Document gb4qm3p9MYQpDoBZVYDGeL5jG
FILE NAME DuPont DUP
DATE 1984 Jan 31 & Feb 1 DOC DUP097
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Legal - Deposition of Kenneth Keuper
Se
- psap
IN THE SUPE COURT OF THE STATE OF Delaware IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
CHARLES CLARK and
MARY CLARK his wif
a
> Plaintiffs
v
A.C. S. INC t al
# 82C Asbestos
Defendants CHARLES CONWAY et al
Plaintiffs
V.
C. S. INC et al
Defendants
DOUGLAS DeHART et al
Plaintiffs
Ve
A. S. INC et al
Defendants
ANNETTE DIDIO Individually
and as Administratrix of the Estate of Victor Didio
deceased
Plaintiff
..
ve
A.G. & S. INC et al
Defendants
a
ee
ee
ee C.A. # ' 77 Asbestos
tet
ee
eee
Pozadi
te
Pozadi
a
Ne
ee L.A. # 105 Asbestos ) ee
>
et
Nt
Nt
St
et ae >
et
C.A. # 83C Asbestos
>
CORBETT &ASSOCIATES
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
1410 FRENCH STREET
WILMINGTON DE
IN
302 371-0310
eine = gt Sle % - 7.7.
.
*
Cd
. e + te
.
,
tae te:
3
s
rep
yy
cpr
wey
eo
1
ied sta
s
rer
' S
TRENT
PER
CESS
TRRES
CNC
2
tera
GENE
Deposition of KENNETH KEUPER taken pursuant to notice before Ellen Corbett Geddes and Kathleen E. Schade Registered Professional Reporters at the Radisson Hotel 700 King Streets Wilmington Delaware beginning at approximately
10:00 a.m. on January 31 1984 and 10:00 a.m. on February
1 1984 there being present
JACOBS & CRUMPLAR BY ROBERT JACOBS
AND
ESQUIRE
THOMAS C. CRUMPLAR ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Delaware
except Conway and Hunt and in New Jersey
10
Brooksbank
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON 11
BY SOMERS S. PRICE ESQUIRE
Attorney for Armstrong Cork
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY
13
BY RICHARD ALLEN PAUL ESQUIRE
AND
H
CARPENTER BENNETT & MORRISSEY
BY THOMAS L. MORRISSEY ESQUIRE
15
Attorneys for DuPont Company
Corporation JAMES MORRIS JAMES HITCHENS & WILLIAMS
16
BY
W. SEMPLE ESQUIRE
Attorney for Pittsburgh Corning
17
BUONADONNA BENSON & SPEZIALI
18
BY DAVID A. SPEZIALI ESQUIRE
Attorney for Celotex in New Jersey
19 SCHMITTINGER & RODRIGUEZ P.A.
BY DOUGLAS 8. CATTS ESQUIRE 20
Attorney for Celotex in Delaware
21
MARTIN CRAWSHAW & MAYFIELD
BY LINTON W. TURNER ESQUIRE
ow,
Attorney for Picher New Jersey
COOCH & TAYLOR
BY C. SCOTT REESE
Attorney for Raynark
ESQUIRE
Lo 244
we
e
at.
. .
oS
stm
ee ads nln oe oe:
ld
ee
I 19607
KENNETH E. KEUPER
2 a.
3
@.
4
%.
Cancer only
Carcinoma
Cancer was the one you were concerned with Yes
5 Q.
And you ever heard of the term asbestosis
6
in 1960
7
A.
9
49.
Ashestosis the Porn Used
Yes sir
9
AS
Yog I had
110 0 ?
1960- You had heard that in
2
i 11
Right
i
;
12
Did you
you
appreciate that
ate
that was 1 lung a a
13
problem other than cancer
14
A,
15
949.
Affected the pulmonary process process
So you Were aware that in 1960 that both
1S I7
cancer and lung defects not associated with cancer
could be caused by asbestos
ewe Te Meee
.
-
18 CAS
Right Right Your lung defects -- that's why we
it 19 gov~ gisotvo~ isto
because your lung defects could be
20 cated by any dust
de 21
22 1
23 |
24
make
Sura Okay
Whether it was silica
You told us
a complete
yesterday
records
or what
and
will
~
ask
again
332
iSRennerFRie
Fea .
Seaiee k*ases
KENNETA P. KEOPER
I Immediate superior or who did
41
you report to in
2 your capacity as in assistant safety engineer
3 Safety
superintendent
I'm sorry
4
A.
Assistant safety superintendent
5 Q.
You reported
to
Jon
a>
Jon DeLuca
6
Did you tell Jon in 1960 Joe I'm
7
. convinced that asbestos is a health hazard
A.
va
R Hell yes That's what I just got
through telling a
telling
telling
you .
10
9
Do you know what Joe did as a result of your
your 11 having atzon him that information
12
ay
Nothing
13
. 2
Absolutely nothing ?
14
A
Nm
not
to my knowledge knowledge
enn}
15 Q.
To your knowledge at least All right
15
Did he ever tell you Mr K4UDAfi
17 or Ken leav le eave it alone ;
ee)
18
ay
No.
CA 19
Did he
ver discourage you from
your
20 resterch
resterch
21 a.
No.
22 23
24
10
A.
But he
Didn'Didn't t
never promoted it neither|
promote it He may have been
promoting
it unbeknownst to me because finally
in '62
+ oe oe
a eP at i Hata.e r Fs CA Cony
~~
o
et .
*.
RP ate
>
a
te
aw.
KENNETH 5. KEUPER
ey
on the construction sites
Re
At a reduced <=
Qe
qn
A.
aware De
At a reduced amount
-- amount
ee
And in fact
sir
the
reduction
took place
before the just level surveys were conducted at
the job sites_
A.
No sir
Ve
That 3 not correct
10
Aw
No sir
os
!! 2
How many Aust studios that you ve famili
12
with wore conducted prior to the reduction in use
13
of asbestos
ne
A.
Tala Tala it on three sites
15
Prior to the reduction of asbestos
16
17
19
A.
Prior to putting out our Aust contro
policies
a
What years 414 you do those studies
19 Res We did the studing in 1966
we
20 So So then sir the reductions in use of
21 asbestos insulation products in fact did not
22
occur until after 19667
23 Ae
24 wil:
That's right
Is there any reason
why
sir
you as your
338
KENNETH B. KEUPER
t department head did not implement the
reductions
prior
2
1955
3
A.
Why
4 5
bed
Q.
Yes
sir
eee)
a.
Because I couldn't get it
recepted by
management
0 .
So So in
I couldn't get it through
_
_
fafac ct t
your
recommendation recommendation recomendation
recomendation recomendation
~ =
9
A.
9
4,
10 prior
11 A.A.
12 0
Management or the Design
Who were vou making that
Division
recommen
to 1956 between 1967 and
;
19657
;
Batuana
Batuana
'57 '57
and
1657
1657
8.9
to
H4
+
17
14 15 16
27
18 19 20
I was going to the Design Division on it
And
to our we within our
group responsibility in
the Construction Division management
.
0
If I am following you correctly for that
1953 to 1966 period of time you were telling them
Gentleman reduce
this job site In
an Yes sir
the amount
fact find
of asbestos used substitutes
on
21 10
22 2T
Because it is a
Yes sir
health
hazard hazard
23 9.
If you recall the names specifically who
vera gentlemen to 24
vera the
that you were telling that
.
420
.
KENNETH E. KROPER KROPER
I
and 1965 periof the company did not adopt a policy
2
of informing the workers that asbestos was 4
3
houlth hazard hazard
4
A.
Pictually I can't can't
I'd say nn
I don't
5
know why
a
5 2:
7
A.
You
said
factually
factually
Right
>
2
So I assume that you have a thaney on tha
%
subject
ed
10
11
12
A.
The information
Sian
~=
we
4357
at
pioneer
>
stage of this nov
his regnarch study
Iven
Selikoff Was
starting
ed
There was nothing Evetual
13 other than whit
14
and
forth
Eo
was read
from
foreign
applications
etd
15
15
2 2
NereNere you ever ever ever discouraged discouraged between the 1953
15 and 1955 period of time from telling the worker
17 about this health hazard
18
A.
No not today
19 Qe
Sir Reuser 32 which you have talked about
[eee
20
in detail and I certainly am not going to rehash
ae
Ane
21 what has already been stated but would you agree
i
22 sir that this letter of December 14th
1966 in
23 fact implies that the subject of asbestos health
hazard should be kept quiet at that time at
| |
|
:
PS bo
Sacgerreet Tyee wd yee ee en gee ese ee a eegatewats
ee ee = Ss ee men eee ee ewees ee ee eee
344 |
METS ee ha Lis et
tle n ad
a he
Fler sp
Rn Reed
ete ete ee ee ee ee ee woe
ta .
GT ge
. oe
td
I least Enns
4
That's 1 personal
opinion of that individual
an
writing the letter|
9.
Yes
I know sir
am not meaning to
suggest that that was your opinion
letter that is addressed to you is
That is a that correct
A.
That's correct
correct
0
sir 19 the recipient of that letter did
.
you interpret that is the author's intention that
being
that you shou
keep the
subject of asbestos asbestos
quiet
A.
among the workera workera
Knowing that individual
that's his attitude attitude
That's him
14
9.
That is what you interpreted him to mean by
15
that latter he wrote to you
16
A.
17 0
That's right
Did he want you to communicatt haet to the
18 19 20
craft
"
superintendentssuperintendents
MR PAUL
For the record
==
THE WITNESS
It don't matter what he
21
said in there
|
,
22
MR SPEZTALT
I understand
23 ;
MR PAUL
That is from two
|
24
individuals
individuals
of the two individuals were
Which
345
>
, ames
.
of
we eb ge, PoP ESAT See mcea tie SHITE nt
weg tele Oa Pad ete
Ns esAgeipaam he
*
KEUPER shortage
30515 |
ce I
A
a
a
a a Se y
USE hour FIRST FULL WEEK OF EACH
.
MONTH
employeesemployee Selectmanin conjunction