Document wrqk8qd1N4bDJ9q5ZpnmrbX8V

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA IN RE: ASBESTOSIS CASES CIVIL ACTION NO. 91-C-7777 i GAF CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS* INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS GAF Corporation ("GAF") hereby responds to Plaintiffs' | Interrogatories ("the Interrogatories") only pursuant to, under j the protection of and to the extent that such requests comply i with the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows: i GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. GAF objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to require it to respond on behalf of any other entity. GAF will respond with such knowledge as GAF possesses j i j ! | as to The Ruberoid Co. prior to its merger with GAF on May 26, j 1967, and on behalf of GAF thereafter. 2. GAF objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to require it to provide information other than l that which may be obtained through a reasonably diligent search of its records. l 3. GAF objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to require it to respond other than in accordance with the applicable West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. ! Thus, GAF declines any obligation to (a) locate or interview ii former employees or any other person not presently employed or i engaged by GAF; (b) generate documents not presently existing; (c) describe its unsuccessful efforts to answer any interrogatory; (d) identify an unknown custodian or the current custodian of documents not in GAF's possession; (e) identify the file designation and other identifying designation, the present location, or the source of documents identified unless specifically requested in the interrogatory; (f) add to or to change the meaning of any interrogatory in the conjunctive or disjunctive; (g) respond to any aspect of an interrogatory not | described with reasonable particularity by the express language i of the interrogatory; or (h) provide medical or other expert i opinion beyond the scope of GAF's business. 4. GAF objects to these Interrogatories to the extent 1 that they seek to require it to reveal trade secrets or other confidential product or commercial information. Therefore, GAF ! will submit certain responses only on the condition that the { | plaintiffs agree in writing and undertake to maintain the i f confidential nature of certain trade secrets and other confidential product or commercial information. 5. GAF objects to these Interrogatories to the extent j that they seek to require it to respond to questions or to identify or produce documents relating to times, events and other things beyond the subject matter of the Complaint, or outside of the period from 1928 to 1981, during which this defendant may have manufactured asbestos-containing industrial thermal insulation products, or relating to any products other than asbestos-containing industrial thermal insulation products. 6. GAF objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to require it to provide information specifically with respect to mining and manufacturing operations, or any safety precautions or tests undertaken therein whether in compliance with OSHA or otherwise, inasmuch as the occupational level exposures of asbestos mining and manufacturing workers are different from the occupational level exposures of insulators and construction bystanders working with finished asbestoscontaining products. 7. GAF objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to require it to provide information or to identify any documents or other tangible things prepared or obtained in anticipation of litigation or for trial where the plaintiffs have not shown that they (1) have substantial need for the materials in the preparation of the case, and (2) are unable to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means without undue hardship. 8. GAF objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to require it to disclose privileged attorneyclient communications or information otherwise protected from discovery on the grounds of privilege. 9. GAF objects to the definitions and instructions preceding the Interrogatories on the grounds that they are (3) beyond the scope of applicable West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. GAF objects generally and indivudually to the 1 Interrogatories on the grounds and to the extent that they j assume facts not in evidence or otherwise erroneous (i.e.. that i GAF had "distributors") and on the further grounds that they are 1 vague, overly broad, oppressive, unduly burdensome, excessive in number, not relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, ! and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible I evidence, and, thus, declines to pursue a detailed search at \ certain document warehouses in Linden, New Jersey, or elsewhere, i 11. GAF hereby adopts the motions and objections of f I; the other defendants, and reserves the right to adopt future j motions and objections relating to Plaintiffs' interrogatories. 12. GAF objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to require it to gather and summarize information i j contained in voluminous papers that are already a matter of I j public record. I 13. GAF objects to these Interrogatories to the extent i | that they seek to require it to provide information which is ! equally available to the plaintiffs as to GAF. j 14. GAF objects to these Interrogatories to the extent i j that they seek to respond other than in accordance with the West i Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure and thus GAF declines to ! identify computer tapes and programs, computer printouts and any (4) electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, disks, recordings and computer memories), or fields, files, menus, databases, or other computer classifications or material, inasmuch as such documents constitute documents or other things prepared or obtained in anticipation of litigation or for trial pursuant to Rule 26(b)(3), work product, confidential attorneyclient communications, and otherwise privileged documents. Subject to the foregoing objections and limitations which are applicable to each of the numbered paragraphs of the Interrogatories, and subject to any document being in existence and recoverable through a reasonably diligent search (taking into account normal changes in personnel and document locations over the decades of asbestos litigation), and without , representing that any particular document or documents are or . are not thus existing and recoverable, GAF further responds to ; the individual Interrogatories without waiver and with i preservation of: | The right to object to the use of any responses, or the subject matter thereof, on any ground in any proceedings in any action (including any trials); The right to object on any ground at any time to a demand or request for a further response to this discovery request or to any other interrogatories, document requests, or other discovery proceedings involving or relating to the subject matter of the discovery requests herein responded to; and. (5) The right at any time to revise, correct, add to, supplement or clarify any of the responses to the individual Interrogatories as follows: ANSWERS-TO INTERRQgATQRIES 1. Identify all expert witnesses you expect to call in the trial of this matter. With respect to each expert please state: a) subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; b) summary of the witnesses' testimony; ' c) the basis and grounds for the witnesses' testimony. ; RESPONSE: The identity of witnesses, lay or expert, to be : called at trial is not known at the present time. These I defendants reserve the right to designate, at a later date, i witnesses to be used at trial. Identify all fact witnesses you expect to call in the trial of this matter and provide the fact witneses' current addsress and phone number. With respect to each fact witness describe the subject matter on which the fact witness is to testify and give a summary of the facts to which the witness will testify. t ! RESPONSE: Subject to the preliminary objections, this j [ defendant responds as follows: i j WILLIAM C. SCHWINGEN, 1302 Marlborough Avenue, j Plainfield, NJ 07060; and | I PHILLIP S. BETTOLI, 33 Ganglewood Road, Palmyra, VA 22963. For further response, see Exhibits "A" and "B", respectively, attached hereto. (6) 3. Identify all documentary evidence defendant intends to introduce in the trial of this matter. RESPONSE: The documentary evidence which this Defendant intends to introduce at trial are not known at the present time. As discovery is still ongoing, this Defendant reserves the right to designate documents at a later date, and will provide copies of same at that time. 4. Identify all trade associations to which answering defendant is, or has been, a member and provide the dates of membership for each trade association. This request includes, but is not limited to, information concerning membership in the Asbestos Information Association (AIA), the Asbestos Textile Institute (ATI), the National Safety Council (NSC), the Industrial Hygiene Foundation (IHF) and/or the Mellon Institute. RESPONSE: This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds set forth in the preliminary paragraphs of this response and on the further grounds that it is ovetly broad and seeks \ information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly in that it seeks information not relating to asbestos-containing industrial thermal insulation products. Subject to the foregoing objections, this defendant responds that, relative to the manufacture of asbestos-containing industrial thermal insulation products, this defendant was a member of the following industrial groups or organizations: National Insulation Manufacturers' Association, Inc., 441 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10017; 1958-1981. Thermal Insulation Manufacturers' Association, Seven Kirby Plaza, Mount Kisco, New York 10549; After 1973 to approximately 1978. Asbestos Information Association/North American, Suite 509, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202; 1971-1977. National Safety Council, 444 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611; prior to 1966 to 1981. American Society of Testing Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; approximately 1946-1981. This defendant is aware of documents reflecting that ! General Aniline and Film Corporation was a new member of the !j \ Industrial Health Foundation, during the years 1945 to 1947, a ' period when General Aniline and Film Corporation was under j government ownership and not even in any aspect of the asbestos : business, and further reflecting that The Ruberoid Co. was a new . member for a limited period in 1953-1954. This defendant does not have any internal documents which reflect actual, as opposed I to contemplated, membership at any time. Moreover, this !Iii defendant knows of no evidence that it ever received IHF j documents at any time, i 5. Identify all medical journals to which answering defendant subscribes and indicate the daes during which answering defendant has received these medical journals. RESPONSE: This defendant objects to this interrogatory onthe grounds set forth in the preliminary paragraphs of this response, particularly in that it calls for information with no i bearing on the subject matter of this litigation. Subject to i (8) l: the foregoing objections, this defendant has no information that it subscribed to scientific or medical periodicals related to the subject matter of this litigation during the relevant time j j: period. Any information which did exist was kept by Harry i j, Mesler while he directed corporate safety for the company from \ approximtaely the early 1960s to 1971. Prior to Mr. Mesler's i appointment to this position, Ruberoid and GAF employees may j have from time-to-time maintained or possessed personal files l ! containing periodicals and other literature relating to | asbestos, its uses and qualities. j Mr. Mesler died on August 29, 1972, and the whereabouts I of any such information is unknown. The only existing materials ! containing such information are in the possession of GAF's Legal I j Department. A list or other compilation of documents relating ! to this interrogatory does not exist in discoverable form. 6. Have you contracted with or otherwise undertook to have the Saranac Laboratories study any of your products to determine whether a health hazard exists? If so, describe the nature of this contact or consultation and provide the dates of the contact. Identify all documents concerning or related to this contact. RESPONSE: Subject to the General Objections, no. 7. Identify by brand name, asbestos content, type of asbestos fibre and percentage of asbestos the asbestos products manufactured or sold by you or your predecessors. For each product provide the date of manufacture or sale. (9) RESPONSE: Subject to the preliminary objections, this defendant responds as follows: See attached Exhibit "CM. 8. Do you contend that you ever placed any warning or cautionary signs on any of your asbestos-containing products? If so, describe the nature of the alleged warnings and the dates issued. RESPONSE: Subject to the General Objections, this defendant responds that in approximately 1964, The Ruberoid Co. began placing the following warning notices on packages of its asbestos-containing industrial thermal insulation products: CAUTION THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER. INHALATION OF ASBESTOS IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME MAY BE HARMFUL. IF DUST IS CREATED WHEN THIS PRODUCT IS HANDLED, AVOID BREATHING THE DUST. IF ADEQUATE VENTILATION CONTROL IS NOT POSSIBLE, WEAR RESPIRATORS APPROVED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES FOR PNEUMOCONIOSIS-PRODUCING DUST. By 1970, GAF placed the following warning label on asbestos fiber, insulation cements, millboard, rollboard and asbestos paper products, as well as relocating information for CalsiliteR pipecovering and block product from the sides to the front of the carton. This warning label read as follows: CAUTION CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER. INHALATION IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME MAY BE HARMFUL. AVOID BREATHING DUST. IF ADEQUATE VENTILATION IS NOT POSSIBLE, WEAR RESPIRATORS APPROVED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES FOR PNEUMOCONIOSIS-PRODUCING DUST. (10) In approximately 1972, this warning was further changed to read as follows: j CAUTION i CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS. AVOID BREATHING DUST, i: BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM. i In 1978, warning labels were placed on individual sheets of millboard. Until 1972, GAF's use of these warnings followed major j manufacturers in the industry which used such cautionary j j notices after certain opinions were expressed by members of the | medical profession that there might be a health risk to some j persons who installed industrial thermal insulation products t ! containing asbestos from the inhalation of excessive quantities i 1 of asbestos fibers over prolonged periods of time under certain | conditions. Commencing in 1972, pursuant to the requirements i of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, GAF placed the last notice set out above. All observers of this packaging, whether purchasers, users, handlers or contractors, would have seen, and thus received, the warnings as set forth above. No list or other compilation of documents relating to this interrogatory exists in discoverable form. 9- Do you contend that you ever placed any warning or cautionary signs on any of your asbestos-containing product containers? If so, describe the nature of the alleged warnings and the dates the warnings were allegedly given. i j RESPONSE: See response to No. 8. <11> ! 10. Identify all documents or exhibits concerning or in any way related to these alleged warnings. RESPONSE: Subject to the General Objections, this defendant will produce the requested documents at a mutually convenient < time and place. I 11. | Identify by title, date and author all articles, textbooks or other written materials in your possession concerning the health effects of asbestos. This request applies only to articles or other information dated or acquired before 1976. With respect to each article, textbook, or other written materials, please provide the date on which this was acquired. RESPONSE: See response to No. 5. Identify all documents concernining or in any way related to consideration of whether you would cease manufacturing asbestos-containing products, or consideration of any decision about whether you should j warn on any asbestos-containing products. If you claim privilege for any of these documents, identify the document by dae and the author with an indication that you claim privilege on that document. RESPONSE: Subject to the General Objections, this defendant will produce the requested documents at a mutually convenient time and place. 13. When did you first learn of the symposium held in New York City for the New York Academy of Sciences in 1964 on the biological effects of asbestos? a) Did you have a representative attend that conference? b) Do you have in your possession a copy of the proceedings of that conference? If so, when did you acquire that? (12) RESPONSE: Subject to the General Objections, this defendant responds that in approximately 1964 or 1965 it became aware of opinions expressed by some members of the medical profession, such as Dr. Irving Selikoff of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, that physical harm could occur among insulation workers, although the opinion did not relate specifically to the use of its product. However, this defendant cannot state when it learned of the symposium and does not believe any of its employees attended the conference. If it possesses a copy of i the proceedings, it was acquired during the course of litigation.1 I When did you first learn of any TLVs, or threshold limit values, that applied to asbestos-containing dust? a) Indicate from what source you first leanred of such TLVs. RESPONSE: This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds set forth in the preliminary paragraphs of this response and on the grounds that it seeks expert opinion beyond the scope . of the applicable West Virginia Rules. Subject to these objections, this defendant responds that, prior to 1964 or 1965, ; ij Ruberoid officials were not aware of any health hazard related j to the use of its asbestos-containing industrial thermal ! insulation products. In the 1960s, industrial and governmental hygienists and the Walsh-Healy Act endorsed and enacted the standard of 5 m. particles per cubic foot and, in approximately 1964 or 1965, Ruberoid became aware of opinions expressed by ; j some members of the medical profession that inhalation of (13) asbestos in excessive quantities from certain insulation products over long periods of time could be harmful, although i the opinion did not relate to the use of Ruberoid products. At j approximately the same time, Ruberoid commenced providing its i warnings. j In approximately 1968 or 1969, GAF received further | information that inhalation of asbestos fibers could be harmful but GAF did not receive specific medical information on the results of such exposure. Upon enactment of the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, GAF became aware of tests and examinations made as a result of that legislation. In 1972, OSHA set standards for the Threshold Limit Value ("TLV") for asbestos particles. The acceptable standard was five fibers per cc for TWA (time weight average) and ten fibers per cc for peak time. In 1976, the standard changes to two fibers per cc for TWA; the peak time asbestos" exposure did not change. In approximately 1964, The Ruberoid Co. began placing the following warning notices on packages of its asbestoscontaining industrial thermal insulation products: CAUTION THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBER. INHALATION OF ASBESTOS IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME MAY BE HARMFUL. IF DUST IS CREATED WHEN THIS PRODUCT IS HANDLED, AVOID BREATHING THE DUST. IF ADEQUATE VENTILATION CONTROL IS NOT POSSIBLE, WEAR RESPIRATORS APPROVED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES FOR PNEUMOCONIOSIS-PRODUCING DUST. (14) By 1970, GAF placed the following warning label on asbestos fiber, insulation cements, millboard, rollboard and j asbestos paper products, as well as relocating information for l' ji CalsiliteR pipecovering and block from the sides to the front ; of the carton. This warning label read as follows: | CAUTION CONTAINSASBESTOS FIBER. INHALATION IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OVER LONG PERIODS j OF TIME MAY BE HARMFUL. i AVOID BREATHING DUST. IF ADEQUATE VENTILATION jI IS NOT POSSIBLE, WEAR RESPIRATORS APPROVED BY THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES FOR PNEUMOCONIOSIS-PRODUCING DUST. i I In approximately 1972, this warning was further I ! changed to read asfollows: :I CAUTION I CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS. AVOID BREATHING DUST. ! BREATHING ASBESTOS DUST MAY CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM. j ' ! ! ; i j I [ i I Until 1972, GAF's use of these warnings followed major manufacturers in the industry which used such cautionary notices after certain opinions were expressed by members of the 1 medical profession that there might be a health risk to some persons who installed industrial thermal insulation products containing asbestos from the inhalation of excessive quantities of asbestos fibers over prolonged periods of time under certain conditions. Commencing in 1972, pursuant to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, GAF placed 1 the last notice set out above. Other than as set forth above, l| this defendant became aware of he medical theories related to ! j "threshold limit values" in connection with litigation. < (15 > i i 15. Do you contend that any TLVs, or threshold limit values, for asbestos, developed between 1938 and 1972, were intended to apply to use of thermal insulation products containing asbestos? RESPONSE: See response to No. 14. 16. Have you ever communicated any information to any consumers of your asbestos-containing products about any alleged threshold limit value for asbestos-containing dust? If so, provide the dates of such communication and identify all documents concerning or in any way related to that communication. RESPONSE: See response to No. 14. 17. Have you ever tested your asbestos-containing products to determine whether they emit hazardous levels of dust or emit levels of asbestos dust in excess of any TLV? If so identify all documents concerning or in any way related to such testing, provide the dates and results of those tests. RESPONSE: This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds set forth in the preliminary paragraphs of this response. Subject to these objections, this defendant responds that the jobsites (on which the asbestos-containing industrial thermal insulation products were used) were under the exclusive control of their owners, employers and contractors, who had a legal duty to conduct various tests and monitoring. Further more, this defendant was not present at such jobsites and did not have a legal duty to conduct dust monitoring at jobsites where its asbestos-containing industrial thermal insulation products were applied. (16) When did you first learn that asbestos causes: a) asbestosis? b) lung cancer? c) mesothelioma? I d) asbestos-related pleural disease? ; RESPONSE: This defendant objects to this interrogatory for i I reasons set forth in the preliminary paragraphs of this j response. This defendant further objects on the ground that the | term "asbestos-related pleural disease" is too vague to be meaningful, and on grounds of repetitiveness. Further answering this interrogatory, GAF says it became aware of opinions expressed by some members of the medical profession that there might be a health risk to some persons who install thermal i insulation products containing asbestos from the inhalation of excessive quantities of asbestos fibers over prolonged periods of time under certain conditions, although the knowledge did not relate specifically to the use of GAF products. The health risk may have involved asbestosis, although this defendant became aware of medical theories which related asbestos exposure to the medical disease of asbestosis during the course of asbestos litigation. 19. Describe all research or other efforts you undertook before marketing your asbestos-containing products to determine whether asbestos could cause disease in humans, or whether your asbestos-containing products posed a hazard in their normal use. Provide the dates of each of these efforts and identify all documents concerning or in any way related to such efforts. (17) RESPONSE: This defendant objects to this interrogatory for reasons set forth in the preliminary paragraphs of this response. Subject to the foregoing objections, this defendant responds, i ii not applicable. GAF did not have facilities or equipment for i medical testing or research and did not itself conduct tests or j studies of a medical nature on its products. This defendant j further responds that GAF products were tested for purposes of quality control and, with respect to sales to Governmenal agencies and departments, such tests were mandatory and performed by the Government itself in many instances. The Government was thus responsible for such testing in such instances. GAF does not have in its possession documents relating j j to the testing of its products by, at or for the United States for compliance with mandatory Government specifications, except on a limited or occasional basis.v With respect to non-Government documents requested by this interrogatory, no list, compilation, summary or abstract of such documents sought by this interroga tory presently exists in discoverable form. In accordance with industry practice and later at the direction of OSHA, tests were to be made in the workplace by the management officials and other employees who were employed by contractors and other sophisticated purchasers of such products. Insofar as this defendant is aware, no testing was performed with respect to GAF's industrial thermal insulation products, other than as set forth above. (18) No list, compilation, summary or abstract of the documents relating to this interrogatory exists in discoverable form. Identify by name, last known address, telephone , number, job title and job descriptions, all persons who ! from 1930 through the present functioned in your I organization as a medical director, industrial hygienist or safety supervisor, whose duties were in ! any way related to asbestos health matters or consumer safety matters. RESPONSE: Subject to the objections set forth in preliminary paragraphs of this response, this defendant says that it has I never employed medical directors, industrial hygienists or consultants in these fields at any times relevant. ! : 21. II | From 1930 to 1972 what department or departments or \ person or persons were responsible for asbestos health I ; matters in your organization? With respect to each | person, provide their job title, job description, and last known address and telephone number. RESPONSE: Subject to the General Objections, this defendant responds that from time to time, beginning in approximately 1930, Ruberoid, and later GAF, called upon local physicians from ^ the areas surrounding its plants to perform routine physical examinations and to administer routine medical treatment when and if necessary. GAF does not have in its possession records reflecting the identities of nurses in its facilities. Harry i Mesler was head of Corporate Safety for Ruberoid and later GAF. Mr. Mesler was succeeded by William Fassuliotis, who in turn was j ! (19) I succeeded by Charles Bien. Mr. Mesler is deceased, Mr. Fassuliotis is no longer employed by GAF, and Mr. Bien is now I retired. The title for the position held by Mr. Bien was Corporate Manager for Safety. Identify by name, date of claim, and alleged disease process all claims brought against answering defendant by any employee or other person in which the claimant has alleged he suffered from any asbestos related disease. In answering this interrogatory, defendant may exclude any asbestos products liability cases filed after calendar year 1972. RESPONSE: This defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds set forth in preliminary paragraphs of this response and on the further grounds that plaintiffs seek information which is a matter of public record and, therefore, equally available to plaintiffs. Subject to these objections, GAF responds that the first asbestos-related lawsuit by such a person naming GAF as a defendant was Potter v. Fibreboard^ et al. (U.S.D.C. E.D. Texas; CV 7329; filed July 29, 1969). 23. Has OSHA or any other governmental agency or any private independent contractor ever conducted any dust studies in any of your asbestos-manufacturing plants to determine whether hazardous asbestos dust levels exist? If so, identify the dates of the studies, provide the results, and identify any and all documents concerning or in any way related to such studies. RESPONSE: This defendant objects to this interrogatory for reasons set forth in the General Objections, and particularly on the grounds that conditions in GAF's facilities, including (20) provision for safety and health in same, are not at issue in the litigation and, therefore, this interrogatory is irrelevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 24. Did you ever subscribe to the IHF Digest? If so, indicate the dates during which you subscribed and provide the dates of all copies of the IHF Digest that you received. RESPONSE: Subject to the General Objections, no. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Please produce for inspection and copying all documents identified in response to any of the above interrogatories. RESPONSE: See responses to Interrogatories 1-24. SHUMAN, ANNAND & POE , ft. fe.Ji.- P. O. Box 3953 Charleston, WV 25339 2800 First Atlanta Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30383 404/522-0856 248ASB Edgar A. Poe, Jr. FREEMAN & HAWKINS r) - buM \M0h J. Bruce Welch Attorneys for DEFENDANT (21) OUTLINE OF DIRECT TESTIMONY WILLIAM C. SCHWINGEN I. Chronology of Schwingen's career with Ruberoid/GAF (all references hereinafter to GAF are deemed to include Ruberoid A. Positions B. Asbestos-containing product familiarity II. GAF's knowledge of the health hazards of in-place asbestos-containing products at issue that may be present in plaintiffs' school buildings III. Nature and adequacy of warnings on GAF's asbestos-containing products at issue IV. Friability of in-place asbestos-containing products at issue V. Characteristics and manufacture of GAF's asbestos-containing products VI. Government specifications for asbestos-containing products at issue VII. GAF's performance tests of its asbestos-containing products at issue VIII. GAF's development of asbestos-free products IX. Exhibits: In connection with Schwingen's testimony, GAF may offer exhibits from among those on its exhibit list. EXHIBIT "A" OUTLINE OF DIRECT TESTIMONY OF PHILLIP S. BETTOLI I. Chronology of Bettoli career with Ruberoid/GAF (all references hereinafter to GAF are deemed to include Ruberoid. A. Positions held B. Asbestos-containing product familiarity II. GAF'S knowledge of the health hazards of in-place asbestos-containing products at issue that may be present in plaintiffs' school buildings. III. Nature and adequacy of warnings of GAF's asbestos-containing products at issue IV. Friability of in-place asbestos-containing products at issue V. Characteristics and manufacture of GAF's asbestos-containing products VI. Government specification for asbestos-containing products at issue VII. GAF's performance tests of its asbestos-containing products at issue VIII. GAF's development of asbestos-free products IX. Exhibits: In connection with Bettoli's exhibits from among those on its exhibit list. EXHIBIT "B" I. CALSILITE With the support and at the behest of the United States Government which needed to increase wartime production of shipboard insulation materials, in 1944 Ruberoid constructed a Calsilite plant in Gloucester City, New Jersey, to manufacture Calsilite pipe covering -and block insulation. The plant was completed in approximately November, 1944. Some limited production of Calsilite occurred prior to the plant's completion, GAF believes that all Calsilite production during World War II was for the United States Navy. In June, 1947 the Calsilite facility was shut down temporarily and all outstanding orders were cancelled. The facility was reopened on July 10, 1947 and operated on a pilot plant basis until March 7, 1949. During this research project period, production was limited and of an experimental nature. Calsilite was again manufactured on a commercial basis by Ruberoid beginning on March 7, 1949, and then by General Aniline & Film Corporation in 1967, and then by GAF Corporation from 1968 to October, 1971, when the plant was closed. Calsilite was a lightweight, hard, calcium silicate insulation designed to withstand temperatures up to 1250 F. Calsilite pipe covering was manufactured in three-foot lengths and in varying thicknesses. It was available in half-sectional pieces and, at various times, in three-segmental and regular segmental shapes, for assembly around a pipe in single or double layers. Pipe covering normally was provided with standard weight EXHIBIT C cotton or canvas jackets applied with silicate of soda. No "T's", elbows or joints were produced. Flat Calsilite blocks were manufactured/ at various time, in 18 or 36-inch lengths, in widths from 3 to 36 inches, and in thicknesses up to 4 inches. Six-inch wide curved segmental blocks, capable of contouring more easily for insulation of large pipes and circular vessels, also were available. Throughout the time it was manufactured, Calsilite pipe covering and block was packaged in corrugated boxes. Calsilite was manufactured by a "pan-molding" method until 1964 when Ruberoid began using a "filter-press" method or process. Pan-molded Calsilite was grayish white and relatively smooth, with some small holes. Calsilite filter press was grayish white with screen marks on the outer surfaces. Calsilite-Hi, developed in or around 1960, could withstand temperatures up to 1800 F. In the mid-to-late 1960s, Ruberoid developed Calsilite SS, an "inhibited" product designed specifically to prevent stress corrosion and cracking of stainless steel piping. In addition to formula changes made in connection with product development, the Calsilite formula was adjusted often in order to compensate for changes in the quality and availability of raw materials. GAF does not have a complete set of all the formulas used in Calsilite production nor does it have complete information about the production dates of known formulas. y (2) This defendant began production of asbestos-free Calsilite when it developed asbestos-free Calsilite in 1970, with sales beginning in 1970 or 1971. This product was identified as "Calsilite II" or "Calsilite A-F". However, without adding asbestos, GAF was unable to manufacture a calcium silicate insulation which met all specifications of the United States Government applicable to Calsilite. These limitaions made it impossible for this defendant to manuf actuare and sell an asbestos-free Calsilite that met applicable Government requirements. GAF asked the Government (U.S. Navy) to modify its specifications so that GAF's new product could be sold to the Navy and other customers who required that materials meet such specifications. The failure by the United States Government to act promptly to approve non-asbestos Calsilite for procurement as a practical matter limited the ability of this defendant to sell its non-asbestos product, and was a factor leading to the closure of the entire Calsilite facility. II. ASBESTOS PAPER AND MILLBOARD PRODUCTS Asbestos paper, millboard and laminated products were manufactured at Erie, Pennsylvania, by Ruberoid from 1928 to 1967, and then by General Aniline & Film Corporation in 1967, and then by GAF Corporation from 1968 to 1981, when the Erie facility was sold. These products generally were shipped in cardboard cartons of varying sizes, except for Imperial insulation and sponge felt which, because of their weight and bulk, were packaged into sections in wooden crates. (3) Asbestos Paper Asbestos paper was designed to be used alone or in the manufacture of other products. It was manufactured in various thicknesses, according to customer- specifications. Asbestos paper had a temperature limit of 250 degrees F. Its primary constituent was chrysotile asbestos, generally a mixture of grades 5 to 7. Other constituents included sulphite pulp, diatomaceous earth and starch, although in the early years of manufacture this product may have consisted only of chrysotile and starch (which was sometimes in the form of tapioca). Rollboard Rollboard was an asbestos paper product, consisting of plies of asbestos paper bonded together without glue to create thicknesses varying from 1/16 to 1/8 of an inch. Rollboard had a temperature limit of 250 degrees F. Millboard Millboard was a stiffer produt than asbesos paper or rollboard and was manufactured in sheets of varying thicknesses according to customer specifications. Millboard consisted generally of chrysotile asbestos (usually grades 5D, 5R and 6D), sulphite pulp and often other constituents, bonded with Portland cement and/or starch. In later years, at least as early as 1974, latex was added as a binder. Corrugated Asbestos Paper Corrugated asbestos paper was designed to be used alone or in the manufacture of other products. It was made in three types: (4) 1/4 inch thickness per ply (4 plies/inch); 1/8 inch thickness per ply (6 plies/inch); 1/16 inch thickness per ply (8 plies/inch). It was manufactured by adhering 36" to 37 1/2" wide flat sheets of asbestos paper (usually six pound paper) with silicate of soda to sheets of the same paper which had been corrugated using characteristic "Roman Arch" shaped corrugations, 26-28 to the inch. Its constituents were those of the asbestos paper from which it was constructed. Corrugated asbestos paper was sold in 250 and 500 square foot rolls. Air Cell Air cell was a corrugated asbestos paper product manufactured from 1928 to approximately 1958. It was constructed of layers to the thickness specified by the customer of 36 to 37-1/2 inch wide flat asbestos paper which was adhered to corrugated asbestos paper with silicate of soda. The corrugations of this product had a characteristic "Roman Arch" shape. As of 1938, the corrugated paper component had 28 corrugations per lineal foot. Each ply was 1/4 inch thick and air cell came in three standard thicknesses -- 2-plly, 3-ply, and 4-ply. Air cell pipe covering, sheets and blocks were sold. Often a canvas, cloth or pyroxiline jacket was applied to the outer surface of air cell pipe covering with an adhesive, usually a starch or cereal paste. 2-1/2 brass lacquered bands were provided for each canvas-jacksted section of air cell pipe covering to hold it to the pipe. With the pyroxyline jackets, three 1-inch wide black japan bands were supplied with each section. Air cell had a temperatuare limit of 250 degrees - (5) 350 degrees F. Prior to 1935, air cell may have baeen sold only under the name "Celasbestos", which was available in 5, 6, 7 and 8 ply versions as well as 1-4 ply versions. Hatqcell Watcocell was a corrugated asbestos paper product manufactured as Watcocel from 1928 to 1934, as Supercell from 1935 to 1942 and as Watcocell from 1942 to 1960. In 8-ply per inch Watcocell, the corrugations were 1/16" thick; in 6-ply, the corrugations measure about 1/8" thickness. Watcocell was sold in rolls, sheets and blocks. Watcocell's temperature limit was 250 degrees F. Imperial Insulation Imperial insulation was manufactured from at least 1936 to approximately 1960 and was discontinued due to a lack of commercial demand. It had a temperature limit of 500 degrees 700 degrees F. Imperial paper consisted of two plies of flat asbestos paper which were passed through an indenting roll resulting in a waffle-like appearance with closely spaced square indentations. Imperial pipecovering was wound on a mandrel to achieve the desired thickness and canvas-covered. In early years of production, layers of Imperial may have been stapled together or stitched with strands of wire rather than wound on a mandrel. Imperial sheets and blocks were made of layer of Imperial paper glued to the desired thickness with a fireproof glue, such as silicate of soda. This product was sold with a canvas, asphalted felt or pyroxyline jacket. (6) Aristo insulation The years of manufacture of Aristo Insulation are unknown, except that it was listed for sale in and around 1940. It was a corrugated asbestos paper product with carefully measured indentations and 23-25 laminations per inch of thickness. Its temperatuare limit was 700 degrees - 750 degrees F. The asbestos paper used in this product was treated with a surface treatment, possibly Bennett size. This product was sold in a standard thickness of one inch, but often was used in thicknesses up to and exceding three inches. Standard canvas and waterproof jackets were available for this product. Sponge Felt Sponge felt was manufactured from 1936 to approximately 1960 and was discontinued due to a lack of commercial demand. It consisted of asbestos sponge paper made by imbedding small pieces of sponge into asbstos paper. Its temperature limit was 750 degrees F. It was sold in 36-inch wide rolls, sheets and blocks which were produced in the same manner as Imperial products. Woolfelt Woolfelt, a wool or rag felt insulation manufactured from 1928 to approximately 1959, did not contain asbestos, but was sometimes sold with an asbestos paper liner or backing paper. Tar-lined woolfelt was sold with a tar paper liner which did not contain asbestos. Twin-purpose woolfelt was sold with a liner of asphalt coated asbestos paper. (7) Anti-Sweat Pipe Covering Manufactured until approximately 1958, anti-sweat pipe covering was intended exclusively for residential use on cold water pipes. At least as early as 1936 this product was composed of an inner layer of asphalt-saturated asbestos paper followed by a 1/2 inch layer of woolfelt, 2 layers of asphalt-saturated asbestos paper, another 1/2 inch layer of woolfelt and two final layers of asphalt-saturated asbestos paper. The outermost layer had a flap extending at least 3 inches beyond the longitudinal joint. GAF does not know whether a jacket was ever provided with this product. This product was sold in 36 inch wide rolls and had a temperature limit of 50 degrees F. Frost-Proof Pipe Covering Practically nothing is known of this product which was apparently constructed of a layer of felt made from cattle, goat or other animal hair with layers of asphalt-saturated asbestos paper and a layer of woolfelt. Its years of manufacture, appearance and temperature limit are unknown to GAF. Range. Boiler .Jacket. This product consisted of a series of plies of corrugated asbestos paper built up to the required thickness on mandrels that were the same size as the range boilers the product was designed to fit. The corrugated paper used was a coarse variety with four plies per inch of thickness. These jackets were furnished in two sections -- upper half and lower half. Five extra-wide bands were provided to attach the jacket to the range boiler. The outside (8) surface was painted or covered with canvas. GAF does not know the years of manufacture of this product. T/NA-100 T/NA 100 was manufactured from 1962 until 1971. This asbestos paper product was a thin, fully bound two-ply laminated product consisting of an interior layer of asbestos paper bonded with Neoprene to a layer of polyvinylfluoride (Tedlar) plastic film on the exterior of the product. T/NA-100 was also sold with a back surface vapor barrier of Dow "Saran" film. The paper inner layer was manufactured in Erie, Pennsylvania, the Neoprene outer layers were supplied by DuPont, and the product was assembled by High Vacuum Company, Passaic, New Jersey. Manufacture of this product was discontinued because it was not profitable. At various times, Ruberoid product brochures and advertising listed for sale asbestos-containing products not known to have been manufactured by Ruberoid, including 85% magnesia and diatomaceous earth products, but which may have been manufactured by Ruberoid. This defendant has independent information that this defendant did not manufacture this product during the early 1940's or thereafter. This defendant is aware of no sales documents with respect to these products, the yar of any sale of any such products or of any specific sale. However, this defendant is aware through litigation of individual Ruberoid labels upon sections of pipe covering indicating that the material was 85% magnesia pipe covering manufactured for Ruberoid (9) by Plant Rubber and Asbestos Company, and perhaps others. It is believed that this material dates from the late 1930's. III. INSULATING CEMENTS 1. 115 Insulation Cement 115 Insulation Cement was a chrysotile asbestos product which, in some instances, was produced at Ruberoid/GAF's Vermont facility and in other instances was purchased from various other asbestos suppliers and resold. Some of the product purchased from other suppliers may have een milled againat at Ruberoid/ GAF's Vermont facility prior to resale. Asbestos insulation cements produced at GAF's Vermont facility could generally be distinguished from asbestos insulation cements produced by other manufacturers inasmuch as the Vermont product was a slip chrysotile asbestos rather than a cross vein asbestos and was generally of a lower grade and contained a greater percentage of impurities, such as dirt and rock particles. It is believed that this product was sold from at least as early as 1937 to 1975. Manufacture of this product was discontinued because it was not profitable and the facility was sold. It is believed that the "115" designation was employed from approximately 1950 to 1975 and the designation "Grade B" was also employed in years prior to 1950. The basic ingredients of this cement product were: chrysotile determined to pass the 0-0-1-15 Quebeck test impurities (dirt, rock, earth) The particular formulas utilized by entities which purchased this product for construction are not known by GAF, but this (10) product was normally mixed with Portland cement, water and/or other substances. 2. 214 Insulation Cement 214 Insulation Cement was also a chrysotile asbestos product which, in some instances, was produced at GAF's Vermont facility and in other instances was purchased from various other asbestos suppliers and resold. Some of the pruduct purchased from other suppliers may have been milled again at Ruberoid/GAF's Vermont facility prior to resale. Ruberoid/GAF*s Vermont product was a lower grade cement which contained a greater percentage of impurities, such as dirt and rock particles, making it lightly mottled and giving it an overall darker appearance. It is believed that this product was sold from at least as early as 1937 to 1975. Manufacture of this product was discontinued because it was not profitable and the facility was sold. It is believed that the **214" designation was employed from approximately 1950 to 1975 and the designation "Grade BB" was also employed in years prior to 1950. The basic ingredients of this cement product were: chrysotile determined to pass the 0-0-2-14 Quebeck test impurities (dirt, rock, earth) The particular formulas utilized by entities which purchased this product for construction are not known by GAF, but this product was normally mixed with Portland cement, water and/or other substances. Both "115" and "214" insulation cements could be packed "loosely" in burlap through the 1940's and thereafter "praessure (ID packed- or "semi-pressure packed" in either kraft paper, plastic lined or woven plastic bags. 3. Calsilite Insulation Cement Calsilite Insulation Cement was a combination of chrysotile asbesos fiber, ground Calsilite pipe covering or block, and Portland and other cements. It is believed that this product was made with Vermontproduced asbestos and thus contained certain impurities, such as rock, dirt and earth particles. This product was never widely or frequently sold and did not gain commercial acceptance. To the extent such sales took place, they ceased completely in or around 1960. Generally, the product was packaged in kraft paper bags with a plastic lining. 4. Other Insulation Cements In unknown years prior to 1955 which varied by product, Ruberoid listed for sale the following other insulation cements. Except as stated below, little is known about these products, including the specific years they were offered, the constituents and, except as indicated, whether or not they were manufactured or produced by Ruberoid. a. Grade___AA___Insulating Cement - Grade AA was manufactured by Ruberoid using a high grade of pure asbestos fiber together with suitable binding materials that had low conductivity. It was designed to yield a hard, durable surface. Its temperature limit was 1200 degrees F. (12) b. Grade A Insulating Cement - This was a factoryprepared cement consisting of fibers which were not as long as those used in the better grade AA, togther with suitable binding materials. Its temperature limit was 1000 degrees F. c. Grade H F - Hard Finish - This was a hard finish cement designed to be used as a final protective coating over other coats of cement. It had a smooth, glossy, hard finish. Grade HF was recommended to be applied in a 1/4" thick layer. It had a temperature limit of 1500 degrees F and was a prepared cement manufactured by Ruberoid. d. Grade H F - Hard Finish #48 High Gloss - This was another hard finish cement manufactured apparently in 1945 and possibly other years. e. Grade H. T. -__High Temperature__Cement - This cement was designed to withstand temperatures of 1600 to 1800 degrees. This material was not designed to be used for finishing purposes. f. Grade 203__ Insulating Cement - Grade 203 had a screen test of approximately 0-0-8-8 which was intended to result in a light, fluffy cement. It was practically free of grit and dirt. Its temperature limit was 1200 degrees F. g. Grade___ Qlfi___ Insulating Cement - This 100% chrysotile cement had a screen test of approximately 0-0-1-16 which made it the lowest grade cement sold by Ruberoid/GAF. h. Satin Finish Cement (13) 1. Grade A-ll Insulating__ Ce.me.ni; This product consisted of vermiculite, chrysotile, and binding surfaces. It was recommended for temperataures up to 1500 degrees F, or 1800 degrees F if the applicator did not intend to reclaim the material. Gradee A-ll was designed to be an insulation material, not a finishing cement. j. Coverkote Coverkote was designed to be a weatherproof coating for insulated surfaces, rather than an insufating cement. It was a combination of emulsified asphalt and 25-28% chrysotile. It was a black plastic material particularly designed for protection of insulation on large tanks and vessels and for insulted equipment such as smoke breechings and ducts. The temperature limit for Coverkote was 400 degrees F. k. Rock Wool Cement Little is known about this product which was apparently available from Ruberoid in the late 1940's and early 1950's. It consisted of a mixture of rock wool and chrysotile asbestos and had a temperature limit of 1500 degrees F. Insulation cements of different fiber sizes, commonly known as sizes 313 and 412, were sold by The Ruberoid Co. from 1937 until 1967 and by Genral Aniline & Film Corporation and then GAF Corporation from 1967 to 1975. (14) STATE OF NEW JERSEY COUNTY OF PASSAIC ) SS: AFFIDAVIT I, ELEANOR CARLSON, being duly sworn according to law. depose and say that I am an Assistant Secretary of GAF Corporation, one of the Defendants herein, and that I am authorized to make this Affidavit in its behalf, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. SWORN TO AND SSUU!BSCRIBED SAID COUNTY AND STATE SH1RLEE KOZ.Ell NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSJ^ tty Ommimkm Extras IO/lt/3 AFFID-2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA I IN RE: ASBESTOSIS CASES CIVIL ACTION NO. 91-C-7777 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I !i I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of | GAF CORPORATION'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS by depositing same in the United States mail in postage prepaid envelopes addressed to ! individuals on the attached service list at their last known business addresses. MLThis day of 1991. J- ibuAe {jXtddh J. Bruce Welch i I i i SERVICE LIST Kanawha County, West Virginia, Mass Trial Civil Action No. 91-C-7777 David Meade, Esquire SHINABERRY, MEADE & VENEZIA, L.C. 2018 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, West Virginia 25311 and James H. Rion, Jr., Esquire NESS, MOTLEY, LOADHOLT, RICHARDSON & POOLE 151 Meeting Street, Suite 600 Charleston, SC 29402 William Field, Esquire Thomas P. Maroney, Esquire 608 Virginia Street, East Charleston, WV 25301 Lawrence J. Tweel, Esquire GREENE, KETCHUM, BAILEY & TWEEL P. O. Box 2389 Huntington, WV 25724 Stuart Calwell, Esquire CALWELL, MCCORMICK & PEYTON P. O. Box 113 Charleston, WV 25321 R. Dean Hartley, Esquire PHILLIPS, GARDILL, KAISER, BOOS & HARTLEY 61 14th Street Wheeling, West Virginia 26003 S. J. Angotti, Esquire David J. Straface, Esquire John R. Angotti, Esquire Mike Magro, Jr. Esquire Phillip Magro, Esquire ANGOTTI & STRAFACE, L.C. 212 High Street Morganton, WV 26505 James Wilson Douglas, Esquire Wayne King, Esquire P. O. Box 453 Clay, West Virginia 25043 I li i I j i j Joseph M. Farrell/ Jr., Esquire j Hunt 8t Wilson, LC J P. 0. Box 2191 j Huntington, WV 25722-2191 Theodore Goldberg, Esquire HENDERSON & GOLDBERG, P.C. 1030 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 David M. Goldenberg, Esquire GOLDENBERG & STEALEY 205 Fourth Street Parkersburg, WV 26101 W. Dale Greene, Esquire 633 Virginia Street, West Charleston, WV 25301 John D. Roven, Esquire JONES & GRANGER P. O. Box 4340 Houston, TX 77210 Scott S. Segal, Esquire Thomas L. Stanley, Esquire 810 Kanawha Blvd., East Charleston, WV 25301 John E. Sutter, Esquire The Sutter Bldg., Suite 100 220 North Liberty Baltimore, MD 21201 Robert E. Sweeney, Esquire Suite 950, Illuminating Bldg. 55 Public Squre Cleveland, Ohio 44113 William T. Watson, Esquire P. O. Box 1371 Huntington, WV 25715 Edward F. Houff, Esquire WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON 7 Saint Paul Street, Suite 1400 Baltimore, MD 21202 Robert Losey, Esquire WOOD, GRIMM & DELP P. O. Box 2192 Huntington, WV 25722 R. Carter Elkins, Esquire Charles F. Bagley, III, Esquire CAMPBELL, WOODS, BAGLEY, EMERSON, McNEER & HERNDON P. O. Box 1835 Huntington, WV 25719-1835 Arthur Recht, Esquire Rita G. Kerstetter, Esquire VOLK, FRANKOVITCH, ANETAKIS, RECHT, ROBERTSON & HELLERSTEDT 3000 Boury Centr Wheeling, West Virginia 26003 Gary W. Nickerson, Esquire STEPTOE & JOHNSON P. O. Box 2190 Clarksburg, WV 26302-2190 John R. Hoblitzel, Esquire P. J. Loehr, Esquire KAY, CASTO, CHANEY, LOVE & WISE P. O. Box 2031 Charleston, WV 25327 Frank A. O'Brien, Jr., Esquire O'BRIEN, CASSIDY & GALLAGHER 1325 National Road Wheeling, West Virginia 26003 Roy D. Baker, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 2945 Huntington, West Virginia 25728 Charles G. Johnson, Esquire P. O. Box 2332 Clarksburg, WV 26301 Steve Hardman, Esquire DAVIS, BAILEY, PFALZGRAF & HALL P. O. Box 48 Parkersburg, WV 26201-0048 Lawrence J. Lewis, Esquire VINSON, MEEK, LEWIS & PETTIT P. O. Box 349 Huntington, West Virginia 25708 John J. Repcheck, Esquire SHARLOCK, REPCHECK & MAHLER 3280 USX Tower, 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 II I j Ralph C. Young, Esquire ' HAMILTON, MOONEY, BURGESS, ! YOUNG & TISSUE P. O. Box 1145 Oak Hill, WV 25901 I Nora Barry Fischer, Esquire ` MEYER, DARRAGH, BUCKLER, BEBENEK & ECK 2000 Frick Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 William Ballard, Esquire | P. O. Box 3283 Charleston, WV 25332 George J. Anetakis, Esquire 337 Penco Road . Weirton, WV 26062 William I. Flesher, Esquire FLESHER & FLESHER P. O. Box 2892 Huntington, WV 25728-2892 Clement Carter, Esquire STEPTOE & JOHNSON 6th Floor, Union National Center, East Clarksburg, West Virginia 25302 George Farmer, Esquire JACKSON & KELLY P. O. Box 619 Morgantown, WV 26507 James J. MacCallum, Esquire SHAFFER & SHAFFER P. O. Box 38 Madison, WV 25130-0038 William J. Leon, Esquire VORBACH & GIANOLA 3051 University Avenue Morgantown, WV 26505 J. Michael Johnson, Esquire GOLLATZ, GRIFFIN, EWING & MCCARTHY Two Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, PA 19102 Robert Douglas, Esquire DOUGLAS & HAMRICK 1701 Charleston National Plaza Charleston, WV 25301 f i John McLean, Jr., Esquire | BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL 600 Grant Street, 58th Floor j Pittsburgh, PA 15219 i i John O. Kizer, Esquire j Steven C. Hanley, Esquire I KAY, CASTO, CHANEY, LOVE St WISE i P. O. Box 2031 Charleston, WV 25327 John Beeson, Esquire ROBINSON & McELWEE P. O. Box 1791 Charleston, WV 25326 Hark Kauffelt, Esquire KAUFFELT & KAUFFELT P. O. Box 3081 Charleston, WV 25331 David K. Hendrickson, Esquire R. Scott Long, Esquire Sandra Schluter, Esquire SPILMAN, THOMAS, BATTLE St KLOSTERMEYER P. O. Box 273 Charleston, West Virginia 25321 Henry G. Garrard, III, Esquire William Harvard, Esquire Ivan Gustafson, Esquire Steven Heath, Esquire BLASINGAME, BURCH, GARARD St BRYANT, P. O. Box 832 Athens, Georgia 30603 P.C. R. Bruce Shaw, Esquire NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY St SCARBOROUGH P. O. Box 11070 Columbia, SC 29211 Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., Esquire Shawn P. George, Esquire JACKSON St KELLY P. O. Box 553 Charleston, WV 25322 Cyntha Maragni, Esquire SHARLOCK, REPCHECK St MAHLER 1110 Two Chatham Center Pittsburgh, PA 15219 i! i Charles W. Yeager, Esquire ! STEPTOE & JOHNSON P. O. Box 1588 j Charleston, wV 25326 I Charles E. Hunt, Esquire HUNT & CIRRICO ; P. O. Drawer 833 Charleston, WV 25323 Fred Adkins, Esquire HUDDLESTON, BOLEN, BEATTY, ! PORTER & COPEN P. O. Box 2185 Huntington, WV 25722-2185 T. Scott White, Esquire JENKINS, FENSTERMAKER, KRIEGER, KAYES & FARRELL P. O. Drawer 2688 Huntington, WV 25726-2688 James F. Israel, Esquire ISRAEL & WOOD, P.C. 501 Grant Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Peter J. Conley, Esquire SIEGRIST, SPELSBERG & WHITE P. O. Drawer 2550 Clarksburg, WV 26302 Michael L. Baker, Esquire STRONG, PIPKIN, NELSON & BISSELL 14th Floor, San Jacinto Building 595 Orleans Beaumont, TX 77701-3255