Document yp4dZXZLGQVy9gwKKBJYBzKXV

EDWARD H. GREEN* MICHAEL R. MCSOWN MITCHELL A. TOUR** DAVID L. TOLiN** R. LYN STEVENS JOHN R. DQLEZAL NICHOLAS 8. BALDO ZONA JONES MICHAEL R. WALZEL 8 ADAM TERRELL MICHAEL K. ROSE ELLEN O. LAMAR WELLER & BREEN, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIFTH FLOOR PETROLEUM TOWER 550 FANNIN STREET BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77701 May 21, 1993 MAILING AOORESS: P.O. BOX 350 BEAUMONT. TEXAS 77704*0350 TELEPHONE: (409) 838-0101 TELECOPIER: (409) 838*6780 GEOROE A. WELLER (1911-19B6) "UCENBEO IN TEXAS A LOUISIANA 'board ecRTtnco PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL UW AND CIVIL TRIAL LAW TEXAS BOARD OW kXOAL SPECIALIZATION fjprerim. Ms. Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza District Clerk Travis County Courthouse 1000 Guadalupe Street Austin, Texas 78701 K- 'Jj * csm in UUL Re: No. 92-10123; Charles Norman White, et al v. Keene Corporation, et al; In the 353rd Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas Dear Ms. Rodriguez-Mendoza: Enclosed for filing please find Response of Pittsburgh Corning to Plaintiffs* Interrogatories in regard to the above-referenced cause. Please acknowledge receipt of this document by placing your file mark on the enclosed copy of this letter and return same to the undersigned in the envelope provided. By copy of this letter, I am forwarding a copy of said Response to Plaintiff*s counsel of record by Federal Express. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. RLS/mjb Enclosures cc: Mr. Russell W. Budd Federal Express J*UWTffF$ rfS BCHBIT U-dS(o 05/19/93 NO. 92-10123 CHARLES NORMAN WHITE and PAULINE WHITE; HARVEY LEWIS SHADDOX and MARY SHADDOX; ORVEL WOODROW FITTS and MAVIS FITTS; LEO L. DARDEN and RUTH DARDEN; and DANIEL ALLEN DALTON, SR. and MARITA DALTON, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, vs. TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS KEENE CORPORATION, et al.. Defendants. 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT RESPONSE OF PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS* INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT GENERAL OBJECTION This Defendant manufactured an asbestos thermal insulation product, UNIBESTOS, from July 1, 1962 to on or about February 1, 1972. Unless otherwise stated in response to specific interrogatories, the responses herein shall be limited to such product and time period. This Defendant objects to providing responses for any other period of time on the grounds that such additional information sought is irrelevant, immaterial, not WGM/WGM/42691.1 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and, furthermore, could be burdensome, expensive and harassing to comply with. At various times, this Defendant also relabeled and sold certain types of mastic products as accessory products. Although all the formulations of these relabeled mastic accessory products are not now known, a few did include small amounts of asbestos fibers used as a binder, which fibers were encapsulated in a bituminous and/or resinous binder. These accessory products were not manufactured by this Defendant, were not used on high temperature insulation products such as UNIBESTOS and were not insulating materials. Those few mastic products which contained asbestos fibers as a binder have not been considered to be a source of asbestos fiber emissions. Consequently, such material was specifically exempted from certain regulations in the federal Environmental Protection Agency's National Emissions Standard for Asbestos, see 40 C.F.R. 61.22 et seq.. (now 40 C.F.R. 61.148) and were exempt from the asbestos controls of the Consumer Products Safety Commission 16 C.F.R. S 1304.3(c). Similarly, the asbestos regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which require caution labels on asbestos products, did not apply WOM/WGM/42691.1 -2- to any material where asbestos fibers were modified by a binding agent, coating or binder. See 29 C.F.R. S 1910.1001(g)(2)(i) (now 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001(j)(4)(i)). The term asbestos is generically applied to several different minerals, may be found in various fiber types and may be found in a wide variety of product forms, including ceiling tiles, floor tiles, gaskets, gloves, mastics, protective aprons, protective matting, etc. This Defendant objects generally to these interrogatories as vague, overly broad, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence so far as they relate or refer to unidentified asbestos-containing products or materials and will limit its responses as stated above. This Defendant states that there never existed a predecessor corporation with respect to this Defendant. While this Defendant purchased on June 30, 1962 selected assets from Union Asbestos & Rubber Co., it did not purchase that company; that company continued to operate as a separate company for years and to sell other products including asbestos-containing products, it was not a predecessor corporation of this Defendant and on information and belief it or its successor continues to operate as an WGM/WGM/42691.1 -3- independent company to this date. Further, Defendant states that its responses to any interrogatory or request herein relate only to this Defendant and are not to be construed to imply the existence of a predecessor corporation. INTERROGATORIES 1. For each document listed below, please answer whether such document is a true and correct duplicate of a genuine and authentic document: RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. l on the ground that the discovery request, although characterized as an H interrogatory*1, is in reality a request for admission pursuant to Rule 169. As such, this request is outside the scope of discovery as permitted by Rule 169 in that it is compound and exceeds the specific mandate of Rule 169 which allows a request to include **the genuineness of any documents described in the request". This Defendant may affirm or deny that the copy is genuine or identical to the document it possesses, but this Defendant should not be required to authenticate or vouch for the accuracy or the contents of the document. Without waiving this WGM/WGM/42691.1 -4- objection, this Defendant will endeavor to respond as to whether or not the identified documents on Exhibit A are "genuine". EXHIBIT HO a) U-175 SgggjE: Objection. This document is a letter from an attorney at the time representing this Defendant providing legal advice and/or opinion and suggesting previous attorney-client communications and is thus protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product. b) U-183 RE8PON8E: This Defendant lacks sufficient information upon which to determine the genuineness of the identified document as this Defendant has made reasonable inquiry and has ascertained that it is not in this Defendant's files. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -5- c) U-184 RESPONSE: This Defendant lacks sufficient information upon which to determine the genuineness of the identified document as this Defendant has made reasonable inquiry and has ascertained that it is not in this Defendant's files. d) U-190 RESPONSE: This Defendant lacks sufficient information upon which to determine the genuineness of the identified document as this Defendant has made reasonable inquiry and has ascertained that it is not in this Defendant's files. e) U-193 RESPONSE: This Defendant lacks sufficient information upon which to determine the genuineness of the identified documents as this Defendant has made reasonable inquiry and has ascertained that it is not in this Defendant's files. WOM/WOM/42691.1 -6- f) U-197 RESPONSE: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. g) U-199 RESPONSES Deny in the form presented; however admit that the document attached as Exhibit U-199a is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. h) U-215 RESPONSE: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. i) U-217 RESPONSE: Deny as presented. Admit that the document attached as Exhibit U-217a is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. j) U-221 RESPONSE: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -7- k) U-222 RESPONSE: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. l) U-223 RESPONSES Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. m) U-226 RESPONSES Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. n) U-231 RESPONSES This Defendant lacks sufficient information upon which to determine the genuineness of the identified document as this Defendant has made reasonable inquiry and has ascertained that it is not in this Defendant's files; however, if further response is deemed necessary deny. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -8- o) U-239 RESPONSE: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. p) U-240 fiBgppyggi Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. q) U--241 response: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. r) U-242 RESPONSE: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. s) U-244 RESPONSE: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. WGM/WOM/42691.1 -9- t) U-245 RESPONSE: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. u) U-246 response: This Defendant lacks sufficient information upon which to determine the genuineness of the identified document as this Defendant has made reasonable inquiry and has ascertained that it is not in this Defendant's files; however, if further response is deemed necessary, deny. V) U-247 response: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. W) U-248 RESPONSE: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -10- x) U-249 RESPONSE: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. y) U-251 RESPONSE: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. z) U-252 RESPON8E: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. aa) U--253 RESPONSE: This Defendant lacks sufficient information upon which to determine the genuineness of the identified document as this Defendant has made reasonable inquiry and has ascertained that it is not in this Defendant's files; however, if further response is deemed necessary, deny. WC?M/WGM/42691.1 -11- bb) U-256 response: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. cc) U-257 response: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. dd) U-258 response: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. ee) U-259 response: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. ff) U-260 response: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -12- gg) U-261 RESPONSE: Deny as presented. Admit that the document attached as Exhibit U-261a is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. hh) U-262 Essmsst Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. ii) U-263 RESPONSE: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. jj) U-264 response: Admit that the document is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. kk) U-265 response: This Defendant lacks sufficient information upon which to determine the genuineness of the identified document as this Defendant has made reasonable inquiry WGM/WGM/42691.1 -13- and has ascertained that it is not in this Defendant's files; however, if further response is deemed necessary, deny. 11) U-266 RESPONSE: Deny as presented. Admit that the document attached as Exhibit U-266a is a genuine copy as it appears in the files of this Defendant. 2. For each document listed below, please answer whether such document was kept and/or generated in the regular course of a regularly conducted business activity of any PCC Entity by an employee or representative of any PCC Entity with knowledge of the act, event, condition or opinion recorded. RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the ground that this interrogatory is outside the scope of discovery as permitted by Rule 168, in that the interrogatory as phrased seeks to have this Defendant substitute itself for the judicial authority in making a determination relevant to the admissibility of a document into evidence. In addition, this WGM/WGM/42691.1 -14- interrogatory is compound and improperly phrased in the alternative. Without waiving this objection, this Defendant will advise plaintiffs as to whether not such documents identified on Exhibit A are located in Defendant's files. EXHIBIT NO a) U-175 RESPONSE1 See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. b) U-183 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. c) U--184 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -15- d) U-190 RESPONSES See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. e) U-193 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. f) U-197 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. g) U-199 RESPONSES See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -16- h) U-2X5 RESPONSE! See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. i) U-217 RESPONSES See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. j) U-221 'RESPONSE! See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. k) U-222 RESPONSES See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WQM/42691.1 -17- 1) U-223 RESPONSE: See this Defendant/s response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. m) U-226 response: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. n) U-231 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. o) U-239 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -18- p) U-240 yggPQWg-Bi See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. q) U-241 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. r) U-242 PM.P-P.yg.g: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. s) U-244 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -19- t) U-245 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. u) U-246 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. V) U-247 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. w) U-248 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WOM/42691.1 -20- x) U-249 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, vhich is incorporated herein by reference. y) U-251 lgg: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. 2) U-252 ESSE&: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. aa) U-253 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WOM/WGM/42691.1 -21- bb) U-256 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. cc) U-257 RESPONSEi See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. dd) U-258 RESPONSE! See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. ee) U-259 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGMWGM/42691.1 -22- ff) U--260 RESPONSEs See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. gg) U-261 RESPONSE; See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. hh) U-262 RESPONSE; See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. ii) U-263 RESPONSE; See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGMM2691.1 -23- jj) U-264 response: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. kk) U-265 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. 11) U-266 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. 3. For each document listed below, please answer whether such document was found in your files in such a condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity. RESP0N8E: This Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the ground that the discovery request, although characterized as an winterrogatory", is in reality a WGM/WGM/42691.1 -24- request for admission pursuant to Rule 169. As such, this request is outside the scope of discovery as permitted by Rule 169 in that it is compound and exceeds the specific mandate of Rule 169 which allows a request to include "the genuineness of any documents described in the request". This Defendant may affirm or deny that the copy is genuine or identical to the document it possesses, but this Defendant should not be required to authenticate or vouch for the accuracy or the contents of the document. Without waiving this objection, this Defendant will endeavor to respond as to whether or not the identified documents on Exhibit A are "genuine". EXHIBIT WO. a) U-175 RESPONSES See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -25- b) U-183 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. c) U-184 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. d) U-190 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. e) U-193 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGMM2691.1 -26- f) U-197 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. g) U-199 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. h) U-215 EESEQHS*: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. X, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. i) U-217 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -27- j) U-221 RESPONSE: See this Defendant/s response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. k) U--222 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. 1) U-223 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. m) U-226 response: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -28- n) U-231 ESSgQKgg: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. O) U-239 RESPONSE; See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. p) U-240 response: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. q) U-241 response: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -29- r) U-242 RESPONSES See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. s) U-244 RESPONSES See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. t) U-245 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. U) U-246 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. X, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -30- v) U-247 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. w) U-248 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. X) U-249 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. y) U-251 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -31- 2) U-252 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. aa) U-253 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. bb) U--256 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. cc) U-257 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -32- dd) U-258 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. ee) U-259 Essssmzi See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. ff) U-260 BSSE6SSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. gg) U-261 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WOM/WGM/42691.1 -33- hh) U-262 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. ii) U-263 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. jj) U-264 turneg: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 1, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. kk) U-265 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. WGM/WGM/42691.1 -34- 11) U-266 RESPONSE: See this Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. l, regarding this exhibit, which is incorporated herein by reference. 4. Has PCC stipulated or agreed to the authenticity of any of the documents referenced in Interrogatory No. 1 with any person prior to the date of these Interrogatories? RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it in effect asks whether there has been a previous response to a request for admission and in so doing seeks to circumvent the specific mandate of Rule 169(2), which forbids a response for a request for admission in one proceed to be used for any purpose in any other proceeding. As such, the interrogatory is improper and outside the scope of discovery as permitted by Rule 169, WOM/WOM/42691.1 -35- Respectfully submitted, WELLER & GREEN, L.L.P. P. 0. BOX 350 BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77704-0350 (409) 838-0101 BY r. lyjt Stevens STATB BAR NO. 19189020 attorneys' for defendant, PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has been forwarded to all known counsel of record by regular mail on this the 21st day of May, 1993. affidavit COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA } SS: COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority in and for said Commonwealth and County, personally appeared Richard C. McPherson, who being duly sworn deposes and says that he is Vice President of Human Resources with Pittsburgh Coming Corporation, that he is authorized to make this affidavit on its behalf and that the facts contained in the foregoing Interrogatories are based on previous responses to similar Interrogatories compiled by Robert E. Buckley who was a former Vice President and Assistant to the President of Pittsburgh Coming Corporation and who has sworn that said responses were true and correct to the best of this knowledge or information and belief. R. C. McPherson SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this day of M/t 1993 -^LiU; CL ,_J Notary Public Notary Seal JuPli!euA~.eSatreoc.TAwiirssr.rNsro.tyaCryoPuunttt/fc My CcrTviaa-cn Exerts Maxh 16 1996 Member, PennsytvaruaAssociationd Notaries EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT -N0-a) U-175 b) U-183 c) U-184 d) U-190 e) U-193 f) U-197 g) U-199 h) U-215 i) U-217 j) U-221 _____DESCRIPTION Letter dated August 5, 1968, from Richard C. Packard to Messrs. J. H. Price, Jr., Byrl Stout, Dr. Lee B. Grant Review of Industrial Hygiene Digest by Bernard Ryan. Industrial Hygiene Digest. "The Hazards of Industry" by Carey P. McCord, M.D., Modern -Home Medical Adviser. Chapter XXIV, 1937. Memorandum dated December 21, 1965, to L.O. Griffith from Lee B. Grant re: Initial Medical Plant Visit, October 25-26, 1965. Letter dated March 27, 1968 to J.W. McMillan from Jeremiah R. Lynch, cc: Dr. Lee Grant, with enclosure: Results of Air Samples of March 1967, Pittsburgh Corning, Tyler, Texas. Memorandum dated April 24, 1969, to J.L. Hyde, W.F. Yellig and'W.J. Binder from Morton Corn re: Decision to retain Butler Building in Unibestos Plant. (Memo from J.L. Hyde: April 21, 1969). Article entitled "Asbestosis and Carcinoma of the Lung" by Juan F. Cordova, et al, Cancer, November-December 1962. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation document entitled "Department of The Navy Safety Precautions for Shore Acti..., NAVSO P-2455, April 1965". East Texas Tuberculosis Hospital letter dated February 3, 1967 from George A. Hurst, M.D. to Lee B. Brant, M.D., Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, enclosing a request for Grant-In-Aid, Protocol and related information. k) U-222 1) U-223 in) U-226 n) U-231 o) U-239 p) U-240 q) U-241 r) U-242 s) U-244 t) U-245 u) U-246 vV) U-247 Letter dated March 7, 1967 from Lee B. Grant, M.D. to George A. Hurst, M.D., East Texas Tuberculosis Hospital. Letter dated September 13, 1967 from Lee B. Grant, M.D. to J. W. McMillan, enclosing report by Mr. Destefano, Industrial Hygiene Survey, Pittsburgh-Corning, Tyler, Texas. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation Inter-Office Correspondence dated September 4, 1968 from John H. Price, Jr. to File; subject: Health Safety Warning for UNIBESTOS Cartons. United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration Proposed Standard on Occupational Exposure to Asbestos hearing July 3, 1984. Screw Conveyor Corporation letter dated June 26, 1969 from A. R. Geberin to Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, attn: John L. Hyde, Letter dated September 9, 1969 from John L. Hyde to Dr. Morton Corn. Memo dated September 17, 1969 from William F. Yellig to E. w. Holman; re: Seminar (Dr. Corn). Outline of Seminar, September 25, 1969, Pittsburgh-Corning Corporation, by Morton Corn. Memorandum for the Record dated February 18, 1970 from Lee B. Grant, M.D.; subject: Navy recommendation which would result in exclusion of Unibestos.from procurement specifications - MILSTD-769C (Ships), November 15, 1967, and MIL-I2781, June 13, 1963. Memorandum for the Record dated February 25, 1970 from Lee B. Grant, M.D.; subject: Navy recommendation which would result in exclusion of Unibestos from procurement specifications - MILSTD-769C (Ships), November 15,1967 and MIL-I2781, June 13, 1963. Department of the Navy letter dated March 2, 1970 from R. E. Faucett to Commander, Naval Ship Engineering Center; subj: ...recommendations for asbestos dust control; modification. Letter dated March 19, 1970 from John K. Price, Jr., to Captain Norbert E. Rosenwinkel, Navy Department. Vv)) U-248 X) U-249 y) U-251 z) U-252 aa) U-253 bb) U-256 cc) U-257 dd) U-258 ee) U-259 ff) U-260 gg) U-261 hh) U-262 Letter dated March 26, 1970 from John H. Price, Jr. to Jerry Crawford, Naval Ship Systems. Personal memo dated March 26, 1970 from John H, Price, Jr. to L. B. Grant. Department of Health, Education and Welfare letter dated April 2, 1970 from Clinton V. Oster to C. E. VanHorn, Pittsburgh Corning Company, Tyler, Texas, with attached Air Sample Results. Letter dated April 30, 1970 from John H. Price, Jr. to August G. Manza, University of California. State of Texas Certificate of Death of James w. McMillan, November 17, 1970. Memo dated June 24, 1971 from G. S. Gregory from E. W. Holiman; re: Plant 8; with attachment, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania letter dated June 17, 1971. Dust-Producing Potential of Construction Materials, Phase II, Report to Health and Safety Committee, National Insulation Manufacturers Association, by Balzer, Tebbens, and Cooper, August 4, 1971. Texas State Department of Health letter dated August 30, 1971 from Martin C. Wukasch to William M. Johnson, M.D., bcc: Lee Grant, M.D. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation letter dated August 30, 1971 from J. R. Murray to Dr. Lee B. Grant. PPG Industries, Inc. letter dated September 10, 1971 from Lee B. Grant to Carl P. 01m, re: Medical Staff Visit Report - Port Allegany, September 6-9-71; with attachment: Outline of Presentation to Port Allegany Plant #8 Employees Given September 8-9, 1971 by LBG. PPG Industries, Inc. letter dated September 13, 1971 from Lee B. Grant, M.D. to William M. Johnson, M.D. DHEW. Department of Health, Education and Welfare letter dated December 16, 1971 from William K. Johnson, M.D. to Carl Olm. ii) U-263 jj) U-264 kk) U-265 11) U-266 Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors of Pittsburgh Corning corporation held in New York City, December 1, 1971. Memorandum for the Record dated January 12, 1972 from Lee B. Grant, M.D.; subject: Review of Dr. Hurst's Medical Study of the Tyler Plant Employees, January 6, 1972. Department of Health, Education and Welfare letter dated January 27, 1972 from William M. Johnson, M.D. to Lee B. Grant, M.D. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation Inter-Office Correspondence dated July 6, 1972 from Bill Farkos to Lee B. Grant, M.D. EXHIBIT U-199A iNdurrmAw mysicnc AJA M-i.UT.ON Morton Corn. Ph. d.. b. c. e. CONSULTING CNCINCIK a to aowcn mill hoao TO: FROM: TOPIC: Decision' to Retain Butler Building in Unibestos Plant. (Memo from J. L. Hyde: April 21, 1969)* I cannot endorse the decision to retain the largest pre sent source of dust in the Unibestos plant. Furthermore, the success of all design efforts to capture asbestos dust by new hood and system design is in jeopardy. As indicated earlier, X will not hesitate to assume responsibility for the system re commended to you. However, X will not assume responsibility for the success of a system which includes the present Butler Scrap Building. My thoughts on this subject were clearly ex pressed to plant and to central engineering personnel. We are defeating control efforts by trying to "doctor up" this illsuited Butler facility. I will continue with system lay-out in preparation for a plant visit on Wednesday, April 30. My design will merely exhaust air from the Butler Building in an effort to maintain a negative pressure, with respect to surroundings. MC: r.c Merton Corn, Ph.D. Consultant * EXHIBIT U-217A t 'OJ >'* PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION & ** Spardy Asbestos i'ealth Hazard alter ? Sinclair May 7, 1909 Dear fcrnie: Supplementing the information given in my Jan 6 memo*, the Navy has continued its investigation and taken further action on the possibility of the subject health hazard. Directives have been issued to Wavy Yards and other flavy activities to comply with CKK Safety Precaution For Shore Activities HAVS0-P-2455, April 1965 (copy of abstract Mineral Dusts attachedJ, in the handling, prefabrication. Installation and rip-out of asbestos thermal insula tion materials. Also, a study, recently started, will Include conduction of a survey of Navy and a few selected private shipyards as to asbestos Insulation, cement, felt and pipe covering they are using and the reason for their use; also what new or other insulation could bo used in lieu of asbestos materials and the cost of such insulation. The industry is to be invited to cooperate in the study by furnishing N/WSaC information on the safety precautions exercised in the manufacture of their asbestos insulation products. Also, what other type materials they have to offer for the services, where asbestos insulations are being used and cost of the materials. Visits of ana Navy bureau of Medicine personnel to llavy, and private shipyards and to the industry will be made in connection with the study. Although the conduction of the study was decided by j\:aVS~C during the early part of Jan. 1969# the official directive letter of assignment and responsibility for the study by wAVSC, Philadelphia Division at Philadelphia Daval Shipyard was not forwarded to that activity until April 9# 1969. During the interim, I frequently checked with the personnel of KAVSkC, Code 6101, Washington, D. C., who prepared the draft of the letter, but they were not cognizant of the reason for the delay. It appeared that the proposed study may be dying a slow death, but which did not occur. I endeavored to obtain a copy of the directive letter forwarded to NAVSAC Philadelphia, but was unsuccessful and was infermed that copies of a similar letter with about the sane context, are being forwarded from HaVSLC Philadelphia, to the industry. Vi'PS/is cc: ft. m. Fuhs Sincerely, 'its Walter P. Sinclair PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION Deptartment of The Havy Safety Precautions for Shore Activities. ;.AVSO P-2455 April 1965* 20^-Mineral Dusts. Certain mineral dusts are pneumoconiosis (a pathological lung condition produced by mineral or metallic dust inhalation). The most prevulant and insidious fonts are silicosis and asbestosis, caused by prolonged inhalation of dusts (or mists) containing silica and asbestos. Hazard Materials - Dusts. 1. Silicosis - Silicosis has long been recognized as an occupat ional disease in such industries ac mining and quarrying. The damage done is permanent and progressive with continuous exposure. In its : ore advanced stage, it is evident by shortness of breath, decreased chest expansion, lessened capacity for work and increased suscepti bility to tuberculosis and other lung diseases. Therefore, any operations which create appreciable quantities of silica (Cuartz, principally) such as in sand blasting, shoulu be veil ventilated and if necessary; personnel should wear appropriate respiratory protection. 2. Asbestosis - The effects of asbestosis are similar to ana just as disabling as those of silicosis. There is evidence, however, that the handling of asbestos products in the liavy are not so well controlled, if the prevalence of cases of asbestosis is an indication. Exposure to asbestos dust is usually encountered in the installation, repair and removal of insulating pipe covering used principally aboard ship. The following precautions should be taken in any dust s&king operations involving asbestos products: (a) Provide permanent general ventilation in areas where dust producing operations are usually performed. (b) Install exhaust hoods over saws and other dust making tools (c) Hequire workers to wear dust respirators where dusty operations cannot be adequately ventilated. (d) Use industrial vacuum cleaners in lieu of dry sweeping of floors and other surfaces. EXHIBIT U-266a rom* *ie **. PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION Lee B. Grant, P.D. W, Industries - 14 N W. J. Parkos July 6, 1972 Please be advised that our Pittsburgh Corning Corporation - Tyler, Texaa "lent has eessed operations and Is permanently closed at of June 30, 1972. WJPtbtr. BUI Parkos