Document pB9pNZVO6Y2XaYvozYmakJjQX

HO. 990-23333 IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIATION MASTER ASBESTOS FILE ) IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF ) ) HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT 0WENS-C0RNTNC3G FTBERGLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TOT PLAINTIFFS1 INTERROGATORIES Defendant, Owens-Corning FEiberglas Corporation ("OC") , by counsel, supplements and restatses its responses to Plaintiffs' First interrogatories to Defenasarts, as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify the registered name of answering defendant, as well as all prior names or predecesssnr entities by which defendant has existed. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1l: OC states that its registesred name is and always has been Owens-corning Fiberglas CorporaratioD. OC further states that it does not have a "predecessor" aas it understands the definition of that term. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify all past and pressert divisions, subsidiaries or affiliated companies of the ansswEring defendant, having any function which now or in the pansz engaged in any phase of mining, manufacturing, sale, supply, pusrchase, application, installation, relabeling, processing or distrxjlration of asbestos or asbestoscontaining products. With respsect to each of such divisions, subsidiaries or companies, set. rforth with particularity the precise relationship with the aansvering defendant the dates thereof, and identify the naturae arid extent of such functions during the relevant periods of- --time in which such activities have or had occurred. DEFENDANT O^'ENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATC*IESES UbeflM.H Pag? 1 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Without, waiving and incorporating by reference idts original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements itsr response to the interrogatory as follows: OC no longer sells or distributes asbestos-contsaining products. Further, OC has never been in the businesss of mining, selling and/or distributing raw asbestos fibers. With regard to those OC subsidiaries which weree previously involved in the distribution of asbestos-containing pproducts,- OC states as follows: The Mechanical Operating Division of OC was engaraged in the manufacture of asbestos-containing Kaylo from May 19558 to Novem ber 1972 at OC's Berlin, New Jersey, plant. In addittion, other divisions of OC were engaged in the manufacture and ssale of other asbestos-containing insulation products at OC's Nevaark, Ohio; Bloomington, Illinois; Anderson, South Carolina; andt Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, plants. See attached Exhibit A, a charrt listing those asbestos-containing products previously manufaectured and/or distributed by OC and the dates of each product's maanufacture and/or distribution. In 1950, OC created a subsidiary known as the FFiberglas Engineering and Supply Company. The Fiberglas Engineeering and Supply Company (which subsequently became the Supplyy and Con tracting Division and eventually the Contracting Divvision of OC) was engaged in the business of distributing the prodducts of OC and others as well as in the contract application orf these DEFENDANT OWESS-CORNWO FIBERGLAS CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ubdtot.ut Pa*e 2 products. Asbestos-containing insulation products of OC and others were among those products distributed and/or applied by various contract units in this division. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be located in OC's collection of docu ments related to asbestos as set forth below. OC has collected numerous records and documents relating tc.z asbestos generally. These documents are stored in OC's documents library located in Richmond, Virginia. The document library contains existing documents generated and/or received at OC's corporate headquarters in Toledo, Ohio; its technical center in Granville, Ohio; and its manufacturing facilities in Berlin, New Jersey; Bloomington, Illinois; Newark. Ohio; and Santa Clara, California. The library also contains certain files obtained from Fiberglas Engineering and Supply Company in San Francisco, California, and Seattle, Washington. Other documents relating to Fiberglas Engineering and Supply Company of San Francisco are maintained by the law firm of Popelka, Allard, McCowan & Bondonno in San Jose, California, pursuant to an agreement contained in Defendant OC's response tc: Plaintiffs* Request for Production in Helev, et al. v. Fibreboard. et al.. June 10, 1989. Additional documents relatia-ng to OC's supply and contracting units may be in the possession off various OC trial counsel. DEFENDANT OWRB-COWfiNO FISEROLaS CORPORATION'S SUPPt-EMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES The library contains responsive, non-privilegeda materials generated before and during the time that OC manufaceUired asbes tos-containing Kaylo insulation. At a mutually convenient time, OC will make avaailahle for inspection by plaintiffs' counsel the non-privilegedc documents stored in its document library, counsel for OC wilil provide an index, which sets forth the file titles of those file.es contained in each box, and personnel to assist plaintiffs' counnsel in locating documents responsive to the discovery requeescs in this matter. OC will also make arrangements for copying :dscixments which plaintiffs' counsel may select. Copying and sstipping costs will be borne by plaintiffs, unless otherwise ordereed by the Court. OC's library includes documents that contain innfsrmation which is considered to be proprietary and trade seers-er. There fore, such documents will be produced only after thee entry of an appropriate protective order. OC has removed from the library any existing aastsrials which it contends are protected from discovery as privileaeed attorneyclient communications, attorney work product materiaals, or otherwise beyond the scope of permissible discovery. . Each document removed as privileged has been substituted- *with an easily identifiable marker which describes the privilleged docu ment by document type, fe.q.. memo, letter, note), adace, author, recipient, subject matter, and basis for objection. These markers may be designated for copying in the same mnmer as non- DETOOaNT 0*TNS-CORNtNO FIBEROlAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES libcAoi cm Pi{e privileged documents* OC refers plaintiffs to attached Exhibit B, a copy of an index of those documents generated and/or re ceived by OC prior to 1973 which OC claims are protected from discovery as attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product, and to attached Exhibit C, a copy of an index of those document generated and/or received by OC after 1972 which OC claims are protected from discovery as attorney-client communica tions and/or attorney work product. Visits to the library may be scheduled through OC*s local- counsel . INTERROGATORY NO. 3: " List by brand nume [sic] all of your asbestos-containing products. Your asbestos-containing products includes all prod ucts which contain any amount of asbestos manufactured, sold, designed, supplied, distributed, mined, milled, relabeled, resold, processed, applied or isntalled [sic] by you or for you by others. By you and yours. Plaintiffs refer to Defendant, to all your predecessors in interest, (whether by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise), to all of your subsidiaries, divi sions, joint ventures or affiliates. As to each product, state the following*. a. type of product (e.g., accoustical [sic] plaster, fireproofing, etc.); b. the date the product first went into production? c. the last date the product was produced? d. the last date the product was sold? e. all manufacturing locations; f. dates of manufacture at each location; g. the percentage of asbestos (state if percentage is by volume or weight), and the dates and all reasons for any modification thereof; h. the type of asbestos; DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNINO FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES Pi*< 5 i. the specif-fic source of asbestos with dates; j. the colors, physical characteristic, and appearance of the prodnoct; k. a full anad precise description of the package in which the producrct was sold, including, but not limited to, type of .pa>acaEage, size, color(s) , and writings thereon; l. all otherr names under which the product was sold; m. the numbeasr and dates of each patent or patent applica tion as tco the product; n. if the prcodact continued to be produced after the deletion cof asbestos, all reasons why the asbesto [sic] was deleteed, the identity of the person who made' the decision cto delete the asbestos, and the date the product wwas first produced without the asbestos. o. if the prcodaet is no longer produced, all reasons it was discanirtinued, the identity of the person who made the decis^icn to discontinue the product, the brand name of the reeplacement product, and the date the replace ment proddocc first went into production; p. a precisee description of your identifying logo or initials aard the dates of inclusion on the product; g. state durring what period of time such product has been associateed with defendant; r. identify all sales literature, including brochures, advertisesasats, pamphlets or other material describing such proanuct, its uses and methods of application or installatxico- s. identify aary warning labels, inserts or other writings provided witto such product and with every such printed warning, -state what period of time it has or had accom panied time product, the exact wording of the warning, any amendrtemts made to the wording, where the warning was locateed on each product or packaging, and on what asbestos* rproducts the warning appear(ed) ; t. geographic distribution range of each such product. DEFENDANT OWTNS-CORNJNO FQaOU3LA CORK)RATION'S SUPTLEMSfTAL RESPONSES TO W.AKEnB?'* INTERROGATORIES Bl 6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: With regard to subparts (a) - (d) , (g), (h), and (q) , OC states that it manufactured asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation products from May 1958 to November 1972. OC distributed such products from April 1953 to April 1973, as indicated by a review of OC's collection of invoices for asbestos-containing Kayloinsulation products. OC also had limited involvement in the manufacture and/or distribution of other asbestos-containing products. See attached Exhibit A, a chart listing those asbes tos-containing products previously manufactured and/or sold by OC. For all types of asbestos-containing Kaylo which OC manufac tured by the pan mold process (from 1958 to 1972), OC's formula generally included amosite asbestos, chrysotile asbestos, quick lime, silica, diatomaceous earth, clay, chromite, limestone and sodium silicate. For pan mold Kaylo, the approximate percentage of amosite as compared to chrysotile fibers varied between onehalf and two-thirds of the total percentage of the asbestos content of Kaylo. OC also manufactured asbestos-containing Kaylo 10 from 1970 to 1972 using the filter press process. The formula for filter press Kaylo io generally included chrysotile asbestos, celite, hydrated lime and alum. DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNINO F1BEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES tsbeMOi.nl P*$e 7 The asbestos content of Kaylo 10 was approximately 15% (3%) by weight? the asbestos content of Kaylo 20 was approximately 22% (3%) by weight? and the asbestos content of Kaylo 17 was approx imately 13% (3%) by weight. Slight changes were made in the batch formulations continually throughout the period of time that OC manufactured asbestos-containing Kaylo in an attempt to improve the product. For precise information on asbestos content and type, OC refers plaintiff to its batch formulations which are located in OC's document library. OC will provide a compilation of such formulations upon request and at cost. With regard to subparts (e) and (f), OC states that its asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation products were manufactured at its Berlin plant, P.O. Box 100, Berlin, New Jersey 08009, from May 1958 until November 1972, when OC ceased the production of asbestos-containing Kaylo products. OC's asbestos-containing Fyrcor product was manufactured at its Bloomington plant, 1111 West Perry Street, Bloomington, Illinois 61701, from April 1970 until November 1972, when OC ceased the production of Fyrcor. The Newark plant, Case Avenue, Newark, Ohio 43055, began opera tion as an OC facility in 1938 and produced a small quantity of asbestos-containing products including cements, sewn blankets, metal mesh blankets and Type II Mastic. OC's Anderson plant, Starr Road, P.O. Box 1367, Anderson, South Carolina 29622, which began operation in July 1951, produced a small quantity of asbestos-containing products including polyester resins and adhesives. OC's Huntingdon plant, 14th and Penn Streets, Post DQ'ENDANT OWENS-COSNTNO FIBERQLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ubum m Page Office Box 382, Huntxlngdon, Pennsylvania 16.6S52, produced its asbestos-containing ceontinuous and Chopped strand Mat. The Bloomington-,-, Illinois, plant was seold in 1982. The Berlin, New Jersey pliant ceased operation inn 1993. The other plants are still in ooperation producing nonaasbestos-containing products. With regard to ssuipart (j) and (r) , OCZ states that Kaylo block and Kaylo core= were white; Kaylo 20 bblock and Kaylo 20 pipe were pink; and Kaylo. pipe was grayish-whitea. OC also refers plaintiff to attachead Exhibits D, E, F, G aani H, product data and application informatiiar it provided to its .customers. With regard to ssurpart (i), OC objects? specifically to the term "specific sources" as vague and ambiguoons. Without waiving its objection, and asssraing plaintiffs are -.seeking information regarding suppliers oof raw asbestos, OC staates that it does not have in its possessicon records dating beforre 1964 regarding the amount of asbestos puurchased or used by OC. . However, presently available records forr nhe years 1964-1972 ianiicate that OC purchased 20,072 tonss of asbestos during tfcaat time period for use in manufacturing insmalation. OC purchased jrsa asbestos from the following companies: lake Asbestos of Quebbec 120 Broadway New York, HY 10005 {Sales Office) approximatelyv 2,095 tons of Chrysotile --Grades 4T-4, 7D-3, and 6D-3 DEFENDANT OWENS-CO*NING FTBE*OLA>\5 CVOfcATIOfTS SUPPLQ^ENTaI. XBPONSES TO PLAfiOlTFFTT l7SL*OGAT0RISS North Amerxican Asbestos Corp. 150 N. WaocJcer Drive Chicago, TTllinois 60606 (As of 10/226/71) approximately 11,786 tons of Amosite - Grades W3, AW, GW, S-33, GK, M, and K-3 Carey Canaadian Mines, Box 190 E. Broughton Station Quebec (As of 1/330/69) Ltd. approximately 6,116 tons of Chrysotile - Grades 6D-1, 7D-5, 4T-1, 4T-7, 7M-90, 7D-1, and 4D-1 Johns-Manwille J.M. saless Corporation P. 0. Box '556 Cleveland^, Ctiio 44193 (As of 5/116/72) approximately 75 tons of Chrysotile - Grade 4D-28 OC iss aware that at leas . one other asbestos distributor, Ruberoid/GSAF Corporation, has claimed that it sold asbestos to OC. OC allso may have purchased asbestos from the U. S. Govern ment. With, /regard to subpart (k) and (p), OC states that its asbestos-ecantaining Kaylo products were packaged in corrugated containers^. See attached Exhibits I, J, K and L, draw- ings/photcographs of packaging for OC's asbestos-containing products. 0C did not stamp the name of the company, its initials or any idaRrrtitying logo on its asbestos containing products. Withr.-regard to subpart (1), OC also objects to this subpart as being vsagoe and ambiguous. Without waiving its objections and assuming tfrhat plaintiffs are seeking information regarding rebrandingg agreements between OC and other companies, OC states that OC'sf asbestos-containing Kaylo was rebranded for Eagle- Picher undder the name "Hy-Lo" beginning around 1958/1960; the date the rrebrand ended is unknown at present. Asbestos-contain- DEFENDANT OVBMCWMO FIBEXOLAS CORPORATIONS SUFPLMSTAL REffiUUBftS TO PlAiNTIFFS INTERROGATORIES utestos.i&i P*e JO ing Kaylo was rebranded for Armstrong Cork under the name "Armstrong LKn insulation; at the present time, OC is not aware of the dates of these transactions. OC had a rebrand agreement with the Pabco Division of Fibreboard Corporation between 1960 and the late 1960s or early 1970s by which Pabco's insulation was rebranded as "Kaylo" for OC. Also, Johns-Manville manufactured and rebranded insulation for OC during 1958-1960 (exact dates not known). Eagle-Picher manufactured and rebranded asbestos-containing cements for OC from approximately 1958-1968. Copies of the agreements between OC and Fibreboard Corporation (Pabco), Johns-Manville, arid EaglePicher are attached as Exhibits M, N and O. OC also distributed Owens-Illinois' asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation products from April 1953 to May 1958. See attached Exhibit P, a copy of the distribution agreement between OC and Owens-Illinois. See also attached Exhibit A, a chart listing those asbestoscontaining products previously manufactured and/or distributed by OC for additional information pertaining to these rebranded products. With regard to subpart (n) and (o), OC states that it did not invent or design every asbestos-containing product that it manufactured and/or sold and does not have a compilation of all the information requested herein. However, see attached Exhibit Q, particularly Schedule B of the purchase agreement between OC and Owens-Illinois, for information regarding Kaylo patents DEFENDANT OWEN&COCNMG FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPCMES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES aabcato* mi Pa(e 11 acquired by;* OC when it acquired the Berlin, Nesw Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant from Owens-Illinois in Mayy 1958, including patent nuabeers, inventor names, and issue datrees. OC will provide copries of the patents listed on part 1_ cf Schedule B upon request andd at cost. In addirition, OC later developed other pateerts relating to Kaylo. See= attached Exhibit R. The assbestos-containing Fyrcor product, onriginally known as Unarcoboardr., vas patented by Unarco Industries^. See aisso attached Exhibit S, a list of paatsxts for OC's asbestos-coDiitaining resin products; attached E2xtibit~T, a list of patents farr OC's asbestos-containing Continuouss and Chopped Strand Mat ^product; and attached Exhibit U, a . list of patents for OC's asbesmos-containing roofing products. With rsegard to subpart (n) and (o) , OC gesnsraily states that in 1963, ifcr began investigating the potential use of glass and other fiberrs in its asbestos-containing Kaylo products. The purpose of ~this research was to improve the imapect, strength and other physicca 1 properties of Kaylo by using fibbers which were being prodncced by OC. The research vas not dessigned to eliminate asbestos fi roa Kaylo and vas not prompted by assbestos-related health conceenks. This initial research vas unnsaccessful because the glass ffibers then available were attacked^. by the alkali present in 'the manufacturing process, resultinng in a loss of fiber inteanrity. DEFENDANT OWBOGXDBONG FIBERCLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL IfTIfnigl TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES In November 1966, OC scientists met at its research center in Granville, Ohio. Evolving information about the health risks associated with asbestos exposure was discussed at this time. Although this issue was still being debated in the scientific community, OC officials decided that the prudent course of conduct would be to remove asbestos completely from its Kaylo products. Research on substitute fibers was initiated. In December of 1966, a label was placed on Kaylo packaging advising of health concerns and work practices. See Response No. 9. - The first step in the research to find a substitute fiber was to determine whether any commercially available fiber" could be used in lieu of asbestos. The substitute fibers would have to be mixed into the batch and tolerate the manufacturing process which involved high alkali concentrations, high temperatures, and high pressure. Further, the finished product would have to perform adequately and maintain its integrity on extremely hot surfaces after installation. Numerous fibers were tested including mineral wool, Kaowool, Fiberfax, potassium titanate, nylon, dacron, rayon, silk, linen, polyester, acrylic, Nomex, wool, bagasse, sisal, excelsior, jute, kemp, sawdust, straw, coconut fiber, corn cobs, peanut hulls, oat hulls, walnut shells, cotton linters, aspen wood fibers, pine wood fibers, Calsi-Crete wood fibers, unbleached kraft, bleached kraft, hardboard chips, softwood chips, bleached hardboard pulp, bleached softwood pulp, unbleached hardboard pulp, unbleached softwood, sulfate bleached softwood, sulfate bleached hardwood. DEFENDANT OWENSCORNINO FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ubettM.ut P*te 13 usutu, alpha cellulose, and metal fibers. Hundreds of experimen tal samples of products were produced and tested; none of these potential substitutes was found to be acceptable. In 1970, OC developed a glass composition which could withstand the Kaylo manufacturing process; however, oc discovered during testing that the newly developed fiber did not adhere to the Kaylo material. Thus, even though the fibers survived the manufacturing process, they did not provide reinforcement to the product. The result was a weak and crumbling material. ' OC tried a variety of techniques in an attempt to create a bond between the glass fibers and the Kaylo matrix. The problem faced by the OC researchers was the availability of an appropri ate suspension agent. The primary function of chrysotile asbes tos in Kaylo was to suspend the various materials during the manufacturing process. Without chrysotile, the glass fibers would settle out of the batch resulting in a nonuniform distribu tion of the reinforcing fiber. This difficulty was overcome in late 1971 when researchers discovered that certain wood pulps could serve as a suspension agent. By early 1972, asbestos-free Kaylo was being produced for testing and test marketing at the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant. The product was found to be acceptable, and full scale production began in November 1972. Richard F. Shannon was in charge of the research efforts to locate a substitute for asbestos in OC's Kaylo products. At the present time, Mr. Shannon is retired. Others involved in this DEFENDANT OWBiS-COJLSTNO FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ubeJttM.iol P*C U project included Dana Bishop, rettdred; Jerry Helser, currently employed by OC; and Charles Schramm, retired. Numerous others were involved in this research efffccT throughout the entire company. With regard to subpart (s), coc states that in 1964, at the suggestion of Eagle-Picher, OC agrreed to the placement of a cautionary label on bags of OC-liao CSC-30) and OC-660 (SC-40) cement manufactured by Eagle-Pichaer and rebranded for OC. These labels read as follows: "CAUTION:.: "This product contains asbes tos fiber. Inhalation of asbestoss In excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmfrui. If dust is created when this product is handled, avoid breathing the dust. If adequate ventilation control is not possibile, wear respirators approved by the U.S. Bureau of Hines for pneimmoroniosis producing dust." See attached Exhibit V. In December 1966, OC handstaamped cautionary labels on containers of Kaylo insulation vhr.ict read as follows: "This product contains asbestos fiber. If dust is created when this product is handled, avoid breathizmc the dust. If adequate ventilation control is not possibble, wear respirator approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines." Cartcors with preprinted warnings were used after February 1967. Ntto reproductions of the hand- stamped packages are available. >:Hwever, attached Exhibit w accurately reflects the labeling .stamped on all packages from December 1966 to November 1970. DEFENDANT OWENWXRMNO FTBERGLAS CORPORA T70N*S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES In November 1970, OC changed the Kaylo cautionary label to read: "CAUTION - Product contains asbestos fiber. Inhalation of dust in excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmful. Avoid breathing dust. If adequate ventilation is not possible, wear respirators approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines for pneumoconiosis producing dust." See attached Exhibit X. After its purchase of the Bloomington, Illinois, plant from Unarco on April 15, 1970, OC continued to use the warning labels already printed on Unarcoboard (Fyrcor) packaging which read as follows: "CAUTION - This product contains asbestos fiber. Inhalation of asbestos in excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmful. If dust is created when this product is handled avoid breathing the dust. If inadequate ventilation control is not possible, wear respirators approved by the U. s. Bureau of Mines for pneumoconiosis producing dusts." See at tached Exhibit Y. In May 1971, OC revised the Fyrcor warning to read: "WARN ING - This product contains asbestos fibers. Inhalation of asbestos fibers in excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmful. Avoid breathing the dust. If adequate ventila tion control is not possible, wear respirators of a type approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines for pneumoconiosis dusts." See attached Exhibit Z. The author of the 1966 Kaylo cautionary label is presently unknown; however, J. M. Briley (retired) directed that the cautionary label be printed on Kaylo product cartons. Per DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNINO FIBEROlAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAI, RESPONSES TO PtAlNTIPP'S INTERROGATORIES ube*tot.iat P* 16 Saverstrexsm (retired) was involveed im the change of Kaylo's cautionasry label in 1970. The peerson responsible for the change of Fyrccrr's label in 1971 is alsso smknown; however, Dr. Jon Konzen participated in this actrlvity. OC did not author the warningss for OC-110 or 0C-660 cesmeots or the original warning for Unarcoboaard. Thee above described cautioisnary labels were directed to all users off those products. By 1^1570, OC also provided ^Material Safety Data Sheets for its asbeesros-containing Kaylo praroiacts upon request. These HSDS indicateed the then recommended TTLT for asbestos fibers and recommenoded leak or spill procedures and specific respirator and ventilatxisn precautions for asbeestos dust. See attached Exhibit AA. Additionally, OC, on its orawn and through the National Insulate nor Manufacturers Associaation, prepared and disseminated to contrraztors, distributors, aand Insulators information regard ing potefintial health hazards asssociated with asbestos-containing insulatd-lox. In 1968, NIMA publi_xsaed a pamphlet entitled "Recom mended Hfiealth Safety Practices rfcr Handling and Applying Thermal InsulatrloT Products Containing ^-Asbestos." This pamphlet was distribanrad at meetings of the l-Ixsolation Distributor Contractors National 1 Association. OC also directly distributed the pamphlet to its inranch managers. Supply ard Contracting (S & C) supervi sors, Harm Building Products (EHB?) supervisors, and S & c manag- DEFENDaNT O'ITtflS OQKN1NO FIBEJtGLAS CORPORaTK*TS sumaffit'nu.BnraEs to plaintiffs NTERjtooATo*iESE$ PtfC 1 ' ers with instructions to review the matter with their salesmen. See attached Exhibit BB, a copy of this pamphlet. OC also participated, through the educational and legisla tive committee of NIMA and at regional meetings of the IDCNA, in the presentation of health and safety programs to distributors and contractors. At those meetings, contractors and distribu tors: (1) were advised of the current status of health and safety activities pertinent to their businesses; (2) were given copies of the NIMA publications on health and safety practices and medical research literature; (3) discussed the contents of those publications; (4) discussed the merits of the proposed pre employment and periodic physical examination programs on a cooperative employer-employee basis; (5) were urged to establish regional health and safety committees; and (6) were given an opportunity to ask questions, of the experts. These NIMA programs were presented to contractors and distributors with the intention that they would instruct their employees accordingly. In 1972, Donald Bradshaw, OC's Region Manager of Power and Process for the West Coast and Chairman of the National Insula tion Contractor's Association's Occupational Health and Safety Committee, authored, along with other committee members, a pamphlet entitled, "Safety Reminders." See attached Exhibit cc. It is OC's present understanding that this pamphlet was dissemi nated to contractors, distributors, and insulators. OC further refers plaintiffs to attached Exhibit DD, a pamphlet entitled "Caution: Asbestos Dust ..." published by the DEFENDANT OWENS-OORNING FBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ufrcflo. m ! National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. This pamphlet was distributed by OC to its asbestos worker employees on or around October 30, 1973. OC also held meetings with the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers and the Glass Bottle Blowers. The meeting between OC and the president of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers took place in the union*s offices in Washington, D. C; the exact date of this meeting is unknown but OC believes it was before 1972. OC is uncertain as to the details regarding its meeting with the Glass Bottle Blowers. At these meetings, oc attempted to discuss the then-known health concerns regarding asbestos. Also, OC management held meetings with the unions at OC's Berlin, New Jersey, manufacturing plant and made special presen tations to employees to discuss those health concerns related to asbestos. OC was involved in all of the above activities in order to ensure the safe use of its asbestos-containing products. With regard to subpart (t), OC states that during the time period it sold asbestos containing products, the products were generally distributed throughout the United States. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OC * s files related to asbestos as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. DEFEJfDXNT 0WQ*$-C0RND40 FTBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUm-EMEKTAt RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES obeswini P*e 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Did you claim your asbestos producers) to be safe, efffestive end/or easy to handle? If so, identify all documents, vhicch have made such assertions, including, but nnct limited to, brochunres of advertisements (radio, television or pprinted) , and revisionns thereof by publication(s) and date. VSccr asbestos productes Includes all products which contain aimy amount of asbestos manufactured, sold, designed, suppliead, distributed, mined, . milled, relabeled, resold, processed, applied or installed by you or for you by others. * SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY^ SO. 4: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its orraginal objections to this interrogatory, oc supplements its responnss to the interrogatory as follows: To the extent that plaintiffs arss seeding information regarding warranties, OC states that ilt did not make any wsarr^n- ties with respect to its asbestos-corrcraiaing products. OC further states that it did not advert rise in the usual way via television or magazines, etc. Howevesr, during the time perrled in which OC manufactured asbestos-containnirg products, it provviied product data and application informatri.cn to purchasers. Sees attached Exhibits D, E, F, G and H. To the extent that plaintiffs ares seeking informationregarding cautions or warnings that OCC may have distributee.:! vith its products, OC refers plaintiffs tor supplemental Responses So. 3. Additional information pertinentr to the subject mattenr tf this interrogatory would be contained! in OC's files relateed to asbestos as described in Supplemental- response No. 2. DEFENDANT PSBROLAS CORPORATION'S SUmEMENTA! RESPONSES TO PUUNTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Did you specifically inform the purchaser or user of your products at the time your product was sold, installed, used, supplied or subsequently, [sic] that your products could cause lung cancer, asbestosis, and mesothelioma? If so, identify the document containing such information by date and location. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: ' OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is argumentative in that it assumes that OC had knowledge "at the time [its] product [were] sold, installed, used [or] supplied... that exposure to asbestos containing Kaylo insulation products could cause lung cancer, asbestosis, and mesothelioma." Without waiving its objections, OC refers plaintiffs to Supplemental Response No. 3 for information regarding its decision to place cautionary labels on its asbestos containing products; and to Supplemental Response No. 9 for information regarding OC*s evolving knowledge regarding the potential health effects of these products. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OC's files related to asbestos as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify any and all labelling or relabelling agreements between answering defendant and other entities, including other Defendants concerning asbestos containing products and materials. DEFENDANT OWBe-CORMNG FTBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES ubtiiM.ni Page 2! SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: OC refers plaintiffs to Supplemental Response No. 3 and specifically to Exhibits M, N, O and P. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Have you ever mined asbestos? If so, as to each mine and type of asbestos produced there, state the following: a. the location; b. the dates of operation by you; _ c. the type (e.g., chrysotile, amosite, etc.) produced; d. the grade of each type of asbestos fiber produced, the percentage of each grade to the total fiber produced by year or other period, and the recommended use of the grade of fiber; e. the gross annual sales in dollars and in volume for each type and grade of asbestos fiber; f. a full and precise description of the package in which the asbestos fiber was sold, including, but not limited to, type of package, size, color(s), and writing there on; g. all names under which the asbestos fiber was sold; h. the identity of all records reflecting the sale or transfer of said asbestos fiber; i. the identity of the present custodian of photographs of the burlap bags in which the asbestos fibers was stored and/or shipped; j. the address of each sales office and sales region for the sale of the asbestos fiber. k. the name of each authorized distributor of the asbestos fiber produced; DEFENDANT OWENS-OORNINO ftbexolas corporations SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES ubc*io*.iai P*e 22 l. the identity:-* cf each owner and operator oof the mine prior to thee cafe you first began operaticon of the mine, and thee dates thereof, and m. the identity:* cf each owner and operator oof the mine subsequent too your ceasing operation of tthe mine. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATCTOgf NO. 7: OC has never beenn in the business of mining raiv asbestos fibers. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Is answering defesnsant aware of the possible ccomection between exposure to a&sbestos or asbestos products aanc: a. Asbestosis? b. Lung cancer, ail cell types? c. Mesotheliomas? d. Colon cancerr? e. Stomach canccer? f. Laryngeal cannear? g* Cancer of thse Sidney? h. Cancer of time Esophagus? i. Other gastrcoirtestinal cancers? j* Pneumoconioasis? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATTO?Y NO. 8: OC objects to t-hiis interrogatory on the groundris that the information sought hesrein is more appropriately thee subject of competent expert testtimany. Without waiving its obrnsctions, OC is now aware of medicaal literature associating varrio^s health concerns with the inhaalation of asbestos. Accordinng to medical DEPENDANT OWQ<S-CORNING FtBE*<AJS <Xt33K&ATK>N'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FLASClFFrs SCSROGATORIES literature, inhalation of asbestos fibbers over an extended period of time may cause asbestosis in some _-individuals. OC recognizes that some individuaals who have had excessive respiration of asbestos fibers for pnrolanged periods of time have been afflicted with mesothelioma. Horowevex, many cases of meso thelioma have been reported where thesis has been no exposure of the individual to asbestos fibers. CThsrefore, the most that can be said from a medical standpoint is --Hv**: mesothelioma is not inconsistent with a history of respiration of asbestos fibers. OC further states that the hypottr.hssis that asbestos is causally related to lung cancer, othesr t*zan mesothelioma, is not supported by controlled scientific sttuiles. However, OC is aware of medical literature which indicates.- Tarrying degrees of rela tionships between certain types of cannier and the inhalation of asbestos dust. OC further refers plaintiffs to Response to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: If your answer to the above integncoatory, as to any or all of its sub-parts, is affirmative, idesntLfy: a. When and how defendant fixsst learned of such connec tions; b. If knowledge was obtained fcpy attendance at any confer ence, lecture, convention, .symposium or meeting, iden tify such meeting and proviu.de the identity of person attending or documents obtaaired? c. If knowledge was obtained rrran medical or scientific studies, or any other publiaaied work, identify same; DEFENDANT OWEXS-CORNING FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES tsbetto* mi Ptfc 2* d. If otherwise obtained, identify manner of receipt of document or communication. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: OC is now aware of medical literature associating various health concerns with the inhalation of certain asbestos fibers. However, there was no specific date as to when OC became aware of all of the relationships between various types of exposure to asbestos dust and various health concerns. Likewise, there was no specific date as to when OC became aware of the relationship between exposures to Kaylo dust and various health concerns. OC1s knowledge of the potential health aspects of asbestos exposure, particularly its awareness with respect to its Kaylo insulation product, was accumulated through the years from numerous sources, including the medical and scientific community, unions, medical and scientific literature, and OC employees. In the early 1940s, some OC employees became aware of reports of asbestosis and asbestos corns associated with pro longed overexposure to heavy concentrations of asbestos fibers in the asbestos textile manufacturing industry. Employees learned of these reports from published medical studies such as W. C. Dreesen, et al., "A Study of Asbestosis in the Asbestos Textile Industry,'* Public Health Bulletin No. 241, August 1938, and A. J. Lanza, et al., "Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust on the .an DEFENDANT OWE*<SCORN1NO FIBERGLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ubcsu*. P**? Lungs of Asbestos Workers," Public Health Reseponts, Vol. 50, No. 1., January 1935. See attached Exhibit EE, a copy of the Dreesen study from OC's files (Bates numbered 01 50T1 0514-0648); attached Exhibit FF (Bates numbered 01 500 0072-0084V) , a copy of the Lanza Study received by OC in 1941; and attached EjBEiildt GG (Bates numbered 01 500 0062-0064) , correspondence rrelated to OC's receipt of the Lanza Study. The Dreesen stmicy noted that only a few doubtful cases of asbestosis could be ftround where dust levels were kept below a threshold limit value (TLSLV) of five million particles per cubic foot of air (MPPCF) . Tffihe srtudy reported that if du^t could be kept below that level (by simple engineering and housekeeping methods such as proper ventilamticr. and work area clean-up), new cases of asbestosis would non appear. In 1946, the American Conference of Governmental Indnnscrial Hygienists (ACGIH) adopted the TLV of five MPPCF as itss recommended stan dard. A study of asbestos pipe coverers in NSfary vessels entitled "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations^ in Constructing Naval Vessels" was published by W.E. Fleischfaer, et al. in the January 1946 issue of the Journal of Internasarional Hygiene and Toxicology. 28, 9-16. This study, subsequesnrly reported in the April 1946 issue of the Industrial Hygiene rDigest, found that the conclusions drawn regarding health effects -ir the asbestos textile industry could not be applied to piupsccvering on board Navy ships and that pipe covering was not as fangerous occupation. See attached Exhibit HH, a copy of the Apriil 1946 issue of the DEFENDANT OW&&CORNINO FIBER01AS CORPORATION'S supplemental responses to plaintiffs interrogatories nbcuo* at It Industrial Hygiene Digest, and attached Exhibit II, a copy, cf an affidavit of Marianne Kaschak of the Industrial Hygiene Faourdation. As a member of the IHF, OC likely received this digerest report. In the early 1940s, certain OC employees also became -avare of a study of New York Navy Yard asbestos insulation workemrs by Captain Ernest Brown, M.D. Dr. Brown concluded that, evenr. vith a maximum working period of exposure of 17 years, no cases oof asbestosis were found among the insulators that he studied::. See attached Exhibit JJ (Bates numbered 01 501 0965-0968) , a ccpry of a letter dated 3/9/42 from Dow Chemical to OC transmittinar *n excerpt from Captain Brown's study and related correspondeenre. In April 1953, OC began to distribute a hydrous calciuun silicate reinforced with asbestos, called Kaylo, which vas~s manufactured by Owens-Illinois. OC began to manufacture insulation product in May 1958 when it purchased the Berlib-n. New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant from Owens-Illinois. In 1956, before purchasing the Kaylo manufacturing pilart from Owens-Illinois, 0C inquired into the information that" 3vensIllinois had regarding the health aspects of the Owens-Illiirois Kaylo product. OC was informed that a study, conducted bry rbe Trudeau Foundation of Saranac Lake, New York, and publisheed in 1955, showed that animals, if exposed for a prolonged perricd of time to extraordinarily heavy concentrations of Kaylo dusmr, could develop a mild asbestosis reaction. However, 0C was informed at the same time that Owens-Illinois* experience in its manuE-factur- aB DEFENDANT OWB<S>CORNING FIBER0LAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES iumm. ing planer, including x-ray results, revealed no lung changes of any Jcinod chat could be attributed to the occupational exposure to Kaylo. See attached Exhibit KK (Bates numbered 01 118 0108), a letter :tram W. G. Hazard to Ira Brought dated 6/12/56. Cerprtain other documents in OC's historical files, which OC believess it received from Owens-Illinois in 1958, informed OC that Ow<rers-Illinois had never received any complaints from any user reeflacting any health or physical impairment on the part of people handling Kaylo material. Owens-Illinois had thus conclud ed, bassez on its experiences in the factories and in the field and itss consideration of the Saranac Lake report, that the actual health effects on those handling Kaylo was considered to be small. rc refers plaintiffs to attached Exhibit LL (Bates numberesc 31 501 1348-1352), a draft of a pamphlet and correspon dence rrelating to the health aspects of Kaylo prepared by OwensIllinoiis in 1952, which OC believes it received when it purchased the Berrlm, New Jersey Kaylo manufacturing plant from OwensIllinolis in 1958. See also attached Exhibit MM, a collection of documeants pertaining to the Saranac Laboratory's testing of Kaylo which aars in OC's files and which OC believes it received with or shortlyy after the purchase of the Berlin, New Jersey plant (Sxhibnit as consists of 12 documents, Bates numbered as follows: 01 501_ US4-1355? 01 501 1353; 01 034 0001-0032; 01 501 1343 1344; :ni 501 1347; 01 501 1441; 01 035 0498-0530; 01 501 1439 1440; :ci 501 1345-1346; 01 501 1348-1352; 01 501 1405-1406; 01 501 13515--1331) . DEFg-TOAXT Cmil COINING FXBEROLAS CORPORATION'S $UPPLEMBCECZAL.C9aKSES TO PLAINTIFF'S tNTERROOATORIES In the early 1960s, an industrial hygienist at the Union Carbide Company, Robert Peele, had studied Kaylo and concluded that: (1) the fabrication of Kaylo block insulation produced negligible health effects; (2) the environmental condition in evidence during the fabrication of Kaylo block insulation was not: hazardous to health; and (3) Kaylo block insulation could be fabricated safely at Union Carbide*s Construction Insulation Shop. OC refers plaintiffs to copies of the Peele studies attached as Exhibit NN (Report 62-IH-l-G-l consisting of 15 ' pages) and Exhibit 00 (Report 63-IH-3-G-1 consisting of 14 pages). Documents in OCs historical files indicate that at least by May 16, 1963, Robert Peele discussed his test results with William A. Lotz of OC Product Testing. OC refers plaintiffs to attached Exhibit PP, a copy of . a June 20, 1963, memorandum from William Lotz to J. K. Boynton (Bates numbered 01 007 0303-0304) . Entries from Robert Peele*s daily calendar secured by OC in the course of litigation further indicate that Robert Peele (1) met with Robert Estep of OC on April 30, 1963, and discussed Union Carbide*s dust analysis tests and research techniques (see attached Exhibit QQ; (2) spoke to Robert Estep on May 1, 1963, and set up a meeting for May 16, 1963, with Estep and William Lotz (see attached Exhibit PP; and (3) met with Estep and Lotz onr. May 16, 1963, to discuss the best techniques for conducting air analysis (see attached Exhibit SS. DEFENDANT OW&5-CORNINO FIBERGLAJ CORPORATION'S SUPP1.EMENTAL RESPONSES TO FlAINTTFP'S INTERROGATORIES During the approximate period of 1964-1966, oc became aware of new developments concerning potential problems with asbestos insulating materials, particularly reports authored by Dr. Irving J. Selikoff which were presented as part of proceedings conducted by the New York Academy of Sciences and published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Science on December 31, 1965. These articles, as they related to prolonged use and exposure to asbestos insulating materials and potential lung disease, were questioned by certain OC employees with regard to their application to the product Kaylo. It was felt that Kaylo, a calcium silicate, could not have been involved to any apprecia ble extent in the studies because the studies involved men who had entered the insulation trade before 1943 and Kaylo was not manufactured until 1943, and according to Owens-Illinois, not commercially produced until 1948. In addition, the fact that the asbestos in Kaylo was altered physically and chemically during the autoclaving process raised the issue as to whether or not the alteration changed the possible cancer inducing tendencies of the original asbestos. OC refers plaintiffs to attached Exhibit TT (Bates numbered 01 007 0287-0291), a copy of Selikoff's article, "Asbestos Exposure and Neoplasia," published in the April 6, 1964 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, and attached Exhibit UU (Bates numbered 01 007 0286), a memorandum to F. H. Edwards from W. L. Taylor, dated 4/22/64 relating thereto. As of the mid-1960s, no worker's compensation cases had been filed by employees of the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing DEEDEDANT OWENS-CORKING FTBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES beto.at Pa*c JO pplant. In October 1966, certarin OC employees became aware of a ppotential claim by a Massachusetts insulation worker who claimed aalmost exclusive handling of Kaayio and alleged lung disease. OC rrefers plaintiffs to attached EEtibit W (Bates numbered 01 039 11471--1472), correspondence regsariing this claim. Shortly thereafter, notwithstanding the fact that there was sstill doubt among OC employees: as to whether Kaylo could cause Hung disease, OC made the decis-sicn to place cautionary labels on KSaylo cartons and to remove asrsbestos from Kaylo as quickly* as ppossible. This decision was inmrlemented in December 1966. OC rrefers plaintiffs to attached ZEsiibit WW (Bates numbered 01 037 c3350--0402), minutes of OC's Incdcstrial and Commercial Division's ^Research and Development Reviemv cn November 7, 1966, which rrelaces to these actions. OC ceased the manufacturer zz asbestos-containing Kaylo and Cbnarcoboard in 1972; attached Z-EEhibit A lists the dates that OC cceased the manufacture and/or distribution of other asbestosccortaining products. Additional information peert:nent to the subject matter of tthis interrogatory would be cornrtained in OC's files related to aassestos as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. 2*3S1'3ATORY NO. 10: With regard to any knowlesare obtained subsequent to that -identified in the above interr-roratory, and up until the time that .vog ceased to sell and/or manuxfarture asbestos products, identi: tv: 3>SeK>T OWENS-CORNING FffiEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUy. FtGSTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERJK>O\T0RS trtcm ioi P*t< 31 a. All documents or other communications, oral cDr written, concerning the casual [sic] connection betveeen exposure to asbestos or asbestos products and diseases, and identify [sic] of persons so communicating; b. Did answering defendant obtain from or transmmit any such information to other defendants in thiss case? If so, identify: 1. manner of receipt or communication for eeach con tact; 2. all documents and persons involved. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 0C objects to this interrogatory to the extent thaar it seeks information protected from discovery as attorney-cliermt communi cations and/or attorney work product. Without waiving? its objections, OC states that it does not have a compilatrica of the information requested herein. Such information, to thee extent that it exists, would be located in OC's document librrary prof fered in Response to Interrogatory No. 2. OC further refers plaintiffs to Response to Interrrogatory No. 8 and Supplemental Response No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: As to any knowledge possessed by answering defenddaict at any time referred to in answers to the preceding three irrtxerrogatories did you educate your employees, distributors, or* -parchasers about the hazards known to you and any safety precatloons [sic] necessary to guard against cancer and other diseases aarising from the use and handling of your asbestos containing producers? If so, identify: a. When and in what manner customers, insulatorrs, non employee factory workers and the general punblic were so informed; b. Documents communicating or otherwise dissesudmating such ifnromation [sic]; DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES ubcam.BM Page 32 c. Programs initiated or sponsored to establish or promote safety procedures, methods of usage of asbestos con taining products; 4- Published articles of reports by employees (present or prior), including those of medical directors, scien tists, engineers or other professionals; a- Symposia or lectures sponsored for the benefit of asbestos workers and/or the general public. SUPPPI^FWTAT, RP-SPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. lit Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objeections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to thee interrogatory as follows: JLlthough OC is now aware of medical literature associating varricas health concerns with the inhalation of certain asbestos fiheers, there was no specific date as to when OC became aware of alL_ cf the relationships between various types of exposure to asbeescos dust and various health concerns. Likewise, there was no sspecific date as to when OC became aware of the relationship betxve^ exposures to Kaylo dust and various health concerns. OC*s inovledge of the health aspects of asbestos exposure, paacrtiralarly its awareness with respect to its Kaylo insulation proodxst, was accumulated through the years from numerous sources, incxluiing the medical and scientific community, unions, medical andd scientific literature, and OC employees (see Supplemental Kesspnzse Ho. 9) . In late 1966, although the health risks associated with ashmesros exposure were still being debated in the scientific comaminity, OC officials decided that the prudent course of DEFSSNDtffT 0*esS-CO*NING FTBERGLAS CORPORATION'S sumaaecxL responses to plaintiffs ikterrooatories ubeMM m P conduct would be to remove asbestos completely from its Kaylo products. OC initiated research on substitute fibers and, in December 1966, placed a label on containers of Kaylo advising of: health concerns and recommended work practices. OC refers plaintiffs to Response No. 3 and the exhibits proffered therein for information regarding its decision to place cautionary labelss on its asbestos containing products and issue warnings to custom*-- ers and insulators using its abestos containing products, and focr information regarding OC's research on substitute fibers. ' With regard to its own employees OC states that Paul Scheuerle, then plant manager at OC's Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant, gave an educational program to the plant employees in 1971. See attached Exhibit XX. Mr. Scheuerle is nao longer employed by OC. OC also conducted programs regarding respirator use. OC does not have a compilation of information regarding the dates and locations of these programs; however, respirators were recommended and made available to those OC employees working in areas where the environment was dusty to protect them from the inhalation of dust particles, including the inhalation of asbes tos dust. Respirators were available in all contracting units from shortly after their formation. In addition, respirators were available to employees of OC* `s Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant when OC purchased the plant from Owens-Illinois in May 1958. At the time of the DEFENDANT Owe*-CORNTNO PDEJtGLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO P1AINTWS INTERROGATORIES Pat&re V purchase, Owens-Illinois had a respirator program in place; oc continued this program and supplemented employees1 knowledge with an educational program in 1971. See attached Exhibit XX, an outline of this educational program which includes a discussion of the Berlin plant respirator program. See also attached Exhibit YY, a copy of the Berlin, New Jersey, manufacturing plant safety rules which refers specifically to the use of respirators. Respirators were available to employees of OC's Bloomington, Illinois, Unarcoboard (Fyrcor) manufacturing plant when OC purchased the plant from Unarco in April 1970. In late August 1970, OC required operators of the Asbestos Fiber Feeder, Slurry Mixer and Unarcoboard Press in the Bloomington plant to wear respirators while those pieces of equipment were running. The use of respirators was originally intended as a temporary measure until safe air conditions were achieved. This requirement was extended by Dr. Jon L. Konzen to include all personnel entering the asbestos operation area. Instructions were given to plant employees regarding use and maintenance of the respirators. By mid-November 1970, the respirator program was fully functional and the majority of the workers were complying the requirement. OC purchased respirators from Mine Safety Appliances in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and from other sources. The respira tors that OC purchased were approved by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. DEFENDANT OWQ<S-CORNlNG F3EROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES Page 33 Additionally, OC, on itas cwn and through the National Insulation Manufacturers Assaociation, prepared and disseminated to contractors, distributors, , and insulators information regard ing potential health hazards r associated with asbestos-containing insulation. In 1968, NIMA punb"ished a pamphlet entitled "Recom mended Health Safety Practicess for Handling and Applying Thermal Insulation Products Containinng Asbestos." This pamphlet was distributed at meetings of tixse Insulation Distributor Contractors Sational Association. OC alsso directly distributed the pamphlet to its branch managers, Suppily and Contracting (S & C) supervi sors, Home Building Products (~3P) supervisors, and S""& c manag ers with instructions to reviiev the matter with their salesmen. See attached Exhibit BB, a ccopj of this pamphlet. OC also participated, th'nrzogb the educational and legisla tive committee of NIMA and ate regional meetings of the IDCNA, in the presentation of health anmc safety programs to distributors and contractors. At those m^eetings, contractors and distribu tors: (1) were advised of tithe current status of health and safety activities pertinent rxc their businesses; (2) were given copies of the NIMA publicatinras on health and safety practices and medical research literatnsre; (3) discussed the contents of those publications; (4) disccnssed the merits of the proposed pre employment and periodic physsical examination programs on a cooperative employer-employees oasis; (5) were urged to establish regional health and safety ccmamLittees; and (6) were given an opportunity to ask questions.3 cf the experts. These NIMA programs DEFENDANT OWEKS-COtNTNO FIBBROLAS CORFORATXtCfrTS SUmXMBfTAL RESPONSES TO PIAINTIFFS INTERROGA267CE3 ubetcn uii f* it were presented to contractors and distributors with the intention that they would instruct their employees accordingly. In 1972, Donald Bradshaw, OC's Region Manager of Power and Process for the West Coast and Chairman of the National Insula tion Contractor's Association's Occupational Health and Safety Committee, authored, along with other committee members, a pamphlet entitled, "Safety Reminders." See attached Exhibit CC. It is OC's present understanding that this pamphlet was dissemi nated to contractors, distributors, and insulators. OC further refers plaintiff to attached Exhibit DD, a pamphlet entitled "Caution: Asbestos Dust . . published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. This pamphlet was distributed by OC to its asbestos worker employees on or around October 30, 1973. OC also held meetings with the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers and the Glass Bottle Blowers. The meeting between OC and the president of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers took place in the Union offices in Washington, D. C. The exact date of this meeting is unknown; however, OC believes it was before 1972. OC is uncertain as to the details regarding its meeting with the Glass Bottle Blowers. At these meetings, OC attempted to discuss the then-known health concerns regarding asbestos. Also, OC management held meetings with the unions at OC's Berlin, New Jersey, manufacturing plant and made special presen- DEFENDANT OWEKSCOXNINO FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES sbotot.ni Pe 37 tations to employees to discuss those health concerns related to asbestos. In addition, OC*s Medical Department sponsored health programs and conducted medical surveillance. (See Supplemental Response No. 18). Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OC's files related to asbestos as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 12; ' When, before 1972, and by what manner were you first aware of the health hazards relating to exposure to asbestos or asbes tos products for insulators, plasterers, pipefitters, boilermak ers, operators, sheet metal workers, helpers, drywall.finishers, mechanics, carpenters, shipfitters, machinist and bystanders exposed to inhalers. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: OC refers plaintiffs to Response to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Did you perform, direct to be performed, finance, sponsor or receive the results of any studies or tests concerning potential health hazards involved with the use of asbestos containing materials? If so, identify such studies or tests and state: a. When, where and at what intervals such studies were performed; b. Were such studies in writing or reported at a later date in writing; c. Were the results of such studies published or otherwise disseminated? If so, state to whom and when; d. Who performed such studies; e. What were the results of such studies; DEFENDANT OWENS-CORMNO HBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES ubeatoa m Pate 31 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO 7 I8TSRROGATORY NO. 13; Without waiving andi incorporating by referencee its original objections to this interrrogatory, OC supplements iits response to the interrogatory as folllcws: 00 offers the following overview of those tesshs, studies, and surveys of which it was aware before 1974 whicnh pertain to the potential health effsects of asbestos-containinng Kaylo. Before OC purchased! the Berlin, New Jersey, KKayio manufac turing plant from Owens-rIllinois, Owens-Illinois sspccsored studies on Kaylo. Thesee studies were conducted ate the Trudeau Foundation located in Say.ranac Lake, New York. In 1956, before itss acquisition of the Kaylo manufacturing plant from Owens-IllinoisT OC inquired into the innfzrmation that Owens-Illinois had regarerding the health aspects off rvensXllinois, Kaylo product.. OC was informed that a sstucy at Saranac Lake, published in 1955, . Viewed that animals, if esaocsed for a prolonged period of timee to extraordinarily high ccorcentrations of Kaylo dust, could deveelop a mild asbestosis reaaction. Howev er, OC was informed at tr.hs same time that Owens-IlllhDois' experi ence in the Kaylo manufaecturing plants, including: x-ray results of its employees, revealaed do lung changes of any kind that could be attributed to the occcxoational exposure to Kayilo. See at tached Exhibit KK (Batess cambered 01 118 0108) , ai. latter from W. G. Hazard to Ira Brought^ dated 6/12/56. Documents from OC*ss historical files, which coc believes it received from Owens-Illiimis around the time of OOC's acquisition DEFENDANT OWH^CORNINO FSEKOLAS (^OSFCKSiTXX^S SXTPLSMDTTAL RBSFOtGES TO PLAINTIFFS INmSKXxATORIES ubuica an 39 of the Berlin, New Jersey plant, informed OC that Owens-Illinois had never received any complaints from any user reflecting any health or physical impairment on the part of people handling Kaylo material. Owens-Illinois had thus concluded, based on its experiences in the factories and in the field and its consider ation of the Saranac Lake report, that the actual hazard to the health of those handling Kaylo was considered to be small. OC refers plaintiffs to attached Exhibit LL (Bates numbered 01 501 1348-1352), a draft of a pamphlet and correspondence relating to the health aspects of Kaylo, prepared by Owens-Illinois in 1952, which OC believes it received in 1958. See also attached Exhibit MM, a collection of documents pertaining to the Saranac Laboratory's testing of asbestos-containing Kaylo which were in oc's historical files and which OC believes it received shortly after it acquired the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant (Exhibit MM consists of 12 documents, Bates numbered as follows: 01 501 1354-1355; 01 501 1353; 01 034 0001-0032; 01 501 1343-1344; 01 501 1347; 01 501 1441; 01 035 0498-0530; 01 501 1439-1440; 01 501 1345-1346; 01 501 1348-1352; 01 501 1405-1406; 01 501 1319-1331). OC may have in its possession other documents of the type inquired of herein which OC received after litigation began and in the course of discovery. OC further states that it conducted a survey of its workers in the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant which was concluded in December 1970. See attached Exhibit ZZ. DEFENDANT OWENSCORNNO FTBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ubesaot.ist Pafe 40 During the period of time in which OC manufactured asbestoscontaining Kaylo products, dust level counts were taken for asbestos at the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant by Aetna in 1961, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1969, and 1972; by Bradley in 1968 and 1969; and by Clayton in 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973. See attached Exhibits AAA, BBB and CCC, which include copies of the results of some of those surveys. During this time period, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry also periodically conducted industrial hygiene inspections, including dust level counts for asbestos, at the Berlin plant. OC refers plaintiffs to attached Exhibit DDD, a collection of documents which OC counsel obtained in the course of litigation from the New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry pertaining to such inspections. Industrial hygiene surveys, consisting of dust counts, were conducted during the fabrication of Kaylo block insulation on December 11, 1961, February 25, 1963, and in March 1963 at Union Carbide's Construction Insulation Shop in Charleston, West Virginia, by Robert Peele, an Industrial Hygienist for Union Carbide. As a result of his surveys, Mr. Peele concluded that 1) the fabrication of Kaylo block insulation produced negligible health effects; 2) the environmental condition in evidence during the fabrication of Kaylo block insulation was not hazardous to health; and 3) Kaylo block insulation could be fabricated safely at Union Carbide's Construction Insulation Shop. OC refers plaintiffs to copies of the Peele studies attached as Exhibit NN DEFENDANT OWBS-CORNO PffiEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES tbe*io* sm P*e *1 (Report 62-IH-l-G-l consisting of 15 pages) and Exachibit OO (Report 63-IH-3-G-1 consisting of 14 pages). Documents in OC's historical files indicate tJthat at least by May 16, 1963, Robert Peele discussed his test resunlis with William A. Lotz of OC Product Testing. OC refers ;:plaintiffs to attached Exhibit PP, a copy of a June 20, 1963, mefimnrandum from William Lotz to J. K. Boynton (Bates numbered 01 0007 0303-0304) . Entries from Robert Peele1 s daily calendar seecnred by OC in the course of litigation further indicate that Robeert Peele (1) met with Robert Estep of 0C on April 30, 1963, andd discussed Union Carbide's dust analysis tests and research tx.ecfaniques (see attached Exhibit QQ); (2) spoke to Robert Estep onn Hay 1, 1963, and set up a meeting for May 16, 1963, with Estep and William Lotz (see attached Exhibit RR); and (3) met with ESsrep and Lotz on May 16, 1963, to discuss the best techniques fccr conducting air analysis (see attached Exhibit SS). Dust surveys were performed at power plants ian Montour, Pennsylvania, on January 15, 1973, and in Peachbotatcm, Pennsylva nia, on January 16 and 17, 1973; and at a shipyartrd in San Diego, California, on June 26 and 27, 1973. These surveys's were done by G. E. Devitt, Chief Industrial Hygienist, Owens-ccroraing Fiberglas Corporation, Fiberglas Tower, Toledo, Ohio 43659. Results of these surveys were communicated to OC's ContractLmg Division. See attached Exhibit EEE, the results of those surxvays conducted at Montour, Pennsylvania; Peachbottom, Pennsylvania; and San Diego, California. DEFENDANT OWQG-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES ubettm cot P$.e 4 2 OC further states that certain OC resins previously de scribed contained small amounts of calidria, purchased from the Union Carbide Corporation. The resins contained less than .6% of calidria. Union Carbide conducted an industrial hygiene survey in December 1973 to evaluate any fiber release which resulted from sanding and sawing of the plastic into which this resin was made. This survey indicated that no detectable asbestos was released. In addition, in the course of litigation OC has become aware of the following studies pertaining to the potential health effects of Kaylo: In August and September 1966, the industrial hygiene depart ment of Bath Iron Works conducted surveys of the dust released when cutting various pipecovering materials. See attached Exhibit FFF, the study results from the test dated August 19, 1966 and Exhibit GGG, the results of the test dated September 12, 1966. After concluding these surveys, Bath Iron Works decided to use Kaylo pipecovering on future projects, because it was less dusty than other asbestos-containing pipecovering. In 1967, industrial hygienists at DuPont evaluated total dust generated by fabricating, handsawing, and filing Kaylo. Dust counts from fabricating Kaylo with a band saw and a hand saw resulted in a negligible amount of total dust, defined as less than 100 particles per cubic foot. Filing of Kaylo resulted in a trace amount of total dust, defined as greater than 5,000 parti cles per cubic foot but less than .2% of the TLV. DEFENDANT OWmS-COKNING FJBBRGLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL responses to plaintiffs interrogatories ukntM.M Page *y Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OC's files related to asbestos as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: During the time period that you manufactured, sold, sup plied, applied, distributed or installed asbestos containing products, what tests have been performed by any governmental agency, body, commission or health organization including, but not limited to, the U.S. Public Health Service, OSHA, or NIOSH, in your plants or on job sites owned or controlled by you con cerning: specific hazards associated with the use and handling of asbestos and asbestos products; any restrictions in use of same; requirements fo rmedical [sic] surveillance and examina-' tions for your workers, dust monitoring or availability of safety equipment? If such findings were made, identify: a. The date or dates of such findings and by which organi zation or entity such findings were made; b. The form in which such findings were made and, if written, the exact wording of same or location in regulation, order, bulletin, report or other writing; c. What steps were taken to comply with such findings and the dates when such acts of compliance occurred; d. How users of or bystanders exposed to asbestos or asbestos containing products were informed or (sic) such findings and if such information was written identifying same. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: OC does not have a compilation of all the information requested herein, however OC refers plaintiffs to Supplemental Responses No. 3 and 13 and specifically to the industrial hygiene DEFENDANT O^ENS-CORNING FTBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES P*e44 inspections conducted by the New Jersey Department of Labor at OC*s Berlin, New Jersey Kaylo manufacturing plant. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be located in OC's files related to asbestos, as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: During the time that you manufactured, sold, designed, supplied, distributed, mined, milled, relabeled, resold, pro cessed, applied or installed asbestos containing products, did you perform, direct to be performed, finance, sponsor or receive the results of any dust monitoring tests at job sites where ' asbestos-containing products were being applied and/or removed? If so, state: a. The date and location of the first such test; b. When, where and at what intervals subsequent tests were performed; c. Who performed such tests; d. Where the results of such tests are maintained; e. What steps were taken by you to improve results of such tests, and dates when such improvements were made. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: OC refers plaintiffs to Supplemental Response No. 13 and Exhibits AAA, BBB, CCC and DDD. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory may be contained in OC's files related to asbestos as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. DEFENDANT OWStS-CORNRO FTBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES ubettoa.nl Pe 45 INTERROGATORY WO. 16: If your answer to the above interrogatory is in the nega tive, state your reasons for not performing dust monitoring tests. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: OC refers plaintiffs to Supplemental Responses to Interroga tories Nos. 13 and 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: During the time that Defendant sold, manufactured, designed, supplied, distributed, mined, milled, relabeled, resold, pro cessed, applied or installed asbestos containing products, did the Defendant ever have any inspectors or anyone from your company or hired by your company whose job it was to go to areas where your asbestos containing products were being used,-removed or installed to make a dust level count? If so, state when this procedure started, the purpose of such procedure and the findings and what action, if any, was taken in response to the findings, and attach results. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: OC objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burden some. OC also objects to use of the term "inspectors" as being ambiguous. Without waiving its objections, OC refers plaintiffs to Supplemental Response Nos. 13 and 15, and the exhibits prof fered therein. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OC's files related to asbestos as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. DEFENDANT OWBiS-CORNINO FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMB-TTAJ. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES ubejtM.iot Pit* *6 INTERROGATORY NO. 18 r During the time the Defendant manufactured, sold, designed, supplied, distributed, mined, milled, relabeled, resold, pro cessed, applied, or installed asbestos containing products, identify any medical examination programs offered or sponsored bpy answering defendant or its insurance carrier(s) for employees of:7 its insured handling or otherwise exposed to asbestos and asbes-- tos products. With respect to each program; state; a. Manner of communication with employees about such program; b. Whether examination was mandatory or optional; c. What percentage of workers permitted to undergo such examination participated; d. What percentage of workers were found to have asbesto-- sis or mesothelioma; - e. with respect to (d), what percentage of such workers were paid disability or workmen's compensation benefitrs or for whose benefit medical expenses were paid to undergo treatment for such conditions. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original, ejections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to: the interrogatory as follows: Following its purchase of the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant in May 1958, OC continued the program previ-- oosly instituted by Owens-Illinois of providing periodic chest x- rays as part of the plant's preventive health program. By 1971, oc's periodic health screening program included other testing procedures and examinations by plant physicians. Although OC ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing products in Novem ber 1972, OC continued these procedures for Berlin employees antil 1993 when the plant closed. DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNINC FTSBROUS CORPORATION'S SFPLEWENTaL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES Following its purchase of the Bloomington, Illinois, runeaufacturing plant of the Chembest Division of Unarco Industrries in April 1970, Dr. George B. McNeely conducted baseline physiccal examinations of the plant population. Chest x-rays of alL_ plant employees were also taken. Those employees with existing a.and/or potential health problems were notified accordingly. Examxirations were then offered annually to all active plant emplopyeas. OC sold the Bloomington plant in 1982. Since its organization in January 1968, OC's Medical iServic es Department has recommended to management pre-placement -and periodic medical surveillance programs of OC manufacturingr employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. These prrocrams have included in-plant medical examinations, and, if necessssry, consultations with appropriate specialists. The purpose orf such medical examinations was to detect existing lung changes iun JC's employees. OC further states that, in 1970, it conducted an epidaeaic-- logical survey of employees in its Berlin, New Jersey, Kayvlc manufacturing plant. OC refers plaintiffs to attached Extmitit ZZ. With regard to the employees of its Supply and Contraacring Division, OC points out that contract employees were not peermanent employees of OC, but were hired frequently from local 1 ini.on halls for particular jobs or on an "as needed" basis. OC further states that it participated in medical exammina tion programs for insulators. In the 1960s, OC participated in DEFENDANT OWQtt^OftNINO FIBEROLAS CORPORATIONS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S WTERROQATORIES U the Western States Asbestos Health Plan, Occupational Health Program. During the 1970s, OC was involved in many attempts to set up medical examination programs for insulators. OC initially used the examination services of outside organizations and, in 1973, oc, itself, retained medical personnel to examine all of its contracting employees. The following doctors were consulted on a periodic basis from 1973 to 1987 to conduct examinations of contract unit employees (the Contracting Division was sold in February 1987)': Richard K. Bath, M.D. 1124 Carew Towers Cincinnati, OH Alexander Greer, M.D. West 104th Fifth, Spokane, WA 99204 Willis Taylor, M.D. West Side Family Health Center 700 N. High School Road Indianapolis, IN Leon A. Sealey, M.D. Northwest Industrial Medical Clinic 1500 First Avenue, South Seattle, WA 98101 Sutter Clinic, Inc. 819 Locust Street St. Louis, MO 63101 William D. Forney, M.D. 425 W. Bannack Boise, ID 83702 Drs. Vanthoff, Yost, Kempers & Vroon ATTN: Dr. Richmond 50 College S.E. Grand Rapids, MI Robert D. Helferty, M.D. Industrial Medical Center PC, Inc. 1116 Ann Arbor Street P.O. Box 3310 Flint, MI 48503 Rodman Wilson, M.D. 3300 Providence Drive Suite 301 Anchorage, AL 99504 John J. Krygier, M.D. 511 S. W. 10th Street Portland, OR Dr. Benjamin Schneider 123 E. Market street Danville, PA National Medical Consultants Inc. (Clinic) Suite 414 Fox Ridge Tower Mission, KS 66202 Dr. Gordon Neilson Page Medical Center 800 Elm Page, AZ DEFENDANT OWO<$-CORN!NO FTBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES a Maurice Johnstoon, M.D. Kelsey-Seybold- JClinic 6624 Fannin Stareet Houston, TX 77(7225 Dr. Roy Hardmann 5432 I.H. 35 Austin, TX 787444 Dr. Arnold Albeasrt 1028 South Alamano San Antonio, TXX Dr. Patrick Claancy 400 "0" StreetSacramento, CA - 95814 Dr. J. J. Applaegarth 384 Post StreetSan Francisco, CA 54102 Dr. A. V. SwaniH^erg 610 7th Street Kalespell, MT 59501 Dr. Melvin Bechtel 10804 Prarie Hills Drive Omaha, NE 68144 B. Dwight Culver, M.D. College of Medicine Dept, of Community & Environmental Medicine Med. Surg. II -- Room 367 University of California Irvine, CA Dr. Kaare Lovall Family Medicine Clinic Bldg. 2132 N. Cedar Holt, MI 48842 Riverside Clinic ATTN: W. McCauley, 8445 E. Jefferson Detroit, MI 48214 Adm. OC refers plaintiffss to Supplemental Response No. 24 and the tables proffered therein for information responsive to subparts (d) and (e) of this interrrogatory. Additional informati-ion pertinent to the subject matter of tiis interrogatory would., be contained in 0C*s files related to asbestos as described in'. Supplemental Response No. 2. Z3TTERROGATORY NO. 19: Does the Defendant haave or has it ever had, a Medical department, and/or a ressearch department and/or an Industrial Eygiene department. If sso, give the date upon which such M edical [sic] department aand/or Industrial Hygiene department was established, and whether- or not such department has operated continuously since being: established. a. Name each direector, chief or head of your Medical department an<i/or Industrial Hygiene department year by year with the f first year you had a director or such department. G^ive the last known address of each. OWEX&CORNU40 FTBEROLAS CtJ*FOIO{'A:Xr$ cmaffiffAL fcssroKSBs to plaiktiffs grrFKFtftruToaiBs tlfcWCO* D1 pt 50 b. State in detail the duties, responsibilities and pur pose of such department(s); SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19; Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: Dr. Jon L. Konzen was hired on January 15, 1968, as OC's Corporate Medical Director. He was promoted to the position of Vice President, Medical and Health Affairs, Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, Fiberglas Tower, Toledo, Ohio 43659 in November 1985. He remained in this position until December 31, 1992 . Dr. Jean Arnold Chapman served as Corporate Medical Director from November 11, 1985, until February 29, 1988. Dr. Michael G. Holthouser was Director, Corporate Medical Services from June 1988 until January 31, 1991. Dr. David C. Deubner was Director, Corporate Medical Servic es from December 16, 1991 until December 31, 1993. Dr. Jon W. Lee became Director, Corporate Medical Services on January 1, 1994. The Medical Director's responsibilities include: (1) overseeing the development of scientific and medical knowledge concerning the health effects of products made and sold by OC, materials used in OC's manufacturing process, and new products and processes under development; (2) designing and managing DEFENDANT O^ENS-CORNING FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMBOAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES tlbettM.iot Pige Si medical research programs; and (3) representing the company in matters concerning health effects. Dr. D. J. Billmaier was hired as Assistant Corporate Medical Director on December 30, 1974. He remained in this position through August 29, 1980. Dr. Billmaier was replaced by Dr. Rufus W. Miller, who served in this position from November 10, 1980, until September 1984. Dr. Miller was succeeded by Dr. Kenneth Gould, who was hired in September 1984 and employed through August 1985. The position of Assistant Corporate Medical Direc tor has been vacant since August 1985. Dr. S. K. Remley, Corporate Staff Physician, was employed from February 5, 1979, until December 31, 1989. He was replaced by Dr. Michael I. Server, who was employed from March 26, 1990, to June 15, 1991, as Manager, Corporate Medical Programs. The duties and responsibilities of this position were to provide medical services for Toledo employees, to conduct preplacement and periodic examinations, to diagnose and treat illnesses or injuries, to advise supervisors and management on medical aspects of employees1 problems, and to implement preven tative health programs. OC's Berlin, New Jersey, manufacturing facility used the services of Dr. H. C. Schwartz (deceased) from 1958 to 1970. Dr. John McNally was employed at the Berlin facility from April 27, 1970, to October 1978. Dr. Priscillano Parilla was employed at the Berlin facility from November 1978 until August 1982. Dr. Ercole J. Liberi was employed as the plant physician for the DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNINC FTBEKOLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ubettot tot P*t 51 Berlin plant from Septembser 1982 until 1993 when ~rthe plant was closed. These doctors peerformed pre-employment aand periodic physical examinations. OC's Bloomington, II Llinois, manufacturing faecility used the services of Dr. George B. . BcSeely, 2302 E. Oaklanad avenue, Bloomington, Illinois, freon April 1970 to July 1S977; Dr. N. Lee Still, 2103 E. Washington-, Bloomington, Illinois, from July 1977 to July 1978; and Dr. Jamses A. Bilyeau, 1 Medicall Hills Avenue, Bloomington, Illinois, frroi July 1978 until 1982, . Khen the plant was sold. These doctors ccoducted pre-employmentrr and periodic physical examinations and! vere employed on a contrract basis. The following doctorrs read chest x-rays, conncccrted medical examinations, and consultsed with employees at thee Berlin, New Jersey, and Bloomington, Illinois, manufacturing plants: Physic ian/ Consuultart and Last Known i-Hress Date Plant Richard M. Sprcocr, M.D. 350 Kings Highway, E. Haddonfield, Null 1961-19644 Berlin E. Spencer Pais_sley, M.D. 501 White Horses ?ike Haddon Heights*, XJ 08035 1969-19744 Berlin I.T. Higgins, MM.2. School of Publlac Health University of MMistiigan Ann Arbor, MI 448104 1969-197U0 Berlin George Wright, M.D. (Retired) 4 60 S. Marion ? Parkway Parklane Apartmaexts Denver, CO 802005 1971 Berlin to Bloomington DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNINC FIBEROLAS COXIOKtRAnOTS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTEEEUDGaTOUES Dr. Harold Manuson Institute of Indus, Health University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48104 1958 to approx. 1961 Walter Whitehouse, M.D. Institute of Industrial Health University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48104 1958-1961 Paul Scholtens, M.D. Institute of Industrial Health University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48104 1958-1961 Theodore Dietchek, M.D. Institute of Industrial Health University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48104 1958-1961 Drs. Goldenberg, Keinle, Steeb, Schaupp, Limacaco & Petrovich (Radiology Group) West Jersey Hospital Berlin, NJ 1965-1982 Dr. C. R. Johnson Professional Health Services (Mobile Van Testing) 1974-1993 (plant closed) Joseph w. Sokolowski, and Irwin Spirn 1916 E. Malton Pike Cherry Hill, NJ Jr., M.D. 1974-1993 (plant closed) Dr. Chauncey McGeorge 66 Tanner Street Haddonfield, NJ 1982-1993 (plant closed) Bloomington Radiology Bloomington, IL 1970-1978 St. Joseph's Hospital Radiology Department Bloomington, IL 1974-1978 Berlin Berlin Berlin Berlin Berlin Berlin Berlin Berlin Bloomington Bloomington re DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNINO FffiEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES UbutM. P*e James Bilyeau, M.D. 1 Medical Hills Drive Bloomington, IL 1978-1982 (plant sold) Bloomington OC refers plaintiffs to Supplemental Response No. 18 for a listing of physicians who conducted examinations of contracting employees from 1973 to 1987, when the division was sold. Gerald Devitt was hired by OC as an Industrial Hygienist in August 1970. He subsequently became Chief Industrial Hygienist and remained in that position until his retirement on October 31, 1986. Charles W. Axten was hired as Manager of Industrial_Hygiene on July 14, 1986, and held that position until mid-1988, when he became the Director of Occupational Safety and Health. Mr. Axten remained in that position until August 31, 1990. Klaus D. Rosinski became the Director of Occupational Safety and Health on November 1, 1990 and subsequently became a Product and Environ mental Health Consultant. J. Kenneth Conover was hired as an Industrial Hygienist in August 1986 and was promoted to Supervisor of Industrial Hygiene on June l, 1988. He then served as Senior Program Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety until April 30, 1992. F. W. Lichtenberg was hired as a technical information specialist in April 1975 and later served as an Industrial Hygienist from March 1977 until June 30, 1980. Regina Brown served as an Industrial Hygienist for OC from June 15, 1980, until January 1, 1982. DEFENDANT OWEXS-CORNINO PIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES itbettM.et P*c S S Michael J. Guisfredi was hired in February 12.973 as a Tech nologist Hygienist and became a Staff Industrial HBygienist in February 1987. He was a Senior Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety, and presently serves as a Lead SpeciaiXist, Occupa tional Health and Safety. J. David Lawson was hired as a Staff lndustrrial Hygienist on July 7, 1986, and subsequently served as a Lead Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety until September 131, 1991. Kathleen A. Johnson was hired as a Staff Indnustrial Hygien ist in July 1987 and is currently a Senior Speciaalist, Occupa tional Health and Safety on a part-time basis. Bruce A. Karas was hired as a Staff Industriaal Hygienist on September 6, 1988, and was a Senior Specialist, oocrupational Health and Safety. He currently serves as a Leada Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety, John M. Horwarth was hired as a Staff lndustrrial Hygienist on September 12, 1988, and was a Senior Specialisst, Occupational Health and Safety. He subsequently served as a LisBsd Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety until December 17, , 1292. M. Lynn Kessinger served as a Lead Specialisms occupational Health and Safety from November 16, 1989 to May 331,1991. C. Terry Moore (deceased) was hired as a Leaad Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety on December 1, 198S9. Jeff Labelle was hired as a Specialist, Occcnpational Health and Safety on January 2, 1992. DEFENDANT OWEC-CORNWO FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ubnua m P*e * John Embelton was hired as a Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety on January 29, 1992. Jonathan Hellerstein was hired as a Lead Specialist, Occupa tional Health and Safety on August 3, 1992. Dan Delozier was hired as a Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety on June l, 1993. Frank Cereghini presently serves as Manager, Occupational Health and Safety. OC's industrial hygienists are and have been responsible for the recommendation of programs relating to the industrial hygiene of its employees. Additionally, OC states that it has had a Research and Development Department since 1938. The purposes and responsibil ities of this department are to provide research, development and engineering of high technological competence in order to support and improve existing business activities and to develop the technological basis for new business ventures. Games Slayter was hired as the Vice President of Research and Development on November 1, 1938 and remained in that position until December 31, 1963. He was replaced by John H. Thomas, who held the position until 1968- Dr. R. C. Doban became the department's supervisor in 1974 and remained in that position until December 1988. Michael G. Griffith became Vice-President of Technology on January 23, 1989, and remains in that position at present. DEFENDANT OV.-ENS-OORNING PIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SLfPPtMB>TAJ_ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES sbettot.Bl P*e 57 INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify all asbestos related trade organizations, associa tions, or other entities including, but not limited to the Gypsum Association, Vermiculite Institute, Asbestos Textile Institute, Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Magnesia Insulation Manufacturers Association, National Insulation Manufacturers Association, Asbestos Information Association, National Insulation Contractors Association, Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association, Quebec Asbestos Manufacturers Association, Quebec Asbestos Producers Association to which you have belonged or in which you have participated and as to each respective organization, identify the dates of membership or participation. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: OC has been a member of the following organizations for the years stated: National Insulation Manufacturers Association, Inc. (1958 to February 1973), 441 Lexington Ave., New York, New York 10017; Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association (February 1973 to present), 7 Kirby Plaza, Mt. Kisco, New York 10549; National Mineral Wool Association (1969 to present), 382 Springfield Ave., Summit, New Jersey 07901; Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America and, its successor, Industrial Health Foundation (1942 to 1950 and 1953 to June 30, 1992), 34 Penn Circle West, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206; National Insulation Contractors Association and, its succes sor, National Insulation & Abatement Association (1967 to pres ent) , 99 Canal Center Plaza, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 DEFENDANT OWEP&CORN1NG FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES ufcxflo* iot Pkgc SI American Society for Testing & Materials (dates of member ship unknown), 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; National Safety Council (July 1943 to present), 444 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611; and North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (January 1992 to present), 44 canal Center Plaza, Suite 310, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Safe Building Alliance (1984 to 1988), 655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200, Metropolitan Square, Washington, D.C. 20005. To the best of its knowledge, OC has never been a member of the Gypsum Association, Vermiculite Institute, Asbestos Textile Institute, Asbestos Information Association, Quebec Asbestos Manufacturers Association, Quebec Asbestos Producers Association and Magnesia Insulation Manufacturers Association OC further states that individual OC employees may have been members of various other organizations of which OC is unaware. See attached Exhibits HHH, III and JJJ, copies of various NIMA meeting minutes. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OC's files related to asbestos as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 21; Identify any documents, not currently on file in the Master Asbestos File of Harris County, either received by you from those trade organizations, associations or other entities identified in the preceding interrogatory or else submitted by you to those DEFENDANT OWmeCORWNO FTBERGlAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES Pigc 5<5 trade associations, organizations or other entites that relate to any relationship between asbestos exposure and disease. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: OC states that it does not have a compilation of all the information requested herein. However, OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibits HHH, III and JJJ, copies of various NIMA meeting min utes. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OC's files related to asbestos as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Identify all agreements, oral or written, between you, any of the other defendants in this lawsuit, and/or other organiza tions, associations or other entities identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. 20 and/or any medical or scientific founda tions, not currently on file in the Master Asbestos File of Harris County, relating to the standardization of: a. Specifications for paper or burlap bags, or other packaging to be used for the transport and/or storage of asbestos-containing products during the time that you manufactured, sold, distributed, or applied asbes tos-containing products. b. Warning or caution labels to be applied to asbestos products and/or their packaging, cartons, containers, or boxes during the time that you manufactured, sold, distributed, or applied asbestos-containing products. c. Methods of dissemination of public relation information to defendant's purchasers, advertisers, distributors, factory workers, contractors, insulators, users, con sumers of asbestos products and/or the general public pertaining to asbestos health hazards. DEFENDANT OW^CS-CORNTNO FIBERGLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES Pa*e#> d. Safety equipment ancnri/or protective detailing to be utilized while baidUling defendant's asbeestos products. e. Medical program reloated to asbestos heallth hazards to be offered or spenssored by defendant. RESPPOKSZ TO INTERROGATORY K3. 22: OC states that it does naot have a compilationn of the infor mation requested herein. Sac=fa information, to thee extent that it ex jests, may be contained is ooc's documents library y proffered in Supppleawantal Response to Xctesrrogatory Ho. 3. IMTEERBOGATORY NO. 23: Did you direct to be pezrrformed, sponsor, finance or receive the= results of any studies orr tests performed by the Saranac Lake Labooratory to the Trudeau Jourmdation relating tc aasbestos expo sures and its effects upon iumman life? If so, identify: a. All documents sunrnaarising findings or reesults of those studies or tests vhi.ch you have in yocr ; possess ion or control; b. All communicatiocs^, oral or written, betrween answering defendant and Saranac personnel including, but not limited to, Gerrlt : W. H. Schepers, K.D. :and George Wilbur Wright, x.o*..; c. All documents relafcting to Saranac studiefts received or submitted by you vheether directly, throusigh associated or predecessor ccmpsanies, through other .companies, or through trade associations, organizations or other entities; d* All recommendaticnss or findings of soch..studies relat ing to: 1. adequacy or insadequacy of threshold^ limit values. 2. substitution ocf materials other than asbestos. e* Whether documents aand/or communications--identified in answers to (a) - (cEd) of this Interrogatanry are main tained. nrrmnnuT ow0^ojlnino fibeiolaj cotrausvrs SUfnSACSiAL RESPONSES TO PLAIKTIPPS &fTEn06fcTCXQKK5 sbesto* m P*< *1 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to thee interrogatory as follows: To the best of its knowledge, OC did not finance, assist or paarticipate in asbestos-related studies conducted by or for The Trcudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake; however OC refers plaintiff too attached Exhibit MM, a collection of documents regarding assbestos studies conducted by the Saranac Laboratory of the Trrudeau Institute which were in OC's historical files and which ocz believes it received shortly after OC acquired the Berlin, New Jeersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant from Owens-Illinois in 1958. (EEachibit MM consists of 12 documents, Bates numbered as follows: Oil 501 1354-1355; 01 501 1353; 01 034 0001-0032; 01 501 1343 11344? 01 501 1347; 01 501 1441; 01 035 0498-0530; 01 501 1439 14440; 01 501 1345-1346; 01 501 1348-1352; 01 501 1405-1406; 01 5011 1319-1331). OC may have copies of other documents generated or received byy the Saranac Laboratory which relate to asbestos studies. However, these documents were received by OC after litigation beegan and in the course of discovery, and were not maintained in OCC's historical files relating to asbestos. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of thnis interrogatory would be located in OC's files related to aasbestos, as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. JCISHMDAWT OWEN5-CORNWO FIBBRQLA5 CORPORATION'S JUmSLEMBCTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ubeMo-iM Pc62 INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Prior to December 31, 1989, has any employee of answering Defendant ever made a claim for any asbestos related disease under the Occupational Disease or Workmen's Compensation Statute of any state? If so, state: a. The date that Defendant first received notice of such claim; b. The total number of such claims per year received to date: c. The number of such claims for which disability benefits and/or medical expenses were paid by Defendant; d. Identify all persons to whom disability benefits and/or medical expenses were paid by Defendant and the exact medical diagnosis, disease and/or condition for which such benefits/expenses were paid. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: With regard to those asbestos-related worker's compensation claims filed against OC before 1974, OC states as follows: OC has been named as a party in worker's compensation actions filed by persons allegedly employed at some point in time on construction jobs involving OC's Contracting and Supply Division. These persons were typically hired from union halls for specific jobs on an as-needed basis and were not long-term employees. As a result, these claimants filed actions against numerous past and present employers. These claimants alleged a variety of injuries from exposure--throughout their employment histories--to numerous asbestos and nonasbestos-containing DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNINO POEROUS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES Page 63 nar.terialas manufactured and/ 7 crrr distributed by a number of companie.es- oc Hacks adequate recrnnrds to provide a oompleete response to th_is irteerrogatory for a rz-.: .isiber of reasons. Indiividual state wonrkars' compensation lavs determined the specifiac employers anad/ar innsurance carriers imMhiA could be named ass defendants in cosnpessattion actions, as sggelZ as the procedures fetor their notifi- caatim. As a result, ever tioogh some workers1 ccompensation claalss iiist OC as an explcryver, OC may not have reeceived notice of thee claim, and even if OC rrrrecslved notice of the rclaim, it may nor: been aware that tins claim was related tao asbestos ermcscre = or that the claiTiTFrfart vas employed by 0C-. Furthermore, wocrisr'ss compensation clal=aas historically have beeen processed by OCl's fassurance carriers arccri DC's corporate headquaarters did not aluways rseceive notif icaticrrn rf individual claims*,. OC = sets forth in Tablase X the pertinent information from OC's reserrrs -which is presently believed to be related! to workers' ccccmcersaation claims filed ezzmefere 1974 by individonals employed by OCC's Coimtracting and Suppl^vy Division: DEFEP3CA.C CmKBCSCOKNINO PSEJtOLAS a surmLaecALU. tESKiees to PLMKnprs ubfaoi a Page W Insert Table A DEPENDANT OWENS-CORNINO FIBEROLA3 CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S WTEJJtOOATOJUES In addition to the claims in Table A, OC's records reflect that the following individuals, listed in Table B, also filed asbestos-related workers' compensation claims before 1974. It ils believed these claims were probably handled by OC's insurance carriers. OC's records do not indicate when or if OC received notice of these claims. OB&DAKT OWENS-CORNINO FtBEJtOLAS CORPORATION'S nriEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S WTSUtOOATOWES Inseert Table B DilfUUiANTrr OWEKS-COKNINO FIBEROLAS COUSaSMI sumaeimAL KEsroNses to nAiKnrrs tmamikmouBs utaIM.Ml P**7 In the course of litigation, a certain ^plaintiffs1 counsel produced to OC's Law Department portions ct -workers' compensaticn files purporting to be claims filed by variaous insulation workers and other tradesmen. It is believed that cheese files were originally obtained from codefendants or frozsm public records, and copies were forwarded to OC's Law Department- in approximately 1979. Some of these files reflect claims appaarently filed against OC which OC cannot currently verify from a rreview of its records. Table C sets forth information from such claaims where OC was presumably a party. DEFENDANT OWENSCORNINO FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PlAOmPFS INTERROGATORIES Insert Table SB DEFENDANT OWEKS-CORNINO PIBEKOLAS COXKJJOfctnepr* SUTTLEttBUTAL RESPONSES TO PLAMTIFFS BfimBOO^TOtlB ube#t pe T!fhe following employees of OC's Berlin, Kew Jersey Kaylo mancfaecturing plant also filed workers' compensattion claims aga-Lasst OC before 1974, in which they alleged injrjury from expo sure tco asbestos in the plant environment: Hamm Approx. Date of Claim Filed Allaeaed Iniurv Albert- Behnke 09/15/72 Cfcrcpnic bronchitis; estpbhysema, cirrhosis of tthe liver Wiliiaam Bodine 03/21/73 Asbeestosis, emphyse- 3&a Harry JCopeland 1/22/72 Palumonary asbestosis Flcyd 7Regn 06/14/71 CSirconic pulmonary otos-structive disease, pceemnoconiosis Gecrgee Zepp 07/13/72 Paeaumoconiosis, asbeestosis Iin 1965, OC learned that a Berlin worker haad apparently conrraacted asbestosis; however, the injury was appparently not relateed to work at OC and, to OC's knowledge, bq- workers' compen- sationn claim was filed against OC. wtfhen OC purchased the Bloomington, 11 linois = plant from UWA5CC0 in 1970, it acquired certain files pertaiming to workers' cao^eoasation claims brought against UNARCO by itss employees. OC, howveEr, did not have knowledge of these claims unntil it pur- chasedd the plant in 1970. Some of these claims aalleged injury fraa emxposure to asbestos in the plant enviromesnt AA few employees of other OC manufacturing pplants filed asbestros-related workmen's compensation claims beefore 1974. It DEF9QAWrrOWENS-OORHlNO FDEftOLAS COftfOftATON'S III! I I III! Hill If LESPOKSBS TO PLAINTIFFS INTEJLKOQATORIBS ubcjttw.itt P**70 is not known vhethesr these employees vecre actually exposed to asbestos in connection with their employyment for OC. Additional information pertinent tco the subject matter of this interrogatory '-would be contained inn OC's files related to asbestos as descrihsed in Supplemental Recesponse No. 2 which is incorporated as If aset out in full. INTERROGATORY NO. 235: Identify each, -and every magazine ocr trade publication in which answering Defendant advertised itss asbestos products from [sic] 1950 until time time you ceased sinning, milling, selling, distributing, and/cur applying asbestos ccontaining products. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY -:NO. 25: Without waiviirng and incorporating cby reference its original objections to this .interrogatory, OC suppplements its response to the interrogatory aas follows: OC did not adwertise in the usual -way via television or magazines, etc. Dmrring the time periodi in which OC manufactured asbestos-containincng products, it provideed product data and application information to commercial bouyers. See attached Exhibits O, E, F, GG and H. Additional information pertinent tco the subject matter of this interrogatory'-would be contained inn OC's files related to asbestos as describaeed in Supplemental R&esponse No. 2. INTERROGATORY WO. 126: As to the persson(s) answering thesee interrogatories, state; a. name; b. title or .-position with defenddant; DEFENDANT OWENSCOKMNDIVB9BLAS COtFORATWS SUFFLEMENTAL RESPONSES ID lUiUUIVi WrEUOaATOUES ubemotm Fife 7| c. length stz time employed by defendants^. SUPPLEMENTAL .BESK3SSB..T0 INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Without vaivin<sg and incorporating by refereaeice itss original objections to this ^interrogatory, OC supplements its reesponse to the interrogatory aas follows: Responses to tthese interrogatories were preepared wvith the assistance of comssel and are based upon informaatiom abstained from presently eziasting corporate files and reccsrds from interviews of varianus employees of OC. No singhle offiacer, employee or agent ccf OC has the personal knowleedse to ^supply each and every answer rsaguired. The person signing "these rresponses is informed that the ftiles, documents and interviews rsfemrred to above do support Time responses. If informationr. is latter obtained which modifies ary of the responses herein, sucrrt inforrmation will be conveyed to the ^parties submitting these intserrogatrories. These responses arere signed by Robert A. McOmberr, Acthanrized Agent for Owens Corning FFiberglas Corporation, Fibergrlas lower, Toledo, Ohio 43659. The ttelephone number of the corporarztioc Us (419) 248-8000. Mr. McOmber baaegan working for OC on March ~2, 19779, as a part-time Economic -VAnalyst. On June 18, 1979, .!&. ScQfiaber became a full-time employne of OC and remained in thesrpositioon of Economic Analyst ozmtll approximately August 1, 1391. -He was E.E.O. Lawyer frcmr.rapproximately August 1, 1981-1, to Occtober 1986, Attorney from Octotafrer 1986 to June 1, 1989, anad Coosseel from June DEFENDANT OWENSCORNKJ FBOOCLAS CDWOtATKr* SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO EMOtim tfTERROOATOUES FtteV 1, 1989 to October 31, 19992. Hr. McOmber is currently an Autho rized Agent for oc. INTERROGATORY NO. 27; Have you ever sold rrav asbestos fiber? If so, state the dates you were involved ian the sale of raw asbestos fiber. RESPONSE_TO INTERROGATORY': NO,_27; OC has never mined cnr milled raw asbestos and was not in the business of selling rav aasbestos. However, in 1970, OC purchased from Unarco Industries tfche Chembest Division manufacturing plant located in Bloomington, nilinois. The plant manufactured ure thane products and an asbbestos-containing industrial insulation, Unarcoboard (Fyrcor). Ian 1972, OC ceased the manufacture of its asbestos-containing Fyrccor product. From October 1973 to October 1974, OC sold the surpluss rav asbestos, approximately 462.5 tons, which had been originality purchased by Unarco Industries, to Weyerhaeuser Company of MMarshfield, Wisconsin. INTERROGATORY NO. 28; State whether or sect you have any information as to your relative market share reegarding each of your asbestos containing products. If so, as to each year between 1940 or the time that you began mining, millisgg, selling, distributing and/or applying asbestos containing prodducts until cessation of same, and with respect to each type of pproduct, provide such information or opinion as to your markeet share and identify each document which provides any informaticnn ~to assist you in this determination. Give the same answers ass to asbestos containing products in the Texas Gulf Coast area. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TOO INTERROGATORY, NQ_i_ 28 : Without waiving and~ incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as folXiovs: DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNINO FTBERCLAS CCSKBO&ATOON'S SUPPLEMOTTAL KESPONSE3 TO PLAINTS** SRSSKftOOATOtlES Pije 75 OC objects tao this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information which _is protected from discovery as attorney-client communications andd/or attorney work product. Without waiving its objections, OC sca^tes that it has never been in the business of mining or milling :Tav asbestos or asbestos containing products. OC further stxates that it does not have a compilation of the information requessted herein. Information pertinent to the subject matter of "this interrogatory would be located in OC's files related to aasbestos as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. INTERROGATORY KC. 29: Have you desrignated distributors of your asbestos containing products in the Stxate of Texas? If so, then state the name of all companies, thaeir addresses, give the years that each was a designated distributor and the products each distributed. SUPPLEMENTAL RESP^DNSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Without vaividng and incorporating by reference its original objections to thias interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: OC objects tco this interrogtory to the extent that it implies an employcer/employee, principal/agent, or any other formal relationship between OC and any independent distributors or salesmen who night have sold OC's products. Without waiving its objections, OCC states that it distributed asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation ^products from April 1953 to April 1973, as indicated by a rewiev of OC's collection of invoices for such products. Invoicees relating to OC's distribution of asbestos- DEFEHDAKT OWENVCORMM; RSSKtOLAJ CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RfiSPOfSBS TO KjUa*mFF*S MTERROOATOR1ES containing Kaylo are maintained inn OC's files related rto asbestos as described in Supplemental Respoonse No. 2. 00 also had limited involveneent in the manufacture and/or distribution of other asbestcs-coontaining products. S6ee attached Exhibit A, a chart listing those .'.asbestos-containing products previously manufactured and/or distributed by oc. OC'ds collec tion of invoices relating to the ssales/shipments of tfceese other asbestos-containing products is aalso maintained in OC*s files related to asbestos as described --in Response No. 2; however, this collection is incomplete. FurtheErmore, these document's are not segregated by purchaser/custamer .or by state, but are ^generally organized by invoice number. OC's asbestos-containing Xayvlo products were distrributed to end-users in several different varays depending on the a arrangements made at the time of purchase. Same shipments were maride directly from the factory to specific locaations (jobsites, warehouses, railheads, etc.) and invoiced to --the purchaser. Otherr shipments were made from the factory to distributors or contractxors who, in turn, sold the products to otherss. Similar arrangacmits were made with OC supply units in varrdous locales throughoont the United States. OC does not have compilation of all entities which might have distributed OC'ss asbestos-containing -^products. However, OC refers plaintiffs to ^attached Exhibit KDC;;, a list of distributors of which OC is avares which distributed occ's asbes tos-containing Kaylo products wit thin Texas at some poiint during the period 1953-1973. DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNINO FIBERCLAS CORPOXATXNTS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAWTTPPS 1NTERR00AICKB ub<f .it P*t 75 Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of thias interrogatory would be contained in OC's files related to asbeestos as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. XyrrERROGATORV NO. 30: If you did not have designated distributors in the State of Taxaas, then state by what method sales of asbestos containing aateerials were made. Give the name and addresses of all Descendant's sales offices, relating to asbestos containing pcobducts, located in the State of Texas. BSSHPON.SE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30: OC refers plaintiffs to Supplemental Response to Interroga- torry Nos. 3 and 29 and to the exhibits and documents proffered tieErein. I3TSERROGATORY NO. 31; Did you ever have a division or subsidiary company engaged in rthe contracting business of applying insulation products? If so, give the name of such division or subsidiary company, the faill address of the home office of such division or subsidiary comnpany, and the dates such division or subsidiary company was eagaaged in the contracting business. SuFPPLEKENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objsections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to t&ee interrogatory as follows: OC had contracting units which operated as the Supply and Conntracting Division (and later the Contracting Division) of OC frcran January 1950 until February 1987 when this division was soldd. OC's supply and contracting units were engaged in the bossiness of distributing the products of OC and others as well as an *=he contract application of these products. Contract applica- X&F9BKDAXT OWENS-CORNINO PBERGLAS CORPORATION'S SOKA&MENtAt RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INT&RJtOQATORIBS SI tion could include the installation and/or removal of asbestos- containing Kaylo products and similar insulation products. Most of the division's records, including job files, were transferred with this sale. See Supplemental Response No. 2. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be located in OC's files related to asbestos, as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Based upon the contents of your products, the method of manufacturing and the method of application, could or can your products be generally applied or removed without liberating asbestos fibers? Your answer may be limited to those asbestoscontaining products that you have identified in any Harris County asbestos case. a. If there is a different answer concerning different products manufactured, sold, distributed, or used by your company then specify the different products by manufacturer's name and popular name. b. If there is a difference in your answer depending on the year or years in which a particular product was used, then specify in detail what year or years you are referring to and the specific products you are refer ring to and the year involved. c. If there is a difference in your answer depending on the trade or type worker, then specify which type workers you are referring to. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32: OC states that its asbestos-containing Kaylo pipe and block products might have emitted some dust, a small percentage of which was asbestos, when the product was cut or sawed; OC's asbestos-containing cements might have emitted some dust, a small percentage of which was asbestos, when the product was mixed. Neither would do so during installation unless subject to the DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNING FBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTCPTS INTERROGATORIES utedotiot Pfe 77 previously istated activities. ?Roof coatings and ad&cesaives rebranded fdor OC by various aanuufacturers contained eancapsuliared asbestos virnich prevented the peasneration of airborne ffibers uupcn application:;. TKTERROCITCORY NO. 33; Was it- anticipated that jaour asbestos containing- produccts nay have tco be removed, strippeed, disturbed, or reclamed at. ary time after- .installation? RESPONSE TCP INTERROGATORY SO. 33 3: OC*s aasbestos-containing KXaylo insulation was de&signed s: that it ootsuld be removed for ^maintenance purposes arrd~ then reinstalled!. other than fcr succh maintenance wort, aasbestoss- containirg Kaylo insulation wass designed to last fee eextremeelj long perroesds of time, likely feror the life of the item-- being insulated. INTERBOQTCPRY NO. 34; Did th&e defendant, during "the time it mined, sanxxofacturrei, milled, sohld or applied asbesccss-containing products, give u users or other peersons exposed to astoestos containing produccts orr their employers -who would be applyirgg, using, removing year asbestcos containing- products instruct3arms concerning safety preecauticnns ro the use in: applying, using or rremoving such products?-? If seo, describe smuch instructions, to r~vhom they were gives, i~~the daties they were cgiven, and the nannerr of giving such instrunctions*.. SUPPLEKEfTSaL RESPONSE TO UmaHROGATORY NO. 3 4: Withoout valving and inccrpporating by reference itrts origgiral objectices- to this interrogataxrry, OC supplements its rresponase to the interrcogatory as follows: OC's aasbestos-containing innsulation products werwFP intennded to be cot, saved, mixed, routed!, bound or wrapped ms nnecesssar/ defendant owneii rntjiinu nBetauu couoRAmrs SUrPLEMartAUBBHfQMa TO TLAamFrS INTEJUtOGftSIHES for fitting during application. OC furtherr states that it intended that its asbestos-containing insula.ati.on products be uased by insulation applicators, their assistants^, or other sophistircated users in accordance with the instructxicns and cautionary statements provided in connection with thosse products as set forth in Supplemental Response No. 3, attar-shed Exhibits D, , IT, G, H, V, W, X, Y, 2, AA, BB and CC; and in . accordance with standard trade practices and applicable guiddslines, regulationss, and laws. OC notes that employers, who verge in the best positnion to observe and control the workplace, were required by laws inn numerous states, to protect workmen, keep tdhs workplace safe, warn workers of potential hazards involved in excessive expcsunre to asbestos and other dusts, and control duszst. Additional information pertinent to tirae subject matter off this interrogatory would be contained in occ's files related tcc asbestos as described in Supplemental Respoonse No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: If you have pled that the Plaintiffs nnisused Defendant's asbestos containing products, then state inn what manner the defendant contends that Plaintiffs misused--its products? If "Yes", then state In what manner and under * what circumstances each product was misused. Also state whatn."Plaintiffs could haave done to avoid such misuse. SUPPLEMENTAL-RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Without waiving and incorporating by rreference its originsal objections to this interrogatory, OC supplegments its response: -rto the interrogatory as follows: DEPENDANT OWEN3-CORNINO FIBBR0LA3 CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PlAOmPTS INTERROGATORIES OC states that certain plaintiffs may have misused its products by their failure to heed and/or follow the information on safe handling and health practices as described in Supplemen tal Response to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: List all the job sites, contractors and/or facilities in tie Gulf Coast area of Texas, including, but not limited to, oil refineries, chemical plants, power plants, shipyards, commercial buildings, and manufacturing plants, where or to whom defendantsasbestos products were supplied, distributed, sold and/or used. Also, list which products were involved, the date or time period of such sale, distribution, use or installation and if Know [sic], the physical location within the facility listed. Alter native, you may product [sic] the documents requested in Request for Production No. 1. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: Upon receipt of detailed plaintiffs* employment history listing specific jobsite, city and state locations and corre sponding years of employment, OC will review its records and attempt to respond. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: For the attached list of San Antonio job sites, state whether or not Defendant's asbestos products were supplied, distributed, sold and/or used. Also, list which products were involved, the date or time period of such sale, distribution, usee of installation and, if Known, the physical location within the facility listed. DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNINO FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES rAL_RESONSg TO DmBPRQGATQRY NO. 37withaout waiving and iruccrcporating by reference its original objectionns to this interrogatorry, OC supplements its response to the interrrogatory as follows: OC sstates that it is cxahhle to supplement this interrogato ry, as tfche list referenced to therein was not attached. IHTERBOGflSTORY NO. 38: U? unntil the time that, ycnou ceased to sell and/or manufacture asbestos, containing products, 'had the defendant ever conducted or caused tco be conducted any steadies designed to minimize or eliminates the inhalation of assbestos dust or fibers by those exposed tto the use of the defesndant * s asbestos containing prod ucts? Iff so, give the follcvirtng: a. Name of the persoc err firm conducting such studies; b. The date the studiess began and the date completed; c. Any publication or ddissemination of the results of the studies; d. The nature of any acction to eliminate or minimize inhalation of asbestxos dust or fibers; e. Attach copies. SITPPTTWggSTAL RESPONSE TO I VJ^WkQGATORY NO. 38: Kittnout waiving and inmrrrporating by reference its original objectionns to this interrogotosry, OC supplements its response to the intern:ogatory as follows: OC aobjects to this iaterrrogatory as overly broad and burden some. OCC also objects to tbs ephrase "studies designed to mini mize or eeliminate the inhalattrion of asbestos dust" as being ambigocuas. Without waiving itxs objections, OC states that the cautiooarzy statement on its Kaaylo carton recommended the use of DEFENQAMT UHUUU-COCflNO PIMJtOLAS COVO*ASM* SUPPLEkBQU. tiSE&ONS&S TO FIAIKTIPP*} WTEKAOGUQmBflB Pate tl respirators approved by the U.S. Bureau, cef Mines for pneumoconi-rosis producing dusts in appropriate clrcurmnstances The exact type of respirator approved by the U.S. B'Bureau of Mines changed;: from year to year. See also Supplemental Response Me. 3 3 for information recarrding cautionary language which OC inclsxfedd with its asbestos containing products; Supplemental Responase No. 13, for informa-- tion regarding those studies related te aasbestos containing Kaylo, of which OC was aware before 1ST4?;; and Supplemental Response No. 11, for information regariinmg dust protective equipment. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter cf this interrogatory would be contained in * OC's files related to asbestos as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Has the defendant ever directly advrised any person or partxy to whom you sell your asbestos containing:* products of threshold^ limit values for exposure to asbestos iusst recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Indusstrial Hygienists, or mandated by any governmental entity? If .so, state the date thaat you so advised such person or party, tee - -manner in which you advised such person or party, and the mbbc of each. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERRQGATORT_B<TO.--3$ t. without waiving and incorporating bpy reference its originaal objections to this interrogatory, OC sipppleaents its response tro the interrogatory as follows: OC notes that it no longer manufacturers and/or distributees asbestos containing products. OC furtherr state that it does naot have a compilation of every instance it wwhich one or more of OCC1 s DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNTNO FBER0LA3 CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES employees may have distressed applicable m*Vs for asbestos dust with any person or par try to vhom [OC sold 3] asbestos containing products. Many OC empidcyees who might h&ave information pertinent to this interrogatory aare retired or deceeased. However, OC states that information relating to TLTs was generally available and published in scientific, medical and. vtrade publications from the 1940s through the rrpresent. OC further refers plaintiffs to Supplemental Response KSc. 3, particularity the discussion regard ing OC's distribution cmf NTMA and NIOSE cpamphlets, attached as Exhibits BB and DO. OCC also notes that ^Material Safety Data Sheets it prepared forr* various naval shirpyards regarding its asbestos-containing Raitylo products conta_z_ined information regard ing the applicable TLV" far asbestos dusr^. See attached Exhibit AA. Additional informaarion pertinent ta the subject matter of this interrogatory, tor the extent that itt exists, would be contained in OC's filess related to asbesrrcos as described in Supplemental Response : Xs. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 40; State the year thaart this defendant was first advised of threshold limit valueas and maximum all mumble concentrations of both asbestos dust andd total dust by thee American Conference of Governmental Industriahl Hygienists, and estate the name of the employee of the comparmy receiving such izmformation, the informa tion received, the metichad of receipt of such information and attach copies of the innstrument communicsating such advice. 0I DEPENDANT OWENS-CORNINO FIBEJtCLAS CtrS^MLATJCWS gUPPLEMEVTAt tPWWtM m MAWI'IUS KTMnflATftttW ubatot ISe SUPPT,CTMEHTAL_ response to INTERROGATORY HO .__40: WEithout waiving and incorporating by references its original objectxions to this interrogatory, OC supplements itrs response to the intterrogatory as follows: ccc is aware of the threshold limit values (TIXVs) for expo sure tro asbestos dust as recommended by the Americsan Conference of Govemental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) . However, OC canaotc state precisely when or from what source it" first became aware -of such TLVs. OC is aware that, from 1946 tco 1969, the ACGIH ^adopted a TLV of five million particles per ccubic foot of air (HEPPCF) . Iin 1963, Robert Peele, an Industrial Hygieristrt for Union Carbidae, informed OC that the maximum allowable asbbestos dust in the airr was five MPPCF. OC was also informed that- dust samplings conduccted by Mr. Peele during the fabrication of aasbestos-containinng Raylo revealed that the dust emitted was beelow the applicsable TLV. Iln 1968, the ACGIH recommended the reduction cof the asbestos TLV too two MPPCF or 12 fibers per cubic centimeterr greater than five nmicrons in length. This recommendation went idnto effect in 1969. Tin 1971, OSHA adopted an emergency standard fcor exposure to asbestros dust of five fibers per cubic centimeter ggreater than five micrometers in length based on an eight hour trtime weighted averagge. TTn 1972, OSHA adopted the above as a permaaentzt standard. C ft DUIMMWFii UftLTU CUftKMO FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SU^aaOBTCAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ttbeMot P*e The information from the ACGIH is ass readily available to plaintiffs as it is.: to OC. OC refers plainntiffs to attached fiarhibit LLL, a compilation of documents relatirrag to OC*s developing knowledge of TLV's. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained is OC*s files related to asbestos as descrlhsed in Supplemental lesponse No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 4311; Was such thrssshold limit values of maximum allowable concen trations inquired ajabout in the preceding- interrogatory total dust or just asbestos dxssst? SUPPLEMENTAL RESP3HSSE TO INTERROGATORY NCO. 41: Without vaiTinng and incorporating try reference its original objections to this --interrogatory, OC sqpcplements its response to the interrogatory aas follows: OC states that- it understood that thhreshold limit values, as applied to the mazmxfacturing and appli=ac_tion of asbestos-contain ing products, refemred to asbestos dust. INTERROGATORY NO. 422: Up until the trtime that Defendant cesased to sell and/or manufacture asbestoss containing products^, state in detail what test, if any, yomr -^company or its predeceessor (s) ever made with regard to the quastity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which nserTs or bystanders were exposed while usia$g your asbestos containning products. a. If there wvere any such tests osr studies, give the name or names oof the person(s) condriucting the tests, the date of tithe tests and attach trrue copies of any re ports, fizindings or memoranda cconcerning such tests or studies. DEPENDANT OWENS-COXNMG nOBKO^SS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO &Jk*UAilPF ft *<TERIOOATORIBS ubetfot.a* Fife S5 SUPPLEMENTAL RPRgPCBSSB TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42.2; Without vmaivinog and incorporating by retfeoce il'ts original objections to: -this -interrogatory, OC suppleaeasnrs its .response to the interrogatzcry aas follows: OC referss plaiintiffs to Supplemental Resspcnse Moo. 13. OC states* rhat- it does not have a "predeecessor" -as it understands thnat tesrm. OC further states thaat the ttechniques used by OC or: br ctrthers performing industrial 3 zygienee surveys for OC with respecct to "the manufacturing of asbew-fatcs--ocnOtaining Kaylo changed over ttime too conform to general practrtices, reecomaenda- tions by goverrtmerzxal agencies and other appi-licable ^-institutions regarding induastriaal hygiene methods. Since apprr r-Mat!eiy 1970, the recommendeei methodi for evalu ating asbestos*--ccertxaining dust has consisted- cf camming asbestos fibers which hnare aseen lodged on a standard zmeaixame- filter. The result is repocrted aas the number of fibers peer cubic 3 centimeter of air, expresssed aas f/cc. Before 12.5":, aasbestos-containing dusts vsee eTai_luated by using an impirryyer cor midget impinger, wherehqry air sass drawn through liquid! mwtfnum. The dust was countedi to a liqght field, a method outlineed by ~rthe United States Public HSeolth Service for dust counting?. Industriaal byqqiene surveys were performed to evataluate poten tial exposures to sozcch dusts as asbestos and zs:~ *c.a. Asbestos can be identified? by asesing polarized light, and sstlica caarn be isolat ed by using pbhase ccontrast optical microscoppy. DEFENDANTOWP^COMHW Will I I COftfOKAnONI SUPPLEMENTAt RESPCtOBS TS fUJUUlM- * WTEUOQATOiUBS m *9* * If industrial hygieies surveys indicated a potential exposure to these dusts above the tiime weighted average threshold limit value in effect at the timne, then certain recommendations may have been made to company ^management for corrective action. OC also refers plainntif fs to Response No. 3, specifically paragraphs 6-10. Additional informaticuon pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory may be--:.found in OC's files related to asbestos as described in Supplementrtal Response No. 2. 3TERROGATORY NO. 43: Does the Defendant pcossess or have in its control any written documents and/or vwritten materials prior to 1980 which indicate that other manufaacturers of asbestos containing products had any knowledge, informxation, or understanding that asbestos vruld, could, or might be - harmful? If so, list each document and/or written material, aand attach a copy. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY ' NO. 43: OC states that it doees not have a compilation of the infor mation requested herein. However, in a June 2, 1964 letter, an Eagle-Picher employee trannsmitted to an employee of OC's Pacific Coast Division the portiosn of a National Insulation Manufacturers Association Board of Olmectors meeting minutes dealing with a competitor's intention too use a cautionary label. This same letter also stated that Eagle-Picher was planning to attach a cautionary statement on itrts asbestos-containing cements. Eagle- Plcher inquired of OC at tthat time as to whether or not OC should rave Eagle-Picher place sxsuch a warning on the cements which it owens-corntnoFsataiAJi Sim^MEKTAL USTONSBS TO PLABOTFrs ICESnttOQATXMUBS caoria f*eS7 rebranded for OC. :on June 5, 1964, OC agreed to have such labels applied to the reorzranded cement. See attached Exhibit MMM. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory, , to the extent that it exists, would be located in OC's doocument library proffered in Supplemental Response to Interra-ogatory No. 2. INTERROGATORY HO. 4-44: Did your ccmpaiany or its predecessor(s) ever place any warning directly oxtn any of its asbestos containing products? (i.e. on insulatioirn pipe covering itself). If so, state the wording of such warming, the size, how it was marked and the dates of placements. RESPONSE TO INTF?gCTnGATORY NO. 44: OC states Cat" it does not have a "predecessor" as it understands the definition of that term. OC further sfcrates that it did not place any warnings direct ly on its asbestcs-^-containing products. However, OC refers plaintiffs to Respcronse to Interrogatory No. 3 and to the exhibits and documents proffered therein for information relating to warnings placed cn the packaging of OC's asbestos-containing products. INTERROGATORY WO, 4 85: Did the Defenmriant ever provide a warning within its sales literature pertaxnrring to asbestos containing products? If so, list the wording* tithe dates and what literature it was placed in. SUPPLEMENTAL RPSPOCTSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45; Without waiviimg and incorporating by reference its original objections to thfs s interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory aas follows: DEFENDANT OWENS-CDRNINCKHEBOOLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO JLAIWBNTIFrs MTERROQATORJES ubcAa.iM t'afc 18 OC states that, to the best of .its knowledge, waraiirngs rregarding OC's asbestos-containing prroducts were not repcrinted in lets product data and application information, attached ass Exhib its D, E, F, G, H, BB, CC and DD. HSiovever, OC did place warning 1 .labels on containers of its asbesto&s-containing products^. OC rrefers plaintiffs to Supplemental Ressponse No. 3 and the^ exhibits aattached thereto. . Additional information pertinemrt to the subject matter of thhis interrogatory, to the extent tlrhat it exists, would ibe llocated in OC's files related to asJsbestos as described Su- ppplemental Response No. 2. XXNTERROGATORY NO. 46: Were any Material Safety Data ssheets ever prepared Irby the C&efendant for your asbestos products? If so, attach copnies. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATCCPRY NO. 46: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its .original cobjections to this interrogatory, OCC supplements its response to tithe interrogatory as follows: By 1970, OC provided Material SSafety Data Sheets fccor its aasbestos-containing Kaylo products unpon request. These .rttSDS vindicated the then recommended TLV for asbestos fibers aand rrecommended leak or spill proceduress and specific respirxator and vventilation precautions for asbestoss dust. See attaciie<d Exhibit AAA. Additional MSDS would be locatsed in OC's files relaated to aasbestos as described in Supplemental Response No. 2. C ZKFBmANT OWENS-CORKINO FTBEROtAS CORPORATION'S SL5UPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES sbrttoa.iM P* S9 L GATORY NO. 47: Dooes Defendant have insurance policies thatrr might cover the claims; Bade by Plaintiffs in this case? SOPPCagmiTAli-RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORS NO. 47: wiithout waiving and incorporating by referesnca its original objectrions to this interrogatory, OC supplements.^ its response to the inrterrogatory as follows: WWhich insurance carrier or carriers may be rresponsible for paymenrt of defense costs in this case and/or forr any judgment that nsay be entered in this case is a function orf the amounts in questioon and the time of any payments made, and la'so may depend upon thhe date of manifestation of the claimed asmbsstos-related condittion. Therefore, OC cannot with certainty larsver this interrrogatory as phrased. However, OC also states* that it has unezhaausted products liability coverage with the^= following inscraance carriers: Aetna Casualty & Surety; Alii iartz Underwrit ers; American Centennial; Associated Internationaal; Birmingham Fire; ^Central Natl, of Omaha; Columbia Casualty; Continental; Eaployeers Ins. Wausau; Employers Mutual Cas.; Gibbra-ltar; Granite State; - Haftpflichtverband; Harbor Insurance Co.; - ISA Underwrit ers; LfcandmarX; London Guarantee & Accd.; National Cfaion Fire; Northbrrrook; Old Republic; Pacific Employers; Prootective Natl. Ins.; ^Republic; Royal Indemnity; Royale Beige; SSecssros La Commer cial; TTwin City Fire. For additional informations. OC refers plaintxiffs to the attached Exhibit NNN, a chart pertaining to OC's ionsurance policies. D&FSOMfTU'OWENS-CORNlNC PIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUmBSBJXAL RESPONSES to plaintiffs interrogatories AbeitM.iat Pace 90 INTERROGATORY NO. 481 If the answer to the above interrogatory is affirmative, please state: a. the amounts of insurance coverage that is currently available as of the date you answer these interrogatcories, and b. how much is in dispute. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its originnal objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response -to the interrogatory as follows: OC refers plaintiffs to Supplemental Response No. 47 and Exhibit NNN. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: If you have not previously supplied the requested infornaetion int [sic] eh [sic] Master Asbestos File, then for each anr.d every expert witness, medical or otherwise, whom you may call tc testify during the trial of this cause, please state the follcmwing: a. Full name, b. Address, c. Phone number, d. Each subject matter on which the expert witness is expected to testify; e. The mental impressions and opinions held by the expeer. which relate to this case in any way, and f. The facts known to the expert (regardless of when thae factual information was acquired) which relate to orr form the basis of the mental impression and opinionss held by the expert. g. Who will be paying each such expert and how much. DEFENDANT ONVENS-CORNING FIBEJtGLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES SUPPLEMENTAL REESPONSB TO INTERROGgETORY HO. 49: Without vsaiving and incorporating by reference itss original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its reesponse to the interrogatcnry as follows: OC refers plaintiffs to Eadrihnit AAAA reports of thee follow ing witnesses who may be called tco testify as experts aat the time of trial: Hcvarrd Ayer, Louis Burgbaer, James Crapo, WillLian Dyson, Jeffrey Golden;., Thomas Howard, Gerrald Kerby, Charles Poewe11, August Rossano-, Dorsett Smith, Caall Stockman, and Peterr Frank/Stevec Plierce/Paul Weber/A1 boert Lilienfeld. OC f-further refers plairtiiffs to its Witness r l.ist attached hereto aas Exhibit BBBB and Depcsxition Designations ^attached hereto as Eachribit CCCC for additional information respcnssive to this interrogastory. 1MTERROGATOE? NHO. 50: If you havve previously suppli-ied the requested infonrmation in the Master Asbeestos File, then focr each expert who villi not be called as a vittness, but whose vorxk product forms the beasis in whole or in parrt of the opinions cof an expert who will the called as a witness. Estate: a. the nname, address and ttelephone number of thee nontestrifying expert; b. the ssubject matter of tixae work product on vhicrch the testxifying expert will rrely; c. the nraental impression off the non-testifying esxpert; and d. the ffacts known to the nnon-testifying expert-. stJPPT.EOTNTAt msPQMSE TO INTERROGgCTORY NO. 50: Without waiving and incorpcrgating by reference itss original objections to tthis interrogatory, OC supplements its reesponse to the interrogatcory as follows: DEPEHDAWT OWENSCEBNDMNC TWaeBUA CORPOftATON'S SUPPLEMENTAL KSSPOBES-TCJO PtA*mFFS {KTEUtOGATO Mfemocint Paje W OC refers plaintiffs to its Witness List attached hereto as. Exhibit BBBB. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Identify the name, address and telephone number every persona whom you intend to call as a witness at trial, who has not previously been listed as a witness in Defendant's Master Witnesss List on file in the Master Asbestos File. S_UPPLEMENTAL_RESPONSE_ TO INTERROGATORY NO. Sir Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original, objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response ta: the interrogatory as follows: OC refers plaintiffs to its Witness List attached hereto as; Exhibit BBBB and its Deposition Designations attached hereto as Exhibit CCCC. INTERROGATORY. NO. 52: What is Defendant's present net worth? SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Without waiving and incorporating by reference its original, objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response tc: the interrogatory as follows: OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit OOO, a copy of its most recent annual report, for information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY. NO. 53: Has this defendant, or its present directors or officers acting on its behalf, made monetary contributions in excess of $5,000.00 within the past ten years to the following scientists or researchers who have written on the subject of asbestosrelated diseases or to their employing universities on behalf of; or at the request of the scientist or researcher: DEFENDANT OWENS-CORN1NO PIBEJtOLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES Raymond Murphy - Harvard Meadical School and Harvard School of Public Health. Margaret Becklace - McGill UBriversity, Montreal, Canada. Stuart Brooks - University ccf Florida at Tampa. Edvard A. Gaensler - Bostonr. Hiiversity of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Tufts Medicsal School. Bernard Gee - Yale Universit.-cr School of Medicine. Allan Goldman - South rloridds College of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Cere ancd Occupational Medicine. Jerome Kleinerman - Case Wesstsra Reserve University School of Medicine. Hilton Lewinsohn - Universi-tr of Connecticut, Yale University. Hans Weill - Tulane UniversEicj Morton Corn - John [sic] HopprLns Brooke Mossman - University zZ Vermont. John Craighead - University cf Vermont. J. Christopher Wagner J. Corbett McDonald -McGill_ Th_iversity Peter Elmes Paul E. Wheeler - Johns Hopbkizs Lee Reichman - University oof Sedical and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey. J.M.G. Davis - Institute U.K. (England). Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, J.N.P. Davies - Albany Medicinal College, New York. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NQTO. 53: OC objects to this inteprrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensomee, vague and ambiguous, and to the extent it seeks informationn protected from discovery by attorney- DEFENDAKT OWENS-CORNINO FIBEROLAS COVOftATimori SUmSMEKTM. RESPONSBS TO PLMKTIFFS ftOSUtOCDO/CTJaSS client ccommunications and/or aattorney work product. OC further states r.hnat it currently has noo compilation of the information requested herein; howeverr irvsrestigation continues. INTERRCGfiATORY NO. 54; It wvhat year did this defendant first become aware of the 1938 Psbliic Health Bulletin See. 241 entitled "A Study of Asbestosis in thne Textile Industry?* RBSPOBggT.;TO INTERROGATORY TO. = 54 ; Basaed upon current infcarnation, OC is unable to determine exactly wwhen it acquired PntLixc Health Bulletin No. 241, entitled "A Stuiy of Asbestos in the Assbestos Textile Industry," by Dreessen,., Dallavale, Edwards, :*Miller and Sayers. However, in the early 19440s, some OC emplcyeess became aware of reports of asbes- tosis zndd asbestos corns associated with the inhalation of heavy concentraations of asbestos f ibeers in the asbestos textile manu- faerturinag industry from puhlisshed medical studies such as the Dreesssi -publication describedd above. A ccopy of the article pcbblished as Public Health Bulletin No. 241 haas been found in OCrss historical files. However, it is impossible to know exactly shictch employees would have read this article. Afidfttional information paerrtinent to the subject matter of this ixteerrogatory would be cccmtained in OC's files related to asbestos: zas described in Sapplseaental Response No. 2. INTERRDGggTQRY_NO*--551 It wirhat year did this defendant first become aware of the 1946 arti tele entitled "A survey of Pipe Covering Opera- DEmfi^CTawa0-COrKTNO FBEROLAS COUOlUffiBrS sumaoeujtasspoNSEs to piaintifps OTEUOGascass ubntea.iot rate 95 tions in Constructing Naval Vessels" by Flieischer, Drinker, et al. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY W3. . 55: Without waiving and incorporating by "reference its original objections to this interrogatory, OC supplements its response to the interrogatory as follows: The article, "A Health Survey of the "Pipe Covering Opera tions In Constructing Naval Vessels" by W. . Fleischer, F. Viles, R. Gade and P. Drinker, was published in *tthe Journal of Industri-- al Hygiene and Toxicology in January 1946Because most of the individuals employed by OC at the time cf "the report's publica tion are either retired or deceased, it iss impossible for OC to determine exactly when it received a copy of or precisely who at OC reviewed this report. However, OC statxes that, to the best of its knowledge, it received a copy of the A&pril 1946 issue of the Industrial Hygiene Digest, in which the FXAeischer/Drinker report was described, in or around April 1946 in "the course of OC's membership in the Industrial Hygiene Focncndation. See attached Exhibit HH, a copy of the April 1946 issues of the Industrial Hygiene Digest, and attached Exhibit n, aa copy of an affidavit of Marianne Kaschak of the Industrial Hyghiene Foundation. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be located in OCfMs files related to asbestos, as described in Supplemental fiessponse No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: How many claims or lawsuits (other ttefaan workers' compensa tion claims) were filed against this Defesndant in the 1930 's DEPENDANT OWENS-CORNINO FIBEROLAS CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES alleging, in whole or in ppart injury, damage :or disseise from exposure to or inhalationr. of various dusts? TThis iincarrogatory includes cases of asbestossis, pneumoconiosis -and sxilicosis due to the fact individuals were= or may have been exxposed- ta mixed types of dusts. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 56: OC states that it didd act have its incepxjtion unntil 1938. 00 further states thaat it does not have _a compilation of the information requested herseir, but, to the besst of iits )cnowledge and belief no such claimss or lawsuits were ffi led aggainst OC in the 1930's. Such infonaantico, to the extort -it exoiises, would be located in OC's document llibrary proffered inn Respopnse No. 2. See also Response No. 24 = ani the tables prcfffered cthere in. INTERROGATORY NO. 57: Has this Defendant inn ether litigation eever a i ] lsged or admitted that the health hhaxaxds of asbestos tonta ir- ng insula tion products were known trpricr to 1945? SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO ITNtTSRROGATORY NO. 5T7: Without waiving and iincorporating by isf.f&rencee its original objections to this interrrocatory, OC supplgggnnts itrs response to the interrogatory as follcows: OC objects to this innterxogatory on the^ grounads that it is overly broad and burdensazme, vague and asbigauous. Without waiving its objections, OOC states that it doer.B note, have a compi lation of the inforaationn requested herein. aovevrar, OC refers plaintiff to Response No.. 9. DEFENDANT OWENS-CORNINO FIBEKOLAS COVOKMATEBrs SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS MTEXEUt06L?CUB> ubeo* b< P|e99 Respectfully sajanmitted BEAN & HANNING, -L.L.P. r William J, Texas State Bar No. W967550 5847 San Felipe^, Suite 1500 Houston, Texas "77057 (713) 783-7070 (713) 974-8173 Ffax Number ATTORNEYS FOR DDEFENDANT, OWENS - CORN ING FUTBERGLAS C0RP. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hsaeraiy certify that Defendant Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporarrr.: zn * s Supplemental Responses to Interrcga-rmries has been served unspar plaintiff's counsel of record, John E. Williams, Jr., Williams?^, zai ley & Wesner, L.L.P., 8441 Gulf Freeva?ay, Suite 600, Houston,., Texas 77017-5001 via hand delivery this day of William DEfBttM3C0'WUUUCSaNlNO FIBStOLAS CORPORATION'S SUPTLEMSKTRLU^LZan^SSS TO PIA1NTIFF*S INTERROGATORIES lAbntot.iai Pjjf n THE EXHIBITS TO THIS INTERROGATORY ARE EXCEEDINGLY VOLUMINOUS. THEY CAN BE FOUND IN THE ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES FILE, ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE INTERROGATORY. A LIST OF THE EXHIBITS FOLLOWS THE COVER LETTER ON THE INTERROGATORY. PRANK M. BEAN JACK B MANNING QOUGLAS T gosoa ROBERTO ARREDONDO PAUL A MiGOON Rich W TmAMM Bean <3c Manning. L.L.P. ATTOflNEYS AT LAW SS47 SAN FELIPE. SUITE ISOO HOUSTON, TEXAS 770S7 TELEPHONE (7131 733-707O TELECOPIER (7131 703-7IS7 June 27, 1994 VIA HAND DELIVERY Hon. Kathryn Tyra District Clerk Harris county Courthouse 301 Fannin street Houston, TX 77210 annHioORE JEFFERY MUNOY WILLIAM J. COZORT. J GREGORY A. SCMLAK JOHN A. LABOON ALSO liCCMSCO COloBaoo -j.'J 1994 Re: Cause No. 90-23333 Asbestos Litigation; County, Texas (Master Asbestos File); IN RE: In the District Courts of Harris - Dear Ms. Tyra: Enclosed for filing in the above referenced case, please find Defendant Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production and Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. Please acknowledge receipt of same by returning a file-stamped copy of this letter to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. A copy of the Supplemental Responses to Requests have been forwarded to plaintiffs' counsel. Also, a copy of this transmittal letter has been forwarded to the various counsel of record as indicated below. Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, ` BEAN & MANNING, L.L.P. WJC:amp Enclosures cc: VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. John Eddie Williams, Jr. NO. 90-23333 IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION MASTER ASBESTOS FILE ) IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF ) ) HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS EXHIBIT LIST A = Product Chart B = Index of Pre-1973 Privileged Documents C = Index of Post-1972 Privileged Documents D - Kaylo Product Data & Application Information E = Fiberglas Metal Mesh Blankets Product Data & Applica tion Information - F = Fiberglas Sewn Blankets Product Data & Application Information G = Fiberglas Insulating Cement, Finishing Cement and 0-C Mastic Finish Product Data & Application Information H = Roofing Products Data and Application Information I * Fyrcor (Unarcoboard) containers J * Pictures of SC-30 and SC-40 Cement bags K * Mock-up pictures of asbestos-containing Kaylo cartons L = Pictures of Fiberglas Insulating and Finishing Cements M OCF/Fibreboard Rebranding Agreement N = OCF/Johns-Manville Rebranding Agreement O == OCF/Eagle-Picher Rebranding Agreement P * OCF/OI Kaylo, Distribution Agreement Q = OCF/OI Berlin Plant Purchase Agreement R = Kaylo Patent List S = Resin Patents T = Continuous and Chopped Strand Mat Patents U = Roofing Products Patents -1- Warning on bags of cement rebranded for OCF by EaglePicker Kaylo Warning Label Revised Kaylo Warning Label Unarcoboard Warning Label Fyrcor (Unarcoboard) Revised Warning Label Material Safety Data Sheets for Kaylo NIMA Brochure - "Recommended Health Safety Practices" NIMA Brochure - "Safety Reminders" ` NXOSH Booklet - "Caution Asbestos Dust" Dreessen study (01 501 0514-0648) Lanza study (01 500 0072-0084) Correspondence re: OCF's receipt of Lanza study (01 500 0062-0064) April 1946 Industrial Hygiene Digest IHF affidavit 3/9/42 letter, Dow Chemical to OCF re: Capt. Brown's study (01 501 0965-0968) 6/12/56 letter. Hazard to Brought (01 118 0108) 1952 draft 01 pamphlet and correspondence re: health aspects of Kaylo (01 501 1348-1352) Saranac Lake Documents Peele study (Report 62-IH-l-G-l) Peele study (Report 63-IH-3-G-1) Memo 6/30/63 - Lotz to Boynton Robert Peele Diary 4/30/63 Robert Peele Diary 5/1/63 Robert Peele Diary 5/16/63 -2- TT UU W WW XX YY ZZ AAA BBB CCC DDD EEE FFF GGG HHH III JJJ KKK LLL MMM NNN 000 Selikoff article, "Asbestos Exposure and Neoplasia" (01 007 0287-0291) Memo 4/22/64 - Edwards to Taylor Correspondence re: potential Massachusetts Worker's Comp Claim (01 039 1471-1472) Minutes of 11/7/66 I&C R&D review Berlin Plant Educational Program Berlin Safety Rules Berlin Plant Epidemiological Study . Aetna "Special Hazard Survey" Bradley Study at Berlin - Clayton Survey Collection of documents re: industrial hygiene inspec tions conducted at Berlin plant by New Jersey Depart ment of Labor and Industry Devitt Studies Bath Ironworks Study 8/19/86 Bath Ironworks Study 9/12/66 NIMA Minutes NIMA Minutes NIMA Minutes List of Distributors within Texas TLV Compilation Letter dated June 2, 1964 from Eagle-Picher 0CF Insurance Information OC's 1993 Annual Report -3- Requests for Production EXHIBIT PPP Original invoice for asbestos-containing Kaylo EXHIBIT QQQ = File Title index of Pre-1973 Documents Locat ed in OCFs Document Library EXHIBIT RRR = 6/2/65 letter from Farrell to Bigalow EXHIBIT SSS = Copeland - Workers' Compensation File EXHIBIT TTT = Bodine - Workers' Compensation File EXHIBIT UUU = Regn - Workers' Compensation File * EXHIBIT VW = sepp - Workers' Compensation File EXHIBIT WWW = Bronson - Workers' Compensation File EXHIBIT XXX =s Workers' Compensation Compilation EXHIBIT YYY = OC's 1993 Third Quarter 10-Q EXHIBIT ZZZ = OC's 1993 10-K EXHIBIT 000.1--4 * OC's 1989-1992 Annual Reports EXHIBIT AAAA = OC's Expert Reports EXHIBIT BBBB EXHIBIT CCCC = = OC's Witness List OC's Deposition Designations