Document ypbJ1LLOoomrV4dMVaypO8RJ2

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO ROGER DALE BLAKE t al. ) ) PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT ' 7 k-9 5 2: ' ' Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. CV96 01 0191 ) (Hon. George Elliott) A-BEST PRODUCTS COMPANY, et al.,) Defendants. DEFENDANT OWENS CORNING* S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS...MASTER SET OF INTERROGATORIES Defendant Owens Coming ("OC'), by counsel, responds to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories to Owens Coming, dated November 27, 1996, as follows: INTRODUCTORY STA1V3IM3IMf AND OBJECTIONS Plaintiffs seek information which in many instances is contained in numerous files and records. Further, certain of these interrogatories may call for the collection of information from OC offices located in various parts of the United States. Therefore, OC has responded on the basis of the best information now available to it. Subsequent investigation may reveal additional information relevant to these interrogatories and lead to a supplemental response. It is also noted that persons who are not now officers, directors or managing agents of OC may have information relevant to the subject matter of these interrogatories, and OC does not purport, in the following responses, to give the response of any such persons. OCs responses are made without in any way waiving: (1) the right to object on the grounds of competency, relevancy, materiality, hearsay or any other proper ground, to the use of any such information for any purpose, in whole or in part, in any subsequent stage or proceeding in this action or any other action; or (2) the right to object on any and all grounds, at any time, to any other discovery procedure relating to the subject matter of these interrogatories. Furthermore, to the extent that these interrogatories seek information concerning injury or disease other than those allegedly experienced by plaintiffs herein or concerning asbestos-containing products other than those to which plaintiffs allegedly was exposed, OC objects on the grounds that such information is beyond the proper scope of discovery and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that these interrogatories are not limited in time to the years that OC manufactured and/or sold asbestos-containing products, OC objects on the grounds that these interrogatories are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. OC also objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek: (1) information which is protected from discovery as attorney work product and/or attorney-client communications, protected by the right to privacy, or protected by any other applicable privilege; or (2) material which is considered to be proprietary and trade secret. 2 OC Exhibits A through OOO or available for inspection upon request by plaintiffs at OCs document library in Richmond, Virginia, as described in Response No 3. Any copying costs will be borne by the plaintiffs. Incorporating the above objections into each response, OC responds as follows: CORPORATE NAME INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each Interrogatory below, please state the name and last known address of each person answering it, including whether he/she is employed by Defendant and if employed by Defendant include job title, length of time employed by Defendant and a year by year list of all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant. RESPONSE: Responses to these interrogatories were prepared with the assistance of counsel and are based upon information obtained from presently existing corporate files and records and from interviews of various employees of OC. No single officer, employee or agent of OC has the personal knowledge to supply each and every answer required. The person signing these responses is informed that the files, documents and interviews referred to above do support the responses. If information is later obtained which modifies any of the responses herein, such information will be conveyed to the parties submitting these interrogatories. These responses are signed by William J. Bums, Jr., Senior Counsel for Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation, Flberglas Tower, Toledo, Ohio 43659. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please state whether or not Defendant is a corporation. If so, please state: (a) Your correct corporate name; (b) The state of your incorporation; (c) ITie address of your principal place of business; (d) Your registered agent for service in the state of Ohio. RESPONSEOC's correct corporate name is Owens Coming. OC was incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware on October 31, 1938. Its principal place of business is in the state of Ohio, and its current address is Owens Coming World Headquarters, One Owens Coming Parkway, Toledo, Ohio 43659. C.T. Corporation serves as OC's registered agent for purposes of service of process in the state of Ohio. INTERROGATORY NO. 3 Please describe Defendant's corporate history including any: (a) Mergers; (b) Consolidations; (c) Asset purchases; (d) Acquisitions; or (e) Spinoffs. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and 4 burdensome. Without weaving its objections, OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 2. Upon request and czt the expense of plaintiffs, OC will provide plaintiffs with copies of its annual reports for the years 1953 through 1973, the years during which OC distributed asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation products, as indicated by a review of OCs collection of invoices for such products. OCs annual reports for the years 1953 through 1973 comprise approximately 660 pages. OC further refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 4 for information regarding OCs acquisition of assets related to the manufacturer and/or distribution of asbestos-containing products. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described below. OC has collected numerous records and documents relating to asbestos generally. These documents are stored in OCs document library located in Richmond, Virginia. The document library contains existing documents generated and/or received at OCs corporate headquarters in Toledo, Ohio; its technical center in Granville, Ohio; and its manufacturing facilities in Berlin, New Jersey; Bloomington, Illinois; Newark, Ohio; and Santa Clara California. Documents relating to Fiberglas Engineering and Supply Company of San Francisco are maintained by the law firm of Tilly & Graves in San Francisco, California 5 pursuant to the August 25, 1995 Stipulation and Order Re Transfer of Existing Owens-Coming Fiberglas South San Francisco Contracting Records in Abate v. Fibreboard Coro., et cd.: Koppen v. Fibreboard Coro., et al.: Moak v. Fibreboard Corp.. et cd.: and All Other Ahnfeldt Asbestos-Related Actions. These files were previously maintained by the law firm of Popelka, Allard, McCowan & Bondonno in San Jose, California pursuant to an agreement contained in Defendant OCs response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production in Heley. et cd. v. Fibreboard. et al.. June 10, 1989. Additional documents relating to OCs supply and contracting units may be in the possession of various OC trial counsel. The library contains responsive, non-privileged materials generated before and during the time that OC manufactured asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation. At a mutually convenient time, OC will make available for inspection by plaintiffs' counsel the non-privileged documents stored in its document library. Counsel for OC will provide an index, which sets forth the file titles of those files contained in each box, and personnel to assist plaintiffs' counsel in locating documents responsive to the discovery requests in this matter. OC will also make arrangements for copying documents which plaintiffs' counsel may select. Copying and shipping costs will be borne by plaintiffs, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 6 OCs library includes documents that contain information which is considered to be proprietary and trade secret. Therefore, such documents will be produced only after the entry of an appropriate protective order. OC has removed from the library any existing materials which it contends are protected from discovery as privileged attorney-client communications, attorney work product materials, or otherwise beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Each document removed as privileged has been substituted with an easily identifiable marker which describes the privileged document by document type, (e.g.. memo, letter, note), date, author, recipient, subject matter, and basis for objection. These markers may be designated for copying in the same manner as non-privileged documents. OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit A a copy of an index of those documents generated and/or received by OC prior to 1973 which OC claims are protected from discovery as attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product, and to Exhibit B, a copy of an index of those document generated and/or received by OC after 1972 which OC claims are protected from discovery as attorneyclient communications and/or attorney work product. Visits to the library may be scheduled through OCs local counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 4 Please state whether or not the Defendant has purchased, assumed, or in any other manner acquired any of the assets and/or liabilities of any corporation or entity (such corporations or entities being limited to those engaged in the mining, selling, manufacturing, marketing or distribution of asbestos-containing products). If so, please state the following: 7 (a) The name of each such corporation or entity; (b) Date of acquisition; (c) The nature of the company as it relates to asbestos. RESPONSE: OC purchased the assets of the Kaylo division of Owens-Illinois, specifically the Berlin, New Jersey, manufacturing plant in May 1958. No successor or predecessor relationship was created and OC did not assume the liabilities of Owens-Illinois in that asset acquisition. See Exhibit C, a copy of the contract of purchase and sale between OC and Owens-Illinois dated May 9, 1958. OC first distributed asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation in April 1953 and began to manufacture asbestos-containing Kaylo when it purchased the Berlin plant in May 1958. OC purchased the assets of the Chembest Division of Unarco, specifically the Bloomington, Illinois, manufacturing plant in April 1970. In that purchase, no successor or predecessor relationship was created and OC did not assume the liabilities of Unarco. See Exhibit D, a copy of the contract of purchase and sale between OC and Unarco dated April 15, 1970. OC began to manufacture and distribute asbestos-containing Unarcoboard (Fyrcor) insulation at the time that it acquired the Bloomington plant. In 1952, Fiberglas Engineering and Supply Company, then a subsidiary of OC, acquired certain assets of the Marine Engineering and Supply Company. Neither Fiberglas Engineering and Supply nor OC assumed the 8 liabilities of Marine Engineering Company in this asset acquisition. See Exhibit E copies of the contract between Fiberglas Engineering and Supply Company and certain shareholders of Marine Engineering, dated July 10, 1952 and the articles of dissolution of Marine Engineering, dated September 17, 1952. Fiberglas Engineering and Supply Company (which later became the Contracting and Supply Division and eventually the Contracting Division of OQ was engaged in the business of distributing insulation products of OC and others as well as in the contract application of these products. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. EVER SELL ASBESTOS INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Has Defendant ever engaged in the mining, manufacturing, selling, marketing, installation or distribution of asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the following: (a) The name of the company engaged in the activity (whether it is Defendant, Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary); (b) As to each product mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed, please state the following: 1. The trade or brand name. 2. The time period it was manufactured, mined, marketed, distributed or sold. 3. The time period it was manufactured, mined, marketed, distributed or sold. 9 4. Its physical description including color, general compositioa and form. 5. A detailed description of its intended use and purpose. 6. A detailed description of the type package in which it was sold, listing the dates of each type of package used, a physical description of the package, and a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. 7. The percent of asbestos which it contained. 8. The percent of asbestos by asbestos type (amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite). (c) Hie time period during which each of these products were on the market; (d) A description of the physical composition of each product; (e) How each of these asbestos-containing product can be distinguished from those of competitors; (f) A description of the physical appearance of such product; (g) A detailed description of the intended uses. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving its objections, OC states that it does not currently manufacture, market, sell, or distribute products containing asbestos and has never mined or processed raw asbestos. Historically, OC manufactured, marketed, sold, and/or distributed such products. See Exhibit F, a chart listing those asbestos-containing products previously manufactured and/or distributed by OC, including the manufacture and/or distribution dates of each product. OC states that it does not have a predecessor, as it 10 understands that term. With regard to subparts (b) 1 -3 and (c), OC states that it manufactured asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation products from May 1958 to November 1972. OC distributed such products from April 1953 to April 1973, as indicated by a review of OCs collection of invoices for asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation products. OC also had limited involvement in the manufacture and/or distribution of other asbestos-containing products. See Exhibit F, a chart listing those asbestos-containing products previously manufactured and/or sold by OC. With regard to subparts (b)4, (b)7, (b)8, (d) and (f), OC states that for all types of asbestos-containing Kaylo which OC manufactured by the pan mold process (from 1958 to 1972), OCs formula generally included amosite asbestos, chrysotile asbestos, quicklime, silica, diatomaceous earth, clay, chromite, limestone and sodium silicate. For pan mold Kaylo, the approximate percentage of amosite as compared to chrysotile fibers varied between one-half and two-thirds of the total percentage of the asbestos content of Kaylo. OC also manufactured asbestos-containing Kaylo 10 from 1970 to 1972 using the filter press process. The formula for filter press Kaylo 10 generally included chrysotile asbestos, celite, hydrated lime and alum. The asbestos content of Kaylo 10 was approximately 15% (3%) by weight; the asbestos content of Kaylo 20 was approximately 22% (3%) by weight; and the asbestos content of Kaylo 17 was approximately 13% (3%) by weight. Slight changes were made in the batch formulations continually 11 throughout the period of time that OC manufactured asbestos-containing Kaylo in an attempt to improve the product. For precise information on asbestos content and type, OC refers plaintiffs to its batch formulations which are located in OCs document library. OC will provide a compilation of such formulations upon request and at cost. With regard to subparts (b)5 and (g), OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit F, a chart listing those asbestos-containing products previously manufactured and/or sold by OC, including information regarding the intended use of each such product. See also Exhibits G, H, L J and K, copies of product data and application information which OC provided to purchasers of its asbestoscontaining products. With regard to subpart (b)6, OC states that OCs asbestos-containing Kaylo products were packaged in corrugated containers. See Exhibits L, M, N and O, drawings/photographs of packaging for OCs asbestos-containing products. With regard to subpart (e), OC states that it did not stamp the name of the company, its initials or any identifying logo on its asbestos-containing products. However, it may have been possible to distinguish asbestoscontaining Kaylo insulation products from competitors' asbestos-containing insulation products by color, at least when Kaylo was initially applied. Kaylo block and Kaylo core were white; Kaylo 20 block and Kaylo 20 pipe were pink; and Kaylo pipe was grayish white. OC could also identify its asbestos- 12 containing Kaylo products by various techniques and laboratory procedures. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Does Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies claim that any patent would cover any product listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please state the following: (a) The date of each patentlb) The date same was issued; (c) The number of each patent application that is pending. RESPONSE: The original asbestos-containing Kaylo product was designed, developed and patented by Owens-Illinois Glass Company in the early 1940s. The exact date on which asbestos was incorporated into Kaylo by OwensIllinois is unknown by OC. OC acquired certain of the Kaylo patents when it purchased the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant from OwensIllinois in May 1958. See Exhibit C, particularly Schedule B of this purchase agreement between OC and Owens-Illinois, which includes patent numbers, inventor names, and issue dates. OC will provide copies of the patents listed on part 1 of Schedule B upon request and at cost. In addition, OC later developed other patents relating to Kaylo. See Exhibit P. 13 The asbestos-containing Fyrcor product originally known as Unarcoboard, was patented by Unarco Industries. See also Exhibit Q, a list of patents for OCs asbestos-containing resin products; Exhibit R a list of patents for OCs asbestos-containing Continuous and Chopped Strand Mat product- and Exhibit S, a list of patents for OCs asbestos-containing roofing products. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. X5ATORYNO. 7: Have any of the products listed above in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 been altered in chemical composition since first being marketed? If so, please state the following: (a) The trade name of each such product; (b) Tbe date each such product was altered; (c) The nature of the alteration; (d) The reason for the alteration. RESPONSE: During the period of time in which it manufactured asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation materials, OC made slight changes in the batch formulations, in the toted amount of asbestos incorporated into the product, and in the ratio of amosite and chrysotile asbestos used. See Interrogatory Response No. 5 and the batch formulas referenced therein. OC varied the asbestos content of 14 Kaylo in its attempts to improve the product. Such changes were the responsibility of OCs Kaylo Research and Development Section, which was headed by Richard F. Shannon. In November 1972, OC removed asbestos from Kaylo. OC ceased the production and distribution of asbestos-containing Kaylo products in light of medical information relative to asbestos and health, and because OC was able to develop an alternate technology for producing high temperature heat insulation. Lewis W. Saxby, then Senior Vice President of OC, directed that production and distribution of asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation products be discontinued. Mr. Saxby has since retired. OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit F, for information regarding other asbestos-containing products previously manufactured and/or sold by OC, including information pertinent to that which is requested herein. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Have any of the asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 ever been marketed, distributed, packaged, labeled, and/or sold by any other company or business? If so, please state the following: (a) The name and address of each such company. (b) The names and address of Defendant's distributors in Ohio and Illinois since 1940. (c) The date of each sale. 15 (d) The name of the person at each location with whom you primarily dealt. (e) A list of all asbestos-containing products that you sold to each location from 1945 to 1980. (f) The amount of each asbestos product sold to each location during this period. (g) Please identify all documents relating to this distributor RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving its objections, OC states that it distributed asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation products from April 1953 to April 1973, as indicated by a review of OCs collection of invoices for such products. Invoices relating to OCs distribution of asbestos-containing Kaylo are maintained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. OC also had limited involvement in the manufacture and/or distribution of other asbestos-containing products. See Exhibit F, a chart listing those asbestos-containing products previously manufactured and/or distributed by OC. OCs collection of invoices relating to the sales/shipments of these other asbestos-containing products is also maintained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3; however, this collection is incomplete. Furthermore, these documents are not segregated by purchaser/customer or by state, but are generally organized by invoice number. 16 OCs asbestos-containing Kaylo products were distributed to end-users in several different ways depending on the arrangements made at the time of purchase. Some shipments were made directly from the factory to specific locations (jobsites, warehouses, railheads, etc.) and invoiced to the purchaser. Other shipments were made from the factory to distributors or contractors who, in turn, sold the products to others. Similar arrangements were made with OC supply units in various locales throughout the United States. OC does not have a compilation of all entities which might have distributed OCs asbestoscontaining products. However, OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit T, a list of distributors of which OC is aware which distributed OCs asbestos-containing Kaylo products within Ohio at some point during the period 1953-1973. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 8.1: Does Defendant have reason to believe that the asbestos-containing products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 were used at the ARMCO/A.K. Steel Middletown Plant and/or the ARMCO/A.K. Steel Hamilton Plant? If your answer is "yes," please state the basis of your answer, etc.). RESPONSE: Upon receipt of detailed plaintiffs' employment history listing specific jobsite, city and state locations and corresponding years of employment, OC will review its records and attempt to respond. 17 ifutiaRROGATORY NO. 8.2: For each company or business that Defendant knows may have marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold, those products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 ARMCO/AK. Steel Middletown Plant and/or ARMCO/AK. Steel Hamilton Plant please state the following: (a) The name and address of each such company; (b) The date of each sale from Defendant to such other company; (c) The name of the person at each other company with whom Defendant primarily dealt (d) Names and quantities of the asbestos-containing products that you marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold to each such company from 1950 to 1974. (e) Please identify all documents relating to the sales to each such company. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 8. INTERROGATORY NO. 8.3: If you do not know any business that may have marketed, distributed, installed, and/or sold the products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5 to ARMCO/AK. Steel Middletown Plant and/or ARMCO/AK. Steel Hamilton Plant, please state the names and last known addresses of those companies who Defendant knows marketed, distributed, and/or sold their asbestos-containing products in Ohio from 1950 to 1974: For each of those companies, please state the following: (a) Name and address of each such company; (b) The dates of each sale from Defendant to such other company; 18 (c) The name of the person at each other company with whom Defendant primarily dealt; (d) The names of the asbestos-containing products that Defendant marketed, distributed, and/or sold to each such company from 1950 to 1974. RESPONSE: OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 8. XjATQRY NQJ1.4: Does Defendant have records and/or any knowledge that reflects sales of their asbestos-containing products to ARMCO/AX Steel Middletown Plant and/or ARMCO/AK. Steel Hamilton Plant? If so, please state: (a) The names and last known addresses of those people with such knowledge. (b) The location of such records. RESEQNSE: Upon receipt of detailed plaintiffs' employment history listing specific jobsite, city and state locations and corresponding years of employment, OC will review its records and attempt to respond. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Did Defendant or any of Defendant's distributors, as listed in response to Interrogatory Nos. 8.1, 8.2, and/or 8.3 have sales representatives who specifically called on ARMCO/A.K. Steel Middletown Plant and/or ARMCO/A.K. Steel Hamilton Plant, from 1945 to 1975? If your response is yes, as to each facility, please state the following: (a) The name and last known address of each such representative and whether they are still employed by Defendant' (b) The period of time they acted as your representative; (c) Their general responsibility as to each facility; and 19 (d) Whether that person is still alive. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome and seeks information which is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, OC states that many OC employees who may have information responsive to this are retired or deceased. Due to the passage of time, OC does not have a compilation of information regarding sales representatives for OC during this time period. INTERROGATORY NO,..10: Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract business of applying asbestos-containing products? If so, please state: (a) The name of each subdivision; (b) The full address of the home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business; and (c) Whether said division or subsidiary conducted such business at ARMCO/A.K. Steel Middletown Plant and/or ARMCO/A.K. Steel Hamilton Plant from 1954 to 1975? If so, please state: (1) (2) RESPONSE: The dates of such contracts; The specific asbestos-containing products that were used in each contract. OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving its objections, OC states that upon receipt of 20 detailed plaintiffs' employment history listing specific jobsite, city and state locations and corresponding years of employment, OC will review its records and attempt to respond as to any contracting work performed at such jobsites. OC, however, generally states that at OCs Board of Directors meeting on June 27, 1952, the Board reviewed and accepted a proposal from Detroit Insulation Company to make this company an OC subsidiary. In November 1953, this subsidiary, then known as Detroit Fiberglas Insulation Company, was merged into Fiberglas Contracting & Supply Company of Ohio Valley. Fiberglas Engineering and Supply Division 01 5933 Telegraph Road P.O. Box 22045 Los Angeles 22, CA 213/723-9781 02 5202 Lovelock Street San Diego, CA 714/2997-3765 03 905 W. Baseline St. San Bernardino, CA 714/885-3496 11 1200- 17th St. San Francisco 7, CA 415/863-2380 12 750 Commercial St. San Jose, CA 408/297-9520 21 1041 Fee Dr. North Sacramento, CA P.O. Box 1256 Sacramento, CA 916/927-1341 21 23 244 Winter St. P.O. Box 2659 Reno, NV 702/322-6941 26 427 P" St. P.O. Box 671 Fresno, CA 209/233-7227 31 1880W. Fillmore St. P.O. Box 6050 Phoenix, AZ 602/258-4541 32 1215 E Warehouse Ave. P.O. Box 4248 University Station Tuscon, AZ 602/623-5429 36 1011 Sawmill Rd. N.W. P.O. Box 7067 Old Town Station Albuquerque, NM 505/243-4583 41 336 S. Third West Salt Lake City, UT 801/328-8574 51 320 N.W. Hoyt Portland 9, OR 503/226-6781 56 325 Grove St. P.O. Box 138 Boise, ID 208/342-9311 22 61 1000 Seventh Ave. South Seattle 4, WA P.O. Box 3045 Seattle 14, WA 206-624-8910 66 1907 Post Rd. P.O. Box 833 Anchorage, AK 907/275-8344 71 E 3044 Trent Ave. Terminal Box 2945 Spokane, WA 509/534-0408 76 920-3rdAve. North P.O.Box 1501 Billings, MT 406/252-8496 Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be located in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INTERROGATORY. NCLll: Did Defendant ever have any division or subsidiary engaged in the contract business of applying asbestos-containing refractory? If so, please give the name of each subdivision, the full address of the home office and the date such subdivision or subsidiary was engaged in this contracting business. RESPONSE OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify by location and product produced, each plant in which products listed in your answer to Interrogatory No. 5 have been manufactured and/or assembled and the dates said plants have been in question. 23 RESPONSE: OCs asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation products were manufactured at its Berlin plant P.O. Box 100, Berlin, New Jersey 08009, from May 1958 until November 1972, when OC ceased the production of asbestos-containing Kaylo products. OCs asbestos-containing Fyrcor product was manufactured at its Bloomington plant 1111 West Perry Street Bloomington, Illinois 61701, from April 1970 until November 1972, when OC ceased the production of Fyrcor. The Newark plant, Case Avenue, Newark, Ohio 43055, began operation as an OC facility in 1938 and produced a small quantity of asbestos-containing products including cements, sewn blankets, metal mesh blankets and Type II Mastic. OCs Anderson plant, Starr Road, P.O. Box 1367, Anderson, South Carolina 29622, which began operation in July 1951, produced a small quantity of asbestos-containing products including polyester resins and adhesives. OCs Huntingdon plant, 14th and Penn Streets, Post Office Box 382, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania 16652, produced its asbestos-containing Continuous and Chopped Strand Mat. The Bloomington, Illinois, plant was sold in 1982. The Berlin, New Jersey plant ceased operation in 1993. The other plants are still in operation producing nonasbestos-containing products. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. 24 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Has Defendant at any time, entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as a buyer or a seller, concerning any asbestoscontaining products and/or materials? If so, please state: (a) The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products under such agreement' (b) The trade name affixed to such products; (c) Hie periods of time covered by each such agreement; (d) The volume (in dollars amounts) of each such transaction; (e) The purchaser of such products; (f) Does Defendant currently have in its possession any of the writings or contracts concerning such rebranding agreement? RESPONSE: OC had a rebrand agreement with the Pabco Division of Rbreboard Corporation between 1960 and the late 1960s or early 1970s by which Pabco's insulation was rebranded as "Kaylo* for OC. Also, Johns-Manville manufactured and rebranded insulation for OC during 1958-1960 (exact dates not known). Eagle-Picher manufactured and rebranded asbestos-containing cements for OC from approximately 1958-1968. Copies of the agreements between OC and Flbreboard Corporation (Pabco), Johns-Manville, and EaglePicher are Exhibits U, V and W. OC also distributed Owens-Illinois' asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation products from April 1953 to May 1958. See Exhibit X, a copy of the distribution agreement between OC and Owens-Illinois. 25 OCs asbestos-contcdning Kaylo was rebranded for Eagle-Picher under the name *Hy-Lo' beginning around 1958/1960; the date the rebrand ended is unknown at present. Asbestos-containing Kaylo was rebranded for Armstrong Cork under the name 'Armstrong LK1 or 'Armaglass' insulation; at the present time, OC is not aware of the precise date this arrangement began. To the best of OCs knowledge, the rebrand ended in 1968 OC refers plaintiff to attached Exhibit F for additional information pertaining to these rebranded products. OC does not have a compilation of the materials pertaining to these rebranding arrangements. However, information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. See also Exhibit F, a chart listing those asbestos-containing products previously manufactured and/or distributed by OC. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INFORMATION ABOUT DESIGN/TESTING NivaRROGATORY NO. 14: What is the name, address and job title of each individual who participated in the design and preparation of manufacturing specifications for each such product listed above in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? 26 RESPONSE: OC did not invent or design every asbestos-containing product that it manufactured and/or sold and does not have a compilation of all the information requested herein. However, See Exhibit C, particularly Schedule B of the purchase agreement between OC and Owens-Illinois, for information regarding Kaylo patents acquired by OC when it acquired the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant from Owens-Illinois in May 1958, including patent numbers, inventor names, and issue dates. OC will provide copies of the patents listed on part 1 of Schedule B upon request and at cost. In addition, OC later developed other patents relating to Kaylo. See Exhibit P. Additional information, to the extent that it is in OCs possession, would be located in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INTERROGATORY. Naifr As to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please describe how each product was to be cut shaped, scribed, mixed and applied on the job. (In answering this question, give particular reference as to whether or not the materials were to be sawed or cut on the job, blown into confined areas, mixed with water in a cement or paste.) RESPONSE: OCs asbestos-contcrining products, under differing conditions, were cut, sawed, mixed, routed, bound or wrapped as necessary to the particular application. See Exhibits G, H, I, J, and K, copies of OCs product data and application information which OC provided to purchasers of its asbestos- 27 containing products. See also Exhibit F, a chart listing those asbestos- containing products previously manufactured and/or sold by OC, including information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be located in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Based upon the material contents of the asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method of application, please state which products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 could be applied by a worker without creating dust. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving its objections, OC states that when handlers cut or sawed asbestos-containing Kaylo, dust was created which was within the applicable threshold limit value. If dry asbestos-containing cement was poured into a mixer, dust would be created. INTERROGATORY NCU?: Do any documents, including but not limited to, written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character now exist relating to the design and preparation of the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please: (a) List each such written material or document; (b) Identify the person or persons presently in possession of each such document; (c) State where each such document is located. 28 RESPONSE: OC did not originally design or develop asbestos-containing Kaylo. Kaylo was designed and developed by Owens-Illinois Glass Company in the early 1940s. However, OC may have acquired some of Owens-Dlinois' materials pertaining to the design of Kaylo when OC acquired the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant in May 1958. Such materials, to the extent that they exist and are in OCs possession, would be located in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Prior to releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 for sale and usage, were any tests (either animal or human) conducted on said products to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials and/or products? If so, please state: (a) The name of the products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests; (c) The results of such tests. RESPONSE: OC did not originally develop or market asbestos-containing Kaylo. Owens Illinois first designed, manufactured and sold this product in the 1940's. However, OC offers the following overview of those tests, studies, and surveys of which OC was aware before 1974 which pertain to the potential health effects of asbestos-containing Kaylo. 29 Before OC purchased the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant from Owens-Illinois, Owens-Illinois sponsored studies on Kaylo. These studies were conducted at the Trudeau Foundation located in Saranac Lake, New York. In 1956, before its acquisition of the Kaylo manufacturing plant from Owens-Illinois, OC inquired into the information that Owens-Illinois had regarding the health aspects of Owens-Illinois1 Kaylo product. OC was informed that a study at Saranac Lake, published in 1955, showed that animals, if exposed for a prolonged period of time to extraordinarily high concentrations of Kaylo dust, could develop a mild asbestosis reaction. However, OC was informed at the same time that Owens-Illinois1 experience in the Kaylo manufacturing plants, including x-ray results of its employees, revealed no lung changes of any kind that could be attributed to the occupational exposure to Kaylo. See Exhibit Y (Bates numbered 01 118 0108), a letter from W. G. Hazard to Ira Brought dated 6/12/56. Documents from OCs historical files, which OC believes it received from Owens-Illinois around the time of OCs acquisition of the Berlin, New Jersey plant, informed OC that Owens-Illinois had never received any complaints from any user reflecting any health or physical impairment on the part of people handling Kaylo material. Owens-Illinois had thus concluded, based on its experiences in the factories and in the field and its consideration of the Saranac Lake report, that the actual hazard to the health of those handling 30 Kaylo was considered to be small. OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit Z (Bates numbered 01 501 1348-1352), a draft of a pamphlet and correspondence relating to the health aspects of Kaylo, prepared by Owens-Illinois in 1952, which OC believes it received in 1958. See also Exhibit AA, a collection of documents pertaining to the Saranac Laboratory's testing of asbestoscontaining Kaylo which were in OCs historical files and which OC believes it received shortly after it acquired the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant (Exhibit AA consists of 12 documents, Bates numbered as follows: 01501 1354-1355; 01 501 1353; 01 034 0001-0032; 01 501 1343-1344; 01 501 1347; 01 501 1441; 01 035 0498-0530; 01 501 1439-1440; 01 501 1345-1346; 01 501 1348-1352; 01 501 1405-1406; 01 501 1319-1331). OC may have in its possession other documents of the type inquired of herein which OC received after litigation began and in the course of discovery. OC further states that it conducted a survey of its workers in the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant which was concluded in December 1970. See Exhibit BB. (OC Exhibit 10) During the period of time in which OC manufactured asbestoscontaining Kaylo products, dust level counts were taken for asbestos at the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant by Aetna in 1961, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1969, and 1972; by Bradley in 1968 and 1969; and by Clayton in 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973. See Exhibits CC, DD, and EE, which include copies of the results of some of those surveys. During this time period, the New Jersey 31 Department of Labor and Industry also periodically conducted industrial hygiene inspections, including dust level counts for asbestos, at the Berlin plant. OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit FF, a collection of documents which OC counsel obtained in the course of litigation from the New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry pertaining to such inspections. Industrial hygiene surveys, consisting of dust counts, were conducted during the fabrication of Kaylo block insulation on December 11, 1961, February 25, 1963, and in March 1963 at Union Carbide's Construction Insulation Shop in Charleston, West Virginia by Robert Peele, an Industrial Hygienist for Union Carbide. As a result of his surveys, Mr. Peele concluded that 1) the fabrication of Kaylo block insulation produced negligible health effects; 2) the environmental condition in evidence during the fabrication of Kaylo block insulation was not hazardous to health; and 3) Kaylo block insulation could be fabricated safely at Union Carbide's Construction Insulation Shop. OC refers plaintiffs to copies of the Peele studies, Exhibit GG (Report 62IH-l-G-1 consisting of 15 pages) and Exhibit HH (Report 63-IH-3-G-1 consisting of 14 pages). Documents in OCs historical files indicate that at least by May 16, 1963, Robert Peele discussed his test results with William A. Lotz of OC Product Testing. OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit H, a copy of a June 20, 1963, memorandum from William Lotz to J. K. Boynton (Bates numbered 01 007 03030304). 32 Entries from Robert Peele's daily calendar secured by OC in the course of litigation further indicate that Robert Peele (1) met with Robert Estep of OC on April 30, 1963, and discussed Union Carbide's dust analysis tests and research techniques (see Exhibit JD; (2) spoke to Robert Estep on May 1, 1963, and set up a meeting for May 16, 1963, with Estep and William Lotz (see Exhibit KK); and (3) met with Estep and Lotz on May 16, 1963, to discuss the best techniques for conducting air analysis (see Exhibit LL). Dust surveys were performed at power plants in Montour, Pennsylvania on January 15, 1973, and in Peachbottom, Pennsylvania on January 16 and 17, 1973; and at a shipyard in San Diego, California on June 26 and 27, 1973. These surveys were done by G. E Devitt, Chief Industrial Hygienist OwensComing Fiberglas Corporation, Fiberglas Tower, Toledo, Ohio 43659. Results of these surveys were communicated to OCs Contracting Division. See Exhibit MM, the results of those surveys conducted at Montour, Pennsylvania* Peachbottom, Pennsylvania and San Diego, California OC further states that certain OC resins previously described contained small amounts of calidria purchased from the Union Carbide Corporation. The resins contained less than .6% of calidria. Union Carbide conducted an industrial hygiene survey in December 1973 to evaluate any fiber release which resulted from sanding and sawing of the plastic into which this resin was made. This survey indicated that no detectable asbestos was released. 33 In addition, in the course of litigation OC has become aware of the following studies pertaining to the potential health effects of Kaylo: In August and September 1966, the industrial hygiene department of Bath Iron Works conducted surveys of the dust released when cutting various pipecovering materials. See Exhibit NN, the study results from the test dated August 19, 1966 and Exhibit OO, the results of the test dated September 12, 1966. After concluding these surveys, Bath Iron Works decided to use Kaylo pipecovering on future projects, because it was less dusty than other asbestoscontaining pipecovering. In 1967, industrial hygienists at DuPont evaluated total dust generated by fabricating, handsawing, and filing Kaylo. Dust counts from fabricating Kaylo with a band saw and a hand saw resulted in a negligible amount of total dust, defined as less than 100 particles per cubic foot. Filing of Kaylo resulted in a trace amount of total dust, defined as greater than 5,000 particles per cubic foot but less than .2% of the TLV. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs tiles related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Does Defendant have or control any documents, including but not limited to, written memoranda specifications, recommendations, blueprints or other written materials of any kind or character relating to the testing of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 5 hereinabove? (a) Identify each such written material or document; 34 (b) Identify each person who presently has possession of each such document; (c) State where each such document is located. RESPONSE: OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 18. INTERROGATORY NQ..2Q: Were any design changes or modifications made as a result of such tests listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 18 hereinabove? If so, please state: (a) The trade name of the product changed or modified; (b) The nature of the change made and the date of such changes or modifications; (c) The name, address, and job classification of each person in charge of making a change. RESPONSE: OC did not originally design or develop asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation. Kaylo was originally designed and manufactured by Owens-Illinois Glass Company in the early 1940s; the exact date on which asbestos was incorporated into Kaylo by Owens-Illinois is unknown to OC. After OC acquired the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant from Owens-Illinois in May 1958, OC made small modifications to the Kaylo manufacturing specifications from time to time. Such changes were the responsibility of OCs Kaylo Research and Development Section, which was headed by Richard F. Shannon. OC further refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response Nos. 7 and 25. 35 Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory may be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INTERRQGAIQRY NCL21: After releasing for sale, distribution or marketing the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5, did Defendant conduct any tests (either on animals or humans) to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of said materials and/or products? (a) The names of the products tested and the dates of said tests; (b) The name, address, and job classification of each person and/or agency conducting said tests; (c) The results of said tests; (d) Whether, as a result of any tests conducted, any products were removed from the market; (e) The names of all products removed from the market as a result of said tests. RESPONSE: OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 18. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Has Defendant ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies concerning the effects of the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers on workers or other persons applying, using and/or working around any of the asbestos products manufactured, sold, distributed and/or relabelled for distribution by you or your predecessor? If so, please state: (a) The dates and nature of such studies; (b) The names and addresses of persons conducting such studies; (c) The purpose of such studies; 36 (d) Identify and list those persons to whom such reports were given and the date of such dissemination; (e) State any publication or other written dissemination of the results of such studies; (f) State the nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers; and (g) Attach a copy of reports based upon such studies. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome and to the extent that it seeks information which is protected from discovery as attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product. Without waiving its objections, OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 18. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Before placing in the market the asbestos-containing products that Defendant, mined, manufactured, sold, marketed, installed or distributed on the market, did Defendant make or cause to be made, any studies to determine whether their asbestos-containing products would be hazardous to people? If so, please state: (a) Hie date of said studies; (b) What studies were done; and (c) The titles of each study. RESPONSE: OC did not originally develop or market asbestos-containing Kaylo. However, OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 18. 37 wifa;RRQGATQRY NQ. 24: Please state whether or not Defendant ever conducted or caused to be conducted any tests in the field (where asbestos-containing products were applied, removed or utilized) to determine the nature and extent of asbestos dust and/or fiber exposure to insulators, applicators, fellow employees, or other workers removing and/or tearing out asbestos-containing products, and/or other workers in the vicinity thereof? If so, please identify: (a) The date, place and nature of each and every test; (b) The particular asbestos-containing products to which each test applied; (c) The results of each test with particular reference to the number of asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air found at each site; and (d) The persons to whom the results said tests were given and the date of such dissemination. RESPONSE: OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 18. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Please state whether or not Defendant ever obtained any knowledge concerning the likelihood of asbestos being hazardous to human health. If so, please state: (a) When Defendant first became aware of the hazardous potential of asbestos dust and asbestos fibers; (b) The manner in which the Defendant Defendant's predecessor, or Defendant's subsidiary companies first obtained this knowledge and became aware of said hazards and horn what source this information was obtained; (c) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company, or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects; (d) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. 38 (e) The name, address and job classification of the custodian of such information. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome and to the extent that it asks OC to make a subjective determination regarding the degree oi information required to state when DC first became aware of the "hazardous potential of asbestos dust and asbestos fibers." Without waiving its objections, OC offers the following as an overview of the information requested herein. OC is now aware of medical literature associating various health concerns with the inhalation of certain asbestos fibers. However, there was no specific date as to when OC became aware of all of the relationships between various types of exposure to asbestos dust and various health concerns. Likewise, there was no specific date as to when OC became aware of the relationship between exposures to Kaylo dust and various health concerns. OCs knowledge of the potential health aspects of asbestos exposure, particularly its awareness with respect to its Kaylo insulation product, was accumulated through the years from numerous sources, including the medical and scientific community, unions, medical and scientific literature, and OC employees. In the early 1940s, some OC employees became aware of reports of asbestosis and asbestos corns associated with prolonged overexposure to 39 heavy concentrations of asbestos fibers in the asbestos textile manufacturing industry. Employees learned of these reports from published medical studies such as W. C. Dreesen, et al., "A Study of Asbestosis in the Asbestos Textile Industry,1 Public Health Bulletin No. 241, August 1938, and A. J. Lanza et al., 'Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust on the Lungs of Asbestos Workers,' Public Health Reports, Vol. 50, No. 1., January 1935. See Exhibit PP, a copy of the Dreesen study from OCs files (Bates numbered 01 501 0514-0648); Exhibit 00 (Bates numbered 01 500 0072-0084), a copy of the Lanza Study received by OC in 1941; and Exhibit RR (Bates numbered 01 500 0062-0064), correspondence related to OCs receipt of the Lanza Study. The Dreesen study noted that only a few doubtful cases of asbestosis could be found where dust levels were kept below a threshold limit value (TLV) of five million particles per cubic foot of crir (MPPCF). The study reported that if dust could be kept below that level (by simple engineering and housekeeping methods such as proper ventilation and work area clean-up), new cases of asbestosis would not appear. In 1946, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) adopted the TLV of five MPPCF as its recommended standard. A study of asbestos pipe coverers in Navy vessels entitled 'A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels' was published by W.E Fleischer, et al. in the January 1946 issue of the Journal of International Hygiene and Toxicology. 28, 9-16. This study, subsequently 40 reported in the April 1946 issue of the Industrial Hygiene Digest, found that the conclusions drawn regarding health effects in the asbestos textile industry could not be applied to pipecovering on board Navy ships and that pipe covering was not a dangerous occupation. See Exhibit SS, a copy of the April 1946 issue of the Industrial Hygiene Digest, and Exhibit IT, a copy of an affidavit of Marianne Kaschak of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation. As a member of the IHF, OC likely received this digest report. In the early 1940s, certain OC employees also became aware of a study of New York Navy Yard asbestos insulation workers by Captain Ernest Brown, M.D. Dr. Brown concluded that, even with a maximum working period of exposure of 17 years, no cases of asbestosis were found among the insulators that he studied. See Exhibit UU (Bates numbered 01 501 0965-0968), a copy of a letter dated 3/9/42 from Dow Chemical to OC transmitting an excerpt from Captain Brown's study and related correspondence. In April 1953, OC began to distribute a hydrous calcium silicate reinforced with asbestos, called Kaylo, which was manufactured by OwensIllinois. OC began to manufacture this insulation product in May 1958 when it purchased the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant from OwensIllinois. In 1956, before purchasing the Kaylo manufacturing plant from OwensIllinois, OC inquired into the information that Owens-Illinois had regarding the health aspects of the Owens-Illinois Kaylo product. OC was informed that a 41 study, conducted by the Trudeau Foundation of Saranac Lake, New York, and published in 1955, showed that animals, if exposed for a prolonged period of time to extraordinarily heavy concentrations of Kaylo dust, could develop a mild asbestosis reaction. However, OC was informed at the same time that Owens-Illinois' experience in its manufacturing plant including x-ray results, revealed no lung changes of any kind that could be attributed to the occupational exposure to Kaylo. See Exhibit Y (Bates numbered 01 118 0108), a letter from W. G. Hazard to Ira Brought dated 6/12/56. Certain other documents in OCs historical files, which OC believes it received from Owens-Illinois in 1958, informed OC that Owens-Illinois had never received any complaints from any user reflecting any health or physical impairment on the part of people handling Kaylo material. Owens-Illinois had thus concluded, based on its experiences in the factories and in the field and its consideration of the Saranac Lake report that the actual health effects on those handling Kaylo was considered to be small. OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit Z (Bates numbered 01 501 1348-1352), a draft of a pamphlet and correspondence relating to the health aspects of Kaylo prepared by OwensIllinois in 1952, which OC believes it received when it purchased the Berlin, New Jersey Kaylo manufacturing plant from Owens-Illinois in 1958. See also Exhibit AA, a collection of documents pertaining to the Saranac Laboratory's testing of Kaylo which are in OCs files and which OC believes it received with or shortly after the purchase of the Berlin, New Jersey plant (Exhibit AA consists 42 of 12 documents, Bates numbered as follows: 01 SOI 1354-1355; 01 501 1353; 01 034 0001-0032; 01 501 1343-1344; 01 501 1347; 01 501 1441; 01 035 0498-0530; 01 501 1439-1440; 01 501 1345-1346; 01 501 1348-1352; 01 501 1405-1406; 01 501 1319-1331). In the early 1960s, an industrial hygienist at the Union Carbide Company, Robert Peele, had studied Kaylo and concluded that: (1) the fabrication of Kaylo block insulation produced negligible health effects; (2) the environmental condition in evidence during the fabrication of Kaylo block insulation was not hazardous to health; and (3) Kaylo block insulation could be fabricated safely at Union Carbide's Construction Insulation Shop. OC refers plaintiffs to copies of the Peele studies, Exhibit W (Report 62-IH-l-G-l consisting of 15 pages) and Exhibit WW (Report 63-IH-3-G-1 consisting of 14 pages). Documents in OCs historical files indicate that at least by May 16, 1963, Robert Peele dismissed his test results with William A. Lotz of OC Product Testing. OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit D, a copy of a June 20, 1963, memorandum from William Lotz to J. K. Boynton (Bates numbered 01 007 03030304). Entries from Robert Peele's daily calendar secured by OC in the course of litigation further indicate that Robert Peele (1) met with Robert Estep of OC on April 30, 1963, and discussed Union Carbide's dust analysis tests and research techniques (see Exhibit JJ; (2) spoke to Robert Estep on May 1, 1963, 43 and set up a meeting for May 16, 1963, with Estep and William Lotz (see Exhibit KK); and (3) met with Estep and Lotz on May 16, 1963, to discuss the best techniques for conducting air analysis (see Exhibit LL). During the approximate period of 1964-1966, OC became aware of new developments concerning potential problems with asbestos insulating materials, particularly reports authored by Dr. Irving J. Selikoff which were presented as part of proceedings conducted by the New York Academy of Sciences and published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Science on December 31, 1965. These articles, as they related to prolonged use and exposure to asbestos insulating materials and potential lung disease, were questioned by certain OC employees with regard to their application to the product Kaylo. It was felt that Kaylo, a calcium silicate, could not have been involved to any appreciable extent in the studies because the studies involved men who had entered the insulation trade before 1943 and Kaylo was not manufactured until 1943, and according to Owens-Illinois, not commercially produced until 1948. In addition, the fact that the asbestos in Kaylo was altered physically and chemically during the autoclaving process raised the issue as to whether or not the alteration changed the possible cancer inducing tendencies of the original asbestos. OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit XX (Bates numbered 01 007 0287-0291), a copy of Selikoffs article, "Asbestos Exposure and Neoplasia" published in the April 6, 1964 edition of the Toumal of the American Medical Association, and Exhibit YY (Bates numbered 01 007 0286), a memorandum to 44 F. H. Edwards from W. L Taylor, dated 4/22/64 relating thereto. As of the mid-1960s, no worker's compensation cases had been filed by employees of the Berlin, New Jersey, Kaylo manufacturing plant In October 1966, certain OC employees became aware of a potential claim by a Massachusetts insulation worker who claimed almost exclusive handling of Kaylo and alleged lung disease. OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit ZZ (Bates numbered 01 039 1471-1472), correspondence regarding this claim. Shortly thereafter, notwithstanding the fact that there was still doubt among OC employees as to whether Kaylo could cause lung disease, OC made the decision to place cautionary labels on Kaylo cartons and to remove asbestos from Kaylo as quickly as possible. This decision was implemented in December 1966. OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit AAA (Bates numbered 01 037 0390-0402), minutes of OCs Industrial and Commercial Division's Research and Development Review on November 7, 1966, which relates to these actions. OC ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing Kaylo and Unarcoboard in 1972; Exhibit F lists the dates that OC ceased the manufacture and/or distribution of other asbestos-containing products. To the best of OCs knowledge, products containing encapsulated asbestos were/are not known to cause adverse health effects. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. 45 WinRRQGA7QRY NO. 26: Please state when Defendant first became aware of the possible association between inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers and the contraction of asbestosis and cancers including, but not limited to gastrointestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, renal cancer, lymphoma lung cancer and mesothelioma As to each disease or condition, please state the source of that information, including a description of all tests conducted relative to the possibility of such a relationship. BESEQNSE OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is an inappropriate use of this discovery vehicle. The information sought by this interrogatory is more appropriately the subject of competent expert testimony. Without waiving its objections, OC refers plaintiffs to Response No. 25. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Please identify all physicians, industrial hygienists, and other employees (including their names and addresses) who were employed, retained or otherwise engaged by Defendant for research, investigation or study concerning asbestos or asbestos-related diseases. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and also objects to the extent that the question seeks to discover information regarding nontestifying consultants retained by counsel for the purpose of litigation. Without waiving its objections, OC states that to the best of its knowledge, it did not hire physicians, industrial hygienists or others for the specific purpose of research, investigation or study concerning asbestos or asbestos-related diseases. However, OC generally states that Dr. Jon L 46 Konzen was hired on January 15, 1968, as OCs Corporate Medical Director. He was promoted to the position of "Wee President, Medical and Health Affairs, Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corporation, Fiberglas Tower, Toledo, Ohio 43659 in November 1985. He remained in this position until December 31, 1992. Joel Bender, M.D., Ph.D., who was appointed Vice President Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs in 1987, is currently Vice Resident Health Sciences and Chief Medical Officer for the company. In this capacity, Dr. Bender is responsible for providing strategic direction and leadership to the corporation in all areas of health sciences and safety. This includes supporting, coordinating, and leading processes and developing policies that not only meet compliance assurance requirements but also promote global stewardship. Dr. Jean Arnold Chapman served as Corporate Medical Director from November 11, 1985, until February 29, 1988. Dr. Michael G. Holthouser was Director, Corporate Medical Services from June 1988 until January 31, 1991. Dr. David C. Deubner was Director, Corporate Medical Services from December 16, 1991 until December 31, 1993. Jon W. Lee was Director, Corporate Medical Services from January 1, 1994 to August 1995. The Medical Director's responsibilities included: (1) overseeing the development of scientific and medical knowledge concerning the health effects 47 of products made and sold by OC, materials used in OCs manufacturing process, and new products and processes under development* (2) designing and managing medical research programs; and (3) representing the company in matters concerning health effects. Corporate Medical Services for OC is currently lead by a self-directed work team consisting of: Amy Ahrens, MA, Leader - Disability Management Don Levitt Ph.D., Leader - Employee Assistance Programs; and Cheryl Shull, R.N., Leader - Occupational Nursing. This work team reports to Greg Thomson, Senior Vice Resident Human Resources. Dr. D. J. Billmcder was hired as Assistant Corporate Medical Director on December 30, 1974. He remained in this position through August 29, 1980. Dr. Billmaier was replaced by Dr. Rufus W. Miller, who served in this position from November 10, 1980, until September 1984. Dr. Miller was succeeded by Dr. Kenneth Gould, who was hired in September 1984 and employed through August 1985. Hie position of Assistant Corporate Medical Director has been vacant since August 1985. Dr. S. K. Remley, Corporate Staff Physician, was employed from February 5, 1979, until December 31, 1989. He was replaced by Dr. Michael I. Sarver, who was employed from March 26, 1990, to June 15, 1991, as Manager, Corporate Medical Programs. The duties and responsibilities of this position were to provide medical services for Toledo employees, to conduct preplacement and periodic 48 examinations, to diagnose and treat illnesses or injuries, to advise supervisors and management on medical aspects of employees1 problems, and to implement preventative health programs. OCs Berlin, New Jersey, manufacturing facility used the services of Dr. H. C. Schwartz (deceased) from 1958 to 1970. Dr. John McNally was employed at the Berlin facility from April 27, 1970, to October 1978. Dr. Priscillano Parilla was employed at the Berlin facility from November 1978 until August 1982. Dr. Ercole J. Liberi was employed as the plant physician for the Berlin plant from September 1982 until 1993 when the plant was closed. These doctors performed pre-employment and periodic physical examinations. OCs Bloomington, Illinois, manufacturing facility used the services of Dr. George B. McNeely, 2302 E Oakland Avenue, Bloomington Illinois, from April 1970 to July 1977; Dr. N. Lee Still 2103 E Washington, Bloomington Illinois, from July 1977 to July 1978; and Dr. James A. Bilyeau, 1 Medical Hills Avenue, Bloomington, Illinois, from July 1978 until 1982, when the plant was sold. These doctors conducted pre-employment and periodic physical examinations and were employed on a contract basis. The following doctors read chest x-rays, conducted medical examinations, and consulted with employees at the Berlin, New Jersey, and Bloomington, Illinois, manufacturing plants; 49 Physician/Consultant and Last Known Address Richard M. Sproch, M.D. 350 Kings Highway, E Haddonfield, NJ E Spencer Paisley, M.D. 501 White Horse Pike Haddon Heights, NJ 08035 IT. Higgins, M.D. School of Public Health University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Ml 48104 George Wright M.D. (Retired) 460 S. Marion Parkway Parklane Apartments Denver, CO 80209 Dr. Harold Manuson Institute of Indus. Health University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Walter Whitehouse, M.D. Institute of Industrial Health University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Paul Scholtens, M.D. Institute of Industrial Health University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Ml 48104 Theodore Dietchek, M.D. Institute of Industrial Health University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Drs. Goldenberg, Keinle, Steeb, Schaupp, Limacaco Date 1961-1964 1969-1974 1969-1970 1971 1958 to approx. 1961 1958-1961 1958-1961 1958-1961 50 Plant Berlin Berlin Berlin Berlin to Bloomington Berlin Berlin Berlin Berlin & Petrovich (Radiology Group) West Jersey Hospital Berlin, NJ 1965-1982 Dr. C. R. Johnson Professional Health Services (Mobile Van Testing) 1974-1993 (plant closed) Joseph W. Sokolowsld, Jr., M.D. and Irwin Spim 1916 E. Malton Pike Cherry Hill NJ 1974-1993 (plant closed) Dr. Chauncey McGeorge 66 Tanner Street Haddonfield, NJ 1982-1993 (plant closed) Bloomington Radiology Bloomington, IL 1970-1978 St. Joseph's Hospital Radiology Department Bloomington, IL 1974-1978 James Bilyeau, M.D. 1 Medical Hills Drive Bloomington, IL 1978-1982 (plant sold) Berlin Berlin Berlin Berlin Bloomington Bloomington Bloomington The following doctors were consulted on a periodic basis from 1973 to 1987 to conduct examinations of contract unit employees (the Contracting Division was sold in February 1987): Richard K. Bath, M.D. 1124 Carew Towers Cincinnati, OH Alexander Greer, M.D. West 104th Fifth Spokane, WA 99204 Willis Taylor, M.D. Leon A. Sealey, M.D. 51 West Side Family Health Center 700 N. High School Road Indianapolis, IN Sutter Clinic, Inc. 819 Locust Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Drs. Vanthoff, Yost Kempers & Vroon ATTN: Dr. Richmond 50 College S.E Grand Rapids, MI Robert D. Helferty, M.D. Industrial Medical Center PC, Inc. 1116 Ann Arbor Street P.O.Box 3310 Flint MI 48503 National Medical Consultants Inc. (Clinic) Suite 414 Fox Ridge Tower Mission, KS 66202 Maurice Johnston, M.D. Kelsey-Seybold Clinic 6624 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77025 Dr. Ray Hardman 54321.H. 35 Austin, TX 78744 Dr. Arnold Albert 1028 South Alamo San Antonio, TX Dr. Patrick Clancy 400 'O' Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Northwest Industrial Medical Clinic 1500 First Avenue, South Seattle, WA 98101 William D. Forney, M.D. 425 W. Bannack Boise, ID 83702 Rodman Wilsoa M.D. 3300 Providence Drive Suite 301 Anchorage, AL 99504 John J. Krygier, M.D. 511 S.W. 10th Street Portland, OR Dr. Benjamin Schneider 123 E Market Street Danville, PA Dr. Gordon Neilson Page Medical Center 800 Elm Page, AZ Dr. Melvin Bechtel 10804 Prairie Hills Drive Omaha NE 68144 B. Dwight Culver, M.D. College of Medicine Dept, of Community & Environmental Medicine Med. Surg. D - Room 367 University of California Irvine, CA Dr. Kaare Lovall Family Medicine Clinic Bldg. 2132 N. Cedar Holt. MI 48842 52 Dr. J. J. Applegarth 384 Post Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Dr. A. V. Swanberg 610 7th Street Kalespell,MT 59901 Riverside Clinic ATTN: W. McCauley, Adm. 8445 E Jefferson Detroit Ml 48214 Gerald Devitt was hired by OC as an Industrial Hygienist in August 1970. He subsequently became Chief Industrial Hygienist and remained in that position until his retirement on October 31,1986. Charles W. Axten was hired as Manager of Industrial Hygiene on July 14, 1986, and held that position until mid-1988, when he became the Director of Occupational Safety and Health. Mr. Axten remained in that position until August 31, 1990. Klaus D. Rosinski became the Director of Occupational Safety and Health on November 1, 1990 and subsequently became a Product and Environmental Health Consultant. J. Kenneth Conover was hired as an Industrial Hygienist in August 1986 and was promoted to Supervisor of Industrial Hygiene on June 1, 1988. He then served as Senior Program Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety until April 30, 1992. F. W. lichtenberg was hired as a technical information specialist in April 1975 and later served as an Industrial Hygienist from March 1977 until June 30, 1980. Regina Brown served as an Industrial Hygienist for OC from June 15, 1980, until January 1, 1982. 53 Michael J. Guisfredi was hired in February 1978 as a Technologist Hygienist and became a Staff Industrial Hygienist in February 1987. He was a Senior Specialist Occupational Health and Safety, and presently serves as a Lead Specialist Occupational Health and Safety. ]. David Lawson was hired as a Staff Industrial Hygienist on July 7,1986, and subsequently served as a Lead Specialist Occupational Health and Safety until September 13, 1991. Kathleen A. Johnson was hired as a Staff Industrial Hygienist in July 1987 and is currently a Senior Specialist Occupational Health and Safety on a parttime basis. Bruce A. Karas was hired as a Staff Industrial Hygienist on September 6, 1988, and was a Senior Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety. He currently serves as a Lead Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety. John M. Horwarth was hired as a Staff Industrial Hygienist on September 12, 1988, and was a Senior Specialist Occupational Health and Safety. He subsequently served as a Lead Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety until December 17, 1992. M. Lynn Kessinger served as a Lead Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety from November 16, 1989 to May 31,1991. C. Terry Moore (deceased) was hired as a Lead Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety on December 1, 1989. 54 Jeff Lobelia was hired as a Specialist, Occupational Health and Safety on January 2, 1992. John Embelton was hired as a Specialist Occupational Health and Safety on January 29, 1992. Jonathan Hellerstein was hired as a Lead Specialist Occupational Health and Safety on August 3, 1992. Dan Delozier was hired as a Specialist Occupational Health and Safety on June 1, 1993. Frank Cereghini presently serves as Manager, Occupational Health and Safety. OCs industrial hygienists are and have been responsible for the recommendation of programs relating to the industrial hygiene of its employees. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: As to each person who acted in a medical advisory capacity (as it relates in any way to asbestos) to Defendant please list their name, the date individual acted in this capacity, and that person's current address and job title. RESPONSE: OC objects to the term "medical advisory capacity" as vague and ambiguous. Without waiving its objections, OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 27. 55 INTERRQGATQRXNO,29: Please state if any medical officer or industrial hygienist or medical consultant ever made at any time any recommendations and/or suggestions to Defendant pertaining to the risks or hazards to persons involved in the manufacture or use of asbestos products and, if so, please state when, by whom or to whom such recommendations and/or suggestions were made and the substance of each recommendation. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome and to the extent that it seeks information which is protected from discovery as attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product. Without waiving its objections, OC states that it has no compilation of the information requested. Information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INlEBRQGAIQRIIiCL,3Q: Please state the scientific and/or medical periodicals to which Defendant, its medical department, research department industrial hygiene divisions, engineering department or consulting physicians subscribed between 1945 and 1975. RESPONSE- OC has subscribed to the following scientific and/or medical periodicals: Journal of Occupational Medicine Industrial Hygiene Digest (literature abstracts) American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal Journal of Occupational Safety and Health 56 Mew England Journal of Medicine The Medical Letter Archives of Environmental Health Occupational Safety and Health Reporter (BNA) Chemical Reporter fBNAl Ioumcd of American Medical Association American burned of Publichealth Archives of Internal Medicine British Toumal of Public Health The Medical Clinics of North America Individual employees of OC may have subscribed to other periodicals or received publications from various organizations of which OC is unaware. INIEBB0QAIQBimi2i: State in detail what test, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust, fibers or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with and/or around, installing and/or applying your asbestos-containing products. RESPONSE: OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 18. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: For each test described in Interrogatory No. 31, please give the name of the person conducting the test, the date of the test and attach true copies of any documents, including but not limited to, reports, findings or memoranda concerning such tests or studies. 57 RESPONSE: OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 18. IMtP*RRQGATQRYNQ, 33: Please state the year that Defendant was first advised of either threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and state the name of the employee/official of the company receiving such advice. RESPONSE: OC is aware of the threshold limit values (TLVs) for exposure to asbestos dust as recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). However, OC cannot state precisely when or from what source it first became aware of such TLVs. OC is aware that, from 1946 to 1969, the ACGIH adopted a TLV of five million particles per cubic foot of air (MPPCF). In 1963, Robert Peele, an Industrial Hygienist for Union Carbide, informed OC that the maximum allowable asbestos dust in the air was five MPPCF. OC was also informed that dust samplings conducted by Mr. Peele during the fabrication of asbestos-containing Kaylo revealed that the dust emitted was below the applicable TLV. In 1968, the ACGIH recommended the reduction of the asbestos TLV to two MPPCF or 12 fibers per cubic centimeter greater than five microns in length. This recommendation went into effect in 1969. In 1971, OSHA adopted an emergency standard for exposure to asbestos dust of five fibers per cubic centimeter greater than five micrometers 58 in length based on an eight hour time weighted average. In 1972, OSHA adopted the above as a permanent standard. Hie information from the ACGIH is as readily available to plaintiffs as it is to OC. OC refers plaintiffs to Exhibit BBB, a compilation of documents relating to OCs developing knowledge of TLVs. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Does Defendant maintain a library dealing with industrial hygiene, medicine, safety and engineering and/or research? If so, state: (a) The date each such library was established; (b) The location of each library; (c) The name(s) of the librarian(s) since 1930; (d) List all journals subscribed to by you concerning asbestos, industrial hygiene, medicine, safety, and/or engineering; (e) List all books and articles dealing with asbestos and asbestos- related diseases and the date acquired. RESRQN.SE: With regard to subparts (a)-(c) and (e). OC states that it maintained a medical library from 1968 to 1987 which consisted, in part, of medical information pertaining to asbestos exposure. OC also maintained an industrial hygiene library from 1970 to 1987. These libraries are no longer being 59 maintained. F. Lichtenberg was custodian of both libraries from 4/1/75 to 3/1/77; S. D. Fansler was custodian of both libraries from 3/1/77 to 11/87, when the libraries ceased operation. With regard to subpart (d), OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 30. INTERROGATORY NO. 3Sr Did Defendant in the 1920's or 1930's commission, or participate in the arrangements with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for studies at the Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, concerning the effect of inhalation or ingestion of asbestos fibers upon human and/or animal bodies. BESEPMSB To the best of its knowledge, OC did not finance, assist or participate in asbestos-related studies conducted by or for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company or The Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake. OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 18. INTERROGATORY NO, 36: When was Defendant first aware of reports of studies of the Trudeau Foundation at Saranac Lake, New York, entitled "Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust in the Lungs of Asbestos Workers" by A.J. Lanza Assistant Medical Director published in the J. Public Health Report, Vol. 50, No. 1, dated January 4, 1935 ("Lanza Report")? RESPONSE: OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 25. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Please state whether the Defendant at any time has been a member of any "trade organization" or "trade association" composed by other manufacturers, miners, distributors, and/or sellers of asbestos-containing products and, if so, please identify the name and address of each such 60 association or organization, the dates of membership, and the names of any publications issued or written by such association or organization. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving its objections, OC states that it has been a member of the following organizations for the years stated: National Insulation Manufacturers Association, Inc. (1958 to February 1973), 441 Lexington Ave., New York, New York 10017; Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association (February 1973 to present), 7 Kirby Plaza Mt. Kisco, New York 10549; National Mineral Wool Association (1969 to present), 382 Springfield Ave., Summit, New Jersey 07901; Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America and, its successor, Industrial Health Foundation (1942 to 1950 and 1953 to June 30, 1992), 34 Penn Circle West, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206; National Insulation Contractors Association and, its successor, National Insulation & Abatement Association (1967 to present), 99 Canal Center Plaza Alexandria Virginia 22314 American Society for Testing & Materials (dates of membership unknown), 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia Pennsylvania 19103; National Safety Council (July 1943 to present), 444 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611; and 61 North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (January 1992 to present), 44 Caned Center Plaza Suite 310, Alexandria Virginia 22314. Safe Building Alliance (1984 to 1988), 655 15th Street N.W., Suite 1200, Metropolitan Square, Washington, D.C. 20005. OC further states that individual OC employees may have been members of various other organizations of which OC is unaware. See Exhibits CCC, DDD and EEE. copies of various NIMA meeting minutes. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: With respect to each trade organization or association listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 37, please state whether the minutes of the group's meetings and any correspondence between the members of the such groups concerning the hazards of asbestos exposure are available. RESPONSE: OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 37. INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Please identify by name the technical and trade association periodicals to which the Defendant subscribed, and state whether Defendant had knowledge of any articles being printed, or withheld from printing, in said periodicals pertaining to the potential hazards of asbestos. If so, please state the following: (a) The title of each such article; (b) The periodical in which each such article was published; 62 (c) The date each such article was published; (d) A detailed explanation of the reason for withholding any such article for printing; (e) Produce documentation which refers, alludes or mentions articles which were withheld for publication. RESPONSE: OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response Nos. 30 and 37. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be located in OCs files related to asbestos, as described in Response No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 4Q: Please state whether, prior to 1975, the Defendant sponsored, or attended any meeting, seminar, conference, convention or legislative hearing where the subject of occupational health and exposure to asbestos was discussed and, if so, please state the date and place of such meeting and the name and address of any speakers or participants. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving its objections, OC states that H. T. Williams, D. W. Ladd, John Vyverberg and J. P. Kem represented OC at various times on the National Insulation Manufacturers Association (NIMAJ/Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association (TIMA} Board of Directors. Donald Bradshaw represented OC at various times through his involvement with the Health and Safety Committee of the National Insulation Contractors Association (NICAj. Dr. Jon Konzen also served on the Medical and Scientific Committee of TIMA. 63 In addition, OC states that individual employees of OC may have attended various trade organization meetings of which OC is unaware. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. WARNINGS/SALES PROMOTION INTERROGATORY NO. 41 As to each product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5, please state whether Defendant, at any time, published and/or distributed any printed materials, including but not limited to brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packagings or other written materials of any kind or character that contain any warnings, cautions, caveats or directions concerning the possible health effects of the products on a person. If so, please state as to each product: (a) The name of each relevant product; (b) The wording of each such warning; (c) A description of each such printed material; (d) The method used to distribute the warning to persons who are likely to use the products; (e) The date each such warning was issued; (f) Whether any warning accompanied any of your asbestoscontaining products' sales literature, handout or pamphlets; (g) Please attach a copy of the warning and date said warning was issued; (h) The name, address, and job classification of each person who presently has possession of the above-described documents;(i) (i) The name or names and addresses of the company who provided, produced, or manufactured the boxes or containers on 64 which the warning appeared and dates these boxes with the warnings appeared. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving its objections, OC states that to the extent that plaintiffs are seeking information as to warranties, OC states that it did not make any warranties with respect to its asbestos-containing products. OC further states that it did not advertise in the usual way via television or magazines, etc. However, during the time period in which OC manufactured asbestos-containing products, it provided product data and application information to purchasers. See Exhibits G, H, L J, and K. To the extent that plaintiffs are seeking information regarding cautions or warnings that OC may have distributed with its products, OC states that in 1964, at the suggestion of Eagle-Picher, OC agreed to the placement of a cautionary label on bags of OC-110 (SC-30) and OC-660 (SC-40) cement manufactured by Eagle-Picher and rebranded for OC. These labels read as follows: 'CAUTION: This product contains asbestos fiber. Inhalation of asbestos in excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmful. If dust is created when this product is handled, avoid breathing the dust. If adequate ventilation control is not possible, wear respirators approved by the U.S. Bureau of Mines for pneumoconiosis producing dust.1 See Exhibit FFF. In December 1966, OC handstamped cautionary labels on containers of Kaylo insulation which read as follows: This product contains asbestos fiber. 65 If dust is created when this product is handled, avoid breathing the dust. If adequate ventilation control is not possible, wear respirator approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines.' Cartons with preprinted cautionary labels were used after February 1967. No reproductions of the hand-stamped packages are available. However, Exhibit GGG accurately reflects the labeling stamped on all packages from December 1966 to November 1970. In November 1970, OC changed the Kaylo cautionary label to read: *CAUTION - Product contains asbestos fiber. Inhalation of dust in excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmful. Avoid breathing dust. If adequate ventilation is not possible, wear respirators approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines for pneumoconiosis producing dust.1 See Exhibit HHH. After its purchase of the Bloomington, Illinois, plant from Unarco on April 15, 1970, OC continued to use the cautionary labels already printed on Unarcoboard (Fyrcor) packaging which read as follows: 'CAUTION - This product contains asbestos fiber. Inhalation of asbestos in excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmful. If dust is created when this product is handled avoid breathing the dust. If inadequate ventilation control is not possible, wear respirators approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines for pneumoconiosis producing dusts.1 See Exhibit III. In May 1971, OC revised the Fyrcor cautionary label to read: *WARNTNG - This product contains asbestos fibers. Inhalation of asbestos fibers in excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmful. Avoid breathing 66 the dust. If adequate ventilation control is not possible, wear respirators of a type approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines for pneumoconiosis dusts.' See Exhibit BJ. The author of the 1966 Kaylo cautionary label is presently unknown; however, J. M. Briley (retired) directed that the cautionary label be printed on Kaylo product cartons. Per Saverstrom (retired) was involved in the change of Kaylo's cautionary label in 1970. The person responsible for the change of Fyrcor's label in 1971 is also unknown; however, Dr. Jon Konzen participated in this activity. OC did not author the cautionary labels for OC-110 or OC-660 cements or the original cautionary label for Unarcoboard. The above described cautionary labels were directed to all users of those products. By 1970, OC also provided Material Safety Data Sheets for its asbestoscontaining Kaylo products upon request. These MSDS indicated the then recommended TLV for asbestos fibers and recommended leak or spill procedures and specific respirator and ventilation precautions for asbestos dust. See Exhibit KKK. Additionally, OC, on its own and through the National Insulation Manufacturers Association prepared and disseminated to contractors, distributors, and insulators information regarding potential health hazards associated with asbestos-containing insulation. In 1968, NIMA published a pamphlet entitled "Recommended Health Safety Practices for Handling and 67 Applying Thermal Insulation Products Containing Asbestos.1 This pamphlet was distributed at meetings of the Insulation Distributor Contractors National Association. OC also directly distributed the pamphlet to its branch managers, Supply and Contracting (S & C) supervisors, Home Building Products (HBP) supervisors, and S & C managers with instructions to review the matter with their salesmen. See Exhibit TJJ, a copy of this pamphlet. OC also participated, through the educational and legislative committee of NIMA and at regional meetings of the IDCNA, in the presentation of health and safety programs to distributors and contractors. At those meetings, contractors and distributors: (1) were advised of the current status of health and safety activities pertinent to their businesses; (2) were given copies of the NIMA publications on health and safety practices and medical research literature; (3) discussed the contents of those publications; (4) discussed the merits of the proposed pre-employment and periodic physical examination programs on a cooperative employer-employee basis; (5) were urged to establish regional health and safety committees; and (6) were given an opportunity to ask questions of the experts. These NIMA programs were presented to contractors and distributors with the intention that they would instruct their employees accordingly. In 1972, Donald Bradshaw, QCs Region Manager of Power and Process for the West Coast and Chairman of the National Insulation Contractor's Association's Occupational Health and Safety Committee, authored, along with 68 other committee members, a pamphlet entitled, 'Safety Reminders.1 See Exhibit MMM. It is OCs present understanding that this pamphlet was disseminated to contractors, distributors, and insulators. OC further refers plaintiffs to Exhibit NNN, a pamphlet entitled 'Caution: Asbestos Dust...' published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. This pamphlet was distributed by OC to its employees on or around October 30, 1973. OC also held meetings with the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers and the Glass Bottle Blowers. The meeting between OC and the president of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers took place in the union's offices in Washington, D. C; the exact date of this meeting is unknown but OC believes it was before 1972. OC is uncertain as to the details regarding its meeting with the Glass Bottle Blowers. At these meetings, OC attempted to discuss the thenknown health concerns regarding asbestos. Also, OC management held meetings with the unions at OCs Berlin, New Jersey, manufacturing plant and made special presentations to employees to discuss those health concerns related to asbestos. OC was involved in all of the above activities in order to ensure the safe use of its asbestos-containing products. 69 Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Has sales material been prepared by Defendant or its agents for purposes of marketing or advertising the asbestos products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please state: (a) The name and address of each person or entity who prepared same; (b) The name, address and job title of each person who presently has possession of same; (c) The date same was prepared; (d) The media used to disseminate the sales material. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving its objections, OC states that it did not advertise in the usual way via television or magazines, etc. During the time period in which OC manufactured asbestos-containing products, it provided product data and application information to commercial buyers. See Exhibits G, H, I, J, andK. OC did not use the services of an advertising agency for the preparation of these materials. Many OC employees contributed to the development of these materials. Del Ladd and John Boynton participated in the development of such material for Kaylo insulation products. 70 Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogator/ would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3. INTERROGATORY NQ. 43: Has any written material of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant Defendant's predecessor or any of Defendant's subsidiary companies or their agents indicating how the products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5 should be used or maintained by the ultimate user? If so, please state the following: (a) The name, address and job classification of each person who prepared same; (b) The name, address and job classification of each person who presently has possession of same; (c) The dates and manner in which said material was distributed to purchasers of the products in answer to Interrogatory No. 5. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving its objections, OC states that during the time period in which OC manufactured asbestos-containing products, it provided product data and application information to purchasers. See Exhibits G, H, I, J, and K. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be located in OCs files related to asbestos, as described in Response No. 3. 71 INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Was any written material of any kind prepared by Defendant and distributed to those individuals listed in response to Interrogatory No. 9? If so, please state the following: (a) Identify the written material by content and date; (b) To whom was it delivered. BESEQNSE OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 41. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Does Defendant contend that asbestos-containing products can be manufactured so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or around, installing or applying same? If so, please state the following: (a) The date that Defendant first determined that another product could be used in place of asbestos; (b) The chemical of the substitute; (0 Whether the substitute is suitable for the purpose for which they are to be used; (d) Whether Defendant used the substitute for asbestos to 1971; (e) Whether Defendant ever used the substitute for asbestos for high or low heat insulation. RESPONSE: OC states that, to the best of its knowledge, no product is available that is completely equal to asbestos-containing insulation. OCs asbestos-free and glass fiber products do not insulate up to the same temperature as asbestos- containing insulation. As a result of research in the late 60's and early 70's, 72 OC learned that AR Glass Fibers could be used as a substitute for amosite asbestos and that wood pulp would serve as a substitute for chiysotile asbestos. The technology necessary to manufacture asbestos free Kaylo first became available in 1972. The production of asbestos-free Kaylo, which was marketed as Kaylo AF, and subsequently as Pink Calcium Silicate, began in November 1972. OC ceased the production of this product in 1993. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: Did Defendant give any warnings to ARMCO/A.K. Steel Middletown Plant and/or ARMCO A.K. Steel Hamilton Bant regarding the potential health hazards of any product listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5. If yes, please state: (a) Name of person most knowledgeable about this communication; (b) Name of person at ARMCO/A.K. Steel Middletown Bant and/or ARMCO/A.K. Steel Hamilton Plant most knowledgeable about this communication; (c) Dates of each communication; (d) Contents of each communication. RESPONSE: OC refers plaintiffs to Interrogatory Response No. 41. KNOWLEDGE OF PREVIOUS INJURIES INTERROGATORY NO..47: Did any person prior to 1970, file a claim against any Workers' Compensation carrier covering Defendant alleging that he or she contracted a disease as a result of exposure to asbestos? If so, please state the following: (a) A list of each such claim by claimant's name, date filed, the caption and jurisdiction involved; 73 (b) Hie disease alleged in each such claim; (c) A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim; and (d) Hie name, address and job classification of the person or persons having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. RESPONSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving its objections, with regard to those asbestosrelated worker's compensation claims filed against OC before 1974, OC states as follows: OC has been named as a party in worker's compensation actions filed by persons allegedly employed at some point in time on construction jobs involving OCs Contracting and Supply Division. These persons were typically hired from union halls for specific jobs on an as-needed basis and were not long-term employees. As a result, these claimants filed actions against numerous past and present employers. These claimants alleged a variety of injuries from exposure-throughout their employment histories-to numerous asbestos and nonasbestos-containing materials manufactured and/or distributed by a number of companies. OC lacks adequate records to provide a complete response to this interrogatory for a number of reasons. Individual state workers' compensation laws determined the specific employers and/or insurance carriers which could be named as defendants in compensation actions, as well as the procedures for their notification. As a result even though some workers' compensation 74 claims list CXI! as an employer, OC may not have received notice of the claim, and even if OC received notice of the claim, it may not have been aware that the claim was related to asbestos exposure or that the claimant was employed by OC. Furthermore, worker's compensation claims historically have been processed by OCs insurance carriers and OCs corporate headquarters did not always receive notification of individual claims. OC sets forth in Table A the pertinent information from OCs records which is presently believed to be related to workers' compensation claims filed before 1974 by individuals employed by OCs Contracting and Supply Division: (Table A will follow - in landscape form as attached): 75 In addition to the claims in Table A, OCs records reflect that the following individuals, listed in Table B, also filed asbestos-related workers' compensation claims before 1974. It is believed these claims were probably handled by OCs insurance carriers. OCs records do not indicate when or if OC received notice of these claims. (Table B will follow - in landscape form as attached): 76 t* **9 , `WO* ufAjon aid'll 13 9 ftllmaolhd rM Ml4 lilt fpl*rtr location i 1 1* I t i t* t f i a aI \ t I S i li }i l 1 ii Injury Ctai4 in Application lilt CUi of Mlttf Hotict to OCI I* I iI I C tI *tWH-- *N --- Will * Otto 3 total *ojoh*|II -- i f!nlriclb4rkrf Mliftd tMl location \ I i < M I 3 1 to 2 IttIN Injury Clalard in Application tot* Clai* 1st* (I (tied Notice to 0C to. Oftor tofondonto I <1 In the course of litigation, a certain plaintiffs' counsel produced to OCs Law Department portions of workers' compensation files purporting to be claims filed by various insulation workers and other tradesmen. It is believed that these files were originally obtained from codefendants or from public records, and copies were forwarded to OCs Law Department in approximately 1979. Some of these files reflect claims apparently filed against OC which OC cannot currently verify from a review of its records. Table C sets forth information from such claims where OC was presumably a party. (Table C will follow - in landscape form as attached): 77 The following employees of OCs Berlin, New Jersey Kaylo manufacturing plant also filed workers' compensation claims against OC before 1974, in which they alleged injury from exposure to asbestos in the plant environment: Name Approx. Date of Claim Filed Alleged Injury Albert Behnke 09/15/72 Chronic bronchitis; emphysema cirrhosis of the liver William Bodine 03/21/73 Asbestosis, emphysema Harry Copeland 1/22/72 Pulmonary asbestosis Floyd Regn 06/14/71 Chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, pneumoconiosis George Zepp 07/13/72 Pneumoconiosis, asbestosis In 1965, OC learned that a Berlin worker had apparently contracted asbestosis; however, the injury was apparently not related to work at OC and, to OCs knowledge, no workers' compensation claim was filed against OC. When OC purchased the Bloomington, Illinois plant from UNARCO in 1970, it acquired certain files pertaining to workers' compensation claims brought against UNARCO by its employees. OC, however, did not have knowledge of these claims until it purchased the plant in 1970. Some of these claims alleged injury from exposure to asbestos in the plant environment. A few employees of other OC manufacturing plants filed asbestos- related workmen's compensation claims before 1974. It is not known whether these employees were actually exposed to asbestos in connection with their 78 employment for OC. Additional information pertinent to the subject matter of this interrogatory would be contained in OCs files related to asbestos as described in Response No. 3, which is incorporated as if set out in full. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Did Defendant receive notice prior to 1968 that any person was claiming injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured, sold, installed, and/or distributed by Defendant? If so, please state: (a) The name and address of each claimant; (b) The date of notice of each claim; (c) A description of the claim; (d) The type of injuries allegedly sustained; (e) The name and address of each attorney representing the individuals making such claims; (f) The style and court number of each such claim; (g) The resolution of each claim. BESEQNSE: OC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving its objections, OC refers plaintiffs to Response No. 47. 79 OC first received notice of a person claiming injury relating to primary or exclusive use of OCs asbestos-containing Kaylo product in October 1966. The claimant's name is unknown; however, he was an employee of New England Insulation and he alleged asbestosis. The claim was a Worker's Compensation action made to the Massachusetts Industrial Accident Board. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Has Defendant obtained statement from any witnesses including the Plaintiffs? If so, please; (a) list each witness who has given a statement and the name, address, and job title of each person having custody of any such statement. RESPONSE OC has no such statements. INTERROGATORY-NCL5.Q: Do you contend that the Plaintiff/Decedent improperly used those products listed in response to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, please set out in detail in what respect the product was improperly used. BESEONSE: At this time because discovery is only just beginning, OC has no information responsive to this request. INTERROGATORY N.0^51: As to the ARMCO/AK. Steel Middletown Plant and/or ARMCO/A.K. Steel 80 Hamilton Plant and as to each Plaintiff/Decedent, please state whether Defendant contends that there was any substance other than asbestos which contributed or caused Plaintiff/Decedent's injuries. If your answer is yes, please state the following: (a) The facts upon which you rely; (b) The identity of the sources upon which you rely which substantiate these facts. RESPONSE: At this time because discovery is only just beginning, OC has no information in responsive to this request. However, there may be numerous substances which have or will affect plaintiffs' working at Armco/AK Steel Middletown plant or Hamilton plant including byproducts of the manufacturing process, tobacco smoke, or other construction materials. INTERROGATORY NO, 52: RESPIRATORS Would any respirator, mask or other breathing devices prevent inhalation of the asbestos dust and fibers contained in products listed in answer to Interrogatory No. 5? If so, state: (a) When the respirator was sold; (b) A detailed description of such respirator or other breathing devices, including name of manufacturer and model number; (c) The basis of your claim that such respirators or other breathing devices will prevent the inhalation of such dust and fibers; (d) Identify any tests performed regarding the efficaciousness of such respirators and other breathing devices in preventing the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers including date, title, author and number; (e) List all documents which mention, allude or refer to tests 81 performed on breathing devices which prevented the inhalation of asbestos dust and/or fibers. RESPONSE: OC does not contend that any mask, respirator or other breathing device could completely (100%) prevent the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. However, OC does contend that there were a number of respirators available in the mid-1960s, which, if properly used and maintained, would generally prevent overexposure to asbestos fibers. It was these respirators, approved by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, that OC used and recommended for use in its warning labels described in Response No. 41. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Does Defendant expect to call expert witnesses at the trial of this case? If so, please state the following: (a) Their identity, last known address; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The expert's specific conclusion and specific opinions and the specific basis therefore; (d) The expert's qualifications to render the opinions set forth above; (e) Whether any person identified in sub-paragraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify such document or report; (f) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to sub-paragraph (a) above; and (g) Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treaties, article, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to sub-paragraph (a) above. Alternatively, 82 in lieu, of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answer. RESPONSE: OC has not yet determined what expert witnesses will be called at the trial of this matter. OC will make disclosure of its anticipated expert witnesses in accord with the Court's scheduling order. INTERROGATORY NO.,54: Please state the name and last known address of each expert witness who is not retained or employed for that purpose who is an employee of Defendant and will render an opinion within his expertise at the time of trial. RESPONSE: OC has not yet determined what expert witnesses will be called at the trial of this matter. OC will make disclosure of its anticipated expert witnesses in accord with the Court's scheduling order. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Does Defendant admit that service of process was properly had on it in these cases? If not, please state why. RESPONSE: OC has not asserted a failure of service of process defense in this matter. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Does Defendant have policies of insurance that might cover the claims that have been made by the Plaintiffs herein? (a) If so, please list the name of each insurance carrier who may have coverage, the amount of such coverage, and the dates of each such policy. S3 RESPONSE: Which insurance carrier or carriers may be responsible for payment of defense costs in this case and/or for any judgment that may be entered in this case is a function of the amounts in question and the time of any payments made, and also may depend upon the date of manifestation of the claimed asbestos-related condition. Therefore, OC cannot with certainty answer this interrogatory as phrased. However, OC also states that it has unexhausted products liability coverage with the following insurance carriers: Aetna Casualty & Surety; Allianz Underwriters; American Centennial; Associated International; Birmingham Fire; Central Natl, of Omaha; Columbia Casualty; Continental; Employers Ins. Wausau; Employers Mutual Cas.; Gibraltar; Granite State; Haftpflichtverband; Harbor Insurance Co.; INA Underwriters; Landmark; London Guarantee & Accd.; National Union Fire; Northbrook; Old Republic; Pacific Employers; Protective Natl. Ins.; Republic; Royal Indemnity; Royale Beige; Seguros La Commercial; Twin City Fire. For additional information, OC refers plaintiffs to the Exhibit OOO, a chart pertaining to OCs insurance policies. INTERROGATORY NO. 57: Please state the name and address of each person who has knowledge of relevant facts regarding claims and defenses of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: This interrogatory is overly broad and burdensome, vague and ambiguous, requiring OC to speculate as to what plaintiffs may mean by 84 "relevant facts regarding claims and defenses." Without waiving this objections and subject thereto, OC cannot identify every person who has knowledge of facts which may be relevant to the claims or defenses asserted in this litigation. OC will timely identify those lay and expert witnesses it anticipates calling to testify at trial in accord with the Court's scheduling order. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: State the last date that this Defendant sold, distributed, manufactured, installed, and/or otherwise placed asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce. RESBQNSE OC ceased the manufacture of asbestos-containing Kaylo insulation products in 1972 and the sale of such products in 1973. OC also had limited involvement in the manufacture and/or sale of other asbestos-containing products. See Exhibit F, a chart listing those asbestos-containing products previously manufactured and/or sold by OC. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS M. GREEN (0016361) One Citizens Federal Centre Suite 950 Dayton, Ohio 45402 (937-224-3333) Attorney for Owens Corning 85 EXHIBITS PRODUCED BY PC IN SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS 1. Product Interrogatories Response Sheets 2. Invoices of sales of Kaylo to Armco Middletown and Hamilton 3. Invoices of sales of Kaylo to OC's Supply & Contracting Division 4a.through 4i Job files 5. Berlin Plant Safety Rules, April 1971 6. Berlin Health Program on Asbestos, 7/29/71 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO I* LIST A = Index of Pre-1973 Privileged Documents B = Index of Post-1972 Privileged Documents C = OC/OI Berlin Plant Purchase Agreement D = OC/Unarco Bloomington Purchase Agreement E = Copies of the contract between Fiberglas Engineering and Supply Company and certain shareholders of Marine Engineering, dated July 10, 1952 and the articles of dissolution of Marine Engineering, dated September 17, 1952 F = Product Chart G = Kaylo Product Data & Application Information H = Fiberglas Metal Mesh Blankets Product Data & Application Information I = Fiberglas Sewn Blankets Product Data & Application Information J = Fiberglas Insulating Cement, Finishing Cement and O-C Mastic Finish Product Data & Application Information K = Roofing Products Data and Application Information L = Fyrcor (Unarcoboard) containers M = Pictures of SC-30 and SC-40 Cement bags N = Mock-up pictures of asbestos-containing Kaylo cartons O = Pictures of Fiberglas Insulating and Finishing Cements P = Kaylo Patent List O' = Resin Patents 86 Continuous and Chopped Strand Mat Patents Roofing Products Patents List of asbestos-containing Kaylo distributors in Ohio between 1953-1973. OC/Fibreboard Rebranding Agreement OC/Johns-Manville Rebranding Agreement OC/Eagle-Picher Rebranding Agreement OC/OI Kaylo, Distribution Agreement 6/12/56 letter, Hazard to Brought (01 118 0108) 1952 draft OI pamphlet and correspondence re: health aspects of Kaylo (01 501 1348-1352) Saranac Documents Berlin Plant Epidemiological Study Aetna "Special Hazard Survey" Bradley Study at Berlin Clayton Survey Collection of documents re: industrial hygiene inspections conducted at Berlin plant by New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry Peele study (Report 62-IH-l-G-l) Peele study (Report 63-IH-3-G-1) Memo 6/30/63 - Lotz to Boynton Robert Peele Diary 4/30/63 Robert Peele Diary 5/1/63 87 LL = Robert Peele Diary 5/16/63 MM = Devitt Studies NN = Bath Ironworks Study 8/19/86 OO 3= Bath Ironworks Study 9/12/66 PP = Dreesen study (01 501 0514-0648) QQ = Lanza study (01 500 0072-0084) RR = 0064) Correspondence re: OCs receipt of Lanza study (01 500 0062- SS = April 1946 Industrial Hygiene Digest TT = IHF affidavit UU = 3/9/42 letter, Dow Chemical to OC re: Capt. Brown's study (01 501 0965-0968) W= WW = ' Peele study (Report 62-IH-l-G-l) Peele study (Report 63-IH-3-G-1) XX = 0291) Selikoff article, 'Asbestos Exposure and Neoplasia* (01 007 0287- YY = Memo 4/22/64 - Edwards to Taylor ZZ = AAA = Correspondence re: potential Massachusetts Worker's Comp Claim (01 039 1471-1472) Minutes of 11/7/66 I&C R&D review BBB = TLV Compilation CCC = NIMA Minutes DDD = NIMA Minutes EEE -- NIMA Minutes 88 FFF = GGG = HHH = m JJJ = KKK = TIT. = MMM = NNN = OOO = Caution on bags of cement re-branded for OC by Eagle-Picher Kaylo Cautionary Label Revised Kaylo Cautionary Label Unarcoboard Cautionary Label Fyrcor (Unarcoboard) Revised Cautionary Label Material Safety Data Sheets for Kaylo NIMA Brochure - "Recommended Health Safety Practices" NIMA Brochure - "Safety Reminders" NIOSH Booklet - "Caution Asbestos Dust" OC Insurance Information 89 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the day of March_______ 1997, GREEN & GREEN, Lawyers, on behalf of Owens Coming, has served upon counsel for plaintiff its Response to Master Set of Interrogatories. A copy will be provided to codefendants upon request. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS M. GREEN (0016361) One Citizens Federal Centre Suite 950 Dayton, Ohio 45402 (937-224-3333) Attorney for Owens Corning bap/jeumie/oweof cornmg/blake n*wen to mtcrrogilohei 90 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO ROGER DALE BLAKE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A-BEST PRODUCTS COMPANY, et al., Defendants STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF LICKING ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. CV96 01 0191 (Hon. George Elliott) AFFIDAVIT WILLIAM J. BURNS, JR., BEING DULY SWORN, DEPOSES AND SAYS THAT HE IS Senior Counsel for OWENS CORNING and that he verifies the foregoing Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Set of Interrogatories, for and on behalf of OWENS CORNING and is duly authorized so to do; that the matters stated therein are not within personal knowledge of deponent; that the facts stated therein have been assembled by authorized employees and counsel of OWENS CORNING and deponent is informed that the facts stated therein are true. ILLIAM J. Bl/RNS, J Sworn to and subscribed before me on this day of February, 1997. My Commission expires; Notary Public CONWEEP0fl7lr '-vv ' -rfiic, State of Ofto ixph Nov. 30, ngff In the course of litigation, a certain plaintiffs' counsel produced to OC's Law Department portions of workers' compensation files purporting to be claims filed by various insulation workers and other tradesmen. It is believed that these files were originally obtained from codefendants or from public records, and copies were forwarded to OC's Law Department in approximately 1979. Some of these files reflect claims apparently filed against OC which OC cannot currently verify from a review of its records. Table C sets forth information from such claims where OC was presumably a party. 23 if a 5 it % I i ic 1 1C : 1 1 2 1 I* 11 t t !! 2 t j i ii < ft I 1 { * i V i 5 i f l .* ii ii 1 # ' : '' 5 * --w zi o:?-a to g i s g g2 fH i jii U t!5 i.*. ii m V Ji1 ill i Hi ijl Jl C iilli! 'iIll1}57tso Ml1 till. imi <l!l ii! >i, ii! s . S1 2 3 2 i w i l m *S |: !i to 2 k * ] ,, 2a i % a to 2 2s ? W 1 11 1 i5 2 m l - ; I k 90 t \ a i 9m I 8 I% 1 *S 2to i mf 1i a p 1 1 i ; | : :; I1 i i 2 ! kV k k I1f i ij il j5xj 2 to 1 s : 1II W t 1 f ! t1 i iw l mto > i imu a s f S' i S kI i i 1 i ie s t l i 8 I I I I fr j i i I 1 < h rj aa t i l ii fi i* ii k I k 44 ft x I S > i I *m i 1 5 i f f 8 4 * Ii t i i a si TABLE A Thoms H. Leonard C. C .) 8 o* mo w-IC o s I * c i 3 s0 <a um o0 M I * ?, ' Y M --0 fkl --' 0 J ' a ic M 8 ] ** m 1968 - a K. a m o i 0 a 11 uk 1o C ii Pi X o k a0 * i u 3 8 ke * 3 8 ft a J<mS 'C e > ft a a ' iI ,, 4 aI m ? ik o Nds c 8 rs (, j J1 :: ;; Ik 141 k 1* 3 k1 >o. k aa rS k >. 3 1:. k^ k 111 g >> k P3 1* k -- 00k I! k in ? pg u : si" sSS m i rg r a O * u X k k. uj 0 y ~ 8 8? jiis IW" a | i i JS 3 U | *- ft ? ml S | ? H Ii k-- a o Ok *d ils ?c IW*4E ; , I 1* ii m S a aa i si i! ! a s 8 8 a0 ?t U m k ** s ii i* *ix" 8 ; ii ni i| k *kQd 0 3 S | l| l ik k O 3 8 in i N. ma s in a oe ik s2 o 3.`8 k a k --' mk x I* >T s' | 83 S ak w k u TABLE A F rterick, K. N. ------ ------ ------ ------ fr n o , CA ------ * 1966 Xo4 JMcgB xe Xa e e O4 TM4 Xo s9> il S1 S 53 S mu 1 e ?_utC>3_o : <U-mji 5 s g XeT I _5j w4e 4 0 1*41 <4a *a4 : < M U* ----<> >44 , g --I**k-. *o^4 xx a --a ib s 5ka !X tT 4 I 4 O ?*k :: - No-- hoo> Xo> Xa j | m -s r Jf a4 a li xOx <3a5k 8 { aa S Xo' s I iI I sM 4o ml : ; |i O* K> | xke834 | i< ; j x X sX * X | c 1>4 k f OX4 G e ig e r, In ju ry "eKpou Loo Angeleo, U ------ rx i3 4 =X sk 1i1^ Xiixr4 rk QSl 2t fi X4k (V --X8*4* ku444k 1963 1963 t 8" 9|-SK1 X8k J? !k ! 2rs' l| si a4 s aski g ) aa ou4 ou' *skk X8k Ms VSI nU ISkk al o <$A a sN s o fINCO *% i 9>X0 , ; o 438 43 S o O4 kOx^#*k 4 2 * ill 4* s j loX/> seCXM 1 Goons, 1 c6 z *w VI 1 '> o Goodwin, R obert E. ------ ------ 19*2-1949 ------ 1949 TABLE A s8 m I1 48k# U8 j o I Xs O f* 3 8 I m84 I 9 1 H c rro ll, Roy I . 01/11/12 A tb rtto o In s u la to r 1930-19J1; 19*3-1969. ------ l o t A ngolet, CA To *(ungt f r o * " tx p o tu rc to o tb o tto t and othor no*(out d u ttt ------ 1969 Pond, S h o rt, John 1969 1967 1972 1969 3 e 8 e.sx 6961 c .1 s I I 3x --x M c i i sl :i x 3> b. --S88^s * it C No* x oI (J s 5i 88 i8 3 8 ! 8b. XO M N. T?*r S fNJ $ ko 3 8 s01 i 8 X 2 x s o * x m (A*S. X *S 1 Ic Si I| r-^ xk(1 x--bII Xbx or tfWr\ x 9 u A K $B r? f j* .58. S82S , u oo 1 Ikk s V) 8 2 o' '5 u mx e MxX ZMX 3X K. | m s L 3 l Xo x JS <x K OIl-\AsJs.. 3 >> X s a Mo l> >SLaT o i* .X M8 f* ami M 3 S 3 1 moi i i k X - TH A. S <M> k 3 8 8 X J! X iOrng>* 3 X i XX oc ; ': r* < i; ,, '* s 8 Xs I1 mi / Xo j; :; :; 1 m 3m >x I a Xk Xb. *s O3 P k XX XX si > $ a 8 sl x8 38 1! 1 Is a --X 58 8 X 1 8 , 1 <w X I 8 :; | m t: b m 3 8 8 X 2i X 8 t'vk IkM. ; IX i 9 U g' 1X | VI X s / H s o *u e K I 5 $ e ] u *51- c o* c P PM 3 IM a i! m 1 I. --* c fM a I 88 -* I u W a s h in g to n 33 *w S a sI 38 ? I ! s> Ro> s *IX s a 8 8 *8* $< I< s 3 i u 1 ! s 8 5 I M TABLE B "5 g me 4 --u o 6 a b s I c I m : i g 0 it M o 8- g a : *g g* - : g ' o c *> 4. i0 X S m Io | U 1973 --1971 ---- --1962 --- --- w m M>* 00 0 0e i a pi ill s 0 | 2?| 1 <a li! 3 cuT a0 X io 1u Ms **odX & M8 *> 1 i : 18g(aJ?. I c : a 8o3 8 1 < :; O d Eduard <1. i e 30b i 0u 1 5 Xo --- --- 0261 1972 - - --- \ I? >o 50 lb a0. *0* VJ rH ill vu *- o a a 0 I e 0 8 A alb as s' I u* 0 0 8 ws glb - Co Ka Ka5 K|. oO 038 03 8 88 ii < n 1 a *u# i |8 0U i 0 a. at S i^x o n , David l . 0 5 /2 1 /2 9 Asbaa'oa In s u la to r 1951-1971 ------ S a a ttla , 1M ------ 1971 o a o O ft --fut' mo s< - s <a e i 5 iu S IS i au * I s is -- ft I i? : *V tuft K S I 1s i 1 I 1 1 { 8 * I . I 1 a 1 18 f H a rd ir*, C liffo r d P. 02/28/96 A abettot In s u la to r 1937*1959 t .H. Carpenter Sacramento, CA " A s b e s to s is " ------ 1961 12 other employers and th e ir insurance c a rrie rs . TMIE C a wi g a w <ft c i <J s * I img ! i M | - o I * ii ! ir if i t I 1 i I1 I 11 II ii 11 11 N ** ft *x i * ri c> m I b % "E I * Ml I m5 i 3 X O L- S|| t o* * ** w O l u -- o sSoi 3 3* :l( W SCI =>* 1--3 b I* i|i IS S5J g. U SU! s * 0 U I S 1 Is ft :i! s**. Srrilicztt?ii s;C li ;H 11 *s*. - s| *g ?Mlii !|. fc f&c o C* O -- -- i. 5Hc 1 Mu s r b !*& su*. Z8 ill IH 9 ** * M k c c x v -- b. MOW-* M * -- -- W a. l. V k* W rii 8s= c-5s~ s g !S .-lys |ligS^SsS2zS?.25.1ri-i;3S IS ** V :i 5 s*. !ll s-. Sll I! ? 2 ss iu w L ** ^ r 1! ! < Is I so> s rc SK * fl :! a # IN 8*s 38 S ** * 5i I *8c 4. Ik i { ji { 11 i i; 1 11 i i ill 111 I<I til III m1 1 1 i 11 111 555 IIi Hi 111 aaa 9O J m u i e i u c>3 'c >o. 3 9 1 M - 1 Si --w < * a *1 j il :: to * i iii I =1 is 1 c 1 8 8 4i It 1! jI zs : m 8 l m ! 1I1 8a i mat i *5 8 S I Mail a Vi it h I! : : if * kw nil \u. ih: list : :: j* iV l j s | 5 I 1 i t 1 I i it ?! st I i * i i r I ti f| It". f 12i |eil|l : Iatt!! frk .*. , 1 A 2*--V' * is * il i1 s 6K X-r ?u 5iV ii i* Is \ V71 :j r j1 r 8 i ik i9 } mi t 1*1W j ? | 1 It 1:?t "* | | :i it I I *a*--ab $mNes. r Iaw> i s il ;; l If fl il i IHi] ii! :: 38 1 i 8 4tem9 i t9 I4 2 !i iIit !i : |2a m9 I*r i { 2 i * m t s +4 t w i i J s i I a **ke 1a i *u* :j ; * 75c 1 t 1 m *1m : 2 i ir* Ik i : I t* 1 *1s*** * T 5 X m iV 1 I 1 4 1 I X I i I I j I i f itavi imu 'M IC I li ij *it tt m i * m R el! 1 - ii ii i;* f is 1 i iiii ; : I .1 m m i c (hj ft !wp *1. 17 li j a R li : Ms m * * t 'i! * i i s i el 1 I K. \\ * ~ | k | h | m J*s 8 `x> e o a 5 a t 1I ii ri !i i 1! s* * ii k k iI 1* t {j m foc.. 5 R ai 8 1 * mm 8 S it :: j: :: ; d 1\ j i iv * a * Ii m }t m j m 5m l ! !i m si if el ' 1 i i! i aa ii }i }s \! I an a; *k I 1 1 m ; a *V m ik M i J 1 m > iilcytd H -< ii g i I i 3 in* ocr/ I ill C m ij!i li Snm ll i iy*4l* h1 i t W i 1 c k& ]w is i I ? 9 O2 3 S 3 t Im1t i i 1 s l-- >] ?- s A fc I 1 h 1 e . f cV 8 A V 2 I w } w f i ill! hill i i ! *! II il 8 1 f 1 mi | i i i ] i j 5 V m ] 5 i u iH- -Illlli J il fsti I-:.i i.j ihl *1U|JM ; J mi; s ! i 5 s i !A t ll 1* m l m 1 ,!! !i sUi I lm ! I iI j flii *# .^^ 111! . i ! J 8 f i f 2 30* ! a1 i k \ m 2 is sk k 1' I 1 Hi c$ i 88 A 1I W iP 1 tM lt t ,i!i ii{!i is i!!i ij '4 im hi! t!i hi! hi! i ss i 1 1 E I ii mIs* i illI is*. w Ic .:s iw zp ih i hi ih l I! 1 t i! u iHllli rll! a ic ill & in ft i f! !h in 8 s -|W is Im1 i im i } mst 44 ii ^ % ** * *Jws fi ]<> I u - eX s al * ie Im *pk! 8 8 5ma 1 *t i mr! I ii il il i* i1 m E i t ;mtr t 1cr *iv ii I JsVVC sJ a { w * |t* | XkA 8 5 1 i $ mr i * E4At k I (r i *f* 2 m 4a imw i m l f I I *4 ii i I! Hi i 11 ii 4i ii1 I<i iiI aaa II1 iii I< )}!1 \1 )1! ti; tU lt C ij tf il si la vs H s w i c i w 1 c s S3 * i ! llv ttrf i I l