persons in attendance at the deposition shall Identify themselves and# when applicable# their client for the stenographic record. * 16. The attorney conducting examination or cross-exami nation of the witness shall identify himself on the videotape and audio recording before commencement of the deposition and before the witness is sworn. 17. The swearing or affirming of the witness shall be recorded by videotape after the appearances of counsel are recorded. 18. The videotape recorder shall run continuously through out the deposition from beginning to and. Videotaping shall not be discontinued during colloquy among counsel. 19. Only one counsel may examine# cross-examine or inter pose objections during the examination of a witness. If a depo sition is adjourned for good cause or by mutual consent and can not reasonably be reconvened at a time when or place where the examining attorney reasonably can attend* a different attorney _ may complete the deposition. 20. Except as otherwise herein provided# examination and cross-examination of the witness shall proceed as permitted at the trial under the provisions of the federal Rules of Evidence. MT-PWHD-01147 21f Except as to claims of privilege or claims that the examination of the witness is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy* embarrass* or oppress the deponent or a party* all objections to the examination of the witness except as to the form of the questions and answers shall be reserved. Except as to a claim of privilege or an instruc tion to the witness to refuse to answer a question* evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the objections which shall be reserved for the trial judge. 22. In the event of a disagreement among counsel with respect to the conduct of a deposition subject to this stipula tion and as a condition precedent to the suspension of the depo sition upon a demand pursuant to Rule 30(d) of the Rules of the United States Claims Court* counsel shall be required in good faith to confer to resolve such differences and* in the event that they cannot* the objecting party or deponent may apply to the Claims Court for an appropriate order by tele phone and shall provide the opposing party a fair opportunity to participate. 23. The original videotape cassettes shall be delivered to the custody of the party noticing the deposition who shall maintain them securely and without alteration or modification of any kind. Upon request of a party* one or more copies shall be made by or at the direction of the videotape operator before delivery of the original and any such copy shall be accompanied * r i- by a Wftifiwte of the videotape operator that it is a true and complete record. After delivery of the original videotape cassettes# the custodial party shall# upon request# provide a * copy at the expense of the requesting party or a reasonable i Opportunity to view the original# or both# and shall deliver i then to the Court upon request. 24. The deponent shall not be required to view the video tape recording of the deposition. . 25. A copy of any part or all of the videotape recording i shall be made by or pursuant to the instruction and supervision of the videotape operator at the request of a party at its ex pense under conditions which assure that the original videotape kf recording is not altered or damaged in any Banner. 26. A copy of any part or all of the stenographic tran script shall be Bade by the stenographic reporter at the request t of a party at its expense. 27. Any party Bay require that the deponent# within 30 days after completion of the. stenographic transcript# read the :| stenographic transcript of his or her deposition# record any changes in form or substance which the witness desires to stake * upon separate sheets of paper with a full and complete state I ment of the reasons for Baking them# which sheets shall be affixed to all copies of the stenographic transcript# and sign the stenographic transcript under oath or unsworn declaration I. under penalty of perjury swearing or declaring that the witness MT-PWHD-01147 9 * bu read the transcript end that, subject to any such changes, It la a.true and correct transcript of the questions asked and the answers given by the witness. 28. Mo change or modification of the video recording shall be made on account of changes to the stenographic transcript and the parties reserve the right to reconvene a videotape deposi tion to examine the witness concerning any such changes and the reasons given therefor. * 29. Except as herein otherwise agreed, depositions and their use shall be governed by the Rules of this Court,, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. 30. This stipulation shall be presented to the Court for approval and is binding and enforceable only upon such approval. Petit a Martin 1800 Massachusetts Ave., MW Washington, DC 20036 Attorney for Plaintiffs Johns-Manvllle Corporation and Johns-Manvllle Sales Corporation 0.6. Department of Justice Attorney for Defendant United States of America APPROVED: DATED:____________________________ r ~~ __ _______________ JUDGE CERTIFIED COPY UNITED STATES DISTRICT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. No. C 81 4561 RFP PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS 1 THROUGH 12 TO THE DEPOSITION OF CLIFFORD V. KRIEGER, a witness, taken by the plaintiff, at 11:10 a.m., Wednesday, October 3, 1984, at 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, California, before Judith E. Thiel, CSR #2618, CP, RPR, a Notary Public. Hutchings No. OLA 5089-84 RENDEL B HUTCHINGS CSR 649 Certified Shorthand Reporters U46 North Figuprod Strert Los Angplpy California 4U0bS 2448 LOS ANGELES (213)223-1191 SAN CLEMENTE (714) 972-9109 SANTA ANA (714) 972-9109 SAN DIEGO (619) 268-8246 SAN BERNARDINO (714) 381-3646 SANTA MONICA (213) 223-1191 COMPUTER TRANSCRIPTS VIDEOTAPE a DEPOSITION SUITES a REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS SERVINC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OVER THIRTY VEARS MT-PWHD-011477 I $ MT-PWHD-011478 MT-PWHD-011479 MT-PWHD-011480 3 January 196; Hr* Alia Thrabuli Assistant Director Safety Division Office of Industrial Salat Inns Bashingtoh 25.D.C. Osar Alan: 1*11 try to answer both letters at once. 1. On the Rose S^rey: Hemal Snlth was spraying with Zaotasc and Orthorla as he usually does. Be becase sick, this was hack la October 1962. Be was hospitalised for flee days with tootle hepatitis (liver infection), later December he was again hospitalised for eight days, same thing. Hals could be a large overdose, or an allergy, because we all use this stuff la abudeaco. one of the penalties for living in California. (P.S. the label tells you to be careful). 2. On the asbestosls. In our letter to you, Balt, (I was on vacation) stated there were 7 asbestosls cases. As you can see by the enclosure he seat, there are eight (8) cases of enoployees no longer on the rolls. They ere: 1. Andy Beaks - went out on disability retirement. Due to May things, ant too nuda asbestosls however. 2. Vsde Blevins went out on compensation 17 October 1959 due to asbestosls. 3. Cloyoe Brewer - claimed asbestosls la 1956. but It was ruled an.ilirewiiT (aoa-occupational) - 4. Floyd Duff rulod asbestosls (will bo reported on the 1962 Fora 110) 5. Louis sds rulod as 15Z asbestosls la 1956. Disabling compensation effective 2 April 1950. 6. Albert Fipps you know about. 7. Antonio Beaigao Claim and diagnosis pending (will be reported on 1962 Fora 110) 8. Guadalupe Zapata - Came up with a one (1) year Jail sentence. Currently is unemployed, we can't hire his due to Civil Service tabulations. Has ease asbestosls. but is not considered disabling. ^ If you look rul cartful at the report we seat you, you'll ate that one doctors can cee nothing la any of the X-rays sad oaac get overly enthuelastlc la their diagnosis. In February 1963 we will run all the asbestos workers through a big X-ray and then try to find a good roeageaologlst to read thesu About four (4) years ago the Master Pipefitter and X took a tour of the oast coast shipyards aad found that this is a universal problea. Kay X suggest that you too taka a swing around the Shipyards oa this subject, starting with Long Bosch. Then naybe wo could coordinate the problea of finding this disease and diagnosing It properly and also cone up with eon-tooclc substitutes for asbestos. It's alee here this tins of year. C. V. KBXEGCR 121225 3 MT-PWHD-0114 MT-PWHD-011483 'V v m> * . f '** - . ft .yi^G' :JN D S 1 K-r -y < TrOT^rr^TTATTrr^.T\^^rT3~HTP?fVTFfP,*V' c LONC. UIIACH 2. CALtKOftlA~' * w * ` `` IH MtfLY IMHn 1w. C7CjO)UNII:.TM NY13 62A0/1 Scr: 700-112-?? 28 Aui'vi-ir 1??? From: \ Medical Officer, Long Beach Naval Shipyard To : Medical Officer, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard r Subj: Asbestos and Asbestos!s Lncls: (1) Tape recording of Interview with compensation case (2) Information from Johns-Mnr.vl 1 le Corp. (3) Information from Public Health Service ` (A) Information on study at Long Beach Maval Shipyard (5) Copy of Tape Recording 1. The Safety Division, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard requested the enclosed information from the Long Beech Naval Shipyard Safety Super visor. ; ?. In response to request, enclosed is forwarded for your Informa tion. -t ' MT-PWHD-0114R4 ...... ...r ___________ vnj-rrirnr. n.li '" - ( -- -- * ( * y. iw*c 2919 . ' " # * .. Tii-e .forking conditions, lack of protective equipment and aiethod of handling . rbest.os material by our pipocovcrcrs and insulators appeared to be a potent ial health hazard. A study wa3 reade of their working environnwnt and sixty 60) employees were given a periodic vital capacity test and chest X-ray. The results oT the as testa are found in the enclosures. A .Very excellent lietailed report' was published by Drinker ot al in the Journal of Industrial fygiene and Toxicology Vol. 2S, No. 1, January 1946, on this subject. i^iensation Cases. One former employee from this shop has been collecting Kobpensatior. for asbestoses since 1954. Hs xa3 employed in this trade for tine years, his only exposure to asbestoe being at the shipyard. Another ci-ain tra3 paid for about a year but is now rejected. Other claims have been <itie and rejected. An unrehearsed interview was conducted-andrecorded on tape With the former employee now on disability retirement. This tape was played Sr.d a discussion conducted Kith sraall groups of pipccovcrers and insulators to tic curage the use of protective equipment, while working with asbestos saterial. 1 written copy of this tape is found in the enclosures. . at Studies, in our study of dust particle sice and dust counts, re find that articles above 10 taicrons settle so rapidly that even dust sampling devices <lil to catch then in significant nuirhers. According to DallaValla, this i3 irus for practically nil dust except asbestos dust, lie states that, "partido3 < this cust exceeding 400 ricrons in length have been recovered from lung ( .on3 of deceased asbesLcs workers. Asbestos fibers are thin, often not a3 \ -.n a ricren in thickness, and it is possible they remain floating in air nr: longer tlfrui an equivalent sphoric.il particle of the scu.u naos. Further-- ' th-^ir silver like Torn pemit3 them to work do.vn into the 3mall alveoli I the lungs and set up a sort of foreign body reaction thorej'j I' # ji*a gives us sene interesting information from his experimental vprk with 1 uvils breathing asbestos dust. He developed tj'pical asbestosis bodies in lung3 of guir.a pigs after about 70 days exposure to 43,ODD,COO particles * cubic Toot of air. lSy roscying a group of anin.il:> from ths exposure, ho ` hen irt rated th'it the reaction to inhaled asbestos dust v)as not a progressive *. He slates that, "thene experimental observations seem to bo indicating `feartos fillers cause fibrosis in Iho lungs because they act ns-meclianical titants in an organ whose function involves considerable movement. The long trs cannot effectively be removed by phngccytes and tho ly.ipb.atic sy.vtcn; *7 penetrate the walls of the brnncioles and with each respiratory effort . fy continut: to injure adjacent cells. The developnnnt of a protective coating *t thorn. n;i:st nvaterially reduce the friction but as the inhalation continues * uncoetnd fibers arc constantly Accumulating to keep itj> irritation. This <L~.f*:rr-d from tli-s lack of progression after the exposure has esasad." focov.-n.Ts working unvlronrsont. on board naval vessels is constantly charging ;it is difficult to get an averagu dust exposure. Drinker states that, I view of the varied character of th; environmental dust exposure in the pi pi i i i t 5i MT-PWHD-01148 f c f: MT-PWHD-011486 .r.w.`i .nmiwn'n *. rr.j ....U wHuiMniMw.iwun. j*-rrcctlVi Action: f Viii\j^'tOTT^--rmjnrirru-to.tg.itu...r i if? Tho nix nnployuoo with lung markings mitj Interviewed, individually, In who dcfni-LirnrJL . There was ft discussion at this time of their irking cn- " tronn*mt, physical condition and the potential health hazard of thoir occupation. . An educational program was conducted with the pipocoVnrers and insulators on * potential healthy hazard of asbestos material. ' I w. 1 ' * Shop supervisor issued orders and will enforce the wearing Of dust1 j[-ospirators , perscraxll performing shipyard lagging. * *' l^ ilron dust respirators were first tested for comfort ?by the personnel and V.er furnished. . . . . . ' 1* i A decision was made by medical department to make crie semiannual cheat X-ray 11x17 cdb a 7Ct=i. ` <. * , A system is under utudy which would moisten the cloth `ijsfexe it is fabricated .the asbestos roca. ' c > ' i " `' : t . The asbestos work room as given a thorough cleaning and arrangements made v a periodic cleaning. ' ' : t \< .< <r' r . The exhaust oysten in the asbestos rooa operates centjSruall^; during^ working stirs. . t **' l ).' : I- i.. k * f* .* : ,* : j *dj:? 4 % * * V.* > ! i . t. i .* : -- ,* t i at .: r v, :/ ! 'I V* :J i \. it. 7. MT-PWHD-011487  r PARTIAL HEALTH HISTORY OF SIX (6) ?I RECOVERIES L INSULATORS 1 AGE TOTAL YEARS TOTAL YEARS X-RAY 14 x 17 IN ASBESTOS IN SHIPYARD ASEESTOS `` VITAL CAPACITY Apr 57 Apr 56 Jan 59 Feb t -1 s<- * :2. i t* 0. L r*- 70 \. 63 63 57 5i * 50 9 *cM | 49 18 30 15 13 23 13 18 Has history since 1952. Latests 68 46 41 73 Lr.p: (1) Pulm. fibrosis ^ 4 (2) Broncncstosis occ. silicosis, asbestosis Hist, since 1957 - 11. Imp: (1) Early fitrosi3 of the lung. 64 50 55 . . (2) I'ild ersphyserca . . Hist, since 52 15 Imp: (1) Fifcposis, rt. lung lcvier 71 68 55 (2) Thickened pleura * 13 No history Latest: Asbestosis of the left ; lung or silicosis 1 Picked up on Fro-employment . i 1 Latest: Imp: Fibrosi3 of the lungs due to asbestos or silica 75 62 7 Hist, since 56 84 Lr,p: Early fibrosis of lung ' 70 k?.vr* 56.6 18.6 10.8 i 1L 1t*1 1 fc; . ' ] . <' '. ft '.r X D o iut Tr d 00 00 # .< `v \-m 57.5 1 * V* <r KATT.3IAL U3F.D _ CF 5640-2B1-8637 $'F 2& 50-250-i 871 ' % A5IEST0B Asbestos Insulating Felt (Amosite) 100 Sectional Covering (85$ l!agnesia) 15 Various Asbestos Cloth 95 1 !i ' /' MT-PWHD-01148 f Q. How long were you at the shipyard? A* I went to work In July, in 1945* ' # Q. Did you work in asbestos material all the time? A. All the time, when I was with the yard, yes.. Q. Tell eo some of your work history.. Whero did you come from, what state? A. Y/all, I cane from Oklahoma. . Q. Yfhat year did you rove out here? . I moved out hero in January of '45***first of the year. Q. Y<h\t kind of work did you do when you were younger, back before 1945? A. Ch| I'vs done several different kinds of work. I was raised on a farm, denn farm work, up till I was about 16, went into town, and I had don* odd'jobs, for awhile, and I finally went to work in a littlo restaurant. It wasn't really a restaurant, it was a hamburger Joint! I worked in it for years, and I would farm along with it. And that's about all I knew, was farm work, and working in snail restaurants. q. You never did work in or around asbestos until you came out here? A I worked a short while out at Chancelor Refinery, and it wasn't really nnbedtos work. I got over in tliat department ,* and we were just taping pipe to put under ground, like black asphalt tape to wrap pipe with. o. You have a couple of children. Hew old is your boys? A. The oldest boy was born in *29, the youngest was bom in '34.- Q. Have 70U any grandchildren? A. Four grandchildren---------------------------- ' * .` . Q. At the shipyard, did you do mojt of the work in the shop? t A. I.'o, practically all siy work was done out on trie ship. -1 Q. Is that right, that's interesting. A. I trr.n only in the shop, oh 1 supposem 12 years I was there. I waan't in the shop over n week. I would go into the shop, maybe a couple of mornings for awhile. last few years, I kind of Look care of j\aJ end of it. for ixy leaJlngmn, that I wan work, i wii.h at that tia>; and I would go into the shop, give then try lira Mings of pinna. i I I II I I I p-L I MT-PWHD-011490 (con't) l'.t\ h* I vt/.i <1 : t jo back to th shop Tor a week until the fftj >:rrn nvJi, go back in and get then, and gat thcia Oil to th*> snip, and get. Urn pit. on. F'nch guy kinda dene nis e<rn f>id work at that # t ii. ,` whatever th*: department you were working in or vltn, if ycu ne oiled pads, you drawsd off your pads anc took them to th; ship. - Q. A. .r-\ Q. A. "You said you went to work in *45- V/hat indication die you first hare thatyour hualth wasn't what it should have been? 77ell, I didn't have much indication of that until about *50, I would cay 52, when it first began to show up. I started to ccugn, cough, cough,* and I had done an awful lot of coughing and I would sneeze a lot, I would get spells of sneezing, and I would sneeze iraybe 30 or 40 tirnes before I oould get stopped. And every tine they would oer.d us . ovar for an x-ray, I would think, well, if there was something wrong, they tiould lot ite know. When I never did hear anything or report, I kept getting wome, worse; long towards the last there, I got to whero 1 could corn* up out of an engir.o room or a fire room, I would hare to hold on to tho ..oide of the ship until 1 could get enough air to walk* - a '-'ay, I would be that exhausted. And I thought, well, brother, this tiso I ought to bo doing something. , .. . . . ' .. < Did you feel like it was the .-material then that you was working with? I didn't know really what it was. . .. : : . Q. '\1-to you given dust respirators back then at that, tine? - A* ho, nobody had dust respirators then, only grinders an3 pairxtors * * 'i v * So nobouy wore them. . * ; .. y * 4 Uobo*iy wore thum ut*that time, Just guys that was doing grinding and pointing at that time. .. ''r ( .* . . .. Q. How does your physical condition affect you now? Are you ablo to got arcund very much? '. / A. Well, I can get aix>und like some iron--soon be 52 years old--I get around like ocioe nan 90. ^ Q. leu're not ablo to do rruch work? A. I'm not able to do anytiiing. " . . Q.' Vfhen did ycu ntart receiving compensation for asboatosle?. ;1 . A. Wall, nino months .later, after I uent out of the yard, I.firvilly' , started receiving my compensation.. . .. , 11 MT-PWHD-011491 ( WJn did yea f*.o out o.r t.*v: y.rd? I, I believe ry last day of vurk was Way 8th, 1755. ' ' j. Tints 10 yr.nrs, did your work seen very dusty to you at the tine you wert*.*loing it? ,' U At tlsMaU> would. It would aeere quite dusty, and at other tides, no one eror noticed it. At tides it was worse, % I noticed it i3 quite difficult to these people who work in It now, ||h find it difficult to protect tf;aasalv93. Wall, I Buppoae if you knew then what you do now, you would have ticne things a little differently new, I suppose, would have you? 1 ' .. ,, T7-.ll, if I knew then what I do now,' I would never become a lugger. I would had never taken the trads up; ' . . ,, null, there are peoplewho are in it now working-----1 guoas they will continue to be loggers. ' '< *; ` '- Th-re'will, bo loggers'as long "as there is .any other typo of t*ork. As . leng as there is coal-miners,"niners, plumpers, pipefitters, thero will be loggers. * ' * i 1, 7e do have to havo then, as leng as thehe Id"this type of work. ' * 1, It*a necessary they have rwn to -do this kind of work----- but I think----- the non should wear all precautions that are available at all times. ' 77ell, we are trying to get thorn to war' ncM^thing. * Vl.nn it,' cnee shoes uz> on you, well brother, it*# a too late. `m ... * .% * 1 */V* t**1. i* * J j .vi.V t: y j.r --;.r.* .r.'ii 2 ir l- I" 3 12 MT-PWHD-011492 MT_P\A/Un n-l-l^rvo MT-PWHD-011494 >06 Juxi XXI IDID !1AVAL UIIPiATJD STUDX OF AdlKiTO) U3KStS * Cl BMATXDH TO ASttlTGSE Odr, Victor U I&TZhl, US!R 17 naaoo of oobootoa wart-ora with e^t^toaa of aabootools vara oubrd.tbod. Tliclr yursoiViOl Jocfcota wcu'a rovlovoJ cod ttwir offpurlccoa 1a cjboatos cod rulatod c^loywnt nod aqs tabulated (Tchlo 1). Tbooo 17 ovlcyooa avLxaipd 55A yoaps of oa* cod oLouod on avwrrjo of 17 A years in asbes tos, 10Jj yocra of UJLoh voa in ths Long Dooah liival Shipyard. Tboy also avura^x>d 2/J yoore in rolatod CLployaant. Tho diAtjvcala of theos non rsavod frua olit^it, or olid flbrooia, to total disability (La to obootools. . At ti present tint tbora era roughly 00 asbestos uoxtore 1a this aotivi^y uito hevo not boon c&ncnoaad as having cabostools. A rendea &spling of 21 of tiaoo uaro rovlrjod cod tcbulatod* os la the first &v*.'p 7fbls 2 ahoue tiiat tlveoo wartjaro ovorojod li9*9 yoara of c^a, vLUj 16.9 yours la ooboatos wric Including 93 years In tho yard, this groip avarc^sd cn additional 2.7 years In roletod CfylcyrraV. The two i?'oupo shew a ocrfcinod exporlanos totaling 6U9 year* la fsbcatajj lrvcludir^ 171 years In tho BMryard. Geeparing ths two BFo-vjps it is found the workers with asbostcals avoro-^ing 17 A years crpocrurs was cm3y 1/2 year tyoator then thcos with a iWjjnUva dtojiaiia, Thair ovpcrlcna* in tide activity vao 1A yosro taors and tho rolatod enplryajot only OA years creator. Ths ago of thooa with positive dla^osla vas only 5A years oldor. .* m tho positive croup Com fU at 6b years of agi bad tho neat cpporloucs in nabcatao, with 32 years and no raiatod cexpurlcnaj. Ceos 02 In tho negative zroqp at 63 bad 26 years in oabostes* plus 13 years es a plasterer. Tho tuo oaoaa with nlMrun sxpGrteoos ar exposure wsrs positive Cass #9 with 9 jeara ezporlaoos at a^o 55 rad an additional 11 years ns a ploartcrear. Case vZl in tiv. so^atlve croup hod 9 years o^parlonoa fit t? but no rolatod eotporioAoo* Au an&lyola of these tables potato to the foot that caporleoea, elans, lo not indicative of tho pooitlvo diatpooia, but that other footers as wall lust bo considorod. . 340 MT-PWHD-011496 r; . > 9 August 1962 Hr. t. B. Criy Aetlas Chief, Iredi ef Clelm Hcreso ef Bvtqaree** Cayonsettop 90S Ooldea Gate Avenue Sb rreacleco 2* California Beer Hr. Amor: At four request we coop Lied Che snrloeod informtien rtsfrdlt^ thoee Lob; Beech Bevel Ailpyerd employees known Co here bees exposed to asbestos mod lt related pcodeets in the wrk of tasnlet log or freMTiag aeteriele for ineelettoa. It M7 be noted tuet 1a aost cemn in the enclosure the -x<y neUagt of 1996 ebov none pocltlvt ifapwet* end in 1S57, 1S5S, 1959 and 1960 the reed Inge were sewn" jelly --cat fee. Hawmr, la 1961 the reeUa^t again indicate positive end la later 1961 and la 1962 they again read aegetivc. tinea there ware eewerel physicians tocsrpntiag them files it aost be ae sowed that they have a difference ef opinion la their interpretetloa ec regards pathology. Bee asm of the contradictory readings and in order to ascertain who as? he afflicted with eehestosls It is ricoweadw! that these employees be referred to e mdfxcl specialise to decerai&c: whether or aot *ray findings ere indicative of eebeetosic. Tcu Long Beach tUrvd Shipyard will cooperate by mVfng available ell previous 14 s 17 chest film for interpretation by the denote! Ife woeld appreciate year oasis*ones la determining which cases shonld be established with the Bwreaa of Aployeec* Condensation by the aebaisslon of ferae CA*l end CA-2. C. 9. CUXGZa LB8S eeployees mooted to asbestos <2 aopies) Copy to: Code 700(2) 956(2) file ry F121226 J 16 MT-PWHD-011497 INCIDENCE OF POSITIVE CHEST X-RAY FINDINGS IN PIFECOVZRER&& INSULATORS VERSUS TEARS OF EMPLOYMENT IN SHIPYARD Years Number Number With Percent Employed Of Median Positive Of At Shipyard Employees Age X-Rays Group Percent Of Total Workers o-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 25- 1*7 38 21 : 1*7 13 1*1* ll* 56 8 56 1 62 5 1* 3 6 1* 1 11 5 19 1* 23 3 57 8 5o 1* 100 1 The positive X-ray findings shown on this table includes all reported abnormalities. Most of the abnormalities could be construed as being the result of exposure to asbestos dust, but not necessarily so, and do not represent diagnosed cases of asbestosis, f121227 MT-PWHD-011498 ti . . -fa ` r, .. SUPPLEMENTAL ^LIMITED INFORMATION REGARDING EMPLOYEES NO LONGER ON THE ROLLS OP THE V LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD. NAME BANTCS,ANDREW BLEVINS, MADE A_ 56 52 TEARS OF ASBESTOS WCRX 9 13 PRESENT STATUS Disability Retirement Disabled. On Disability Compensation Automatic Payroll. BREWER, CLOYCE 63 Disability Retirement (Emphysema) DUFF, FLOYD 68 23 .1 / Disability Retirement. Compensation claim is per.ois. ' * at Bureau. EADS, LOUIS 73 18 Dlaabled. On Disability Compensation Automatic Payto ` FIPPS, ALBERT 55 11 Compensation until deceased 7-16-62. BENIGNO,ANTONIO 66 16 Compensation claim is peniin at tareau. " P/ 4 //<*. t ^ C ZAPATA, GUADALUPE 39 17 Presently unemployed BEC file no. A13?117766 I Lihi aoai F23335 1867 MT-PWHD-01149! REASSIGNED AFTER MEDICAL EVALUATION BROUN, HARRY A. 1128 E. Maple Street Glendale, California EOD: 2-12-58 DOB: 3-19-29 C SATE: X-RAY 2-11-58 Ai 5-22-58 1 Negative 14 x 17 reveals generalized accentuation of basilar lung markings with diffuse basilar mottling. Ths heart is enlarged in tranr.-Trse diameter arid the diaphragms are flattened. Refer to clinical study. 12-17-58 1-8-59 3-11-59 7-31-59 2-11-58 7-17-59 7-3C-59 11-17-59 11-18-59 9-26-60 9-22-60 444-61 4-19-61 Increased density due to severe fibrosis of both lung fields in the lover halves. Obliterated eosto-phrenic angles. Heart, right side, slightly enlarged. Impression: Fibrosis of the lungs due to scoliosis or asbestosis. Suggest clinical evaluation. Clinical evaluation done this date by H.M. Robbins, Capo. hE USN and E. K. Ownbey, M.D. Pre-employment physical - lungs dear. Memo. Because of abnormal chest findings, suggestive of early asbestosis, I wish to recommend that subject employee be removal from pipe covering aboard ship and placed in the shop vher* ih concentration of asbestos filers is less. E.K. Ownbey, M.D. PA Chest. A single PA film of the chest is technically poor bet sb . Increased markings in both lover lung fields and blundlng of both costo-phrenic angles. The cardiac shadow appears to be normal as to size. Findings does not have the appearance of an acuta inflammatory process, however if previous films are available they shod! be obtained for comparison. ` C Fibrosis in loth lung fields. No appreciable changes from last films. Suggest clinical evaluation. Clinical evaluation done this date by F. J. Vectaro, M.D. Patient referred to own doctor, /s/ F. J. Vaccaro, M.D. Fibrosis is vor3 since lest report. Memo. 1. Review of chest x-rays taken on 17 No*/ 1959 shovs a progression of fibrosis in loch Lung fields as -conrarr.d with films taken in July lS59._JThi5jpulmonary_fibrosis is a complication of a3bestosis. 2.'-Xn view of these chest findings it is recoranended subject''named be remove i from contact with asbestos, /si H.M. Robbins Note to Memo of 11-16-59. This men transferred to pipe fitters shop. Heart within normal limits. Considerable pulmonary infiltrate bilaterally. For clinical evaluation. (70 sn) Pulmonary infiltration. Basal increased density. Interstitial infiltration in both bases. For clinical evaluation. 4-1-58 Vital Cepecity 75X 1866 F23334 19 MT-PWHD-011500 TTr ?C07ZHB AND INSULATOR, LZADINGMEN (CON7IKU2X) V- PACE 2 E.rrc, cclie Los Al.os Avenue lj-.j sarch 15, Califoral a C IC:: *->2-28 ZCD: 1-12-51 S L*2T; ^ _______ * - --... -1-15-57 i-::.-58 7-5-: ,-n 2-RAY Slight increase in peripheral lung markings. Roof with inferior lung markings accentuated, No definite diagnostic findings. Negative Negative Negative Negative Pulmonary markings slightly accentuated. Negative Negative Q * VITAL ir \ i ii i i ] 1051 * 1097. tc11!." 32Z < 1 iTIThCECUR, EMEROYZ K. ' * K-^niy Avenue ---tomt, California C-: :.*-S-C7 rsr. C X-RAY Hilar and inferior markings accent noted. Negative Negative Negative Generalized increased density in both lung fields due to chronic fibrosis. Heart slightly enlarged. Thickened transverse fissure. Pulmonary markings accentuated. There is some pulmonary involvement in both lower bases due to ashestosls. NO appreciable changes from last film. No appreciable change. The fine basal markings remain stable end ere unchanged since film of 2-17-60. VITAL CAPACITY 74X 1868 F23336 20 MT-PWHD-01150' w *' irSMI Z P1PBC0VERER AND ISSDLAIOt, XJADINSfBS AY, WEBSTER F. % o 4602 Knoxville Street Lakewood, California $03: S-24-17 *to: 6-18-51 SITE: X-RAY: 3-13-56 12-12-56 11-18-57 4-24-58 7-3-59 2-15-60 1961 9-28-61 5-28-62 Siler end radiating lung markings ere accentuated. Slight amphysea* suggestive. Hat specific diagnostic for pneumoconiosis. Hegstive ' negative negative negative Basal markings are somewhat accentuated. * Pulmonary markings are accentuated. negative Negative VITAL CAPACITY 4-17-57 2-9-59 -25-60 101X 1091 96X * CARMINES, CHARLES G. 311 East 44th Street Long Beach, California 503: 4-18-12 ROD: 1-16-51 DATE: 4-3-56 11-18-57 12-15-58 7-22-59 2-15-60 1951 2-21-62 X-RAY: Minimal scarring over the left lover lung, without evidence of active disease at this time. Negative ' negative Negative negative Siler surfclngs accentuated, Broncho vase, markings also accentuated in both bases, There la a alight change from the last report. tong fields are deer and unchanged fr 2-15-60. VITAL CAPACITY 91X normal 68X normal (chest cold) 87X normal 64X F23337 1869 21 MT-PWHD-0115( T2F2CCVZRZR AND INSULATOR, LEASINGMEN (CONTINUED) 72AF0HD, MAX C. vj? 5219 Killdee S:rtet Long Beach, California JpOB: 2-18-18 SOD: 6-2C-52 X-RAY: 2-29-56 2-11-58 7-?-59 2-11-50 S-13-60 negative negative * negative Hilar narking* slightly accentuated. negative negative negative. No change since 2-15-60. VITAL CAPACITY 4-17-37 2-11-59 2-15-62 1001 897. 751 FACE 3 F2FZC3VERER AND INSULATOR, APPRENTICE (2) DENNIS, WILLIAM R. S911 MacAlplne Avenue Cerien Grove, California r03: XGD: BilE: X-RAY 5-27-38 5-27-59 2-12-fc) 9-13-60 1961 8-1-61 9-28-*l 2-22-62 Negative Negative Pulaonary Barkings accentuated in both lung fields. Negative Mo appreciable changes. Negative Negatlva FA Chest:Stable chest since film of 2-12-60. There is faintly increased markings in the right Biddle lobe region. 0\81 F23339 1871 22 MT-PWHD-01150 ficc^trer and INS1*LAIQR, APPRENTICE (2) X-RAY Nigativi Nagative No appreciable change. Negative No change since 2-11-60. VITAL CAPACITY 1087. 1137. 2 102% T-J-JCVERIR AND INSULATOR, HELFERS (FEMALE) .X No diagnoscic findings Negative Left batal markings accentuate 1. No change since 2-15-60. VITAL CAPACITY 83% 61% 85% F23338 PACE 4 c C 1870 23 MT-PWHD-0115 r--^COHESER AND INSVLAIOR, HELPERS u --- ----------------------------- * cFimi. rsAKK * * .*1 v Cf '.rrtl Avea-e *. California -M; X-2AT PAGE 6 C i :ecr?i f. ;rr:i Si ith Figaro* Street . z. f -- _i t eW----1 .& 1 .** X-RAY Negative : F.CMALD T. :)Or rags Avenue .it, Ciiifsrai* -f-2 C- .p-- -' X-RAY Kegativs Hilar si ir_d (lyaph noias slightly proxineit) NCD I'agitivi Hilcr Basal markings ec.c;.c;i:-;d. Basal r?rkirgs slightly jcora prosineit has compared with 1 year ago. Kcgitivi Negative heart ani lungs. No change sinta 2-9-fC VITAL CATACI7Y 1121 10i7. ;v-\7t CHARLES L. *` 1. Car* an Street a ?j`;h, California I-.V-CS * ll-21-?.2 X-RAY 1872 Scalloped right diaph. NCD Norzal FA Chest: There If son* fibrosis along both cardiac borders & F23340 24 mt-pwhd-oii5( w $ rzTZCOTSER AND INSVLATOR, HELPERS : crans, feakk ' Cf\tTtl Aveia i l,: k'-v-lAf 2, California *! *. 5--'*'* ~Z~: v?lL-*Z X-5AT Ikp:ive :r.z. zzcrcz f. *.ofli firth Figueroa Street - : "fl < *-->' i FACE 6 C X-RAY Negstivs . F.CaALD T. j.;\ Orxng* Avenue it, Ciliforni* *. r^*: . -_ _ r-2 c- &** X-RAY Negative . Hilar gland (iyrph nodes slightly pronine.it) NCD regitivi Hiler r_-.Z Basel Barkings ao.trC-isted. Basel rankings slightly sore proxinenc has caxperad with 1 year sgo, Kegetiut Negative heart eni l.r.gs. Kb change slx.cs 2-9-fC VITAL CAPACITY 112Z 106% CHARLES L. r. Carson Street - -` V ?f - , California -C?: i-r.*-cs Trr* .f' ` X-RAY F23341 1872 ' 1 _ Scalloped right diaph. NCD Norxal FA Chest: There is sose fibrosis along both cardiac borders & 25 MT-PWHD-01150 < PIPEC07Z1ER AMD INSULATOR, HELPERS AT, CHARLES V. 4(02 Knoxville Avenue Lakewod, California DOB: 10-14-39 ICO: 4-1-60 DATE: X-RAY 3-13-53 136-1 r-28-51 Kigetlvt Essentially negative Normal VITAL CAPACITY 2-H-`D 1091 BAIR, IRA D. 13211 Bersneh Avti-s VdSfalaBter, California DOB: 10-9-18 ECO: 6-17-56 & 2-1C-60 X-RAY 2-13-60 C 2-9-cO 3-13-63 I?fl 9-2P-S1 2-F-62 Essentially negative Negative Negative No appreciable change from last report. Moreal PA Chest: Normal. No change since 2-lA"-60. VITAL CAPACITY 2-15-62 65?, CASEY, ELBERT 1036 Vest 48th Street Los Angeles, California D02: 12-9-24 ECO: 12-14-59 70: " X-RAY 12-11-59 2-12-50 Negative Hiltr markings accentuated Negative Negative Negative VITAL CAPACITY 2-22-60 76Y n F23342 PACE 5 ! 1873 2b' IV/IT_D\A/Un r\A a r~ r\--7 W0 sjjiia 4 s PITECCVERER AND INSTLA20R, HELPERS PACE 7 HATHAWAY, CHARLES L. (continued from page 6) , 3-52 . ~ A? til* apex of the heart. The heart else la normal and the lung fields are otherwise dear. Zapreaaioa: Sons flbrosla r,3tftd on the Initial film In the series.* VITAL CAPACITY - " ( f-- * . STTT frirw, JESSIE D. .43 1175 Stanbriige Avenue Jjr Long Eeeck If, California dob: EOD: 2-7-6: ............. DATE: X-EAY: 2-23-50 9-13-60 1961 * 9-28-61 2-3-62 Negative Negative Hilar end bare! Barkings accentuated. Normal. PA Chest: Normal. Ho change eince 2-10-61. VITAL CAPACITY -.1 rt<* 561 M SCE2LZE, GEORGE S. M 171? East Ocean Elvd, Apt #10 ".* Long Beach, California DOS: 1C-19--7 EOD: -2-62 . DATE: X-RAY ; -j ;. 6-4-62 Negative .... SEXTWJ, JOSEPH I.. *6059 Gardenia Avenue ozg Beach S, California DOB: 1-20-36 * . EGD: 9-12-58andll-14-60 / DATE: X-RAY 9-8-53 Negative 12-9-58 Left hilar calcified lymph node. PCD IV. jContisued on page 8. F23344 1875 27 MT-PWHD-011508 C ZsIEi - ** X-RAY: Negative STCVYRS, RICHARD I '.iZ 2. Sri Street t Iv.r.J5 2rich, California i D05: ?~Z.2"Z~* 2CD: <L-ii-2 EAIE: X-RAY: Negative VARD, JAKES Avenue lj`i. Se.*=i* California . DC?: 2CZ: nzzi e a `or X-RAY Negative Negative Negative No appreciable changea ' F23343 VITAL CAPACITY: 2-25-60 2-15-62 I19X: 144Z DATE: 9-28-61 3-22-62 X-RAY Negative Negative. No change since 2-10-60. 1874 28 MT-PWHD-011509 rm zrr riPBcovnua and insulator, heifers FACE 9 WORKMAN, JAMES BAEVS! r 9516 Mayna Street L-'; Bellflower, California DOS: 10-5-39 JOD: 6-19-62 DATE: Z-RA7: -18-62 negative FIFECOVER AMD INSULATORS AUTH, CHARLES FREDERICK 3212 Bellflower Blvd Long Beach, California DOB: 4-25-23 SOD: 4-3-62 .. DAZE: X-RAT 4-2-62. negative ( BRADY, HARRY V. 1121 Vest "F" Street Wilmington, California __ DOB: 10-22-05 SOB: 1-30-51 DATE: ' X-RAY: 4-4-56 4-24-58 7-9-59 2-8-60 1961 2-28-62 negative ' negative > Negative Negative No appreciable change from last report.Fulaonaxy baeal Barking elightl- cecfeutuated. ........................................................... - lleven riba are aeen above the diaphragn. There la tone euggeation of eaphyeeaa. Finding! not changed alnce our earlieet film of 2-8-60. .... VITAL CAFACHY 4-17-57 2-9-59 2-8-60 2-15-62 911 95Z 911 62Z F23346 1877 29 MT-PWHD-011510 FIPECOVER AND INSULATOR EER7BE, ARMAND L. 4:19 Falcon Avenue I:Boch California 203* 1-31-10 ECO: 7-20-54 X-RAY 9-18-61 4-16-62 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Essentially negative Pulmonary markings someWhat accentuated. Normal Negative VITAL CAPACITY 827. 78% 77% 87% 53% -CX JAMES L. 1-17 West 261st Street H*rK>r City, California ICB: 11-25-07 iCC: 12-23-60 X-RAY Negative Normal JOE E. ast 212th Street r California 14-10 26-61 X-RAY Negative Normal PA Chest: Normal VITAL CAPACITY 68% F23345 PAGE 10 C 1876 30 MT-PWHD-01151 PIPECOVERZR AND INSULATOR PAGE 11 CARLTON, CZNE C. 633 East First Street, Apt #9 Long Beech 2, California *OB: 9-23-27 -*OD: 4-10-61 BATE: 4-6-61 9-28-61 3-6-62 X-RAT; Negetive Negetlve PA Chest: Nomel VITAL CAPACITY 2-15-62 . 731 CHAMBERS, FRANCIS 11871 Turquois Avenue Cerden Grove, California DOB: 1-29-11 HOD: 7-26-56 DATE: f 7-19-56 5-5-58 12-9-58 7-9-59 2-10-60 9-13-60 1961 10-18-61 3-1-62 X-RAY: Negetive Essentially negetive Negetive .. Negetive Hiler merkings accentuated. Negative Hilar and broncho vase, markings accentuated. Negative PA Chest: Normal. No change since 2-10-60. ' VITAL' CAPACITY 4-17-57 2-10-60 2-15-62 1051 95X 681 COOKE, GEORGE.C. 343 Fletcher {grange, California DOB: 1-6-07 SCO: 3-17-58 and 8-15-55 DATE: X-RAY /_. 8-10-55 ^d***56 Negative Negative continued on page F23348 8 Li 1879 31 MT-PWHD-01151 /TFI'CmER AND INSULATOR PACE 12 COOKE, GEORGE C. (continued from page II) Negative Negative Thick pleura right costo-phrenic angle. NCD. Transverse fissure prominent otherwise essentially negative. Negative Hilar and basal markings accentuated. Negative PA Chest. There are fine fibrotle changes in both bases which appear slightly.on Cm original film of 2-10-6 Review of the film 2-7-61 shows slightly less changes than at present Impression: Increasing parenchymal fibrosis in the past 2 years. Heart size unchanged. CA-1, coughed up blood. Impression: Chronic bronchitis with probable beginning bronchictcxsis (marked Increase in peribronchial markings.) C If * VITAL CAPACITY 2-12-60 -15-62 937. 701 CLOSE, JOSEPH K. V~sr 55th Street l.*g Beach, California TC2: 4-25-30 ICC: 2-7-61 C TATI: X-RAY I-"-?! 3-2?-51 Negative Normal CON52LL, Bernard M. '-'44 Shipway Avenue Beach, California TC": 5-23-23 202: 3-23-58 1AIZ: ' X-RAY 9-1?-:1 l-ln.52 Negative Negative Negative Negative No change Negative No change since 2-16-60. VITAL CAPACITY 1171 90Z F23347 1878 j 32 MT-PWHD-01151 FIPECOVESER AND INSULATORS FACE 13 DELUCA, JULIUS 6523 Fairaaa Avenue Lakewood, California DOB: 6*3-17 *CD: 6-28-51 and 12-8-59 DAIS: X-RAY: 12-7-59 2-3-60 9-13-60 1951 9-20-61 3-6-62 Negative . Basal Barkings slightly accentuated Negative Base Barkings accentuated and store prominent. Negative Normal hilar and lungs. No change since I960. 2-8-60 2-15-62 VITAL CAPACITY 981 801 DENNIS, ALONZO W. 8911 MacAlpina Avenue Garden Grove, California DOB: 5-2-15 00: 10-20-53 CATE X-SAY: 4-13-52 4-3-56 11-15-56 11-19-57 4-24-58 12-9-58 2-3-50 9-13-60 1961 2-28-62 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Essentially negative. No changes in comparison with previous films. No change since 2-8-60 VITAL CAPACITY 4-17-57 3-11-59 ^-8-60 971 931 93X DENNIS, EABTS0N 9675 Bastard Avenue Santa Ana, California DO?: 3-24-06 ZOD: 7-20-62 DAZE: X-SAY BATED ELIGIBLE FENDING X-SAY KXADXNCS . -* 1881 33 MT-PWHD-011514 miCCMRZR AND INSULATORS -IMS, WAYNE 0. l.^.'I Slsrsia - ''trlzrzir, California PAGE 14 C X-PAY: ** _*< Negative Nigstive Soutine exam of chest shows lungs to be clear and cardeo-vasc structure normal. There is a fibrosis dysplasia-like lesion involving the medial eni of the right clavical. Further studies using bora technique and angle view are suggested for further evaluation of this lesion which I feel is benign. Negative Essentially negative No appreciable change noted. Negative Normal. No change since 2*9-60 VITAL CAPACITY "mm**? 947, 1037. IOC?. 967. r: re, Robert n. 111,^ 2. Chaiwell Street Jiz-'f.t, California LCC: X-RAY L1--.7-J3 S -'.*4 -a '.,,-a PA Chist: Negative A PA view of the chest Is within normal limits. Negative chest Within normal limits Normal chest Transverse fissure prominent otherwise essentially negative. Negative : NO appreciable changes from last report. Normal. VITAL CAPACITY 60% rrxs. waiter c. Til Vast "D" Street Vi._-ir.gcor, California 902: 12-19-13 ECO: 7-11-62 F23349 RATED ELIGIBLE PENDING X-SAY READINGS 34 188 D ,3 MT-PWHD-011515 PTPEC07KRZR AND INSULATORS ECX, DAN L. 5522 Laurelton Av*a*j* Carden Grove, California PAGE 15- UCR: 7-8-35 ^CD: 2-18-58 DAIS X-SAZ: 2-17-58 4-24-58 2-e-52 9-13-60 9-28-61 Negative Negative Essentially negative Negative Negative VITAL CAPACITY 2-9-59 2-8-50 2-15-62 1201 1201 1C5I EDWARDS, KISIAR L. 722 West 118th Street Los Angeles 44, California b03: 7-6-26 ECD: February 1951 C CATE: X-2AT: 2-25-56 3-25-57 11-18-57 12-9-58 2-15-60 9-13-50 1951 9-22-51 3-1-52 Basal narkings heavy accent noted. No specific diagnostic fin.lings. Negative Negstiva Negative Kegativa N*g*tive Broncho-vasc, markings accentuated. There is sons infiltration in the left lower lung field and slightly in the right. Negative Negative, Ko infiltrates. No since 2-15-60, VITAL CAPACITY - 2-9-59 2-15-62 1001 761 FARRCtf, MDSES E. 72S Chestnut .Avenue 2>^4 Beach, California ScD: 11-21-51, 10-12-52, 9-26-58 continued on page 15, 1883 35 MT-PWHD-011516 f^ TrTZCCTZRER AND IN'CITATOX `TARaCW, MOSES R. (continued from page 15) Negative Nagrtive Negative No change. Negative No changs since 2-11-50 VITAL CAPACITY 103*1 114Z 1031 PAGE 16 C T. CREESE, SCOTT JR. .;* Zitz 17zh St:**1: * * l >.5 Aigclii 11, Ctlii J.-nia .4 .1 H TCP: -29-08 20D: 1-22-51 *. e* * i-' *), C3 93 _y *cr X-RAY Negative Negative Negative Negative Transverse fissure prominent. Basal markings slightly increased. No appreci able changes from last report. Negi ive Negative VITAL CAPACITY 52Z f"SCC ALBERT J. ; s;.7 Ani^is, California rcit 5-14-20 ICC: >J-f7 VITAL CAPACITY 2-11-59 2-9-60 2-15-52 1087. 95* 727. TATE: X-RAY Essentially negative chart \ Kegative Negative Negative Hilar aarkings slightly accentuated. Negative Hilar eed broncho-vase. markings eccentuatad Negative No change since 2-9-60. F23351 1882 36 ' MT-PWHD-01151 / SCOVZSER AND INSULATOR PAGE 17 - _ason, baskt a. Ji2 Morab *caiastar, California V3: 7*18-11 tJD: 10-13-53 X-RAY: 11-18-57 12-9-58 --6-59 2-16-63 1-12-60 1961 9-28-61 4-16-62 Negative Hazy accentuated root basal markings. Impression: No specific diagnostic findings. Negative Negative Basal markings accentuated. Itansverse fissure slightly prominent. Otherwise essentially negative. Tenting of diaphragm. NCD . Pulmonary markings accentuated. Negative Negative VITAL CAPACITY 931 80Z 80Z 751 HAMILTON, DON H. 2421 Vcae 157th Street Gardena, California DOB: 3-23-08 ROD: 1-19-51 DATE: 3- 26-56 11-18-57 4- 24-58 2-12-60 I960. X-RAY: Root markings increaeed baial lung markings also hazy increased. Negative Negative Definite Increased density in both lung fields due to fibrosis. There is some pulmonary infiltrate indicative of mild fibrosis. no appreciable changes from last film. There is definite Infiltration of Che lungs especially In perlhilar and basal areas. No appreciable change from last report. The fine fibrotlc changes are unchanged since film of 2-12-50. 4-17-57 2-11-59 VITAL CAPACITY 871 681 91X 78Z 1885 F23354 MT-PWHD-011518 r i tipicoverer and insulator PACE 18 HINTON, J. C. T.'T W. 33rd Way I-ng Beach, California ''CT-: W8-11 ECT: 1-22-51 .i.; rrt 1 ;c '1--1*-e5 ::-l*s-57 .*-12-58 7-3-59 X-RAY Negative Moderate hilar shadows Negative Negative Negative Transverse fissure prominent. Pulmonary markings slightly accentuated, generalized and particularly in right apical area No appreciable changes Negative VITAL CAPACITY -.-17-19 1207. HCLSHC'JSER, TROY L. -'ll' Sjnfield Avenue 7-. 3i*ch 8, California 703: 7-17-07 EOT: S-1G-56 X-RAY 11-11-15 11-1?-17 .-2-; 9 ii-3-:3 l-'-f 7 i* Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Essentially negative. No appreciable changes. Basal markings accentuated. Negative Negative. No change since 2-8-60. ** ^ m w 1-15-52 VITAL CAPACITY 115% 98% 89% C C F23353 1884 38 <" MT-PWHD-011519 TIPECCWERER AND INSULATOR fACE 19 JACOBS, EMANUEL K. 400 X. Arbor long Beach, California JOB: 5-9-18 lOD: 3-24-52 HATE: 4-3-31 3-14-58 11-18-57 12-9-59 2-10-60 1981 9-28-61 2-21-62 Z-SA7: Negative So specific changes Negative Negative Negative No appreciable changes noted, Negative No changes, aaae 2-10-80. VITAL CAPACITY 4-17-57 2-9-59 2-25-60 2-15-82 791 991 941 71X Jamison, william l. G lie East Burnett, Apt #2 Loag Beach 6, California DOB: 8-23-15 ECO: 5-15-61 DAZE: 4-ie-si Z-RAY: 70 sm chest x-ray, veil healed GHDN complex right lung zone. NCD, JOHNSON, CLYDE SR. 4610 South San Pedro Los Angeles 11, California DOB: 5-16-11 XCD: 2-1-51 VITAL CAPACITY 2-9-59 2-16-62 911 641 DAZE: 3-28-56 11-25-57 32-9-58 2-12-80 di 9-13-60 1961 10-18-61 Z-RAY No apeeifle diagnostic findings. Some Increase In linear Inferior lung markings. Negative Negative Hilar markings accentuated. Transverse fissure slightly prominent. The pulmonary markings accentuated with slight degree of pulmonary fibrosis. No apprtelsble changes. Pulmonary markings accentuated in basal trees No appreciable changes from lest report Heart and lungs normal 3-1-62: Normal e o o *9 g CJ 1887 F233SC..... .............. ........... MT-PWHD-011520 inCOTERZR AND INSULATOR PAGE 20 K33, BCDKEY G. Tulaaa Avenue long Peach IS, California C TCI: 5*29-21 ZO: 11-12-32 Z-RA7: Nfgitiv; '' Essentially negative Negative Negative Negative Hilar pulmonary markings accentuated. Markings accentuated in upper left lobe. Eilar and pulmonary markings accentuated to a greater degree chan in previous films. Negscive No change since our earliest film 2-Ll-fD. Chest is normal. VITAL CAPACITY: 111% 111% 1117. KOSLCTT, HOWARD R. ~ZZ Er.tz 8th Street. Apt #6 L -:g 3`s.th 13, California C TCu: 7-21-12 zo: s-:-;: X-RAY u-:.e-;7 1 rf N> sperific diagnostic findings. Negative Negative Transverse fissure prominent. Mild fibrcsls In both lover lung fields. No appreciable chenges. Pulmonary markings slightly accentuated. No appreciable changes Negative Negative VITAL CAPACITY * 4 9 96% 96% 87% 188 6 n o fw m rm K vn * F23355 40 MT-PWHD-01152 rxpscovsxzs and insulator FACS 2i LAK3ST0N, ROOSEVELT 1810 Veat 137th Straat Cos^ton, California _D03: 8-24-24 -SOS: 4-28-52 DAIS: 3-25-56 1-22-57 12-4-57 12-9-58 8-13-59 2-9-50 9rl3-0 2961 9-28-61 21-62 Z-IAT: Pleural thickening left coeto-phrenic alnua. Hilar thickening calcified depoaita eepecielly left which are minimal. Foaaible calcified nodea, right hilar Msdlsstsal (under penetrated) No apecific diagnostic findiega for active diaeaae. No change aa reported 3-26-56. PA & LAX Cheat: le-exsm of cheat reveala 4.7 z 2.4 CM calcific density in the right lung field at the hilum. There ia a calcific eluater in the left lungs at the Inferior pole of the bilua and also a density behind the heart which appears to be calcific aortic codes. The left coato-phrenic sulci ia blunted and the lung fields essentially dear.No appreciable interval changes. Impression: Calcified nodes. BCD. Negative. ' The pulmonary markings not aa prominent as ia previous films. Basal markings slightly accentuated. Negative .. Large calcified nodes in the right hilua. No appreciable change. Also calcified codes in the left post mediastinum. Lungs appear unchanged since 3-56. No fibrosis seen in either lung. Old calcified codes in lung fields unchanged in sice or position. Impression: Stable cheat 5 years. Lung fields are clear. No change in the calcification of lungs since earliest films of 1956. VITAL CAPACITY 4-17-57 2-9-59 2-15-62 1091 1051 911 F23358 1889 41 MT-PWHD-011522 si 4 JZPECCrrZRER AND INSULATOR LS3HZR, FR. X B. 1,*? Rose A'-sr.us, Apt A Ljtg Betci 13, California 9C3: 5=27-21 ECS; 4-16-51 I"T: <!=i -1 4-22-19 12-9-28 2-1e-?r *.?51 2-21-52 X-EA.Y: Negative Negative Negative B3al markings slightly accentuated last film*. Basal markings accentuated. NCO. No change sines 2-16-50. * ** 4* 4 2-11-39 2-15-62 VITAL CAFACITT 10CX 1057. 811 iiitell/ RCY 1c. -.a.- C . tJUOTa Avenue 2s rear. Grove, California 903: 1-28-09 ECO: >;-22-55 EAIE. X-RAY; 4-22-55 11-1=-.-7 Negative Negative Negative 7-:-5S 2-5-50 9-25-61 . -* I-2-Ms- Negative Essentially negative. Hilar markings accentuated. Heart ar.d lungs are unchanged from < There are a few calcified nodes in No evidence of fibrosis seen. Lnpre No change sir.ee 2-9-60. 4-17-57 2-9-59 2-9-63 2-15-S2 VITAL CAPACITY 891 104X 941 851 . F23357 PAGE 22 C c 1888 o 42 MT-PWHD-011523 PIPECOVZRER AMD INSULATOR PACE 23 2SAC LEAK PETER J. 1218 Ihllta Redondo Beach, California OB: 2-7-98 ZGD: 11-15-54 BATE: 10-54 3-13-56 'r*r---/m 11-15-56 <CTT 11-18-57 1958 9-24-58 12-9-58 7-9-59 3 2-18-60 9-13-60 10-18-60 19S1 2fl-62 X-RAY: Negative Slight increase hilar and linear lung markings, heart not enlarged, ling calcification aortic knob. Impression: No specific diagnostic disease pulmonary. ' " Negative Negative le-exaa fails to confirm findings of 70 millimeter exam. The heart and lungs and mediastinum are essentially negative for age group. Negative Calcified aortic knob. Negative Calcified aortic knob left vendrical somewhat enlarged. Lungs essentially negative. Negative ' Negative Bilar markings prominent and pulmonary markings accentuated. Review and comparison of films shows normal heart and lungs. Ho change since 2-8-60. . 4-17-57 2-9-59 2-8-fiC 2-15-62 VITAL CAPACITY 801 83X 901 57X MARES, TAFT T. 9225 LaRosa Drive Temple City, California D05: 10-18-09 EOD: 3-14-55 DATE: *\iV.TA 10-6-53 X-RAY: Negative i -11-55 9S-14-56 Negative = PA Chest: Moderate accentuation of lung markins which suggest slight peribronchial fibrosis. Heart shadow normal. Xa?ressioa: No active disease or specific diagnostic findings. 11-15-56 Negative . 11-18-57 Negative 4-28-58 12-9-58 Negative Negative 1891 7-9-59 Negative 2-15-60 Negative 7-9-59 (continued Negative page 24) F23360 43 MT-PWHD-011524 . ?-T.:C073REES AND INSTXATORS ^ TAFT T. (continued from page 23) PAGE 24 .v * ;r * << Negative Negative Bronco vascular markings accentuated, suggestion of small air pocket at extreme end (laterally) Right side at level on fifth rib enterially. Normal Nsreal, no change since 2-13-60. VITAL CAPACITY 1151 997. 827. y&zzzr:, warden a. F?=k Circle, Apt #17 1 r:j 3rich, California C * ' RATED ELIGIBLE PE!INC X-RAY READINGS f *-----------------------...................... 7A7LIS. STEVEN P. t I'7: Chestnut Avenue l t. j .r R-ich, California I X-RAY } Negative fc "CiLMICK, DONALD B. L -/. el side Avenue Lj-.g California TCI: ;-14-73 ECU: 2-7-31 i?-r7 *t-r? *: *mtr * m * X-RAY: DATE: VITAL CAPACITY Negative 4-17-37 105X: Negative 2-9-59 931 Negative 2-15-62 70Z Negative Transverse fissure prominent. Pulmonary markings throughout both lung fields definitely prominent. Negative No appreciable changes Markings not chsnged since 1960. Very feint fibrotlc changes are preaent. F23359 44 189r MT-PWHD-01152  -. r-^^>*s^sa^SfalK -JT_-v rr.7A.;-. _ TgECWKRERS AMD INSHLATORS PAGE 25 MCWHERTER, JOT L. 5703 Silva Lakewood, California fiCB: 1-3-17 EQD: 9-10-56 PAIZ: ;-is 11-13-56 11-18-57 12-11-58 2-11-60 9-13-60 1961 3-2-62 X-EAX Negative Negative ' Negative Negative Bller and basal marklogs accentuated Negative No appreciable changes. Pulnonary Barkings and hilar are accentuated, No change since earlier fila 2-11-60 VITAL CAPACITY 4-17-57 2-25-60 2-15-62 120Z 114Z 109Z MILROY, RAYMOND B. 17626 Jersey Avenue Aftesia, California DOB: 5-4-04 EOD: 1-19-51 DAIZ: X-RAY a-14-36 11-18-57 12-9-58 7-9-53 2-15-60 1961 4-16-62 No diagnostic findings Negative Negative Negative Elevated right diaphragm. Transverse fissure prominent. Otherwise essentially negative. Hilar narkings accentuated. No appreciable changes from last repo: Negative 4--57 2-9-59 ^l6-62 VITAL CAPACITY 80Z 89Z 56Z 1893 SPA ] m F23362 45 MT-PWHD-011526 27ICC7SPERS AND INSULATORS PACE 26 monies, juan 11132 Robert Lace 2 tri-in Gr<xra, California ZC3: *-2-03 ZO: 3-12-51 >5 -* / 22-3-58 2-12-50 * -*'3/ --cAl :-15-62 X-RAY Negative Inferior lung markings increased revealing some evidence of peribronchial fibrosis. No specific diagnostic findings. Negative Negative Changes in lower lung fields are typical of mild fibrosis. Basal markings accentuated. No appreciable changes from last film Kb appreciable changes noted. Very minimal fibrotlc changes. No evidence of active disease. This man has least chutes of any film .-<= have reviewed in the recent series. Negative VITAL CAPACITY 2-17-57 2-;-:3 2-22-52 _ t C_ 1007. 10CZ B4Z 73Z MCCFZ, MELVIN _:7: Kf'gr.olia Avenua Ssich 6, California 2C5; S-i-18 ECO: 12-14-59 & 11-15-60 ?AIZ: ir-:-:? 1151 ?.*. e*: X-RAY Negative Pulmonary markings accentuated in the right middle lobe. Negative Comparing with older film there are no appreciable changes. Negative Normal PA Chest: Normal. N) change since 2-9-60. VITAL CAPACITY 2-12-52 8IZ !II 4 . F23361 1892 46 MT-PWHD-011521 1 5* TirecarEREJLS asd insulators MDSES, ASKOLD 2575 ices Avenue Loss Beach, Cillfdr&lt face 27' faCBD:: 9-1-02 4-25-60 DAZE: X-BAI 11-17-48 4-1-49 2-11-52 12-17-52 6-28-54 6-29-55 7-9-56 5-27-57 11-7-57 3-29-60 9-13-60 1961 9-28-61 3-5-62 Negative . Chest essentially negative Negative negative Negative Essentially negative chest. Essentially negative chest. Negative Negative Essentially negative Negative Left ventricle prominent. Lungs essentially negstlve Normal FA Chest: Normal No change. - . f . ^ '4 . 2-15-62 VITAL CAPACITY 491 MDTES, J. T. 1312 Lome Vista Drive Long Beach, California DOB: 12-10-19 ECO: 7-11-62 BATED ELIGIBLE PENDING X-RAY READINGS KIDEVZR, VADE C. 9920 LaReina Avenue Dovsey, California DOS: 1-8-36 EGD: 9-11-56 DAZE: VITAL CAPACITY 6aTE: Z-RAY 4-17-57 1121 9-10-56 11-15-56 11-18-57 12-9-58 7-9-59 2-15-60 Kb <9-22-60 o 1961 9-28-61 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Pulmonary markings slightly accentuated. Negative No appreciable changes, pulmonary markings accentuated Negative F23364 1895 47 MT-PWHD-011523 T~TZZC^ZRERS AND INSULATORS PAGE 28 CVZTS. ROBERT A. 11 -12 Ptlomar Street V rtrlutsr, California TO*: 4-13-31 'CD: -J-ll-55 < TAIZ. X-RAY: r.rc 11-1S-57 23.-?-3 5 2-11-60 r-13-63 15:1 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Broncho-vasc Barkings accentuated Negative VITAL CAPACITY .-iei 4-17-37 102Z PARR, FRED 4116 Vast Kent 5a:_tn Ana, California y DC': 6-3-95 2CD: 8-32 TA2Z: X-RAY: C 1-1?-31 --1 1-14-33 3-l>:5 11-6-55 E-l-37 5-17-38 -15-39 3-15-50 2-l!-l 2-13-62 PA Chest: Negative Prominent pulmonary artery shadow left. Left paratracheal node calcified. Flbro-calcific density 1/2 cs in L2 and L7 anteriorly. Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Ql'AHS, LOYD F. 21321 tfeyler Street L/r-t-ce, California TO3: 9-2-17 XOD: 2-17-59 DATE: 2-25-60 VITAL CAPACITY 84Z TATE: Mi-59 5-12-50 1* 9a*1* t-- J. X-RAY DATE: Negative 9-28-61 Negative 2-11-62 Pulmonary markings accentuated F23363 X-RAY Negative Negative 1894 MT-PWHD-011529 TIPBCOVF.KEBS AMD INSULATORS FACE*29 RAPP, 10BZRT C. 185 Zimeno Avenue Lour Beach 3, California JOB: 10-13-01 BCD: 7-25-54 PATE: X-IAT 1-18-52 11-15-56 11-18-57 4-24-58 7-9-59 2-10-60 9-4-60 1961 3-1-62 * 4-17-57 C 4-3-58 I 2-9-59 2-8-60 2-15-62 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Hod. Bottling of lung parenchyma bilaterally indicative of involve ment of lung vith asbestoaii. Diffuse aottllng of both lung flelde Indicating pulmonary . parenchymal involvement vith aebeetoels. No change from previous films. . No changes since last report. This Is definite pulmonary lnfiltratioc FA Chest: There are considerable fibrotlc changes In both lung fi*!d* There has been no change since our earliest film 2-10-60. The tlry calcification In the right base seems clear at this examination du? to less motion-blurring vith hi-speed techniques on a cev machine. UAL CAPACITY 75X 69X 75X 75X 54X . < RIGSBY. HALTER C. 18510 Falda Avenue Torrance. California DOB: 9-24-17 BCD: 6-7-62 DATE: Z-SAY 6-5-62 6-6-62 6-8-62 Negative FA Chest: Normal Negative. 1GPCZYCZI. GERALD K. 6522 Tillamook Westminster, California DOB: 10-7-32 BOD: 2-27-53 1897 DATE: Z-tAY (continued on page 30) F23366 ' Of 43 MT-PWHD-01153 TTTECOTERERS AND INSULATORS PACE 30 F.CICEYwKI, GERALD M. (continued from page 29) f. r* Negative No definite diagnostic findings. Slight prominent root markings and linear shadows Negative Negative Negative Transverse fissure proainent, including the basal markings. No appreciable changes. Negative Negative. Ho change since 2-16-60 VITAL CAPACITY 4-17-;? L-5-.T9 L-1J-62 132* 941 75* RCSS, LEONIDAS J. IT?!3 South San Pedro Street m . . ..j Los Angeles 6, California - ! DOS: 9-19-19 ZCT: 4-16-51 #; DATE: , X-RAY 4-4-55 ? * 4 :.i-9-'s 5-L2-&3 I3fi 5-T5-5* Negative Negative Negative Transverse fissure prominent. Essentially negative. Negative No appreciable changes Negative NO change since 3-7-60. VITAL CAPACITY 4-!.7-T7 97* 74* RCT. GEORGE F. JR. ) 4650 Vest 254th Street E*rb->r_ City, California 203: 15*2-25 PCI: 4-27-52 2-26-62 Negative X-RAY Examination of chest is essentially negative PA Chest: Accentuated root, perlhilar and basal lung markings especially left where peribronchial infiltrate fibrosis and some reticidum of lung markings present. Fine calcified strippling questionable. Impression: NO specific diagnostic findings for ) ' F^S&c5Us`l" 50 1896 O MT-PWHD-011531 PXFDCOVERERS AND INSOLAIORS PAGE 31 SCHERER, CHARLES R. 1713 Wot 24/ eh Street Ionite, California DOB: 9-17-33 ECS: 9-8-38 and 7*5-51 SAXE 9-3-38 12-9-58 7-9-59 2-16-60 9-13-60 1961 9-28-61 z-uz Negative .. ' Negative . Negative - , Ttaaaveree Piaaura alightly prominent otherviae aaaestially negative* Negative 4 So appreciable changes Negative SHELBY, ORVETT V. 2C08 North Faroelee Avenue Compton, 4. California DOB: 9-18-23 ZQD: 10-19-53 DAZE Z-HAI 10-9-53 3rl5-56 c 11-18-57 4-24-58 12-9-58 7-9-59 2-10-60 9-13-60 9-28-61 2-21-62 Negative No dlagnoetic findInga. Negative Negative Negative Negative Eeaentially negative Negative Ho change Normal* No change elace 2-10-60* VITAL CAPACITY 4-17-57 2-9-59 2-25-60 2-15-62 901 1001 92X 73Z SHORE, TILLMAN H. *560 Nevada Street Apt #8 Long Beach, California DOB: 10-31-10 COD: 7-17-52 * *i /ft w DATE: Z-RAY 7-16-52 Normal 11-15-56 Negative (continued on page 32) F23368 1899 51 TTTECCTSRER AND INSULATOR PAGE 34 rrOi/TTON, JOHN A. 711.3 Lullaby Lace ?-srcton, California ?C?: 8.7-20 ICO: 2=16-52 c X-RAY >17-52 4-2-75 11-18-57 12-3-78 7.-1 f-f 2 - -cl-r.i-r: Negative Shows scarring in left cardiophremc angle. There Is no evidence of an acute process at this time. Negative Negative Essentially negative No appreciable changes Negative Negative. No chszge since 2-15-50. VITAL CAPACITY 11CZ 947. 75Z `' HAPJ5, JOHN M. 1M1 Ohio Avenue Beech. California TC5: 7-12-96 rrv 3-1-62. this is unchanged since our earliest films of 2-12-60. C ZaZ2z X-RAY: 4-17-57 VITAL CAPACITY 647. 1-8-59 557. w.' - -;.;f Negative Negative Negative Negative 2-25-60 2-15-62 507. 467. Negative There is a plate like atelectasis in right lower lung. The diaphrass axe depressed and flattened. & the costo phrenic : 8 ' a.-^ A o--,!-78 sulci are obliterated. Lung parenchyma and heart are essentially negative. Impression: Residual old inflaamitory disease. No change since 12-4-57. ' Mild emphysema right costophrenic angle obliterated due to thickened pleura. Basal markings accentuated. Heart normal. Impression: (1) .Early fibrosis of the lung. (2) Mild emphysema. Suggest clinical evaluation. :-::-29 *-1*1-29 Plural thickening and adhesions right costo phrenic angle. Hilar and basal markings accentuated. Heart not enlarged. There is some progression of the pathology as described 12-18-58. >12-52 No appreciable change in comparison with previous films. Hilar markings accentuated. Mild fibrosis of tha parenchyma of both lower halves of lung fields. Basal markings accentuated. Negative. 5k! 'S 19 oV PA Chest: The RML region still shows some increased marking. F23369____ MT-PWHD-011533 pifecoveeee aid insulator FACS 33 tz. JACQUZ, JOHN J. 4 American Gold Star Barnes Long Beach 10, Csliforais ^OB: 3-12-13 Id): 3-11-61 DATS: 3-9-61 X-BAX Negative SULLIVAN, DANIEL (NMI) 4181 Green Street Los Alsaitos, Cslifornis DOB: 4-7-03 EOD: 4-4-61 DATE: X-RAI: 3-27-61 9-28-61 3-6-62 Negative Normal FA Chest: The center is 16/30 with slight prominence o the let ventricle. The lung fields are deer. Impression: Minor cardiae enlargement. NCD 2-15-62 VITAL CAFACITT 52X THOMAS, WILLIAM A. 11865 East Centralis Artesia, California DOB: 7-2-16 BCD: 1-19-51 DATE: X-BAY 1-23-56 12-19-56 5-26-58 7-9-59 2-12-60 2-1-61 2-21-62 Negative Within normal limits, light hilar shadow. Lungs dear. Negative Transverse fissure prominent otherwise essentially negative. No appreciable changes in comparison with previous film. Normal 4-17-57 2-11-59 2-15-62 VITAL CAFACITT 1101 991 ill : ' -= 1901 F23370 MT-PWHD-011534 'w H P1PEC07ERERS AKD INSTLAIORS PACE 32 f WEST, KENNETH N. vJ-1 37f 3 San Ansel Ir.; Long Seath, California *=SC3: 1-3-26 SOD: 11-9-60 X-RAY: 11-S-6D 5-28-61 3-5-62 Negative Negative PA Chest Normal* VITAL CAPACITY 2-13-62 1115 WHEELER, RAYMOND S. 15723 Fatuity Av e:.w 5-Ilflower, California DOS: 6-29-06 EOD: 1*22-51 DAIS: . C 11-13-57 12-9-59 7-9-59 - i. 1 2-S-c0 5-12-60 5-23-51 * ^ X-RAY: Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Normal. No change since 2-9-67* A f=v old calcified 5, exist in the right hiium. - 5-17-57 4-2-33 2-5-59 *>_' r.{2 VITAL CAPACITY 967. 821 83Z 68X WILLIAMS, RAYMOND 0. wi2 E. 120th Street iat Acgales, California DOS: 1-27-19 EOD: 5-8-51 2AIZ: X-RAY 3-7-61 o jm Normal F23371 1902 54 MT-PWHD-011535 MT-PWHD-011536 )) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUREAU OF EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION 305 Golden Goto Avenue * Sob Francisco 2, California September 18, 1S62 General File Conzaendins Officer Lon2 Beech ICsval Shipyard Lon' Beach 2, California Attn: C. V. Kricger Safety Officer Dear Sir: We wioh to acknowledge your letter of August 9, 1962, and enclosures, concerning enplo/ecs of the Lon^ Beach Ravel Shipyard who Imve been exposed to asbestos. The enclosures have been carefully reviewed by Dr. Chas. R. tollary. District Medical Director, and by Supervisory Claims Exar.dr.ers in this office. It is the consensus here that while the ttsdical data presented points to a significant problem in Industrial . safety, there presently is no basis for the initiation cf any action by the F.urcau. The suaacries will, however, be of material assistance to us in adjudication if any of the employees develop evidence cf injury or disability and aubmit a request for compensation. Examinations such as you have sussested appear to coze within the scope of a preventative medical program and are not authorised by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. Too, the information presented does not appear to be such as to pemlt this office to determine which cases should be reported to the Bureau es injuries. We can say that if any employee believes he has sustained injury from exposure to asbestos, whether such belief la on the basis of the reported results of periodic chest examinations or otherwise, such employee should lsaediately complete a notice of Injury on Form C.A. 1, which should be retained until required to be submitted to the Bureau with Form C.A. 2 pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.3 of the Bureau's reguladons. . {/ 55 MT-PWHD- Once the employee has given the required notice of injury and filed his original claim for compensation (C.A.l) with the Bureau, we would be able to authorize such further examinations as might be necessary to reach a firm 4iagnosis. 'However, this is not to suggest that each employee named in your enclosures should complete Form C.A. 2. Whether an employee should be Informed of possible abnormal findings seemingly rests upon the judgment of the physician staking the examination. We are aware that the information herein will provide little if any assistance in meeting your problem. While the Bureau has an Interest in preventing injuries, the benefits which are authorized under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act can only be extended after the Injury has been sustained (or alleged) -- not before. Very truly yours A. B. Schroeder Assistant Deputy Commissioner f121229 56 MT-PWHD-011538 MT-PWHD-011539 5 June 1963 CVK/yrah (185) lOtaSANOON rra: Code 185 Xb: Code 150 9ubj: Asbestoe V ; wndical information concerning 1. Alter the 6wu ci s. llUrt (ia; t? la July 1962, Mr. Veb Ay approached Mr. Meeker and wyself on the object of aebestsale. Bis eouearn was the possibility of Shop 56 employees having contracted this disease, bowing that to work vith asbestos alaost certainly Beans breathing it, Mr. Ay asked Chat the sea be examined and told of the findings. Mr. Meeker agreed with this. The Safety Division in August of 1962 prepared a "Besueae of Diagnosis*' for each of these cwqsloyees. The ooly conclusions one could reach ms chat: (1) X-rays are inconclusive and. (2) the opinions of the Eeonlgennligiet differ widely, this opinion was born out by Dr. Bobbins. 2. 2t was decided that in February 1963 the Dispensary would taka large (14X17) X--rays and have thea read by Dr. Cure toe free the D SiiS ^hAYSH. Hr. Cure ton spoke to we and said that X-rays vara In conclusive unless they vere tied into s full dinled evaluation. After reading the latest X-rays, Dr. Cureton reported that there were indications of two (2) cases of Moderate asbestosls, oeven (7) case* of alnlaal asbeetos Is and six (6) esses of equivocal winiwsl asbestosls. . 3. In the lnferla (August 1962) I wrote to the Bureau of Ecployees' CocpcDtation. Sam Francisco, asking then for s clinical evaluation cf all our suspected eases and Mr. Schroeder, Deputy Comal sc toner, replied that the examinations that I suggested cone within the scope of pre ventative nedical progrs and could cot be authorised l>> the Bureau. Based on this Information I asked Captsin Bobbins 11 ve could seek oeristance of an outside Clinic and be agreed that we could explore tfce possibilities. Based on tbis Z contacted Dr. Ellstad of the Mcasritl Medical Center, Dr. Ell seed is willing to give a clinical ex.i-.ination to the fifteen (15) suspected cases feze fer of $^10.00 each. The ranInation would take eight (8) hours 7i*S*'. each and Includes $40.00 worth of tests at Meiaorlal Hospital. Dr. Owsbey and % Z reported this to Dr. Bobbins sad he suggested that vc wait until 13 June when the three representatives fran 0. 5. Public Health Service are here to study our asbestos problem. 4. Zf thaa* an Mr* of the opiaioo that this evaluation would be practical mod iafaoutlvt X would like to rtcoaMd that we aacabllab contract with fir. Kllscad for this work. |i i i I l I 1 I t J 58 MT-PWHD-011541 *-'3S&Sgrin...................... >J ( Proyosod phy*ic*l ajuatlaatloa of oar largera by Dr. I^tvIa Ell*tad, K.S. t Heaortil Bospltal, Un| Daacfc Blatory and Pfegraical l-Uy SC tmi mod VriamijiiA teporc Pulaooary Function #28.00 910.00 5*00 * <** *A--A 110.00 940.00 Total par Potlaat $110.00 i i i ! { 59 MT-PWHD-01154 MT-PWHD-011543 INTERKAL MEDICINE E LL!STON FARRELL. M. D. MYRVIN H. ELLESTAD. M.D. OSCAR W. SHADLE. M.D. ATLANTIC AVENUE LONG BEACH 6,CALIFORNIA May 27, 19C5 ) CAVliLO 6*3333 Mr. C.V. Kriegcr Safety superintendent Long Feach Kavel Shipyards Long Beach 2 , California Dear Mr. Krieger: As agreed upon during ey last visit, X am uriting yet! this letter pre senting as a Fores! plan the arrangnent for performing the pulror.ary function tests on the ten in your shipyard who have dust exposure. Those especially with asbestos and others will fibre glass cr other potential noxious dust preparations. It is vy proposal that ve cxacinn 6C ten annually for a charge of $5C.C0 a piece. This will be a total of $5,CC0.CC annually. As you knov, this cxu >iration will te to evaluate the potential dangers I of the dust-laden atrosphere that they are exposed to and will help us pick out the rer. who ore having serious lur.g dacage prior to the full blown development of syrptoes. Thar.k you very much for your consideration in this regard, 1 Sincerely yours. SI M12:rb Kyrvin E. El tested, M.C. Director, Cerdiopulsor.cry laboratory Memorial Hospital of Long Beach |Tl21235 60 MT-PWHD-011544 MT-PWHD-011545 f( j:iCR*JfDUM EXHIBIT #--'T' , ,J WITNESS #. G.i.UhZkiN Pete S. Hunt, h ` pre I - Ofii^n ns in 10 June 1$C5 Fro": Code lSj To: Cods 150 SubJ: AsbestosIs Study) funding requirements 2nd: (1) Affected Pipe Coverer & Inculitors i 1# Dr* \tyrvla H. Elected, Director, Canliopulmnary Laboratory, Long i Beach Ikn-orlnl Horpl td, h?.a be-in ruuninj tods on our aebostos worU'rs | for the past tvo i-J.'-xo. Dr. Bilestad would 11 to contlruv* these ctulles L to i* to pick out nr.bestoe workers vho my hv/o serious lung <Lirupe prior H to Aha full blown dcvelop/cnt of sycsptotJB. ! | 2. In the post we hove depended on X-rey diagnosis end feund that In all [ coses the nan voa Incaj-ecitated due to acbcstosls before the diagnosis [ was *.oie. Since I&56 ve have hod 2 deaths due to asbestos is, and numerous | cases of esbestosis (see enclosure (1))* 1 ! 3. Dr. Ellestad was Instrumental In procuring test e^,ulr:jent now located In L nj Boa'h .`fcriorlal Hospit-J, and he has requested funis to continue ' this stuJy froa the California Tuberculosis ar.d Health Association. | t. It Is proposed that theLonj Beach Havel Eh Inyard pay the nodical ^ .echolclans at the Ifcmrlal Hospital at the rate of $50.CO per patient per V year, There are 62 mechanics, 13 helpars, 6 s\;perviscr6 and 6 apprentices 1 on beard aV this tl.*, 12 of the mechanics and 3 helpers are temporary cr.r>l:yeco cal should not be Included la the program; this vvuld le-.ve f2. In edition, It Is proposed that5 ^cn wor:Ing with plastic and 5 :*n I wor :lr3 with glass be Intrcduced Into the prolan as pilot groups. The annual cost to the Shipyard would tnen be $4,100.00. I 5* If this coney con be node available I will ask Dr. Ellestad to go f ahead with the program. i 1 1 1 1! I I | j ! j j j ' j Copy to: I Dr. Ehsted (2) 8 Cede "CO Code 940 Code 936 ^ Webb Ay C. T. XREC2R /sv. 5f~ 7T^ /y*C/i < t+f / F23237 394 G1 MT-PWHD-011546 I /o MT-PWHD-011547 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY SAFETY PRECAUTIONS FOR SHORE ACTIVITIES NAVSO P-2453 APRIL 1963 '' Reviewed and Approved: <5?. ')utrzrcSQ^ - R. L. MOORE, JR. Chief of Industrial Relations For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. LT-S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $2.75 I \ - \< * MT-PWHD-011548 Hazardous Materials health hazard in the cleaning of leaded gasolinc storage tanks (see 2020.3). 5. Mercury. Absorption of comparatively large amounts of mercury or its compounds by ingestion or inhalation can result in acute poisoning (kidney damage) which may be fa tal, Chronic poisoning resulting from long exposure is usually manifested in damage to the nervous system or by mental disturb- ' ances. One of the principal hazards in Navy industrial activities with respect to mercury is involved in the Tilling of mercury manome ters commonly used in measuring pressures and fluid flow in various equipments and : processes. The careless handling of mer cury in this operation many times results in accumulations of spilled mercury on table tops, floors, etc. such that hazardous mer cury vapor concentrations may develop if the space is confined and ventilation is inade quate. See article l70S.2a for appropriate precaution/and decontamination procedures. 6. Zinc. Although zinc fumes are not highly toxic and do not appear to produce chronic symptoms or cumulative effects, the common occurrences of the annoying and sometimes disabling transient effects is worthy of mention. The welding or torch cut ting of galvanized steels and casting of brass and bronze occasionally result in the occur rence of metal-fume fever (fever and chills) and any such operations should be performed with adequate ventilation or suitable respira tory* protection. DUSTS h 2058. MINERAL DUSTS Certain mineral dusts are pneumoconiosis f (a pathological lung condition produced by r mineral or metallje dust inhalation) produc- .ng. The most prevalent and insidious forms are silicosis.and asbestosis caused by pro longed inhalation of dusts (or mists) contain . ing silica and asbestos. 1. Silicosis. Silicosis has long been rec- > ognized as en occupational disease in such ; industries as mining and quarrying. The dam age done is permanent and progressive with .continued exposure. In its more advanced . stages, it is evidenced by shortness of breath, decreased chest expansion, lessened capacity for work, and increased susceptibil- i ity to tuberculosis and other lung diseases. ! Therefore, any operations which create ap- prectable quantities of silica (quartz, princi pally) such as in sand blasting should be well ventilated and, if necessary, personnel should wear appropriate respiratory protec tion. 2. Asbestosis. The effects of asbestosis are similar to and just as disabling as those of silicosis. There is evidence, however, that the handling of asbestos products in the Navy are not so well controlled, if the preva lence of cases of asbestosis is any indica tion. Exposure to asbestos dust is usually encountered in the installation, repair, and removal of insulating pipe covering used principally aboard ship. The following pre cautions should be taken in any dust making operations involving asbestos products:' a. Provide permanent general ventila tion in areas where dust producing operations aire usually performed. ' b. Install exhaust hoods over saws and other dust making machine tools. . c. Require workers to wear dust res pirators where dusty operations cannot be adequately ventilated. d. Use industrial vacuum cleaners in lieu of dry sweeping of floors and other sur faces. RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS 2059. GENERAL Thc precautions applicable to the use and it ".torago of hazardous radioactive materials j? - arc adequately covered by manuals and in. struc-tions issued by the.bureaus and offices of the Xavv Department. For reference pur- . 20-22 . f 128099 63. // MT-PWHD-011550 0180 2729 L'i 4 -J DEPARTMENT Or THE NAVY MAVAi. SHIP SYSTEMS COMMAND . `WASHINGTON. 0<C. UiM '* /y In ^wnfKutte ' * * NAVSKIPSIXS7 5*00.26 071): JC :l*o Str 70-07D 9 February 1571 * 1 . K.WSnTPS INSTRUCTION 5100.26 .. . |* . * * *< ; V* **r --*-------- From: Commandery Naval Ship Systems Command *!< . t ' { r ; j; ! *.! . Subj: Asbestos Exposure Hazaras; control of . ' Asfs .' (a) MTL-STD 7690 of 15 Nov 1969# Thermal Insulating iU^uira>n*. . for Machinery and Piping * .* j I. i (b) NAVSHIPS Technical Manual 8390 of Sap 1967 ? ' - * * i (c) NAVMAT P-5100 "Safety Precautions for Shore Activities"-' ; ` (d) KAVMA.T P-10470 "Safety Equipment Manual" ? i . :v - i . - -iti r* i-.r Enel: (l) Suggested Warning Signs - * - *!' -^ 1. P'^no^f. To prescribe appropriate safety precautions of asoestos. ( 2. ."PnckrrouTid. S during the use a. Asbestos is a broad tern applied to a group of fibrous minerals such as amosite, ch7/cuile, erocicolite, etc.# composed of silicates of iron, sodium# calcium and/or magnesium. ' b. The nost critical use of asbestos in the Navy from a safety I'jcwjcint is in the fabrication# installation, repair or removal of pipe u'i toiler insulation materials. Some workers sustain accidental con- urir- cither while employed in various caps cities where asbestos products an* processed or when working in plant areas in which an environmental dilution of the'air exists due to asbestos. The severe effects of *.r.tp-ftos on the lungs is the sain factor for considering the elimination n* anbestos as an insulation material on piping# ducts and boilers, inferences (a) and (b) set standards of materials which are to be used. Yi.onc references will be reviewed periodically and changed as necessary to reflect the use of new materials that meet or exceed the standards tiov in use. Reference (c) also provides guidance on precautions ' regard ing asbostos* 3. Action. The following safety precautions will *os observed ty all supervisors and workers engaged in the fabrication# installation and/or reanval (rip-out) of asbestos-containing insulation/material. Th# pro visions of this instruction will be effoctivg as of this date. The provisions of this instruction are considered as minimum health and safety roquircMcnts; more stringent restrictions may be applied by local CoMhAnUors* . ------ * __ _ F26304 64 S202 PATRICIA RUBY, N.P. ^ _ - Wt: Ik-*4544 MT-PWHD-011551 t 018^730 ) VSKIPSINST 5100.26 February 1971 h a. Fabrication! * * ** I \ ;* . !- * ! (l) Asbestos operations should be segregated from other oporations so as not to expose other personnel to asbestos dusts. Zf tho work cannot be separated, personnel in immediately adjacent areas irill wear a Bureau of Mines approved respirator for irritant dusts and c>h<r prescribed, personal, protective equipment. The various items of personal, protective equipment will be those approved by the Industrial Hygienist, the Medical Officer, or as authorized by reference (d). I (2) The handling and fabrication areas will be restricted to the necessary workers, supervisors and inspection personnel directly concerned with the asbestos operations. Casual visitors or passers-by will be restricted from entry into any area where asbestos containing tutorials are being fabricated. All supervisors, workers, inspectors, : etc., will wear approved respirators for irritant dusts whan they are forking with dry material containing asbestos or are in asbestoe-con- laminated areas of work spaces. * (3) Asbestos cloth cutting tables or benches provided with 8-lej*;*iVe local exhaust ventilation should be used whenever cutting aerations are performed. Exhaust air containing asbestos dust will not > dispersed into the atmosphere without being adequately filtered, titers will be carefully changed or cleaned to prevent atmospheric con to mi ration. . (4) ?over saws will be located in a suitable enclosure which Ls equipped with exhaust ventilation to a filter trap. This exhaust .-ntilntion will be independent of the shop ventilation supply/exhaust system. The switches will be interlocked eo that the exhaust system . operates at all times while the saw blades are In operation. (5) Suitable waste containers lined with disposable plastic will b provided at each cutting table/fabrication operation. Bis- carded nnd scrap asbestos materials will be immediately placed in plastic >Lrir;s w'nich are then sealed for disposal. Scrap should be disposed of on h daily basis. . I (6) The Industrial Hygienist or Medical Officer will recommend `he exi'.ct method and place of disposal of asbestos dusts and acrap to tinimisa exposures. f* (7) Shop valla, ceiling and floors should bs designed to . s;*vent dust accumulations and to facilitate housekeeping measures. -i ' .) F26305 65 545 MT-PWHD-011552 T-- 01 SO 2?J1 :. * ... ** ' * \ . IUVSKIPSINSI 5100.26 . ' '9 February 1971- * ! r11 ` (8) Industrial typa veccua cleaners should be used to pick up dusts and scrap. The vacuus cleaner operator will wear an approved ' . respirator when operating his cleaner. The water impaction collection ' < ' system vacuums best and safely. 3ey sweeping of scrap or dust should * 4 not be permitted. If sweeping is necessary, the scrap and possible dust. :. . will be wet down with a fine water spray prior to sweeping. Drop cloths ( will be placed under work tables er areas if scraps and dust will fall Into difficult to clean areas or crsvicas. ` ` * i. : : : : 1 * * J4 "f (9) Asbestos cloth or tape will cot be torn or ripped. ' i Scissors or cutting knives will hs used. - ' ' ' '< : , .. . , : ' ' ' (10) In-Shop oporntioas for mixing of all cements will be ;i j * provided with permanent exhaust ventilation equipment. This exhaust air ; ., will not be vented into the shop atmosphere .and sust be adequately . ' * 1 filtered before its release to the outside atmosphere.- In-bsg mixing J . ' may be done without exhaust ventilation so long as bag integrity is ! ` maintained. ' : : . . j : * r . *. : j .` . * * * * i. i (11) The asbestos cloth shall be vet down prior -to fabrication. ' . (12) All regularly assigned insulation workers and supervisors will be given a 14" x 17" annual chest X-ray. This will be cone on the ' .nmo' continuing, periodic bAsis even if the worker is transferred or reassigned into another job title. X-ray films of asbestos workers, active, reassigned or retired;"*ill be specially identified to the con- suiting radiologist to alert him to the need for a special type of v'tporling. Tho health records of insulation workers will be snrkod ' "Aiioeswoe worker" -* * 1 * ' . ' (13) Insulation workers should be provided with clean coveralls nt tho beginning of each shift er as often as needed. The coveralls trill no removed bofore the removal of the respirator end should not be "heaton" to romove excess dusts or scrap adhering to it. Contaminated coveralls will be placed in plastic bags, until disposed of or laundered. (14) Materials will be removed from their cartons or package with care to reduce dust or scrap generation. Vetting of the material prior to removal substantially reduces dust production. (35) The Industrial hygienist will provide at least twice yearly indoctrination talks to all asbestos workers on the proper measures of personal protection against ssbostos exposure. ' . F26306 3 546 MT-PWHD-011553 01 SO 2732 KAVSnlPSINST 5100.26 '* * ' \ 9 February 1971 . . * . . '* . " (16) Adequate warning eigne (enclosure (l) or similar) will* . : be posted at all entrances to the fabrication shop rites to alert workers and other personnel that asbestos operations are in progress. . .! (17) The Industrial Hygienist should cake frequent inspection . . of the Fabrication and Installation sites to check the level of airborne ' contamination. These inspections should be done monthly or aore often j. as rquired. The Threshold Liait Value (TLV) for airborne asbestos is 5 fibers greater than 5 microns per milliliter. If this TLV is exceeded, the Industrial Hygienist will assist the shop foreman in designing : better preventive aeasures to control the airborne eontaaination. * . Asbostos installation, fabrication or removal operations should be sue- pended until the proper TLV can be maintained so aa to proteot the workers and others in the area. : ' ' , *. i (18) Cement bags will be opened wide to permit emptying of the contents without shaking. The material should be made into a slurry as quickly as possibla to prevent dust generation. Empty bags will be wet down and placed in a waste container. - (19) Suitable replacement materials for asbestos will be used uncr.-practicable. Hew or untested replacement materials will be sub- t4icted to K/.VSEC for evaluation and approval prior to usa. : '* ,. b. installation: . ,, (l) Personnel engaged in Installation operations will wear Industrial Hygienist approved respirators whenever asbestos containing **.tennis are being handled. The Medical Officer will be the approval nutnority for any exceptions. . (2) Unpacking and application of insulation materials at the l .r.lxllution site will be done in such a manner that will minimise airborne dust. - (1) The area arour.d the installation procedures should be isolated when possible. Adequate warning signs (enclosure (l)) will be ported. Only persons whose work requires their presence should be per* . Kitted in such areas. If airborne asbestos dust is present, they will whut Bureau pT Mines approved respirators for dusts or leave the ares. - (4) The Industrial Hygienist will be requested to determine su5.table methods for preventing large scale contamination of machinery and engine spaces when installation or removal operations are performed in these areas. - 4 F26307 0180 2753 I * * * ' ' .' KAVSHIPSI74-l00.26 9 February 1971. (5) Suitable waste container# lined with disposable plastic i. * bags will be kept available at the Installation site so that discarded . or scrap insulation naterials can be immediately placed in than. * :*/ ' r. .. * (6) The exact method and place of disposal of scrap asbestos .. and"asbestos dust will be approved by the Industrial Hygienist or the . * j radical Officer. Personnel assigned these tasks will be specifically '' ' ' ` ` ' advisod on needed precautions by the Industrial Hygienist or the shop ' ? ' ' supervisor. '* " ! (7) The ventilation requirements of shipboard or confined ' epooes will be determined by the Industrial Hygienist or Safety Officer ' and will be.in accord with Article 0212 1045-1054 of reference (e). '; . .. * * .. r : \ * (8) Portable dust collectors/industrial-type vacuus cleaners ' should be placed in use at the point of operations within confined .. ; ` ' spaces when possible. ! .% * '` ; ' (9) Decks and spaces contaminated by Insulation debris will : ! ` not be dry swept. These areas Bust be vet down by a fine spray prior ' ' J * : to sweeping (when vacuus cleaners cannot be used). '* *. (10) Workers performing insulation work should be provided . . with''clean poper coveralls when dusty conditions are to be encountered. The coveralls will be removed before the respirator is removed. The coveralls should not be "beater." to remove excess dusts or scraps ad hering to it. Contaminated coveralls will be disposed of cy placement * "* ii the asbestos scrap bag. . . . c. Removal (Rio-Out1 :* .. . (l) Personnel engaged in Removal operations will wear Bureau v* Mi rive approved respirators whenever asbestos containing materials are toing Kindled. The Medical Officer will be the approval authority for .ar.y exceptions. . . . . (2) The area around the Removal procedures should be isolated when possible. Adequate warning signs (enclosure (l)) will be posted. Duly persons whoso work requires their presence will be permitted in ouch areas. If airoorno nebostos dust is present, they will wear 3ureau of Mines approved respirators for irritant dusts or leavs the area. * (3) Tha Industrial Hygianist/fcedical Officer should designate specific procedures to collect scrap and dust in tha saehinasy spaces. . ; . F26308 68 MT-PWHD-011555 jAYSIUPSIMST 5100.26 ' Niibruary 1771 . . .. ', *'/**"* * (4) The area(s ) in which asbestos renovel takes piece will be renrir.ed when possible by means of curtains, portable partitions, drop * sloths, etc., to prevent excessive contamination of other areas. (5) Zb removal operations that Involve dusty work, clean paper overalls will be supplied at the start of each shift; then for lunch, Lite workers will dispose of the dirty coveralls, then dispose of their i-cwpirator filters. After lunch they will put on clean coveralls and .. respirators with new filters. At the end of the ehift all contaminated overalls will be disposed of by placement In the asbestos scrap bags. (6) Suitable waste containers lined with disposable plastio :a<-s will be kept available at the removal alts 00 that discarded or " ;crp insulation materials can be immediately placed in them. v (7) The exact method and place of disposal of aerap asbestos . ir.d asbestos dust will be approved by the Industrial Bygieni styled! cal ''ficer. This is particularly applicable on-board ships and in - nchinery spaces. - (8} High asbestos-containing scrap materiel should be wet down fwrw collection, hauling or dumping. Personnel assigned these tasks ; be specifically advised on needed precautions by the Industrial .cnistor the insulation shop supervisor. * ' (' ' 11 () The ventilation requirements of shipboard or eonfined \ ssc*ss will be determined by the Industrial hygienist or Safety Officer J nd sill to in accord with articles 0212, 1045-105.4 of reference (e). J .(10) Portable dust collectors/ir.dustrial-type vacuum cleaners ;suld b>; placed in use at the point of operations within eonfined .sees. !:.cy may be used to temporarily and partially clean a worker 9 lias to leave the work area for a short time. (11) Decks and spaces contaminated by insulation debris should . dry av-pt. These areas must be vet down by a fine spray prior to (v::-.*n vacuum cleaners cannot be used). (12) A cast cutter similar to the Jfunber 845 STRYKER CUTTER 11 be used when possible during removal operations. This is a cutter *] by doctors to remove plaster easts from patients. Old insulation ubl not bo ripped or torn. It should bo cut whenever possible. The ` il .l'in of a vucuum attachment to the STRYKER CUTTER will materially . 1 In controlling dust generation. This attachment should be used . '* never practicable. .\ 6 * f26309` 0180 2735 'U ! XAVSHIPSIXST 5100< 2o ' 9 February 197) ^ (13) The Industrial Hygienist will periodically evaluate the level of asbestos exposure and reccumend positive measures for dust _ control in various areas. This evaluation should be done at the start * 7 of each new asbestos operation and as often thereafter as the findings indicate to provide effective control over dust producing operations. (14) The use of off-hours work should be considered to minimize the numoer of personnel susceptible to exposure of irritant dusts. d. freoroved Safety Xaterlels/Clotrir.r: (1) The Industrial Hygienist will rocomrumd and approve the various typos of roopiraters, overalls and other needed personal pro tective equipment to be used by personnel engaged in various asbestos operations. Only personal protective equipment approved in accordance with Federal Specification CGC-X-12S, Type III, Classes 1 and 2 as set forth in reference (d) will be used. . (2) Each worker will be responsible for maintaining his rr.pirator end filters in a satisfactory condition. He will wear it in .1 proper manner when working on dust producing operations and during all %:irj *.:-.'^stos removal operations. < (3) Supervisors will enforce the proper use of personal active equipment during all phases of asbestos work. They will .. ".r.,;c for prompt, scheduled physical examinations and I-rays as , v.cribed by the lfodic.il Officer (normally annually). (/.} Supervisors will arrange for an adequate supply of clean . ->lls and new filters for the respirators used by insulation workers. A:r>llcilior. of Substitute ?vit sri.nl s For Asr.estos; (*.) Any proposed materials for use in place of asbestos will : r . ..^jiivtcd to hAVSZC for evaluation and approval prior to use. M*tri lotions V..JL mn iiAVSiilPID FTX3L SiiPSuI? JT'AJb IIIAC7SHIP7AC 7530 5AVSKIPREP7AC *534 FLEACT SASEBO F26310 70 MT-PWHD-011557 0130 2733 lUVSKIPSU.'ST 5100.26 9 JVoruary 1971 i* l 'I 2uST3IC?S0 ACCESS asszgtos TA^szkZic:; xcx asss^og z:g^ajj;.Tio::/?.r? cur wi`uii;;c o? azs;?ERA7Grw iwircc 9 F263111 dcLOSUcu; (i) /( 71 551 MT-PWHD-011 MT-PWHD-011559 VL> v-<. F"X EIO:m(lS5.2) 13 November 1974 MEMORANDUM From: Code 185 To: * Code 100 Via: Code 150 Subj: Asbescos produces carried in Supply Department Ref: Enel: (a) NAVSHIPSINST 5100.26, para 2a(19) ' (b) BUKEDINST 6260.14, para 4e <c) * NAVSHIPYDL3EACHINST 5100.27C, SfuTSU? *2053,2, para 3k (1) Code 185 nemo dated 27 7eb 1974 (2) Recommended policy statement 1. References (a), (b) and (c) all require the use of suitable - replacement materials for asbescos containing material whenever practicable. Enclosure (1) is evidence of this Division*a efforts to restrict the use of asbestos material within this shipyard. 2. A current problem exists in that asbestos material continues to ' be stocked, ordered.and used even though acceptable substitutes arc available. It is this Division's contention chat the asbestor. prnr<-ui will never be resolved until, as>a beginning, we cease UImLiiI ' Dl'i Hi' ' such material. Guidance provided by the references and savings in . future compensation costs dictate that asbestos free material bo ntil..:ou whenever practicable. Presently there arc con (10) former shipyard employees''Of;- their survivors receiving continuing injury compcnsat. or. t for occupational asbestosis (estimated cose approximately $100 chou:..uui dollars per year). . . **" ' 3. To alleviate this problem. It Is requested chat the Shipyard Coimundcr issue a policy statement on this subject. Enclosure (2) is a suggested statement of policy. -. MT-PWHD-011560 AICHT, DICKSON, BROWN 8 BONESTEEL LAWYERS FULTON HAIGHT ROBERT L. DICKSON HAROLD HANSEN BROWN MICHAEL J. BONESTEEL GEORGE C. MCCARTHY GARY C. OTTOSON ELLIOTT D. OLSON KIM H. COLLINS RONALD C. KLINE CHRISTOPHER ROLIN DEAN V. AMBROSE ROY G. WEATHERUP WILLIAM K. KOSKA PETER O. EZZELL DENNIS K. WHEELER STEVEN L. HOCH JOHN W. SHELLER WILLIAM G. BAUMGAERTNER * STEPHEN D.'FLAHERTY JEFFERY J. CARLSON * FORD R. SMITH RALPH A. CAMPILLO * BRUCE A. ARMSTRONG HALL R. MARSTON PETER A. DUBRAWSKI DELOS E. BROWN MICHAEL J, LEAHY LORI R. BEHAR DAVID F. PETERSON JOHN E. CLOUGH ROBERT L. KAUFMAN DEBRA E, POLE WILLIAM J. SAYERS EDWARD L. COMPTON, JR. MICHAEL MCCARTHY EDWARD M. COFFMAN RALPH V. PALMIERI ROXANNE M. WILSON BARRY 2. BRODSKY LINDA J. L. HUNTER GARY M. AARDEMA GARY A. BAGUE LINDA J. BRACKEN ROSANNE M, NOLAN JOSEPH R. ZAMORA J. R. SEASHORE CHARLES S.GOLDMAN LEE MARSHALL WILLIAM G. SCHWEIZER KEVIN R. CRISP DAVID J. FLEMING MARIA ELIZABETH TICSE BRUCE L. CLEELAND C. DUFFY BUCHANAN SIDNEY A. MOSS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION (1893 * 1963) DONALD S. RALPHS GARY W. VERBOON ROBERT L. WASHBURN HAROLD K. PICKERING DENIS J. MORIARTY DESMOND J. HINDS FREDERICK J. UFKES KELLY C* MCSPADDEN RAYMOND A. BRANKER JOSEPH L. GATTUSO MARYANN R. MARZANO GERALD A. KLEIN SUZANNE E. KEATING DAVID L. JONES MARTIN C. BOBAK DAVID REESE JENNINGS THOMAS N. CHARCHUT JULES SOLOMON ZEMAN KATHRYN M. FORGIE SCOTT T. TROPIO MARY J. UEKI WILLIAM A. HANSSEN ROBERT M. DATO VICTOR ANDERSON 3E EDWARD P. KERNS ALEXANDER S. POLSKY MAUREEN A. MCKINLEY GEROLD C. DUNN (1911-1980) CiO Ifak jbj^ sy 201 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD p. o. box eso SANTA MONICA, CA 90406 (213)456-1000 1800 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92701 (7(4) 953-9345 TELECOPIER (213) 393-1581 TELEX 705837 OF COUNSEL GEORGE CLARK LYON CHARLES B. SMITH IN REPLY REFER TO: Mr. Hoch Santa Monica October 29, 1984 Bob Batson, Esq. Manville Corporation Post Office Box 5723 Denver, Colorado 80217 Re: JM Government Litigation - Robinson Dear Bob Enclosed please find the deposition summary of Mr. Kreiger. Mr. Kreiger was the safety inspector at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. His videotaped deposition I thought went very well but I will admit that it is longer than I anticipated. I would think there is approximately four hours worth of usable tape. There were many documents which were of importance in the deposition and they are ones which should be read along with the deposition to give flavor and context to the `' SLH:slw Enclosure cc: Dennis Markusson w/o end. Helen Marsh w/o end. Clark Burnham w/encl. Barbara Diemer w/encl. MT-PWHD-011561 MEMO TO IN RE: MANVILLE CORPORATION JM Government Litigation - Robinson Computer No. 12097 TRIAL DATE: CONFERENCE DATE: TRIAL ATTORNEYS: Haight, Dickson, Brown & bonesteel SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA . SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA October 23/ 1984 SUMMARY OF THE DEPOSITION OF CLIFFORD KREIGER The deposition of Mr. Kreiger was taken pursuant to subpoena on October 3/ 1984 in our office. The undersigned appeared on behalf of Manville/ the United States was represented by Jane Mahoney and Elizabeth Kroop. The deposition was videotaped. IMPRESSION OF WITNESS Mr. Kreiger was a very good witness. He is in his 70s with gray hair and a full gray beard. He speaks very well/ has a decent recall of facts and is forthright in his responses. He very carefully chooses his words, however, he does not come across as being picky. He got visibly angry at some of the questions that were asked of him by the Government. I would say that he would make an above-average witness for Manville. BACKGROUND Mr. Kreiger was a safety supervisor of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard from 1956 through November of 1974, GS 13. He is a high school graduate. He worked for Bethlehem Steel as a welder and chief fire inspector; for the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard as a safety inspector; for the Naval Aviation Depot in Philadelphia as a safety engineer and then for the Long Beach Naval Shipyard as safety superintendent. After leaving LBNS he worked for Cal State University at Long Beach as the Environmental Health and Safety Officer from 1974 to 1981. He is now retired and resides at 6522 Farinella Dr., Huntington Beach, California. LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD 1. Job Function The function of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard was the repair and maintenance of U.S. Navy vessels. It consists of MT-PWHD-011562 MEMO TO IN RE: MANVILLE CORPORATION JM Government Litigation - Robinson October 24 , 1984 Page 2 Haight, Dickson, brown & bonesteel santamonica,California santa ana, California about 350 acres and during the tour of his duty had between 7,000 and 9,000 workers. Under his authority he had two or three safety inspectors, and one compensation clerk, although this fluctuated somewhat during the 18 years he was there. The job of the Safety Supervisor (Code 185) was to advise and counsel other supervisors on safety practices and to run the workman's compensation program. His immediate supervisor was the Industrial Relations officer. He himself as a staff officer has no enforcement powers and would have towork through the chain of command to line officers who do have such power. He indicated that the safety department dealt with traumatic injuries whereas the industrial hygiene department dealt with systemic injuries with the exception of hearing loss, which for some reason or other came under the Industrial Hygiene department. He set up the standup safety meetings and authored the memos sent to tne supervisors which were read to the workers. The purpose of these meetings was to educate the workers. 2. Asbestos Knowledge He was well aware of the job of lagers and what they did. He came to this knowledge before he was at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. They worked outof Shop 56. He believes that by 1956 he had sufficient knowledge because of the beginning of the compensation claims which were diagnosed as asbestos is to say that both the occupation was hazardous and that asbestos could cause asbestosis under certain conditions to insulators. He discussed the problems with Webb Aye around that time and, in fact, he believes after the first compensation claims came in he may have gone to the union for a meeting where he told the workers about the condensation case and advised them to wear protection, to wit respirators wniie working with asbestos due to the asbestosis possibility. The first claims were for Mr. Eades, Mr. Phipps, Mr. Zapato and about seven others. This is how Marr became 'r.tersted in the subjects Kruger did not help Marr in preparing his report. MT-PWHD-011563 MEMO TO IN RE: MANVILLE CORPORATION JM Government Litigation - Robinson October 24, 1984 Page 3 Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA He recalls attending the 1964 conference at the New York Academy of Science where he heard Dr. Selikoff speak. It was his impression that he was the only one from the government there. When he came back he reported to his boss about what he had heard and provided to his boss everything that he collected at the meeting. He believes he wrote a report and gave it to Mr. Hendrickson but does not know what happened to it. He also recalls his travel to the asbestos worker's snion along with Dr. Watkins to hear Dr. Selikoff speak in 1967. He indicated that the material given at that lecture was about the same as that given in '64 with a lot more emphasis on smoking. He believes that Dr. Watkins did not come back with him from the meeting, but rather went on to interview Sheldon Manning who then lived in New Jersey, and hired him. He is quite clear that there was no industrial hygienist at the shipyard from about 1964 until Sheldon Manning came in 1967. All of Bill Marr's books went to him and the equipment went to the chemist. During the time period when there was no industrial hygienist at the shipyard, he can say without any qualification that his department did no asbestos sampling whatsoever, and further did not take up the role of the industrial hygienist at all. There was no one qualified to do that work. He indicated that when Sheldon Manning came to the Shipyard he did hear Sheldon make complaints about not getting assistance, including secretarial help, and having problems with equipment and other such matters. He stated that R. Manning leaned on Sheldon. He did help Sheldon schedule the first insulator meeting to discuss asbestos problems. He recalls the locker room where the insulators changed and that it was small. He knows that in the late '60s they made some changes to it. He heard that after he left that other trades had been claiming that they got asbestosis and he was quite surprised about that. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1: Is the "Grim Reaper" poster which he identified as seeing throughout the shipyard. He wasn't necessarily in favor of it but it was spread around the yard quite a lot. There were also other posters of similar nature warning men to wear their respirators. MT-PWHD-011564 MEMO TO IN RE: MANVILLE CORPORATION JM Government Litigation - Robinson October 24/ 1984 Page 4 Haight, Dickson, brown & Bonesteel santamonica,California santa ana, California Plaintiff's Exhibit 2: Is a document which refreshed his recollection about the trip that he and Olin Meeker (head of Shop 56) took sometime in 1959. They visited Philadelphia, Boston, Portsmith and he believes New York Naval Shipyard. Their reason for this trip was to determine how they were handling asbestos. He indicated that in all places that he went to and spoke to people there, that they all knew that there was some problem with asbestos containing insulation and that there was the possibility of insulators getting asbestosis. He believes he did issue a report after his trip which was delivered to his boss. He doesn't know what happened to the report. Plaintiff's Exhibit 3: Is a letter written by Dr. Robbins, with attachments, to Medical Officer, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, who was the shipyard physician at the time that he and Bill Marr were present at LBNS. It concerns Mr. Phipps. He believes he can identify the transcript of the tape made by Mr. Marr although he never heard it, because he remembers a discussion that he had with Marr and Phipps in which they got some preliminary information which is the same as in the tape. He did, over the years, himself tell Dr. Robbins of the asbestosis workman's compensation claims but doesn't think that Robbins took any particular action. Plaintiff's Exhibit 4: is the Hetzel memorandum of 6/16/61 which was identified. He did call it to the attention of Robbins but doesn't recall what Robbins did. The report was done because Kreiger had some doubts of the validity of the x-ray reading which was being done at the yard on the laggers. They were inconsistent from year to year. He was attempting to rectify the problem. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5: is a letter to Mr. Gray at the Bureau of Employee Compensation dated 9 August, 1962 with attachments. It was information which he forwarded stemming from Hetzel's work. This was also sent to Dr. Robbins and Meeker. Plaintiff's Exhibit 6: was a letter from Mr. Schroeder dated 1962 which rejected Kreiger's request to the Bureau of Employee Condensation for funding of a survey of the shipyard insulators. It was at that time that Industrial Relations funded it themselves and sent the laggers to Long Beach Memorial Hospital to be examined by Dr. Ellstadt. MT-PWHD-011565 MEMO TO IN RE: MANVILLE CORPORATION JM Government Litigation - Robinson October 24 , 1984 Page 5 Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel santamonica,California santa ana, California Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 is the 5 June 1963 memorandum requesting funding at the Ellstadt program. Initially it was to examine fifteen workers suspected of having serious asbestosis. Unfortunately, Mr. Kreiger could not recall what happened to the results. Plaintiff's Exhibit 8: is the Elstadt letter to Mr. Krieger of 27 May, 1965 proposing the testing of 60 laggers. Plaintiff's Exhibit 9: is Kreiger's letter dated 10 June 1965 concerning the same. [The reason that Kreiger wanted to set these up was that in fact the men were getting inconsistent readings on their x-rays, that is, one year they would have a positive and the next year a negative and the next year a positive. He knew this was inpossible and he was looking for a consistent source of reading. Also, the pulmonary function equipment at the Long Beach Memorial Hospital was far more sophisticated than that available at the Shipyard. He doesn't remember who told him about this but he believed it would be better to have the shipyard workers examined, at least as to pulmonary function tests, somewhere else.] Plaintiff's Exhibit 10: is the safety precaution for shore activity dated 1965. He identified this and indicated that this was the document that would be binding on the shipyard. [It contained some interesting language relative to what the Navy knew at that time]. This was a document which filtered down all levels of the yard. The entire volume dealt with "everything." Plaintiff's Exhibit 11: is NAVSHIP 5100.26 which the witness cannot frankly recall if at the time it was issued the shipyard was in compliance or not. Plaintiff's Exhibit 12: is Cliff Kreiger's memo of 13 November 1974 to the shipyard commander and others wherein he was advising people that the shipyard was still receiving asbestos containing material and shouldn't be. CROSS-EXAMINATION He was only aboard a ship during a ripout one time, He believes that there were probably closer to 100 insulators after seeing some of the exhibits generally speaking over the span of time he was in the shipyard. MT-PWHD-011566 MEMO TO IN RE: MANVILLE CORPORATION jM Government Litigation - Robinson October 24/ 1984 Page 6 Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel SANTA _M_O_N_IC_A_,_C_A_LIFORNIA SANTA ana, CALIFORNIA In a prior deposition he indicated that plaintiff's Exhibit 5 may have been done by Mr. Patterson and not by Hetzel and the Government tried to have him repudiate its authenticity based on that. On re-direct this was clarified and he plainly stated that whether Hetzel did it or Patterson did it is of no significance because the information came out of the shipyard records and it was done under his authority and can vouch for its accuracy. He indicated he had nothing to do with specifications or procurement and that no submarines were ever repaired at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. He believes he spent less than 1% of his time overall in the years he was at Long Beach Naval Shipyard on asbestos. RE-DIRECT Aside from clearing up his testimony on plaintiff's Exhibit 5, he also indicated that he had no reason to have any manufacturer tell him about the hazards of asbestos in 1964 inasmuch as he was fully aware of the problems beforehand and certainly after his hearing Dr. Selikoff there was no need to. Steven L. Hoch SLH:slw DRD/12097-R2 MT-PWHD-011567 PENINSULA OFFICE 2276 CAST SAVSHORC ROAD PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 04303 TCLCPHONC I4ISI 656-4000 PORTLAND OFFICE LLOYD CENTER TOWER PORTLAND, OREGON 07232 TCLCPHONC (6031 236-1700 HELLER. EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE ATTORNEYS A PARTNERSHIP INCLUOINO PRO FCS8IONAL CORPORATION S 44 MONTGOMERY STREET - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 04104 CABLE HELPOW - TELEX 340-S9S TELECOPIER (415) 772-6269 TELEPHONE 1415! 772-6000 August 21, 1984 SEATTLE OFFICE ONE UNION SQUARE SEATTLE, WASMINOTON 06101 TCLCPHONC (2 061 447-000 0 HONO KONO OFFICE CAXTON HOUSE. 17/F I OUOOCLLSTREET HONO KONO TCLCPHONC S-266616 TELEX 6S66S LAWYR HX J-10-64 Steven L. Hoch, Esq. Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel 201 Santa Monica Boulevard P. O. Box 680 Santa Monica, California 90406 LECm OK J-M v. United States Dear Steve: Enclosed is a copy of a document regarding Cliff Krieger's 1972 visit to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. If Mr. Krieger has not previously been asked about his impressions of Puget Sound, perhaps such inquiries should be made in his upcoming deposition. Very truly yours, Michael L. Rugen Enclosure cc: Robert D. Batson, Esq. w/Encl. Ms. Barbara Diemer w/Encl.i/ Clark J. Burnham, Esq. w/Encl. MT-PWHD-011568 KCSOflASIWJ 3 Kerch 1972 rron: To: \ ia: Code 165 C:>de 300 Code 700 SuL'JS: Asberto: nrcblec-., cements cwccmlr; 1. On 26 ont* 29 February, the undersi^n-ied alocr with others of the Shipyard visited the huget Sound linval Shipyard cod found in y opinion <ua excellent oresrase for the coatrol of ccbestos. 2. The control vas bacicaJly ventilation end lots of it. Erch machine and fcach table had exhaust andfor dovn Craft ventilation. 3. I would like to recoocssad that for the uresent a. One or t**o Sears Komore *Vet 'Dry" newn cloaners he purchased for test in tbs than end nboex-d ship. This lc an efficient elastic cleaner. b. That c block cutting eav folly enclosed as the one need in Pvf.et he fabricated. . c. That a $4 01.09 hrr:* ccv vsev-ter tr described in tbe latest lndcstricl hjficnr Kcnort be procured fer ore in thin SUiryrond. d. 1 vtHild further recenaend diet coaeiderrtion be given tc locating all ccbcrto; prc^ercticn In one build ice with central exhe't ventilation, locker rosat, bciag cod indxixsg operations, eevlrc and ccr-'icp so thst the prepared rctoriels ccrald be trrasoertod to tic vs ter frs~ vith the enjer portion of Che problen (except r:n-out) cor.fm: to one crrcrolcblc area. 4. 71.^ 7-i.wi Inrurtri": p..~ fr 0f ^e cninion that cloth eoverellr are dm^erocs rr they rctr.it t sbtctoc partienls on the clsth or allcw the fibers to penitrate. They art using, with cuceecE, a pics ticited paper coverall that sheds the fibers. These ro pore rxneuivc than rented cloth but oiy be core efficient. 5. The iCea of extra ncy vas discstecd ced they do not pay extra pay t^icn a ran can wear a resoirator.. C. V. .ITILCHT. 11 C V ic Sroc! J-M 83 file copy TRIAL TESTIMONY SUMM1ARY OF * CLIFFORD V. KRIEGER HOGARD VS. J-M PRODUCTS CORP., ET AL MAY 5, 1980 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA CALLED AS WITNESS BY DEFENDANT RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN TOPIC DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NORBY - Background p. 1926 - Employment History p. 1926-1927 - Educational Background p. 1927-1928 - Employment History (Continued) p. 1928-1930 - Knowledge of Individuals p. 1930 - Employment History (Continued) p. 1930 - Info Regarding LBNS p. 1930 - Knowledge of Individuals p. 1931 - LBNS Info (Continued) p. 1931 - Knowledge of Individuals p. 1932 - LBNS Info (Continued) p. 1932-1934 - Knowledge of Individuals p. 1934-1935 - LBNS Info (Continued) p. 1934-1936 - Classes Conducted Involving Asbestosis p. 1936 - Knowledge of Individuals p. 1936-1937 - Krieger's Responsibilities at LBNS p. 1937-1940 - Defendant Raybestos-Manhattan1s Exhibit #1008 p. 1940 - Info Regarding Poster, "Is This Your Future?" p. 1940 - Knowledge of Individuals p. 1940 - Info Regarding Poster, "Is This Your Future?" (Continued) p. 1940-1942 - Preventive & Safety Practices at LBNS p. 1942-1944 - Further Education Personally Attained Re: Asbestos & Asbestosis p. 1944 - Knowledge of Individuals p. 1944-1945 - Industrial Hygienists at LBNS p. 1944-1945 - Distinction Between His & Ind. Hygienist's Responsibilities, Early 60's p. 1945-1946 - Knowledge of Individuals p. 1946-1947 - Industrial Hygienist at LBNS after Marr p. 1946-1947 - Preventive and Safety Practices at LBNS p. 1947-1949 - Director of Safety's Responsibilities p. 1949-1950 - Tape Recording of Mr. Phipps p. 1950-1951 - LBNS Info (Continued) p. 1951 - Knowledge of Individuals p. 1951 - LBNS Info (Continued) p. 1951-1954 -l- c o o c c o ^ J v iv ie e c ' men m m m PAGE 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 TRIAL TESTIMONY SUMMARY OF CLIFFORD V. KRIEGER HOGARD VS. J-M PRODUCTS CORP., ET AL. MAY 5, 1980 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TOPIC CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HAIGHT - Dr. Selikoff's Presentation In 10-64 p. 1954-1956 - J-M Exhibit #538 p. 1956 - 6-10-65 Letter From Krieger to Hendrickson p. 1956-1957 - Knowledge of Individuals p. 1957 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. STEINBERG - LBNS Info (Continued) p. 1958-1962 - Safety Meetings at LBNS p. 1962-1964 - Knowledge of Selikoff's Presentation in '64 Regarding Insulation Workers p. 1964-1967 - Respirator Use at LBNS p. 1967-1971 - Knowledge of Individuals p. 1971 - LBNS Info (Continued) p. 1971-1981 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NORBY - Krieger's Staff at LBNS p. 1981 PAGE 8 9 9 9 9 10 11 12 13 13 15 -li- MT-PWHD-011571 TRIAL TESTIMONY SUMMARY OF CLIFFORD V. KRIEGER HOGARD VS. J-M PRODUCTS CORP., ET. MAY 5, 1980 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA AL. TOPIC Krieger's Background Background p. 1926 Educational Background p. 1927-1928 Classes Conducted Involving Asbestosis p Further Education Personally Attained Re Asbestos & Asbestosis p. 1944 Employment History p. 1926-1927 Employment History (Cont.) p. 1928-1930 Employment History (Cont.) p. 1930 193b Knowledge of Individuals David Hendrickson p 1930 Mr. Meeker p. 1931 Webster Ay p. 1932 Captain Thompson p. 1934-1935 Captain Robbins p 1936-1937; 1957 Artie Bransford p 1940 Jim Sheehan p. 1944-1945 Sheldon Manning p. 1946-1947 p. 1971 Cralley, Enterline or Rusher (Unaware Mr. Marr p. 1971 of) p. 1951 Knowledge of Long Beach Naval Shipyard Info. Re: LBNS p. 1930 LBNS Info. p. 1931 LBNS Info. p. 1932-1934 LBNS Info. p. 1934-1936 LBNS Info. (Cont.) p. 1951 LBNS Info. (Cont.) p. 1951-1954 LBNS Info. (Cont.) p. 1958-1962 LBNS Info. (Cont.) p. 1971-1981 Responsibilities at LBNS p. 1937-1940 Director of Safety's Responsibilities p. 1949-1950 Distinction Between His & Ind. Hygienists Responsibilities, Early 60's p. 1945-1946 Industrial Hygienists at LBNS p. 1944-1945 Industrial Hygienist at LBNS after Marr p. 1946-1947 Krieger's Staff at LBNS p. 1981 Preventive & Safety Practices at LBNS p. 1942-1944 -lii- PAGE MT-PWHD-011579 TRIAL TESTIMONY SUMMARY OF CLIFFORD V. KRIEGER HOGARD VS. J-M PRODUCTS CORP., ET. MAY 5, 1980 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA AL. TOPIC PAGE - Preventive & Safety Practices at LBNS (Cont.) p. 1947-1949 - Safety Meetings at LBNS p. 1962-1964 - Respirator Use at LBNS p. 1967-1971 - Dr. Selikoff's Presentation in 10-64 (Attended While at LBNS) p. 1954-1956 - Knowledge of Selikoff's Presentation in '64 Re: Insulation Wkrs. p. 1964-1967 - 6-10-65 Letter From Krieger to Hendrickson (Testing LBNS Asbestos Workers) p. 1956-1957 Knowledge of Other Subjects - Info. Re: Poster, "Is This Your Future?" p. 1940 - Info. Re: Poster, "Is This Your Future?" (Cont.) p. 1940-1942 - Tape Recording of Mr. Phipps p. 1950-1951 - Defendant R-M's Exhibit #1008 p. 1940 (Poster "Is This Your Future?") - J-M Exhibit #538 p. 1956 (6-10-65 Letter From Krieger to Hendrickson Re: Testing LBNS Asbestos Workers) -IV- MT-PWHD-011573 TRIAL TESTIMONY SUMMARY OF CLIFFORD V. KRIEGER HOGARD VS. J-M PRODUCTS CORP., ET AL. MAY 5, 1980 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA CALLED AS WITNESS BY DEFENDANT RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NORBY Background p. 1926 Clifford V. Krieger. Presently resides Huntington Beach, California, and has lived there the past 7-8 years. at Employment History p. 1926-1927 Environmental Health and Safety officer at California State University, Long Beach, California. Also, presently teaches one course, Industrial Supervision. Employed at Long Beach State for past 5-1/2 years. Prior to Long Beach State, from - 56 tnru 74, employed at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Prior to LENS, employed at Philadelphia Naval Aviation Supply Office and Department. Worked at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard prior to the Naval Aviation Supply Office. Employed in Philadelphia for the Navy before '44 and '56 (no specific starting date given). Was Safety Inspector at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. Educational Background p. 1927-1928 Regarding work for Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, was trained from time to time with different courses throughout the years. Also took some independant courses. Attended Naval conferences, that trained in different areas. Example: Edward's Arsenal, to study radiological safety. Attended numerous Navy Safety Courses during employment at Philadelphia. Employment History (Continued) p. 1928-1930 Employed at LBNS from '56-'74 as Safety Supterintendant, of which, uuties in '56 involved setting up safety program, con tinuing safety program that would involve safety on ships, in shops and in ware houses, etc.; mostly dealing with trauma tic safety. Traumatic as contrasted with systemic, the difference between an ac cidental type of injury and an illness. Traumatic, a broken leg on the job; an -1- MT-PWHD-011574 Knowledge of Indivi duals p. 1930 Employment History (Continued) p. 1930 Info Regarding Long Beach Naval Shipyard p. 1930 Knowledge of Individuals p. 1931 Long Beach Naval Shipyard Info (Continued) p. 1931 Knowledge of Individuals p. 1932 illness, asbestosis. Asbestosis, one of the illnesses dealt with; and "that's about the only large volume we had. We had some other complaints but they were minor. " David Hendrickson, Industrial Relations Officer, Krieger's superior at the LBNS. The commanding officer was Mr. Hendrickson's superior at LBNS. David Hendrickson, Industrial Relations Officer, Krieger's superior at the LBNS. Hendrickson's superior was the commanding officer of the shipyard. Upon arrival in '56 at LBNS there was no safety manual in existence. One of first problems dealt with, pertained to silica dust. Krieger's responsibility regarding silica dust involved someone bringing to his attention that there was a possibility that there was silica in the sand being used for blasting; and Krieger took it up with the Industrial Hygienist, and they found that this was not so. It was a granite without silica. During first 1-2 years at LBNS, met various people. Met Mr. Meeker, Head of Pipefit ters Shop (number designation 9 -- 56). During first 1-2 years at LBNS, met Mr. Meeker, Head of Pipefitters Shop and (number designation 9 -- 56). Following work done at shop 56: pipefitting, pipe covering, insulating, copper work, pipe work and antennaes. At that time, Mr. Meeker was master of the shop, later known as superintendant. Meeker was a civilian employee. Between themselves, they discussed matters pertaining to safety, but Meeker did not answer or report to Krieger regarding safety. Mr. Webster Ay, Foreman in Pipecovering Shop, and Head of Metal Trades Counsel. Metal Trades Counsel, during that period of time, was a group of unions within MT-PWHD-011575 LBNS Info. (Continued) p. 1932-1934 Knowledge of Individuals p. 1934-1935 Long Beach Naval Shipyard Info (Continued) p. 1934-1936 During same period of time, '56 - '58, dealt with asbestosis and injury. There were certain people at the shipyard at that time who had Workers' Compensation claims for the disease asbestosis (amounting to less than 10 claims). As found upon arrival in '56, x-ray program at LBNS involved taking x-rays every 6 months only of people involved with pipe covering and insulating. It was not part of Krieger's job to make any determinations as to whether that program was or was not working, but he questioned the program. Sometimes the x-rays were read positive and sometimes they were negative, and they ascertained that maybe different doctors read x-rays different ly. Krieger's distinction between posi tive and negative was that when the x-ray says "negative" that means nothing, and when it says "there were markings", he suspected they were talking about positive markings. Believes purpose of x-ray pro gram at LBNS was to find problems with workers' lungs. Explained the inconsis tencies between positive and negative readings as being inconsistent from period to period. At one particular time it would say positive, and then it would say negative, etc. These x-rays located in medical department. Captain Thompson, Director of Medical Department at LBNS while Krieger employed at same. During '56 - '58, Captain Thompson (Medical Doctor) was Director of Medical Department. From '56 to '74, that position was always occupied by a medical doctor. In '74, they got a civilian. During '56 through '74, there were four medical directors. During early years at LBNS, recommended that they go to Memorial Hospital Clinic and involve the Heat, Frost, Insulator workers with x-rays and studies of their lungs, vital capacity tests. This was the diagnosis of asbestosis. -3- MT-PWHD-011 F>7P> Classes Conducted Involving Asbestosi p. 1936 Knowledge of Individuals p. 1936-1937 Krieger's Responsi bilities at LBNS p. 1937-1940 During employment at LBNS, was also teaching outside of shipyard. Taught at City College for approximately 5-6 years and taught at Cal State University, Long Beach, for approximately 9 years. Lectures involved the disease of asbestosis and safety procedures relating to handling of asbestos. Believes approxi mately 14 years ago, while at Cal State University, was his earliest lecture in regard to asbestosis or safe handling of asbestos. Captain Robbins, Medical Director (uncertain as to what period of time). Dr. Jose Smith, Medical Director, who he believed left in '74 (did not recall when he began). Dealt with safety orders in shipyard which pertained to anything that came within his jurisdiction. Responsible for communicating safety practices to workers with regard to handling asbestos. This particular communications "problem" was the Medical Department's responsibility, and from time to time Krieger got involv ed; but it was primary responsibility of Medical Department and they, from time to time, gave training to pipe coverers and insulators, every 6 months, discussing dangers of asbestos, dangers of smoking when working with asbestos, using protec tive gear, etc. (Mr. Steinberg requested that the answer be stricken at least to that portion which is not within the witnesses knowledge with respect to what the Medical Department did, and Mr. Norby withdrew the question.) Safety meetings were set up with medical directors present. In late '60's ana '70's, Krieger attended those safety meetings. During late '60's, Krieger heard discussions regarding the fact that asbestos was dangerous and that smoking with asbestos was fatal and that the person should protect themselves. MT-PWHD-011577 During '56 through '58, had occassion to discuss safe handling of asbestos and those problems with Mr. Webster Ay, Head of the Local Committee. Defendant RaybestosManhattan's Exhibit #1008 p. 1940 Poster showing death with his sickle/scythe and it says, "Is This Your Future?" In other words, death or with your family, wear your respirator. Info Regarding Poster, "Is This Your Future?" p. 1940 Defendant Raybestos-Manhattan's Exhibit #1008, poster showing death with his sickle/scythe and it says, "is this your future?" Artie Bransford was the artist who drew that poster in April of '57. Knowledge of Individuals p. 1940 Artie Bransford, artist who drew poster, "Is This Your Future?" Info Regarding Poster, "Is This Your Future?" (Continued) p. 1940-1942 At bottom of poster is Mr. Kneger's name. Ay's name also appears there, as Head of Local 20, Business Agent. This Exhibit was approximately the same size that was at LBNS. It was posted throughout the asbestos handling shop and was given out at union meetings. Some of them ended up in the pad shop, Shop 56. Mr. Ay was instrumental in developing that poster picture. Preventive & Safety Practices at LBNS p. 1942-1944 At time poster developed (in '57), did not feel this was an appropriate way to get any message pertaining to safe handling of asbestos out to workers. Personally does not believe in scare tactics for safety. Preferred approach of educating workers. Preferred to call them in or go to them and discuss the hazards. Personally put together a program dealing with asbestos in a safe manner. First part involved attending union meetings. Believes he attended 2 union meetings in Long Beach where he discussed the fact that he had people with asbestosis and they got it probably from not ueing protected. Then, because that only involved union members, they brought tne educational program into Shop 56. That involved all laggers (Heat, ` ' . - . . y' ` y* ' \ ' \ ; ' V* ^ -5- M!f! J fit MT-PWHD-011578 Frost, Insulator workers), union and nonunion. No steps were taken to insure that union members would have attended these meetings. Further Education Personally Attained Re: Asbestos & Asbestosis p. 1944 While at LBNS in late '50's - early '60's, attended Dr. Selikoff's seminars & mtgs. Upon return from same, discussed info, ob tained with Mr. Meeker & Mr. Ay. Also, would probably have discussed it at medical department conferences of which the industrial hygienist also attended. Knowledge of Individuals p. 1944-1945 Jim Sheehan, Industrial Hygienist at LBNS in '56. Bill Marr, Industrial Hygienist at LBNS after Sheehan (does not recall dates of his tenure). Industrial Hygienists at LBNS p. 1944-1945 Jim Sheehan in '56, and Bill Marr followed him (does not recall dates of Marr's tenure). Distinction Between His & Ind. Hygienists Responsibilities, Early '60's p. 1945-1946 Ind. hygienists are trained in an entirely different field (more medical), and are certified by an industrial hygiene hoard. In Safety, he's an engineer, for example, with education (more to preventing traumatic type things) in building scaffolds, how to run safety lines, etc. Marr was responsible for prevention of systematic type things like protection against: loss of hearing, toxic paints, asbestos, etc. Re: Mtgs. with union leaders, doesn't believe Marr was involved. Believes he personally was only one involved in union meetings. Then they were brought back into the shipyard and everyone was involved. Then Marr would have taken over. Believes was curing Marr's tenure when meetings brought back to shipyard (doesn't recall exact date). Knowledge of Individuals p. 1946-1947 Sheldon Manning, Industrial Hygienist after Marr. MT-PWHD-011579 Industrial Hygienist at LBNS After Marr p. 1946-1947 When Marr left, there was a period when there was no industrial hygienist. Even tually, Sheldon Manning, Industrial Hygienist, came in to take former respon sibilities of Marr. Believes there was one year between Marr and Manning. Preventive and Safety Practices at LBNS (Cont. ) p. 1947-1949 When questioned as to how often x-rays being taken of employees to determine lung problems in '56, responded that it should have been every 6 months. About '56, is first time respirators became mandatory in shipyard. "Mandatory" means instructions were given that they should be worn. That doesn't mean they were worn. Personally had occassion to walk through shipyard and see places where respirators were and were not used. Krieger did not take any steps upon encountering a worker that was not wearing a respirator. He was not a supervisor of any men, and if he did anything, it would have been to contact supervisor. Krieger dealt more with supervisors because there were 8,000 to 10,000 workers, and about 500 supervisors; so it was easier to deal with shop heads uecause then you were talking about 20 to 30 men. Krieger would then tell them to pass the word on. Director of Safety's Responsibilities p. 1949-1950 Everyone gets the idea that safety people can crack down on somebody or that they have police authority or something of that nature. A safety person is advisory only. The supervisor is completely responsible for workers. He felt he could advise rather than police the actual problem that was going on. He would advise people that were in a position to do something about problems encountered. Regarding whether or not he could compel his superiors to issue an order or do something, nis superiors issued a lot of instructions that he wrote. For example: the shipyard commander issued, eventually, a safety manual. Assumes late '60's wnen safety manual issued by shipyard commander. Tape Recording of Mr . Phipps p. 1950-1951 Believes Marr went to Phipp's house and made a tape recording describing how badly he felt due to complete disability irom asbestosis. Regarding subject matter, believes it was aimed at the apprentice. -7- MT-PWHD-011580 to inform them of asbestos hazards. no idea where tape is now. Did not personally hear tape. Has LBNS Info (Continued) p. 1951 Does not recall any doctors visiting the shipyards in '60's with an eye towards investigating the asbestos or asbestosis problem. Knowledge of Individuals p. 1951 Does not recall names of Cralley, Enterline or Kusher. LBNS Info (Continued) p. 1951-1954 Does recall communicating with shipyard commander about problems of asbestos and asbestosis, but cannot recall exact initial date. Uncertain how long Mr. Meeker remained head of Shop 56. Shop 56 is a very small part of the Pad Shop. When Mr. Manning came, personally did not play any part in his training or education in becoming head of industrial nygiene. Only showed him the shipyard. In early '60's, there was a period of time when workers were sent to Long Beach Memorial Hospital in connection with studies by Dr. Ellestad at the same hospital. Recalls there were pulmonary function tests established with regard to that study. The Medical Department of LBNS financed those pulmonary function tests. Approximately 3-4 years later, testing of workers ceased at Long Beach Memorial Hospital. Then it was brought back in-house. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HAIGHT Dr . Selikoff1s Presentation In 10-64 p. 1954-1956 Recalls attending New York Academy of Science Presentation of Dr. Selikoff in October of '64, and recalls it was first time he met Dr. Selikoff. Was invited to presentation by Dr. Selikoff through the recommendation of Webby Ay that he be invited. Upon return to shipyard after conference, met with Meeker and Ay, and then they held the regular meeting. They discussed subject raised at that presenta- 8- - MT-PWHD-0115R1 tion with all workers. Believes at that particular time, Marr had just left the shipyard or had been transferred, and didn't remember whether Manning had come on yet as the industrial hygienist. Regarding the approximate 1 year span between Marr and Manning, when there was no industrial hygienist, did not personally attempt to fill in on the Industrial Hygiene Program. If tnere was an emergency, the gas-free engineer and his self would be called in to tne situation, and there were very few times when they did this. He did not substitute as an industrial hygienist. He was not trained as an industrial hygienist, and does not know how to take dust samples, either at that time or the present. J-M Exhibit #538 p. 1956 6-10-65 letter from Safety Superintendant, himself, to Industrial Relations Officer, Mr. Hendrickson. 6-10-65 Letter Krieger to Hendrickson p. 1956-1957 From Defendant J-M's Exhibit #538, 6-10-65 letter from Krieger to Hendrickson whicn regards the following: first paragraph discusses Dr. Ellestad from Long Beach Memorial Hospital and that lie has been running tests on their asbestos workers for the past 2 years, and that Krieger is asking that he continue to do this. It is a request for funding so they couid continue to run pulmonary function studies of workers. One of later paragraphs refers to number of men who would be involved, and that total cost would be $4,100.00. Dr. Robbins, himself and Dr. Ellestad were responsible for starting this program of the pulmonary function studies. Dr. Robbins, medical director at that time. Knowledge of Individuals p. 1957 Dr. Robbins, Medical Director at LBNS in '65. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. STEINBERG LBNS Info (Continued) p. 1958-1962 When he began in '56, there were approxi mately 8,000 people working at the ship yard, which remained fairly constant up -9- U v/ I ! ft *5*0 MT-PWHD-011.889 Safety LBNS p. 1962 eetings 1964 at until the time he left. Was only safety superintendant in shipyard from '56 to '74, and he had a staff. Approximately 12 departments in entire shipyard. He and his staff were responsible for taking care of entire shipyard. There were many other problems at the shipyard other than asbestos problems, and his primary work, as a safety officer, dealt with traumatic injuries. During his years at the shipyard, that was where his primary emphasis was. Whatever time tie devoted to the asbestos hazard, to the extent it existed in the shipyard, was only a fraction of his time, which was true for his whole tenure at LBNS from '56 thru '74. Aware of other health hazards at the shipyard that haa to be looked into, such as toxic materials that had to be protected against. Those such hazards are in the field of the industrial hygienist. Doesn't recall whether he spent any time at all with those problems. Regarding compensation claims he discover ed upon arrival in '56, one was Mr. Phipps, who later died from the disease. In Philadelphia, before going to Long Beach, he had no experience or exposure whatsoever to an asbestos hazard or problem. His first contact with it was at LBNS. Recalls attending just 2 union meetings during '56 or '57, and recalls attending an international union meeting in Chicago sometime in late 60's. During period of late 50's and early 60's, there were shipyard safety meetings which by and large he did not attend. Stand up safety meetings were held by the immediate supervisors, and those took place weekly (he believes) and then became monthly. Regarding whether he felt there was a necessity for meetings more often than once a month, the meetings were having very little effect on the number of accidents they were having. As far as the context of what Wus said at those meetings, he really had no say over that. Tnat was done by the supervisors. MT-PWHD-011583 Knowledge of Selikoff's Presenta tion in '64 Regard ing Insulation Workers p. 1964-1967 He diet attend a meeting of shipyard pipe coverers and insulators sometime after he returned from the New York Academy of Science meeting in '64. At that time, believes Marr was already gone from the shipyard. In fact, believes he attended the New York Academy of Science meeting because of the fact that there was no industrial hygienist at LBNS at the time and as a safety officer, it was appro priate that he go. This was not first attendance of Dr. Selikoff's lectures, but it was the first time he had met him. This meeting was attended by a number of people, mostly from Russia, Canada and Africa, and probably a lot from America. Didn't recall who they were. Did not know whether there were industry representa tives there, as he did not meet any. The hazards associated with asbestos exposure were discussed at that meeting, and he wasn't shocked by anything he heard. One subject discussed at meeting was the hazard present to insulators. Selikoff spoke with him personally about the results of some studies that he had done previously, and he also addressed the group. He discussed studies that were done, but doesn't recall specifically his advising the group that his study included over 1,500 members of the insulators union local in the New York - New Jersey area. Also, did not specifically remember his advising the group that he arrived at certain findings, with respect to the extent of asbestos disease that these insulators had experienced over their working life, but that the whole discussion concerned the fact that people were getting asbestosis from breathing asbestos and that included mostly insulators. He knew from his experience at LBNS that insulators were getting asbestosis, and that was his experience after he arrived at the shipyard in '56. Also, when he arrived in '56, he knew then that there were less than 10 people disabled at his shipyard. MT-PWHD-011584 Did not discuss, with any industry repre sentatives at Mt. Sinai, Dr. Selikoff's remarks. He was also not approached by any other industry representative as an industry representative for LBNS re: subject of conference. Approximately 6 months after return from meeting is when he shared the matters he heard at the conference with some of the people at LBNS. First met with Meeker, head of Shop 56, and Weboy Ay; tnen they met with laggers (pipe coverers and insulators), and suggested to them that they protect themselves. They also suggested that they try to quit smoking and that the way to protect themselves was wearing of respirators. Respirator Use at LBNS p. 1967-1971 At LBNS in '64, only respirators avail able were filter type respirators. Dustfoe 66, previously described in these proceedings, he assumes, was one of the several types available. He indicated to shipyard workers with whom he discussed problems of asbestos in '64, that he felt they would be well protected by wearing respirators; and, in fact, that that was the only thing he knew that could protect them at that time. They did not caution them about wearing a respirator at all times, just under certain conditions. They felt that during ripout, mixing and dusty periods it was an absolute necessity. In other words, they pretty much left it up to the workers to decide for themselves how much dust was in the air and when to put on or take of tne respirator in other than situations involving ripout, along with mixing of materials. However, he did realize at that time, that there were problems in the wearing of a respirator. Complaints mostly received were the fact that they were too heavy and it was hard to breathe through a respirator; also they were hot, and you sweat a lot. These were understandable problems. Also, it was difficult to communicate with other orkers through the respirator, but not possible. It was not Krieger's job to st the effectiveness of the respira- ors. Regarding whether he had knowledge of what tests had been done on available -12- MT-PWHD-011585 Knowledge of Individuals p. 1971 LBNS Info (Continued) p. 1971-1981 respirators at the shipyard to determine effectiveness, all respirators purchased by the shipyard were purchased under government specifications. They were all acceptable for the industry, every one of them. Assumed all of them were approved by the Bureau of Mines as being useful against asbestos fiber, however, aside from assumption he did not undertake any study to find out. His caution to workers was to use respirators during ripout, and to use their judgment in using respirators at other times. Believes Marr left LBNS in '64. Believes Mr. Manning came to LBNS in '67. Believes Marr left LBNS in '64, and Manning came sometime in '67. Doesn't recall whether during that period of time there were any meetings with pipe coverers and insulators that were held with them concerning asbestos. At tne times that he did meet with pipe coverers and insulators and studied asbestos hazards with them, does not recall whether there were actually any warnings at ail on the asbestos insulation material. Does not remember any warnings on the materials in the late '50`s. Does remember seeing some warnings eventually but does not recall when first became aware of them. Discussions with pipe coverers ana insulators regarding hazards involved in the use of asbestos were hela in '57, and does not recall whether there were warnings on the material itself. Also, does not recall whether there were any warnings on the containers in which the materials came to the shipyard. Was not familiar with Thermobestos. Has seen preformed pipe covering, and has seen it applied in the shipyard by insulators. Is not familiar with chemical composition of any of preformed pipe covering installed by shipyard workers. Unaware of any preformed pipe covering material containing a chemical composition known as calcium silicate. -13- MT-PWHD-011586 At some time in the shipyard, recommended to superiors using substitute products because products containing asbestos fiber were hazardous and could cause asbestosis. Observed shipyard laggers working in their trade, and from time to time observed them in the engineering spaces below deck. Also observed them in the fire rooms below deck. Would go on ships from time to time, which was part of his regular rou tine as a shipyard safety superintendant. Observed shipyard laggers installing block material on pipes, boilers and furnaces. In each of these engineering spaces and fire rooms observed below deck, would see dust generated in connection with the shipyard laggers1 work. Assumed it was just on some occassions there was more dust than on otner occassions. Observed that the shipyard lagger customarily would get dust about his clothing each day that he worked. The workers were wearing protective clothing (coveralls) as well as a respirator, which covered his mouth and nose. Assumes there were other times when he would not wear the respirator. Regard ing whether he personally tested the effectiveness of the respirator, they checked out respirators from time to time to see if the men approved the type. They tried to bu> tne type they wanted. This was all before they went to the throw-away respirator. Does not recall when tney went to the throw-away respirators. They went to the throw-away respirators because they understood that the mask-type respir ator was just not being used. Laggers complained that they were uncomfortable. After a period of time, it was difficult to breathe through them; but of course you could breathe through them, that was the idea of the respirator. Unaware of whether there was a problem in communicating while wearing the respirator. Has worn a respirator himself on occassion. -14- MT-PWHD-011587 Concerning the time he met with shipyard laggers, and whether he had the assistance of anyone from either J-M or the Raybestos-Manhattan Company instructing the shipyard laggers in the use of their products, does not know any representative of either company. Did not know any representative of either company that ever came to the shipyard to assist nim, but they could have seen the industrial hygienist. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NORBY Krieger's LBNS p. 1981 Staff at The staff under his supervision consisted of 3-4 safety inspectors. 09-03-82 PRIV J-M 8 -15- MT-PWHD-011588 fT -f i MT-PWHD-011589