Document ypydZ4omRGknVGbLOaBEG2Dg6

1 2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WARE COUNTY 3 STATE OF GEORGIA 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 5 ROY KNIGHT AND MILVA KNIGHT, 6 Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 7 -against- 09-v-0799 8 GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY 9 AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST 10 TO GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION 11 AND BESTWALL GYPSUM COMPANY, ET AL., 12 Defendants. 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 14 June 2, 2010 15 1:14 p.m. 16 17 DEPOSITION of ROBERT C. ADAMS, MS, 18 CIH, CSP, taken by the Plaintiffs, pursuant to 19 Notice, at the law offices of ALSTON & BIRD, LLP, 20 90 Park Avenue, New York, New York before Karen 21 Perlman, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public 22 within and for the State of New York. 23 GREENHOUSE REPORTING, INC. 24 875 Sixth Avenue - Suite 1716 New York, New York 10001 25 (212) 279-5108 1 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S: 3 HARTLEY LAW, LLC Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 4 P.O. Box 2492 Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29465-2492 5 BY: CHRISTIAN H. HARTLEY, ESQ. (Via teleconference) 6 7 8 ALSTON & BIRD, LLP Attorneys for the Defendant Union Carbide Corp. 9 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309 10 BY: COLIN K. KELLY, ESQ. 11 12 HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP Attorneys for the Defendant 13 Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. 4000 SunTrust Plaza 14 303 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30308 15 BY: S. CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, ESQ. (Via teleconference) 16 17 18 HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP Attorneys for the Defendant 19 Western Auto Supply Company 4000 SunTrust Plaza 20 303 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30308 21 BY: CHRISTI DICKSON, ESQ. (Via teleconference) 22 23 24 25 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued.) 3 HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP 4 Attorneys for the Defendant National Service Industries, Inc. 5 4000 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, NE 6 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 7 BY: WILLIAM T. WOOD, III, ESQ. (Via teleconference) 8 9 10 LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY, LLP Attorneys for the Defendant Rayonier 11 1 Manhattanville Road, 3rd Floor Purchase, New York 10577 12 BY: ROBERT L. JOYCE, ESQ. (Via teleconference) 13 14 15 SWIFT CURRIE McGHEE & HIERS Attorneys for the Defendant Hennessy Industries 16 The Peachtree - Suite 300 1355 Peachtree Street, NE 17 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 18 BY: M. DIANE OWENS, ESQ. (Via teleconference) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 R.C. Adams 2 R O B E R T C. A D A M S, stating an address 3 of ENVIRON International Corp., 214 4 Carnegie Center, Princeton, New Jersey 5 08540, having been first duly sworn by the 6 Notary Public, was examined and testified 7 under oath as follows: 8 9 (Adams Exhibit 1, notice of 10 deposition of Robert C. Adams, marked for 11 identification.) 12 (Adams Exhibit 2, Defendant Union 13 Carbide Corporation's Response and 14 Objections to Plaintiffs' Notice of 15 Deposition of Robert C. Adams, marked for 16 identification.) 17 EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. HARTLEY: 19 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Adams. Are you 20 a doctor, I didn't notice? 21 A. No, I'm not. 22 Q. So is it Mr. Adams, is that okay 23 with you? 24 A. Mr. Adams is fine. 25 Q. Mr. Adams, what is your profession? 5 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. I am an industrial hygienist with 3 the firm of ENVIRON. 4 Q. How long have you worked for 5 ENVIRON? 6 A. I've been with ENVIRON now for nine 7 years, not continuous, but nine years total. 8 Q. Do you work with Kenny Crump? 9 A. I know Kenny Crump. But I have not 10 worked with him directly. 11 Q. He is an employee of ENVIRON as 12 well, is he not? 13 A. Yes. I believe he is an employee of 14 ENVIRON. 15 Q. How many consultants does ENVIRON 16 employ? 17 A. ENVIRON has over 1100 consultants 18 worldwide. 19 Q. In what area, besides asbestos, 20 litigation do you do consulting? 21 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 22 A. Are you referring to me personally, 23 or to ENVIRON as a company? 24 Q. You personally. I apologize for 25 that. 6 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. No problem. 3 I do consulting in OSHA compliance, 4 specifically OSHA compliance auditing. I do 5 exposure and risk assessment associated with 6 epidemiological studies. I do general industrial 7 hygiene work, including air sampling, and noise 8 monitoring, again, what I would consider the 9 traditional industrial hygiene work. 10 Q. And for what industries have you 11 done that kind of work? 12 A. I've done work for a lot of 13 different industries. The plastics industry. 14 I've done work with the -- I mean, I -- there's 15 probably been hundreds, if not thousands of 16 industrial facilities I've been to in my career. 17 I also do a lot of work in the 18 construction industry as well, and have for - 19 for many years. 20 Q. Other than doing some consulting 21 work for Union Carbide, what other companies have 22 you done consulting work where the topic was 23 asbestos? 24 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 25 A. I have done consulting work for York 7 1 R.C. Adams 2 International Corporation. I've done work for 3 Kohler. I've done work for 84 Lumber Company, 4 Fisher Scientific, and VWR. Resillo Press Pad. 5 And there's probably one or two others that 6 escape me at the moment since -- a company called 7 Atlas Insulation, I've done work for. 8 Q. What is VWR? I'm not familiar with 9 that one. 10 A. VWR is a science products company. 11 Q. In your personal work for ENVIRON, 12 what portion of your work, if you can give by 13 percentage, is your work for folks concerning 14 asbestos matters? 15 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 16 You can answer. 17 A. The approximate percentage is 18 between 60 and 70 percent of my business right 19 now is related to asbestos litigation. 20 Q. Okay. And do you have another 21 portion of your -- what do you do with the other 22 30 to 40 percent of your business work? 23 A. It's generally either compliance 24 auditing, or it may be program -- it's health and 25 safety program development. I do a small portion 8 1 R.C. Adams 2 of work related to remedial cleanup, developing 3 health and safety plans. And as I mentioned, we 4 do some traditional industrial hygiene work where 5 we go out to plants and collect air samples. And 6 I also do exposure assessment work in support of 7 epidemiology studies that ENVIRON does. 8 Q. Is Kenny Crump still working with 9 ENVIRON; do you know? 10 A. I honestly don't know what his 11 status is. I think he -- I'm not sure if he was 12 ever a full-time employee. But I -- I haven't 13 spoken to Kenny Crump in probably three or four 14 years. 15 Q. And as part of your work at ENVIRON, 16 did you do any consulting work where Kenny Crump 17 was also working for the same client? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Have you done any -- I didn't see 20 the mention of any, but I may not know all of the 21 companies that you have -- I'm not familiar with 22 all of the companies that you've consulted with 23 in asbestos litigation. Have you done any 24 consulting with companies that made or sold 25 asbestos containing joint compounds? 9 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. Yes. I did a couple of projects for 3 United Gilsonite Laboratories, UGL, and 84 Lumber 4 are the primary companies that I've done 5 consulting work on asbestos litigation matters. 6 Q. You've also done -- I don't know 7 that I got it -- I didn't get it in the list, 8 because I guess I asked you other than Union 9 Carbide. 10 How many times have you worked for 11 Union Carbide? 12 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 13 A. I think it's probably been about 20 14 times. 15 Q. Since you went to work, what was it, 16 eight years ago or nine years ago for ENVIRON? 17 A. I rejoined ENVIRON in 2003. So it's 18 technically about seven years. I was with 19 ENVIRON previously in the 1990s. 20 Q. So since 2003, has your work 21 remained essentially the same; that is, you've 22 been doing consulting in the first 60 or 70 23 percent of your time in asbestos litigation, or 24 has it changed? 25 A. It has changed. When I first 10 1 R.C. Adams 2 started, the litigation was a small proportion of 3 the work that I was doing. It's -- it's 4 gradually increased over the last five years. 5 Q. So since 2005 it's increased? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Prior to 2005, from 2003 to 2005, 8 were you doing any asbestos litigation? 9 A. Not -- not prior to 2005. 10 Q. And in 2005, who hired youfirst to 11 do asbestos work? 12 A. That would be the law firm of 13 Hoagland Longo Moran Dunst & Doukas in New 14 Brunswick, New Jersey. 15 Q. Who did they represent? 16 A. At the time they represented a -- I 17 believe it was a small building materials 18 supplier, which I don't remember the name of the 19 building supplier. The case was the Sherrapa 20 case. And subsequently, they retained me to 21 assist with 84 Lumber cases. 22 Q. How many 84 Lumber cases have you 23 worked on? 24 A. I've probably worked on about 20 to 25 25 84 Lumber cases in the last five years. 11 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. Did those all involve alleged 3 exposures to a joint compound? 4 A. Yes. Also sometimes floor tile and 5 other building materials. But predominantly it's 6 been joint compound. 7 Q. Do you know somebody named Alan 8 Gerson? 9 A. The name is familiar, but I can't 10 place the name right now. 11 Q. Do you live in New York City? 12 A. No, I do not. 13 Q. I don't know if he still is, but he 14 at one time was on the city council of New York 15 Does that help at all? 16 A. It -- it may be. It's -- it's 17 possible. The name -- like I said, the name is 18 familiar to me, but I can't place it. 19 Q. Did you ever do any litigation work 20 with a firm called Kelley Drye & Warren? 21 A. No. 22 Q. How about Foley & Lardner? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Now, you have seen a copy, one of 25 the copies of the notice of deposition in this 12 1 R.C. Adams 2 case, is that right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And Mr. Kelly has been kind enough 5 to say that he would help us mark those documents 6 that we choose to mark those. 7 MR. HARTLEY: Colin, can we mark the 8 notice of deposition as Exhibit 1; and as 9 Exhibit 2 your objection to the notice? 10 MR. KELLY: Done and done. 11 MR. HARTLEY: Thank you. 12 Q. Now, your counsel has been kind 13 enough to provide us with several documents 14 electronically to help us know what you have 15 present there. 16 Did you bring a copy of your report 17 to the deposition? 18 A. I did. 19 MR. HARTLEY: I would like to, by 20 agreement, mark a copy of the report as an 21 electronic only copy that will be attached 22 with the disk to the deposition and also 23 made available to all counsel. 24 MR. KELLY: Agreed. 25 (Adams Exhibit 3, copy of report of 13 1 R.C. Adams 2 Mr. Adams, marked for identification.) 3 Q. What do you understand your role to 4 be in this case? 5 A. I was retained to review the work 6 history of Mr. Knight and to evaluate the 7 occupational exposures that he may have had to 8 asbestos-containing materials. And to 9 specifically look at any exposures that might 10 have been related to products that may have 11 contained the Union Carbide Calidria of fiber. 12 Q. And does your report contain the sum 13 and substance of your opinions that relate to 14 that? 15 A. It does. 16 Q. Now, your report indicates that you 17 reviewed certain things. On page 2 it indicates 18 the materials relied upon. Is that right? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. Are there any othermaterials that 21 you relied upon, other than what's listed in the 22 table on page 2? 23 A. The only other document thatwas 24 provided to me, and it was provided after the 25 report was issued, was the deposition of 14 1 R.C. Adams 2 Mr. Cunningham, George Cunningham. So that 3 deposition is not reflected in this listing. As 4 I said, it was received the day that the report 5 was sent out. 6 Q. There are no other documents that 7 you're going to rely upon to form your opinions 8 in this case? 9 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 10 A. As far as case-specific materials, 11 no. 12 Q. What about as far as other 13 materials, I guess, I want to make sure - 14 A. The -15 Q. Let me ask you a different question. 16 What other materials, other than 17 those materials on page 2 of your report, are you 18 relying upon to form your opinions in this case? 19 A. The other materials are the 20 scientific literature that I have provided in the 21 references section of my report, beginning on 22 page 17. 23 And also, I have in my possession 24 formula sheets from Georgia Pacific, the 25 Marietta, Georgia plant; specifically, the 15 1 R.C. Adams 2 formula sheets related to the ready-mix joint 3 compounds that were manufactured in that plant. 4 Q. Anything else? 5 A. That's it. 6 Q. Have you reviewed anytestimony of a 7 gentleman named Charles William Leonard? 8 A. I have previously seen some of 9 Mr. Leonard's depositions, as a result of prior 10 Union Carbide cases that I've been involved with. 11 Q. Do you have anyopinions todaythat 12 you'll be rendering based on what you've read in 13 Mr. Leonard's depositions that you've previously 14 reviewed? 15 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 16 A. Nothing -- nothing that is specific 17 to Mr. Leonard's testimony, since I have the 18 formula sheets. The previous review of his 19 testimony was related to understanding the use of 20 the Calidria of fiber in the formulation of 21 different Georgia -- Georgia Pacific joint 22 compounds. 23 Q. Now, it indicates here on page 2 of 24 your report that you have employment records of 25 Speedy McVay Plumbing, is that right? 16 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did you bring those with you? 4 A. Those are on an electronic disk. I 5 don't have a hard copy of those in front of me. 6 Q. What did you take from those, in 7 terms of forming your opinions in this case? 8 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 9 A. What I -- the purpose there was just 10 to establish the time frame of his employment 11 with this company. 12 Q. You established that and write it 13 down in your report somewhere? 14 A. Yes. We -- there is a -- where we 15 talk about the time frame at which he worked for 16 Speedy McVay which was in the 19 -- 1970 to 1972 17 time frame. 18 Q. Very interesting. 19 MR. HARTLEY: Georgia Pacific says 20 they're not attending the deposition, just 21 so everybody knows. 22 Could we mark as Exhibit 4 to the 23 deposition, Colin, the Speedy McVay - 24 whatever the employment records are from 25 Speedy McVay? 17 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Yes. 3 (Adams Exhibit 4, records from 4 Speedy McVay, marked for identification.) 5 Q. Mr. Adams, if I were to walk in the 6 door and tell ENVIRON that I needed the help of 7 an industrial hygienist, and ended up being given 8 your name as the person to talk to at ENVIRON, 9 and I was to interview you and ask you for some 10 references, you would be able to give me 11 references of former clients who would vouch for 12 your abilities, am I right? 13 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Now, if I were to ask you if you 16 have done any sort of exposure assessment of the 17 type you've done in this report, and I said 18 Mr. Adams, could you give me a reference for an 19 exposure assessment like the one you've done in 20 this report in this case, where you did one such 21 as that for non-litigation work, would you be 22 able to give me such a reference? 23 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 24 A. Yes. I -- I could give you a 25 reference to non-litigation exposure assessment 18 1 R.C. Adams 2 work I've done. 3 Q. Where have you done that? 4 A. I have done an exposure assessment 5 associated with, as I mentioned an epidemiology 6 study of porcelain workers exposed to silica, and 7 I could give you the contacts that we worked with 8 as part of that exposure assessment. 9 Q. Who would you give me? 10 A. Well, I - 11 MR. KELLY: Object to the form. 12 A. I could give you a Dr. Karl Heinz 13 Guldner, that's G-U-L-D-N-E-R, who is -- was our 14 contact at the German insurance group. I 15 couldn't pronounce the German terms for it. 16 Q. Was it an insurance company in 17 Germany? 18 A. It's -- yes. It's the insurance 19 industry is more or less state-run. So he was 20 our technical contact for the study that we were 21 doing. 22 Q. Was this something that you did when 23 you were at ENVIRON? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And what you're telling me is that 19 1 R.C. Adams 2 you did some kind of exposure assessment for the 3 group of people that were exposed to silica in a 4 cohort that was being studied? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Did you do any individual, 7 person-by-person exposure assessments? 8 A. No, we did them by job 9 classification, or job title. 10 Q. And did you have any data from the 11 job site that helped you do that? 12 A. We had data from a number of 13 different locations that were provided through 14 the -- through the insurance group in Germany. 15 Q. Was the data that you were given 16 specific to the job sites where the cohort, the 17 members of the cohort worked? 18 A. Some yes; some no. Most of it came 19 from the major manufacturing facilities, but we 20 did have a number of job sites that had little or 21 no data available. 22 Q. What was the thesis that was being 23 tested in the epidemiologic study that you were 24 performing? 25 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 20 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. They were looking to identify the 3 incidents of lung cancer among the German 4 porcelain workers cohort. 5 Q. Did you find an increased level of 6 lung cancer in the porcelain workers? 7 A. My specific role in that was to 8 prepare the exposure assessment. But it is my 9 understanding they did not find an increase in 10 the incidents of lung cancer in that cohort. 11 Q. You were hired, you being ENVIRON, 12 were hired -- was it a stateside office that was 13 hired to do this evaluation in Germany? 14 A. It -- it came through our -- our 15 Germany office in Essen, through the contacts 16 that we had. But our epidemiologists are 17 stateside. And I was brought in to provide the 18 exposure assessment support for that epidemiology 19 study. 20 Q. Is it fair to say that the kind of 21 exposure assessments that you gave to the folks 22 working on that epidemiological study was very 23 different than what you did here in this case? 24 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 25 A. No. I applied the same 21 1 R.C. Adams 2 methodologies in developing exposure assessments 3 in that case as I would in the litigation cases. 4 Q. What monitoring data did you have 5 from anywhere that Roy Knight worked? 6 A. I didn't have monitoring data 7 specific to the locations where Mr. Knight 8 worked. I was relying on the scientific data 9 that's published in the peer-reviewed literature. 10 Q. So in the German epidemiologic 11 study, you had data from the sites where the 12 cohort worked, but in Roy Knight's individual 13 review you did not? 14 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. The epidemiologicstudy in Germany 17 was unrelated to litigation, whereas Roy Knight's 18 review was related to litigation, true? 19 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. The review you did forthe folks in 22 Germany was for a group of people. And the 23 review you did in this case was an individual 24 review, true? 25 A. Yes. But let me qualify that, 22 1 R.C. Adams 2 because the data that we developed would then be 3 used to assign exposure values for the members of 4 the cohort. 5 Q. So you're telling me that you took 6 from various data points where folks worked after 7 studying jobs that were being done and air 8 monitoring had occurred, you created an exposure 9 matrix by job title, true? 10 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 11 A. Yes. We created job matrix by 12 title. 13 Q. Whereas in this case you didn't have 14 any data points to anchor the specific conditions 15 that Roy Knight was working in to people who had 16 previously been monitored in that same situation, 17 or even in the same statements, true? 18 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 19 A. I don't quite understand your 20 question. 21 Q. Well, it really comes down to the 22 fact that you had data points for the group in 23 Germany, but you don't have any data points for 24 Roy Knight that relate specifically to where he 25 worked, right? 23 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 3 A. We had data points for the silica 4 study. But we didn't have data points for all 5 locations, all occupations, or all years. 6 Q. And you didn't have any data points 7 for Roy Knight at all, right? 8 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 9 A. I used the available data in the 10 scientific literature to estimate the exposure 11 that Mr. Knight would have had under the 12 circumstances, which he described in his 13 depositions. 14 Q. And you would agree with me that 15 none of the available exposure data from the 16 literature deals with anyplace that Roy Knight 17 was working, right? 18 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 19 A. In -- in -- what I would agree with 20 is that it was not specific to Mr. Knight; 21 however, it is representative of the exposures 22 that Mr. Knight might have had. 23 MR. HARTLEY: Object as 24 nonresponsive. 25 Q. I'm just asking you if any of the 24 1 R.C. Adams 2 places studied in any of the literature that you 3 relied on were places that Roy Knight worked? 4 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 5 A. The material -- the information in 6 the literature do not specifically relate to any 7 location that Mr. Knight worked at. 8 Q. Then the copy of your report that I 9 received also came with a copy of your resume. 10 Is that typically part of your report, or should 11 we mark that separately? 12 A. That is typically part of the 13 report. 14 MR. HARTLEY: Colin, would you make 15 sure that the report that you attached as 16 Exhibit 3 also has his resume on it? 17 MR. KELLY: Yes. 18 MR. HARTLEY: Thank you kindly. 19 MR. KELLY: Yes. 20 Q. I see that you have done some 21 research relating to vinyl chloride, is that 22 true? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Vinyl chloride causes angiosarcoma 25 of the liver, correct? 25 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 3 A. That's my understanding of the 4 adverse outcome. Yes. 5 Q. That is a signature tumor for 6 excessive vinyl chloride exposure, correct? 7 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 8 A. That is my understanding. Yes. 9 Q. If you see someone with angiosarcoma 10 of the liver, you, knowing what you know about 11 vinyl chloride, think was this person exposed to 12 vinyl chloride, right? 13 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 14 A. I don't know if I would have an 15 opinion one way or the other as to whether that 16 would be the first thing I would think about, if 17 somebody presented to me that way. 18 Q. Are there other risk factors for 19 angiosarcoma of the liver that you're aware of? 20 A. I don't know the answer to that 21 question. 22 Q. Did you come to work on vinyl 23 chloride for a defendant in litigation? 24 A. No. 25 Q. How did you come to do that? 26 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. It's another epidemiology study. 3 Q. Okay. For whom did you do that? 4 A. I -- I am not sure who the immediate 5 client is that we're doing that work for. I am 6 working in collaboration with ENVIRON's 7 epidemiologist on that study, or was working on 8 it. 9 Q. That is something that is being done 10 for a corporate client of ENVIRON, though, 11 correct? 12 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 13 A. I don't believe it's a corporate 14 client. I believe it's probably an industry 15 association. 16 Q. Some sort of chemical industry 17 association? 18 A. I believe so. 19 Q. You understand, of course, though, 20 that industry associations exist to represent 21 corporate interests, true? 22 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 23 Assumes facts not in evidence. 24 A. I don't really have an opinion one 25 way or the other on that. 27 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. Have you done any work for Dow 3 Chemical? 4 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 5 A. Not for Dow Chemical, no. 6 Q. Any entity with the word Dow in its 7 name? 8 A. No. 9 Q. What chemical companies have you 10 done work for? 11 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 12 relevance. 13 A. I -- I mean, right off the top of my 14 head, let me -- I've done work for a number of 15 small companies, but I can't -- may I look at my 16 resume real quick? 17 Q. Sure. This is just an open book 18 test, so anything you want to look at is fair 19 game. 20 A. Because I'm trying -- you know, when 21 I think about -- when I think about some of the 22 refinery work I've done, I don't know if you 23 count them as a chemical company. 24 Q. It's up to you whether you consider 25 them a chemical company or not. 28 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. I'm just having a hard time right 3 now recollecting a specific chemical company that 4 I've done work for. 5 Q. If you think of them as we go along, 6 let me know, unless you think you might be able 7 to figure it out by looking at some of your 8 resume still. 9 A. I'll let you know if they come to 10 mind. 11 Q. Now, on page 9 of your resume, it 12 indicates some of your prior employment, is that 13 right, before joining ENVIRON? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Was your first work as an industrial 16 hygienist at Liberty Mutual? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What did you dobefore you joined 19 Liberty Mutual? 20 A. I waspretty much out ofcollege at 21 that point. So I had about a year where I was 22 just working for some small companies, and then I 23 joined Liberty Mutual, and I worked for them for 24 about 10 years. 25 Q. What kind of small companies did you 29 1 R.C. Adams 2 work for before Liberty Mutual? 3 A. I worked for an analytical chemistry 4 laboratory. And I also worked for a company that 5 manufactured x-ray development chemicals. 6 Q. Did you do industrial hygiene work 7 for the analytical chemistry laboratory or the 8 x-ray development chemicals company? 9 A. No, I did not. 10 Q. How did you get interested 11 in industrial hygiene? 12 A. Liberty Mutual had industrial 13 hygienists on staff. And I was offered the 14 opportunity to enter the industrial hygiene 15 training program, which I did in 1986. 16 Q. So to date this, if I were to date 17 it, that would be 1986 is when you went to work 18 for Liberty Mutual? 19 A. No. I started working for Liberty 20 Mutual in 1982. 21 Q. And so it was before 1982 that you 22 worked in the analytical chemistry lab and the 23 x-ray development company? 24 A. Sir, let me correct that. I started 25 with Liberty Mutual in 1981. Prior to 1981, I 30 1 R.C. Adams 2 worked for the analytical laboratory and the 3 chemical manufacturer. 4 Q. Now, at the x-ray development 5 chemical company -- is that what you said it was? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. -- did you work with any hazardous 8 materials? 9 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. What sorts of hazardous materials? 12 A. The x-ray chemicals were acidic in 13 nature. And so we had to wear protective 14 equipment when we handled those materials 15 Q. Do you remember what kind of acid it 16 was? 17 A. I don't. 18 Q. When you went to work there, were 19 you provided training as to how to protect 20 yourself and other folks from getting injured by 21 the chemicals that were in the facility? 22 A. I don't recall that there was any 23 specific safety training provided. 24 Q. Did the company that provided -25 what was the name of the x-ray development 31 1 R.C. Adams 2 company? 3 A. I believe the name was Picker, 4 P-I-C-K-E-R, Chemical. 5 Q. Did Picker provide any kind of data 6 about the hazards of the materials that it was 7 selling to its customers? 8 A. I have no knowledge of that. 9 Q. You never, to your recollection, saw 10 a material safety data sheet, or anything like 11 that? 12 A. I don't recall ever seeing a 13 material safety data sheet. 14 Q. How about the analytical chemistry 15 lab, did you have any kind of training about how 16 to do your job safely there? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Were there hazardous materials used 19 at the analytical chemistry lab? 20 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 21 A. There were some laboratory-grade 22 products that were used in some of the analytical 23 procedures that we followed. But I would say 24 generally, no. 25 Q. In 1981 you went to work at Liberty 32 1 R.C. Adams 2 Mutual; what did you do there? 3 A. I started out as a loss prevention 4 consultant, and primarily conducted facility 5 inspections on behalf of the underwriting 6 department to identify potential risks that might 7 be present in the workplaces. 8 Q. Did you have a training program to 9 serve as a loss prevention consultant? 10 A. Yes. Liberty Mutual had what 11 amounted to about a year-long training process 12 that involved both classroom as well as 13 on-the-job training. 14 Q. One of the things that you learned 15 about in 1981 from Liberty Mutual was that 16 asbestos containing materials in the facility 17 were a potential hazard, true? 18 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 19 Assumes facts not in evidence. 20 A. We learned that one of the materials 21 that was of interest to our underwriting 22 department would be asbestos materials. 23 Q. Right. You learned that asbestos 24 was, according to your employer at Liberty 25 Mutual, a carcinogen, true? 33 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 3 A. I -- you know, at that early stage, 4 we were looking at many different chemicals. And 5 whether or not we specifically discussed asbestos 6 as a carcinogen at that stage, I don't recall. 7 Q. Liberty Mutual knew in 1981 that 8 asbestos was a carcinogen, didn't it? 9 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 10 A. I -- I am certain that they did. 11 But, again, there were many, many topics that we 12 had to cover as part of our fundamental training, 13 in that first year. 14 Q. Did you have like an area of the 15 country that you were limited to in your work as 16 a loss prevention consultant? 17 A. I started working in Maryland, and 18 that was the territory that I was assigned to. 19 Q. Did you go to any large industrial 20 facilities in Maryland? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Which ones? 23 A. There were lots offacilities. 24 Liberty Mutual was and maystill be the largest 25 writer of workers' compensation insurance, so I 34 1 R.C. Adams 2 went to a lot of large facilities. A lot of 3 small facilities. One that I can immediately 4 think of was the Genstar Stone Products Company. 5 It was a large limestone quarrying interest. I 6 went to a Congoleum flooring plant. This was a 7 lot of years ago. 8 Q. But you remember it, don't you, 9 going to that -- for instance, Congoleum flooring 10 plant that was something that sticks out in your 11 mind, right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did you ever go to any shipyards in 14 Baltimore; Sparrows Point or any of the other 15 shipyards? 16 A. I was at actually the Dundalk, 17 D-U-N-D-A-L-K, Marine Terminal, which I believe 18 is not too far away from Sparrows Point. I have 19 been in shipyards, and I was -- I was in the 20 Sparrows Point shipyard at one point in time. 21 But I don't rec -- I don't recall the company. 22 Q. It would have been Bethlehem Steel, 23 wouldn't it? 24 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 25 A. I was on site at the Bethlehem Steel 35 1 R.C. Adams 2 facility, but not for Bethlehem Steel. 3 Q. In the Congoleum flooring facility, 4 they were using asbestos to make floor tile, 5 true? 6 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 7 A. That plant had one process that used 8 asbestos not in floor tile, but in flooring 9 paper. 10 Q. And that was something that Liberty 11 Mutual was concerned about making sure that 12 people weren't exposed to the asbestos from that 13 flooring paper, right? 14 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 15 Speculation. 16 A. We conducted industrial hygiene 17 measurements of the operation to determine if it 18 was in compliance with the occupational health 19 and safety regulations in force at that time. 20 Q. And the reason you did that was 21 because of the concern for the potential 22 injurious effects of asbestos if people were 23 overexposed, right? 24 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 25 A. We were asked to evaluate that by 36 1 R.C. Adams 2 the company to determine if they were in 3 compliance with the OSHA permissible exposure 4 limits. 5 Q. And why do the OSHA permissible 6 exposure limits exist? 7 A. They were established to provide a 8 guideline for limiting exposures to minimize the 9 risk of potential injury or illness. 10 Q. One of the potential hazards of 11 overexposure to asbestos is mesothelioma, true? 12 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 13 A. That can't be answered by a straight 14 yes or no. The level of exposure depends on a 15 number of factors, including, you know, the fiber 16 type, the fiber size, the intensity and duration 17 of exposure. 18 Q. Have you done any original research 19 into the hazards of asbestos? 20 A. I have not. 21 Q. You rely, as an industrial 22 hygienist, on the government regulations to guide 23 you as to how a workplace should be evaluated, 24 true? 25 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 37 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. That's one of the pieces of 3 information that I rely on in the evaluation of a 4 workplace, yes. 5 Q. If you were called upon to go into a 6 facility, any facility, as an industrial 7 hygienist and evaluate potential hazards, and you 8 found out that people today were using asbestos 9 containing joint compound, you would flag that as 10 a potential hazard, true? 11 A. Not necessarily. 12 Q. If people were using asbestos 13 containing joint compound, and your measurements 14 indicated that the PEL exceeded, the current PEL 15 is exceeded, would you then flag it as a 16 potential hazard? 17 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 18 A. I would have to look at it more 19 closely, in terms of the exposure conditions, as 20 well as the constituents of the joint compound, 21 work methods, and evaluate if there would be a 22 need for additional controls, or if there would 23 be a need for, perhaps, additional study, because 24 it's possible, depending on the methodologies 25 used, that we might be picking up more than -- 38 1 R.C. Adams 2 than just asbestos fibers, because of the nature 3 of joint compound. 4 Q. What more information would you need 5 to know? 6 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 7 A. Well, I would -- I would probably 8 have those samples reanalyzed by transmission 9 electron microscopy to determine if, in fact, 10 they were -- all the fibers that were being 11 counted were, in fact, asbestos fibers. 12 Q. And can you think of anyplace that 13 you could -- any former client that you can refer 14 me to where you found an exceedance of the OSHA 15 PEL at any time during your history where you did 16 not inform them of the potential carcinogenic 17 hazards of asbestos? 18 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 19 A. I don't understand your question. 20 Q. I'll try to rephrase it. 21 A. Thank you. 22 Q. If I were to ask you for a reference 23 where you have done an industrial hygiene survey, 24 and found an exceedance of the OSHA PEL at the 25 time when you did the survey, where you did not 39 1 R.C. Adams 2 inform your client of the potential carcinogenic 3 hazards of asbestos, would you be able to refer 4 me to such a client? 5 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 6 A. You're talking about only sampling 7 for asbestos? 8 Q. I'm talking about where you were 9 sampling and you found an exceedance of the PEL 10 for asbestos, where you didn't tell the client 11 that there was a potential hazard relating to 12 that exceedance? 13 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 14 A. We would provide a report that would 15 detail the results of the findings; in other 16 words, if it was or was not in excess of the 17 permissible exposure limit, and we provided them 18 guidance to specific information, either related 19 to the OSHA regulation or ACGIH TLV and advised 20 them that they should review that information and 21 they should take appropriate steps to reduce the 22 exposures to below the permissible exposure 23 limits. 24 Q. So are you able to indicate to me 25 any client that you've ever told there was no 40 1 R.C. Adams 2 hazard, even though the PEL for asbestos was 3 exceeded? 4 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 5 A. Well, first off, I have not had that 6 many surveys that I've been involved in where we 7 have found an exceedance of the asbestos 8 permissible exposure limit. So I can't give you 9 a client where I would have provided that 10 information to. 11 Q. Well, there have been some, I guess, 12 in your career, right? 13 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 14 A. My recollection at this point, in 15 terms of evaluating asbestos exposures is no. 16 Q. Now, you went through a training 17 course at Liberty Mutual to become an industrial 18 hygienist, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. How long had you been working at 21 Liberty Mutual as a loss prevention consultant 22 before you embarked on that training program to 23 become an industrial hygienist? 24 A. It was five years. 25 Q. Where did you do your training to 41 1 R.C. Adams 2 become an industrial hygienist? 3 A. That training was provided in 4 Hopkington, Massachusetts. 5 Q. Did you have to move there from - 6 were you in Maryland working for Liberty Mutual? 7 A. Actually, I had moved to -- back to 8 New Jersey. And then I went to Hopkington. I 9 didn't have to move to Hopkington, but I spent a 10 month there during the industrial hygiene 11 training school. 12 Q. So the totality of your training to 13 become an industrial hygienist took a month? 14 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 15 A. That was just the classroom portion 16 of the industrial hygiene training school. 17 Again, like the previous training, it was about a 18 year under the direction of a certified 19 industrial hygienist afterwards. 20 Q. So one month of classroom training, 21 and 11 more months, or was there 12 more months 22 of supervision by a certified industrial 23 hygienist? 24 A. It would have been about an 11-month 25 period after the class. So it was a total of a 42 1 R.C. Adams 2 year from start to finish. 3 Q. Who was the CIH that you were 4 operating under for that year? 5 A. Mike Ramsey. 6 Q. Do you stay in touch with Mike? 7 A. I see him probably once a year. 8 Q. Is he still working for Liberty 9 Mutual? 10 A. He's retired now. 11 Q. Does he live in New Jersey? 12 A. He lives in Pennsylvania. 13 Q. And what sorts of things did you 14 study in your one month of classroom training? 15 A. We pretty much covered the entire 16 field of industrial hygiene from air monitoring, 17 different -- different techniques, methods. We 18 had courses in analytical chemistry. We had 19 courses in radiation and noise. It's pretty much 20 a very intensive one month of training to get 21 through the industrial hygiene school, plus we 22 had to pass a final examination. 23 Q. How much of the one month of 24 classroom training was spent on asbestos, if any? 25 A. Probably a couple of hours. 43 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. You learned, at that time, that 3 asbestos was a carcinogen, true? 4 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 5 A. We learned about the health hazards 6 of asbestos, including the fact that it was being 7 classified as a carcinogen. 8 Q. You learned that it could cause 9 mesothelioma, right? 10 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 11 A. We -- we learned that asbestos could 12 cause mesothelioma, particularly the amphibole 13 form, A-M-P-H-I-B-O-L-E, form. 14 Q. Liberty Mutual treated all forms of 15 asbestos as potential carcinogens, didn't it? 16 MR. KELLY: Objection, form 17 speculation. 18 A. I -- you're suggesting that they had 19 some sort of policy out there. I'm not aware 20 that they had any given policy. They accepted 21 what was established by the regulations and the 22 guidances of organizations like the American 23 conference of governmental and industrial 24 hygienist. 25 Q. Right. And the ACGIH took the 44 1 R.C. Adams 2 position that all forms of asbestos including 3 Chrysotile asbestos could cause mesothelioma, 4 true? 5 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 6 A. The ACGIH documentation - 7 documentation does recognize that there is a 8 greater potency with respect to the amphibole 9 forms. But they've only established a single 10 exposure limit, threshold limit value. 11 MR. HARTLEY: I object to the 12 nonresponsive portion. 13 Q. The ACGIH takes the position that 14 Chrysotile asbestos is a potential carcinogen, 15 correct? 16 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 17 Unlimited as to year. 18 A. Could you repeat the question? 19 Q. Sure. The ACGIH takes the position 20 that Chrysotile asbestos is a potential cause of 21 mesothelioma, correct? 22 A. The ACGIH does identify that there 23 are questions about the level of which Chrysotile 24 does cause mesothelioma. But they do identify 25 that it it is identified that it could cause 45 1 R.C. Adams 2 mesothelioma. 3 Q. As you've said, there is only one 4 level, exposure level recommended by the ACGIH, 5 despite the fact that there are many different 6 kinds of asbestos, true? 7 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 8 A. That is correct. Today. 9 Q. Correct. 10 Now, other than the two hours or so 11 of asbestos classroom training that you had at 12 Liberty Mutual, did you have any other specific 13 training about the hazards of asbestos? 14 A. Not that I recall specifically. 15 Q. If I were to go to Liberty Mutual, I 16 would be able to find in their historic files 17 report that you had issued based on your work as 18 a loss prevention consultant, and then as an 19 industrial hygienist, right? 20 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 21 Assumes facts not in evidence. 22 A. I don't know one way or the other. 23 They had a document retention policy. I -- I'm 24 not sure whether you could find any reports or 25 not. 46 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. When you were at Liberty Mutual, you 3 had access to particular sites' historic files, 4 right? For instance, if you had an insured and 5 you were going to the workplace, you would go 6 prior to going to inspect a site and look over 7 what you had, in terms of documentation from 8 before you visited the site, right? 9 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 10 A. I would have whatever was in the 11 insured file, again, pursuant to the existing 12 document retention policy. 13 Q. And the document retention policy, 14 when it came to industrial hygiene surveys, was 15 to keep them forever, wasn't it? 16 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 17 A. No. 18 Q. What do you remember that to be, 19 that policy to be? 20 A. It was a three-year policy. 21 Q. So it was Liberty Mutual's position 22 that it would keep an industrial hygiene survey 23 for only three years, even if there was a long 24 latency period between the development, potential 25 development of disease that was being -- with the 47 1 R.C. Adams 2 hazard being sampled for? 3 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 4 A. I don't understand the -5 Q. Let me break it down, because it was 6 a terrible question. 7 You understand that there is a long 8 latency period between exposure to asbestos and 9 the development of any disease that might 10 develop, right? 11 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. It's on the order of yearstypically 14 when it comes to any of the fatal diseases, like 15 asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, right? 16 A. Yes, it is, yes. 17 Q. And if you're trying to keep any 18 kind of tabs on what the risks are of a disease 19 with a long latency period, you need to keep your 20 sampling data for longer than three years, 21 wouldn't you? 22 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 23 A. I can't speak to the rationale 24 behind Liberty Mutual's policy on document 25 retention, whether or not documents would be kept 48 1 R.C. Adams 2 longer for whatever reason. 3 The documents were prepared and 4 supplied to our customers, and the document 5 policy is what it was. 6 Q. Just so you and I have an 7 understanding, though, that wouldn't make any 8 sense if you were trying to identify the 9 potential risks, as an insurer, for a disease 10 with a long latency period, such as cancer caused 11 by asbestos, right? 12 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 13 A. As I stated, the document policy was 14 -- the retention policy was what it was. 15 Q. Right. 16 And I'm asking you a different 17 question, which is whether that made sense to 18 you? 19 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 20 A. I -- I'm not -- I don't have an 21 opinion, one way or the other on that. 22 Q. Well, you know that if you don't 23 keep track of the exposure data, then you won't 24 have any idea how many people were exposed later 25 on in time, right? 49 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. I -- again, I'm not sure I follow 3 your question. 4 Q. Sure. Again, it probably needed to 5 be rephrased. 6 A. It's okay. 7 Q. If you don't keep the data, there is 8 no way for Liberty Mutual -- let's say Liberty 9 Mutual has this data on people exposed to 10 asbestos. If you keep it for only three years, 11 you're not going to be able to 10, 20, 30 years 12 later know how much those folks were exposed to, 13 at least based on the data that you gather, true? 14 A. It was -- Liberty Mutual wasn't in 15 the business of, you know, collecting data for 16 the sake of collecting data for future, you know, 17 exposure studies. They were collecting those 18 data for the purposes of advising their customers 19 if there were risks associated with their 20 operations and to, you know, take corrective 21 actions to address those risks. 22 Q. And they also used that data, didn't 23 they, to evaluate how much they should charge 24 their customers going forward, true? 25 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 50 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. That was part of the underwriting 3 decision process, yes. 4 Q. I mean, you were taking air 5 measurements first to tell the employers or the 6 site owners that there was a hazard that they 7 should reduce, if it were a hazard, if there were 8 a hazard found; and secondly, so Liberty Mutual 9 could know how much to charge these people going 10 forward because of the risk, right? 11 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 12 A. As I stated, that would be part of 13 the process of evaluating a potential 14 policyholder, yes. 15 Q. Shifting gears here, you're not an 16 expert in medicine, are you? 17 A. No, I am not. 18 Q. You don't, as an industrial 19 hygienist, you don't diagnose disease, right? 20 A. No. 21 Q. You don't give opinions to a 22 reasonabledegree of medical certainty as to what 23 caused a particular disease, do you? 24 A. No. 25 Q. What does an industrial hygienist 51 1 R.C. Adams 2 do? 3 A. An industrial hygienist evaluates 4 potential exposures to substances; chemical 5 substances, physical substances, radiologic 6 substances; compares the information that it has 7 gathered to available data related to exposure 8 limits, to assess the level of risk that could 9 lead to an adverse health effect. 10 Q. You understand that the current OSHA 11 PEL, that OSHA estimates that there would be a 12 substantial excess risk of cancer, true? 13 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 14 A. I understand that OSHA has stated in 15 its preambles that to the effect that they 16 believe that there is some additional risk 17 associated with exposure at the PEL. But keep in 18 mind that the PEL is for all forms of asbestos. 19 Q. Right. 20 So if the PEL meansthat you 21 can't -- the Chrysotile asbestos can't go over 22 0.1 fibers per CC time-weighted average, right? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. It also means thatyou -- the same 25 level applies to amosite asbestos or crocidolite 52 1 R.C. Adams 2 asbestos or tremolite asbestos, correct? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Now, in an industrial setting, where 5 a worker has worked over many, many years, it's 6 highly likely that they were exposed to more than 7 one kind of asbestos at work, right? 8 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 9 A. I -- I -- it would depend on the 10 facility. I can't -- that's a very general 11 question. I cannot give you an opinion 12 specifically. 13 Q. As part of your learning process at 14 Liberty Mutual, did you learn, come to find out 15 that there had been, over the years, different 16 ways to monitor for asbestos? 17 A. I knew that the -- you know, that 18 the methodologies had changed over time. Yes. 19 Q. And did you learn that the 20 methodologies had changed over time because the 21 earlier methodologies were not accurate? 22 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 23 A. I was never told that, no. 24 Q. Why have the methodologies for 25 measuring for asbestos changed? 53 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. I -- you know, as far as 3 historically, that the fiber counting method was 4 just an improvement over previous methods and 5 that's why they changed. 6 Q. How was it an improvement? 7 A. The -- because we were actually 8 looking at, you know, fibers at this point, when 9 we started doing the -- the light microscopy 10 fiber-counting methods. 11 Q. Have you ever heard of a midget 12 impinger? 13 A. Yes. I've actually used midget 14 impingers. 15 Q. What have you used one for? 16 A. I used midget impingers to sample 17 primarily for formaldehyde. 18 Q. Are you talking about the thing 19 where you would like crank a crank and suck air 20 through water and all of that stuff? 21 A. Well, I didn't have a hand crank 22 pump that you're referring to, but yes, I did 23 have to suck air through a bubbler. 24 Q. You know that back in the early 25 days, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, they were 54 1 R.C. Adams 2 using hand crank pumps to run midget impingers, 3 right? 4 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And that is a potential for error in 7 measuring air contents with a midget impinger, 8 correct? 9 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. The reason that is is because in 12 order to get an accurate measurement, you have to 13 have a consistent volume of air sucked through 14 the midget impinger, correct? 15 A. That is true with all sampling 16 methods. 17 Q. Right. 18 But the hand cranked method was 19 especially problematic, because people tend to 20 crank the hand crank at different speeds, 21 depending on who they are, how tired they are, 22 how strong they are, and whatnot, true? 23 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. I figured as much. 55 1 R.C. Adams 2 You already alluded to one problem 3 that was with the midget impinger methodology 4 which was that it counted not just asbestos 5 fibers, but it also counted all other particulate 6 that were taken into the midget impinger, true? 7 A. I don't believe I said that. 8 Q. You alluded to it. I don't think 9 you said exactly that. You said that it counted 10 -- that the filter membrane method was better, I 11 think, because it actually counted asbestos. But 12 I thought that -- maybe you weren't -- let me ask 13 you again. 14 Do you agree that the midget 15 impinger methodology counted everything that was 16 in the air, not just asbestos? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. It was atotal dust measurement, 19 rather than an asbestos measurement, right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. There was nouse in historic times 22 for any kind of conversion factor for the midget 23 impinger measurements to -- in the workplace to 24 identify what percentage was asbestos, right? 25 A. I'm not sure when you say in the 56 1 R.C. Adams 2 historic time. Can you put a time period on 3 that, please? 4 Q. Sure. Back when the ACGIH TLVs were 5 the only recommended standards out there. And I 6 guess that is prior to, say, 1968, isn't it? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Back then, there was no procedure 9 for you take an air measurement, get a number of 10 millions of particles per cubic foot of air and 11 then divide it by what you think the percentage 12 of asbestos is to come up with the asbestos 13 count. 14 You just compared the total dust 15 count to the TLV, right? 16 A. That's my understanding of what was 17 done, yes. 18 Q. And in that sense, two different 19 environments with the same number of millions of 20 particle per cubic foot might have very different 21 amounts of asbestos in the air, true? 22 A. Again, it's a confusing question. 23 It would depend on what environments you're 24 talking about. Are we talking -- 25 Q. Right. Well, let's just talk about 57 1 R.C. Adams 2 it this way: Assuming that we have two different 3 environments, they both have 6 million particles 4 per cubic foot of air measured, and we're 5 assuming here also that there was a proper midget 6 impinger method where the rates that are flowing 7 through the midget impinger machinery was the 8 same and was as prescribed so you got an accurate 9 count. 10 If you had one environment where 50 11 percent of the dust was asbestos, and one 12 environment where 20 percent of the dust was 13 asbestos, the counts would be the same, 6 million 14 particles per cubic foot, but the asbestos 15 content would be much greater in one than in the 16 other, right? 17 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 18 A. As you've stated the scenario, yes. 19 Q. And that is why switching to the 20 filter membrane method was an improvement, 21 because what you were really doing was counting 22 the hazard of concern, the asbestos fibers, 23 right? 24 A. That is not correct. 25 Q. Why not? 58 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. Because the filter counting method 3 does not specifically count asbestos. It counts 4 only fibers that meet a certain size and shape 5 definition. They could or could not be asbestos. 6 Q. Well, you understand, don't you, 7 that the -- well, that is fair enough. 8 The ACGIH methodology for counting 9 dust that contained asbestos to determine whether 10 there was compliance with the TLV had a counting 11 protocol, didn't it? 12 A. I'm not -- I'm not a hundred percent 13 familiar with the actual counting protocol 14 itself. 15 Q. Do you think that there was an 16 improvement in measuring the potential hazard of 17 asbestos in the air when there was a switch from 18 the use of the PLVs to the filter membrane method 19 under the -- you know, say in 1968? 20 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 21 A. I would -- I -- I believe that the 22 method that we're currently using, the fiber 23 count -- the filter counting method is -- is an 24 improvement, yes. 25 Q. And why? 59 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. Because the standard once it was 3 established in the units of fibers per CC would 4 be -- you know, that would be the method that 5 would be appropriate to use to count. 6 Q. Have you read Hodgson and Darnton 7 2000? 8 A. I have read it. 9 Q. And is it fair to say that you are 10 not an expert in asbestos risk assessment? 11 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 12 A. I -- I'm unclear when you say 13 "asbestos risk assessment." 14 Q. Well, Hodgson and Darnton performed 15 an assessment risk assessment in that 2000 16 article, is that true? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And there was a lot of complex 19 mathematical calculation that went into that risk 20 assessment, right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Are youqualified to explain that to 23 a jury? 24 A. I canexplain all of theHodgson and 25 Darnton methodologies. I'm familiar with the 60 1 R.C. Adams 2 techniques, but I would not explain them to a 3 jury. 4 Q. Do you know what a meta-analysis is? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What is it? 7 A. A meta-analysis is where you would 8 take a number of different studies, you look for, 9 for example, where there are differences in the 10 studies, you'd look for where there are 11 similarities in the studies. And if you can 12 combine a group of studies to essentially give 13 you one large study, that's more powerful than 14 any individual or single study would be. 15 Q. In order to do that, you've got to 16 have a common language for the exposure 17 assessment portion of it, right? I mean, you 18 can't take midget impinger measurements of 19 asbestos and mash them in with filter membrane 20 method -- measurements of asbestos and come up 21 with a meaningful language about the risk, can 22 you? 23 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 24 A. I would disagree with that. 25 Q. Why? 61 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. Well, there are ways of developing 3 conversion factors that can be used to achieve, 4 as you refer to as a common language. And that 5 is -- is something that, you know, has been 6 looked at. In fact, I was involved -- well, I 7 wasn't involved directly, but I know that it's 8 been done in the silica study I referred to 9 earlier. 10 Q. Have you testified to a reasonable 11 scientific certainty in court about guesstimates? 12 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 13 A. I don't know what you're referring 14 to specifically. 15 Q. Well, I mean, do you rely on guesses 16 in forming your opinions that you give to juries 17 in court? 18 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 19 A. When I review any particular study, 20 report, I evaluate the methodologies used by the 21 individual to arrive at their exposure estimates. 22 If I feel that they are sound and solid, then I 23 rely on them. 24 MR. HARTLEY: That wasn't my 25 question, however, so I object. 62 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. I'm asking you will you rely on a 3 guess to form your opinions in this case? 4 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 5 A. Could you give me an example? 6 Q. I can't -- I want to know if you're 7 willing to rely on guesses to give your opinions 8 on anything? 9 MR. KELLY: Objection. 10 Q. Would you guess on something that 11 you think is reliable enough to offer opinions 12 based on to the jury? 13 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 14 A. If you're referring to Appendix B in 15 Hodgson and Darnton, I would. 16 Q. And what's your basis for that? 17 A. I reviewed the entire record in 18 Appendix B, and I concurred with his assessment. 19 Q. Who is "he"? 20 A. That is the gentleman who evaluated 21 the crocidolite data from the -- from the 22 cigarette filter manufacturer. 23 Q. When did you do that review? 24 A. I've read Hodgson and Darnton, as I 25 mentioned previously. 63 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. I know. 3 When did you do that review that you 4 came to the conclusion that Appendix B was 5 correct? 6 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 7 A. I said that I agreed with Appendix 8 B. I agreed with what he did. I didn't have an 9 objection to his approach. 10 Q. Okay. That's fine. 11 When did you come to that agreement? 12 I'm asking you when you did it. 13 A. I can't give you a specific date. 14 Q. Was it in the last month? 15 A. No. It's been prior to that. 16 Q. Within the last year? 17 A. I guess it's been in the last year. 18 Q. When did you last look at Hodgson 19 and Darnton's paper? 20 A. Within the last month, I'm sure. 21 Q. Within the last week? 22 A. I don't know. I can't recollect 23 immediately if I looked at it in the last week or 24 not. 25 Q. Did you look at it yesterday? 64 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. No. 3 Q. Did you look at it today? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Did you look at it in preparation 6 for this deposition? 7 A. I probably did, because originally 8 this deposition was -- was -- was scheduled over 9 a month ago, I believe, which is probably when I 10 last looked at it. 11 Q. Did someone suggest that you look at 12 it, because I was going to ask you questions 13 about it? 14 A. I -- I know -- I -- I have been 15 aware that, you know, that it's come up as an 16 issue previously. 17 Q. So the answer is yes, somebody told 18 you to review it because the lawyers would likely 19 question you about it? 20 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 21 A. No, that I understand that it's been 22 an issue previously. 23 Q. How did you come to that 24 understanding? 25 A. I honestly couldn't tell you. It 65 1 R.C. Adams 2 may have come up in discussions about litigation. 3 Q. Do you have a copy of Hodgson and 4 Darnton there? 5 A. I do not. 6 Q. Do you not know who Dr. G. Burdett 7 is? 8 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 9 A. That's the name of the gentleman who 10 prepared the Appendix B to the Hodgson and 11 Darnton, which I couldn't recall previously. 12 Q. And what is Dr. G Burdett's 13 background? 14 A. I do not know. 15 Q. It doesn' t matter to you what 16 qualifications the person had who wrote the 17 portion of the Hodgson and Darnton article that 18 you think is reliable, right? 19 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 20 A. It's in the peer-reviewed 21 literature. I'm satisfied and I don't feel it's 22 all that relevant. 23 Q. So if somebody is published in the 24 peer-reviewed literature, their background isn't 25 that important to you, is that fair? 66 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 3 Misstates prior testimony. 4 A. As I stated before, I review the 5 literature. And if I find it to meet, you know, 6 good scientific methodologies, accepted 7 methodologies in the practice, that's the 8 judgment that I -- that I use. 9 Q. And it's fair to say that if you're 10 relying on the Hodgson and Darnton risk 11 assessment from 2000 that you've cited in your 12 report, that you're relying at least, in part, on 13 a guesstimate, true? 14 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 15 A. I disagree with that. 16 Q. The numbers that Hodgson and Darnton 17 used for the Massachusetts cigarette filter 18 cohort were based on the guesstimate that's set 19 forth by G. Burdett in section B of Hodgson and 20 Darnton's paper, true? 21 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 22 A. That's one of the studies that they 23 used in their risk assessment. 24 Q. And Dr. Burdett talks about his 25 numbers as his best guesstimate, doesn't he? 67 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 3 A. That's the term he uses. 4 Q. And you're comfortable in using a 5 guesstimate in forming your opinions in this 6 case, right? 7 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 8 A. I believe I've already answered that 9 question. 10 Q. The answer is yes? 11 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 12 A. The answer was yes, because I had 13 reviewed what he had written and I agreed with 14 it. 15 Q. I guess I'm having trouble 16 understanding how you can know whether he's right 17 or not because he just reports what he did but 18 without giving the data, how to do that? 19 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 20 A. Again, I stated I reviewed it. I'm 21 satisfied with it. I have accepted it. And I 22 have no issue with it. 23 Q. I know you have stated that. 24 I want to know why. Can you tell me 25 why you believe that Dr. Burdett's guesstimate is 68 1 R.C. Adams 2 accurate enough to rely upon? 3 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 4 A. Because I didn't disagree with the 5 numbers, and the way he presented them. He made 6 a sound, rational foundation. I have no reason 7 to dispute it. 8 Q. Do you know what measurement 9 instrument was used to determine the air 10 concentrations in the Massachusetts cohort? 11 A. Sorry. Say that again? 12 Q. Yes. Do you know what kind of 13 measurement instrument was used to capture the 14 asbestos in the air in the Massachusetts 15 cigarette cohort? 16 A. I would have to go back and look at 17 the study again in a little bit more detail. 18 Q. He says in the first paragraph of 19 Appendix D that the measurements, quote, almost 20 certainly refer to impinger measurements. 21 A. Right. 22 Q. Which were frequently made for 23 insurance company purpose, end quote. 24 Does that sound about like what you 25 have read there? 69 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 3 A. Again, I would like to go back and 4 take a look at that, but I -- it sounds right. 5 Q. Do you have access to it, or could I 6 e-mail it to you or to Colin or somebody, we can 7 take a break. I really think if you're relying 8 on it, it is something we should go through. 9 A. I would like to say that I'm relying 10 on Hodgson and Darnton largely as an issue of 11 relative potency of the different asbestos 12 materials so that I can develop an exposure 13 assessment. And at this point I don't see what 14 the relevance is to the Knight case that we're 15 here to talk about today. 16 Q. Well, I know you don't. But that is 17 why I don't think it's reliable for that 18 proposition for which you're relying on it for, 19 so that is why I want to explore it. 20 Do you have access to it, or can I 21 e-mail it to you or fax it to you there? 22 MR. HARTLEY: Colin, can you give 23 him a copy? 24 MR. KELLY: Let me look and see if I 25 have it, Christian. 70 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. HARTLEY: If you don't, let me 3 see if I can e-mail it to your firm. 4 MR. KELLY: Can we take a break. 5 MR. HARTLEY: Let's take a break. 6 That is fine. 7 (Time noted: 2:46 p.m.) 8 (A brief recess is taken.) 9 (Time noted: 2:54 p.m.) 10 MR. HARTLEY: Were you able to find 11 a copy of the document? 12 MR. KELLY: Yes, I got one, 13 Christian. I found one. He's got it. 14 MR. HARTLEY: Awesome. Thank you. 15 MR. KELLY: You're welcome. 16 Q. Turn to Appendix B on page 600. 17 A. I have it. 18 Q. You see there that it says in the 19 first paragraph of Appendix B that the 20 measurements in 1952 which gave an average of 80 21 particles per milliliter within the Massachusetts 22 standard of 175 particles per milliliter almost 23 certainly refer to impinger measurements, which 24 were frequently made for insurance company 25 purposes? 71 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. I see that. 3 Q. So what we know from that statement 4 is that Dr. Burdett, who wrote Appendix B, isn't 5 sure what kind of measurement device was used, 6 but he think it was impinger measurements, right? 7 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. It 8 speaks for itself. 9 A. It says that he made an assumption 10 that they were impinger methods based on the 11 information he had on hand. 12 Q. And that is an assumption that you 13 can't test, because you don't know one way or the 14 other whether the measurements made in 1952 used 15 in this were that or some other methodology, 16 right? 17 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 18 A. It's not relevant at this point 19 anyway, so........... 20 Q. But the answer is that you don't 21 know, you can't tell the judge or this jury what 22 measurement methodology was used by the 23 Massachusetts folks measuring the air in the 24 Massachusetts cigarette filter factories, right? 25 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 72 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. I -- I can't tell him specifically. 3 But I would agree with the conclusion that the 4 midget impingement method seems logical. 5 Q. What's your basis for that? 6 A. It's a method that's -- you know, 7 the methodologies is stated here, I think it's a 8 rational decision. If I was presented with the 9 same data, I would probably draw the same 10 conclusion. 11 Q. There were other methodologies 12 available to measure millions of particles per 13 cubic foot, weren't there? 14 A. There were other methodologies, yes. 15 Q. And there was something called the 16 konimeter, right? 17 A. Konimeter, yes. 18 Q. There were the dust elutriators, 19 correct? 20 A. There were elutriators, although I 21 don't know how they would have been used in this 22 situation, but yes. 23 Q. You understand from your training, 24 your education and your experience, and from 25 reading these articles, as it relates to this 73 1 R.C. Adams 2 topic, that comparisons between one methodology, 3 say the konimeter or konimeter, if you will, and 4 the midget impinger were problematic, right? 5 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 6 A. I don't necessarily agree with that. 7 Q. Why don't you agree with that? 8 A. Because methods have been developed 9 to come up with conversion factors. 10 Q. Who developed the method for 11 converting between konimeter and midget impinger 12 counts? 13 A. I don't know. 14 Q. Are you sure that someone has never 15 even done that? 16 A. I know that -- as I said, we've 17 actually done it in a study just recently that I 18 talked about with the silica study. 19 Q. You developed measurements, you 20 developed scientifically reliable conversion 21 factors between the konimeter and the midget 22 impinger for silica? 23 A. And filter methods, yes, they were 24 run side by side. 25 Q. And you have been able to validate 74 1 R.C. Adams 2 that that method for silica worked in all 3 environments? 4 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 5 A. The study was done and other folks 6 -- I mean, I was a participant in the exposure 7 assessment. Other folks had done the studies of 8 the actual devices in the field. 9 Q. Who did that? 10 A. That would have been the German 11 insurance folks over in Germany. 12 Q. And is that published somewhere? 13 A. It will be published in September or 14 October of this year. 15 Q. Where is it going to be published? 16 A. Journal of Occupational and 17 Environmental Hygiene. 18 Q. JOEH? 19 A. JOEH, yes. 20 Q. Who were the authors? 21 A. Tomas Birk,B-I-R-K. Dr. Ken Mundt, 22 M-U-N-D-T. Karl Heinz Guldner. Myself. And a 23 gentleman by the name of William Parson, 24 P-A-R-S-O-N. Hopefully -- I think I missed one 25 other coauthor whose name escapes me at the 75 1 R.C. Adams 2 moment. 3 Q. That has been accepted for 4 publication, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. I would like to get a copy of that. 7 Could I get a copy? 8 A. I don't have a copy. It hasn't been 9 published yet. 10 Q. Okay. But -11 A. When it's published, you'll be able 12 to get it. 13 Q. You don't have access to a copy of 14 this paper that you are an author of? 15 A. I -- I don't have access to the 16 final version. 17 Q. Would you be willing to try to get 18 it, so I can review how this conversion factor 19 study that you've done worked? 20 A. This -- this is just -- I -- I 21 provided this as an example of a study that we 22 did relative to silica. I don't see its bearing 23 on the Knight case at all. 24 Q. You seem to be saying to me that 25 you're relying on it for your belief that you can 76 1 R.C. Adams 2 create conversion factors such that you can 3 compare studies that use different methodologies. 4 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 5 Q. Are you not? 6 A. I simply provided it as an example 7 for something that I know that has been done. 8 Q. And I just want to be able to see 9 the information that you had in that study, 10 versus what was available to the authors of the 11 underlying studies that was used in Hodgson and 12 Darnton, because those folks say you can't do 13 that kind of conversion. 14 A. I don't know if that is true or not. 15 Q. Have you been given copies of the 16 letters to the editor by the folks from 17 Australia, talking about the dust measurement 18 from the Wittenoom cohort that were used by 19 Hodgson and Darnton? 20 A. I have not seen those letters. 21 Q. You haven't seen indications - 22 well, let me rephrase this. 23 We'll just stick with this one for 24 now, and then I'll send the other one, if I need 25 to. 77 1 R.C. Adams 2 This gentleman says that 5 million 3 particles per cubic foot was the threshold value 4 in force from the 1930s to the 1960s, maybe even 5 until 1972. That's in the third paragraph of 6 Appendix B on page 600. Do you see that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. The 5 million particles per cubic 9 foot TLV was definitely not in force until 1972, 10 was it? 11 A. That my -- my understanding was it 12 was not. But I don't know -- he's saying 13 threshold value. I don't know if he's referring 14 to just the United States, or if he's referring 15 to maybe other locations. 16 Q. Isn't it kind of important when 17 you're using it as a basis for your assumptions 18 in a conversion? 19 A. I don't - 20 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 21 Sorry. 22 A. It doesn't have any bearing. 23 Q. Why did he include it in there, if 24 it had no bearing? 25 MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for 78 1 R.C. Adams 2 speculation. 3 A. I have no idea. 4 Q. When was the asbestos PEL 10 fibers 5 per milliliter? 6 A. When was it 10 fibers per 7 milliliter? 8 Q. Yes. 9 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. Did 10 you say PEL, Christian? 11 MR. HARTLEY: Yes, I did say that. 12 MR. KELLY: Okay. 13 A. He just uses the term "threshold 14 value." I don't think that that is specifically 15 saying it's a PEL. 16 Q. I'm asking you, was the PEL ever 10 17 fibers per milliliter, to your knowledge? 18 A. No. 19 Q. So atleast in thatparagraph, there 20 are two inaccuracies as far as -- at least as 21 concerns the United States, right? 22 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 23 A. I don't know that he's talking about 24 the United States, so I can't answer that 25 question. 79 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. Well, Massachusetts is in the United 3 States, isn' t it? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Was the 5 million particles per 6 cubic foot threshold value ever the law anywhere 7 else outside of the United States? 8 MR. KELLY: Objection. 9 A. I don't know the specific 10 regulations in other countries. 11 Q. So you don't know what he's talking 12 about in the third paragraph at all? You don't 13 know where or why he put it in there, right? 14 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 15 A. And it's -- I don't know where or 16 why, and it''s not relevant to my opinion. 17 Q. He indicates here that -- in the 18 next paragraph -- that the methodology that was 19 used when the Massachusetts plant was studied 20 was -- used a low-powered microscope, right? 21 A. That's what he says. 22 Q. Does that work -- using that 23 low-powered microscope would overlook many 24 respirable fibers, right? 25 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 80 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. That's what -- again, I have no 3 disagreement with what he's written here. 4 Q. It indicates that the impingers - 5 he's assuming that impingers were used, but they 6 have a poor capture efficiency, right? Below one 7 micron? 8 A. He's talking about for particle 9 sizes less than one micron in size, yes. 10 Q. What does that mean? 11 A. That means that if a particle size 12 was smaller than one micron, that the impinger 13 method might not capture all of the fibers or all 14 of the particles, excuse me, that might be 15 present in the air. 16 Q. So if that's the case, then you 17 might be underestimating the amount of actual 18 particles that are there, true? 19 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 20 A. Again, it would depend on the 21 composition in the air. This method is not 22 something where you can fractionate sizes. I 23 would also like to clarify that all collection 24 methods, including our modern filter method, do 25 have limitations as to the amount -- particle 81 1 R.C. Adams 2 size that can be collected. 3 Q. Right. They tend to undercount 4 thinner fibers, right? 5 A. They -- I'm talking about capture 6 efficiency, not the actual counting. 7 Q. I guess, if I'm understanding 8 correctly, though, that author of Appendix B that 9 you rely on, is saying that method might lead to 10 undercounting of the actual presence of the 11 asbestos in the Massachusetts cohort, isn't that 12 what he's saying? 13 A. He's simply recognizing a limitation 14 of the method, and as an industrial hygienist, we 15 have to recognize that all methods have 16 limitations. 17 Q. Sure. 18 And what you would have to 19 understand, reading this, as an industrial 20 hygienist, is that the numbers that were counted 21 might be undercounted because of the limitations 22 of methodology, right? 23 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 24 A. If you're interested only in the 25 smaller -- less than one micron particles, yes. 82 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. Did he account for capture 3 efficiency for particles below one micron in his 4 estimates -- guesstimates, sorry? 5 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 6 A. It's -- it's not relevant because 7 we're interested in particles bigger than that, 8 when you're looking at asbestos fibers. 9 Q. Well, crocidolite fibers are thinner 10 than one micron, aren't they? 11 A. I'm not an expert on the morphology 12 of the various fibers. 13 Q. So is it fair to say that you're not 14 qualified to explain to the judge and the jury as 15 to what the relevance is of this capture 16 efficiency below one micron? 17 A. I can explain it, in terms of 18 exposures to particulates in the air and 19 exposures relative to, you know, different 20 particle sizes. But, you know, when you're 21 talking about crocidolite fibers, remember, 22 you're looking at not just -- you're looking at 23 length as well as width. 24 Q. Sure. 25 But if a crocidolite fiber is 83 1 R.C. Adams 2 thinner than one micron, it may pass through the 3 capture methodology, according to the author whom 4 you rely on. 5 A. I don't know if I would be able to 6 respond to that one way or the other. That's 7 speculation. 8 Q. You can't tell me whether or not 9 it's important that the midget impinger 10 methodology that Mr. Burdett believes was used in 11 Massachusetts, whether that was important for the 12 counts at all, right? 13 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 14 A. In my review of this, it refers to 15 the overall conclusions, and as I pointed out 16 earlier, this is just one component of a number 17 of studies that were used in this paper. 18 MR. HARTLEY: Objection, 19 nonresponsive. 20 Q. It is important when Dr. G. Burdett, 21 in Appendix B indicates, quote, It should also be 22 remembered that impingers have poor capture 23 efficiency below one micron when you're 24 considering the results here for the crocidolite 25 cigarette filter? 84 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 3 A. And I've already answered, he's 4 pointing out a limitation of the sampling method, 5 and I think it's appropriate that he's pointed it 6 out, and as I mentioned, there are other -- that 7 there are limits in all sampling methods. 8 Q. Is there any significance to the 9 limitations of the sampling methods for the 10 results that he reports? 11 A. I'm sorry, can you state that again? 12 Q. I'll rephrase it. 13 Is there any significance to the 14 fact that he believes that it should also be 15 remembered that impingers have poor capture 16 efficiency below one micron? 17 A. I -- I don't think there is any 18 significance. He's pointing out a limitation. 19 Q. What effect could that limitation 20 have on the results reported? 21 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 22 Calls for speculation. 23 A. Again, I've already -- we've already 24 -- I've taken it as he's written it. 25 Q. You haven't answered my question, 85 1 R.C. Adams 2 however. I understand you've taken it as he's 3 written it. What does it mean in terms of 4 interpreting the results, if anything? 5 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 6 A. I stated previously that it means 7 that if there are particles less than one micron 8 in size, there might be some that are not 9 captured by this method. 10 Q. And if they're not captured, that 11 means they won't be counted, right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. That would mean that the counts from 14 the cigarette, the crocidolite cigarette filter 15 cohort may be undercounts, correct? 16 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 17 A. It's a possibility. 18 Q. Does he take that into account, as 19 far as you can tell, in the analysis that he did 20 here? 21 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 22 A. Was that a question? 23 Q. It was. 24 A. Could you repeat it? 25 Q. Does Dr. Burdett take into account 86 1 R.C. Adams 2 the potential that the results he is -- he gets 3 from the Massachusetts cigarette filter cohort 4 were undercounts? 5 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 6 A. He states at the very conclusion, he 7 says, it's a very approximate, but he thinks a 8 hundred fiber per milliliter looks to be a good 9 maximum exposure with a TWA of 60 fibers per 10 milliliter. It looks like he's considering it is 11 an approximation, it is an estimate. 12 Q. And it's a guesstimate by his own 13 words, right? 14 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 15 A. That is his choice of words. 16 Q. Okay. And you don't have any reason 17 to disagree with his choice of words that he's 18 applying guesstimates in his analysis here? 19 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 20 A. His choice of words is irrelevant to 21 me. 22 Q. You agree that's guessing here, 23 true? 24 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 25 A. No, I do not. 87 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. Where is the evidence that he's 3 doing anything other than guessing? 4 A. He's reasoned out through the 5 process of evaluating this data, and come up with 6 a reasonable estimate based on the number. He 7 chose to use the term "guesstimate." His choice 8 of the word. 9 Q. I understand. I'm trying to figure 10 out how you're able to determine that's not 11 guessing. How is that? 12 A. Because he's laid out a very solid 13 foundation, if you read all of Appendix B, from 14 start to finish, as I have done, I would agree 15 with the approach that he's taken. 16 I'm not hung up on his choice of the 17 word "guesstimate." 18 Q. How does he come to the conclusion 19 that 30 percent of the particles counted were 20 fibers? 21 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 22 A. I don't have the specific 23 background. But I know that there -- I recollect 24 that there are some documents out there somewhere 25 in my history that may give him some indication 88 1 R.C. Adams 2 of that information. 3 Q. Can you produce those to me so I can 4 look at them? 5 A. I don't know which ones they are. 6 Like I said, they're in the back recesses of my 7 mind. I would have to go back and search for 8 them. 9 Q. Okay. And then he said, and I'm 10 talking about the last full paragraph in the 11 first column on page 600. He says, and I'll read 12 the sentence that we're talking about, "My best 13 guesstimate is that 30 percent of the particles 14 were fibers, but only about 10 percent of the 15 fibers seen would be crocidolite, (it was more 16 dusty but has very few, smaller than one micron 17 fibers compared to the other dusts). Did I read 18 that right? 19 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Now, the second thing I wanted to 22 ask you about, I've asked you about the first 23 part, how he came to the conclusion that 30 24 percent of the particles were fibers; how did he 25 come to the conclusion that only 10 percent of 89 1 R.C. Adams 2 the fibers would be crocidolite? 3 A. I don't know. He may have had some 4 formula records that he may have looked at. I 5 don't know. He doesn't specifically say. 6 Q. And he then, in the next 7 paragraph -- in the next paragraph it says, "This 8 would mean about 3 percent of the count was 9 crocidolite fibers or about 2.5 fibers per 10 milliliter greater than one micron wide," right? 11 A. Umm-hmm, yes. 12 Q. So the 3 percent number comes from 13 multiplying his guesstimate of 30 percent of the 14 particles fibers times the 10 percent of the 15 fibers in the dust being crocidolite, right? 16 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 17 A. That would be the way I interpreted 18 that he arrived at that number. 19 Q. Now here it's pretty clear from this 20 sentence -- the sentence I just read to you that 21 the width of the fibers is the key when we're 22 talking about the weakness of the midget impinger 23 method that he talks about up above, doesn't that 24 become clear, because of the use of the term 25 less than one micron wide"? 90 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 3 speculation. 4 A. Yeah. When you're looking at 5 fibers, you got to look at two dimensions, not 6 just one. 7 Q. Right. And the reason that is 8 important, with any method is because if it only 9 captures a certain width or a certain length, 10 there is a hole and it may be too wide to go 11 through sideways, but it can go straight through 12 end to end, right? 13 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 14 A. You're starting to get into a 15 particle aerodynamic behavior. It's speculation 16 at this point for me to go down that avenue 17 without more detail. 18 Q. But what we know here is that the 19 weakness of the methodology that he has pointed 20 out up above that we've talked about at length is 21 important to him because crocidolite fibers, some 22 of them, at least, may not be more than one 23 micron wide, right, so they're passing through 24 the collection medium? 25 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 91 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. I'm not sure what you mean by 3 passing through the collection medium. With the 4 midget impinger, you can't exactly pass through 5 it. Once it's captured, it's captured. 6 Q. He says above that the impingers 7 have poor capture efficiency below one micron, 8 doesn't it? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. So it's clear that he's concerned 11 that some of these crocidolite fibers are less 12 than one micron wide and aren't being captured, 13 right? 14 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 15 A. It's -- it's -- he's dealingwith 16 it. I mean, he's addressing it in the -- in 17 his -- in his estimates here. 18 Q. That's fine. 19 He doesn't deal with it inany way 20 that you can tell whether he's right or not. He 21 just admits and acknowledges that there may be 22 some that's not captured, but he doesn't know how 23 much, right? 24 A. Again, I will take what he's done at 25 face value; that he's acknowledged that there is 92 1 R.C. Adams 2 a limitation to the method. 3 Q. Some authors believe that the 4 thinner the fiber is, the more dangerous it is, 5 right? 6 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 7 A. I'm not prepared to discuss that. 8 Q. You've never heard that? 9 A. I have heard it. 10 Q. Then he says in the next sentence, 11 it says, "To convert to the current index, we 12 generally find one can assume only some 4 percent 13 of the greater than five micron long crocidolite 14 fibers were visible, as compared with the current 15 index." 16 Did I read that right? 17 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. What does that mean to you? 20 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 21 A. What he's saying is that they're 22 making an assumption that approximately 4 percent 23 of those greater than five microns in length 24 would be visible. 25 Q. What is the significance of that? 93 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. He's taking into account that some 3 of the particles may not be visible per the 4 limitation of the method. 5 Q. What is the basis for his 6 assumption? 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. If you don't know, how are you able 9 to tell the judge and the jury in this case that 10 this is a reliable calculation that he's making? 11 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 12 A. Because he's following a methodology 13 that I would follow. And if I had the data in 14 front of me, I would probably be able to draw the 15 same conclusions. Unfortunately, as you 16 mentioned, I don't have that data in front of me 17 completely, but I don't disagree with the 18 methodology. And this is in a peer-reviewed 19 publication, and it was accepted and published 20 and it has been referenced in a lot of the other 21 articles since. 22 Q. Just because something is published 23 and peer reviewed doesn't make it right, does it? 24 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 25 A. I don't know what you mean by "make 94 1 R.C. Adams 2 it right." It's a peer-reviewed publication. 3 It's generally accepted following generally 4 accepted methods. It's right in my book. 5 Q. Well, let's take an example. You've 6 heard of chromium six, right? 7 A. I've heard of chromium six. I don't 8 understand the relevance to this case in 9 asbestos. 10 Q. Well, the relevance is it goes to 11 the issues of -- I'll explain it to you. 12 You understand, don't you, that 13 there has been some publications about chromium 14 six that were published in a major peer-reviewed 15 journal that later had to be withdrawn due to 16 lack of support of the underlying data? 17 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 18 foundation. 19 A. I have no idea what you're talking 20 about. 21 Q. You didn't ever see anything 22 about -- in the Wall Street Journal about Dr. 23 Paustenbach having a paper that Chem Risk wrote 24 withdrawn? 25 A. I don't read the Wall Street 95 1 R.C. Adams 2 Journal. 3 Q. You haven't seen that anywhere else 4 in the published literature? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Have you ever heard of a published 7 peer-reviewed paper withdrawn for fraud or 8 mistakes that weren't detected in the peer review 9 process? 10 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 11 A. I have heard of papers that have - 12 have been withdrawn for some reasons. But, 13 again, you know, I looked at the paper based on 14 my methodologies, and it was formed with 15 generally accepted good practices. And I haven't 16 seen anything to refute Hodgson and Darnton in 17 that regard. 18 Q. You liked their methodology but you 19 don't know whether their assumptions are correct 20 because you don't actually have the data to test, 21 correct? 22 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 23 A. I can't say that. 24 Q. I'm asking you, because you don't 25 have the data, right? 96 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. I have the paper. And the paper has 3 been accepted and it's been referenced many times 4 over. I have no reason to dispute it. As far as 5 I know, Hodgson and Darnton have not recanted or 6 recalled this paper. 7 Q. That wasn't what I was getting at 8 though. 9 What I'm getting at, at least for 10 this questions here, is that Dr. Burdett has made 11 a lot of assumptions, and you don't have any of 12 the data to determine whether he made proper 13 assumptions, right? 14 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 15 A. As I stated before, I've followed - 16 I reviewed it, I followed his approach, and I 17 agree with the approach. And I accept it for 18 what it is. And it's only one study of many that 19 are referenced in this paper. 20 Q. If you underestimate the amount of 21 crocidolite exposure that was experienced by a 22 cohort, you're going to overestimate the potency 23 of the fiber, right? 24 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 25 A. I am not sure I completely agree 97 1 R.C. Adams 2 with that. Again, the limitations of the methods 3 speak for themselves. 4 Q. Why don't you agree with that? That 5 is kind of simple math. 6 A. It is not simple math. It is more 7 complicated than that. And we are getting hung 8 up over one -- one study related to the 9 crocidolite filter factory of numerous studies 10 that make up the preponderance of this risk - 11 risk assessment. 12 Q. How much crocidolite data points do 13 you think it has in this paper? 14 A. I haven't tried to count them. 15 Q. Then you don't really know how many 16 data points -- how important this data set is as 17 discussed in Appendix B, right? 18 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 19 argumentative. 20 A. It's not relevant to my use of this 21 paper in the assessment of Mr. Knight's exposure. 22 Q. The reliability of Hodgson and 23 Darnton is not relevant to your assessment of 24 Mr. Knight's case? 25 MR. KELLY: Objection. Misstates 98 1 R.C. Adams 2 his testimony. 3 A. That is not what I said. I find his 4 paper to be reliable. 5 Q. I understand that you've told me 6 that part. I'm trying to figure out the basis 7 for that. 8 If you turn to page 566 of the 9 Hodgson and Darnton paper, it lists at the top of 10 the second page of the document if you have it in 11 paper form, it lists the cohorts that are relied 12 upon in the case, correct? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. Do you see that at the top, there is 15 a list of 17 cohorts that were identified? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Which of those studies are the 18 crocidolite cohorts that are used in Hodgson and 19 Darnton? 20 A. I -- I -- I'm not able to go through 21 and say which ones specifically. I know Talcott 22 is the one referred to in the crocidolite filter 23 factory, but I would have to go match them up to 24 the tables that are presented in the paper. 25 Q. They go in depth through some of the 99 1 R.C. Adams 2 weaknesses of their methodology in this Hodgson 3 and Darnton paper themselves, the authors? 4 A. I would expect that in any good 5 scientific paper. 6 Q. Do you understand that there have 7 been updates of some of the cohorts that are 8 reported here? 9 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 10 foundation. 11 A. I -- I don't know specifically which 12 ones have been updated. 13 Q. Do you understand that there have 14 been updates? 15 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 16 A. Again, I don't know specifically 17 which ones. I couldn't say specifically one way 18 or the other. 19 Q. The answer is that you don't know if 20 there are any updates of any of these cohorts, 21 right? 22 A. I don't know specifically about any 23 of these cohorts. 24 Q. Have you seen any reports, any 25 epidemiologic reports of Italian Chrysotile 100 1 R.C. Adams 2 miners and millers? 3 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 4 A. I have not. 5 Q. You would agree with me that if more 6 disease had occurred in Chrysotile miners that 7 were studied by Hodgson and Darnton, that that 8 would change the potency ratio, would potentially 9 do that anyway? 10 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 11 foundation. 12 A. I would have to look at the specific 13 studies that you're referring to. 14 Q. You're not familiar with the 15 Mirabelli update at the Piolatto cohort, I take 16 it? 17 A. I'm not currently familiar with that 18 one, no. 19 Q. You don't know whether the data that 20 is relied upon by Hodgson and Darnton is up to 21 date such that the calculations would be 22 accurate, true? 23 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 24 A. As I stated, I would have to take a 25 look at the specific study. 101 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. If you turn to page 570 of the 3 paper. 4 A. Okay. 5 Q. You understand that the Piolatto 6 study is also called the Bolengero cohort? 7 A. I don't know if that's -- I don't 8 know if that is correct or not. 9 Q. So you see up at the top there are 10 three -- the top of that table on page 570, there 11 are only three crocidolite cohorts that go into 12 this analysis, right? 13 A. You're talking about the first three 14 listed at the top of the table. 15 Q. You can figure that out by seeing 16 that it says Massachusetts, which we've talked 17 about as being a crocidolite cohort, right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And then Wittenoom is also a 20 crocidolite cohort; you know that, don't you? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. And then the nextone says "SA 23 crocidolite mines," which SA stands for South 24 Africa, right? 25 A. Yes. 102 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. And then it says total crocidolite, 3 right? 4 A. Right. Those are for the ones that 5 were crocidolite only. I was confused by your 6 question. 7 Q. So you know that the calculations 8 used by Hodgson and Darnton, when it comes to the 9 potency of crocidolite, rely on only three 10 studies, correct? 11 A. I don't -- I don't agree. Because 12 there are studies which have the mixed fiber 13 types, which also include crocidolite. 14 Q. Which ones are those? 15 A. Those would be the ones in the 16 middle of the page that have the -- like YO, YAO, 17 YO, YAO, because that is their code for the 18 different fiber types. 19 Q. Are you suggesting that they have 20 somehow broken up the - 21 MR. HARTLEY: I'll withdraw that 22 question. 23 Q. Which are the chrysotile only 24 cohorts that you see here? 25 A. Those would be the ones on the 103 1 R.C. Adams 2 bottom, and they just indicate the fiber type of 3 Y. 4 Q. In studies that were listed as YAO, 5 are you able to explain how the authors were able 6 to attribute risks to one fiber or another? 7 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 8 A. No. 9 Q. That is beyond your expertise? 10 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 11 A. I, again, am using this paper as a 12 basis for -- developed for the fact that they 13 have established a relative potency of the three 14 different -- the primary three different fiber 15 types. 16 Q. I understand that. And I want to 17 know, explain to me how you know that this is 18 reliable? 19 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 20 Q. Other than it's peer reviewed and 21 published in the journal. 22 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. And it 23 misstates his grounds. 24 A. As I stated before, it has been 25 accepted in the peer-reviewed literature. It has 104 1 R.C. Adams 2 been referenced and cited in other peer-reviewed 3 documents. And, again, looking at the 4 methodology from an industrial hygienist's 5 perspective, I do not find and have not heard of 6 any subsequent peer-reviewed study that has come 7 out that has refuted this document -8 Q. So you're not familiar with - 9 A. -- that is my basis. 10 Q. -- a paper by Silverstein, Welch & 11 Lemon that discusses this methodology? 12 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 13 A. I haven't seen that paper. 14 Q. Would you agree with me that the 15 authors identify a good deal of uncertainty in 16 the conversion factors that were used to convert 17 old-time measurements with impingers and 18 konimeters and other dust measurement devices to 19 a fiber per CC exposure estimate? 20 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 21 A. That -- I agree that they have 22 identified appropriately the limitations of the 23 conversion process. 24 Q. And despite the fact that there were 25 substantial variations in the amounts measured in 105 1 R.C. Adams 2 the air in various places, they came up with one 3 conversion factor, didn't they? 4 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 5 A. I believe they used a single 6 conversion factor that they felt was appropriate. 7 Q. In one particular factory they 8 didn't even have any data whatsoever and they 9 just relied on another factory to come up with 10 the estimate, correct? 11 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you know which facility that was, 14 which cohort that was? 15 A. I believe -- let me see, that is 16 probably the Siteman and Silicoff. That would 17 probably be the -- which one was it? I'm not a 18 hundred percent sure which one of these is 19 identified. But I know that there is one in here 20 where they did use other data from another 21 factory with similar exposure conditions. 22 Q. Now, they indicate here on page 266 23 that they are relying on DeClerk, et al. For some 24 of their data, is that true? 25 What page is that again, sir? A. 106 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. Top of 266. It's the second 3 reference? 4 A. 266. 5 Q. Yes. 566, sorry. 6 A. DeClerk. Yes. DeClerk. 7 Q. DeClerk is the crocidolite cohort 8 from Wittenoom, correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And on page 567 at the bottom, it 11 says in the last paragraph, it says, "The 12 exposure estimates for Wittenoom have been 13 questioned by Rogers 1990, who have suggested, 14 re" -- "having reexamined some of the original 15 samples using modern light and electron 16 microscopy that the levels may have been 17 underestimated by a factor of 10," right? 18 A. That's what they write. 19 Q. And if you underestimate thelevels 20 of exposures by 10, that would tend to make the 21 crocidolite appear to be more potent, true? 22 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 23 A. I don't know if that's true or not. 24 I have to look at the data. 25 Q. Well, I guess I raised this question 107 1 R.C. Adams 2 before in a slightly different way. But it seems 3 like it's just math. If one fiber per CC causes 4 a certain level of mesothelioma in a cohort, it 5 would appear that there is a certain rate of 6 mesothelioma per unit of exposure, true? 7 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 8 A. I'm not following your math. 9 Q. Well, let's say that in the 10 Wittenoom cohort there were a thousand 11 mesotheliomas and there were an estimate of the 12 dose, which was one fiber per CC, okay? 13 A. Okay. 14 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 15 incomplete hypothetical. 16 Q. Does that make sense to you, what I 17 said so far? 18 MR. KELLY: Same objection. 19 A. You're stating that you have one 20 fiber per CC, and you said a thousand -21 Q. Yes. This is a hypothetical, just 22 so that we can do the math. 23 If people worked in the facility and 24 the exposures over their lifetime for 30 years 25 each, there were people who worked there for 30 108 1 R.C. Adams 2 years each, say the place was open and they never 3 lost an employee for 30 years, and there were 4 over a thousand mesotheliomas in the cohort from 5 the Wittenoom, in this hypothetical Wittenoom 6 that we're talking about, and the exposures over 7 the 30 years were estimated to be one fiber per 8 CC, okay? 9 MR. KELLY: Same objection. 10 You can answer. 11 A. Okay. 12 Q. You would be able to calculate an 13 exposure response based on that, correct? 14 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 15 incomplete hypothetical. 16 A. I'm still not following everything 17 that you're -- that you're going out here. I got 18 one fiber per CC, I can calculate an exposure 19 level, and I can calculate a quantitative 20 exposure level based on the number of years. 21 Q. And if you know how many employees 22 you had there, and how many employee years there 23 were, you would be able to identify a dose 24 response curve, correct? 25 MR. KELLY: Same objection. 109 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. I would be able to calculate a 3 cumulative exposure at one fiber per CC over a 4 30-year working lifetime. 5 Q. Fair enough. 6 And if you had the same group of 7 people, and you had the same number of 8 mesotheliomas, but you found out that your 9 exposure estimate was really 10, 10 fibers per 10 CC, the real exposure was 10 fibers per CC, 11 rather than one, it would appear that that 12 crocidolite that was exposure at the -- at this 13 hypothetical Wittenoom mine that we're talking 14 about was less potent than you thought if it were 15 only one fiber per CC, correct? 16 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 17 incomplete hypothetical. 18 A. Again, there is more to it than 19 that. I'd have to -- we'd have to look at the - 20 you know, what would have been the cause of the 21 underestimation. And I'm not sure that I follow 22 your approach in this one, you know, because 23 again -24 Q. I'm not asking you about the truth 25 of what is being said by Hodgson and Darnton 110 1 R.C. Adams 2 here. I'm asking you about the math of it, the 3 math of it. 4 A. Again. 5 Q. You understand that part? 6 A. I understand. 7 But what I'm trying to explain to 8 you is that in the process of collecting data or 9 evaluating estimating data, you take into account 10 the uncertainties of the data sets that you have. 11 And if you recognize that there could be an 12 underestimation, you address that in the process. 13 And that is what Hodgson and Darnton has tried to 14 do here. 15 Q. Well, what Hodgson and Darnton did 16 was use the estimates that were given by LeClerk, 17 and not the estimates that were given by the 18 people who actually serve -- who actually did the 19 measurements for the Wittenoom cohort, right? 20 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 21 argumentative. 22 A. I'm not sure I quite follow what 23 your thing -- what your question was there. 24 Q. Well, you know from the paper itself 25 that Hodgson and Darnton relied on the data from 111 1 R.C. Adams 2 DeClerk for the Wittenoom cohort, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, DeClerk never measured any 5 exposures at the Wittenoom facility, did they? 6 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 7 A. It -- it simply says that DeClerk 8 and colleagues developing estimates -- they talk 9 about DeClerk and colleagues developing estimates 10 of environmental risk at Wittenoom, use a factor 11 of four without detailed discussion. 12 Again, they're pointing out a 13 limitation of the available data that they had. 14 Q. Since then, and I think I asked 15 this, you haven't read the letter to the editor 16 in response to this Hodgson and Darnton 2000 17 paper where Rogers and Major actually explain the 18 problems with relying on DeClerk, right? 19 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, asked 20 and answered. 21 A. I haven't read the letter. And, 22 again, at this point, I accept the paper and I 23 accept its conclusions. 24 Q. If the people who actually did the 25 measurements at Wittenoom questioned the data 112 1 R.C. Adams 2 used by Hodgson and Darnton, would that give you 3 any concern? 4 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 5 A. Once again, I haven't read the 6 letter, so I'm not prepared to give you an 7 opinion on that. 8 Q. If Hodgson and Darnton rely on 9 unreliable data, would that give you any concern? 10 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 11 argumentative. 12 A. I have nothing in front of me right 13 now to prove one way or the other that it is 14 reliable or unreliable data. 15 Q. Are you willing to rely on reliable 16 data to give your testimony in this case? 17 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 18 A. I have again stated that I am 19 relying on Hodgson and Darnton, and have not seen 20 anything in the peer-reviewed literature to 21 suggest that their approach was incorrect or 22 unreliable. 23 Q. I have suggested to you that there 24 are, in fact, letters to the editor that call 25 into question the reliability of the data. 113 1 R.C. Adams 2 Do you want to read those before 3 you're going to come to the conclusion as to 4 whether Hodgson and Darnton are reliable? 5 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 6 A. I have no reason to read those 7 letters. I accept the paper as written, and, 8 again, it's been cited and used in many other 9 studies. 10 Q. You probably learned in your high 11 school history class that at one point in time 12 scientists in the world believed that the earth 13 was flat, right? 14 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 15 A. Sure. 16 Q. And that was acommonly held belief, 17 as we learned in our history classes and science 18 classes as kids, right, that the earth was flat? 19 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 20 A. Okay. 21 Q. Would youagree that that is what 22 you were taught; that people believed for a long 23 period of time that the earth was flat? 24 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 25 relevance. 114 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. I agree that it's been presented in 3 science history -- or in history classes in 4 school. 5 Q. And just because people repeated it 6 around the world that the earth was flat didn't 7 make it flat, correct? 8 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 9 A. Okay. 10 Q. And similarly, just because people 11 have cited the Hodgson and Darnton doesn't make 12 it right, wouldn't you agree? 13 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 14 A. I disagree. It's a scientific paper 15 built on science foundations, and other people 16 have found it to be credible. I do as well. 17 Q. I asked you about the ability to 18 tease out the importance of the YAO or the 19 effects of particular fiber types where there 20 were exposures to all three commercial asbestos 21 types, which were designated in the table YAO. 22 The same question with respect to 23 the YO cohorts: Are you able to explain to me 24 how Hodgson and Darnton were able to separate out 25 the effects of the Chrysotile and crocidolite in 115 1 R.C. Adams 2 those YO cohorts? 3 A. No. I'm not going to discuss that. 4 Q. I understand you're not going to. 5 Do you know how to? 6 A. No, I don't. 7 Q. Are you doing okay? Do you need a 8 break? 9 A. I was just cramping up. I had a 10 spin class this morning. 11 Q. Do you need to take a break? If you 12 need to stand up or whatever, I don't want to 13 interfere with your health. 14 A. Can we take afive-minute break. 15 (Time noted: 3:52 p.m.) 16 (A brief recess is taken.) 17 (Time noted: 3:57 p.m.) 18 Q. In your report, which is Exhibit 3 19 on page 4, turn to page 4 of your report. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You talk about at thebottom of that 22 page, and then going over to the next page, where 23 you get to establishing exposures to particular 24 products, and you say that you have to know about 25 the exposure magnitude, exposure intensity, and 116 1 R.C. Adams 2 the exposure duration, right? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. And we don't have any actual 5 knowledge of the exposure magnitude that Roy 6 Knight experienced over his lifetime to asbestos, 7 correct? 8 A. Say that again? 9 Q. You don't know the actual magnitude 10 of exposure that Roy Knight had to asbestos over 11 his lifetime, right? 12 A. You're talking about the entire - 13 his entire working lifetime, correct. 14 Q. You don't know the exposure 15 magnitude for any individual exposure scenario 16 that he experienced either, true? 17 A. I have evaluated his exposure 18 specifically with respect to the time during the 19 construction of the house, and that -- I was 20 about to say the Longfree house, it's not. It's 21 the Huckabee Road house, with respect to the 22 Georgia Pacific joint compounds that were 23 identified that allegedly have the Calidria 24 content. 25 MR. KELLY: Just to interrupt, the 117 1 R.C. Adams 2 copies are back. So we have everything we 3 need. 4 MR. HARTLEY: Okay, sounds good. 5 Q. The question I'm asking you is: 6 You've made some estimates based on some data 7 that you talked about, but I'm talking about 8 actual information specific to Mr. Knight as to 9 the exposure magnitude of any event, exposure 10 event that he experienced over his lifetime, you 11 don't have anything like that? 12 A. We don't have exposure data 13 specifically for Mr. Knight that was collected in 14 his vicinity while he was working. 15 Q. You don't have anything about the 16 intensity, specifically for Mr. Knight, for any 17 of the exposure events he discussed throughout 18 his career, true? 19 A. True. 20 Q. You don't have any information, any 21 concrete information about the exposure duration 22 that Mr. Knight had for any of the exposures he 23 discussed, true? 24 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 25 A. We have we have what he described 118 1 R.C. Adams 2 as whatever estimates he provided, as far as his 3 exposure time. And, again, my focus was in that 4 period of time where he talks about the exposure 5 at the Huckabee Road home. 6 Q. Why was that your focus? 7 A. Because I was asked to evaluate the 8 exposure and particularly to look at the 9 potential exposures associated with joint 10 compounds, that may have contained Calidria 11 fiber. 12 Q. As an industrial hygienist, you look 13 at each exposure as an addition to the cumulative 14 lifetime dose that someone had to a potential 15 hazard, correct? 16 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 17 A. It -- where we -- where that can be 18 assessed, we would look at the different 19 exposures, yes. 20 Q. And the way you would look at this 21 in this case, as an industrial hygienist is that 22 Mr. Knight had exposure in various places and 23 probably had some exposure to asbestos from joint 24 compound, and some exposure to asbestos from 25 thermal insulation, and some exposure to asbestos 119 1 R.C. Adams 2 from other products that he described, right? 3 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 4 A. Again, we would look at the 5 exposures that he described, and to extract from 6 his testimony information about the different 7 product that he used, when he used them, how long 8 he used them, to the extent that that information 9 is available in the reliance materials. 10 Q. And in your review of the materials 11 that you've been given, you saw that Mr. Knight 12 had some exposure to joint compound at a house 13 which was built during the time when Georgia 14 Pacific ready-mix contained Calidria asbestos, 15 true? 16 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 17 foundation, and assumes facts not in 18 evidence. 19 A. We have his testimony as to the time 20 period that he worked or in the time period that 21 he visited the home during its construction. You 22 know, again, we don't know for sure whether that 23 joint compound actually did have Calidria in it 24 or not. 25 But you know that it more likely Q. 120 1 R.C. Adams 2 than not did, based on the testimony of William 3 Leonard though, correct? 4 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 5 foundation. 6 A. I don't agree with that, because 7 I've looked at the formulation sheets, and that 8 there was a number of products that did not 9 contain Calidria. 10 Q. And those formulation sheets you 11 were provided were provided to you by the 12 lawyers, true? 13 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And you don't know whether there are 16 other formulation sheets out there, right? 17 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 18 A. I don't know that there may or may 19 not be, but it looks like it's a pretty complete 20 set of formula sheet. 21 Q. What is your basis for saying that 22 it looks like a fairly complete set of formula 23 sheets? 24 A. I've gone through them and have 25 looked at them to see if there are any gaps in 121 1 R.C. Adams 2 time, with respect to the formulas. And it looks 3 like, you know, they're there. There may be a 4 gap or two, but they seem to be -- they seem to 5 follow along pretty nicely. 6 Q. Now, do you have your formula sheets 7 there? 8 A. I have formula sheets for ready - 9 for the ready-mix joint compounds from the 10 Marietta plant. 11 Q. During what time period did the 12 ready-mix for Marietta contain Calidria brand 13 Chrysotile asbestos? 14 A. From the review of these formula 15 sheets, it -- it would have been around 1972 or 16 -- I'm sorry, sorry, I got to double-check this 17 here. No, I'm sorry, it's 1974. 1974. 18 Q. That is based on what you were given 19 by counsel for Union Carbide, right? 20 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 21 A. That is based on the review of the 22 formula sheets that I had in my possession. 23 Q. And the source of those formula 24 sheets that we've been through was Union Carbide, 25 right? 122 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 3 A. They -- the source -- I received 4 them from counsel. 5 Q. What counsel? 6 A. I received them from Austin and 7 Bird. 8 Q. And who are they lawyers for? 9 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 10 A. They represent Union Carbide. 11 Q. What was Georgia Pacific doing with 12 the Calidria that was shipped to the Marietta 13 Georgia facility in the 1972 time frame, if it 14 wasn't putting it into joint compound? 15 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 16 A. I believe they may have had some 17 special-use products; for example, they had some 18 limited shipments to facilities where they were 19 -- they were not for general consumer use where 20 they may have been -- there may have been special 21 products that they may have been made for 22 individual areas of the country. 23 Q. Where did you come up with that 24 information? 25 A. Well, for example, in the formula 123 1 R.C. Adams 2 sheets, there is one in 1974, it is formula M 3 971, where it says, "To be supplied to selected 4 customers only." 5 Q. Just so I understand, you have an 6 opinion that is based on some documents that you 7 have reviewed that Calidria was only used in 8 Georgia Pacific ready-mix general batches out of 9 the Marietta plant starting sometime in 1974, 10 correct? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Now, you don't have any personal 13 knowledge of that, right? 14 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 15 A. I'm going strictly by the 16 formulation sheets. And I have no reason to 17 discount or dispute the information on them. 18 Q. And you haven't done a systematic 19 review of all of the information that's been 20 provided by Georgia Pacific in litigation 21 regarding the use of Calidria in their products, 22 right? 23 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 24 A. I haven't done a complete assessment 25 of all of the information, no. 124 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. You haven't read Mr. Leonard's 3 deposition from October 14th of 2003? 4 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, assumes 5 facts not in evidence. 6 A. I have -- I have read Mr. Leonard's 7 depositions -- a couple of Mr. Leonard's 8 depositions, the -- I don't have those 9 depositions with me. 10 Q. Do you recall that Mr. Leonard 11 agreed to the statement that, quote, a person 12 using GP ready-mix made in Marietta, Georgia from 13 March 6, 1972 to May 4, 1977 would, more likely 14 than not, have been using a product containing 15 Calidria brand asbestos SG 210? 16 A. I know that is what he stated, I 17 believe in that deposition. I believe, however, 18 that was corrected in a subsequent deposition, in 19 which he said again you have to rely on the 20 formula sheets for that information. So I'm 21 relying on the formula sheets. 22 Q. So you're taking only one time that 23 this guy testified, and you're relying only on 24 the one that favors Union Carbide here; is that 25 what you're telling me? 125 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 3 argumentative. 4 A. I did not say that. I said I'm 5 relying on the formula sheets as the basis for 6 the determination. 7 Q. So I understand it, you're aware 8 that Mr. Leonard said that between March 6, 1972 9 and May 4, 1977 a person using ready-mix would 10 more likely than not have been using a product 11 containing Calidria, right? 12 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, 13 misstates evidence. 14 Q. You're aware of that, true? 15 MR. KELLY: Objection, same 16 objection. 17 A. I'm aware that he stated it. But, 18 again, I'm relying on the formula sheets for my 19 opinion. 20 Q. So you're disregarding his statement 21 under oath from October 14, 2003, correct? 22 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 23 A. I'm not disregarding his statement. 24 Again, I'm relying on the formula sheets for my 25 opinions, relative to the availability of Georgia 126 1 R.C. Adams 2 Pacific joint compounds containing Calidria 3 fiber. 4 Q. I guess, so that I understand 5 correctly, you understand that he also says the 6 exact same thing again in another deposition; 7 that the dates that I just gave you were the 8 correct dates, correct? You understand that, 9 right? 10 MR. KELLY: Objection, misstates 11 evidence, lacks foundation. 12 You can answer. 13 A. I don't know which other deposition 14 you're talking about. 15 Q. Which one are you talking about 16 where you claim that he says that you should 17 disregard my former testimony and go with the 18 formula sheets? 19 A. I know that I -- I don't know the 20 specific one, but I know that it was after -- it 21 was later on. And, again, I'm relying on the 22 formula sheets. 23 Q. How do you determine whether his two 24 prior instances of testimony under oath were 25 accurate versus the one that you're relying on 127 1 R.C. Adams 2 where he says go by the formula sheets? 3 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 4 A. I -- I'm simply -- I am simply going 5 by what's on the formula sheets. Again, I've 6 reviewed his testimony. I'm using the formula 7 sheets as a basis. 8 Q. You know that prior to giving 9 testimony that I've just described that he wrote 10 down himself the time periods in his own 11 handwriting, the time periods that Calidria was 12 used at Marietta, Georgia, right? 13 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 14 A. I know that he made some handwritten 15 notes. Again, I'm relying on these formula 16 sheets. 17 Q. I understand. 18 You are not relying on other 19 information, prior information that Mr. Leonard 20 had provided. You're relying on the testimony 21 that was given when he was being questioned by 22 Union Carbide, right? 23 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 24 A. I -- that -- I am relying on the 25 information, again, that he stated in the later 128 1 R.C. Adams 2 testimony, and the formula sheets that I have in 3 front of me. 4 Q. Do you still have copies of the 5 depositions that you've reviewed? 6 A. I don't have them with me. 7 Q. I know. Do you still have them in 8 your possession? 9 A. I -- I do have them somewhere back 10 in my office. 11 Q. You know that Mr. Leonard indicated 12 that there were two products at the Marietta, 13 Georgia plant that were using Calidria asbestos 14 in the early 1970s, right; one was central-mix, 15 and one was ready-mix? 16 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 17 A. I don't know that. 18 Q. Can you identify why it is that you 19 believe that prior to 1974, in the Marietta plant 20 that there were some special-use products that 21 might have contained Calidria? 22 A. It's in the specification -- it's in 23 the formula sheets. 24 Q. You have the formula sheets there 25 with you, right? 129 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. I do. 3 Q. It is 112 pages, at least as it was 4 provided to me, is that right? 5 A. I'm not sure of the exact number of 6 pages, but it is pretty thick. 7 Q. Which pages indicate to you -- they 8 have Bates stamps at the bottom of them, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. The first page is a cover page for 11 the folder, right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And the Bates stamp number on the 14 bottom of it is 08186, right? 15 MR. KELLY: Yes. Sorry. That was 16 me, Christian. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And then the next page that you have 19 there is -- is it 018189? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And itappears that there is some 22 pages missing in the Bates range, doesn't it? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. What was onthosepages? 25 A. I don't know. I don't have them. 130 1 R. C. Adams 2 Q. Did you ever ask? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Now, as we go through this, can you 5 identify for me -- I may have found them, there 6 is 87, they're all mixed up -- which pages that 7 are in here that indicate to you that they were 8 special-use products? 9 A. I'm going through them. Okay. 10 Bates stamp 018232, which is formula M 971, where 11 it says, "To be supplied to selected customers 12 only," and it was a March 25, 1974. 13 Q. Right. I thought you were telling 14 me that between 1972 and 1974, there were 15 special-use products that contained Calidria. 16 Did I misunderstand? 17 A. We're looking for the examples. 18 That is the special asbestos free. This one is 19 for machine tools. I'm thinking that might be 20 that one. 976. This one is machine tools also. 21 Yes. Yes, that is '74. This -- yeah, it's 22 19150, it's dated 1972, again supplied on special 23 request only. 24 Q. 19150? 25 A. Right. 131 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. How far into the stack is that, just 3 out of curiosity? 4 A. That is number 979. Supplied on 5 special request only. 6 Q. No, I mean just in terms of your 7 stack. I think my copies are the same as the way 8 you have them. And I just want to figure out how 9 far to go down. 10 A. It would be the last grouping. 11 Q. What is it that you're telling me, 12 that this means that it was not distributed? 13 A. It says it's supplied on special 14 request only. 15 Q. Where is the formula for the 16 ready-mix that was supplied in normal conditions 17 that did not contain asbestos, it contained 18 Calidria during this time period? 19 A. In -- are you talking about '74? 20 Q. Prior to '74. 21 A. Prior to '74. 22 Q. This one supersedes a formula from 23 March 6, 1972. Do you know where that formula 24 is? 25 Yeah, it's A. 132 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. I see the formula that is close to 3 where you are from April 14, 1972. It says, 4 "Filler for ready-mix joint compound" and it 5 contains SG 210. That is 019080 and 81. 6 A. That is the filler. That is the 7 filler 971. 8 Q. The filler which goes into the 9 products. 10 A. Yes. Right. 11 Q. That means that from March 6th of 12 1972 until the date in 1974 where the formula was 13 superseded, Calidria was in the material, 14 correct? 15 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. I'm 16 not -17 A. We're not -18 MR. KELLY: I'm not sure. 19 A. I'm not following you. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. The difficulty with these formula 22 sheets is going back and forth between the 23 changes between when it was a filler, then it 24 became a ready-mix product, then it went back to 25 a filler. 133 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. The filler goes into ready-mix, 3 there is nothing confusing about that. Filler is 4 an ingredient in ready-mix, so what they did is 5 they mixed up the filler separately and then put 6 it into the ready-mix. 7 A. Right. But -8 Q. That is how - 9 A. It's the years that they did -10 Q. And the page with the GP 019080 11 shows that the filler for ready-mix for March 12 6th, until 19 -- the next formula that you have 13 pointed out talking about special uses, contained 14 Calidria, doesn't it? 15 A. Which one is that? 090 - 16 MR. KELLY: Give the formula number. 17 A. Give me the formula number. Don't 18 give me the Bates number. Give me the formula 19 number. 20 Q. Ready-mixfiller M 978. 21 A. 978. 22 Q. M 978. 23 A. Filler M978 is-24 Q. Towards the bottom of your stack. 25 A. I've got it. It says there is SG 134 1 R.C. Adams 2 210 in it. Now we have to figure out where that 3 filler was used. 4 Q. It was used in joint compound, 5 ready-mix joint compound M 979 and M 977, it says 6 it right up on the formula itself for this 7 ready-mix filler. 8 A. Okay. And 977 is a product that was 9 supplied on special request only for machine tool 10 use. That is a special product and in 9 -- and M 11 979, it is again supplied on special request 12 only. That is number M 979 dated 13 February 16, 1973. 14 Q. Where is the formula for ready-mix 15 during this time that is not special-use only. 16 There isn't one in your materials, is there? 17 MR. KELLY: There is. Hold on. 18 A. Let's see here. I got to look. 19 Let's see here -- that is not special-use only. 20 There is a -- yes -- 971. Okay. That is -- so 21 we have formula M 971, okay, dated January 29, 22 1969. 23 Q. Which page? Which page is it in 24 your stack now? 25 A. Okay. It's -- like I said, it's 135 1 R.C. Adams 2 formula M 971. If you need the Bates number it's 3 018230. And it's got asbestos 7RF9. And it is 4 also IN -- it's a filler for ready-mix joint 5 compound M 974 and M 976. M 976 is a machine 6 tools though. So it's got to be the other one. 7 Because that is a handle tool. That is the 8 general, that is the general formula right there. 9 So M 979, which is the white 10 ready-mix joint compound -- I'm sorry, M 974. M 11 974 for hand tools, ready-mix, that is the one 12 we're talking about. That is the general purpose 13 one that does not contain the Calidria. 14 Q. I'm trying to find thesedocuments 15 in - 16 A. It's tough. 17 Q. I'll short-circuit it this way: The 18 only information that you have about the formula 19 is contained in here, in the materials that 20 you've got there in front of you, the 112 pages 21 that you received from Union Carbide and what you 22 read in Mr. Leonard's testimony, is that true? 23 A. That's what I have. 24 Q. And so if there are any gaps in 25 here, in what you got, you don't have any 136 1 R.C. Adams 2 personal information that is going to help you 3 fill those in, true? 4 A. I don't have -- if there are gaps 5 here, I -- I have the best -- as far as I 6 understand, this is the best collection of the 7 formula sheets that are available. 8 Q. Now, Doctors Craighead and Churg, 9 you cite one of their papers. Why do you cite 10 Craighead and Churg? 11 MR. KELLY: C-H-U-R-G for Churg. 12 A. Are you referring specifically to 13 section C of my report, on page 7? 14 Q. I don't remember where, I just saw 15 it, I think it's probably -- it could be there. 16 A. These -- I cite them because they, 17 again, support the information relative to the 18 association of amphibole exposures to 19 mesothelioma. 20 Q. Dr. Craighead is a consultant in 21 asbestos litigation, right? 22 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, assumes 23 facts not in evidence. 24 A. I don't know that for certain. 25 Q. But you know that Dr. Gibbs is even 137 1 R.C. Adams 2 an expert witness for Union Carbide? 3 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, lacks 4 foundation. 5 A. I -- I don't know that for certain, 6 either. 7 Q. Do you know who Victor Rodley is? 8 A. I know Dr. Rodley's reputation. 9 Q. What is Dr. Rodley's reputation? 10 A. Dr. Rodley is a pathologist who has 11 looked at the issue of asbestos diseases. And I 12 know he's written a number of authoritative texts 13 on the subject. 14 Q. Dr. Rodley, were you aware that he 15 has identified this case, Mr. Knight's case as an 16 asbestos related mesothelioma? 17 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 18 A. I haven't seen Dr. Rodley's report 19 relative to this case. 20 Q. If Dr. Rodley says it's an asbestos 21 related mesothelioma, do you have any reason to 22 question that? 23 A. I -- I wouldn't have any reason to 24 question his -- his analysis. 25 Q. As an industrial hygienist, you know 138 1 R.C. Adams 2 that each exposure someone has to asbestos over 3 their lifetime increases their lifetime burden, 4 body burden of asbestos, correct? 5 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 6 A. That -- that requires some more 7 explanation, because, again, you have to consider 8 the exposure type, the exposure -- the fiber 9 type, the length and duration of the exposure. 10 There are certainly inconsequential exposures 11 that are not going to increase somebody's risk 12 for the development of an asbestos related 13 disease. 14 MR. KELLY: Sorry. 15 MR. HARTLEY: Sorry, ma'am, can you 16 read that back to me. I think I just 17 missed it. 18 (The record is read.) 19 Q. Where can you refer me to in the 20 industrial hygiene literature to indicate that 21 there are inconsequential exposures to asbestos? 22 A. Again, I have already discussed the 23 fact that this is the basis for my opinions using 24 Craighead and Gibbs, and Dr. Churg and others 25 that have indicated that, you know, below a 139 1 R.C. Adams 2 certain level of exposure, the risk is minimal. 3 And I've been using the permissible exposure 4 limit as one indication of that. 5 Q. How many excess cancers are 6 acceptable as the OSHA regulation indicate that 7 there will be excess cancers at the PEL? 8 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 9 DEFENSE COUNSEL: Object to form. 10 MR. KELLY: Foundation. 11 A. I don't have that number in front of 12 me. And, again, the OSHA risk assessment is 13 based on looking at all fiber types at .1 fibers 14 per CC. There is no distinction between 15 amphibole or Chrysotile in that statement. 16 Q. How did you come to have a copy of 17 Dr. Craighead's and Dr. Gibb's medical textbook? 18 A. I bought it when it came out. 19 Q. Did you buy it because you were 20 going to use it in asbestos litigation? 21 A. I bought it because I was very 22 curious about what they had to say, because I 23 had -- I have other textbooks on the subject, 24 including Dr. Silicoff's book from ages ago. And 25 I wanted to see what their and because it was 140 1 R.C. Adams 2 a current textbook. And it was of interest to 3 me. 4 Q. What other textbooks do you have? 5 A. Oh, Lord. 6 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. You 7 mean related to asbestos? 8 Q. Medical textbooks relating to 9 asbestos, sorry. 10 MR. KELLY: I withdraw the 11 objection. 12 A. Well, I don't have a whole lot of 13 medical textbooks. I have other textbooks that 14 discuss asbestos or include summaries of 15 information regarding asbestos. 16 Q. Do you have Hammar and Dodson 17 Asbestos Risk Assessment? 18 A. I don't have that one in my 19 possession. We have it in our library at 20 ENVIRON. I don't have a personal copy of it. 21 Q. Is that a reliable textbook? 22 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 23 A. I haven't looked at it in a very 24 long time. 25 Q. Do you have Dr. Rodley's textbook in 141 1 R.C. Adams 2 your collection? 3 A. Not in my personal collection. But, 4 again, we have copies of Dr. Rodley's text in our 5 -- in our central library. 6 Q. Is Dr. Rodley's textbook reliable? 7 A. The chapters that I've read on it, 8 yes. 9 Q. Nail and Hammar, do you have that 10 one in your textbook collection? 11 A. That one doesn't ring a bell. 12 Q. Do you recognize the name SamHammar 13 as an expert in the area of asbestos, don't you? 14 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 15 A. I recognize the name only. 16 Q. You cite to the ATSDR in your 17 materials. And I guess it's to the toxicological 18 profile for asbestos, right? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. You know that the ATSDR reviewed all 21 of the available evidence about the toxicology of 22 asbestos, and concluded that all fiber types 23 cause mesothelioma? 24 A. If you read ATSDR, they identified 25 the likely probability of greater association 142 1 R.C. Adams 2 with mesothelioma in the amphibole fibers. 3 Q. That is not what I asked you. 4 It says in the ATSDR profile for 5 asbestos that you reference in your own report 6 that all fiber types cause mesothelioma, right? 7 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 8 A. Again, I would say I would like to 9 take a look at the context, because I read the 10 ATSDR report, and I know that, in fact, they 11 state -- make statements also that the more 12 potent ex -- forms of the fiber are the amphibole 13 forms. 14 Q. Do you think that's what that says 15 in the ATSDR toxicological profile, that the 16 ATSDR takes the position that amphibole asbestos 17 is more potent? 18 MR. KELLY: Objection. 19 A. There are statements in the ATSDR 20 documents to that effect, yes. 21 Q. What page is that on? 22 A. I don't have the ATSDR document in 23 front of me. 24 Q. Are the rest of your opinions as 25 reliable as that one? 143 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Objection, 3 argumentative, form. 4 A. I'm not going to answer that 5 question. 6 Q. Is it possible that you are not 7 recalling the ATSDR statements about potency 8 correctly? 9 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 10 A. I have simply stated what I've 11 already told you about the document. 12 Q. I know. I'm asking you if it's 13 possible that you're wrong. 14 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 15 A. Well, again, I'm not going to 16 respond to the question without the document in 17 front of me. 18 Q. I can e-mail it to you. 19 A. There are over 400-some-odd pages of 20 this document. 21 Q. There are 431, but I can send it to 22 you in a PDF so we can find all of it. 23 A. I feel that the ATSDR documents is 24 reliable. I have relied upon it in terms of my 25 interpretation of this information. I don't see 144 1 R.C. Adams 2 that it's necessary for us to have to go through 3 this, to find one statement about the potential 4 relationship of Chrysotile and mesothelioma 5 that's taken out of context. 6 Q. I'm asking you to put it in context 7 by showing me the statement. Are you unwilling 8 to do it if I give you the document? 9 A. At this point I think what's in my 10 report stands as my opinions in this matter. And 11 I think if we're going to discuss my opinions in 12 the Knight matter, I would like to concentrate on 13 what's in my report, rather than spend another 14 hour or two going through the ATSDR document 15 trying to find all of these references to 16 amphibole exposures. 17 Q. I understand. 18 Let me see if this seems like 19 something you recall from a -- because I have it 20 here. It says on page F 20 on a 441 page ATSDR 21 toxicological profile for asbestos that under the 22 topic of consensus issues and conclusions, quote, 23 There is general agreement among scientists and 24 health agencies on the following issues and 25 conclusions regarding health effects from 145 1 R.C. Adams 2 asbestos: One, exposure to any asbestos type, 3 i.e., serpentine or amphibole, can increase the 4 likelihood of lung cancer, mesothelioma and 5 nonmalignant lung and pleural disorders. Does 6 that seem like what is in the ATSDR document that 7 you're citing? 8 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 9 You can answer again. 10 A. I -- I -- I think that the issue 11 is -- that we talked about are that there are 12 other references throughout that document that 13 talk about the level of exposure or the potency 14 of amphiboles versus chrysotile, that is one 15 statement. But, again, I don't have the document 16 in front of me. 17 MR. KELLY: He's asking whether you 18 think that that is a correct statement from 19 what he's read. 20 A. I -- I can't dispute the statement 21 that he's reading right now. I don't have the 22 document in front of me. 23 MR. KELLY: Okay. 24 Q. Under the topic of unresolved issues 25 and discussions, do you recall there being a 146 1 R.C. Adams 2 question -- and it's number 2, "Are Chrysotile 3 fibers (or amphibole asbestos fibers) primarily 4 responsible for mesotheliomas in certain groups 5 of predominantly exposed Chrysotile"; does that 6 seem like something that's discussed in that 7 profile that you're reviewing -- that you 8 referenced, rather? 9 A. Again, I -- I -- I -- you know, it 10 sounds like that's what's there, but, again, I 11 don't have it in front of me, so... 12 Q. Now, the Pierce article that you 13 cite is one that was funded by defendants in 14 asbestos litigation, right? 15 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, lacks 16 foundation, argumentative. 17 A. I understand that they disclosed a 18 -- the funding source in that case. 19 Q. And it was the auto industry who - 20 and they were defendants in asbestos litigation 21 for brakes essentially, correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. One of the authors of that article 24 was a Dr. Paustenbach, correct? 25 A. Yes. 147 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. And do you know who he is? 3 A. I know his reputation. I've never 4 met him personally. 5 Q. What do you understand his 6 reputation to be? 7 A. Dr. Paustenbach is an industrial 8 hygienist, and he's done quite a bit of a review 9 in the asbestos literature. He also has written 10 some very important papers on exposure 11 assessment. 12 Q. Do you understand that he was 13 implicated in the fabrication of a paper that 14 dealt with chromium six? 15 MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and 16 answered. 17 A. I have already given you the answer 18 to that. I don't know that and I don't read the 19 Wall Street Journal. 20 Q. Is Dr. Paustenbach's reputation 21 important to you as to whether you would rely on 22 a paper that he wrote? 23 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 24 A. As I stated to you previously with 25 respect to any paper that I review, I review the 148 1 R.C. Adams 2 paper based on the methodology, whether it 3 follows generally accepted principles and 4 practices, and that is what is critical in my 5 evaluation of any paper. 6 Q. You would agree with me that you're 7 not qualified to -- as a peer reviewer for the 8 paper that was written by Pierce, et al., 9 correct? 10 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 11 A. I'm not sure I understand what you 12 mean by "not qualified." 13 Q. You have relied on a paper by Pierce 14 McKinley Paustenbach and Finley entitled, "An 15 Evaluation of Reported No-Effect Chrysotile 16 Asbestos Exposures For Lung Cancer and 17 Mesothelioma," right? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. You're not a toxicologist, right? 20 A. I'm not a toxicologist. 21 Q. You're not a medical doctor? 22 A. I'm not a medical doctor. 23 Q. You have never reviewed any 24 literature as a peer reviewer for any toxicology 25 journal, have you? 149 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, lacks 3 foundation. 4 A. I have not reviewed as a peer 5 reviewer for a toxicological paper, no. 6 Q. That's where that paper was 7 published, right? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. Do you have a copy of thepaper 10 there? 11 MR. HARTLEY: Let's take a break 12 now. 13 (Time noted: 4:49 p.m.) 14 (A brief recess is taken.) 15 (Time noted: 5:03 p.m.) 16 Q. Do you have there the Pierce paper? 17 A. I do. 18 Q. And I'm trying to find my copy of it 19 on my desktop now. I've got so many papers open. 20 Is Critical Reviews in Toxicology a 21 journal that you take in the normal course of 22 your work? 23 A. It's one journal that we keep an eye 24 on in the normal course of, you know, identifying 25 the peer-reviewed literature. It's not a primary 150 1 R.C. Adams 2 one, but it is one that we keep our eyes on. 3 Q. And you don't have a subscription 4 yourself, do you? 5 A. No, I don't. 6 Q. You don't subscribe to any 7 toxicology journals yourself, do you? 8 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 9 A. I don't subscribes to any toxicology 10 journals, no. 11 Q. Now, if we would turn to page 192 of 12 the Pierce paper, the top of that page, in the 13 first column, it's listing some of the studies 14 that they're relying on, right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And one ofthem, again, is that: 17 Piolatto study from Italy? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I asked you about whether you were 20 aware of this paper. But I'm going to tell you 21 the title of it, so that I can be sure that I've 22 got the right one. 23 Are you familiar with the paper 24 entitled, "Excess of Mesotheliomas After Exposure 25 to Chrysotile in Bolengero, Italy" by Mirabelli 151 1 R.C. Adams 2 Calistiti and other authors? 3 A. I'm not familiar with that 4 particular paper. 5 Q. It is published in the Occupation 6 and Environmental Medicine 2008. It doesn't ring 7 a bell? 8 A. I haven't seen it. 9 Q. Were you aware that the Chrysotile 10 in the Bolengero mine in Italy is tremolite free? 11 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, assumes 12 facts not in evidence. 13 A. I do not know that one way or the 14 other. 15 Q. Continuing with the Pierce paper, if 16 you go to the acknowledgement section. It is the 17 very last pages of the written text. That is 18 where they acknowledge that this was paid for by 19 Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company and 20 General Motors Corporation, right? 21 A. It says that it was funded almost 22 entirely. 23 Q. Who were the other people who paid 24 for it? 25 A. It says that there were three 152 1 R.C. Adams 2 funding sources and their counsel. At least - 3 I'm sorry, the funding sources and their counsel 4 did not provide editorial comments or review of 5 the manuscript. 6 Q. Who were the three funding sources, 7 if it wasn't Ford, General Motors and Chrysler? 8 A. No, it's just saying that they're 9 indicating that while they funded it, they didn't 10 provide editorial comment or review. 11 Q. I know. I'm getting at the almost 12 entirely part. Do you know who, other than Ford, 13 General Motors and Chrysler, who funded that, if 14 anyone? 15 A. I don't know who the other parties 16 would be. 17 Q. Was it Union Carbide? 18 MR. KELLY: Objection. Speculation. 19 A. I don't know that. 20 MR. KELLY: Come on. 21 MR. HARTLEY: I don't know. I'm 22 asking. 23 MR. KELLY: Come on, Christian. 24 Q. It says, on page -- what this paper 25 is, this Pierce paper, is an attempt to -- is 153 1 R.C. Adams 2 another attempt to do a risk assessment using 3 various epidemiological studies, correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And like every risk assessment, it 6 suffers from the limitations of the underlying 7 data, whatever they may be? 8 A. As I stated, all -- all studies of 9 this nature have some limitations, yes. 10 Q. And this paper is the onlypaper 11 that you're aware of that has come to the 12 conclusion that there is a threshold for 13 mesothelioma with asbestos exposure, true? 14 MR. KELLY: Objection, assumes facts 15 not in evidence. 16 A. That is not what they are talking 17 about. They're talking about a 18 no-observe-adverse-effect level; they're not 19 referring to it as a threshold level. 20 Q. What is the difference? 21 A. A no-adverse-effect level is just a 22 level below which they have not seen evidence of 23 the disease. 24 Q. What is the significance of this 25 paper, in your analysis? 154 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. This paper, just again helps me put 3 into context the exposure levels that Mr. Knight 4 had, and relative specifically to the use of the 5 Georgia Pacific compound with the -- allegedly 6 with the Calidria fiber so that I have basis to 7 compare the calculated exposure level to a, you 8 know, a risk level, to assess whether or not I 9 felt that it was a significant or substantial 10 risk. 11 Q. On page 193, under the methods 12 section of the Pierce paper, do you see that? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. It says towards the bottom it says, 15 "If multiple studies existed on a single cohort, 16 the study with the most power, i.e., longer 17 follow-up period, larger study population was 18 selected for the analysis." 19 A. I see that. 20 Q. And why was that? 21 MR. KELLY: Objection to form, calls 22 for speculation. 23 A. I, again, I was not involved in the 24 study design. I'm sure there are very good 25 reasons why they chose that. I don't have an 155 1 R.C. Adams 2 objection to their decision to use the best study 3 for the purpose of this paper. 4 Q. Do you understand what the concept 5 of power is in an epidemiological study? 6 A. I understand generally that it talks 7 about the strengths of the information and the 8 associations that they can draw, based on the 9 data. 10 Q. You can't really give us a working 11 definition of the term "power" as an 12 epidemiologist uses; is that fair to say? 13 MR. KELLY: Objection, misstates his 14 testimony. 15 A. I've given you my best understanding 16 of it as an industrial hygienist. 17 Q. Is there anything else, other than 18 what you've already told me, as to what you 19 understand "power" means in epidemiology? 20 A. Pretty much as I stated is as far as 21 I can go on that discussion. 22 Q. Do you remember back on the Hodgson 23 and Darnton paper that they talk about a paper by 24 Ildren and Brown using human and animal data to 25 find a no-adverse-effect level, they call it 156 1 R.C. Adams 2 logical nonsense? 3 MR. KELLY: Objection to form. 4 A. I'm just familiar with what's in the 5 paper. 6 Q. Do you recall that they talk about 7 Ildren and Brown's attempt to look at 8 epidemiological studies and find no adverse 9 effects levels and Hodgson and Darnton call that 10 logical nonsense, right? 11 A. I -- I have already stated that I 12 know it's in their paper. 13 Q. So the same approach to risk that is 14 used by Pierce, et al. here was called Logical 15 Nonsense by Hodgson and Darnton, correct? 16 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 17 A. I don't know how I make that leap. 18 They're referring to a single paper Ildren and 19 Brown which I can't -- which I have not reviewed, 20 and I don't see where you're making that leap 21 into this review, where they're talking about 22 what they've looked at in the studies to develop 23 a no-observed-adverse-effect level. 24 Q. Maybe I misunderstood. 25 This Pierce paper looks at various 157 1 R.C. Adams 2 studies of people exposed to asbestos and tries 3 to determine what levels of exposures were 4 associated with increased mesothelioma cases, 5 true? 6 A. They were looking for 7 no-adverse-effect levels in these different 8 cohorts that they reviewed, yes. 9 Q. So it's important to know what 10 levels the people were actually exposed to in the 11 cohorts, right? 12 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 13 A. That is -- that is one aspect of the 14 review of the cohort is to have the exposure 15 information. 16 Q. It's important to make sure that 17 they captured all of the cases in the cohort, 18 true? 19 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. They talk about on page 193 in the 22 second column some of the problems that they have 23 that is coming up with the exposure measurements, 24 right? 25 A. Yes. 158 1 R.C. Adams 2 Q. They have to do the conversion 3 factors just like Hodgson and Darnton did, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. They would have all the same 6 problems that Hodgson and Darnton did when they 7 were using the same data, right? 8 MR. KELLY: Objection, form, assumes 9 facts not in evidence. 10 A. They would have some of the same 11 types of problems, but again, I'll clarify that 12 you're also looking at a paper that is eight 13 years, I believe, after Hodgson and Darnton, 14 which means that there are other -- there may be 15 other information, other factors, other 16 mechanisms available to overcome some of those 17 limitations. 18 Q. But you don't know whether there 19 were or were not, right? 20 A. The authors -- the authors of this 21 paper point out the limitations appropriately, 22 and I accept what they've identified as the 23 issues with those limitations. 24 Q. Just so I understand, you don't know 25 whether they found anything different, they had 159 1 R.C. Adams 2 any different information to them; you just 3 accept that they would have done it because they 4 should have? 5 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 6 A. Again, I simply say that they 7 recognized the limitations of the data that's 8 available to them and addressed it appropriately. 9 Q. And I'm getting at it, what is the 10 basis for saying that they addressed the 11 limitations appropriately? 12 A. Again, I'm just reading the article 13 and reading what they stated about dealing with 14 some of the exposure limits and reports and units 15 other than fibers per CC, how they dealt with the 16 conversion factors. Yes. They used published 17 factors for plants or similar operations to 18 develop the conversion factors where they 19 didn't -- you know, where maybe the other study 20 authors didn't have it, I mean. 21 Q. Is it fair to say that on page 193, 22 towards the bottom, it says, "Cumulative exposure 23 measurements reported in units other than fibers 24 per cubic centimeter per year, fiber CC year 25 equivalent to fiber milliliter year, were 160 1 R.C. Adams 2 converted to fiber CC years using the conversion 3 factor provided by the individual study authors," 4 right? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. They don't tell you which of the 7 studies had conversion factors in them, right? 8 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 9 A. It's -- they don't. But it's, you 10 know, it's not relevant at this point. I've 11 accepted what they provided, in terms of these 12 data, are based on what the study authors 13 provided them, and I don't see the relevance of 14 that. 15 Q. The next sentence says, "If 16 cumulative exposure was reported in millions of 17 particles per cubic foot per year and a 18 conversion factor was not provided, a conversion 19 factor was determined based on published factors 20 for plants with similar operations," right? 21 A. That's what they reported, yes. 22 Q. You don't know whether the 23 conversion factors that they created were 24 reliable, right? 25 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 161 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. I don't know one way or the other. 3 But I accept that the conversion factors were 4 used and applied. And I believe this since again 5 this is a peer-reviewed paper and I haven't seen 6 anything to dispute it, that they are reliable. 7 Q. Are you able to, as an industrial 8 hygienist, able to say that some of the exposures 9 that Mr. Knight had did not lead to an increase 10 in the amount of asbestos in his body? 11 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 12 A. As an industrial hygienist, I can 13 speak to the exposure levels associated with the 14 time that he spent at the Huckabee Road home 15 during the time that he alleged that he observed 16 the -- the drywall contractor doing the -- doing 17 the installation of drywall, including sanding. 18 I speak from an exposure standpoint. 19 Q. You're telling me that as an 20 industrial hygienist, you can say that the 21 asbestos that he breathes at that facility, at 22 that house was not retained in his body? 23 MR. KELLY: Objection, form. 24 A. Again, my testimony has to do with 25 the exposure level that would have been present 162 1 R.C. Adams 2 in the house. I can't speak to specifically how 3 much fiber he would have actually breathed in and 4 retained inside of his lungs. 5 Q. What is your hourly rate for your 6 work on this case? 7 A. For the general consulting work, I 8 charge $260 an hour. And for depositions and 9 testimony $360 an hour. 10 Q. And in terms of the time that you 11 spent to produce this report, how much time did 12 you spend on it? 13 A. I have probably spent in terms of 14 the preparation of this report, probably about 10 15 hours, in terms of the actual report preparation. 16 Q. That is 10 hours at $260 an hour? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. How much time, in terms of the other 19 work that you've done on this case have you 20 spent? 21 A. Well, in terms of preparation for 22 the deposition, it's probably been an 23 additional eight -- eight hours, give or take. 24 Q. What did you do to prepare for the 25 deposition? 163 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. I went back and reviewed the report. 3 I also reviewed the -- the notice of deposition 4 to prepare -- to gather up all of the 5 information. 6 I mentioned that we had -- after the 7 report had been issued, there was a supplemental 8 deposition, the Cunningham deposition. So I 9 reviewed that deposition to see if it had any 10 impact on the report, and any opinions in the 11 report. And, again, just generally 12 double-checked the files, reviewed the other 13 deposition doc -- transcripts, to see just if - 14 you know, just to make sure that I had captured 15 everything that was relevant in the report. 16 Q. Did anybody else help you do this 17 report or review any materials? 18 A. I have an associate that works with 19 me. His name is Michael Holton. He is also a 20 certified industrial hygienist. And he does the 21 initial review of the documents and prepares a - 22 what we call the exposure chronology, which I 23 believe is one of the documents we submitted to 24 you. 25 Q. How much time did Mr. Holton spend 164 1 R.C. Adams 2 on the case? 3 A. He probably has about 15 hours or 4 maybe a little bit more than that into the case. 5 Q. 20 hours? 6 A. It might be 20 hours. I'd have to 7 go back and look at the actual numbers. 8 Q. Would you be able to do that and 9 provide it to Mr. Kelly, so we can make that an 10 exhibit? 11 A. I can. I -- we did provide an 12 invoice from -- from -- yeah, it was April -- or 13 it was submitted April 29th, but it was for work 14 done in March. 15 And we did -- we probably did a bit 16 more of that work in -- in -- in April -- in 17 April. So, yeah, for example, Mike Holton's 18 hours is like 1.8 at that point, and he certainly 19 would have done more on the case at that point. 20 I can get a more up-to-date breakdown, just the 21 way our invoicing cycle works, it -- we got about 22 a 30-day lag, sometimes as much as a 45-day lag. 23 MR. HARTLEY: Colin, I think -- what 24 would it be, Exhibit 5 now? 25 MR. KELLY: Yes, although I was 165 1 R.C. Adams 2 going to ask, there is a lot of other 3 exhibits here that you want to mark them 4 just sequentially after? 5 MR. HARTLEY: Yes. 6 MR. KELLY: Wherever you end, how 7 about this, we'll just mark them in 8 sequential order, depending on how they're 9 PDF'd, I guess. 10 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. That makes 11 sense, for sure. That's what we'll do. 12 MR. KELLY: I think you're right, 13 we're on Exhibit 5. Which will be the 14 invoice dated March 29, 2010. 15 (Adams Exhibit 5, invoice dated 16 March 29, 2010, marked for identification.) 17 MR. HARTLEY: Can he supplement 18 Exhibit 5 with the updated one? 19 MR. KELLY: Certainly. 20 MR. HARTLEY: That will be two 21 invoices: the current, the one that is 22 there already, and then the more current 23 one will be part of Exhibit 5 as well. 24 THE WITNESS: I'm happy to do it. 25 But just let me clarify. I have to check 166 1 R.C. Adams 2 with the accountant to see if it has been 3 posted yet. I think it's been generated 4 but I don't know if it's been posted. 5 MR. HARTLEY: I'm trying to figure 6 out the best way. 7 Q. Let me ask you this first: There 8 were multiple depositions that were provided to 9 me that were provided to you, including several 10 volumes, I think four volumes of Mr. Knight's 11 deposition? 12 A. Yes. I have three, three oral and 13 one video. 14 Q. And Mrs. Knight's deposition? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And also Mr. Cunningham's 17 deposition? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Did you actually read all of those 20 depositions yourself? 21 A. I read selected portions of them, 22 based on the summary document. 23 Q. So in other words, Mr.Holton 24 identified places that he thought you should read 25 and then you read them? 167 1 R.C. Adams 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Were you provided any kind of 4 summary or direction from the lawyers as to what 5 to look at? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Was anyone else at ENVIRON provided 8 such information? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Do you know what Mr. Holton's 11 billing rate is? 12 A. He is at 175 an hour. 13 MR. HARTLEY: I guess I think the 14 thing to do, Colin, what would be the next 15 thing that you have that would be the next 16 item? I think I'm pretty much done. I 17 want to make sure I mark all of it. 18 MR. KELLY: Why don't we get through 19 it, Christian. We already marked the 20 invoice. We'll set that to the side. 21 Hodgson and Darnton. 22 Next would be the exposure summary 23 document, Christian, which is dated -- it's 24 not dated. 25 THE WITNESS: It's not, it's not. 168 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. KELLY: Do you want to mark that 3 as Exhibit 6? 4 MR. HARTLEY: Sure. 5 (Adams Exhibit 6, exposure summary 6 document, marked for identification.) 7 MR. KELLY: Next is the deposition 8 trial testimony list for Robert C. Adams as 9 of June 1, 2010, that was requested in your 10 notes. 11 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. That will be 12 Exhibit 7. 13 (Adams Exhibit 7, deposition trial 14 testimony list for Robert C. Adams as of 15 June 1, 2010, marked for identification.) 16 Q. Let me ask you real quick, is that 17 up to date, Mr. Adams? 18 A. Yes, it is current as of yesterday. 19 MR. HARTLEY: What is next? 20 MR. KELLY: Next would be 21 correspondence from -- there is an e-mail 22 string from -- it starts with Debbie Zuger 23 and Willcox & Savage and ends with me, 24 Colin Kelly, sending Mr. Adams a blank 25 e-mail with a notice of deposition, so that 169 1 R.C. Adams 2 is the correspondence in the case. 3 MR. HARTLEY: Can we make that 4 Exhibit 8? 5 MR. KELLY: Yes. 6 (Adams Exhibit 8, correspondence, 7 marked for identification.) 8 MR. KELLY: Next is a March 12, 2010 9 letter from Melissa Stogner, my paralegal, 10 on Alston & Bird letterhead, enclosing the 11 CD of materials for review in the 12 above-captioned matter, which is the Knight 13 case. And then attached to it is the CD 14 with the materials that I had sent you, the 15 substantive information, you know, 16 depositions in the case that were 17 referenced in the report. 18 MR. HARTLEY: That is all an image 19 that we can attach? 20 MR. KELLY: Yes. 21 MR. HARTLEY: Let's attach that then 22 as 9. 23 (Adams Exhibit 9, March 12, 2010 24 letter with attachment, marked for 25 identification.) 170 1 R.C. Adams 2 MR. HARTLEY: Anything else. 3 MR. KELLY: What about the -- we 4 have electronically all the information on 5 the attached CD. Do you want that as 6 Exhibit 9A, subsection A through whatever, 7 however many it is, I don't know how many 8 it is. 9 MR. HARTLEY: Sure. 10 MR. KELLY: F and G, how about that. 11 MR. HARTLEY: Electronic, so it's 12 not going to cause us any problem. 13 MR. KELLY: Right. 14 (Adams Exhibit 9A, CD, marked for 15 identification.) 16 MR. KELLY: Next is an April 14, 17 2010 letter from my paralegal, Melissa 18 Stogner, on Alston & Bird letterhead 19 enclosing Mr. George Cunningham's 20 deposition. 21 MR. HARTLEY: Put that in there too. 22 (Adams Exhibit 10, April 14, 2010 23 letter enclosing Mr. George Cunningham's 24 deposition, marked for identification.) 25 MR. KELLY: And the final exhibit, 171 1 R.C. Adams 2 Christian, is the Marianna formulas. 3 MR. HARTLEY: Yes, I need those for 4 sure. 5 (Adams Exhibit 11, Marianna 6 formulas, marked for identification.) 7 MR. KELLY: The only thing that is 8 left is the Pierce article, Hodgson and 9 Darnton and his report. 10 MR. HARTLEY: I got the report early 11 on. 12 MR. KELLY: So all that is left is 13 the Hodgson and Darnton and Pierce. 14 MR. HARTLEY: Let's make those the 15 next two. 16 (Adams Exhibit 12, Report, marked 17 for identification.) 18 (Adams Exhibit 13, Report, marked 19 for identification.) 20 MR. KELLY: We're up to Exhibit 13. 21 MR. HARTLEY: Okay, perfect. 22 I have no further questions at this 23 time. 24 MR. KELLY: Would you like to read; 25 read your deposition and review it before 172 1 R.C. Adams 2 you sign, or waive? 3 THE WITNESS: I would like to read 4 it. 5 MR. KELLY: It is your right to do 6 that. So you'll review the deposition and 7 make any corrections and we'll send you a 8 copy. 9 Union Carbide reserves its right to 10 question until the time of trial. 11 (Time noted: 5:32 p.m.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 173 1 2 I, the witness herein, having read 3 the foregoing testimony, do hereby certify 4 it to be a true and correct transcript, 5 subject to the corrections, if any, shown 6 on the attached page. 7 8 9 10 11 12 ROBERT C. ADAMS 13 14 15 Subscribed and sworn to 16 before me this _______ day 17 of 2010. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 174 1 2 CERTIFICATE 3 STATE OF NEW YORK ) 4 COUNTY OF NEW YORK) 5 6 I, KAREN PERLMAN, a Shorthand Reporter and 7 Notary Public within and for the State of New 8 York, do hereby certify: 9 That ROBERT C. ADAMS, the witness whose 10 deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was duly 11 sworn by me and that such deposition is a true 12 record of the testimony given by such witness. 13 I further certify that I am not related to 14 any of the parties to this action by blood or 15 marriage, and that I am in no way interested in 16 the outcome of this matter. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 18 hand this _______ day of June, 2010. 19 20 21 22 23 24 KAREN PERLMAN 25 175 1 2 INDEX 3 WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE 4 ROBERT C. ADAMS MR. HARTLEY 4 5 6 EXH I B I TS 7 ADAMS EXHIBIT PAGE LINE 8 1, Notice of deposition of Robert C. Adams 59 9 2, Defendant Union Carbide 10 Corporation's Response and Objections to 5 12 11 Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition of 12 Robert C. Adams 13 3, Copy of report of Mr. Adams 13 25 14 4, Records from 15 Speedy McVay 16 5, Invoice dated March 29, 2010 18 3 166 15 17 6, Exposure summary 18 document 19 7, Deposition trial testimony list for 20 Robert C. Adams as of June 1, 2010 169 5 169 13 21 8, Correspondence 22 9, March 12, 2010 letter 23 with attachment 24 9A, CD 25 170 6 170 23 171 14 176 1 2 3 4 5 10, April 14, 2010 letter enclosing Mr. George 6 Cunningham's deposition 7 11, Marianna formulas 8 12, Report 9 13, Report 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 171 22 172 172 172 5 16 18 177