Document vBzw3rOj8EnyBb1139xNmQ02Y

i 1 D) 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 3 ......................................-............................................................................x IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY Civil Action 4 LITIGATION {NO. VI) ........-----------................... No. MDL 875 - - -x 5 This Document Relates To: 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 7 FIFTH DIVISION 8 CONWED CORPORATION, 9 Plaintiff, 10 -against- 11 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Civil Action No. 5-92-88 12 Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, 13 - against - 14 OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS 15 CORPORATION, et al., 16 Third-Party Defendant. 17 November 8, 1996 10:24 a.m. 18 19 Deposition of WILLIAM DOUGLAS NEAL, 20 taken by Plaintiff, pursuant to Agreement, 21 at the offices of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, 22 101 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10178, 23 before Wendy D. Boskind, a Registered 24 aal Reporter and Notary Public within 2 State of New York. 138 NASSAU STOCCT HCWYOfM. N.Yt 18880 (tit) WM0 c U fX fiX -V ^ j UCAREF00014385 2 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 STICH, ANGELL, KREIDLER & MUTH, ESQS. 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff The Crossings, Suite 120 5 250 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 6 BY: ROBERT D. BROWNSON, ESQ., 7 of Counsel. 8 - and - 9 RUDNICK & WOLFE, ESQS. 203 N. LaSalle Street 10 Chicago, Illinois 60601 11 BY: MICHAEL R. GOLDMAN, ESQ., (a.m. and portion of p.m.) 12 of Counsel. 13 14 FOLEY & LARDNER, ESQS. Attorneys for Defendant 15 and Third-Party Plaintiff Firstar Center 16 777 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-5367 17 BY: TREVOR J. Will, ESQ., 18 (a.m. and portion of p.m.) of Counsel. 19 - and - 20 KELLBY DRYE & WARREN LLP 21 101 Park Avenue . New York, New York 10178 22 BY: ALAN J. GBRSON, ESQ., 23 of Counsel. 24 25 ALSO PRESENT: Julie STEWART MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014386 3 1 2 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 3 Plaintiff's Neal 1, memo to Mr. D.R. Albright, 4 dated November 8, 1972, from W.D. Neal, X414652 - 5 X414654, marked for identification, as of this 6 date.) 7 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 8 Plaintiff's Neal 2, Trip report, dated December 9 7, 1972, five pages, marked for identification, 10 as of this date.) 11 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 12 Plaintiff's Neal 3, memo dated January 4, 1973, 13 to Mr. R.A. DeCoudres, from J.M. Swalm, two 14 pages, marked for identification, as of this 15 date.) 16 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 17 Plaintiff's Neal 3-A, handwritten document, 18 X410715, marked for identification, as of this 19 date.) 20 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 21 Plaintiff's Neal 4, Material safety data sheet, 22 one page, front and back, marked for 23 identification, as of this date.) 24 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 25 Plaintiff's Neal 5, Material safety data sheet. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014387 4 1 2 one page, front and back, September l, 1972, . 3 marked for identification, as of this date.) 4 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 5 Plaintiff's Neal 6, U001613, one page, marked for 6 identification, as of this date.) 7 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 8 Plaintiff's Neal 7, U004836, one page, marked for 9 identification, as of this date.) 10 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 11 Plaintiff's Neal 8, U004842, one page, marked for 12 identification, as of this date.) 13 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 14 Plaintiff's Neal 9, one page, "Chrysotile 15 asbestos warning, cancer hazard", marked for 16 identification, as of this date.) 17 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 18 Plaintiff's Neal 10, Mellon Institute special 19 report, 12 pages, marked for identification, as 20 of this date.) 21 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 22 Plaintiff's Neal 11, Special report, Chemical 23 Hygiene Fellowship, Mellon Institute, 24 Carnegie-Mellon University, eight pages, marked 25 for identification, as of this date.) MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014388 5 1 2 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 3 Plaintiff's Neal 12, U005371, one page, 4 handwritten note, John J. Welsh, M.D., marked for 5 identification, as of this date.) 6 EXB (Deposition Exhibit 7 Plaintiff's Neal 13, memo dated June 28, 1984, 8 from Richard G. Hanlon, and attachment, 8 pages, 9 marked for identification, as of this date.) 10 WILLIAM DOUGLAS NEAL, 11 residing at 1812 Watchung Avenue, 12 Plainfield, New Jersey 07062, having been 13 first duly sworn by the Notary Public, 14 (Wendy D. Boskind), was examined and 15 testified as follows: 16 EXAMINATION BY 17 MR. BROWNSON: 18 Q. Mr. Neal, as I said before, my name 19 is Bob Brownson, and I represent Conwed along 20 with Mr. Goldman, who is here with me. 21 First of all, am I speaking in a way 22 loud enough for you to understand it? 23 A. Very legible. 24 Q. If at any time I lower my voice, or 25 you don't understand me, or the question is MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014389 6 1 Neal 2 simply one that you don't understand, will you 3 please tell me that before you answer it? 4 A. Of course, sure. 5 Q. Pipe right up. Just a couple of 6 things, very quickly. 7 First of all, although we have two 8 skilled court reporters here today, they can't 9 take it down if you nod your head or say 10 "uh-huhB, or things like that. We need an 11 audible answer so that they can write something 12 on the paper. 13 A. I understand. 14 Q. Sometimes you willfindyourself 15 nodding your head, but just try to remember to 16 give an audible answer. 17 Secondly, try not to speak when I am 18 speaking, and I will do the same so, again, they 19 just have one person talking at a time, so they 20 can get it down. 21 A. Okay. 22 Q. Okay? Now, let me begin by asking 23 you, Mr. Neal, for your name and address. 24 A. The name is WilliamDouglas Neal, 25 N-E-A-L; the address is 1812 Watchung Avenue, MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UGAREF00014390 7 1 Neal 2 Plainfield, New jersey. 3 Q. Are you currently employed? 4 A. No, I am not. 5 Q. Are you retired? 6 A. I am retired. 7 Q. And from what company did you retire? 8 A. Amo c o. 9 Q. And when did you retire? 10 A. In 19-- from Amoco? 11 Q. Yes . 12 A. 1991. 13 Q. What is your current age, sir? 14 A. Current age? 15 Q. Right. 16 A. 78. 17 Q. Okay. Now, at some point along the 18 line you worked for Union Carbide; is that 19 correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Can you describe for us your period 22 of employment at Union Carbide? When did you 23 begin and when did you end? 24 MR. WILL: Bob, you didn't ask 25 for it, but we have a work history at Union MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014391 8 1 Neal 2 Carbide - - 3 MR. GERSON: Because we are so 4 accommodating. 5 MR. WILL: -- that Mr. Neal put 6 together. 7 MR. BROWNSON: Let's mark this as 8 14 . 9 EXB (Deposition Bxhibit 10 Plaintiff's Neal 14, Mr. Neal's work history at 11 Union Carbide, marked for identification, as of 12 this date.) 13 Q. Mr. Neal, we have been provided with 14 an exhibit that's been marked as Exhibit 14, and 15 it's your work history, is that correct - 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. --at Union Carbide? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And is this accurate, in terms of 20 describing the periods you were employed at Union 21 Carbide? 22 A. Yes, it is. 23 Q. Are there any changes that you would 24 make here? 25 A. No changes; it deals with Union MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP UCAREF00014392 9 1 Neal 2 Carbide, not any other employer. 3 ,Q. Okay. And this indicates that you 4 left union Carbide in June of 1985; is that 5 correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Did you retire at that time - 8 A. Yes, I retired from Union Carbide. 9 Q. And it sounds like following that 10 time, even though you were retired, you then went 11 to take other employment? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What other employment did you have 14 after June of '85? 15 A. I had miscellaneous consulting for 16 three years - 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. -- and then went with Amoco for three 19 years. 20 Q. And that would then bring us up to 21 your latest retirement. 22 A. Correct, yes. 23 Q. Now, the miscellaneous consulting you 24 did for three years, after you left Union 25 Carbide, was that in the field of industrial MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014393 10 1 Neal 2 hygiene? 3 A. Yes, it was. 4 Q. Without getting into thedetails, 5 what sort of industrial hygiene consulting did 6 you do during that three-year period? 7 A. 1 would make studies and issue 8 reports to the law firm which engaged me, on 9 personal injury cases. 10 Q. And which law firm was that? 11 A. Affiliated Engineering. 12 I will correct that. That was not a 13 law firm; the lawyers for which I wrote the 14 reports were clients of Affiliated Engineering. 15 Q. Oh, okay. And I assumethese reports 16 were prepared in the context of certain personal 17 injury litigation that these law firms were 18 hiring Affiliated Engineering to work on? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And then wouldAffiliatedEngineering 21 go to you and say: Here is an area in your 22 field, will you do the report for us? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. So, youweren't an employee of 25 theirs, you were a consultant who they would turn MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014394 11 1 Neal 2 to? 3 A. Simply a consultant, yes. 4 Q. And what area of personal injury or 5 law were these reports for? 6 I mean, were these, for instance, 7 asbestos cases or were they some kind of other 8 cases? 9 A. They were mainly other cases 10 involving chemicals, chemical exposure. 11 Q. Were any of them dealing with 12 asbestos personal injuries of any sort? 13 A. Not directly. 14 Q. Did any of the reports that you 15 prepared, as best you can recall, because you may 16 not remember all of them, but were any of the 17 reports that you prepared during that three-year 18 period, did any of the reports that you prepared 19 during that three-year period discuss any 20 asbestos exposure issues? 21 A. Not that I recall. 22 Q. And then you beganat Amoco -- let's 23 see, that would be '88, or so? 24 A. Um -- '88 through '91, yes. 25 Q. And what work did you do there? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014395 12 1 Neal 2 A. I handled the environmental 3 protection program. 4 Q. When you say "environmental 5 protection program", did that deal with 6 compliance issues with the EPA or was that kind 7 of plant safety and environmental issues or what 8 was that? 9 A. It was plant safety, and also EPA and 10 also OSHA. 11 Q. So, among other things, did it deal 12 with EPA and OSHA compliance issues at Amoco 13 plants? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Was it a particular Amoco plant or a 16 number of different ones? 17 A. It was not a plant, it was a research 18 laboratory. 19 Q. And where was that located? 20 A. Bound Brook. 21 Q. Bound Brook, New Jersey? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And we are backing up a little bit, 24 but I understand when you were at Union Carbide, 25 for some period of.time, were you also at MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014396 13 1 Neal 2 Bound Brook, New Jersey? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. In connection with the work you did 5 for three years at Amoco, did any of the EPA or 6 OSHA compliance issues deal with any asbestos 7 standards or asbestos regulations? 8 A. Not directly; we had our own asbestos 9 protection program. 10 Q. Did your work get involved with that? 11 A. Partially. 12 Q. Did you ever, for example, get 13 involved in any comments to EPA or OSHA in 14 connection with any rule making they were doing? 15 In other words, would Amoco, you know, submit 16 something to them and submit a report by you or 17 something of that nature? 18 A. He submitted reports to the State of 19 New Jersey, environmental matters. 20 Q. Did any of those deal with asbestos 21 exposure? 22 A. None that I recall. 23 They were mainly air emissions and 24 waste chemicals. 25 Q. Let's then back up, and can you just MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014397 14 1 Neal 2 give us a brief overview of your education, what 3 it was and where and when. 4 A. Okay. It was-chemical engineering. 5 Q. And where did you get your 6 undergraduate degree? 7 A. Princeton university, in 1940. 8 Q. That was a Bachelor of Science? 9 A. Yes, and one more year of graduate 10 degree. 11 Q. Okay. Did you get a degree then, 12 graduate degree? 13 A. Ch.E. degree. 14 Q. Is that -pardon me on this, is 15 that equivalent to a Master's in Chemical 16 Engineering? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did that thencomplete your formal 19 education? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. . So, it sounds like you would have 22 gotten the Ch.B. in '41? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Now, have you ever had your 25 deposition taken before? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014398 15 1 Neal 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And about how many times; do you 4 know? 5 A. I could not accurately report. 6 Q. Well, let me break it down. Have you 7 ever had your deposition taken before in 8 connection with any lawsuits against Union 9 Carbide or lawsuits in which Union Carbide was 10 involved, whether they were the plaintiff or the 11 defendant? 12 A. Yes, I have. 13 Q. Have any of those depositions 14 concerned themselves with any asbestos exposure 15 issues? 16 A. At least one, perhaps more. 17 Q. And that's what I would like to focus 18 on. 19 Can you recall when the deposition 20 was taken concerning asbestos exposure issues 21 involving Union Carbide? 22 A. It would have been between 1973 and 23 the early Eighties. 24 Q. Do you recall the type of case that 25 was involved with that deposition? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014399 16 1 Neal 2 A. I could not really recall what they 3 consisted of. 4 Q. Was it a personal injury case? 5 A. I could not really even say that. 6 Q. Was Union Carbide a party to the 7 case? 9 A. Union Carbide, in some of the 9 conferences, depositions, et cetera, would be a 10 third party. 11 Q. So were these, then, cases of Union 12 Carbide workers suing like product suppliers 13 arising out of exposure in a Union Carbide 14 workplace; is it that sort of case? 15 A. No, they were customers' employees. 16 (Ms. Stewart leaving the room.) 17 MR. GERSON: Let's just take a break 18 for two minutes. 19 (Mr. Gerson leaving the room.) 20 MR. WILL: Keep going. 21 MR. BROWNSON: Should I keep going? 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 (Mr. Gerson and Ms. Stewart entering 24 the room.) 25 MR. BROWNSON: Can I hear the last MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP UGAREF00014400 17 1 Neal 2 question, please. 3 (The record was read.) 4 Q. So, these cases you have described, 5 it sounds like employees of some Union Carbide 6 customer were suing because of some exposure at 7 their workplace? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And do you know what customer this 10 was? 11 A. There were many. I could not recall. 12 Q. What were they customers of? Were 13 they Calidria customers or - 14 A. They were customers of our standard 15 Bakelite products. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. And some of which might have 18 contained asbestos, but not Calidria asbestos. 19 Q. So, UC made Bakelite plastic, I guess 20 is what it is; correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And the Bakelite contained -- or 23 some of the Bakelite contained asbestos as an 24 ingredient? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014401 18 1 Neal 2 Q. Is it your testimony that the 3 asbestos that Union Carbide used in Bakelite was 4 not Calidria asbestos but was some other kind of 5 asbestos? 6 A. No. As a matter of fact Calidria 7 never came up, in my recollection. 8 Q. So, whatever was used in Bakelite, 9 you don't know what kind of asbestos that was; 10 would that be fair to say? 11 A. I know what most of the asbestos was. 12 Q. And what was that? 13 A. Carey asbestos. 14 Q. Was that chrysotile? 15 A. Chrysotile. 16 MR. GERSON: For a clarification, are 17 you confining yourself now to the products that 18 were the subjects of these lawsuits you asked 19 about? 20 MR. BROWNSON: Right, the Bakelite. 21 MR. GERSON: Involving these 22 lawsuits. 23 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 24 Q. Do you know what grade of Carey 25 chrysotile was used in Bakelite? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014402 19 1 Neal 2 A. I would not remember the 3 nomenclature. The generic name was asbestos 4 floats. 5 Q. Had you ever heard of something 6 called the Quebec standard grading system for 7 asbestos? It kind of runs 1 through 7. 9 A. NO . 9 Q. Was it your understanding that 10 "floats" referred to the short end of - - they 11 were the short end of the grade? 12 A. That was my assumption. 13 Q. Do you know why they were called 14 "floats"? 15 A. I have no idea. 16 Q. In any event, if I could just 17 summarize, it sounds like your deposition was 18 taken one or more times in connection with these 19 lawsuits of workers from Bakelite customers; 20 would that be fair to say? 21 A. Essentially so. 22 Q. Do you know in what states these 23 lawsuits came out of? Were they New Jersey 24 plaintiffs or? - 25 A. They were nationwide. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014403 20 1 Neal 2 Did you say New Jersey? . 3 Q. Yes. 4 A. They were nationwide. 5 Q. And do you know what -- and who 6 retained you to -- well, first of all, were you 7 retained by one of the parties in those cases to 8 work on the cases? 9 A. I don't understand -- 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. -- what you -- 12 Q. Let me put it a different way. 13 MR. WILL: He was still an 14 employee - - 15 A. I was an employee of Union Carbide, 16 testifying about our process. 17 Q. So, somehow, one of the parties to 18 the suit, whether it was the plaintiff or the 19 defendant or Union Carbide that may have been a 20 third-party defendant, asked you to provide some 21 testimony at a deposition in connection with 22 those suits? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Do you remember who it was that 25 actually wanted you to testify? In other words. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014404 21 1 Neal 2 was it Union Carbide or was it the plaintiffs or 3 was it the defendants? 4 MR. WILL: Do you mean who noticed 5 him as a deposition or who named him as a witness 6 or - 7 MR. BROWNSON: Okay, this is somewhat 8 technical. 9 Q. For instance, in this deposition 10 here, Conwed is suing Union Carbide in this case, 11 and I am the Conwed lawyer, and we asked to take 12 your deposition. Do you understand that 13 scenario? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. What I am just trying to find out is, 16 in these depositions we have just been talking 17 about, who was it who wanted to take your 18 deposition? 19 A. I would have to confess, I do not 20 recall, over 20 years ago. 21 Q. Right. Do you remember the name of 22 any of the lawyers or the law firms involved in 23 the case for any of the parties? 24 A. No. 25 Q. And, again, you don't remember MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014405 22 1 Neal 2 exactly how many depositions there were, but 3 there could have been more than one? 4 A. There could have been more than one. 5 There were also conferences, and I could very 6 well be confused between a "deposition" and a 7 "conference" . 8 Q. Right. Did any of the depositions or 9 conferences take place here at this law firm? 10 MR. WILL: Here at Kelley Drye & 11 Warren? 12 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 13 A. No. In New York? 14 Q. Right. 15 A. No. 16 Q. Or, they have many offices all over 17 the Country, was it at one of their other offices 18 that you remember? 19 A. Not that I recall. 20 Q. Okay, because it's a large far-flung 21 operation and Alan has to keep his finger on the 22 pulse. 23 A. I may have visited one office. 24 Q. Do you still - 25 MR. WILL: Wait, of what? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014406 23 1 Neal 2 Q. Of Kelley Drye & Warren? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. In connection with those cases, is 5 what I am asking. 6 A. I don't recall in what connection. 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. I ratherdoubt it. I consulted with 9 these folks -10 MR. WILL: Well, wait a minute. Just 11 answer the question, which was, did you ever 12 visit a Kelley Drye & Warren office - 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 MR. WILL: -- in connection with the 15 deposition from those Bakelite cases. 16 THB WITNESS: I don't recall. 17 Q. Right now, I am confining myself to 18 these Bakelite cases. 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. Do you still keep copies of those 21 depositions from the Bakelite cases? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Do you know who would have them? 24 A. They have been dumped long ago, 25 (indicating); huge-. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014407 24 1 Neal 2 Q. And - 3 A. This comes mainly from my consulting 4 work, not Union Carbide. Si Q. So, let me ask you this. 6 So this would be in that - 7 generally, in that three-year period after you 8 left Union Carbide - 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- when you were doing consulting, 11 you were working on these Bakelite cases; would 12 that be fair to say? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Oh. The depositions? 15 A. I worked on no Bakelite cases as a 16 consultant. 17 MR. WILL: Bob, I think you are 18 talking past each other, about other depositions. 19 MR. BROWNSON: Oh. 20 MR. WILL: You see, he gave 21 depositions in connection with his consulting 22 work that didn't relate to asbestos; that's what 23 he has dumped. 24 MR. BROWNSON: Okay. 25 MR. WILL: You may have to -- MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014408 25 1 Neal 2 Q. Let me try to ask a different 3 question. 4 A. Okay. 5 Q. The Bakelite case depositions that we 6 have been talking about, those were earlier, 7 while you were still at Union Carbide, as I 8 understand it; is that right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. That was before you were consulting? 11 A. Right. 12 Q. Do youstill keepcopies of those 13 depositions? 14 A. No. 15 MR. WILL: Well, I don't know that he 16 ever had one. 17 MR. BROWNSON: Well, maybe - 18 MR. WILL: You never asked it. 19 MR. BROWNSON: -- you had a deposition 20 or a copy. 21 MR. WILL: A copy, you assumed he had 22 one; you said do you still keep it. 23 MR. BROWNSON: I didn't mean to say 24 he had one and threw it away. 25 Q. I am wondering if you have copies of MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014409 1 2 those depositions. Neal 26 3 A. No. I have tossed notes and 4 20-year-old information long ago. 5 Q. Now, these Bakelite cases, were these 6 cases where workers, at these Bakelite customer 7 plants, were claiming that they had some sort of 8 asbestos - related disease from exposure to the 9 Bakelite? 10 A. That could be typical of the 11 cases -- some case. 12 Q. And, again, can you recall the name 13 of any of the customers or the customer plant 14 locations where these workers were located? 15 A. I could not, really. 16 Q. Do you know, was there anyone else at 17 Union Carbide who you can recall who was involved 18 in working on those cases? 19 A. None that I know of. 20 Q. Now, you said that the asbestos used 21 in Bakelite was primarily Carey -- and Carey is 22 the name of a company; right? 23 A. Supplier. 24 Q. Carey Canada. And they are a 25 supplier of asbestos fiber that's mined up in MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014410 27 1 Neal 2 ; is that right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And that's these chrysotile -5 A. Chrysotile. 6 Q. -- floats? 7 A. Yes, asbestos floats. 8 Q. Right. You said that they were 9 primary supplier of asbestos in Union Carbide's 10 Bakelite. Were there any others, that you know 11 of? 12 A. None that I know of. 13 Q. Do you know if any of Union Carbide's 14 Calidria asbestos was ever used in Bakelite? 15 A. Yes . 16 Q. Some was? 17 A. Used in the product? 18 Q. Bakelite, yes, in the product 19 Bakelite? 20 A. Experimentally. 21 Q. How about in production? 22 A. No. Let me qualify that. 23 The experiment was run in production 24 equipment. 25 q'. But it was not sold as -- MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014411 J 28 1 Neal 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. -- a production product, Bakelite? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. And do you know when it was that 6 Calidria asbestos was experimentally used in 7 Bakelite 8 A. 1974 or '5. 9 Q. And why was it not put into 10 production; do you know? 11 A. The end product did not measure up to 12 standard product. 13 Q. Around that time, was there an effort 14 by Union Carbide on a wider basis to try to find 15 uses for Calidria in its own products, or was 16 Calidria just one of many types of ingredients 17 that were experimentally used? 18 A. Could you give that to me in two 19 questions? 20 Q. Yes. The first question is, was 21 there an effort around that time, within the 22 wider company of Union Carbide, to find uses 23 within the company for the Calidria product? 24 A. None that X know of. 25 Q. In connection with the experimental MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014412 29 1 Neal 2 use of Calidria asbestos in Bakelite, were you, ^ 3 involved in that at all? 4 A. Only in the production cycle. 5 Q. And, as you recall, this was about 6 '74, '75? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Was this in a particular plant where 9 this production experiment was going on? 10 A. The Bound Brook plant. 11 Q. Now, that's Bound Brook, New Jersey? 12 A. Correct -- excuse me, the run could 13 have been in 1973 rather than 1975. 14 Q. So it was somewhere between 1973 and 15 1975? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. Now, as I understand it, Union 18 Carbide had some sort of plant at Bound Brook, 19 New Jersey - 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. --is that right? Is that plant 22 still there? 23 A. The facilities are not; they have 24 been torn down. 25 Q. In what general time frame was that MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014413 30 1 Neal 2 plant in operation? 3 A. Between 1940 and the time it was 4 demolished. 5 Q. And when was that? 6 A. In the late Seventies -- 7 Q. And what sort of - - 8 A. -- or early Eighties. 9 MR. GERSON: Doug, you might want to 10 clarify which facilities were demolished. 11 THE WITNESS: The manufacturing 12 building, where the product was made. 13 Q. And what kind of plant was that? 14 What was made there, generally; was 15 it plastics? 16 A. The Bakelite thermosetting products 17 were made. 18 Q. And, in layman's terms, what is 19 Bakelite? . 20 A. It's a hard -- let me back off. 21 The Bakelite name was assigned to 22 just about every plastic that existed in the time 23 that we are talking about, including vinyl, 24 polyethylene, many others. It was a trade name. 25 Q. Was this a trade name of Union MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014414 31 1 Neal 2 Carbide's? . 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. I don't want to waste a lot of time 5 on this, but is it fair to say that Union Carbide 6 made a number of different types of plastic at 7 this Bound Brook, New Jersey plant, all of which 8 were called Bakelite? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And in the production of some of 11 these plastics, asbestos was used as an 12 ingredient; is that right? 13 A. In the Bakelite phenolic resins. 14 Q. And just again, in layman's terms, 15 what is Bakelite phenolic resin? 16 A. Bakelite phenolic resin is a polymer 17 of phenol and formaldehyde. 18 Q. You have to be even more basic than 19 that. 20 What sort of product would it be? Is 21 it a hard plastic? 22 A. It's a hard plastic. 23 Q. So, would it be like the case of a 24 television set, that kind of thing? 25 A. Rather, the handle of steam irons or MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP . UCAREF00014415 32 1 Neal 2 electrical boxes, washing machine agitators. 3 MR. WILL: Are you talking about the 4 end product? 5 MR. BROWNSON: Yes. 6 MR. WILL: Or what Union Carbide 7 made? 8 A. Automobile parts, brake linings. 9 Q. I am trying to get just a sense of 10 what this phenolic resin Bakelite looked like, 11 just to a non-engineer. 12 MR. WILL: Well, can you clarify it; 13 when it came out, when Union Carbide was done 14 with it, it was phenolic resin, it's what the end 15 customers did with it. 16 Q. So this Bakelite phenolic resin was a 17 hard-plastic, I take it, and then customers would 18 use it, you would sell it, for instance, to a 19 company that made steam irons, and they would use 20 it for the handle of the steam iron? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Or you would sell it toa car company 23 and they would use it like for a doorknob? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Was any amositeasbestos ever used as MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014416 33 1 Neal 2 an ingredient in that Bakelite plastic, that you- 3 are aware of? -- 4 A. Not that I know of. 5 Q. How about crocidolite asbestos; was 6 this ever used? 7 A. Not that I know of. 8 Q. Do you recall the diseases that were 9 claimed by any of these workers from the Bakelite 10 customers? 11 A. No. I am not sure I was even aware 12 of what the diseases were. 13 Q. In your work, in connection with 14 those cases, did you ever consult or talk or 15 listen to any physicians that were involved in 16 those cases where they were actually talking 17 about the diseases? 18 A. I don't recall that. 19 Q. Did any of those cases actually go to 20 a trial at court? 21 A. I could not say. 22 Q. Did you ever actually testify in a 23 courtroom in any of those cases? 24 A. No, I never did. 25 Q. Now, I want to focus on your work at MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014417 34 1 Meal 2 Union Carbide as an industrial hygienist in the 3 safety, health, and environmental division, if I 4 could. 5 And, as I understand it, that was 6 your official position from '72 to '85 - 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- correct? And, in general 9 terms -- we will get into the specifics in a 10 minute, but in general terms, was that work kind 11 of just what it implies as an industrial 12 hygienist ? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Now, before 1972, had you, in your 15 employment at Union Carbide, done industrial 16 hygiene type work? 17 A. No. 18 Q. So, it looks like in general terms, 19 before 1972, you were kind of a chemical process 20 engineer type of a guy? is that right? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. And then, in '72, you moved really 23 into kind of a different field, which is 24 industrial hygiene? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014418 35 1 Neal 2 Q. Why did you make that move at that^' 3 time ? _ 4 A. I was asked to make the move. 5 Q. And do you know why that was? 6 A. Several reasons; mainly, to run the 7 program at Bound Brook. ; 8 Q. So, let me ask you some questions 9 about that. 10 You were, I take it, living in 11 New Jersey and working at the Bound Brook plant 12 or Bound Brook facilities - 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. --at the time, and it sounds 15 like they wanted someone to run the industrial 16 hygiene program at Bound Brook, and you were that 17 person - 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. -- is that fair to say? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Was this thebeginning of the 22 industrial hygiene program at the Union Carbide 23 Bound Brook facility or was it being expanded or 24 just a new person was being put in charge or what 25 was going on? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014419 36 1 Neal 2 A. It was not the beginning. . 3 Q. So, there had been an industrial 4 hygiene program of some sort at the Union Carbide 5 Bound Brook facilities before October of 1972? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Was that program expanded or 8 something at that point or were you just given 9 the job? 10 A. I was given the job. 11 Q. Now, if we go back to 1972, do you 12 recall that as being the year when OSHA 13 essentially took effect or about that time? 14 A. OSHA, I believe, came into being I 15 thought '71. 16 Q. Well, I was being vague when I said 17 "took effect" because, you are right, the law 18 was passed earlier and then regulations were 19 done. I am not sure exactly when it actually 20 came into practical effect in plants. 21 But, was it around the '71 time 22 period? 23 A. I would say '71 and '72. 24 Q. And do you recall at that time - 25 well, first of all, were your duties, when you MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014420 37 1 Neal 2 took the new job as the head of industrial 3 hygiene at the Bound Brook Union Carbide 4 facility, did your duties include OSHA compliance 5 issues? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Now, were you the top guy or chief 8 guy for the industrial hygiene work at the 9 Bound Brook, New Jersey - 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- facilities for Union Carbide? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What was that actually called? What 14 was your 15 A. Staff industrial hygienist. 16 Q. And let's just stop, if we could. 17 At that point in time, when you took 18 that position, I want to get some idea of what 19 Union Carbide's industrial hygiene program looked 20 like. 21 MR. GERSON: At Bound Brook? 22 MR. BROWNSON: Well, overall. 23 Q. I know this is probably a more 24 complicated question than it sounds. 25 MR. WILL: Well, he is not going to MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014421 38 i; Neal 2 have any knowledge of what their program was 3 anywhere other than Bound Brook. 4 Q. What I am trying to ask at this point 5 is just the corporate structure of the industrial 6 hygiene people. 7 MR. WILL: Okay. 8 Q. Okay? And it sounds like each Union 9 Carbide facility or maybe major Union Carbide 10 facility around the Country had an industrial 11 hygiene staff on site; is that right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And BoundBrook, NewJersey was one 14 of those; that was its plastics operation? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And you were made the head of it in 17 October of 1972? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. How many people were in your 20 industrial hygiene group there, at the 21 Bound Brook facility? 22 A. One, besides myself. 23 Q. So it was you and then an assistant 24 to you? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014422 39 1 Neal 2 Q. And was there then some sort of - 3 corporate industrial hygiene people who you 4 reported to, like at the home office or somewhere 5 else? 6 A. I was in contact with the home 7 office, but I reported to the plant manager. 8 Q. Well, let me ask you this question. 9 Industrial hygiene at that time was a fairly wide 10 field, it dealt with many - 11 A. Exactly. 12 Q. -- issues, and you were new to the 13 field, so to speak, and I imagine there was a lot 14 of things you had to learn; would that be fair to 15 say? 16 A. Certainly true. 17 Q. And in terms of your education in the 18 field, I guess you were kind of alone here at 19 Bound Brook, were you given training or 20 instruction or materials fromUnion Carbide? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. For instance, was this at Bound Brook 23 or would you go somewhere and, you know, get this 24 training or how did that work? 25 A. Both at Bound Brook and elsewhere. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014423 40 1 Neal 2 Q. Now, in connection with -- well, ket 3 me go back. In terms of just the corporate 4 structure at Union Carbide, of industrial 5 hygiene, you were the Bound Brook industrial 6 hygienist and you reported to the Bound Brook 7 plant manager; correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. But would you also be working with 10 your counterparts in the other Union Carbide 11 plants around the Country from time to time? 12 A. Exactly, from time to time. 13 Q. And was there some kind of like 14 central industrial hygiene area at Union Carbide 15 where they would have specialists or people who 16 would help the people at the plants on certain 17 issues? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. What was that called? 20 A. That was the technical center in 21 South Charleston, West Virginia. 22 Q. And can you just describe for me, 23 going back to this 1972 time period when you 24 began as industrial hygienist, what sort of 25 people or technical expertise or material was in MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014424 41 1 Neal 2 the technical center that, you know, you had 3 available to you? 4 A. The tech center had specialists in 5 industrial hygiene, including toxicology, 6 analytical chemistry. 7 Do you want to hear more? 8 Q. Yes, if you can remember anymore. 9 A. Basic chemistry, physics covers most 10 of the other non-chemical activities; sound 11 abatement, noise effects, radiation exposure, 12 heat stress. 13 Q. Did they have a specialist or a - 14 specialists who concerned themselves with 15 asbestos exposure at the technical center? 16 A. Not as such. 17 Q. Did they havetoxicologists? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And did any of the toxicologists, as 20 part of their duties, concern themselves with 21 asbestos exposure? 22 A. They gave lectures on many chemical 23 hazards. 24 Q. And was asbestos exposure one of 25 those? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014425 42 1 Neal 2 A. I would have to say I don't remember 3 exactly; it probably was. 4 Q. And would they come -- the 5 toxicologists, would they come out to Bound Brook 6 from time to time or would you go to the 7 technical center in Charleston, West Virginia or 8 would they mail you information or how would you 9 interact with those people? 10 A. All of those that you mentioned. 11 Q. Did Union Carbide have some regular 12 program where all of the plant industrial 13 hygienists like yourself would gather, you know, 14 like once a year for a conference? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Was this -- why don't you describe 17 for me what that was. Was it -- you know, how 18 it worked; was it once a year or every now and 19 then or how did that work? 20 A. It was regularly once a year, and 21 there would be occasional other meetings of the 22 industrial hygienists, and there was a national 23 yearly meeting of the industrial hygienists from 24 all vocations; government and private industry. 25 Q. So, it sounds like Union Carbide had MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014426 1 2 a conference once a year for its own industrials 3 hygienists - - 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. -- right? Wasthat always held at 6 the same place? 7 A. No, it was held at different, plant 8 sites. 9 Q. Was it always at one of the different 10 Union Carbide plants? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Was it ever at Bound Brook, 13 New Jersey? 14 Were you the host of it? 15 A. Yes -- um -- I don't remember a 16 meeting at BoundBrook, as such, of all the Union 17 Carbide industrial hygienists. They were mainly 18 in South Charleston, Texas City, to name a few. 19 Q. Were there then - 20 MR. WILL: Did you want to clarify if 21 there was a meeting at Bound Brook? 22 MR. BROWNSON: Yes. 23 Q. Was there ever one of these annual 24 company-wide industrial hygienists meetings - 25 A. NO. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014427 44 1 Neal 2 I Q. --at Bound Brook? 3 MR. WILL: Wait until he finishes his 4 question completely before you answer. 5 Q. Were there smaller meetings of some 6 industrial hygienists or a particular topic that 7 you hosted at Bound Brook of industrial hygiene 8 people from the company? 9 A. Not at Bound Brook. 10 Q. Did you host them somewhere else? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Where was that? 13 A. Now I don't remember. 14 Q. Now, even though you were the 15 Bound Brook facility industrial hygienist from 16 '72 to '85, as that time period went on, you 17 know, for those 13 years, did you kind of begin 18 to specialize in a certain part of industrial 19 hygiene? 20 A. Not really. 21 Q. Did there ever come a time during 22 your 13-year tenure as the Bound Brook industrial 23 hygienist when you were recognized -- and I use 24 the term not in a formal sense -- within Union 25 Carbide as a guy with expertise in a particular MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014428 45 1 Neal 2 area of industrial hygiene? . 3 A. Not really. 4 Q. Now, these national conferences you 5 spoke of, those sound like that's bigger than 6 Union Carbide, that - 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- includes government people and 9 people from many private companies? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Was this something that you would 12 attend every year? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. I suppose those were held in 15 different locations, as well? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Who was the host of those things? 18 A. The committee. 19 Q. What was that committee called? 20 A. It was a joint committee with the 21 three major industrial hygiene organizations. 22 Q. Were you a member of any industrial 23 hygiene organizations from '72 to '85? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. What groups were you a member of? MANHATTAN RBPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014429 I 46 1 Neal 2 A. The American Industrial Hygiene 3 Association, the American Association of 4 Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 5 Q. Is that the ACGIH? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Any others? 8 A. And the AAIH. 9 Q. And that's the American Association 10 of Industrial Hygienists, or something along 11 those lines? 12 A. Something along those lines; that 13 included the certified industrial hygienists. 14 Q. Okay. So the AAIH, was that more of 15 a - - I don't want to say a "trade group", but a 16 group of the certified industrial hygienists? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Now, were you a certified industrial 19 hygienist? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. When did you obtain that designation? 22 A. In 1978. 23 Q. And I suppose you kept it until '85? 24 A. Yes -25 Q. You maybe even keep it today. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014430 47 1 Neal 2 A. -- a little later. 3 Q. Were you a member of the AIHA, 4 American Industrial Hygienist Association, from 5 '72 to '85? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And how about the American Conference 8 of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, ACGIH; 9 what was the period of your membership there? 10 A. I don't recall that. 11 Q. Do you remember about when you 12 started there? 13 A. I don't even know whether it was a 14 membership*type organization. 15 Q. But it sounds like somehow you had 16 some connection with them, you got publications 17 from them or went - 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. --to their meetings or something 20 like that? 21 A. They issued publications that we 22 subscribed to. 23 Q. You were on their list? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. It sounds like the American MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014431 48 1 Neal 2 Association of Industrial Hygienists, which is. 3 the certified industrial hygienists group, you 4 were in that from '78 until '85? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And then a little after that? 7 A. A little after. 8 Q. Now, were you ever on any committees 9 of any of these industrial hygiene groups? 10 A. No. 11 Q. With respect to the American 12 Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 13 did you receive publications from them? 14 A. The AIHA published annual listings of 15 certified industrial hygienists - 16 MR. WILL: His question was, did you 17 get publications from the ACGIH; that's what he 18 wants to know. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Well , let me ask this. They 21 published these little booklets which are the 22 threshold limit value booklets, or the TLV 23 booklets of all the different materials, and I 24 think they came out annually, although I don't 25 think they ever actually changed annually, were MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014432 49 1 Neal 2 you a recipient of those? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Would you get-the new booklet each 5 year as it came out? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And is thatsomething that you 8 actually used in your work at Bound Brook, 9 New Jersey? Would you refer to that from time to 10 time? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Now, are you aware of thefact that, 13 from 1972 to 1985, the ACGIH threshold limit 14 value booklet included, among many other things, 15 asbestos? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And you are aware that it had a 18 threshold limit value or what they call a "TLV" 19 for asbestos? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did you ever haveoccasion to refer 22 to the asbestos threshold limit value in your 23 work at Bound Brook? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. In addition, then, to theAmerican MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014433 50 1 Neal 2 Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 3 and their threshold limit value for asbestos, are 4 you aware of the fact that in 1972 OSHA put out 5 an asbestos standard for workplaces? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Did that OSHA asbestos standard apply 8 to the Bound Brook, New Jersey facility - 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. --of Union Carbide? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Was that administered in NewJersey 13 by the federal government or did the State of 14 New Jersey have an OSHA administration or 15 OSHA - - what - 16 A. That was a federally-administered. 17 Q. So, would it be fair to say that, 18 from 1972 to 1985, Union Carbide Bound Brook, 19 New Jersey facility fell under the jurisdiction 20 of the federal OSHA asbestos standard? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And that would be the general 23 industry standard, not the construction standard? 24 A. Yes, general industry. 25 Q. Okay. And, although this was not an MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. U CAR E F00014434 51 1 Neal 2 occasion government regulation, during those 3 years there also was a threshold limit value for 4 asbestos put out by the American Conference of 5 Governmental Industrial Hygienists? 6 A. Yes. 7 MR. WILL: In some states it was 8 occasion. 9 MR. BROWNSON: Okay. 10 Q. Was that an official standard in 11 New Jersey or was that more of an advisory 12 standard that you used? 13 A. I couldn't say for sure. 14 It wasn't federally, prior to 1972, 15 the state monitored asbestos, the New Jersey 16 Public Health Department. 17 Q. Before 1972, when the State of 18 New Jersey was monitoring asbestos in workplaces, 19 like the Bound Brook facility, do you know, did 20 they use the ACGIH - 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. -- limit as their number? 23 A. They did. 24 Q. Now, as part of your duties. 25 beginning in October of 1972, did you learn or MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014435 52 1 Neal 2 become familiar with the OSHA general industry _ 3 asbestos regulation? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Were you involved in setting up any 6 programs at the Union Carbide Bound Brook, 7 New Jersey facility to come into compliance with 8 that? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Can you describe for us what that 11 consisted of? I mean what you did and, you know, 12 who was involved. 13 A. There was a great amount of training 14 to be done regarding the handling of asbestos. 15 There was considerably -- air monitoring 16 required, personnel monitoring, there were 17 labelling requirements. 18 Q. Okay. Now, did these requirements, 19 then, apply at least in -- because you were 20 using at Bound Brook this Carey chrysotile 21 asbestos -- in the production of the Bakelite 22 plastic? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And, with all due respect to you, you 25 are now new to the field, 1972, and this is kind MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014436 53 1. Neal 2 of a complicated area, were you forced to learn 3 this by yourself or was there some specialist 4 within the company who helped you with this or 5 how did that work? 6 A. There were specialists that I worked 7 with. 8 Q. And can you recall who those people 9 were? 10 A. Robert Cope. 11 Q. What was his title? 12 A. Industrial hygienist. 13 Q. At Union Carbide Company? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And where was he based out of? 16 A. The technical center, in 17 South Charleston. 18 Q. Did you ever work -- or did you ever 19 meet a man named Robert Peele, P-E-E-L-E? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Was he also an industrial hygienist 22 from one of the West Virginia plants? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Was he at Charleston or institute, or 25 one of those things? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014437 54 1 Neal 2 A. He was the industrial hygienist for 3 the research center, the technical center. 4 Q. Was he ever involved in any of the 5 work with respect to asbestos? You know - 6 MR. WILL: At Bound Brook? 7 MR. BROWNSON: Let me take that back. 8 Q. Did you just happen to meet him or 9 did he actually work with you in some of this 10 training or industrial hygiene issues? 11 A. He did not work with me; I shared 12 conferences with him. 13 Q. So, you would see him at conferences? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. But with respect to the actual 16 assistance you got from Union Carbide people on 17 these asbestos compliance issues in '72, Robert 18 Cope would have been that guy? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And did he come up, then, to visit 21 you at Bound Brook, New Jersey to help you get 22 this OSHA asbestoscompliance set up in '72? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. How much time did he spend up there 25 working with you on that? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. U CAR E F00014438 55 1 Neal 2. A. Four or five days. 3 Q. Did he have a kind of a package or 4 program that he had developed that you could then 5 adopt at your plant or was this kind of a 6 custom-made thing just for your plant? 7 A. It was customized for the Bound Brook 8 plant. 9 Q. But, for instance, was he 10 knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the 11 regulation itself and how that actually affected 12 day-to-day work in the plant? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And, so, he would kind of help you 15 understand that and get it in place at the plant? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. As far as you knew, did all of the 18 requirements of the OSHA standard, in 1972, apply 19 to this chrysotile asbestos that Union Carbide 20 was using in its production of Bakelite? 21 A. Yes, essentially so. 22 Q. Let me just run through some of the 23 things that you mentioned. One of the things you 24 had to do, as an industrial hygienist in this 25 plant, was training regarding the handling of MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014439 56 1 Neal 2 asbestos; correct? . 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And the asbestos that was used in the 5 production of the Bakelite, which was this 6 chrysotile asbestos from Canada, how did that 7 arrive at the plant? 8 Did it come in railroad cars - - 9 A. Railroad cars. 10 Q. --or trucks. And -- what, you 11 would open the railroad car, would there be like 12 piles of bags on pallets or piles of bags in the 13 car or loose fiber in the car? 14 A. Piles of bags onpallets. 15 Q. As part of your duties, did you have 16 to concern yourself with how those pallets with 17 piles of bags of chrysotile asbestos were 18 unloaded from the railroad cars? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And what was the issue there that you 21 concerned yourself with? Was it like broken bags 22 i or rough handling of bags or what? 23 A. Mainly, broken bags. 24 Q. And I know that we are going back a 25 long time, but can you recall what the situation MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014440 .-3 57 1 Neal 2 was with broken bags? In other words, was this a 3 big problem or was it infrequent, or what do you 4 remember about that? 5 A. It was not frequent, it was an ever 6 present problem, not to break bags while T handling. 8 Q. So, basically, could I summarize by 9 saying that you were concerned that the asbestos 10 arriving in these railcars be intact bags - 11 A. Exactly. 12 Q. -- that the bags don't get broken - 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. -- because, if they arebroken, then 15 the dust can come out and people can breathe it? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Would sometimes you see the situation 18 where the worker would just open the railcar and 19 some of the bags would already, like, have been 20 broken in transit or was it more a situation 21 where the workers or forklifts were actually 22 breaking bags? 23 A. I couldn't give you a definite answer 24 on that, that goes so far back. 25 Q. Right. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014441 58 1 Neal 2 A. I looked for loose asbestos. . 3 Q. Now, did your workers - - and I mean 4 the Union Carbide people who were unloading the 5 railcars - - was that done by Union Carbide 6 employees 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- with forklifts? They would drive 9 up and, you know, get the pallet on the forklift 10 and take it out of the car and bring it into the 11 plant? 12 A. Yes, with forklift trucks. 13 Q. And I think I understood what you 14 were telling me to be that, in. connection with 15 that, you told the workers or cautioned the 16 workers that they shouldn't break the bags? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. How about the issue of after the car 19 was unloaded, would the workers have to clean out 20 the railcar? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And were you concerned that if there 23 was loose asbestos from a -- broken bags - 24 A. Well - 25 MR. WILL: Wait. Or did you need to MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. U CAR E F00014442 59 1 Neal 2 say something? . 3 Q. Was there more to that? 4 A. I qualify that. I can't say for sure 5 whether they had cleaned the cars out. They 6 cleaned any spillage in the building. 7 Q. Well, let's confine ourselves, at 8 this point, to the railroad cars. 9 After the pallets were unloaded by 10 the Union Carbide workers, with the forklifts, 11 now the railcar is empty, would the workers then 12 sweep up the car or, you know, air-blow it out i 3 with an air hose or anything like that? 14 A. Not normally. 15 Q. So the railroad didn't require that, 16 it was just an empty car and away it would go? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Can you recall, however -- despite 19 the fact that that wasn't something your workers 20 did -- can you recall telling the workers, or 21 having some instruction in place, that they 22 shouldn't -- or that they should be careful 23 about the loose dust left in the railcar? 24 A. They were told to avoid any loose 25 asbestos spillage. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014443 60 1 Neal 2 Q. Now, once the pallets of asbestos ^ 3 bags were brought into the plant from the 4 railcars, were there then, also, instructions as 5 to how those bags were handled in the plant? 6 A. Continually with care. 7 Q. And then, as you mentioned, if one 9 of the bags was broken and there was some 9 spillage in the plant, would that have to be 10 cleaned up? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Were there instructions as to how 13 that was to be done? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Can you describe for us what you 16 recall about those instructions? 17 A. They would spray with soapy water any 18 spillage. 19 Q. Was the concern that the dry spilled 20 asbestos would create dust and, therefore, you 21 had to wet it down? 22 A. Exactly. 23 Q. Were there any instructions regarding 24 the use of air hoses with the dust? 25 A. Definitely. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. U CAR E F00014444 1 61 1 Neal 2 Q. And what were those instructions? 3 i A. Avoid any air hoses. 4! Q. And why was that? 5 A. It would only aggravate the dusting 6 problem. 7 Q. How about sweeping with brooms; were 8 there instructions on that? 9 A. With wet -- wetted down asbestos, 10 they swept with brooms. 11 Q. Were the workers instructed you don't 12 dry-sweep the asbestos, you have to wet it down 13 before you sweep it up? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Now, once the pallets with the bags 16 of chrysotile asbestos were into the plant, you 17 have to help me a little bit with the production 18 process, but I assume at some point then they 19 were dumped into the production process? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And, at Conwed, they had a device 22 that theycalled a hydropulper, which was 23 essentially a big -- a slurry sort of vat, for 24 want of a better word, where the bags would be 25 dumped into. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014445 62 1 Neal 2 Was there a similar thing at 3 Bound Brook for the plastics? 4 MR. WILL: Objection. He has never 5 seen the hydropulper, he can't know. Why don't 6 you just ask if - 7 MR. BROWNSON: Let me ask a different 8 question. 9 Q. Can you describe for me how the bags 10 of asbestos were introduced into the plastic 11 manufacturing process at Bound Brook, New Jersey? 12 A. They were dumped into a hopper. 13 Q. Did the hopper contain a wet slurry 14 or just dry material? 15 A. The hopper was a part of a shoot that 16 led to a blender. 17 MR. BROWNSON: "Blender" is a better 18 word than "hydropulper". 19 Q. The bags were dumped into a hopper 20 and run down into a blender that would blend 21 different ingredients together? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Were the bagsdumped in by hand? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Would the bags have to beopened and MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014446 63 1 Neal 2 then emptied into the hopper or would they throw 3 the whole bag in there? 4 A. They would be opened and emptied into 5 the hopper. 6 Q. Did you have any instructions in 7 place for the workers who were opening and 8 emptying the bags of asbestos into the hopper? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What were those instructions? 11 A. As to the care in cutting the bags 12 open and dumping them into the hopper and placing 13 the empty bags into a container. 14 Q. Wouldit be fair to say that your 15 instructions were take care in especially opening 16 the bags and disposing of the empty bags to 17 prevent dust? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And your concern, of course, was that 20 you didn't want the workers breathing asbestos 21 dust. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Would that be fair? 24 Were the workers who wereemptying 25 bags into the hopper required to wear MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014447 64 1 Neal 2 respirators? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Do you know when that requirement 5 began? In other words, when you began at the 6 plant, were they already wearing respirators or 7 is this something you started as part of the OSHA 8 program? 9 A. The wearing of respirators had been 10 on request but became mandatory in 1972. 11 Q. So before '72, and I realize you 12 weren't in the industrial hygiene area, but was 13 it your understanding that respirators were 14 available by the company and, if the worker 15 wanted to wear it, it was available for him - 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. --so he could say to his foreman: I 18 want a respirator, and he would say: Okay, you 19 can have one? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So, it was optional with the worker 22 or the foreman? 23 A. Optional with the worker. 24 Q. Now, once the bag of chrysotile 25 asbestos was dumped into the hopper, then you MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014448 65 1 Neal ' 2 mentioned that the empty bags had to be disposed 3 of; right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And you had instructions covering 6 that so that there wouldn't be dust associated 7 with that disposal of the old bags? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Were those paper bags or - 10 A. Paper. 11 Q. -- burlap? 12 A. They were paper bags. 13 Q. How big were they; like 50-pounders 14 or a hundred or - - 15 A. I think they were 50-pound. 16 Q. Now, oncethechrysotile asbestos was 17 dumped into the hopper, in the production 18 process, was that essentially the end of the 19 potential for asbestos dustiness or somewhere 20 further along the production process were you 21 concerned about the potential for asbestos dust 22 being created? 23 A. There was the downstream possibility 24 of exposure. 25 Q. And was this something that you MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP UCAREF00014449 66 1 Neal 2 worked with in your industrial hygiene duties on 3 the asbestos OSHA standard? In other words, were 4 there procedures and instructions for workers 5 further along in the production line? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Can you describe for us what that 8 was? 9 A. Mainly, it was the wearing of 10 respirators. 11 Q. How could asbestos dust be released 12 so that the workers would breathe it, you know, 13 further down the production line after it had 14 been dumped into the hopper? 15 A. The last stage of the process 16 consistedof milling the mix, containing 17 asbestos, on hot rolls, and the rolls were fed 18 from above. And an operator operated those 19 rolls, and conceivably could possibly have 20 inhaled some dust. 21 Q. So, if I could put it in layman's 22 terms, at the end of the production line, the 23 baked-like plastic came out in rolls, and you 24 said they were like trimmed - 25 MR. WILL: No, you are assuming MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014450 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15i 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal 67 something -- why don't you ask him in what form the Bakelite was when it comes out of the production process. Q. At the end of the production line, you have essentially, I guess, got the Bakelite coming out on rollers; is it in sheet form at that point? A. Yes. That was a further processing from the one I just described. Q. Okay. So the one you just described is -- what's the physical thing that's actually happening to the Bakelite where the dust could be released? A. Actually, the mixing of the ingredients; the resin, the asbestos, and other ingredients. MR. GERSON: Would you like a description of the end product of the process he is talking about? MR. BROWNSON; I probably need that. I thought it was easier to ask the questions, but we will probably spend more time. Let me just kind of forge ahead. Q. So, after the asbestos is dumped into MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014451 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the hopper, then there is a mixing going on, and that mixing can create some dust there, too? A. But there is no opportunity for exposure to personnel in that stage. After the mixing came the two-roll milling which hot - compounded the mix into a homogeneous mass. Q. So it would be like kind of a gooey gloppy mass? A. And that, in turn, would be further rolled into a sheet. Q. Okay. And, during this rolling of the gooey gloppy mass into a sheet, is there concern there that there could be asbestos dust released? A. There could occasionally be dust, resin dust and any other dust. Q. including asbestos dust? A. Including asbestos dust. Q. So you were concerned at that stage that the workers were not breathing too much asbestos dust? A. Yes. Q. So, now our plastic is coming out in a sheet. Is there any further opportunity at MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014452 69 1 Neal 2 that point for asbestos dust to be released? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Are these sheets, you know, cut or 5 trimmed or sawed or anything? 6 A. Yes, they are cut. 7 Q. How are they cut? 8 A. With knives. 9 Q. Like automatic knives? 10 A. Guillotines. 11 Q. There is not a guy standing there 12 with a knife? 13 A. No. 14 Q. There is a big machine that comes 15 down and chops it -16 A. Yes . 17 Q. -- into pieces? 18 A. And finally granulation. 19 Q. So, the cutting of the plastic with 20 these automatic guillotine knives, would that be 21 something where dust could be released? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Why was that? 24 A. That was a homogeneous solid, and any 25 asbestos was homogenized in the hot mold. . MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014453 70 1 Neal 2 Q. So it's still kind of a hot gooey 3| material at this point? 4 A. No. 5 Q. It's not gooey, but it's hot? 6 A. It's hot. 7 Q. And it's cut? 8 A. And it's cut. 9 Q. And when that cutting is done, there 10 is not a lot of dust flying around - 11 A. Right. 12 Q It's a solid material. 13 And then, from that stage, what 14 happens? 15 A. After the granulation, it was packed 16 into containers. 17 Q. So the sheet then was ground up into 18 granules? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And was that a dusty operation? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. So, did you have to have procedures 23 in place there to prevent the release of asbestos 24 dust? 25 A. We had. ventilation and we had MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014454 71 1. Neal 2 optional use of face masks, but we treated that 3 as nuisance dust. 4 Q. So, when you say "optional use of 5 face masks", again, that would be up to the 6 worker to wear one or not? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Were those face masks different from 9 the respirators we were talking about back at the 10 hopper? 11 A. They were the same. 12 Q. And then this granulated plastic 13 would be put in boxes or bags? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And then I suppose put on pallets and 16 taken by a forklift out to a warehouse? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. In that operation, where it was 19 bagged and put on pallets and trucked out to the 20 warehouse, did you concern yourself with the 21 release of any dust there? 22 A. Only intermsof nuisance dust. 23 Q. And that iswhat, if bags were broken 24 or that sort of thing? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014455 72 1 Neal 2 Q. Now, did you ever hear -- first of\3 all, how many workers were working in this 4 plastic production process at Bound Brook, let's 5 say in ' 72? 6 MR. WILL: You are talking about 7 where they used the asbestos? 8 MR. BROWNSON: Yes, from this 9 production. 10 Q. From the time it comes off the 11 railcar to the time the pallets are stacked in 12 the warehouse, how many workers are we talking 13 about here? Is this like ten people or a hundred 14 people or? 15 A. Again, are you talking about strictly 16 the asbestos product? 17 Q. Yes, the Bakellte plastic containing 18 asbestos as an ingredient. 19 A. There would be the unloading forklift 20 truck driver, then another forklift truck driver 21 would take the asbestos bags upstairs to the top 22 floor, where the operator would dump the bags 23 into the shoot, another operator would dump the 24 bags. Three people. 25 Q. Did Union Carbide, as far as you MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014456 Neal 73 2 know, ever get any Workers' Compensation claims 3 from any workers at Bound Brook claiming they had 4 any illness as a result of asbestos exposure? 5 A. Any illness? 6 MR. GERSON: Could you repeat the 7 question? 8 (The record was read.) 9 I don't have direct knowledge of 10 that. 11 Q. Do you have any indirect knowledge? 12 A. Only that the union was aggressive in 13 making claims of exposures to noise, to 14 chemicals. 15 Q. What union covered the workers at 16 that plant? 17 A. The OCAW. 18 Q. And who was that? Is that the 19 Chemical and Atomic Workers? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Oil Chemical and Atomic - 22 A. Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers. 23 Q. And would it be fair to say that, as 24 far as you were concerned, that union, or at 25 least the local at that plant, was fairly MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014457 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll| 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal 74 aggressive in making claims for different occupational -- A. Yes. Q. -- injuries or exposures coming out of the plant? A. Yes. Q. And, although you have no direct recollection of a claim based on asbestos exposure, is it fair to say that you think there could have been such claims? MR. WILL: Well, objection to that; that's pure speculation. Q. Well,subject to that objection. A. Do you need ananswer to that? Q. Yes. MR. WILL: Well, he can't answer that because he doesn't know. A. I suspect so. MR. BROWNSON: Well, there. MR. WILL: Well, what does that -- so what? MR. BROWNSON: Well.... Q. Now, did the Bound Brook plant get OSHA inspections from -- beginning in '72 onward MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014458 75 1 Neal 2 to '85, by different OSHA inspectors? . 3 A. Could you restate that, please? 4 Q. Did OSHA inspectors ever visit the 5 Bound Brook plant from '72 to '85? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you recall the OSHA inspectors, as 8 part of their visit, concerning themselves with 9 whether the OSHA asbestos regulations were being 10 complied with in the plant? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And was there a particular OSHAguy 13 that you remember or would it be different 14 people? 15 A. There were many different OSHA 16 inspectors and state inspectors. 17 MR. GERSON: "OSHA guy" in the 18 generic sense. 19 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 20 Q. Would they come like once a year or 21 would they just show up every now and then or how 22 would that work? 23 A. They would not come on any regular 24 schedule. 25 Q. Did the Oil Chemical & Atomic Workers MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014459 76 1 Neal 2 union have a local right there that covered the 3 Bound Brook facility? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q Did they have an office there? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Is Bound Brook a town? 8 A Yes. 9 So, right in town they would have 10 some union office - 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- thatwould cover your plant? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did UnionCarbide everreceive any 15 citations from OSHA from '72 to '85 which 16 concerned themselves, in whole or in part, with 17 asbestos exposure at Bound Brook? 18 A. No. 19 Q. So, put another way, Union Carbide 20 was always able to keep the asbestos exposure in 21 the plants within OSHA exposure limits? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. At some point along the line, I guess 24 right in '72, one of the things that had to be 25 done to comply with OSHA was air testing. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014460 77 1 Neal 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Correct? Had there been any air 4 testing for asbestos dust at Bound Brook before 5 1972? 6 A. Yes. 7 MR. GERSON: Can we just pause for 8 one moment? 9 MR. BROWNSON: Sure. 10 i 11 witness.) (Counsel conferring with the 12 I MR. GERSON: Why don't we just take a 13 five-minute break. 14 (Recess taken.) 15 Q. Earlier, Mr. Neal, you said that you 16 suspected that there may have been some 17 asbestos - related Workers' Compensation claims by 18 Bound Brook workers. And why do you suspect that 19 or why do you think there might have been? 20 A. Simply to follow a pattern of claims 21 on the part of the employees at the urging of the 22 union. The union workers who met with their 23 members, the union provided a good bit of 24 information to assist any employee in putting in 25 a claim. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014461 78 1 Neal 2 Q. Do you know if the union also 3 conducted any medical screenings of the workers? 4 A. I don't know if they conducted any of 5 their own screening. 6 Q. Did Union Carbide do medical 7 screening or medical surveillance as part of the 8 OSHA asbestos regulation? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Do you know, did the union ever try 11 to get ahold of those records or use them for 12 their own use? 13 A. I couldn't say. 14 Q. Who would do the medical surveillance 15 of the workers under the OSHA asbestos 16 regulation? Has there a doctor in-house or was 17 it some physician in town or any doctor or what? 18 A. He had a doctor in-house. 19 Q. Has he a medical doctor? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. As far as you know, did it ever come 22 to your attention that any of the workers had any 23 asbestos - related conditions that were picked up 24 by these medical screenings that were done by the 25 company doctor? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014462 1 Neal 2 A. I do not know. 79 , 3 Q. Was this somethingthat was made 4 available to you or this was just a different 5 department? 6 A. There was no need to be - - to have 7 that available to me. 8 Q. Have you ever heard of adoctor, a 9 physician, named Hilton Lewinsohn? Does that 10 name ring a bell? 11 A. Lewis-- yes. 12 Q. Dr. Lewinsohn. 13 THE WITNESS: Wasn't -- he is the 14 gentleman - - 15 MR. WILL: Hilton - 16 MR. BROWNSON: Lewinsohn, 17 L-E-W-I-N-S-O-H-N. 18 MR. GERSON: Do you mean at any time 19 did he ever hear of him? 20 MR. BROWNSON: Yes. 21 THE WITNESS: He was not - - he was 22 the doctor of the -- that I talked to yesterday, 23 or we discussed. 24 MR. GERSON: Yes. 25 Q. Okay. Before yesterday, had you ever MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014463 2 heard of him? 3 A. No. _ 4 Q. Now, I guess I've got to back up and 5 ask you, what did you do in preparation for the 6 deposition today? 7 Did you -- let's start with, who did 8 you speak to? 9 A. Today? 10 Q. No, at any time before today, to get 11 ready for the deposition. 12 A. I spoke with these gentlemen, 13 (indicating Mr. Will and Mr. Gerson). 14 Q. Now, in addition to Mr. Will and 15 Mr. Gerson, it sounds like you also spoke to 16 Dr. Lewinsohn? 17 A. He was here at the -- while I was 18 here. 19 Q. So, yesterday, to get ready for the 20 deposition, Mr. Will and Mr. Gerson had you come 21 in here to the office and Dr. Lewinsohn was here, 22 as well? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Was anyone else present? 25 A. No. . MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014464 81 1 Neal 2 Q. Did Dr. Lewinsohn give you any 3 information that -- well, any information? 4 MR. GERSON: On anything? 5 MR. BROWNSON: Yes. 6 A. No. We were simply -- discussed 7 Union Carbide and people that we both had known. 8 Q. So this was more of a - - I don't 9 want to use the term "social visit" - 10 A. It was mainly social. 11 Q. But his purpose was not to educate 12 you for the deposition; was it? 13 MR. WILL: Well, he can't testify 14 what Dr. Lewinsohn's purpose was, but.... 15 Q. Did Dr. Lewinsohn show you any 16 documents? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Did you review any documents in 19 preparation for the deposition? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Other than this meeting yesterday 22 here at Alan Gerson's office, did you have any 23 other preparation, so to speak, for the 24 deposition? 25 A. None. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014465 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 Neal Q. Okay. MR. GERSON: Your reference to "documents", you meant documents other than the work history. MR. BROWNSON: Right. MR. WILL: Well, we didn't show him that. Q. Now, in connection with your work as an industrial hygienist for Union Carbide at Bound Brook, New Jersey, did you have any contact with the Union Carbide medical department? A. Yes. Q. And what contact wasthat? In other words - - A. There was no particular contact. There were occasions when I would discuss matters with Union Carbide physicians. Q. Did you ever discuss anything with a Dr. Carl Dernehl? A. Again, the name? Q. Dernehl,D-E-R-N-A-H-L; he was in the medical department at Union Carbide. MR. GERSON: Or a similar spelling. MR. BROWNSON: Right. Is it E-H-L? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014466 83 1 Neal 2 A. it doesn't ring abell. It could be 3 quite possible. 4 There are many doctors that looked 5 after other plants. 6 Q. Now, at some point along the line, I 7 take it you became aware that breathing asbestos 8 dust could cause disease of one sort or another; 9 correct ? 10 A. Right. 11 MR. WILL: Potentially. 12 MR. BROWNSON: Well, potentially or 13 could. 14 Q. Right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Is this something you learned before 17 you began your industrial hygiene work in '72 or 18 is this something you learned at that time? 19 A. I can't help but think that, the 20 matter of asbestos being a health hazard, that I 21 was aware to some degree. 22 Q. In connection with your new job as 23 head of industrial hygiene at Bound Brook, 24 beginning in October of '72, did you obtain 25 further information about asbestos*related MANHATTAN KHTFORTiNU CORPT UCAREF00014467 .1 2 3 4 5 i 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 diseases? Neal 84 A. Yes. Q. What did you learn at that time in terms of the diseases that could be related to breathing asbestos dust? A. Mainly, the term "asbestosis". Q. So you understood that if workers were to breathe asbestos dust they could get asbestosis? A. Yes. Q. How about lung cancer; did you learn anything about an association between asbestos and lung cancer? A. Only cursory-type information. Q. How about malignant mesothelioma; is that something that came to your attention? A. Yes, at a later date. Q. When did you first learn that malignant mesothelioma could be caused by asbestos exposure? A. Sometime in the Seventies. Q. How did you come by that information? A. Mainly, literature. Q. Now, is this literature you did on MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP . UCAREF00014468 85 1 Neal 2 your own or would this come as material from 3 Mr. Cope or from the medical department or what? 4 A. From various sources. 5 Q. From various sources within the 6 company? 7 A. Both within and outside the company. 8 Q. Were you asked as part of your duties 9 to, you know, do your own learning outside the 10 company, to stay up to date on developments in 11 your field? 12 A. Was I asked? 13 Q. Right. 14 A. No. 15 Q. Did you make it a point, just for 16 yourself, to do that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did you ever attend any 19 conferences or meetings in which the topic of 20 asbestos-related diseases was discussed? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And what was that? 23 A. One of the annual AIHA meetings 24 included many courses provided during the 25 meeting, and one so-called course or MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014469 86 1 Neal 2 informational session included asbestos. 3 Q. Do you remember when that was? 4 A. In the mid-Seventies. 5 Q. And who was the presenter of that 6 information? 7 A. I don't recall the name of the 8 gentleman. 9 Q. Now, were you aware that Union 10 Carbide had a mine and mill near King City, 11 California, where chrysotile asbestos was mined 12 and milled? 13 MR. WILL: At what point in time? 14 Q. At any point in time. 15 MR. WILL: Well, he knows that 16 today. 17 MR. BROWNSON: Okay. 18 Q. When did you first become aware that 19 that was one of the Union Carbide businesses? 20 A. When we tested the Calidria asbestos. 21 Q. And you recognize Calidria, 22 C-A-L-I-D-R-I-A, as a trade name for the asbestos 23 that Union Carbide mined and milled at King City, 24 California? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014470 87 1 Neal 2 Q. At some point, were you involved in, 3 testing of that material? 4 MR. GERSON: Testing for what? 5 MR. BROWNSON: Well, I don't know. 6 Q. You said - 7 MR. WILL: He told you about that 8 this morning, that's the Bakelite test. 9 MR. BROWNSON: Oh, I'm sorry, I 10 wasn't clear on that. 11 Q. Let me just ask some questions to 12 clarify this for me. You just mentioned, a 13 minute ago, at some point you were involved in 14 some testing, and that's when you became aware of 15 the Calidria? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What testing are we talking about 18 here? 19 A. Mainly, air testing. 20 Q. And where did that testing take 21 place? 22 A. At the point of use of asbestos, 23 where the asbestos was handled. 24 Q. Was this in connectionwith what we 25 talked about this morning, where Calidria r MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014471 88 1 Neal 2 asbestos was used in these trials in the 3 Bakelite - 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. -- plastic production? 6 A. (Nodding.) 7 Q. Now, the Calidria asbestos that was 8 used in the Bakelite plastic production trials at 9 Bound Brook, New Jersey, did that also arrive in 10 bags? 11 A. As I recall, it did. 12 Q. And you told us this was like '73 to 13 '75, in that time period? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Do you know how much Calidria was 16 used in this production pilot or testing program 17 at Bound Brook, New Jersey? 18 A. Enough for one run. 19 Q. Well, now you have got to help me 20 there. Would that be like one bag or a pallet 21 load of bags or a railcar or what? 22 A. No, it would be a partial pallet 23 load. 24 Q. Do you recall that the Calidria 25 asbestos arrived in the form of bags stacked on a MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP UCAREF00014472 Ij 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal 89 pallet? , A. Yes. - Q. And were these, again, about 50-pound bags or were they hundred-pound bags? A. I think they were 50-pound bags. Q. And did they arrive by railcar or truck? A. I don't recall how they arrived. Q. As far as you were concerned, at the time those bags arrived, in 1973 to 1975, did the same precautions that you have described earlier, with the Carey asbestos, apply to the handling of that asbestos? A. Yes. Q. And that would include, you know, making sure you didn't break the bags or tear the bags; right? A. Yes. Q. Now, were those paper bags or plastic or burlap or - - A. I believe they were paper. Q. And the precautions would also include when you were dumping that into the hopper? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014473 90 1 Neal 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Do you remember, were chose the kind 4 of bags you would open and dump into the hopper 5 or the kind where you could just throw the whole 6 bag in? 7 A. You never threw the whole bag in, the 8 bags were always opened. 9 Q. Oh, yes. This Union Carbide Calidria 10 asbestos that we have just been talking about, 11 did this come in pellet form or what they call 12 open fiber or loose fiber? 13 A. It came in pellets. 14 Q. And do you remember whatparticular 15 type of Calidria asbestos it was? 16 For instance, they had like RG-144 17 and RG-244 and Hi-purity pellets, they had these 18 different names? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. But, in any event, it was the 21 pelletized asbestos that came in the pellets in 22 the bags? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Do you remember if it was what was 25 known as resin grade? Do you remember that MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014474 91 1 Neal 2 designation at all? 3 A. No, I don't. 4 Q. Do you know why it was pelletized? 5 A. Not exactly, other than I assumed it 6 was to minimize the dusting effect. 7 Q. And, do you know, was that for the 8 purpose of minimizing the dusting effect back 9 when it was being produced or minimizing the 10 dusting effect when it was being used in a 11 factory, like you were considering using it? 12 A. Any -- at any time during handling. 13 Q. Did you recognize that, once it went 14 into the hopper, it was chopped up and then of 15 course was no longer in pellet form? 16 A. No. 17 Q. At some point, it was taken out of 18 pellet form, though, wasn't it? In other words, 19 it got mixed up and -20 A. At some point. 21 Q. - - ended up in the pi astic? 22 A. At some point, in the blender. 23 Q. Right. Do you recall any broken bags 24 of the Calidria asbestos? 25 A. No. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014475 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ! 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal 92 Q. Now, did you understand the Calidria was chrysotile asbestos? A. It was never stated to me. Q. I take it you were not the person who made the decision to try the use of Calidria asbestos in the Bakelite production, that was more of a production or a research and development kind of a decision? A. A research decision. Q. At the point that this was going on, you were now in the industrial hygiene area, and would it be fair to say that your role with respect to this was just to make sure that it was handled like any other asbestos in the plant? A. Yes. Q. Were you ever told at that time that the Calidria was a less hazardous or safer type of asbestos than the Carey asbestos from Canada? A. I don't recall what was told to me. I recall that it had that as a asset - - an asset. Q. Do you remember why you understood or thought that it was a safer type? Was it because ------- -----------------------MANHATTAN Kfcil>UkTlN13 CUKtf: UCAREF00014476 93 1 Neal 2 it was in pellets? _ 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. So, by being in pellets, it wouldn't 5 be as dusty if, for example, a bag was broken; is 6 that fair to say? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you recallwhether the bags of 9 Calidria asbestos that arrived at Bound Brook, 10 New Jersey, between '73 and '75, carried any - 11 a label or a warning that said anything about: 12 Avoid breathing asbestos dust? 13 A. I don't recall, other than that it 14 would not have been accepted had it not been 15 labeled. 16 Q. You understood that theoriginal OSHA 17 asbestos regulation that went into effect in '72 18 had a warning or a labelling element to it; 19 correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So that wouldapply then, for 22 instance, to the bags of the Carey chrysotile 23 asbestos and the Calidria asbestos? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Oh, I want to just jump back. The MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014477 94 Neal American Conference of Governmental Industrial _ Hygienists threshold limit value booklets that you got every year, that we talked about earlier, remember those? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall that in 1974, with respect to the threshold limit value for asbestos, reference was made that breathing 1 asbestos dust could cause cancer in the ACGIH 1 booklet ? l: A. I think that booklet listed several l particles that were considered a cancer hazard. l Q. Do you remember that asbestos was one l of those? l A. I think so. l Q. Do you recall the year when it first l listed asbestos as a cancer hazard? l A. I could not recall. 2 Q. Following this trial run of Union 2 Carbide Calidria asbestos in the plastic 2 manufacturing at Bound Brook, in 1973 to '75, did 2 you then ever have anything more to do with 2 Calidria asbestos? ' 2 A. No. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014478 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3; 24 25 95 Neal Q. Did you ever become aware up until yesterday. or other than any discussions you had yesterday. did it ever come to your attention that Union Carbide had sold the asbestos mine and mill in King City, California? A. No. Q. Did you ever, in the -- or during the course of your work at Union Carbide, meet any of the industrial hygienists from King City? A. No. Q. Did you ever go out there? A. No. Q. Did you know Paul McDaniel? A. Yes. Q. You never had anything to do with the air tests. air monitoring tests, that were done at the mine and mill in King City? A. No. Q- Did you ever have anything to do, in the course of your duties at Union Carbide, with air monitoring tests done for asbestos at Union Carbide customer plants? A. No. Q. Were you aware that Union Carbide had MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014479 96 1 Neal 2 a program where Union Carbide industrial 3 hygienists from -- I think they were all from, 4 you know, Niagara Falls or Tarrytown, New York, 5 that area, were actually going out to customer 6 plants to do air monitoring for asbestos dust? 7 A. I was not aware of that. 8 Q. Have you become aware that that 9 program was in place? Have you learned that, you 10 know, since then? 11 A. No, I have not. 12 Q. Have you ever seen, for example, a 13 report by a Union Carbide industrial hygienist 14 that was done regarding air monitoring for 15 asbestos at Conwed's plant? 16 A. At which plant? 17 Q. Conwed? 18 A. No. 19 Q. First of all, have you ever heard of 2 0 Conwed Corporation - 21 A. No. 22 Q. -- before yesterday. Okay. 2 3 MR. WILL: Again, try to let him 24 finish. 25 Q. Oh, yes. While the Calidria asbestos ------------------------------ MANHATTAN REPORTING CORF.-------------- UCAREF00014480 97 1 Neal 2 was being used during these trial runs in the . 3 manufacturing of plastic at Bound Brook, was air 4 monitoring done? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Was it done during the unloading of 7 the car or the truck? 8 A. During all stages of handling. 9 Q. Was a personal air monitor put on the 10 workers - 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- for instance, who were unloading 13 in the forklift, that sort of thing - 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. -- and then dumping it into the 16 hopper? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And then these later stages of 19 production -- I forget, mixing or whatever we 20 had talked about earlier - 21 A. The roll milling. 22 Q. The roll milling; right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. And in addition to the - 25 well, first of all, the personal air monitor, ------------------------------ MANHATTAN REPORTING CORF"! UCAREF00014481 98 1 Neal 2 that's that little thing (indicating) they wear 3 on their lapel, that has a hose that goes down to 4 a pump on their belt? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. So it kind of sucks in the air at the 7 breathing zone by the man's mouth? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. In addition to those -- that air 10 monitoring, was there also a stationary air 11 monitoring done during the use of the Calidria? 12 A. There was some area monitoring done. 13 Q. Good. Now you have given me the ` 14 proper term. Do you refer to that -- well, let 15 me back up. 16 If you have the actual air filter and 17 monitor and pump on the man, you know, attached 18 to his collar and belt, do you call that 19 "personal air monitoring"? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And, then, ifyou just set up a pump 22 on the floor or on a chair, or whatever, by the 23 hopper, you call that an area air monitoring? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. So, inaddition to the personal air MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP^ UCAREF00014482 99 1 Neal 2 monitoring, there was also area air monitoring; 3 correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Where did that take place in this 6 production process? 7 A. In the various areas where asbestos 8 was being handled. 9 Q. And now I will ask, I will really 10 test your memory, do you remember what the 11 results of any of that air monitoring was? 12 MR. WILL: Specifically or 13 generally? i 14| A. The results were generally lower than 15 any personal samples. 16 Q. So the area samples were lower than 17 the personal samples. 18: A. As I recall, they generally ran that 19 pattern. 20 Q. Now, was that also true when air 21 monitoring was done for the Canadian chrysotile 22 asbestos? Were the personal samples on the man 23 generally higher than the area samples? 24 A. I am not even- sure we ran area 25 samples during the Calidria run. ------------------------------ MANHATTAN REPORTING" CeSP-.----------------------------- UCAREF00014483 100 1 Neal 2 Q. Now, so, when the Calidria was used 3 in this experimental run, you do recall that 4 there were the personal samples on the men; 5 right? 6 A. Yes. 7 'Q. And there may or there may not have 8 been area samples done on that, too? 9 A. There may or may not have been. 10 Q. With respect to the actual levels 11 recorded on any of the sampling that was done 12 with the Calidria, as you sit here today, do you 13 recall what those levels were? 14 A. In numbers, you mean? 15 Q. Right. 16 A. I would recall that they were in 17 within limits, OSHA limits. 18 Q. So they were under the OSHA standard? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And was the OSHAstandard at that 21 time -- because I think it didn't change until 22 '76, was it at that time five fibers per cubic 23 centimeter of air - 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. --on theeight-hourtime-weighted MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014484 101 1 Neal 2 average? 3 A. Yes . 4 Q And then there was the excursion 5 limit for the 15-minute - 6 A. Ten fibers -- 15 minutes and ten 7 fibers. 8 Q. Per cubic centimeter of air? 9 A. Limit, yes. 10 Q. And just to kind of put this in 11 layman's terms, what the OSHA requirement 12 required in plants, the general asbestos standard 13 from 1972 to 1976, was that you could not exceed 14 five fibers per cubic centimeter of air when it's 15 averaged over the eight-hour working day; 16 correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. But you could, if you had a higher 19 level than that, you know, that just happened 20 once, like for a 15-minute period, that was 21 called "the excursionlimit"? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And thatcould go up to ten fibers 24 per cubic centimeter; right? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014485 102 1 Neal 2 Q. And what you are telling us is that, 3 as you recall, when the Calidria was used in this 4 test run it did not exceed those limits? 5 A. Right. 6 Q. So it was somewhere below that. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. But you just don't remember exactly 9 what the figure was. 10 A. Yes. 11 (Luncheon recess: 12:35 p.m.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014486 103 1 1 Neal 2 AFTERNOON SESSION . 3 (1:36 p.m.) 4 WILLIAM DOUG LA S NEAL, 5 resumed, having been previously duly sworn, 6 was examined and testified as follows: 7 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. BROWNSON: 9 Q. Now that we have come back from 10 lunch, Mr. Neal, I assume that you don't have any 11 further information as to what those air sampling 12 figures were at Bound Brook? 13 A. No, I don't attempt to memorize 14 numbers when there are so many, and after 24 15 years - - 16 Q. Right. 17 A. -- they all melttogether. 18 So I would like to avoid numbers that 19 there should be things in the record that would 20 have results. 21 Q. Let me ask you, you had mentioned 22 earlier Robert Cope, C-O-P-E - 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. --is thatright? Is Mr. Cope still 25 alive, as far as you know? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014487 104 1 Neal 2 A. Oh, yes. . 3 Q. Is he still at Union Carbide? 4 A. No, he is long retired. 5 Q. Where is he, in West Virginia? 6 A. He is in Hurricane, West Virginia. 7 Q. Hurricane? 8 A. Yes, Hurricane. It's about ten miles 9 west of -- it's between Huntsville -- 10 Q. Huntington? 11 A. Huntington -- and South Charleston. 12 Q. I actually am a student of West 13 Virginia geography, so - 14 A. Oh. 15 MR. 6ERS0N: Well, you didn't know 16 about Hurricane. 17 MR. BROWNSON: I didn't know about 18 Hurricane. 19 Q. Do you know James Rawlings, 20 R-A-W-L-I-N-G-S? Do you know who Mr. Rawlings 21 is? 22 A. R-A-W? 23 Q. Right. 24 A. Rawlings. 25 Q. Right,.like the baseball glove. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014488 1 2 3 4 5 6 7; 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal 105 A. No. plant foreman. I knew a Rawlings who was a Q. No, he is a more recent industrial hygiene official at Union Carbide. A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. Now, during the course of your employment at Union Carbide, from '72 to '85, when you were the director of industrial hygiene at the Bound Brook plastics plant, plastics facility - - A. Yes. Q. -- you are aware of the fact, I take it, that the OSHA asbestos standard changed over the course of years; correct? A. Yes . Q. And one of the changes that took place is the permissible exposure level, I guess what they call the PBL for asbestos in the air. that was reduced from time to time; correct? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall that the first -- after the first one was set up, in '72, we have talked earlier that that was five fibers per cubic centimeters of air over an eight-hour MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014489 Neal 106 2 time-weighted average? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. I am just talking about the 5 eight-hour one now. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And then, as I understand it, in '76 8 that was reduced to a lower level? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Do you recall what that level was? 11 A. Down to two. 12 Q. Do you recall what the next reduction 13 was after that? 14 A. Not exactly; other than they have 15 talked in terms of one-and-a-half. 16 Q. You mean .5? 17 A. .5; right. But I don't know just 18 when that was promulgated. 19 Q. Well, let me ask you this. By the 20 time you retired from Union Carbide, in 1985, do 21 you recall what the eight-hour time weighted 22 average was at that point for asbestos exposure 23 in the air? 24 A. In 1985? 25 Q. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014490 107 1 Neal 2 A. I can't say for sure. - 3 Q. Would it be fair to say, though, that 4 it was a level below two fibers per cubic 5 centimeter - - 6 A. It would be. 7 Q. --of air. With respect to air 8 monitoring at the Bound Brook plastics plant, 9 from '72 to '85, was this done on a regular 10 schedule? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. For instance, quarterly? 13 A. It depended on the particular air 14 contaminant that we were working on. 15 Q. Well, I am just interested at this 16 point in asbestos. 17 A. Oh. It was at intervals of - - I 18 would say, nearly weekly intervals. 19 Q. Were you ever asked by anyone at 20 Union Carbide to contribute any information or 21 documents or expertise in connection with any 22 comments that Union Carbide was submitting to 23 OSHA with respect to, you know, the rule making 24 of this asbestos standard? 25 A. No, I had no input in the rule making MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014491 108 1 Neal 2 process; I left that up to the experts. 3 Q. And who were those experts at the 4 time, from '72 to '85? 5 A. The toxicologists. 6 Q. Can you give me the names of the 7 Union Carbide toxicologists who you remember - 8 A. No. 9 Q. -- were involved with asbestos 10 issues? 11 A. No, I don't remember any particular 12 name. 13 Q. Okay. Let's look -- our court 14 reporter has marked some exhibits, which are 15 laying on the table here, and I wanted to look 16 first at Exhibit Number 12. So why don't we get 17 that. I wanted to ask you to look at that, 18 Mr. Neal. 19 And just take a moment here, and 20 let's try to read it. It's handwriting, so it 21 takes a little while to go over it. 22 A. "Retirees" - 23 MR. HILL: Wait. Wait just a second. 24 Q. You don't have toread it aloud. 25 MR. BROHNSON: I just wanted him to MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014492 1 2 3 4 5 6 1, 8 9j 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal look at it before I ask questions. 109 MR. WILL: Can we establish whether he has seen it before or knows anything about it before we question him about it? MR. BROWNSON: Well, we will, but I wanted to give him a moment to look at it before - A. I can't - - MR. WILL: Wait. A. I can'tread it. MR. WILL: I'm sorry, you say you can't read it? A. Well, seriously, it deals with the "mortality rate 2.4 times expected" -- chrysotile used - MR. WILL: Just read it to yourself. A. Okay. Q. Pirst of all, have you ever seen this before? A. I have never seen it before. Q. Do you know who John J. Welsh, M.D. is? A. The name is familiar, as a doctor in the corporate group. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014493 ll 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal 110 Q. He would be a physician in the corporate medical department at New York, which I believe was in New York City? A. I believe so. Q. The corporate medicaldepartment I mean of Union Carbide - - A. Yes. Q. -- that was in New York City? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall ever meeting Dr. Welsh? A. No. Q. Do you recognize the handwriting here as that of Dr. Welsh or anybody else? A. No, I don't recognize the writing. Q. At the top, the writing reads "Asbestos f ile" . Do you know what asbestos file that refers to? A. No. Q. Now, again, as you have noted, the handwriting is hard to read. But the first line appears to say "Mortality experience". Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Do you.know what mortality experience MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014494 111 1 Neal 2 they might be talking about here? 3 A. No, it refers to retirees. 4 Q. Oh, where do you see that? 5 MR. GOLDMAN: Next line. 6 Q. Oh, I see "1,348 retirees". 7 MR. WILL: "Dash asbestos industry." 8 Q. It seems to say "dash asbestos 9 industry". 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And youdon't know whatthat 12 reference is to; do you? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Are you in the course of your work, 15 even up to the present time, or through the time 16 you were with Amoco, did you ever have occasion 17 in connection with your work to see asbestos 18 mortality data of the sort that we see described 19 here? 20 A. I recall readingarticles, newspaper 21 articles, reporting on asbestos and naming 22 mortality rates, but I don't remember what the 23 conditions were or what the articles pertained 24 to, other than asbestos industry and mortality 25 rates. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014495 112 1 Neal 2 Q. In connection with your work at Union 3 Carbide, from 1972 to 1985, did you become 4 familiar with the different asbestos fiber types? 5 A. Familiar in what way? 6 Q. Well, let's start out by justsaying 7 did you understand there were different asbestos 8 fiber types? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Do you recall what understanding you 11 had at that time, going back in the 1972 time 12 period, as to the different asbestos fiber types? 13 A. They had different PEL'S assigned. 14 Q. And this was in the ACGIH? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Ratings - 17 A. Right. 18 Q. What do you call that? 19 A. American Conference of 20 Governmental - 21 Q. I'm sorry, I called it a "rating", 22 it's not a standard. 23 What's the word I want to use there, 24 for what these - 25 A. "Permissible exposure limit." MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014496 1 21 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal 113 Q. "Permissible exposure limit"? A. "PEL", generally a "TWA". Q. That means time-weighted average? A. Yes. Q. So you have a permissible exposure limit and it's measured, if you will, over a time-weighted average over eight hours? A. Yes. Q. Right. And what you are saying is the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists had different rankings depending on the different kinds of asbestos? A. Yes. MR. WILL: "Different PEL'S", you mean. MR. BROWNSON: Right. Q. It had a different permissible exposure limit for some different kinds of asbestos? A. Yes. Q- Right, okay. Now, can you recall what the different kinds of asbestos were that they had different permissible exposure levels for? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014497 1 2 3* 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Well, the one that comes to mind mainly is amosite, because that had the lowest PEL. Q. And by "lowest PEL", that means permissible exposure level was lower for amosite than for other things? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember that chrysotile asbestos was one of those fiber types? A. That was one of them. Q. Do you recall whether chrysotile asbestos had a permissible exposure level set out in the ACGIH booklets? A. I believe it did. Q. And did you understand at the time that a permissible exposure level, as described by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, was a level they essentially were saying that, over an eight-hour working day, you don't want workers exposed to levels over that? A. That was my impression. Q. In other words, you should keep the asbestos airborne levels under that permissible MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014498 115 1 Neal 2 exposure 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. - - level. 5 And chrysotile asbestos had one of 6 those permissible exposure levels assigned to it? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Going back to this Exhibit 12 we were 9 just looking at, do you know the years during 10 which Dr. Welsh was a member of the medical 11 department at Union Carbide? 12 A. No, I do not. 13 Q. Do you know, is he still there? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. Do you know if he is still alive? 16 A. No, I don't know. 17 Q. What 1 would like to look at next is 18 the -- actually, the first exhibit on the top of 19 our pile there, which is exhibit -20 MR. BROWNSON: What, Trevor? 21 MR. WILL: 1. 22 MR. BROWNSON: Okay. 23 Q. Let's look at Exhibit 1. And, again, 24 take a moment and just - you don' t have to read 25 this, you know, carefully but let* s just take a MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014499 116 1 Neal 2 moment, and you can take a look at it and then I 3 will ask you some questions. 4 MR. WILL: Well, maybe he should read 5 it carefully. Exhibit 1 is actually one he 6 wrote. 7 MR. BROWNSON: Okay. 8 Q. Let's take a moment and read it 9 carefully, because I do have a number of 10 questions here. 11 Have you had a chance to look at 12 Exhibit 1? 13 A. Yes, um-hum. 14 Q. First of all , is this a report that 15 you authored? 16 A. Yes, it is. 17 Q. And, as you sit here today, do you 18 recall this report? 19 A. I recall it. yeah. 20 Q. It looks like this report was drafted 21 by you right around the time you began your new 22 duties as head of industrial hygiene - 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- at the Bound Brook plantfacility? 25 A. (Nodding.) MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UGAREF00014500 117 1 Neal 2 MR. WILL: Wait until he is done. 3 Seriously, you know what he is going 4 to ask, but wait until he gets all the way to the 5 end. 6 MR. GOLDMAN: I am not sure there was 7 an answer to the question, but it was in the 8 middle of the question. L 9 MR. BROWNSON: Did you get it? 10 THE COURT REPORTER: (Nodding 11 affirmatively.) 12 Q. The date of the report is November 8, 13 1972 and, as I understand it, you began your 14 duties as head of industrial hygiene in October 15 of 1972; correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. This is described as "Union Carbide 18 internal correspondence". Is that what you would 19 call a memorandum or a letter? Or what is that? 20 A. It's a letter to all the managerial 21 people connected with the operation in 22 Bound Brook and, also, for the information of the 23 people in South Charleston. 24 Q. Now, let's just look and go through 25 this a minute. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014501 118 1 Neal 2 First of all, you are shown on page, 2 3 as the author of the letter. You signed it there 4 on page 2; right? 5 A. Yes. - 6 Q. And it seems to be addressed to a 7 Mr. D.R. Albright? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Who is he? 10 A. He was the department head who had 11 charge of that particular operation. 12 Q. Was he the department head at 13 Bound Brook, New Jersey? 14 A. He was a department head. Each 15 operation had its own department head. 16 Q. Okay. And it's indicated here that 17 the originating department of this letter is 18 called Environmental Protection. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Is that right? Was that the name of 21 your department? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And then it says "Subject: Asbestos 24 dust measurements"; is that right? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014502 119 1 Neal 2 Q. Then it looks like, even though you 3 are writing this letter to Mr. Albright, you are 4 sending then a copy of the letter to a whole 5 bunch of people here; is that right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And are those people that are listed 8 under Mr. Albright -- I see nine of them. 9 A. Three of them are superiors of 10 Albright. 11 Q. Okay. I just want to try to figure 12 out who these are. 13 The first one is Mr. R.W. Cope; is 14 that Robert Cope? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. It says "SC"? 17 A. South Charleston. 18 Q. He was the asbestos specialist, if 19 you will, from South Charleston Union Carbide 20 plant? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did Mr. Cope help youwith, youknow, 23 this, the things that are contained in this 24 report? 25 A. I don't recall to whatdegree he was MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014503 120 1 Neal 2 involved in the report. 3 Q. Then there is another person listed 4 here, Mr. N.L. Ketcham, K-E-T-C-H-A-M, he also 5 appears to be from the Union Carbide plant at 6 South Charleston, West Virginia; correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Is he one of the toxicologists? 9 A. He headed up the research section of 10 industrial hygiene analytical methods. 11 Q. Then all of the other people listed 12 here as getting copies of the letter have the 13 initial nBBn, and I assume that means 14 Bound Brook? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. So, are they then management people 17 of one sort or another at the Bound Brook 18 facility? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Now, the report starts out by talking 21 about samplings in September and October of 1972 22 of Unit B and C work areas. What were the Unit B 23 and C work areas? 24 A. They were the two production lines 25 that produced the asbestos - type Bakelite, MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014504 121 1 Neal 2 phenolic molding material. . 3 Q. And I assume that the asbestos that's 4 being used at the time these tests were done, in 5 September and October of 1972, was this 6 chrysotile asbestos from Carey; is that right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So, this would not be a test when you 9 were using the Union Carbide Calidria chrysotile 10 asbestos? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Now, look at paragraph 1. Paragraph 13 1 appears to be talking about molding materials 14 mixer operators dust exposure, is that right, 15 asbestos dust exposure? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And it talks about "charging 18 asbestos" What do you mean there? 19 A. Dumping asbestos out of bags. 20 Q. So, paragraph l here, is this talking 21 about the workers who are dumping the asbestos 22 out of the bags into the hoppers that we talked 23 about earlier? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And it.says that their asbestos MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014505 122 II Neal 2 exposure, as measured, did not exceed six fibers 3 per cubic centimeter of air; right? . 4 A. Y e s. . ~ 5 Q. And at that time, just so we are 6 clear, the OSHA limit was ten fibers per cubic 7 centimeter of air if it was 15 minutes or less 8 and five fibers per cubic centimeter of -air over 9 the eight-hour working day? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So it looks like what happened, what 12 we see in paragraph l, is that, according to the 13 measurements you report, these people dumping the 14 bags of chrysotile asbestos were getting an 15 eight-hour-time-weighted average concentration of 16 asbestos in the air somewhere under five or 17 under three fibers per cubic centimeter of 18 air - - 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. -- over the eight-hour day; right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. So you were within the standard of 23 five fibers there, is that correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Okay. And then they were getting MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014506 1 2 about six fibers per cubic centimeter of air for 3 short periods of time, and you were within the 4 standard of ten fibers there? 5 A. Yes. ' 6 Q. Correct. Now, who wasdoing the 7 measuring here? 8 A. Who actually performed thetests? 9 Q. Right. 10 A. I performed some of them, and I 11 assume but I don't know for sure whether Mr. Cope 12 assisted me or ran some of those tests. 13 Q. When you say you "performed them", 14 did you set up the pumps, whether they were on 15 the man or the area pump - 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. -- and handled the filters and that 18 sort of thing? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And calibrated the pumps? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Once the air test was done, just so 23 we are clear, as I understand it, you have got a 24 little pump which is (indicating) run by an 25 electric motor and that sucks air through a MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014507 124 1 Neal 2 filter on a little canister of some sort; right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And as the air -- a certain volume 5 of air is sucked through that filter, correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And that's measured, you can measure 8 that and report it, and then, if there are 9 asbestos fibers in that air, the idea is they get 10 stuck on the filter and that the filter can then 11 be taken and analyzed under a microscope to 12 measure how many asbestos fibers you see; is that 13 right ? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Now, I guess the first thing that 16 needs to be done is the pump is set up and 17 calibrated so it' s running at the proper speed 18 and such? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Once the filter then is 21 calibrated -- or once the pumping is complete 22 and you have got a filter that then would have 23 the asbestos fibers on it, is that filter taken 24 off and then put under the microscope and you 25 look at it and count fibers? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014508 125 1 Neal 2 A. It's removed from the canister. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. And then it is cut, pieces are cut 5 out of the circular filter and a piece is 6 selected and placed on a microscopic slide and 7 drops of a microscopic medium are dropped on that 8 piece of paper to render it transparent, so that 9 you can see through the microscope the fibers 10 that have been collected. 11 Q. And you say you did some of that work 12 yourself, and Mr. Cope might have done some of 13 it? 14 A. Possible. 15 Q. Now, had you received some training 16 in this technique of setting up the pumps and 17 calibrating the pumps and pumping the air and 18 removing the filters and cutting them and looking 19 at them under the microscope? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Where had youreceived that training? 22 A. In the four days ofworking with 23 Mr. Cope. 24 Q. Is this when he came up to 25 New Jersey? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREFOOO14509 126 1 Neal 2 A. In New Jersey. 3 Q. So he came up and gave you that 4 training and said: Here's how you do this. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Did you have a little laboratory 7 there, at Bound Brook, New Jersey, where you 8 would do this work? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And what magnification did you use on 11 the microscope to measure or to look for the 12 asbestos fibers? 13 A. As I recall, it was -- I believe 14 4,000 -- 400, 400 times. 15 Q. And was this what is known as aphase 16 contrast - 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. -- microscope? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. For us laymen, that's I guess a 21 little bigger and more expensive but -- than we 22 remember from chemistry class, but it's the kind 23 where you actually look in the microscope and you 24 see the little slide - 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING COW." UCAREF00014510 127 1 Neal 2 Q. -- underneath it, right? Okay. 3 And do you remember, were you 4 measuring fibers of a certain size and a certain 5 dimension or were you measuring any fibers? 6 A. We measured those that exceeded five 7 microns in length. 8 Q. And - - 9 A. We counted them. 10 Q. Counted them; right. 11 And if you saw a fiber that was under 12 five microns in length, let's say it was three 13 microns in length, you would not then count that 14 fiber; correct? 15 A. Normally not. 16 Q. Was there a cutoff that you used 17 right at five or did you have a little leeway 18 each direction? 19 A. There was a scale on the lens which 20 enabled you to measure the length of the fiber. 21 Q. Do you recall, on this asbestos that 22 you would look at under the microscope on these 23 filters, what proportion of the total fibers 24 would be over five microns in length compared to 25 the proportion that was under five microns in MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014511 1 2 length? Neal 128 3 A. I will have to ask you to repeat 4 that. 5 Q. Okay. Do you remember, when you were 6 looking under the microscope, doing this counting 7 of asbestos fibers, what proportion of the fibers 8 were Over five microns in length and what 9 proportion were under five microns in length? 10 A. They were essentially all over five 11 microns. 12 Q. And you would count each one of them? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. Do you knowwhat the resolution power 15 of your microscope was? In other words, what's 16 the smallest thing it could see? 17 A. I would say one micron. 18 Q. Now, let me ask you this; if you had 19 a fiber that was five microns in length but had a 20 diameter of half a micron, could your microscope 21 pick that one up? 22 A. It would pick it up, but it would not 23 measure the .5 that you mentioned. 24 Q. Okay. So, in order to measure 25 something, you need at least one micron more or MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014512 129 1 Neal 2 less under that microscope? 3 A. I would have to plead ignorance on 4 this because of the 24-some years, I couldn't 5 really give you an accurate answer. 6 Q. Okay. Then, I am looking at 7 paragraph 2 here -- oh, first of all, going back 8 to the end of paragraph 1, it says: "When proper 9 precautions are followed in the dumping and 10 put-away of empty bags," and here we are talking 11 about the asbestos bags; right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Then youcontinue andwrite: "it 14 appears that airborne concentrations can be 15 maintained below the two-fiber per cc eight-hour 16 TWA limit to be effective July 1, 1976." Do you 17 see that? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And when you say "TWA limit", you 20 mean the time-weighted average -- this is this 21 eight-hour limit? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Now, when you made that statement, 24 were your measurements at that point under two or 25 were you saying if we are just a little more MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014513 130 1 Neal 2 careful in our cleanup we can get them down to 3 under two? 4 A. I would say they are below two or the 5 statement would not be truly -6 Q. Okay. Well, let me -- that's not 7 really a fair question. 8 Let's go to the third page of the 9 exhibit, because the actual numbers are there, so 10 you don't have to --we don't have to guess on 11 these. 12 But are these the numbers we are 13 talking about, for October of 1972, airborne 14 asbestos dust measurements? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. I am looking at the mixer man 17 sample, these would be the measurements taken on 18 the personal sample on the mixer man; right? 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. And is this theman who is dumping 21 the bags in the hopper? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So, with respect to the eight-hour 24 sample for the man dumping the bags in the 25 hopper, we have got six measurements, and they MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. U CAR EF00014514 .;*3 131 1 Neal 2 range from 1.2 fibers, at the lowest, to 2.4. 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. Right? And I actually did some math 5 and averaged it out, and I got as an average of 6 all those 1.85. Does that sound about right? 7 A. It looks correct. 8 Q. But, in any event, as ofOctober of 9 1972, the men dumping the asbestos from the bags 10 into the hopper had eight-hour exposures to the 11 asbestos dust shown in six different tests that 12 you report here; correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And the six results are 2.1 fibers, 15 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.3, and 1.9; correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Now, going back to what you were 18 saying there, in 1976, you were reporting that 19 the OSHA standard was going to be lowered for the 20 eight-hour standard from five fibers down to two; 21 right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And you said once that happens, in 24 1976, we can keep -- we can get under that if we 25 are careful. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014515 1 Neal 2 A. Yes. 132 3 Q. Right? And these figures, I 4 guess -- is what you are saying that these 5 figures, even though a couple of them are over 2, 6 showed that you could get under it because some 7 of them were under 2? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. So is that what you meant when you 10 said, you know, with careful handling we can get 11 them under 2? 12 A. Yes, with careful handling. 13 Q. Now, would the converse be true, if 14 there wasn't careful handling these figures 15 would show you that they could go over two, as 16 well ? 17 A. They could go over two. 18 Q. Then, if you look at paragraph 2, 19 back in your letter, it says: "Although the 20 third floor operation appears "clean" by our 21 measurements, there are conspicuous situations 22 which could provoke citations under the "general 23 duty" clause if observed by the compliance 24 officer." 25 Do you see that? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014516 133 1 Neal 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Now, what are you talking about 4 there, can you describe that for us? 5 A. We are talking about the general duty 6 clause. 7 Q. That's in the OSHA regulations, 8 right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Can you describe for us again, kind 11 of in layman's terms, what the general duty 12 clause in the OSHA regulation was at that time? 13 A. It is a sort of a catchall used by 14 OSHA compliance officers, if they do not have 15 sustaining data but, by appearance of the 16 workplace, they feel that the limits could be 17 exceeded, then they invoke the general duty 18 clause. 19 Q. So, are you saying there that an OSHA 20 inspector could come and he might not actually be 21 taking the detailed air measurements but he might 22 look around and see broken bags or dustiness and 23 say: Well, I don't have the actual data but this 24 looks dirty to me so I am going to invoke the 25 general duty clause? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014517 134 1 Neal 2. A. Yes. 3 Q. Now, in your experience, going back 4 to the time you were the head of industrial 5 hygiene, from '72 to '85, would the OSHA 6 inspectors do that when they came into the 7 plant? Would they get after you under the 8 general duty clause or would they instead, you 9 know, take the measurements and do that careful 10 measurement ? 11 A. They would -- I do not recall 12 being cited under the general duty clause. It 13 was somewhat held over your head as a 14 possibility. 15 Q. So, would it be fair to say that, 16 what you are saying here is, even though your air 17 measurements control your -- under the OSHA 18 standard, within the OSHA standard for asbestos, 19 if the area looked dirty to an OSHA inspector he 20 could say: I don't care what your measurements 21 show, it looks dirty, I am going to invoke the 22 general duty clause and cite you? 23 MR. GERSON: You are asking is that a 24 legal possibility? 25 A. Would you ask that again? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014518 135 1 Neal 2 Q. Let me put it another way. 3 In your experience, did you have a 4 concern that the OSHA inspector might ignore the 5 actual data that you had and say: Well, it looks 6 dirty to me so I am going to invoke the general 7 duty clause. 8 MR. WILL: Bob, I want to interpose 9 here, I think you ought to clear up first 10 whether, as of November 8, he had ever been 11 through an OSHA inspection. The context of what 12 he may have learned through 1985 doesn't have 13 much to do with what he wrote on November 8. 14 MR. BROWNSON: That's a good point. 15 Q. In November of '82, had you ever - 16 MR. WILL: '82 or '72? 17 MR. BROWNSON: '72. 18 Q. Let's start over. 19 When you wrote this letter, on 20 November 8 of 1972, had you been through an OSHA 21 inspection at that point in the plant? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And, again, on this paragraph 2, 24 would it be fair to say that you were concerned 25 that some OSHA inspector might say: I don't care MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014519 1 2 i 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal 136 what your measurements show, it looks dirty to me and I am going to invoke the general duty clause?' A. And the question to me? Q. Okay, let me rephrase it. Were you concerned that an OSHA inspector might say: I think it looks dirty and I, OSHA inspector, am going to invoke the general duty clause, even though the air measurements show that you are within the limit? A. Yes. Q. So, would it then be fair to say that you really were telling Mr. Albright that you needed to do two things; number one, you needed to keep your air measurements actually under the OSHA limit and, number two, you had to keep the place looking clean? A. Yes. Q. Then, after that, Mr. Neal, there is some underlining, looks like with a pencil or pen on this particular memo, that I didn't do, we got it this way; do you know who did that or how that got on there? A. No, I do not. Q. Then, down at thevery bottom, there MANHATTAN REPORTING CORPT UCAREF00014520 137 1 Neal 2 is a bunch of writing, and one of the things it. 3 says, someone has written "Deposition Exhibit 4 Number 14", on May 14, 1987. 5 Do you see that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you know where that camefrom? 8 A. No, I do not. 9 Q. Do you know if this could have been a 10 deposition exhibit in that other deposition you 11 were telling us about this morning? 12 A. I don't know, it could have. 13 Q. But you don't know one way or the 14 other? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Do you remember ever reviewing this 17 particular letter in any other deposition? 18 A. I don't remember. 19 Q. Now, continuing on inparagraph 2, 20 you write: "It is recommended thatdepartmental 21 programs aimed at these items be intensified, not 22 only to improve our margin of safety, but also to 23 improve the morale of operators, some of whom see 24 sources of asbestos contamination as a threat to 25 their health despite the measurements taken." MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014521 138 1 Neal 2 Do you see that? . 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And had that been-your experience at 5 the time you wrote the letter, that some of the 6 men were worried about asbestos exposure, even 7 though your measurements showed that you were 8 within the OSHA level? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And, again, is this kind of part of 11 this union concern we had talked about this 12 morning? 13 A. It could be. 14 Q. Do you recall,for example, ever 15 getting any actual complaints from the union 16 about, you know, the men are worried about the 17 asbestos exposure? 18 A. I don't recall that type of 19 complaint. 20 Q. Then you talk about the situations 21 are as follows, and you list four different 22 things on page l and 2 of the letter. 23 Do you see that? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And the first thing that you list, as MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014522 139 1 Neal 2 Items that could be worked on, is the handling of 3 the empty asbestos bags; is that right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. You were concerned there that there 6 was dust associated with the handling of these 7 asbestos bags; right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And you say: "This remains a visible 10 dusting problem." 11 What did you mean by that? 12 A. I can only remember that it must have 13 referred to possible visible dust from the empty 14 bags . 15 Q. Then the second thing youlist, over 16 on the top of page 2 of your letter, number B, is 17 called "Condition of incoming asbestos bags". 18 (Discussion off the record.) 19 Q. Do you see that, what I am referring 20 to as "B"? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You call that"Condition of the 23 incoming asbestos bags". 24 And, again, is that what we were 25 talking about earlier? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014523 140 1 Neal 2 A. Yea. 3 Q. Make sure that the bags, as they come 4 in the railcars and are brought into the plant by 5 the forklift operators, don't get torn and 6 broken? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Then you say there, you write: "The 9 palletized packages of asbestos bags are prone to 10 being torn open from loading, shipping, and 11 subsequent handling in our plant." Was that 12 something you had observed at that time or had 13 people told you that? 14 A. Observation. 15 Q. Then you write: "Thecondition 16 appears to have improved during recent sampling, 17 evidently the result of attention to this 18 problem." Right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Now, has any of the sampling which is 21 attached to this particular letter taken place in 22 connection with the unloading of the bags? 23 A. I would say no. 24 Q. There is somethingcalled "Asbestos 25 loading". Is that the unloading of the bags or MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014524 14 1 1 Neal 2 is that, you know, the asbestos going into the . 3 hopper? 4 A. Where do you find--.-- oh, I see. 5 Q. On the end there. 6 A. That pertains to the amount of 7 asbestos -- 8 Q. Oh. 9 A. * - in the overall mix. 10 Q. Oh, okay. I got you. 11 So, we don't have any actual data 12 with this letter which shows what the air 13 measurements were during the unloading of 14 asbestos from the railcars and bringing it into 15 the plant on the forklifts? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. But would it be fair to say that what 18 you are reporting here is that in some prior 19 sampling before this it was worse and now, you 20 know, the men are taking more care and now the 21 air measurements have gotten better with respect 22 to that operation? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Then you write: "Close monitoring 25 must be maintained to avoid spillage of asbestos, MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP" UCAREF00014525 4 - '863 1 2 not only in the third floor area but in the 3 warehouses and areas traversed by persons not _ 4 aware of or protected from exposure to asbestos." 5 Is that right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And by that did you mean that if, for 8 instance, they are bringing a forklift pallet 9 load of asbestos bags into the plant and some are 10 torn and some of the asbestos has spilled out 11 into the floor, that people could walk through it 12 and kick up and stir up dust and that sort of 13 thing? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Is that something that you had 16 observed happening from time to time? 17 A. I did observe it, I can't say how 18 often. 19 Q. Then the third thing you list,letter 20 "C", is called "Work habits of operators" -- or 21 "Work habits of personnel"; right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And the first thing you write there 24 is: "Operators have been observed using the 25 air hose that hangs by the wall between Units B MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014526 143 1 Neal 2 and C to blow dust from their clothing and 3 gloves." 4 A. Yes . 5 Q. You write: "Obviously, this fills 6 the area with a cloud of dust"; right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Now, is your concern there that you 9 don't want them blowing asbestos dust around with 10 the air hoses; correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you ever take a measurement, you 13 know, using your air pumps and the microscope, of 14 the levels of airborne dust that would be 15 generated when people were blowing the dust 16 around with an air hose? 17 A. No, for obvious reasons. 18 Q. Well, I mean, why was that? I don't 19 know. What were the obvious reasons? 20 A. It would mean I would have to set up 21 that situation and ask a man to do something 22 which he was required not to do. 23 Q. And you didn't want him doing it 24 because you recognized that that could create a 25 hazardous situation, blowing all that asbestos ------------------------------MANHATTAN KiSf uktinG uukf . UCAREF00014527 144 1 Neal 2 dust? 3 A. Exactly. 4 Q. And, as you note here, you 5 write: "Obviously, this fills the area with a 6 cloud of dust." 7 Is that something you had actually 8 observed or is that something the men would 9 report to you? 10 A. I would -- I observed it. 11 Q. Then you said -- now we are talking 12 about November of 1972, you report in your letter 13 that one operator was observed dumping asbestos 14 without wearing his respirator; right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Now, at this point, inNovember '72, 17 is this after the requirement went into effect 18 that the men wear the respirators when they are 19 dumping asbestos from the bag into the hopper? 20 A. I presume so. 21 Q. In other words, you had told us this 22 morning it was optional and then it went to being 23 mandatory? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. This must be during the mandatory MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014528 145 1 Neal 2 period? 3 A. Mandatory. 4 Q. And it appears that this particular 5 operator was observed by you dumping in the 6 asbestos without wearing his respirator, and you 7 write he was claiming that -- an "inability to 8 breath through the "Dustfoe" respirator"; right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. So, basically, what happened is this 11 man was observed not wearing his respirator and 12 you asked him: Why aren't you wearing it, and he 13 said: Because I have a hard time breathing 14 through this thing? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And that's described as a "Dustfoe", 17 D-U-S-T-F-O-E, respirator. 18 Is that a particular brand of 19 respirator? 20 A. It's a particular type of respirator. 21 Q. Do you remember that being a Dustfoe 22 66 - - 23 A. I don't remember the numbers. 24 Q. Going back to your time in the plant, 25 from '72 to '85, was this a problem that happened MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014529 ___ 146 1 Neal 2 on other occasions, where the men would not wear 2 their respirators and they claimed they were 4 uncomfortable or hot or it was inconvenient or 5 they couldn't breath? 6 A. I would have to know to what degree 7 you are referring to, whether it would be one man 8 out of 50 or more -- 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. - - out of 50. 11 Q. Let me ask a different question. 12 Did this ever happen on any other 13 occasion. other than this one time you describe 14 in your letter, that you can remember that a man 15 was supposed to have a respirator on and he 16 didn't ? 17 A. It was more of an excuse for not ia wearing a respirator. 19 Q. Okay. Again, going back to those 20 years, if you recall, was the company having a 21 difficult time getting the men to wear these 22 respirators at all times when they were supposed 23 to? 24 A. Depends on your definition of 25 "difficult". MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP~ UCAREF00014530 147 1 Neal 2 In the course of training, it became 3 less difficult, and we selected more comfortable ,, 4 respirators and the problem was handled 5 accordingly. 6 Q. Did there ever come a time, from '72 7 to '85, when Union Carbide imposed any sort of 8 rules or regulations about the men smoking in the 9 work areas? 10 MR. GERSON: Which men? 11 MR. BROWNSON: The workers in the 12 ! plastics plant. 13 A. In my experience, they were never 14 allowed to smoke in any work areas. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. In fact, even in the production zone 17 overall there was no smoking allowed. 18 Q. Did it ever come to your attention at 19 any point, while you were at Union Carbide, that 20 smoking and asbestos exposure together could 21 increase risk of health problems? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Did you ever hear theterm used of 24 "synergism" or "synergisticeffect" - 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014531 148 1 Neal 2 Q. --in that regard. And what did you 3 understand that to be about? 4 A. Well, essentially, two plus two makes 5 five. The sum of the ingredients or the 6 individual's actually total more than the 7 arithmetic sum you might say. I am not putting 8 it very well. 9 It's simply that one type of exposure 10 will exasperate the effect of the other type of 11 exposure. 12 Q. And, with respect to asbestos 13 exposure, did you understand that it was a belief 14 of medical opinion that if you were exposed to 15 both asbestos and you smoked your risk was much 16 higher because you were doing the two things 17 together? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Then the final item of the four items 20 numbered "D", on your letter, is called "General 21 housekeeping"; right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Now, isthis what you were talking 24 about earlier, your concern under the general 25 duty exception of the OSHA rules, where, you MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014532 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal 149 know, regardless of what thesampling showed you needed to keep it clean or the inspector could cite you? A. Yes. Q. Were stepsthentaken toclean up this accumulation of dust on equipment ledges and in corners that you were noting here in the letter? A. Yes. Q. So, in other words, in November of '72 you were noting that, even though the floor was swept frequently, there were accumulations of dust on equipment ledges and in corners that made it look dusty and dirty? A. Yes. Q. And that ought to becleaned up; right? A. Yes. Q. ' But youshouldn't use airhoses to do that? A. Exactly. Q. Or you shouldn't use dry sweeping to do that? A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014533 150 1 Neal 2 Q. Okay. Then, down below that on page 3 2, under number 3, you are talking about airborne 4 asbestos concentrations on the first floor and in 5 the area of what you call "charge rolls". What 6 are "charge rolls"? 7 A. They are the rolls I described 8 previously that receive the raw mix and apply 9 heat and friction and mechanical mixing to melt 10 the resin and homogenize the mix. 11 Q. And you note that, even though your 12 air measurements showed the concentration of 13 asbestos in the air to be at 1.4 fibers per cubic 14 centimeter in the September samples, you still 15 wanted the operators - - or the operators - 16 you were reporting the operators should be 17 encouraged to wear their respirators during 18 malfunctions ? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And what are you talking about there? 21 A. During malfunctions? 22 Q. Right. I mean, I am just trying to 23 understand what you are describing here. 24 A. If something happens and theyhave to 25 reach underneath the rolls, for some reason, that MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. U CARE F00014534 A 151 1 Neal 2 the conveyer is not taking the product away, then 3 they have to shovel that back up onto the top of 4 the rolls, using a coal shovel. 5 Q. Okay. So, the roll is this machine 6 that takes the -- this resin and heats it up and 7 turns it into the kind of gooey hot material; 8 right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And if there is a malfunction in that 11 process, then some of the coal resin falls to the 12 floor and the man has to take the coal shovel and 13 shovel it back up; is that what we are talking 14 about? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And you were concerned that that 17 could be dusty and, so, they should be encouraged 18 to wear a respirator during that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Is it the asbestos dust that you were 21 concerned about in that regard? 22 A. Mainly the asbestos dust. 23 Q. Did you ever get any airmeasurements 24 of air levels of asbestos during that sort of 25 malfunction when the men had to shovel it? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014535 ____ li Neal 2 A. Not that I recall. 152 - 3; Q. Then if you go down in paragraph 4 4 here, on page 2 of your letter, you are talking 5 about another potential concern with respect to 6 the general duty exception of the OSHA 7 regulation; is that right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And, basically, what you are saying 10 here is there is another dust source, that may or 11 may not even be asbestos, it might be asbestos or 12 it might not, in this Tote Bin, T-O-T-E, Bin 13 filling station at Unit C; is that right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Now, what was that? What's a 16 "Tote Bin filling station"? 17 A. Tote bins were verylarge metal 18 containers (indicating) that were nearly six feet 19 high and roughly four feet square. They were 20 bulk containers, and the filling of those 21 containers sometimes resulted in spilling some of 22 the product into the area which could cause 23 dusting. 24 Q. And your concern was whether or not 25 there were heavy levels of asbestos dust released MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014536 i! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal 153 from that, this is the kind of thing that would look bad to an OSHA inspector and he could hit you with the general duty exception; is that right? A. No, I wasn't concerned about -- you said "asbestos dust" -- Q. Right. A. --in the area, and that was not my concern. I didn't consider there was any asbestos dust at that point. Q. Okay. A. It was generally the nuisance dust which could have been construed by a compliance officer as containing asbestos, and not knowing the process. Q. And when you talk about "nuisance dust", what do you mean by that? A. Inert-type dust. Q. So, a "nuisance dust" is some dust that's not asbestos and it's - A. Correct. Q. -- not kind-of a harmful material, but it's dust nevertheless? ---------------------------------- MANHXTtaiI Reporting corp. UCAREF00014537 154 1 Neal 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. So, it's described as "nuisance 4 dust"? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. So that means, I guess,that asbestos 7 dust is something more than a nuisance - 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. -- right? Then the very very end of 10 your letter, on page 2, it says: "Future plans 11 call for additional sampling during production of 12 high asbestos products to further measure 13 sources"; right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So, it sounds like you were going to 16 do some more sampling at this point? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And was this the kind ofaccumulated 19 data base of samples - 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- under the new OSHA asbestos 22 standards? 23 A. Yes, it was. 24 Q. And then it says: "We have arranged 25 for a visit on November 13th by an industry MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014538 155 1 Neal 2 consultant, Mr. w. Bradley"; right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, is this William Bradley? 5 A. I believe so. I don't remember 6 exactly. 7 Q. He was from somewhere in New Jersey, 8 I forget where. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And he was like an independent 11 industrial hygienist who did air measurements for 12 asbestos, among other things; right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And you described him as having a 15 wide experience in asbestos testing? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Right? And it sounds like what you 18 wanted is to have this outside consultant, 19 William Bradley, come in, do his tests, and then 20 kind of compare them with your tests to see how 21 they compared? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Was that ever done? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And how did his tests compare with MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014539 156 1 Neal 2 your teats? . 3 A. We had trouble correlating -- or 4 comparing them, they did not compare to our 5 satisfaction. 6 Q. And what was the non- -- what was 7 the problem there; were his higher or were his 8 lower or what? 9 A. I don't really recall. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. But they were not good checks. 12 Q. Did he prepare any report for you or 13 for the company, for Union Carbide, about his 14 test results? 15 A. I believe he did, or should have, but 16 I don't remember at this point. 17 Q. Did he make any recommendations, that 18 you can recall, in terms of testing or what 19 should be done to, you know - 20 A. Yes, he did. 21 Q. What were those recommendations? 22 A. The one that I remember, even now, 23 was to incorporate the disposal of the empty 24 bags into the ventilated hood so that they would 25 at all times be under a reduced pressure, and MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014540 157 1 Neal 2 that would prevent any dust from entering the 3 room. 4 Q. Now, we talked earlier that -- about 5 the Union Carbide Calidria asbestos that was used 6 to some extent in these trial runs in '73 to '75; 7 correct? 8 MR. WILL: He said one trial run - 9 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 10 MR. WILL: -- that took place 11 somewhere between that time period. 12 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 13 Q. Did you ever have any contact with 14 any Union Carbide people in connection with 15 helping them design labelling or materials or 16 literature with respect to the Calidria asbestos? 17 A. No. 18 MR. WILL: Bob, could we stop for 19 just a second? 20 MR. GBRSON: It is just about 2:45. 21 (Recess taken, during which time 22 Mr. Will and Mr. Goldman left the deposition room 23 and did not return.) 24 Q. Mr. Neal, I would like you to look at 25 the next exhibit, which has been marked as MANHATTAN REPORTING C0RP~ UCAREF00014541 158 1 Neal 2 Exhibit 2. 3 MR. BROWNSON: Now that I have been 4 yelled at by Wendy, 1 will identify it a little 5 more closely as a trip report of December 7, 6 1972, entitled Trip report NIOSH, which is NIOSH 7 course on sampling and evaluating airborne 8 asbestos, U.S. Department of HEW, Cincinnati, 9 Ohio. 10 Do you see that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And it appears that what we have is 13 Mr. J.E. Neff went to a NIOSH training course in 14 Cincinnati in connection with measuring airborne 15 asbestos dust on November 20th through 22nd, 16 1972; is that right? 17 A. Yes. 18 MR. GERSON: Do you want to give 19 Mr. Neal a moment to look through it? 20 THB WITNESS: It's not necessary, I 21 am familiar with it. 22 MR. BROWNSON: Okay. 23 MR. GERSON: Okay, go ahead. 24 MR. BROWNSON: And I don't have a lot 25 of questions about it. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014542 159 1 Neal 2 MR. GERSON: If we need it, we will 3 take time then. 4 MR. BROWNSON: Okay. 5 Q. So, again, it looks like Mr. Neff - 6 now, he was an employee at the South Charleston, 7 West Virginia Union Carbide research and 8 development department, is that right - 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. --at that time? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Was he an individual who worked for 13 Mr. Ketcham? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So, it looks like what Mr. Neff is 16 doing here is reporting to Mr. Ketcham about his 17 trip out to this asbestos dust counting training 18 course? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And, then, it appears that what 21 Mr. Neff has done is he wrote up a report about 22 things he learned at the training course and then 23 wrote it to Mr. Ketcham and then sent copies to 24 all the different Union Carbide industrial 25 hygiene people like you out at the different MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. U CAR E F00014543 160 1 Neal 2 Union Carbide locations. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Is that right? Okay. Because I note 5 that, if you go to the last page of the exhibit, 6 he has something called a distribution list, and 7 it's got a whole bunch of names on it, and I see 8 that you are listed as one of those people who 9 got this; right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And you are listed as "Mr. W.D. Neal 12 312", and I assume "312" is a company number for 13 the Bound Brook, New Jersey facility? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Oh, okay. Now, let me just ask you a 16 couple more questions about this distribution 17 list. 18 Here I see, for instance, Mr. Robert 19 Cope. He is the second person listed; right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And "511", is that the research -22 A. That's the tech center, the research 23 and development at South Charleston. 24 Q. So it looks like the people from the 25 tech center who got this are Mr. Cope, Mr. Guest, MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014544 161 1 Neal 2 G-U-E-S-T; right? 3 A. Yes. -- 4 Q. Mr. Hurley, H-U-R-L-E-Y? 5 A. Yes . 6 Q. And Mr. Neff, I guess he sent a copy 7 to himself . Mr. Szabo, S-Z-A-B-0 -- 8 A. Yes . 9 Q. -- Mr. Taylor and Mr. Williams. 10 A. Yes . 11 Q. Now, are those all names that you 12 recognize or not? 13 A. Yes, they are. 14 (Pause in proceedings.) 15 Q. We were looking, Mr. Neal, at the 16 distribution list on the back of the Neff 17 memorandum 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. And what is the designation " 512"? . 20 What does that stand for? 21 A. Well, that would be another - - 22 either a plant location or a laboratory. 23 Q. Because I note that here is - - 24 A. Bob Peele. 25 Q. -- Mr. Peele; right? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014545 _ 162 1 Neal 2 A. 512. 3 Q. That's the Mr. Peele we talked about. 4 earlier? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Then, also, up toward the top, the 7 fourth man down is Dr. C.U. Dernehl. 9 A. Yes. 9 Q. That's that Dr. Dernehl I mentioned 10 earlier. 11 But that doesn't ring a bell with 12 you? 13 A. Not really. Only the name sounds 14 familiar, but I don't recall having met him. 15 Q. Now, at some point, following 16 December 7, 1972, it appears that the Union 17 Carbide people, and probably including you, 18 changed their asbestos air measuring protocol a 19 little bit -20 A. Yes. 21 Q. --in conformance with this NIOSH 22 training; is that right? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. So, would it befair to say that at 25 some point on or after December 7, 1972 you began MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014546 163 1 Neal 2 following the NIOSH protocol for measuring ' 3 asbestos in the air - 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. -- and counting the fibers? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And, as youthink back on it- and 8 recall, did that change in any way the way your 9 counts were coming out? 10 A. No. 11 Q. So they stayed about the same because 12 these were kind of small changes? 13 MR. GERSON: Because what are small 14 changes? 15 Q. The changes in technique from NIOSH. 16 A. No noticeable changes, no. 17 Q. Now, one thing Mr. Neffsays, at the 18 bottom of page 1, under the heading Discussion, 19 he says there were two reasons for his attendance 20 at the NIOSH course; one was to determine if 21 Union Carbide's laboratory method for asbestos 22 sampling and counting is in agreement with 23 NIOSH's method. 24 Do you see that? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014547 164 1 Neal 2 Q. And then he says the second 3 reason "was to ascertain how our fiber counts 4 would compare with counts made by NIOSH 5 personnel." 6 Do you see that? 7 A. Yes. i 8 Q. And then he says unfortunately we 9 were not able to do that; right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Do you have any information or did 12 you obtain any information as to how the Union 13 Carbide counts were comparing with how counts by 14 NIOSH people were being made? 15 A. No, I have no recollection of direct 16 comparisons having been made. 17 Q. Now, other than the comparison with 18 your own counts at the Bound Brook plant, and 19 Mr. William Bradley's counts at the Bound Brook 20 plant, are you aware of any other side-by-side 21 comparisons that were done over the years with 22 Union Carbide asbestos airborne counting, you 23 know, and that of anybody else? 24 A. No, the only comparisons I made were 25 directly with Mr. Cope during the training MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014548 165 1 Neal 2 session 3 Q. One thing that 1 wasn't clear on, - 4 when the OSHA inspectors would come and they 5 would look at the issue of the OSHA asbestos 6 standard and decide whether you were in 7 compliance with these airborne asbestos limits, 8 would they do their own sampling or would they 9 look at your sampling data? 10 A. When they came in to -- 11 Q. To the Bound Brook plant. 12 A. To do what? 13 Q. To do an inspection. In other words, 14 if they were looking at the asbestos question, 15 would they actually set up pumps and do their own 16 sampling or would they say: We want to see your 17 data? 18 A. They would set up their own sampling. 19 Q. And would they ever then disclose to 20 you what their results were? 21 A. If I requested them. 22 Q And did you do that? 23 A. I don't remember the individual 24 cases 25 There were very few tests run by MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014549 166 1 Neal 2 OSHA. 3 Q. Can you remember any instance where 4 you requested to see the OSHA asbestos airborne 5 dust counts? 6 A. Yes, I believe there were. But, 7 again, I can't remember the instances. 8 Q. Did you ever -- let me ask you 9 this. When OSHA would do their own airborne 10 asbestos dust documenting at your plant at 11 Bound Brook, did you ever then, you know, set 12 up a pump and do your own side-by-side with 13 theirs - 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. --to keep them honest, so to speak? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And did you ever get a chance then to 18 compare how your counts compared to OSHA's 19 counts? 20 A. Again, my memory may fail me, but I 21 believe in one instance I did have the 22 opportunity to compare with the OSHA inspector or 23 state inspector, but I cannot remember which. 24 Q. Do you remember how that 25 comparison -- what the results of the comparison MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014550 -- 1 2 were? Were the two the same or was one highers or 3 lower? . 4 A. I don't really remember. 5 Q. Let me direct you to the bottom of 6 page 2 of Mr. Neff's memorandum, and he talks 7 about some of the more significant questions that 8 were asked at the NXOSH training session and the 9 instructor's comments. 10 Do you see that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And one of the questions that 13 somebody asked at the training session is: "Are 14 individual fibers in a bundle of asbestos fibers 15 counted separately?" And, apparently, the NIOSH 16 training instructor said: "No. A bundle of 17 fibers is counted as one fiber." Is that the way 18 you read that? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Now - 21 MR. GERSON: You were asking him is 22 that how he reads it on the paper? 23 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 24 Q. Now, going back to yourown 25 experience under the microscope counting fibers, MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014551 168 1 Neal 2 do you know what they mean by an "asbestos '' . 3 bundle" or a "bundle of fibers"?- 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And what would that be? 6 A. As termed, a "bundle" would consist 7 of several fibers, individual fibers, could be as 8 many as a hundred individual fibers, but all 9 bound up very much like wires in an electric 10 cable. 11 Q. Kind of in a clump wound together? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And that was something which you 14 would describe as an "asbestos fiber bundle"? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Was it your practice, then, to count 17 that as one fiber? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And hadthat been yourpractice 20 before you saw this memorandum? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Have youever heard the term 23 "fibril", F-I-B-R-I-L? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And didyou make any distinction. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014552 169 1 Neal 2 when you were doing counting, between "fibers" 3 and "fibrils"? 4 A. No, I would have considered any 5 fibril as a fiber. 6 Q. Were you ever aware that there were 7 certain fibers or fibrils of asbestos that had a such thin diameters that you actually couldn't 9 see them under a light microscope? 10 A. You mean under a normal light 11 microscope? 12 Q. Right. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And, obviously, if you can't see it 15 you can't count it - 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. -- right? So -- well, let me ask 18 you this. Did you ever do or have done for you 19 any electron microscope analysis of any of your 20 samples of airborne asbestos? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Do youknow if that wasdone by 23 anyone at Union Carbide from any of the other 24 locations? 25 A. I wouldhave no knowledge of that. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014553 170 1 Neal 2 Q. Were you familiar with an electron 3 microscope that was available to Union Carbide 4 either in Niagara Falls or Tarrytown, New York at 5 their facility there? 6 A. I was not familiar with that. 7 Q. Then, again on Mr. Neff's memorandum, 8 the question number 2 at the top of page 3, 9 apparently some attendee at the conference 10 asked: "Are fibers in an agglomerate", 11 A-G-G-L-O-M-E-R-A-T-E, "counted?" What's an 12 "agglomerate"? 13 A. It would be a cluster of fibers all 14 of which are touching one or the other rather 15 than individual fibers. 16 Q. So, kind of like a big clump? 17 A. Mass. 18 Q. Mass, okay. And it appears that the 19 answer to this question was this was more or less 20 a matter of individual judgment by the individual 21 microscopist? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. What was yourpractice when you would 24 see a clump or a mass or agglomeration of fibers, 25 how would you count that? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014554 4 171 1 Neal 2 A. 3 slide. I would move to another spot on the' 4 Q. That raises a question. Now, when 5 you are counting fibers under the microscope, the 6 microscope is of course at 400 magnification, so 7 it's magnifying, and you can't count every fiber 0 on the slide; right, is that right? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. You would just count fibers in a 11 certain area that you knew how big that was? 12 A. In the field, yes. 13 Q. In the field, right. And, Imean, I 14 guess it would be difficult, if not impossible, 15 to count them all because you would sit there for 16 hours and hours and it would take you forever? 17 A. It would be impossible, you would 18 never know if you had counted them all or not. 19 Q. So what you did, then, is you had a 20 field of the area you see in the microscope and 21 you just count in a certain area of the field or 22 in the whole field? 23 A. You have in the field a superimposed 24 grid, and you count the fibers that are within 25 the boundaries of that grid. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. ! UCAREF00014555 j 172 1 Neal 2 So when they talk about looking at-;so 3 many grids or so many fields, that's what they 4 are talking about. 5 A. Now, did you ever attend one of these 6 NIOSH asbestos air measuring and counting 7 courses? 8 A. Not that I recall. 9 Q. And we have been using this term 10 "NIOSH", that's a contraction or acronym for 11 something called the National Institute of 12 Occupational Safety and Health; is that right? 13 A. Yes . 14 Q. 15 kind - - And that's a government group. 16 A. Yes . 17 Q. -- of affiliated with OSHA in some 18 way? 19 A. Yes, it is. 20 Q. And they are in Cincinnati, Ohio? 21 A. One of the NIOSH laboratories, yes 22 Q. Did NIOSH ever send anybody out to 23 your plant to do anything? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. What was that? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014556 173 1 Neal 2 A. Vinyl chloride. 3 Q. So that had nothing to do with 4 asbestos? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. The next exhibit I wanted to look at 7 has been marked Exhibit Number 3. And this one 8 is real hard to read, but I promise you it's - 9 they get better after this. So if we can work 10 our way through this, we will have clear sailing. 11 MR. BROWNSON: For the record, this 12 is a January 4, 1973 Union Carbide internal 13 correspondence from somebody named J.M. Swalm, 14 S-W-A-L-M? 15 A. Swalm, yes. 16 Q. And it's addressed to who; can you 17 tell? 18 A. R.A. DeCoudres, plant manager. 19 Q. D-E capital C-O-U-D-R-E-S? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Is he theplant manager then at 22 Bound Brook, New Jersey? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And then, again, copies ofthis were 25 sent to many people, one of whom was you; is that MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014557 lj I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 174 right? Neal A. Yes. Q. And it's talking about a number of things, including an OSHA inspection, but I want to move over to page 2. And there is a heading toward the top of the page called Airborne asbestos. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. That actually is a little easier to read, and I wanted to go through that and ask you some questions about that. MR. GERSON: Then why don't we just take one moment to read it. MR. BROWNSON: Okay. MR. GBRSON: Have you read it? THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Q. First of all, who was Mr. Swalm? A. He is the head of theenvironmental protection department, of which I was a member. Q. So he was the head of the Union Carbide department? I mean, was he just at Bound Brook or - - ------------------------------MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014558 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal 175 A. Bound Brook. Q. Okay. A. He headed up the environmental and the industrial hygiene. Q. So, you were the head of industrial hygiene but you were within the department of environmental? A. Correct. Q. What's it called, environmental what? A. Protection. Q. Protection, okay. And he was the head of the environmental protection at Bound Brook? A. Yes. Q. And he writes on the topic of airborne asbestos that: "Consultant Bradley's letter report on his Bound Brook findings raised some concern, but found little agreement, among plant personnel involved with the molding materials situation," and I am wondering what is the "molding materials situation"? A. That's the family of Bakelite phenolic resins, mainly containing asbestos. Q. So does this indicate, then, that MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014559 ll 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 176 Neal Bradley did issue a report? Looks like in the-"' form of a letter. - A. Yes. Q. And when he says it "raised some concern but found little agreement among plant personnel," I am wondering, do you know what he means by that? A. No, I do not, at present. Q. Then he writes: "Furthermonitoring of airborne fibers in the working areas and cross-checking of the slide counts will provide a preponderance of data for settling the controversial matter." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Now, is he talking there, if you know, about a controversy or a disparity in results between Union Carbide's air monitoring and Bradley's air monitoring or is he talking about something else? A. No, I rather think it was between the slide counts, between my slide counts and his. Q. And Bradley's? A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP . UCAREF00014560 177 1 Neal 2 Q. So are you saying, then, there was,-no 3 real controversy or dispute between the 4 monitoring process itself, there was a difference 5 in the counting, how you counted them and how 6 Bradley counted them, counted fibers? 7 A. I don't know what the differences 8 were, if there were real differences. I simply 9 had no confidence in the results that we obtained 10 from Bradley. 11 Q. Then it says: "In the meantime, 12 concern has focused on product handling and the 13 potential hazard in customer's operations." 14 Do you see that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Are they talking there about a 17 potential health hazard from airborne asbestos 18 dust? 19 A. It appears that way. 20 Q. And then he continues: "and further 21 downstream, emphasized by the inclusion of UCC as 22 a co-defendant with other suppliers in a class 23 action type lawsuit." 24 Do you see that? 25 A. Yes. MniHXTTXS Reporting corp. UCAREF00014561 & 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 178 Neal Q. Now, "UCC", that's Union Carbide Company? A. Yes. Q. Now, is this the loss that you were telling us about earlier arising out of these customers' plants who were using the Bakelite? A. It could be. I simply don't remember whether that particular statement pertains to the matters that I participated in. You might say that was beyond my realm, dealing with the end product, but I think -- beyond the end product, the customer's end product, let's say. Q. And then he ends the paragraph by saying: "The BP Lab." By that, does he mean environmental protection? A. Yes. Q. Was there an environmental protection laboratory at the Bound Brook plant? A. Yes, there was. Q. So, he says: "The EP Lab has evaluated several product samples specially MANHATTAN ftfiPORTiNG OTftP. UCAREF00014562 179 1 Neal 2 prepared by R&D to minimize airborne fibers _ 3 during handling." 4 Do you know what he is talking about 5 there? 6 A. I am trying to remember if that 7 involved material sold to customers who made 8 brake lining and whether or not their employees 9 would be exposed to asbestos. 10 Q. Do you remember that as an issue that 11 arose at some point along the line? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. The brake lining? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Now, did your plant at Bound Brook 16 produce some materials that were used in brake 17 linings? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And what was that? 20 A. The asbestos productswere the 21 products used in brake lining. 22 Q. So there would be --the actual 23 asbestos brake lining material was one of the 24 products produced at Bound Brook? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP\ UCAREF00014563 180 1 Neal 2 MR. GERSON: Just at Bound Brook as 3 an end product? 4 MR. BROWNSON: Well, I guess I am not 5 sure. 6 A. As the raw material, for the brake 7 lining 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. -- company. 10 Q. So, you would -- and what was the 11 raw material called? 12 A. That was the Bakelite phenolic resin. 13 Q. So this was one of the uses of this 14 Bakelite phenolic resin that you produced at your 15 Union Carbide plant in Bound Brook, was brake 16 linings? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. So you would sell it to brake lining 19 companies, brake companies? 20 A. Yes, exactly. 21 Q. Were these brakes for cars? 22 A. Cars, trucks, trains, any application 23 involving friction. 24 Q. Then it says: "Messrs. Albright and 25 Swalm reviewed the asbestos situation with MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014564 181 1 Neal 2 Mr. Graebert, chemicals and plastics safety 3 director, to help clarify the plant's posture on 4 this potential hazard to health." 5 Are they talking about there the 6 brake linings? 7 A. They don't say. And I should not 8 venture as to what they are talking about. 9 Q. Who is Mr. Graebert? 10 A. He was with corporate safety. 11 Q. So, he would be a Union Carbide 12 safety man? 13 A. Union Carbide safety director. 14 Q. From the corporate office somewhere? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. So he wasn't at Bound Brook, 17 New Jersey, he was where? 18 A. Danbury, he was formerly at 19 Bound Brook. 20 Q. Okay. 21 MR. GERSON: (Indicating.) 22 THE WITNESS: Oh, '73 -- 23 A. Evidently, he was the chemicals and 24 plastics safety director. 25 Q. And, just so we understand this here. MANHATTAN REPORTING COftp. UCAREF00014565 182 ij Neal 2 chemicals and plastics is a division of Union 3 Carbide or was at that time? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And was the Bound Brook plant, where 6 you were, within the chemicals and plastics 7 division? : 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. So Mr. Graebert, kind of in simple 10 terms, was a Union Carbide chemical and plastics 11 division safety officer, and one of the things 12 within his jurisdiction was the Bound Brook 13 plant - - 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. --is that right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Let's look, then, at Exhibit Number 18 4, which is our next exhibit. 19 MR. GERSON:3-A was the next. 20 MR. BROWNSON: Oh, yes, sheet 3-A. 21 Q. So let's look at Exhibit 3-A. 22 I apologize, this is the last one 23 that's hard to read, after this they are all 24 clear. Let's just take them and look at that. 25 Let meknow when you are -- MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014566 183 1 Neal 2 A. I am done. 3 Q. Okay. . 4 MR. BROWNSON: First of all, for the 5 record, this is a handwritten little report, or 6 memorandum, dated January 26, 1973. 7 Q. Is that right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And is this from you or is this to 10 you? 11 A. To me, from a man named "E" -- 12 Q. I think that's Kleber - 13 A. Kleber. 14 Q. -- K-L-E-B-B-R. Is that a name that 15 you recognize? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Under Kleber, it says I think what is 18 "Niagara"; is that right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Now, do you recognize that 21 designation, "Niagara"? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Is that with reference to Union 24 Carbide's facility at Niagara Falls, New York? 25 A. I don't know. 1 assume that would MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014567 ... 184 1 Neal 2 be. 3 Q. Union Carbide did have an office or 4 facility at Niagara Falls, New York; right? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What was that? 7 Wasn't that kind of atesting or 8 scientific laboratory - 9 A. I think so. 10 Q. It wasn't a production plant; was 11 it? It was a - 12 A. I believe it was more of a 13 laboratory. 14 Q. Right,okay. First of all, do you 15 remember who Mr. Kleber was? 16 A. Now I remember, seeing this memo. 17 Q Let me see if we can actually figure 18 out what the memo says, if you can help me with 19 this. 20 It appears to be addressed to you, 21 D. Neal, correct - 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. -- from this Kleber at Niagara, which 24 is the Union Carbide facility at Niagara Falls, 25 New York; right? MANHATTAN REPORTING C6rp. UCAREF00014568 185 1 Neal 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And it's on January 26, 1973? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. And it's addressed to you at 6 Bound Brook, and it says "Subject: Dust 7 counting"; is that right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Then, I will try to read it here, and 10 jump in if I am reading something wrong, it 11 says: "Doug, here's a copy of" I think "this 12 office's " -- 13 A. "The official". 14 Q. Oh, "the official" -- let me stop. 15 Can I ask you to try to read it? 16 A. Well, you are doing pretty well. 17 "Here's a copy of the official" -- 18 hmm -- "notes for counting" -- 19 Q. Is that "asbestos"? 20 A. "Asbestos". 21 Q. And I think that's "fibers"? 22 A. Could be, "fibers. Use it in good 23 health." 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. Signed "Ed". MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014569 186 1 Neal 2 Q. Then, there is some much more legible3 writing below that. Is that writing from 4 somebody else? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q- So, is that like a reply, then, from 7 you? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. So that's your writing on the bottom 10 half of this? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And what do you say there? 13 A. "My readings on samples as follows:" 14 And it gives three -15 Q. Under that, you have essentially 16 three columns of numbers, and the two left-hand 17 ones say "Calidria", C-A-L-I-D-R-I-A; is that 18 correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. So, if I could try to interpret this, 21 are you reporting concerning samples of Calidria 22 asbestos fibers measured in the air? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And would this, then, be this 25 measurement we talked about earlier, when you MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014570 * 187 1 Neal 2 were using -- "you" the Bound Brook plant, was- 3 using the Calidria asbestos for this trial run; - 4 is that what this is? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And,again, if I could interpret 7 this, are you then reporting back to Mr., Kleber 8 what your airborne asbestos dust samples showed, 9 or some of them showed, during this trial run 10 using the Calidriaasbestos? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Now, under "Calidria", there is these 13 two columns, and I am trying to read the first 14 one; it says something "four minutes". 15 Do you know what that is? I think it 16 says "first mix". 17 A. Could be "mix". 18 Q. And the next one says "Second mix 19 three minutes". 20 Do you know what that means? 21 A. There were two batches made. 22 Q. Oh, okay. Two batches of plastic 23 made using the Calidria asbestos. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. So MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014571 188 1 Neal 2 MR. GERSON: Plastic resin. . 3 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 4 Q. During the first batch of plastic 5 resin that was made with the Calidria, it looks 6 like two samples of airborne asbestos dust were 7 counted, one by you and one by Mr. Kleber; is 8 that what we have got here? 9 A. It appears so. 10 Q. And then the same thing again 11 happened then during the second - - 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- batch of resin using the Calidria 14 asbestos -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. -- you counted a sample and he did. 17 Do you know if you each took samples 18 or did somebody take a sample and you each 19 counted them, asbestos fibers, under the 20 microscope? 21 A. As best I can recall, I personally 22 took the sampling along with Mr. Kleber. 23 Q. And then it looks like, did the two 24 of you then take turns counting the asbestos 25 fibers from the same sample? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014572 1 Neal 2 A. That I don't remember. 189 3 Q. But, in any event, it looks like 4 you counted airborne asbestos fibers from one 5 sample and he counted airborne asbestos fibers 6 from either the same sample or a different 7 sample? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And during the first run, you know, 10 plastic making with the Calidria fibers, or 11 Calidria asbestos, you counted 1.2, and is that 12 1.2 fibers per cubic centimeter of air - 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. -- the firsttime, and then you 15 counted .9 during the second run; is that right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And he got .5 fibers during the first 18 run and .7 during the second run? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Then there is a third column, it says 21 something "six minutes" and then another count. 22 Do you know what that says up there, like "7RFS"? 23 A. It appears to me that we also ran a 24 mix with "7RF9", is that? Which I assume would 25 be the standard Carey asbestos. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014573 190 1 Neal 2 Q. And in that sample, it was run for _ 3 six minutes; is that right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Does that mean the air pump was run 6 for six minutes? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Is that what we are talking about 9 there? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So for the firstsample using 12 Calidria, the pump was run for four minutes; is 13 that right? 14 A. Yes. IS Q. The second sample using Calidria, the 16 pump was run for three minutes; right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And then thethird sample, which was 19 not Calidria but the standard Carey asbestos, was 20 run for six minutes? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And, again, acounting was done on 23 the third sample, and you got 3.1 and Mr. Kleber 24 got 3.5 - 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014574 ^Sr- 1 2 Q. --is that right? Okay. 3 Now, if I could try to summarize 4 these rates, and tell me if I am right or wrong, 5 when you were counting asbestos fibers in the 6 air, it looks like you counted higher than 7 Mr. Kleber when Calidria was used, but when the 8 Carey was used then your count was lower; is that 9 kind of a summary of how it came out? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Then you write: "My pumping rate was 12 two liters per minute. 1 assumed same for 13 yours." 14 Now, that kind of tells us, doesn't 15 it, that you each took your own sample in 16 addition to doing your own counting? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. So it sounds like you must have set 19 up a pump and Kleber set up a pump and you each 20 took your own sample? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And then you each prepared your 23 filter and put it under a microscope and did your 24 own counting; is that right? 25 A. Yes. . MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014575 lj 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 192 Neal Q. And then you tried to make sure that you ran the same amount of air through your pumps and over your filters? A. Yes. Q. And then you say: "Numbers are in fibers per cc", and I guess that means what we talked about earlier, that these results are in fibers per cubic centimeter of air? A. Yes. Q. And then you say: "Your stuff sure looks good. Hope it works in end product." What's that? What does that mean? A. Well, we hoped that we can use Calidria in our product. Q. Oh, okay. So when you say "stuff", by "stuff" you mean the Union Carbide Calidria asbestos? A. Yeah. Q. And is what you are saying there is the airborne asbestos fibers from the Union Carbide Calidria looks good because they are lower than the other asbestos - A. Yes. Q. -- you hadbeen using? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014576 193 1 Neal 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. And then you say: "Hope it 4 works in end product." And by that you mean the 5 plastic resin? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. I think you told usearlier that, 8 as it turned out, it didn't work in the end 9 product -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. --is that right? So you didn't then 12 use it? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Went back to the Careyasbestos? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Now let me ask you just a couple of 17 other things about these airborne asbestos fiber 18 counts that are reported here. 19 I assume that what you are reporting 20 is counts of airborne asbestos fibers that are 21 greater than five microns in length; is that 22 right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And, also, 1 guess it goes without 25 saying that they have to be large enough in MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014577 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal 194 diameter to be picked up under your microscope;?- A. Yes. _ Q. Right? (Discussion off the record.) MR. BROWNSON: I will just say, for the record, that we are stopping for the, day here, and I had hoped to finish this deposition of Mr. Neal, and I apologize to all of you that we didn't. But it's not done, and we will reconvene at some mutually-convenient time -- MR. GERSON: Okay. MR. BROWNSON: - - to finish it. MR. GERSON: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) (Time noted: 4:08 p.m.) WILLIAM DOUGLAS NEAL Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of . 1996. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014578 195 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C-ERTIFICATE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) 88 # )' I. WENDY D. BOSKIND, a Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify: That WILLIAM DOUGLAS NEAL, the witness whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn by me, and that such deposition is a true and accurate record of the testimony given by the witness. I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties to this action by blood or marriage, and that I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. IN WITNBSS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ^ day of 1996. WENDY DV. B04KIND, RPR MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014579 196 1 2 INDEX 3 Witness 4 Wi 11iam 5 Douglas Neal Examination By Mr. Brownson Paoe/Llne 5 16 6 7 Exhibits 8 Plaintiff's Neal 1, memo to Mr. D.R. Albright, dated November 8, 1972, from 9 W.D. Neal, X414652 - X414654.......................................................... 3 2 10 Plaintiff's Neal 2, Trip report, dated December 7, 1972, five pages........................................................... 3 7 11 Plaintiff's Neal 3, memo dated January 12 4, 1973, to Mr. R.A. DeCoudres, from J.M. Swalm, two pages...................................................................................... 3 11 13 Plaintiff's Neal 3-A, handwritten 14 document, X410715..................................................................................................... 3 16 15 Plaintiff's Neal 4, Material safety data sheet, one page,front and back............................... 3 20 16 Plaintiff's Neal 5, Material safety 17 data sheet, one page, front and back, September 1, 1972 ...................................................................................................... 3 24 18 Plaintiff's Neal 6, U001613, one page...................... 4 4 19 Plaintiff's Neal 7, U004836, one page...................... 4 7 20 Plaintiff's Neal 8, U004842, one page...................... 4 10 21 Plaintiff's Neal 9, one page, 22 "Chrysotile asbestos warning, cancer hazard"............................................................................................................................................... 4 13 23 Plaintiff's Neal 10, Mellon Institute 24 special report, 12 pages.......................................................................... 4 17 25 MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014580 197 1 2 Plaintiff's Neal ll, Special report, Chemical Hygiene Fellowship, Mellon 3 Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, ,,. eight pages.......................................................................................................................... 4 21 4 Plaintiff's Neal 12, U005371, one page, 5 handwritten note, John J. Welsh, M.D......................... 5 2 6 Plaintiff's Neal 13, memo dated June 28, 1984, from Richard G. Hanlon, and 7 attachment, eight pages..................................................................... 5 6 8 Plaintiff's Neal 14, Mr. Neal's work history at Union Carbide......................................................................... 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014581 198 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT _ FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 3x IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY Civil Action 4 LITIGATION (NO. VI) No. MDL 875 x 5 This Document Relates To: 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 7 FIFTH DIVISION 8 CONWED CORPORATION, 9 Plaintiff, 10 - against - 11 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Civil Action NO. 5-92-88 12 Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, 13 -against- 14 OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS 15 CORPORATION, et al., 16 Third-Party Defendant. .................................................................................x 17 November 20, 1996 10:00 a.m. 18 19 Continued deposition of WILLIAM DOUGLAS 20 NEAL, taken by Plaintiff, pursuant to 21 adjournment, at the offices of Kelley Drye & 22 Warren LLP, 101 Park Avenue, New York, New York 23 i n -\_n a, haf nro Dominick M. -Tursi, a CM, Certified 24 `porter and Notary Public within and 25 of New York. MANHATTAN * IREPORTING CORE . mN<iAII<iTBFFT . NFW VflPK M Y lnrWL * (?13 UCAREF00014582 199 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 STICH, ANGELL, KREIDLER & MUTH, ESQS. Attorneys for Plaintiff 4 The Crossings, Suite 120 250 Second Avenue South 5 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 6 BY: ROBERT D. BROWNSON, ESQ., of Counsel. 7 -and- 8 RUDNICK & WOLFE, ESQS. 9 203 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60601 10 BY: MICHAEL R. GOLDMAN, ESQ., 11 of Counsel. 12 13 FOLEY & LARDNER, ESQS. Attorneys for Defendant 14 and Third-Party Plaintiff Firstar Center 15 777 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-5367 16 BY: TREVOR J. WILL, ESQ., 17 of Counsel. 18 -and- 19 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 101 Park Avenue 20 New York, New York 10178 21 BY: ALAN J. GERSON, ESQ of Counsel. 22 23 ALSO PRESENT: 24 JULIE STEWART 25 MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014583 200 1 2 WILLIAM DOUGLAS NEAL, , 3 resumed, having been previously duly sworn, 4 having been reminded of his oath by the Notary 5 Public (Dominick M. Tursi), was examined and 6 testified further as follows: 7 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. BROWNSON: 9 (Neal Exhibit 15 for 10 identification, document entitled Calidria 11 Asbestos, Union Carbide Corporation, Report of 12 Call; followed by a handwritten page entitled 13 Airborne Fiber Counts Conducted at Union Carbide 14 Corp.; followed by a written page with two 15 paragraphs of notes; followed by a 33-page 16 attachment). 17 Q- Good morning, Mr. Neal. 18 A. Good morning, Mr. Brownson. 19 Q. We are back. I sat in front 20 minute ago what we had marked as Deposition 21 Exhibit No. 15, which is a clipped-together stack 22 of pages. And for the record, let me just count 23 them. 24 For the record. Exhibit 15 is 36 25 pages, and the cover page is entitled: Calidria MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014584 201 1 Neal 2 Asbestos, Union Carbide Corporation, PO Box - 3 9799 - 4 MR. WILL: Wait a minute. He doesn't 5 have the document. 6 Q. -- zip code 14302. And under that it 7 says report of call. Date: 9/9 and 9/10/74. 8 Why don't I just continue for the 9 record to try to identify it. 10 Following that cover page which I 11 have just identified, there are then, there is 12 one handwritten page, entitled Airborne Fiber 13 Counts Conducted at Union Carbide Corp., Bound 14 Brook, New Jersey, May 2, 1974, and then there is 15 a secondhand written page with two paragraphs of 16 notes. And following that, there then are 33 17 pages which have things on the front and back 18 which are asbestos count record sheets. 19 (Discussion off the record.) 20 Q. Mr. Neal, now we are looking at this 21 Exhibit 15. And first of all, have you ever seen 22 this before? 23 A. I have not. 24 Q. Does this appear to be, at least from 25 what you can see, a report or compilation of MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014585 202 1 Neal 2 certain airborne asbestos dust sampling that was' 3 done at the Union Carbide plant in Bound Brook, 4 New Jersey, in 1974? 5 A. Before I can answer that, you 6 mentioned plant. In my estimation we have a 7 plant and we have a research lab. 8 Q. Okay. Can you tell where these 9 airborne asbestos dust counts, which we see here 10 as described in Exhibit 15, were taken? Can we 11 tell if that's in the plant or in the research 12 lab? 13 A. Evidently taken from theresearch 14 lab. 15 Q. What shows you that? 16 A. Well, for one thing, I was not 17 familiar with this project, being mainly 18 concerned with plant industrial hygiene. 19 Q. So do you think, then, that if it had 20 been in the plant, it is more likely that you 21 would have seen this or been familiar with it? 22 A. I would have, yes. 23 Q. I wanted to see if you could help me 24 try to decipher some of what we see here. It 25 indicates -- well, first of all, it appears as MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014586 203 1 Neal 2 though this is someone from Union Carbide at ' 3 Niagara Falls who prepared this report, just 4 because it is on their letterhead. 5 Would that be a fair assumption? 6 A. I think so. 7 Q. Then it says, in the box where it 8 says interviewed, give full names and titles. It 9 lists not full names and titles, but an initial 10 and last time for two people. Do you know who 11 those are? 12 A. I don't recall. 13 Q. Okay. Then it says objectives. On 14 the handwritten note on the front page it says 15 determine amount of airborne asbestos fiber 16 generated during the mixing of RG-600 and 17 poly-something. Do you know what that is? 18 A. Polyethylene. 19 Q. Polyethylene. Okay. Then, if you 20 look back on the third page, which are these 21 handwritten notes, the third page of the exhibit, 22 it reads, at least as I read it: Objectives, 23 monitor airborne asbestos dust generated during 24 the make-up of high-density polyethylene 25 containing 30 percent Calidria asbestos RG 600. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014587 204 1 Neal 2 Do I appear to have read that - 3 correctly? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Then it says operation monitors. Do 6 you know what that means? 7 MR. WILL: I think it says 8 monitored. 9 Q. Oh. Monitored. Yes. Operation 10 monitored. I guess that's just what it says, 11 they were monitoring some operation. It looks 12 like they were monitoring a simulated 13 manufacturing process of the plastic. Does that 14 appear to be what they were doing here? 15 A. They were monitoring the dust during 16 an experimental run of some sort. 17 Q. Okay.Now, if we think back, last 18 week when we were taking your deposition the 19 first time in this case, you had described to us 20 how you remembered at some time in about the 1973 21 to 1975 time period during these trial runs with 22 the Calidria asbestos and the plastic - 23 MR. WILL: I would object. Bob. He 24 described something in the phenolic resin. This 25 is something different. This is polyethylene. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014588 205 1 Neal 2 Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you this 3 question. Is what we see here on this Exhibit 4 15, does this appear to be a different operation 5 or situation or trial run than that phenolic 6 resin situation you told us about before, or is 7 this that thing you were thinking about, how that 8 you see it? 9 A. This is a different operation 10 altogether. 11 Q. Okay. So what you weretelling us 12 the other day about the trial use of Calidria in 13 the phenolic resin and that they came and took 14 air samples, that was something different than 15 what we see here? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Now, this one talks about the use of 18 Calidria asbestos and the assimilated 19 manufacturing process for high-density 20 polyethylene. Is that what they are talking 21 about here? 22 A. I think so. 23 Q. Now, is that a productthat was 24 manufactured at the Union Carbide plant at Bound 25 Brook, New Jersey? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014589 206 1 Neal 2 A. Not to my knowledge. - 3 MR. GERSON: Are we talking about 4 high-density polyethylene, generally? 5 Q. Right. High-density polyethylene. 6 So does it appear, then, that what we 7 see here is that someone in the research >. 8 laboratory at Bound Brook was maybe, you know, 9 experimenting or looking into some sort of 10 high-density polyethylene manufacturing process? 11 Is that what this seems to be? 12 A. I think so. 13 Q. And just to finish up here. This is 14 not, then, apparently the air sampling that you 15 were describing the other day. That was 16 something else in the phenolic resin trial runs. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. And I take it that since we 19 were here about a week ago, you have not seen any 20 reports or documentation, or haven't found any, 21 dealing with those air samples? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Now, it sounds like you were not 24 necessarily involved or weren't knowledgeable 25 about what was necessarily going on in the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014590 207 1 Neal 2 research and development at Bound Brook. Would;r:; 3 that be fair to say? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. So when they are doing things like 6 this that we see in Exhibit 15, that really is 7 not something that you would be involved with at 8 all? . 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. Did they have an industrial hygienist 11 who worked in the research lab or did they just 12 do their own industrial hygiene type work there? 13 A. They, as I recall, had their own 14 industrial hygienist I believe in the early '80s, 15 and I provided service in the late '70s. 16 Q. Let me ask you just a few more 17 questions while we are waiting for the exhibits. 18 Were you familiar with a gentleman at 19 Union Carbide named Harrison Rhodes? 20 A. Harrison Rhodes? 21 Q. Harrison Rhodes. 22 A. No. 23 Q. He did some industrial hygiene work, 24 I think, back more in the '60s and '70s. 25 A. Rhodes? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014591 208 1 Neal 2 Q. Right. Rhodes. 3 A. It doesn't ring a bell. ' 4 Q. Okay. Once the OSHA standard came 5 into effect in 1972, the OSHA asbestos standard 6 that we were talking about before, in terms of 7 the Bound Brook plant was there some system that 8 was put in place for regular or annual medical 9 examinations of the employees? Did that have to 10 be - - 11 A. During 1972? 12 Q. Well, or shortly thereafter. 13 A. It is my recollection that there was 14 some monitoring done prior to when I started the 15 industrial hygiene program. 16 Q. Okay. And then after you started the 17 industrial hygiene program, did that medical type 18 exam continue? 19 A. That continued. 20 Q. At least while youwere there, was 21 there ever a time when those records were 22 collected and reviewed by anybody, any doctors, 23 whether they were company doctors or outside 24 doctors? 25 A. I have no knowledge ofthat. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014592 209 1 Neal 2 Q. So you weren't involved in anything;, 3 like that. 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. I asked you before, and you have 6 answered, whether you were involved in - 7 MR. WILL: Excuse me, Bob. In that 9 last question, were you talking about somebody 9 from outside the plant coming in and - 10 MR. BROWNSON: Yes. 11 MR. WILL: -- as opposed -- because 12 I think he told you earlier that Dr. McKinley was 13 involved. 14 MR. BROWNSON: Okay. Well, let's 15 move on because that's not an important point 16 anyway. 17 BY MR. BROWNSON: 18 Q. I asked you before, we were talking a 19 little bit about OSHA submissions that may have 20 been made by Union Carbide, and you told us that 21 you weren't involved in that kind of stuff, where 22 they would submit material to OSHA with respect 23 to any changes in the OSHA rules. You were not 24 involved in that? 25 A. Would you mind repeating that? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014593 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. Yes. Let me preface it by saying, when OSHA makes these various rules, including their asbestos standard, which they change from time to time, they have a period of time when any interested party can submit material to OSHA or give testimony to OSHA or appear and, you know, testify; that sort of thing. And I thought I had asked you this and you had told us that you were not involved in that sort of effort on behalf of Union Carbide. Is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. What I think I didn't ask you is, were you ever asked by anyone in the company to submit any data from the Bound Brook plant in connection with any studies that were being done on a company-wide basis by Union Carbide to determine compliance with the OSHA asbestos standard? MR. GERSON: Could you repeat that question. (The record was read.) A. I do recall we reviewed test results with various governmental inspectors, both state MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014594 211 1 Neal 2 and federal. ' 3 Q. And when you say we, these would be 4 the test results at yourplant atBound Brook? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. As far as you can recall, no one from 7 the company at Union Carbide said to you that 8 they were putting together some larger database 9 of the test results of all the different 10 locations? 11 A. I knew nothing of that nature. 12 Q. Did you ever have any involvement in 13 the preparation of material safety data sheets? 14 A. Yes, I have been. 15 Q. And you are familiar with material 16 safety data sheets? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What those are and the form they take 19 and that sort of thing? 20 A. Yes, I am familiar. 21 Q. Was your involvement with the 22 preparation of those, in terms of preparing them 23 for the products that were being manufactured at 24 Bound Brook, or was it for something else? 25 A. It was for something else. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014595 j-3 212 1 Neal 2 Q. Did this occur while you were ' 3 employed at Union Carbide or was this something - 4 you did in the later years when you were a 5 consultant? 6 A. Something I did as a consultant. 7 Q. Okay. Were you involved in the 8 preparation, of caution labels or warning labels 9 for use to go on the products that were being 10 made at the plant at Bound Brook? 11 A. Involved to the extent of noting that 12 labels were applied. 13 Q. And what labels were applied? What 14 are we talking about there? 15 A. The labels required by OSHA to be 16 placed on containers of asbestos. 17 Q. And were those labels placed on 18 containers of the finished plastic products that 19 contained asbestos, or were those labels that 20 would be on the containers of the raw asbestos 21 coming into the plant for the manufacturing 22 operation? 23 A. They were placed on the containers of 24 the raw materials. 25 Q. Now, when you say they were placed MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014596 213 1 Neal 2 there, I assume, do you mean by that that you saw 3 them there when the bag, or the containers came 4 into your plants? In other words, you didn't put 5 them on there. Or did you? 6 A. I can't recall, it's been so long 7 ago. But I seem to recall that at one time 8 during the adoption of the regulation, there were 9 stickers placed on bags until the tags came in 10 bearing the printed verbiage from the supplier. 11 Q. Okay. So are you saying, then, 12 initially the bags that came in after OSHA 13 actually had a sticker on them, and then later on 14 they actually had an imprint label? 15 MR. GERSON: Are you asking if they 16 came in with the sticker? 17 Q. That's what I'm trying to figure 18 out. 19 Or are you saying that the bag came 20 in, and then you put a sticker on them once they 21 arrived? 22 A. I don't recall just who put the 23 stickers on or exactly when; simply that during 24 an interim period until the printing was set up, 25 that stickers were used. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014597 214 1 Neal 2 Q. Okay. And do you remember that those- 3 stickers, and then later the imprints, were - . 4 contained on the bags of asbestos or the 5 containers of asbestos that came into the plant 6 as raw material? 7 A. On the containers of asbestos, that 8 came in as raw material. 9 Q. And then how about the products that 10 went out of the plant? 11 A. Not on the product. 12 Q. That contained asbestos? 13 A. They were not on the product. 14 Q. Okay. I will jump ahead. And even 15 though I don't have the exhibits here, maybe we 16 can save some time because this one doesn't have 17 writing on it. 18 I will show you what we have marked 19 as Exhibit 9 and ask if that's a label that you 20 had ever seen on any of the Calidria asbestos 21 containers that came in during these experimental 22 trial runs. 23 A. I could not honestly answer that 24 because we are talking about -- 25 Q. - - so long ago? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014598 215 1 Neal 2 A. --so many years. And I saw so many' 3 labels, I don't recall just exactly what or when. 4 Q. Is this similar to labels you saw in 5 the containers of raw asbestos coming into the 6 plant in terms of the information that's 7 contained there? 9 A. I simply state as I did before: I 9 don't recall the exact language in these labels. 10 Q. Okay. I wanted to ask you about some 11 other people, and maybe I will do that now while 12 we are waiting for the exhibits. 13 I asked you at the last deposition if 14 you remembered someone named James Rawlings, and 15 I think you told us that you didn't. 16 A. James Rawlings? 17 Q. R-a-w-1-i-n-g-s. 18 A. I don't know the gentleman. 19 Q. Okay. Let me do this. This might 20 help us because I wanted to ask some questions. 21 Let's mark another exhibit here, which we will 22 mark as Exhibit 16. 23 Let's take a moment because I have a 24 few more of these. 25 (Discussion off the record.) MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014599 216 1 Neal 2 (Neal Exhibit 16 for 3 identification, February 11, 1972, letter from 4 Mr. James Rawlings of Union Carbide Corporation 5 to the Office of Safety and Health Standards in 6 Washington, DC.) 7 (Neal Exhibit 17: for a identification, February 29, 1972 letter from 9 William N. Johnson, assistant to the product 10 general manager asbestos at Union Carbide Mining 11 and Metals Division, 270 Park Avenue, New York, 12 New York.) 13 (Neal Exhibit 18 for 14 identification. Statement of James W. Rawlings, 15 Vice President Mining and Metals Division, Union 16 Carbide Corporation, at the Hearing on Proposed 17 Asbestos Standards under the Occupational Safety 18 and Health Act, March 16, 1972.) 19 (Neal Exhibit 19 for 20 identification, letter of November 14, 1975, from 21 William C. Thurber, business manager, asbestos 22 metals division. Union Carbide Corporation, to 23 docket officer of the US Department of Labor.) 24 (Neal Exhibit 20 for 25 identification, April 9, 1976 letter from Mr. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014600 da. 1 ofr2 Thurber to docket officer of the US Department 3 Labor.) 4 (Heal Exhibit 21 for 5 identification, December 3, 1990 letter from 6 Union Carbide, Health, Safety and Environmental 7 Affairs, signed by Robert Plevan, with 8 attachment.) 9 (Neal Exhibit 22 for 10 identification, December 3, 1990 submission by 11 Union Carbide to docket officer of the 12 Occupational Safety and Health Administration.) 13 (A recess was taken.) 14 BY MR. BROWNSON: 15 Q. I haveshown you now, Mr. Neal, what 16 we have marked as Deposition Exhibit 16, which is 17 a February ll, 1972, letter from Mr. James 18 Rawlings of Union Carbide Corporation to the 19 Office of Safety and Health Standards in 20 Washington, DC. Doyou see that? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Have you ever seen this letter 23 before? 24 A. No. 25 Q. This is where I got that name James MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014601 218 1 Neal 2 Rawlings I was asking you about. -'..1 3 A. I see that. 4 Q. Does that help you remember who he 5 was? He's called vice president, but 1 don't 6 know of what. 7 A. I still don't know his identity other 8 than as the person that wrote the letter. 9 Q. Okay. I want to draw your attention 10 to paragraph, or, I'm sorry, to page 4 of the 11 exhibit, the latter. And under No. 3, Mr. 12 Rawlings has written a paragraph entitled Warning 13 Signs. And in referring to the warning signs 14 proposed by OSHA under the OSHA Asbestos Act, he 15 writes: The warning signs proposed, seem 16 excessively alarmist, and the warning and sign 17 specifications are too detailed. 18 First of all, based upon your 19 experience of seeing these asbestos labels, did 20 you view the labels to be excessively alarmist or 21 too detailed? 22 MR. GERSON: Which -- 23 Q. The labels that we just talked about, 24 on the bags. 25 A. Well, the labels on the bags were MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014602 219 1 Neal 2 fairly brief. 3 Q. Okay. Now, at Bound Brook, New- 4 Jersey, after the OSHA Act went into effect in 5 '72, were you required to put up signs in the 6 plant, talking about asbestos? 7 A. I don't recall that in the original. 8 There could have been a requirement of that sort, 9 but 20 years ago I just don't recall. 10 Q. Do you ever remember along the way, 11 in the years after 1972, where signs were posted 12 in the plant in areas where asbestos was being 13 used, talking about some hazard or warning 14 associated with the use of the asbestos? 15 A. I do recall there were some signs, I 16 believe, that indicated cancer hazard at a later 17 date. I couldn't say exactly when or where these 18 signs were posted. 19 Q. Okay. But you do recall seeing them 20 at some point along the line? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And in your view, didyou consider 23 the information onthose signs tobe excessively 24 alarmist? 25 A. Excessively what? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014603 220 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal Q. Alarmist? A. Excessivelyalarming? Q. Yes. A. Again, we're talking 20 years ago, and I can't remember what my impression was then. Q. Okay. Next I would like you to look at Exhibit No. 17, and what I will do is hand you these originals. For the record, this is a February 29, 1972 letter from William N. Johnson, assistant to the product general manager asbestos at Union Carbide Mining and Metals Division, 270 Park Avenue, New York, New York. Have you ever seen this letter before? A. I have not. Q. And Mr. Johnson here is writing again to the Office of Safety and Health Standards in Washington, DC, and he writes, the subject is public hearing March 14, 1972 on standards for exposure to asbestos dust. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And again hetalks about how Mr. Rawlings is going to appear to make a statement. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014604 221 1 1 Neal 2 Do you see that? 3 A. I do. 4 Q. The second paragraph, I want to draw 5 your attention to that. Mr. Johnson writes: Mr. Rawling's statements will be concerned with the 7 adverse economic impact of the proposed 8 regulations on the asbestos operations of Union 9 Carbide, and in particular the impact of any 10 lower TLV, and then he goes on to talk about some 11 other things. 12 But do you recall, now that you have 13 seen this, whether there was any, anyone had come 14 to you or talked to you at Bound Brook, New 15 Jersey, about what the impact of the OSHA 16 asbestos regulations might be on the business 17 there? 18 A. I recall something in later years 19 regarding whether or not warnings should be 20 placed on containers of finished product. 21 Q. Okay. And was any decision made in 22 that regard, as to whether to put warnings on the 23 containers of finished products? 24 A. I don't recall really what the final 25 decision was. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014605 222 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal _ Q. Do you recall anything, during the years beginning in 1972 and going out into the later years, where there was any concern on your part at Bound Brook that the threshold limits values for asbestos could pose a problem in the operations of that plant; in other words, you might have trouble meeting them? A. There was always a concern to minimize the dust counts, but we were, in my recollection, always ahead of the OSHA regulation. Always lower. Q. Do you remember when you began there and around that time when the first OSHA asbestos regulation came into effect that had the 5 fiber per cc 8-hour average? A. Yes. Q. Dustcounts? Do you rememberat that time part of the regulation was that in 1976 it was going to go down to 2 fibers? A. Yes. Q. And did youhave any concernat that time whether your operations in New Jersey would be able to get down to the 2 fibers within four years by 1976? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. U CAR E F00014606 223 1 Neal 2 A. We had no particular concern, that 1^ 3 recall. 4 Q. And as you recall it, when 1976 5 occurred, were you able to get down below the new 6 standard of 2 fibers? 7 A. The product was discontinued by that 8 date. 9 Q. Now, which product was discontinued 10 by '76? 11 A. The product in which asbestos was 12 used. 13 Q. So are you saying, then, by 1976, 14 asbestos was not used any longer as an 15 ingredient? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. In the rosin products? 18 A. The entire, if my memory is correct, 19 the entire product line was discontinued at Bound 20 Brook. The phenolic product line. 21 Q. Okay. Did the discontinuance of that 22 product line have anything to do with the fact 23 that it had asbestos in it? 24 A. I don't believe so. Most of the 25 products were nonasbestos products. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014607 224 1 Neal 2 Q. Next I want to look at Exhibit 18. 3 And for the record, this is a typed-up, 6-page 4 document which is entitled Statement of James W. 5 Rawlings, vice President, Mining and Metals 6 Division, Union Carbide Corporation, hearing on 7 proposed asbestos standards under the 8 Occupational Safety and Health Act, March 16, 9 1972 . 10 First of all, have you ever seen this 11 before? 12 A. I have not. 13 Q. Now what I want to do is direct your 14 attention to the last page of that, which is a 15 table which is attached here, and it is entitled 16 Experimental Data Asbestos Fiber Concentrations. 17 Do you see that? 18 A. I do. 19 Q. Have you ever seen this table before? 20 A. I have not. 21 Q. And do you know, or can you tell from 22 looking at this, where these different samples 23 were taken? 24 A. It appears that they were taken at 25 possibly five work stations. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014608 225 1- Neal 2 Q. Can you tell where they were taken;. 3 in the sense of, were these like at customer 4 plants of, you know, the Union Carbide asbestos, 5 or were these at Union Carbide plants? Is there 6 anything here that helps you to determine or 7 allows you to determine the plants or locations 8 where these might have been taken? 9 A. Well, they indicate that they are at 10 a customer's plant. 11 Q. Where does it say that? 12 A. It doesn't say that, but in each of 13 these work stations, they are typical of 14 fabricators, customers' plants. 15 Q. Okay. And the last work operation 16 which is listed here is called emptying bags. Do 17 you see that? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And it talks aboutmaterial which is 20 being emptied out of bags, fiber, percent 21 asbestos, 100 percent. So does that appear that 22 what they are doing is emptying asbestos bags? 23 A. I would say so. 24 Q. Into some operation like what you 25 were talking about the other day at Bound Brook? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014609 226 1 Neal 2 A. Y e s . 3 Q. And then it says they did six tests, 4 took nine samples, and their fiber count of 5 fibers greater than 5 microns in length was 1.3 6 to 11.5. Do you see that? 7 A. Would you repeat that statement? 8 Q. Oh, yes. The fiber count was in a 9 range of 1.3 to 11.5 fibers greater than 5 10 microns in lengths. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Is thatright? Okay. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And thenthey report the average of 15 those as 3.9. Do you see that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Now, does this help you recall, was 18 this in line with the types of measurements that 19 you recall at Bound Brook in terms of when you 20 were emptying bags? 21 MR. GERSON: Or -- 22 Q. Emptying bags of asbestos into the 23 hoppers that you had told us about? 24 MR. WILL: For the Calidria or for 25 the Carey? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014610 .M 227 1 Neal 2 MR. BROWNSON: I'll first start 3 asking on any of it; any of the asbestos.. 4 A. It is really difficult for me to 5 compare this scant information with what I tested 6 at the Bound Brook plant. 7 Q. Okay. And with respect to the 8 asbestos, emptying the bags into the hoppers of 9 the asbestos, whether it is the Carey asbestos or 10 the Calidria at Bound Brook, I'm not asking for 11 exact measurements, but are these the types of 12 measurements that you recall? In other words, is 13 this the range of measurements that you recall 14 there? 15 A. Again, I have no way of knowing how 16 these numbers were arrived at, by what test 17 methods or circumstances. 18 Q. Okay. Well, if you look at the 19 bottom, it's written, it appears to be saying 20 that they are measuring only fibers greater than 21 5 microns in lengths. Is that right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And then it says standard sampling 24 and counting procedures by a certified industrial 25 hygienist from Union Carbide's industrial MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014611 228 1 Neal 2 medicine and toxicology department. Do you see 3 that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And I don't want to go over old ground that we talked about already, but would it 7 be, is what we are talking about here a certified 8 industrial hygienist that came out of the 9 toxicology department out in West Virginia? Is 10 that who these people are? 11 MR. WILL: Objection. He doesn't 12 know who these people are. You're asking him to 13 guess. 14 Q. I'm not asking for the exact people. 15 Let me put it a different way. 16 Were they, say, industrial hygienists 17 from Union Carbide's industrial medicine and 18 toxicology department? 19 You don't know who the person is, but 20 I'm wondering, where would that person be coming 21 from? Is that this thing in West Virginia or is 22 that somewhere else? 23 A. I could not really say. Industrial 24 hygiene service was provided from more than one 25 geographical location. --------------------------MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014612 229 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal Q. Okay. So when reference is made to^,. Onion Carbide's industrial medicine and toxicology department -- and this is 1972, remember, the date of the statement -- that doesn't help you to determine, you know, where that department was or who these people would be? A. Exactly. MR. WILL: Bob, remember, it has a March of '72. He wasn't even working in that department. MR. BROWNSON: Right. I understand. Q. Do you have any reason to believe that if these were the data that were obtained by a certified industrial hygienist from Union Carbide's industrial medicine and toxicology department, that there would be anything wrong or inaccurate about them? A. No. Thefootnote appears to substantiate the data as being obtained according to proper procedures, to my knowledge. Q. Next I would like you to look at Exhibit No. 19. And this is a letter of November 14, 1975, from William C. Thurber, business MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014613 230 1 Neal 2 manager, asbestos metals division. Union Carbide 3 Corporation, to the docket officer of the US 4 Department of Labor in Washington, DC. Is that 5 what it says? 6 A. I see that. 7 Q. And his subject is occupational 8 exposure to asbestos. Correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. 11 before? Have you everseen this letter 12 A. I have not. 13 Q. 14 is? Do you know who Mr. Thurber was or 15 A. It says here, business manager of 16 asbestos. 17 Q. But did you ever meet him or did you 18 know who he was? 19 A. No. 20 Q. And again, with respect to the 21 subject of this letter, do you have any 22 independent recollection or information of your 23 own about the new asbestos standard, apparently 24 in 1976, which is being commented upon here? 25 A. I don't quite understand your MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014614 231 1 Neal 2 question. . 3 Q. Okay. Well, it appears to me that 4 Mr. Thurber or somebody from Union Carbide is 5 going to submit some comments in connection with 6 new asbestos standards in 1976. And I'm just 7 wondering if you have any independent 8 recollection of your own of those activities that 9 were being done. 10 A. No, I don't, other than what the OSHA 11 regulations require. 12 Q. You do know that in 1976 the change 13 actually took place with the OSHA asbestos 14 standard; the new one did go into effect, 15 lowering it from 5 fibers down to 2 fibers per 16 cc? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Next let's look at Exhibit 20, and I 19 will ask you if you have ever seen that before. 20 For the record, this is an April 9, 21 1976 letter, again from Mr. Thurber to the docket 22 officer. 23 MR. GERSON: With a very big 24 attachment, right? 25 MR. BROWNSON: Well, I actually MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014615 232 1 Neal 2 marked that as an additional exhibit but it does;: 3 say that -- I don't know that it says that's an 4 attachment or not. 5 MR. WILL: Can we go off the record 6 for just a second? 7 MR. BROWNSON: Yes. 8 (Discussion off the record.) 9 Q. My question to you, Mr. Neal, is, 10 have you ever seen this letter or memorandum 11 before? 12 A. I have not. 13 Q. Now, Mr. Thurber writes, down in the 14 third paragraph, that a presentation is being 15 submitted on what he calls this date, April 9 16 1976, incorporating by reference the position 17 expressed in the presentation of the Asbestos 18 Information Association of North America. Do you 19 know what that organization is? 20 A. No, I do not. 21 Q. Next let's look at the exhibit wh i ch 22 is -- Exhibit 20-A? Excuse me. Off the reco rd. 23 (Discussion off the record.) 24 MR. BROWNSON: Let's mark 20-A. 25 (Neal Exhibit 20-A f or MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014616 233 1 Neal 2 identification, document entitled Presentation to. 3 the Occupational Safety and Health 4 Administration, United States Department of 5 Labor, consisting of 12 numbered pages.) 6 Q. We have now shown you Exhibit 20-A, 7 which has 12 numbered pages, which is six pieces 8 of paper written on the front and back. It is 9 actually seven pieces of paper because there is a 10 cover sheet and then there are twelve numbered 11 pages. It is entitled Presentation to the 12 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 13 United States Department of Labor, in regard to 14 the notice of proposed rule making occupational 15 exposure to asbestos on behalf of Union Carbide 16 Corporation April 9, 1976. 17 My question is, have you ever seen 18 this document or report before? 19 A. It doesn't look familiar to me. 20 Q. Go to the first page, page No. 1, 21 where it says introduction. And they are talking 22 about the Union Carbide asbestos mine in Central 23 California. Do you see that? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. That's the Calidria asbestos, as you MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014617 234 1 Neal 2 understand it? 3 A. I believe so. 4 Q. Then it says, this asbestos is 5 marketed throughout the United States and in many 6 foreign countries. Union Carbide is a 7 substantial supplier of short asbestos fiber 8 similar to Canadian grade 7. 9 Now, my question to you is, last time 10 we were talking about these grades of asbestos 11 and you had described the Carey Chrysotile 12 asbestos that you were using in Bound Brook as 13 floats. Do you remember that? 14 A. They were combined asasbestos 15 floats. 16 Q. And my question now is, now that you 17 read this, do you remember if those floats, 18 asbestos floats, were what was called Canadian 19 grade 7 asbestos? 20 A. I don't recall the relationship 21 between grade 7 and the term asbestos floats. 22 Q. Now, if you look at page 4, it's got 23 the page number at the top, down toward the 24 middle of the page, it says the key point to note 25 in these quotations is that Congress in writing MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014618 j 235 1 Neal 2 the act made it clear the repeated distinction 3 between monitoring medical examinations and 4 recordkeeping that were intended to protect the 5 employee and those which constitute research. 6 And then it goes on to say, at the 7 end it says, every employer, large and small, is 8 required to prepare the same very detailed 9 records and store them for 40 years or more. 10 Do you see that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Do you remember thisrequirement, 13 going back to your occupation at Bound Brook, 14 where you had to store the records for 40 years 15 or more? 16 A. I don't recall whether it was 40, but 17 I do recall they were to be preserved. 18 Q. And my question is, what records were 19 required to be preserved, as you recall it? 20 A. I can only -- I would really only 21 guess. 22 MR. WILL: Well, don't guess. 23 A. The other alternative would be, I 24 would assume all written - 25 MR. WILL: Don't assume, either. Do MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014619 236 1 Neal 2 you know? 3 THE WITNESS: I don't know, really. 4 MR. WILL: All right. 5 Q. Now let's look at Exhibit 21. This 6 is the big one. I will show you that. That is a 7 big exhibit we have marked as Exhibit 21. 8 For the record, it is a December 3, 9 1990 letter from Union Carbide, Health, Safety 10 and Environmental Affairs, and the author is - 11 MR. WILL: Well, the cover letter 12 appears to be signed by a Robert Plevan, but the 13 testimony is supposedly on behalf of a Manhar 14 Patel. 15 Q. It's got a two-page cover letter 16 signed by Robert E. Plevan, Ph.D., Assistant 17 Director of Occupational Health. 18 Do you know who he is? 19 A. No, I do not. 20 Q. When you were doing consulting work, 21 did you ever get involved in this time period 22 with this business of OSHA rule-making with 23 respect to asbestos? Did you ever have anything 24 to do with that? 25 A. When you say rule-making, I had no MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014620 237 1 Neal 2 part in the rule-making. 3 Q. And if you look at this exhibit, - 4 after Mr. Plevan's letter it's got a written-up 5 report called Testimony for the Hearing on OSHA's 6 Proposed Rules on Occupational Exposure to 7 Asbestos and some other things, submitted. 8 December 3, 1990. Have you ever seen this 9 before? 10 A. I have not. 11 Q. And this is apparently a typed-up 12 testimony of someone named Manhar Patel from 13 Union Carbide. And I see that he's a chemist by 14 training and he's an industrial hygienist. Do 15 you know who he is? 16 A. Yes, I do. 17 Q. Who was Mr. Patel? 18 A. He was the senior staff industrial 19 hygienist. 20 Q. At where? 21 A. When I knew him, he was in the 22 corporate group which provided industrial hygiene 23 service. 24 Q. And where was that located? 25 A. Danbury. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014621 238 1 Neal 2 Q. Danbury, Connecticut? 3 A. Connecticut. 4 Q. Is that the main office of Union 5 Carbide? 6 A. Yes. 7 MR. WILL: At what point in time? 8 Q. Well, in 1990. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. The date of this thing? Okay. 11 As far as you know, was Mr. Patel, 12 was he a knowledgeable individual? Did you 13 consider him to be an expert in this field? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Did he ever consult with you in 16 connection with asbestos matters? 17 A. Not on asbestos matters. 18 Q. Did he ever consult with you on 19 anything else? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. What was that? 22 A. As I recall, it was a proposal to 23 further define the frequency at which various 24 monitoring tests were performed. 25 Q. Monitoring tests forwhat? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014622 239 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal A. For any industrial hygiene hazard. Q. Okay. And so if some proposal was being made on the frequency of monitoring - A. Yes. Q. -- who. was making the proposal? A. I believe the group in South Charleston. Q. You mean Union Carbide people? A. Union Carbide people in South Charleston, West Virginia. Q. proposal? A. And to whom were they making the To all the Union Carbide plants. Q. And what was the proposal that was being made with respect to monitoring? A. It was a plan by which any industrial hygienist could refer to a set of guidelines which determined how often the industrial hygienist should conduct monitoring tests. Q. And did this include asbestos, among other things? A. It included all of this common air contaminants. Q. Okay. Was asbestos one of those? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014623 240 1 Neal 2 A. Yes. Any air contaminant with a TLVf 3 Q. Okay. And under this new -- first of 4 all, was this proposal adopted by the company? 5 A. I could not say for sure. If I e recall, it was in my last year with Union 7 Carbide, and I believe it was in the process of 8 implementation. 9 Q. And under the proposal, was air 10 monitoring then to be done more often or less 11 often than it had been done in the past? 12 A. It would depend on previous 13 measurements as to how close to a given TLV the 14 measurements showed. 15 Q. And when you speak of TLV, again is 16 that the threshold limit value for the 17 concentration of that contaminant in the air? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And with respect to asbestos at this 20 time, would this be an OSHA limit or would this 21 be the ACGIH limit? What are we talking about 22 there? 23 A. It would be the legal OSHA limit. 24 Q. Because I know these terms sometimes 25 get interchanged. But the OSHA limit was called MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. U CAR EF00014624 241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal a PEL, permissible exposure limit? A. Yes. Q. Is that essentially the same as the OSHA level you were talking about? A. Essentially the same, yes. Q. But other than with respect to that proposal, you didn't have any other contact or work with Mr. Patel? A. None that I recall. Q. And the final thing I want to show you is Exhibit 22. And for some reason I wrote 22 on it with a pen, so it says 22 twice. And that's a December 3, 1990 submission to the docket officer of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, by Union Carbide. And it was actually made by, if we go look at the end here, made by Mr. Plevan again. Page 27. And my question on this will be, have you ever seen this before? A. Page 27? Q. Well, have you ever seen this entire thing before? A. I have not. Q. Now let's--- off the record. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014625 A 242 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal (Discussion off the record.) ; Q. Mr. Neal, going back to this, these air measurements that were done on the asbestos dust during the trial runs of the Calidria asbestos in the resin manufacturing at Bound Brook. I had thought that this exhibit I brought with me today was describing that, but you have now told us that no, this is actually describing a research lab test. My question is - - MR. GERSON: That's Exhibit 15? Q. Exhibit 15, right. A. And on polyethylene. Q. Polyethylene. Right. My question is, do you know where we could find the tests on the Calidria at Bound Brook in the trial runs on the rosin manufacturing that you told us about last time? A. I couldn't tell youspecifically, other than that they should be in the files, the R&D files, similar to perhaps where that came from. Q. Where is that file? Is that at the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014626 243 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal plant in New Jersey or is that - A. I can't understand really what you mean by file. Q. Okay. I'm just wondering, if we tried to find that, today, do you know where we could go to look for that? A. I don't know really where these files reside right now, having been away from that for 10 years or more. Many documents have been furnished to many various parties, and that's about all I can say. Q. Okay. And again, you have not been shown those or reviewed them in preparation for your deposition here. A. No. I have not had any direct connection with files for many years. Q. Let me do this. I would like to show you what we had marked as Neal Deposition Exhibit 4, which is a Union Carbide materials safety data sheet for Calidria asbestos. My question is, have you ever seen one of these before? A. I don't recall whether I have or have not. Q. Would it have been the practice at MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014627 244 1 Neal 2 Bound Brook, when the Calidria was brought in for 3 this test run in the resin manufacturing in '73 4 to '75, would that shipment have been accompanied 5 by a material safety data sheet like this? 6 MR. WILL: Well, I object to the form 7 of the question. You can ask him whether he 8 recalls whether it was. 9 Q. Well, first of all, do you recall 10 whether it was? 11 A. I don't recall. 12 Q. Was it the practice of the industrial 13 hygiene department at the plant to require that 14 _ materials safety data sheets come in with 15 materials like that? 16 A. It was a requirement. As to the 17 date, I can't really say. 18 Q. Exhibit 5 is another data safety 19 sheet for the Calidria asbestos, which is pretty 20 much the same as that one, a little bit different 21 format. My question is, have you ever seen that 22 before? 23 A. I don't recall. 24 Q. Neal Exhibit 6 isa photocopy of, I 25 will represent to you, the front and back label MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014628 245 1 Neal 2 on a bag of Calidria asbestos. And I'll ask if.' 3 you recall seeing that label on the bags of _ 4 Calidria asbestos that came into the plant at 5 Bound Brook. 6 A. Again, I can't really say. 7 MR. GERSON: Are you asking about 8 this particular label? 9 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 10 Q. Because then 7 and 8 are also 11 labels. And maybe I will show both of those to 12 you. Exhibits 7 and 8 are draft labels, I guess 13 you would call them, with handwriting that were 14 done in '83 for the Calidria asbestos. 15 And my question is, have you ever 16 seen those before, either in their final form 17 or -- you probably haven't seen them in the 18 handwritten form we have there, but have you seen 19 those labels when they were completed? 20 MR. GERSON: Well, you are assuming 21 they were completed. 22 MR. WILL: Yes. Why don't we start 23 one question at a time. Has he ever seen those. 24 Q. Have you ever seen those? 25 A. I have seen the essence of this label MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. U CAR E F00014629 246 1 Neal 2 on many occasions, but I can't say whether I saw-., 3 them in this particular format or what. 4 Q. Where did you see the essence of the 5 label, or labels, similar to that? 6 A. In the many procedures and job 7 descriptions, all the informational material used 8 given to the employees. 9 MR. 6ERS0N: Let's take a 1-minute 10 break. 11 (A recess was taken.) 12 BY MR. BROWNSON: 13 Q. I want to show you now, Mr. Neal, 14 Deposition Exhibit 9, which we had looked at a 15 little while ago. And there is a number of 16 things here that I wanted to ask you about. 17 This says Chrysotile asbestos warning 18 cancer hazard. Did you come to understand at 19 some point in time that Chrysotile asbestos can 20 pose a cancer hazard? 21 A. I had understood that any asbestos 22 could be a cancer hazard. 23 Q. And then it says breathing asbestos 24 dust can cause lung damage and cancer. Is that 25 an understanding that you reached at some point? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014630 247 1 Neal 2 A. Yes, it is. 3 Q. Then the next thing it says is, the 4 risk of lung cancer is greatly increased in 5 smokers. Again, is that something you 6 understood? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you recall when you came by that 9 knowledge? 10 A. Sometime in the '70s. 11 Q. And it says do not create or breathe 12 dust. Is that something that you would agree 13 would be good practice? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Do not drysweep or use air hose. Is 16 that something that would be good practice? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Do not takeprotectiveequipment or 19 clothing home? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do you agree that would be good 22 practice? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. I'm jumping down now: Do wear 25 approved respiratory protection and protective MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014631 248 1 Neal 2 clothing as required by applicable regulations. 3 Is that good practice? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Do use vacuum or wet cleaning 6 methods. Is that a good practice? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And finally: Do dispose of dust or 9 contaminated protective equipment in dust-tight 10 containers. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Is that a good practice? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And is that one that youfollowed at 15 Bound Brook? 16 A. Yes. 17 MR. GERSON: Going back to Exhibit 18 6. You do realize it references a particular 19 resin grade. 20 MR. BROWNSON: I see that. 21 Q. Now, next I would like to draw your 22 attention to Neal Deposition Exhibit 10, which, 23 for the record, is a 12-page report of July 8, 24 1966 entitled Melon Institute Special Report, the 25 fibrogenic potential of asbestos products via MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014632 249 1 Neal 2 intraperitoneal injection in guinea pigs, rats, 3 and rabbits, and by the intratracheal route in 4 the rat. Chemicals division. Union Carbide 5 Corporation, industrial No. 274-29. 6 My question is, have you ever seen 7 this document before? 8 A. No, I have not. 9 Q. Were you familiar with the Melon 10 Institute? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And can you tell us what that was or 13 what that is? 14 A. It was the toxicology research 15 laboratory that was sponsored by Union Carbide 16 Corporation, located in Pittsburgh. 17 Q. Do you know - - 18 A. Bushyrun, Pennsylvania. 19 Q. Is that like anearby town or suburb 20 of Pittsburgh? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And did you ever have anydealings 23 with the Melon Institute while you were at Union 24 Carbide? 25 A. None directly. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014633 250 1 Neal 2 Q. Was it your understanding that the 3 Melon Institute was a research institute that was 4 sponsored by Union Carbide for various research 5 proj ects? 6 A. Was it my? 7 Q. Right. 8 A. Would you repeat the question? 9 Q. Was it your understanding that the 10 Melon Institute was a research institution that 11 was sponsored by Union Carbide for various 12 research projects? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Now, on top of this, at the very top 15 of this exhibit, handwritten, it says S. Baye. 16 Do you see that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Do you know, is that a reference to 19 someone named Sula Baye? 20 A. I have no way of knowing. 21 Q. Have you ever heard of someone called 22 Sula Baye? 23 A. No. 24 MR. GERSON: Excuse me. What page? 25 MR. BROWNSON: Right on the first MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014634 251 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal page. MR. GERSON: Of Exhibit 10? MR. BROWNSON: Right. I only say that because we learned about that name yesterday. Q. Have you ever seen reports of this type - - and I mean by that a report from the Melon Institute -- that was prepared in connection with one of the Union Carbide research projects down there? A. I have seen some reports, yes. Q. Have you ever seen any that dealt with asbestos in any way? A. I could have. I really don't remember. Q. But this particular one is not one that you recall seeing? A. Not that I recognize immediately, no. Q. Down, kind of just below the middle of the first page, under the heading Samples, it reads: The following samples were shipped to Melon Institute at the request of Mr. Paul W. McDaniel, who furnished the descriptive information. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014635 252 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal I think you told us before that you knew who Mr. McDaniel was? A. I thought, when I heard the name, that he worked out of the Union Carbide corporate industrial hygiene department. Q. Now I want to draw your attention to the second page, where, down right in the middle of the page, it says results. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. First, it says CMS-100 produced the most severe protection in the form of granulomas with giant cells in six of the seven guinea pigs observed micropathologically. Typical granulomas with giant cells were observed in three of four rats and the one rabbit. Is this information that you had ever, you've ever heard of? A. I don't recognize it. Q. And then, if you read on, it talks about, in the next two paragraphs, two other types of asbestos producing various things in these animals. Had you ever seen any of that information that's reported there? A. Not that I recall. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014636 j 253 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal Q. For the record, I notice that it isgranulomatous, which is something I hadn't thought of until yesterday but now I see it in these animals. MR. HILL: It is a mass-dose reaction, not a fibrotic. . MR. BROWNSON: The kind of thing you saw in Mr. Sinclair, for example. Q. Then, if you go to page 3, there is another heading called results. And my question is, have you ever seen that information before which is reported under that results heading? A. I don't recognize -- I don't recall recognizing that. Q. Then it lists some names of some people who appear to be the authors of this report. One is Edwin R. Kincaid, research associate. Then there's Urban C. Posani, senior fellow. And Charles P. Carpenter, Ph.D., assistant administrative fellow. Do you recognize any of those names? A. I do not. Q. Then there are some other names down below that. Are any of those, names that are MANHATTAN REPORTING C0RP~ UCAREF00014637 254 1 2 known to you? Neal 3 A. Again, I don't recognize them. 4 Q. Then I would like you to look at 5 Exhibit 11. And this is another, for the record, 6 report from the -- it is in 12. It is entitled 7 Confidential Special Report 34-70, 7 pages, 8 September 3, '71. Chemical Hygiene Fellowship, 9 Melon Institute, Carnegie Melon University, 10 Calidria asbestos rosin grade RG 244. Tracheal 11 insufflation of rat lungs with interpretation of 12 pathology after 30, 60, 90, and 180 days. 13 And then it talks about the people 14 who were involved, and it says for Union Carbide 15 Corporation, chemicals and plastics operations 16 division. 17 Have you ever seen this report 18 before? 19 A. No, I have not. 20 Q. Does this appear to be another report 21 from the Melon Institute on a research project 22 for Union Carbide? 23 A. it appears to be. 24 Q. And I would draw your attention to 25 the description of the results at the bottom of MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014638 255 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal page 1 and then continuing on to page 2. And if you want to take a minute and read it, my question will be, have you ever heard of this information before today when you have read the report. A. From reviewing it, it does not appear to be familiar. Q. And again, there are some names at the bottom. There is what appears to be the author, Charles P. Carpenter, Ph.D., administrative fellow, then a bunch of other names. Are any of those people who you recognize? A. I don't recognize any of them. Q. The final exhibit I wanted to show you was Exhibit 13, which is a Union Carbide internal correspondence, Union Carbide Corporation, Danbury, Connecticut, June 28, 1984, subject asbestos comments file asbestos by Richard 6. Hanlon, with an attachment of a letter of May 25, 1984. My question is, have you ever seen this before? A. Not in my recollection. --------------------------MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014639 256 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal Q. First of all, look at the top. It says Union Carbide Corporation, Old Ridgebury Road, Danbury, Connecticut, 06817. And this is 1984. Do you recognize that as Union Carbide's address at that time? A. That was the Union Carbide corporate headquarters. Q. Okay. Because going back on Exhibit 9 that we looked at a minute ago, which is this label, I note at the bottom it says Calidria Corporation, and then it's got that same address. Does that indicate to you that the Calidria Corporation was at the same address as the Union Carbide corporate headquarters? A. It would appear so. Q. And you recognize Calidria as the trade name of the Union Carbide asbestos, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. So does it appear toyou, then, that when it says Calidria Corporation on Exhibit 9, what they are talking about is the Union Carbide Calidria asbestos operation? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014640 257 1 Neal 2 A. Yes. 3 MR. WILL: Hell, objection to that. 4 Anyway, what is the relevance of it anyway? 5 MR. BROHNSON: Hell, the relevance 6 is, you might object to the introduction of 7 this. I just want to tie down - 8 MR. HILL: He's not the person to tie 9 it down. That's my point. Having him gueBS, 10 because the addresses are the same, as to what 11 the significance is, is not an appropriate way to 12 authenticate a document. 13 MR. BROHNSON: I'm not asking him to 14 guess. 15 Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Neal. Old 16 Ridgebury Road, Danbury, Connecticut: that is 17 the Union Carbide corporate office, is that 18 correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Now let's go back to Exhibit 13 that 21 we were looking at. This is two parts. The 22 first part is kind of cover, internal 23 correspondence from Union Carbide cover page, and 24 then it's got this attachment which is 7 pages. 25 And actually it might help you if you look at the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014641 258 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal very end. A. Yes. Q. Actually, I guess you've got my copy because mine isn't, but I see your name appears there as one of the chemical plant industrial hygienists? A. Yes. MR. WILL: Off the record for just a second. (Discussion off the record.) (A recess was taken.) BY MR. BROWNSON: Q. We were looking, Mr. Neal, at Deposition Exhibit 13, which consists of this one-page cover letter from Mr. Hanlon at Union Carbide. A. Yes. Q. With this attachment. And the final page is called Distribution List, and it lists a bunch of people. And does this indicate, then, that this thing apparently was, all these people listed on the distribution list were given a copy of this? . A. I would think so. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014642 259 1 Neal 2 q. And I see one of them is you. Does 3 that help you remember ever getting this thing? 4 A. I received many of these documents 5 during my tenure at Bound Brook. 6 MR. WILL: The question is, does that 7 help you remember getting this one? 8 A. No. 9 Q. But whether you have anindependent 10 recollection or not, does this show that you did 11 receive a copy of this thing? 12 A. It definitely does. 13 Q. Now, if you look atthis distribution 14 list, it lists three different types of groups of 15 people. One is called the general occupational 16 health committee, and there is a whole bunch of 17 people; not you, but a whole bunch of other 18 people. 19 What is this committee? Do you 20 know? This is in 1984. That's the time period 21 here. 22 A. I have to think back as to what that 23 committee consisted of, and by looking at the 24 names I hope to be able to recall more of the 25 information of the committee. I do recognize MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014643 260 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal some of those names. Q. I see one of them is this Mr. Plevan, whose name we'd seen earlier. Plevan. Do you see that? A. Yes, I see that. Q. Looking at these names, does this help to remind you or jog your memory as to what this committee was? A. Not all that well. The few people I recognize there come from different locations and types of jobs. Q. And of the people that you recognize, are they all Union Carbide employees? A. There are many I don't recognize, that I can't say that they are all -- therefore, I can't say that they are all Union Carbide people. Q. But just with respect to the ones that you do recognize, are those Union Carbide employees? A. Those are Union Carbide people. Q. The second group of people is chemical plant hygienists, that's where you show up. And I guess that's what it says, industrial MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014644 261 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal plant Industrial hygienists. That's from the different chemical plants? A. Yes. Q. One of them is Mr. RB Peele. Is that the same Mr. Peele we talked about earlier, in the last deposition? A. Yes, it is. Q. Can you tell, from these names or maybe just because you know, what the different Union Carbide plants are where these industrial hygienists come from? A. Yes, with enough time to recall, I think I could identify each name with a location. Q. Could you try to do that for us? A. Bosserman I believe was located at South Charleston Tech Center. Q. Is that South Charleston, West Virginia? A. West Virginia. Dermit is from Texas City. Q. That's in Texas? A. Texas. Q. What kind of operation was that down there? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014645 262 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal A. It was a manufacturing facility for many chemicals and plastics. Q. Okay. A. Do you want them broken down in detail? Q. Well, why don't you keep going through the list and tell us, for those you remember, which Union Carbide plants they were at. A. Frank Garcia-Sharp was located in Puerto Rico. Q. And again, not all of these people, these would be at different Union Carbide plants? A. Yes.And mainly for polyethylene. Q. Okay. A. Geary, I'm not sure at this point where he was located. Q. Is that a name that's familiar to you ? A. Somewhat, but no personal recollection. Q. Okay. A. The name isfamiliar. Q. Okay. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014646 263 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal A. J. Knapp was in the South Charleston... Tech Center. Also RE Peele. And then Peele also was assigned to the tech center location overall. Q. So was he kind of a head-honcho, so to speak, in the tech center? A. No. He had two assignments. His first assignment was with the research industrial hygiene group in the tech center, from where he was then transferred to the responsibility, the industrial hygiene responsibility, for the entire tech center. Q. Okay. A. Robinson I believe was associated with the plant, the Louisiana plant, and I don't recall the name of the town. Q. Is that in Houma, Louisiana? Does that ring a bell? A. Could be. Q. Okay. A. Yalcinkaya, I believe Seadrift. Q. What's Seadrift? Where is that? A. Texas. ' Q. Oh. Okay. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCARE F00014647 264 1 Neal 2 A. Young, I don't recall. Either Young 3 or Youngblood, I don't recall their location. 4 Q. Okay. Now, the third group of people 5 on this distribution list who got copies of this 6 document is called corporate industrial hygiene 7 staff. And would this then be the industrial e hygiene staff at the corporate office in Danbury, 9 Connecticut? 10 A. I believe so. 11 Q. And they list five names there. Are 12 these people who are known to you? 13 A. I know Cope. And I have heard of the 14 other four names, but I don't know them 15 personally. 16 Q. Okay. Now, would it be fair to say, 17 to summarize this Exhibit 13, that all of the 18 people listed on this distribution list at the 19 general occupational health committee of Union 20 Carbide at the Union Carbide chemical plant 21 industrial hygienists and the Union Carbide 22 corporate industrial staff got a copy of this 23 June 28, 1984 cover letter and this attachment of 24 May 25, 1984? 25 A. I would assume so. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014648 265 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal Q. Now look at the cover letter, which is the first page, which is this letter written by Mr. Hanlon of Union Carbide. And it indicates that he's from an originating department called HS&BA. What's that? A. That's health safety and environmental affairs. That was an overall branch of corporate management, responsible for those three functions. Q. And what three functions? A. Health, safety,and environmental. Q. Okay. And he was at the main corporate office of Union Carbide, in Danbury, Connecticut? A. Yes. Q. Now, he writes here: Enclosed is a copy of the cover letter from ORC's recent submission to OSHA concerning the notice of proposed rule making for asbestos. And then, if you look at the thing that he encloses, it says May 25, 1984 letter from a thing called Organization Resources Counselors, Inc. I guess that's the ORC he's talking about, is that right? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014649 266 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal A. I would say so. Q. Do you know what Organization Resources Counselors, Inc., is? A. I believe it was an organization, a consulting organization, for various manufacturers. Q. And they are located at 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, in Washington, DC? A. It appears so. Q. Other than just seeing this, do you have any independent knowledge about them? Did you ever deal with them? Did you ever hear of them? A. Not directly. Q. And from this exhibit canwe infer that Organization Resources Counselors, Inc., is some kind of lobbying group for different manufacturers to lobby with OSHA about these rules ? A. I really wasn'tthat familiar with the organization to say so. Q. Okay. Now, if you look at the cover letter from Mr. Hanlon of Union Carbide, he's talking about ORC's recent submission to OSHA MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014650 267 1 Neal 2 concerning the proposed rules for asbestos. Then 3 he says basically ORR is recommending a dual 4 exposure limit. One is called permissible 5 ambient concentration, known as the PAC, of .5 6 fibers per CC. 7 That would be .5 asbestos fibers per 8 cubic centimeter of air? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. The second thing is permissible 11 exposure limit, which is called a PEL, of .2 12 fibers per cc. And again, would that be asbestos 13 fibers per cubic centimeter of air? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Now, based upon your own knowledge of 16 the OSHA limits, do you know whether OSHA ever 17 adoptedthis dual exposure limit that is talked 18 about here in this letter? 19 A. Again, my memory pretty much phases 20 out on the detailed numbers that occurred in 1984 21 and after. 22 MR. BROWNSON: That's all the 23 questions I've got for you, Mr. Neal. I want to 24 thank you for your time. Mr. Will may have some 25 questions here. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014651 268 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal MR. WILL: I chink I have a few. , EXAMINATION BY MR. WILL: Q. Let's go back, Mr. Neal. I want to ask you just a couple of questions to clarify a few things. You indicated that you got a bachelor's degree from Princeton University, is that correct? A. Yes . Q. And then did you also get a masters? A. The next year. Q. Also from Princeton? A. Yes. Q. And were both your bachelors and your masters degrees in chemical engineering? A. Yes. Q. I don't know that anybody asked you, what was your date of birth? A. 1918 . December 15 . Q. So if my math is right, you are about to turn 76 years old. A. Unfortunately, yes. Q. Am I correct that your involvement with asbestos at Union Carbide Corporation was MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014652 269 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal limited to the work you did at the Bound Brook plant from approximately 1972 to approximately 1985? A. Yes. Q. And did you have anything to do with industrial hygiene at the King City mine or mill? A. No. Q. Did you have anything to do with selling Calidria asbestos? A. No. Q. Did you have anything to do with utilizing Calidria asbestos in a production process? I know you did the one experiment, but I'm talking about using it as a regular ingredient in a production process. A. No. Q. Did you have anything to do with calling on customers who purchased Calidria asbestos for use in their own products? A. No. Q. Did you have anything to do with any experimental work that was done with Calidria asbestos on animals? A. No. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014653 270 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal Q. Did you have anything to do or were you ever assigned to do any medical research on Calidria asbestos? A. No. Q. Would I be correct that the type of asbestos that was used in the production process of Bound Brook when you were involved with it was this Carey Canadian Chrysotile? A. Correct. Q. And now, do you have any knowledge one way or the other about whether other types of asbestos fibers may have been used at some point at the Bound Brook plant? A. No knowledgeof other. Q. So they mayhave been; they may not have been. A. Correct. Q. You don't know one way orthe other. A. Right. Q. And am I correct that your only knowledge of the use of Calidria at Bound Brook was the one experiment that you were involved with? A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. U CAREF00014654 271 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal Q. Now looking at Exhibit 3 - A. Would . you put the date of that experiment in January of '73? a: Yes. Q. Was it your understanding that the Calidria proved unsuitable for the end product? A. Yes. Q. And that was the reason it was never used in production? A. Yes. Q. You were asked some questions by Mr. Brownson about the requirements that a material safety data sheet accompany materials that were used at the Bound Brook plant. A. Yes. Q. Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. Was that materials that were used in the regular production process? A. Yes . Q. Did that rule apply the same hard-and-fast way to things that were used in the R&D department or just for experimentation? A. It applied across theentire site to MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014655 272 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal R&D laboratories as well as the plant. Q. Who was responsible for furnishing, as you understood it, the material safety data sheet? A. The vendor, at the request of the purchasing department. Q. And if the vendor did not send the material safety data sheet along, and the Bound Brook plant wanted one, then what was the procedure? A. They would fax or otherwise transmit a material safety data sheet. Q. Bound Brook would call the vendor? A. Yes. Q. And request one. A. Right. Q. Exhibit 3-A, as we mentioned before, does have some results of air testing of this Calidria sample. Is that right? A. Yes. Q. And you indicated I think previously that it also shows test results for the Carey Canadian fiber, as well. A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014656 273 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal Q. Here there other air samples taken. other than the ones reported on 3-A? A. Not that I recall. Q. Okay. Mr. Brownson asked you sort of where are the other air sampling data. Do you know for a fact that there is any other data that was reported anywhere? A. I don't know of other data. Q. All right. Would 1973 have been the last time, prior to your deposition, that you saw any air sampling data for that experiment? A. This is the only data I've seen involving Calidria. Q. And you saw that back in 1973. A. Yes. Q. And did you see it at any time between then and the time when your deposition was taken? A. No. o. As you interpret the test results in 3-A, which type of fiber released more asbestos fibers into the air in the production process at Bound Brook? A. Well, from the data, it appears that MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014657 274 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal the Carey, the 7 RP 9, produced more dust than the Calidria. Q. And was that using the same counting techniques? A. The same type of testing. Q. Now,the Carey fiber that was used in the production process at Bound Brook, did that come in bags? A. Yes. Q. And how was the fiber placed in the bags? That is, was it in pellets or was it loose fiber, the Carey? A. The Carey was loose. Q. You were asked previously about dust counts at the place in the production assembly where the Bakelite resins were packed. Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. And were there dust counts taken at that location? A. Yes. Q. What did those dust counts show in terms of asbestos fibers? A. Well, the end product showed no MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014658 275 1 Neal 2 asbestos fibers. . 3 Q. Okay. Why was that? 4 A. Because the fibers had been embedded 5 with the resin. 6 Q. In terms of, then, whatever dust 7 standard or concentrations applied, how did you 8 categorize the dust at the packing station: as 9 asbestos dust or nuisance dust? 10 A. Simply, nuisance dust. 11 Q. Did you have any role in actually 12 purchasing asbestos to be used in the production 13 process at Bound Brook? 14 A. No. 15 Q. And did you have any role in deciding 16 what type of fiber would be used in the 17 production process? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Or in who the vendor would be? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Now, did the Careycompany ever come 22 to you to consult about the industrial hygiene 23 program for asbestos at Bound Brook? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Andyou were theperson that was in MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014659 276 1 Neal 2 charge of that program at the plant. Correct? 3 A. Industrial hygiene. 4 Q. Yes. For asbestos. 5 A. For asbestos. 6 Q. Did the Carey company make any 7 suggestions to you about what you should do for 8 Industrial hygiene in the plant that was using 9 their product? 10 A. None that I recall. 11 Q. Did they provide you any information 12 about health effects or potential health effects 13 of their asbestos? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Did they provide you any information 16 about suggested protective equipment for the 17 workers? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did they provide you any suggestions 20 about procedures for handling their product, to 21 minimize dust ? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Did they provide you any information 24 about what you needed to do with their product in 25 order to comply with OSHA regulations? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014660 277 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal A. No. Q. Did they provide you with any assistance in developing your dust-handling equipment? A. No. Q. Did they provide you with any suggestions or techniques about what you could do to minimize dust in the operations that used asbestos? A. No. Q. Well, nonetheless, though, you did develop an industrial hygiene program, didn't you? A. We did. Q. In yourview who wasresponsible for the hygiene program as it related to asbestos at the Bound Brook plant? The supplier of the asbestos or the employer? MR. BROWNSON: Well, to the extent you are asking him for a legal conclusion, I will object to it. But go ahead. Q. No. I'm asking in his view from the industrial hygiene perspective. Did you feel - A. No. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014661 278 1' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal Q. What did you feel - A. You will have to repeat that question. Q. Sure. You were functioning as an industrial hygienist at the Bound Brook plant. Is that right? A; Yes. Q. And with respect to the safety of the employees that were working with or around asbestos, did you believe it was your responsibility to implement an appropriate industrial hygiene program? A. Yes. Q. Did you think that you could shuffle that responsibility off on Carey as the supplier of the asbestos? A. No. Q. Now, were the industrialhygiene techniques that you used at Bound Brook with respect to asbestos, were those a trade secret that Union Carbide developed at Bound Brook? A. No. Q. As far as you were aware, were those something that were well known throughout the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014662 279 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal industrial hygiene community? ^ A. They were well known procedures. Q. And were the concerns about health or potential health aspects of asbestos that you were aware of when you were at Bound Brook, was that something that was a trade secret of Union Carbide? A. Not that I know of. Q. As far as you knew, was that something that was also well known? A. Yes . Q. In the hygiene community? A. Yes. Q. Was there any asbestos dust control equipment in place at Bound Brook when you took over your hygiene responsibilities in 1972? A. Yes, there were. Q. And by that I mean dust control or suppression equipment for the asbestos. A. Yes. Q. Operation. Between 1972 and 1985 did you ever hear of anyone at Bound Brook getting an asbestos - related disease or condition? A. I never heard of any. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014663 280 1 Neal 2 Q. Now, you indicated that you knew Dr. 3 McKinley, ie that right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And I think you said he was the 6 doctor who did the physical examinations of the 7 workers at Bound Brook that were in the asbestos 8 operation? 9 A. Yes. Along with other hazards, you 10 might say. 11 Q. So he wasn't looking just for 12 asbestos; he was looking for any occupational 13 problem. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Now, how would you describe your 16 working relationship with Dr. McKinley? Did you 17 only see him infrequently or did you work with 18 him frequently? 19 A. I saw him frequently; had lunch with 20 him frequently. We discussed matters of mutual 21 interest. 22 Q. He was aware that you were 23 responsible for the industrial hygiene program 24 for asbestos? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014664 281 1 Neal 2 Q. Now, did Dr. McKinley ever tell you 3 that he had found any asbestos - related disease or 4 condition in any of the workers at Bound Brook? 5 A. No. 6 Q. And do you believe that if he had 7 found such a condition, he would have made you 8 aware of that fact? 9 A. I'm sure he would have. 10 Q. You mentioned a fellow, orexcuse me, 11 Mr. Robert Peele who worked at Union Carbide. 12 Right? 13 A. I mentioned -- I believe the question 14 originated from Mr. Brownson. 15 Q. Brownson. Right. Did you ever talk 16 with Mr. Peele about asbestos? 17 A. No. 18 Q. You were asked some questions, last 19 session of your deposition, about Workers' 20 Compensation claims and the Oil, Chemical, and 21 Atomic Workers Union. Do you remember that 22 subject? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. In your view, and again this is just 25 your view, did the OCAWU encourage the filing of MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014665 I 282 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal what you perceived to be nonmeritorioua Workers .. Comp claims? A. I felt that they did. Q. Now, you mentioned that at some point Bound Brook phased out the entire Bakelite line. Is that correct? ' A. Of phenolic plastic. Q. And when that happened, the phenolic plastics were phased out, when that happened, then asbestos was no longer used at the plant as a production item. A. Correct. Q. Did you still, though, continue doing air testing for asbestos? A. Yes. Q. Well, why is that, if you were no longer using it in the production process? A. Well, we had asbestos in our pipe covering, and the maintenance workers had to make repairs on the insulation, and in doing so they did handle mixes of cement in order to make their repairs. Q. So did you continue your monitoring then to see whether the insulation materials and ________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014666 283 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal insulation activities were creating a possible ' hazard from asbestos in the plant? A. Yes. Q Do you believe that any responsible company that had asbestos insulation in the plant would have done similar monitoring and testing? MR. BROWNSON: of the question. 1 object to the form A. Well, they should have if they did not. MR. GERSON: Could we take a one-minute break? MR. WILL: Sure. Let's go off the record. (Discussion off the record.) BY MR. WILL: Q. Mr. Neal, did you make any suggestions for modifying procedures ormodifying equipment in order to reduce the amount of asbestos fiber released into the atmosphere at Bound Brook? A. Yes. Q. And did Union Carbide implement your suggestions? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014667 284 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal A. Yes. Q. Can you give me an example of one piece of machinery modification that you recommended. A. The principal one was the handling of the empty bags after they were dumped into the chute. And rather than to have the operator pick up the empty bag and drop it on the floor or on top of another empty bag, we decided we could take advantage of the ventilation that we already had in the chute, and we cut a hole in the side of the chute and attached a nozzle type and a short duct into a large empty plastic bag. So when the operator dumped a bag of asbestos, rather than pulling a bag out of the chute, he simply shoved it through this opening, which was actually under vacuum, and pushed it into the receiving bag. And that way it was completely contained under reduced pressure. Q. And was this something that was your idea, that you thought up? A. It was a joint idea of how we could better handle the empty bags. Q. Was that something that Carey MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014668 285 1 Neal 2 suggested? 3 A. NO. 4 Q. I want to ask you one question about 5 Exhibit 15. First of all, the last SO-some-odd 6 pages of that exhibit appear to be dust count 7 sheets. Is that right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you see anything on those sheets 10 that indicates a date when the counts were done? 11 A. There's a place for a date entry, but 12 there's no entry on this page. It doesn't look 13 like there are any entries on the other pages. 14 Q. Okay. Likewise, there's nothing that 15 indicates the particular operation? 16 A. ' Correct. 17 Q. And there is nothing that indicates 18 the initials of the person either taking the 19 sample or doing the counting, is there? 20 A. I don't see any. 21 Q. If you had just been given these 22 sheets, by themselves, would you have any idea to 23 what they related; that is, where the sample was 24 taken or when it was taken or who took it? 25 A. I wouldn't know that information. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014669 286 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal Q. And in fact there's nothing about these count sheets, themselves, that show that they relate to this cover memo, is there? MR. BROWNSON: Other than the fact they were produced together by Union Carbide? MR. WILL: And that you have attached them together. MR. BROWNSON: Right. A. Other than that, they are a standard format for recording fibers. Q. For counts, right? A. For counts. Q. Yes. But I mean, there's nothing to show that they necessarily go with this experiment as opposed to some other experiment. A. Right. Q. The other thing I wanted to bring your attention to is the third page of Exhibit 15. The very last sentence of the handwritten note here says: It is important to note that nowhere in the process was any local ventilation available. Did I read that correctly? A. That's what I read here. Q. All right. Assuming that to be true. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014670 287 1 Neal 2 what Impact would the lack of local ventilation 3 typically have on duBt counts? 4 A. Well, it allows high, possibly high 5 values of dust counts. 6 Q. You would expect, if appropriate 7 local ventilation was used, that dust counts 8 would be lower. 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. In response to aquestion from Mr. 11 Brownson this morning, you said that your concern 12 at Bound Brook was to minimize the dust counts. 13 By that did you mean your concern was to 14 institute appropriate hygiene procedures to 15 reduce the amount of dust in the air? 16 A. Certainly so. 17 Q. You weren'ttalking about minimizing 18 the number of times you did dust sampling, did 19 you? 20 A. No. 21 MR. BROWNSON: Object to form. 22 A. No. 23 Q. Were you talking about reducing the 24 number of times that you took air samples? 25 A. Reducing the amounts of asbestos in MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014671 288 1 Neal 2 the air. 3 Q. Okay. Were you talking about 4 reducing the number of times you took samples? 5 A. Not necessarily. 6 Q. Were you talking about doing 7 something to your technique that produced lower 8 counts, your sampling technique that produced 9 lower counts? 10 A. Certainly not. 11 Q. You were talking about doing things 12 that reduced the amount of asbestos dust in the 13 air. 14 A. Exactly. 15 MR. BROWNSON: Object to the form. 16 Q. Mr. Neal, from yourwork at Bound 17 Brook before October of 1972, I want to focus on 18 that period, from your perception, was there a 19 concern just about dust in the environment in 20 general? 21 A. Oh, yes. 22 Q. From your perception evenprior to 23 1970, October of '72, did Union Carbide take 24 steps in that plant to reduce dust? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014672 289 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Meal Q. And was that all types of dust? A. Yes. Q. Now, we indicated your training was as a chemical engineer, is that right? A. Yes. Q. You are not trained as a physician? A. Exactly. Q. And are you aware of any of the recent research that has been done on whether in fact Calidria asbestos has the same effect on human health that other types of asbestos did? MR. BROWNSON: Well, I'll object to the form of the question, implying there is such research. But go ahead. A. I had noknowledge ofresearch on fibers. done Q. Do ypukeep up on the medical literature about experiments that have been done on different types of asbestos fibers and what they show? A. No. Q. Do you mean,by yourtestimony here today, to suggest that it is impossible that Calidria asbestos could be different than other MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014673 290 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal types of asbestos in its ability to cause, say, cancer in humans? MR. BROWNSON: I'll object to the form of the question. In your prior question, you've just made some effort to disqualify him, and now you are asking for his opinion. MR. WILL: Mr. Brownson, you asked him some questions along these lines earlier. MR. BROWNSON: I'm just objecting. MR. WILL: Okay. MR. BROWNSON: I'm not saying he can't answer. MR. WILL: I want to make it clear, you asked him some questions earlier about cancer and asbestos and things like that, and I just want to be clear where we are coming from. Q. Would you like me to repeat the question, Mr. - - A. I think I would. Q. Do you mean to suggest by your answers to Mr. Brownson's questions earlier about that warning on asbestos, that it's impossible that Calidria asbestos could be different than other types of asbestos in its ability to cause MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014674 291 1 Neal 2 cancer in humane? 3 A. I would not really feel qualified to' 4 answer with yes or no to that. 5 Q. Okay. And likewise, do you feel 6 qualified to offer opinions on whether.it's 7 possible that Calidria asbestos, just in general, 8 is different than other types of asbestos in 9 whatever health effects it may or may not cause 10 in humans? 11 A. Again, I have never done that much 12 research into Calidria. 13 Q. You would leave those questions up to 14 doctors and those who have researched the area? 15 MR. BR0WNS0N: I'll object to the 16 form of the question. 17 A. Exactly. 18 Q. Now, oh, you were asked a couple of 19 questions about the Melon Institute. Do you know 20 whether the Melon Institute was supported 21 exclusively by Union Carbide or whether it got 22 support from other sources as well? 23 A. It could have gotten support from 24 other sources. 25 Q. All you know is that Union Carbide MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014675 292 1 Neal 2 paid Melon for certain particular pieces of 3 research? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And would I be also correct that as 6 to the particular details of the funding and 7 support for the Melon Institute, you really don't 8 know the other details? 9 A. I don't know the details. 10 Q. All right. Let me show you a couple 11 of things here just so we are crystal clear. 12 You were shown Exhibit 7 previously. 13 And just the specific question I want to ask you 14 is, do you remember ever seeing this particular 15 document prior to it being shown to you in your 16 deposition? 17 A. 18 document. No, I don't recall this exact *' 19 Q. Okay. Do you know who put the 20 handwritten notes and scratch-outs on this? 21 A. No, other than that there's a name 22 down here. 23 Q. But that could mean a number of 24 different things. 25 A. It could. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014676 293 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal MR. BROWNSON: 1*11 object to the form of the question. Q. For example, like a Deposition exhibit number? MR. BROWNSON: I'm objecting because you are leading your witness. But go ahead. Q. Well, I mean, the question is, do you know what JL Meyers 225 means? A. No. Q. Do you know who did the handwriting on here? A. I don't know who would have done that. Q. Let me also show you Exhibit 8, and ask you if you have ever seen that particular document before. A. Again the same applies: I have not seen that, in my recollection. Q. And do you know whose handwriting that is? A. No, I would not know. Q. Do I know who put those marks -- or when those marks were put on? A. No. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014677 294 1 Neal 2 . Q. In response to some questions Mr. . 3 Brownson asked you I think about Exhibits 7 and 4 8, you said that the information- on here was 5 similar to information that had been given to 6 workers. Do you recall that testimony? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. By that were you referring to workers 9 at Bound Brook? 10 A. My workers that I had to administer 11 to. 12 Q. And do you recall Union Carbide 13 posting signs in the plant at Bound Brook about 14 asbestos hazards? 15 A. I vaguely remember signs that read 16 cancer hazard. 17 Q. Okay. Do you remember whether those 18 signs were posted when, for example, maintenance 19 people would be working on the pipes and the 20 insulation? 21 A. I couldn't say for sure. They could 22 very well have been posted. 23 Q. Do you remember at what point in time 24 those signs first became used at Bound Brook? 25 A. I believe it was during demolition MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014678 295 1 Neal 2 operations o pipe covering and so on. 3 Q. And can you put a year on when those 4 demolition activities would have -- or did they 5 go throughout the period? 6 A. Throughout the '70s. .. 7 MR. WILL: Let me step out and talk 8 to Mr. Gerson. I may just about be done. 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 Q. Mr. Neal, did you have any role in 11 preparing any of the packaging or labeling or 12 warnings for the Calidria asbestos? 13 A. No. 14 Q. And did you play any role in 15 determining any labeling or warnings for the 16 products that were made at Bound Brook? 17 A. No. 18 MR. WILL: Subject to anything that 19 Mr. Brownson has for you, those are the questions 20 I have. Thank you. 21 MR. BROWNSON: Just a few things to 22 follow-up here. 23 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. BROWNSON: 25 Q. Mr. Will noted that you were not a MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UGAREF00014679 296 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal physician; but nevertheless, you were in charge of industrial hygiene for Union Carbide at Bound Brook for a number of years, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And in that capacity, you understood as an industrial hygienist that asbestos dust, if breathed, could cause cancer. Is that correct? A. Could be a health hazard and could cause asbestosis. I don't know about cancer. Q. Asbestosis. Okay. Well, earlier when we went through the label there, when we said that it could cause cancer, you stated that that was something that you had learned. A. Yes. Q. is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Now let me ask youthis. Mr. Will was asking you a little bit about material safety data sheets and that they came from vendors. Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So, for example, when you were at Bound Brook, and Bound Brook was using the Calidria asbestos in these trial production runs, MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP, UCAREF00014680 297 1 Neal 2 and that asbestos was being shipped to the Bound 3 Brook plant, the vendor of that asbestos would be 4 the Union Carbide Calidria operation, wherever it 5 came from, correct? 6 A. Not necessarily. 7 Q. Who else would it be? 8 A. Once we had a material safety data 9 sheet for a generic material, that applied to any 10 other supplies that came into the plant. 11 Q. So are you saying, if you had a 12 material safety data sheet for asbestos, say for 13 Carey asbestos up in Canada, that would then 14 apply to any asbestos that came in? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And is that because in your view 17 asbestos was asbestos and was all the same in 18 terms of the - - 19 A. -- exposures and -- 20 Q. - exposures and the sorts of 21 information conveyed in the material safety data 22 sheet? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Now, with respect to theCalidria 25 asbestos that was used, if you did want a MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014681 298 1 Neal 2 material safety data sheet for that asbestos, 3 where would you go to get that? 4 A. We would either go to the supplier, 5 supplier's place of business, or sometimes our 6 own internal organization, corporate industrial 7 hygiene, which generally had material safety data 8 sheets on file. 9 Q. Now, Mr. Will was asking you some 10 questions about Carey asbestos and whether you 11 relied on information provided by them and that 12 sort of thing. Let me ask you this question. 13 Did Carey asbestos ever send a 14 certified industrial hygienist into the Bound 15 Brook plant to conduct airborne asbestos dust 16 counts? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Now, you are aware, of course, and we 19 talked about this at some length, that Union 20 Carbide supplied such industrial hygienists when 21 you were using the Calidria asbestos, though, is 22 that correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. If Carey had sentcertified 25 industrial hygienists into the plant to conduct MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP . UCAREF00014682 299 1 Neal 2 airborne dust counts, would you have relied upon 3 any Information they provided for you? 4 A. It's difficult to say without knowing 5 a little bit more about the credentials of 6 whoever they sent into the plant. 7 Q. So would you have checked up on their 8 credentials? 9 A. Yes, very much so. 10 Q. And would the reason you would check 11 up on their credentials be that you wanted to 12 make sure that those were good, competent people, 13 who knew what they were doing? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And if you were satisfied that they 16 were competent people who knew what they were 17 doing, would you take a look at their data and 18 use that in your own work atBound Brook? 19 A. Yes - 20 MR. WILL: Objection: hypothetical. 21 Go ahead. 22 A. We would label it with the 23 Identification of the companies that presented 24 the data. 25 Q. Now, Mr. Will was asking you some MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014683 300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal questions about your knowledge of asbestos health hazards that you gained in the course of your own work as an industrial hygienist, and he was asking you questions about whether this was some trade union secret at Carbide or whether this was well known among industrial hygienists. Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. Would it be fair to say that the sorts of information you learned as an industrial hygienist about asbestos while you were at Union Carbide was information that was known within the larger community of industrial hygienists? A. I would say so. Q. you will? And this was not a trade secret, if A. Correct. Q. Of yours or Union Carbide's. Let me ask you, though, we were looking earlier at these reports from the Melon Institute, and let's look at Exhibit 10, which is their report of July 1966. Would you agree with me that this report in fact was something that was a trade MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014684 301 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal secret of Union Carbide or the Melon Institute . because it is marked confidential? A. And what about it? What is your question again? Q. That this report is in fact a trade secret of Union Carbide or the Melon Institute because it is marked confidential. A. Being confidential, it implies restriction of circulation of the document. Q. And in fact, as I understand it, it was not shown to you as an industrial hygienist using asbestos at Bound Brook. Would that be fair to say? A. I don't recall having seen it. Q. Now, did you have any general information that you gained as an industrial hygienist that certain types of asbestos were safer because they were shorter, the fibers were shorter? Is that something you ever learned? A. Yes. As I gained more information on the character of asbestos fibers, it became evident that there were large differences in the type of fiber. Q. And were you given to understand that MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014685 3 02 1 Neal 2 if a fiber was shorter, it was safer than a fiber 3 that was longer? 4 A. There were different considerations 5 there. Being shorter would tend toward higher 6 air concentrations, being more like an airborne 7 dust. Being long, they may not be airborne and 8 therefore not such a high hazard. 9 Q. Okay. So was it your understanding, 10 then, that shorter asbestos could be more 11 dangerous simply because it could be airborne and 12 create more of a dust? 13 A. Similar to that effect. 14 Q. Okay. Were you familiar, Mr. Neal, 15 with Johns Manville Company? 16 A. To some extent I was, yes. 17 Q. Were you familiar with the fact that 18 they were a supplier of asbestos fiber back in 19 the '60s and '70s? 20 A. I had the understanding that they 21 furnished asbestos to the insulation 22 fabricators. 23 Q. Were you given any information that 24 you can recall while you were at Union Carbide, 25 to the effect that union Carbide Calidria MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014686 303 1 Neal 2 asbestos was in any sense any more dangerous than 3 Johns Manville asbestos? 4 A. I had not received any information of 5 that nature. 6 Q. I would also like you to look at 7 Exhibit 11, which is the Melon Institute report 8 of September 1971. And again would you agree 9 with me that this was a confidential report by 10 the Melon Institute and Union Carbide? 11 A. So it is labeled, yes. 12 Q. And you understand that to mean that 13 it is not for general dissemination? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And in fact, as you recall it, you 16 don't recall this report ever being shown to 17 you. Correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 MR. BROWNSON: That's all I've got. 20 Thanks. 21 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. WILL: 23 Q. Just a couple of quick follow-ups. 24 You were asked this hypothetical question about 25 if the Carey industrial hygienists had come into MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014687 304 1 Neal 2 your plant at Bound Brook and taken samples. '' 3 Assuming that such a visit had 4 occurred, would you rely exclusively on what the 5 Carey people said and simply throw out your own 6 experience and your own work right out the 7 window? ; 8 A. No. 9 Q. Would it be fair to say that if you 10 were satisfied that the Carey people were 11 competent, that you simply would have 12 incorporated their information into your own 13 information? 14 A. No. It isimportant tomaintain the 15 identification of where the samples came from. 16 Q. By that I meant, would you have taken 17 the information that Carey gave you, and taken 18 the information that you had already developed 19 yourself, and used both sets of information in 20 formulating a plan, an industrial hygiene plan, 21 for the plant? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Youwouldn't havethrown out all of 24 your own experience and testing and just relied 25 solely on what Carey said, would you? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014688 305 1 Neal 2 A. No, indeed. 3 Q. You were asked acouple of questions 4 about short and long fiber, and you indicated 5 that short fibers could become airborne dust more 6 easily than long fibers? 7 A. I believe so. 8 Q. But you also, I think you initially 9 indicated you read something that suggested that 10 biologically short fibers might be less of a 11 problem than a long fiber, is that right? 12 MR. BROWNSON: I'll object to the 13 form of the question, and also object to the 14 question on a number of other grounds. That 15 leads to, what you are now asking are for medical 16 opinions, and you have disqualified him from 17 doing that. 18 MR. WILL: I'm going to put this on 19 the record. You asked him if he had learned some 20 things about fiber differences, and his initial 21 response, as I understood it, was, he said that 22 yes, he learned that there was a difference with 23 short fiber from long fiber. And I thought I 24 heard him say in the context of the question that 25 it was his understanding, from the reading that MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014689 306 1 Neal 2 he had done, that the short fibers were less 3 hazardous. Then you asked him about whether you 4 could get more short fibers in the air. That's 5 the line of testimony I want to follow up on. 6 MR. BROWNSON: His testimony is what 7 it is. Why don't you just ask him a question 8 instead of leading him along with your view of 9 the world. 10 MR. WILL: I'm trying to, except I 11 keep getting interrupted. 12 MR. BROWNSON: No, I'm objecting to 13 the form of the question. 14 BY MR. WILL: 15 Q. All right. Let me go back, Mr. Neal, 16 and ask you this question. Was there a 17 particular length that was a cutoff between short 18 fiber and long fiber, in your mind? 19 A. Again, I'm not a pathologist, but 20 once the fibers are inhaled into the lungs, there 21 was a possibility that the shorter fibers can be, 22 by natural processes, removed more readily than a 23 heavier, long fiber. 24 Q. Okay. So you recognize, on the one 25 hand, that it is easier to get short fibers MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014690 307 1 Neal 2 airborne? 3 MR. BROWNSON: Object to the form of 4 the question. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. But from your reading, it was 7 your understanding that the lung could perhaps 8 deal with short fibers more easily than long 9 fibers. 10 A. Yes. 11 MR. BROWNSON: Object to the form of 12 that question as well. 13 Q. Now, did you have in your own 14 understanding a length cut-off, in microns or 15 whatever, . where a fiber was considered to be 16 short versus long? 17 A. Not really. 18 Q. In your job inindustrial hygiene at 19 Bound Brook, did you ever have to research the 20 medical literature about whether what are called 21 amphibole fibers were more potent than Chrysotile 22 fibers in terms of causing disease in humans? 23 A. No real - - 24 MR. BROWNSON: I'll object to the 25 question. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014691 308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal A. -- knowledge in depth. . Q. I just wondered if you ever had to look at that question or investigate that. A. No. Q. Did you ever, in your job as an industrial hygienist did you have to do any investigation as to whether there were differences in the biological potency of various types of asbestos fibers? A. No, I never got into that area. Q. Mr. Neal, you indicated that Calidria was never used in the production process as an ordinary ingredient at Bound Brook. A. Correct. Q. Would it be fair, then, to say that you never had occasion to consider whether the biological effects of Calidria might be different than the biological effects of the asbestos that you were using? A. I don't recall the biological effects being part of the test that we conducted. Q. Right. And you were not using Calidria at the plant, right, in New Jersey? MR. BROWNSON: I'll object to the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014692 309 1 2 form. Neal 3 Q. All right. Were you using Calidria 4 asbestos at the plant in Bound Brook as an 5 ordinary production ingredient? 6 A. No, we were not. 7 Q. Because you were not using it, did 8 you ever have any reason to investigate whether 9 it might be biologically different than other 10 types of asbestos fibers? 11 A. I would have noreason. 12 MR. BR0WNS0N: I object to that. 13 Asked and answered. 14 Q. No reason to investigate that? 15 A. Yes. 16 MR. BROWNSON: Object to the form. 17 Q. If theplant had suddenly switched, 18 and began using amosite or crocidolite asbestos 19 at Bound Brook, would you at least have gone to 20 look up and see whether that would have been 21 different from Chrysotile? 22 A. Yes. 23 MR. WILL: Thank you. 24 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 25 BY MR. BROWNSON: MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014693 Star. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Neal. Just one final thing. Would it be fair to say that in your work as an industrial hygienist at Bound Brook after 1972, your concern was making sure that asbestos exposures did not exceed the OSHA limit in the plant? Is that right? A. That would not be a fair statement. Q. You were concerned that asbestos air measurements did not exceed the OSHA limit, were you not? A. That was one of our concerns. Q. Because you recognize that if it exceeded the OSHA limit, you could be cited by OSHA for having too much asbestos in the air, is that correct? A. Yes. MR. GERSON: Are you asking if he recognized that, or if that was his concern? Q. No, I'm asking him that, you knew if the asbestos in the air exceeded the OSHA limit, you could be cited by OSHA, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that wastrue regardless of the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014694 311 1 Neal 2 type of asbestos, was it not? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. It applied just asmuchto Union 5 Carbide Calidria asbestos as to the Carey 6 asbestos? 7 MR. GERSON: The OSHA standard. 8 Q. Right. And you didn't have to make 9 any investigation into the biological hazard of 10 the different types of asbestos on your own 11 because OSHA said it applies equally to all 12 types. Correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 MR. BROWNSON: Okay. That's all I've 15 got. 16 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. WILL: 18 Q. One follow-up, Mr. Neal. From what 19 you know, was it good industrial hygiene practice 20 for a company to investigate the potential health 21 effects of the ingredients it is using in 22 producing its products? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And in terms of that good industrial 25 hygiene practice, was that something that you MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014695 312 1 Neal 2 were taught from the very first day you got into' 3 the field of industrial hygiene? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And were you told that was something 6 new, or were you told that had been the practice 7 of industrial hygienists for years? 8 . A. Simply part of the protocol of 9 industrial hygiene. 10 MR. GERSON: One second. 11 MR. WILL: Mr. Gerson wants to talk 12 to me. I think I'm done. 13 (Messrs. Gerson and Will conferring). 14 MR. WILL: I'm finished. 15 . MR. BROWNSON: Just so I'm clear. 16 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. BROWNSON: 18 Q. As far as you were concerned, from 19 '72 to '85 when you were an industrial hygienist 20 at Bound Brook, asbestos was asbestos; in other 21 words, all the different types of asbestos were 22 of concern to you with respect to exposure to the 23 workers. 24 A. Yes. 25 MR. BROWNSON: Okay. Thanks. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014696 313 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal MR. WILL: One last question. _ CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. WILL: Q. As far as you knew, Mr. Neal, the workers at Bound Brook were not being exposed to Calidria asbestos, with the exception of that one experiment in February of '73. A. Correct. MR. WILL: Okay. MR. BROWNSON: Actually, there were two experiments. MR. WILL: One was in the R&D lab, not a production facility. MR. BROWNSON: Right. Okay. Now we're done. MR. WILL: We do want to read and sign. (Time noted: 1:20 pm) WILLIAM DOUGLAS NEAL Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of . 1996. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014697 314 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : 88 I, DOMINICK M. TURSI, CM, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify: That WILLIAM DOUGLAS NEAL, the witness whose continued deposition is hereinbefore set forth (pages 198 through 313) was previously duly sworn, and that such continued deposition is a true record of the testimony of said witness. I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties to this action by blood or marriage, and that I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 1996 . DOMINICK M. TURSI, CM, CSR MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014698 315 1 2 EXHIBITS 3 DESCRIPTION PAGE LINE 4 (Neal Exhibit 15 for identification, document entitled Calidria Asbestos, 5 Union Carbide Corporation, Report of Call; followed by a handwritten page 6 entitled Airborne Fiber Counts Conducted at Union Carbide Corp.; 7 followed by a written page with two paragraphs of notes; followed by a 8 33-page attachment)...................................................................................... 200 8 9 (Neal Exhibit 16 for identification, February 11, 1972, letter from Mr. 10 James Rawlings of Union Carbide Corporation to the Office of Safety and 11 Health Standards in Washington, DC.)................. 215 25 12 (Neal Exhibit 17 for identification, February 29, 1972 letter from William 13 N. Johnson, assistant to the product general manager asbestos at Union 14 Carbide Mining and Metals Division, 270 Park Avenue, New York, New York.)............................. 216 7 15 (Neal Exhibit 18 for identification. 16 Statement of James W. Rawlings, Vice President Mining and Metals Division, 17 Union Carbide Corporation, at the Hearing on Proposed Asbestos Standards 18 under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, March 16, 1972.)................................................. 216 12 19 (Neal Exhibit 19 for identification, 20 letter of November 14, 1975, from William C. Thurber, business manager, 21 asbestos metals division. Union Carbide Corporation, to docket officer of the 22 US Department of Labor.)................................................................. 216 19 23 (Neal Exhibit 20 for identification, April 9, 1976 letter from Mr. Thurber 24 to docket officer of the US Department of Labor.).......................................................................................................................... 216 23 25 MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014699 316 1 2 (Meal Exhibit 21 for identification, December 3, 1990 letter from Union 3 Carbide, Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs, signed by Robert 4 Plevan, with attachment.)............................................................. 217 3 5 (Meal Exhibit 22 for identification, December 3, 1990 submission by Union 6 Carbide to docket officer of the Occupational Safety and Health 7 Administration.).................................................................................................. 217 8 8 (Meal Exhibit 20-A for identification, document entitled Presentation to the 9 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States 10 Department of Labor, consisting of 12 numbered pages.).................................................................................................. 232 24 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. WILL........................................ 12 268 3 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. BROWNSON...................................................................................................... 295 23 14 CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. WILL...................................................................................................................... 303 21 15 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. BROWNSON...................................................................................................... 3 09 24 17 CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. WILL..................................................................................................................... 311 16 18 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. BROWNSON...................................................................................................... 312 16 20 CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. WILL..................................................................................................................... 313 21 3 22 23 24 25 MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00014700