Document zQXJ1G8jO9OkoGBjqvGK8Qx2B

FILE NAME: Phenolic Resins (PHR) DATE: 2002 DOC#: PHR083 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Deposition of Barry Castleman / \: IN RE- ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION'S SUPPLEM ENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' M ASTER INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to the Texas Rules o f Civil Procedure, Defendant Union Carbide Corporation ( "Union Carbide"), hereby responds to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories as fo llo w s: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Union Carbide states that trial preparation and factual investigation are ongoing. Union Carbide's answers to these interrogatories are based on information known to Union Carbide at this time. Union Carbide reserves the right, however to make reference at the trial or at any hearing in this action to facts and documents not identified, in these responses, the existence or relevance o f which is later discovered by it or its counsel. By this reservation, Union Carbide does not in any way assume a continuing responsibility to update its responses to these interrogatories, and specifically objects to each o f these interrogatories to the extent that they seek to impose any such continuing obligation upon Union Carbide. 2. Union Carbide objects to p lain tiffs interrogatories in its entirety' on the grounds that it is not reasonably framed in terms o f the facts and subject matter o f the present action, with the result that Union Carbide is called upon to speculate as to what DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S' MASTER INTERROGATORIES. F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE information relevant to the present case, if any, may be deemed to fall within the scope of the interrogatories as phrased. 3. Union Carbide also objects to all interrogatories insofar as they would require the disclosure o f information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrines. . 4. See general objection N o. 4. Union Carbide also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably limited by either tim e or subject matter to information that is relevant to the matters at issue in this case, and on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Prior to late 1979, Union Carbide or one o f its subsidiaries produced a tree sprout inhibitor called TRE-HOLD, which was used primarily to inhibit growth on telephone poles. TRE-HOLD contained a small quantity o f asbestos bound in an asphalt carrier; the asbestos in TRE-HOLD was fully encapsulated. Prior to 1976, Union Carbide manufactured Bakelite phenolics, which were molding compound resins. Bakelite phenolics were marketed by Union Carbide for use by manufacturers primarily to mold electronic parts and products such as switches, switch boxes, radios, and plug in receptacles. M ost Bakelite phenolics did not contain; asbestos. Bakelite was used in part, because it provides electrical insulation. The asbestos fiber in those Bakelite brands which contained it was fully encapsulated or mixed within or with other material. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -2 Prior to August 1977, Union Carbide manufactured UDEL Polysulfone P6050, which was an asbestos-containing, high temperature, high rigidity thermoplastic molding material, used primarily in camera cases. The asbestos in UDEL Polysulfone P6050 was fully encapsulated. Union Carbide formerly manufactured automotive radiator products under the names Prestone Antifreeze, Prestone Sealer Stop Leak and Prestone Heavy Duty Sealer. Asbestos ceased to be used as an additive in the antifreeze in 1971 and in the sealers in 1972. The fiber in these products was embedded within a liquid substance. Until 1985, Union Carbide sold or leased acetylene cylinders which contained asbestos liners. The asbestos in the acetylene cylinder liners was encapsulated within liner materials and the liner materials were contained within a metal cylinder. Union Carbide also manufactured a steel "scarier" machine (used to remove blem ishes and imperfections from steel), with parts which contained some asbestos. In the late 1950's or early 1960's, Union Carbide may also have experimented with certain asbestos-containing polyethylene and polystyrene products which would have only been sold in lim ited quantities on an experimental basis. Union Carbide no longer manufactures or sells any o f the above products. Union Carbide has never manufactured or distributed an asbestos-containing cement, pipe covering, cloth or the like. From 1963 through June 30, 1985 Union Carbide mined and sold a unique short-fiber chrysotile asbestos initially as "Union Carbide Asbestos" and then under the trade name Calidria (som e distributors marketed Calidria under other trade names). Calidria was sold, DEFENDANT'S SaiPPT FMRNTAT. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -3- both directly by Union Carbide and through distributors as raw asbestos, in pelletized and fibrous form in varying grades o f purity o f content. Calidria was not sold to the general public or to "end users". It was sold to manufacturers for use in their products or production processes as a filler, reinforcer, opacifier, thixotrope (thickener) and the like. Calidria asbestos was not suitable for use as standard heat or ffost insulation or, for instance, piping, due to its quality and composition, in particular, due to the short length o f its fiber. 5. Union Carbide objects to this entire set o f interrogatories to the extent that it calls for information about Union Carbide employees or prem ises, or policies ]>ertaining to Union Carbide em ployees or premises. Inasmuch as the plaintiffs do not allege that they or their decedents were ever employed by Union Carbide or worked at any job site controlled by Union Carbide, such information is irrelevant and immaterial to matters at issue in this case. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY N O . 1: State the name, address, job title, length o f tim e employed by Defendant, and a yearby-year list o f all other positions, titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant o f each person who has supplied any information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: The responses to these interrogatories were prepared by counsel for Union Carbide Corporation based on information either contained in business records or provided by present and former Union Carbide em ployees. In particular, John L. M yers, former Product and Production Manager for asbestos (Calidria) has provided much information. Sales and other business records used to respond to these interrogatories are under the control o f Mrs. Elba DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -4- Pozo, Custodian o f Records, Kelley Drye & Warren, Two Stamford Plaza, Stamford, CT 06901. INTERROGATORY N O . 2 : State whether or not you are a corporation. I f so, state your correct corporate name, the state o f your incorporation, the address o f your principal place o f business, the name and address o f the person or entity authorized to accept service o f process on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate o f Authority to do business in the State o f Texas. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide's principal place o f business is: Union Carbide Corporation 39 Old Ridgebury Road Danbury, Connecticut 06817 Union Carbide Corporation was first incorporated in the State o f New York on November 11, 1917 under the name o f Union Carbide and Carbon Products. Union Carbide changed its name to Union Carbide Corporation in 1957, changed on July 3, 1989, to Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics C o., Inc., and returned to Union Carbide Corporation in 1994. The CT System Company at the following addresses are authorized to accept service on behalf o f Union Carbide Corporation in the State o f Texas: CT System Republic National Bank Building Dallas, Texas 75201 and CT System 811 Dallas Avenue Houston, Texas 77002 INTERROGATORY NO . 3: DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLATNrnFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -5- Has Defendant or any o f its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the mining and subsequent sale o f material containing asbestos fibers? If so, identify the location o f the m ine(s), the years o f its operation, the type o f asbestos mined and whether you sold any asbestos to any Defendants in the Dallas County asbestos litigation.. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Prior to late 1979, Union Carbide or one o f its subsidiaries produced a tree sprout inhibitor called TRE-HOLD, which was used primarily to inhibit growth on telephone poles. TRE-HOLD contained a sm all quantity o f asbestos bound in an asphalt carrier; the asbestos in TRE-HOLD was fully encapsulated. Prior to 1976, Union Carbide manufactured Bakelite phenolics, which were molding compound resins. Bakelite phenolics were marketed by Union Carbide for use by manufacturers primarily to mold electronic parts and products such as switches, switch boxes, radios, and plug in receptacles. Most Bakelite phenolics did not contain asbestos. Bakelite was used in part, because it provides electrical insulation. The asbestos fiber in those Bakelite brands which contained it was fully encapsulated or mixed within or with other material. Prior to August 1977, Union Carbide manufactured UDEL Polysulfone P6050, which was an asbestos-containing, high temperature, high rigidity thermoplastic molding material, used primarily in camera cases. The asbestos in UDEL Polysulfone P6050 was fully encapsulated. Union Carbide formerly manufactured automotive radiator products under the names Prestone Antifreeze, Prestone Sealer Stop Leak and Prestone Heavy Duty Sealer. Asbestos ceased to be used as an additive in the antifreeze in 1971 and in the sealers in 1972. The fiber in these products was embedded within a liquid substance. Until 1985, Union Carbide sold or leased acetylene cylinders which contained asbestos liners. The asbestos in the acetylene cylinder liners was encapsulated within liner materials and the liner materials were contained within a metal cylinder. Union Carbide also manufactured a steel "scarier" machine (used to remove blemishes and imperfections from steel), with parts which contained som e asbestos. In the late 1950 s or early 1960's, Union Carbide may also have experimented with certain asbestos-containing DEFENDANT'S STIPPT,EMENTAE RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES. F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE ^ polyethylene and polystyrene products which would have only been sold in lim ited quantities on an experimental basis. Union Carbide no longer manufactures or sells any o f the above product. Union Carbide has never manufactured or distributed an asbestos-containing cement, pipe covering, cloth or the like. From 1963 through June 30, 1985 Union Carbide mined and sold a unique short-fiber chrysotile asbestos initially as "Union Carbide Asbestos" and then under the tra.de name Calidria (some distributors marketed Calidria under other trade names). Calidria was sold, both directly by Union Carbide and through distributors as raw asbestos, in pelletized and fibrous form in varying grades o f purity o f content. Calidria was not sold to the general public or to "end users". It was sold to manufacturers for use in their products or production processes as a filler, reinforcer, pacifier, thixotrope (thickener) and the like. Calidria asbestos was not suitable for use as standard heat or frost insulation or, for instance, piping, due to its quality and composition, in particular, due to the short length o f its fiber. INTERROGATORY NO . 4 : Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any o f its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time manufactured or sold. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculate! to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follow s: Union Carbide sold its asbestos initially as Union Carbide Asbestos and. then under the name "Calidria". Union Carbide, however, packaged Calidria asbestos for the M ontello Corporation for sale under the tradenames o f Visbestos, Super Visbestos, T elvis, Imcobest and U nivis. Union Carbide also packaged Calidria for the ARCO company for sale under the name Arcovis, and for the International Mines and Chemical Company for sale under the name Surelift. Calidria was also sold domestically in limited quantities under the names Visquick and Oilbestos by distributors which Union Carbide is presently unable to identify. Union Carbide objects to responding to this interrogatory with respect to overseas sales on the grounds that such information is irrelevant and immaterial to matters at issue in this case. INTERROGATORY NO. 5 : DEFENDANT'S STTPPT.KMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INI KKROG.VTORIES F:\KELLY\DLSC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE "7 Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any o f its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time marketed or sold. ANSW ER; See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 4, including the objections set forth therein. INTERROGATORY N O . 6: If the answer to one or more o f the last three interrogatories is in the affirmative or lists any products, state as to each named product the following: (a) A s to each product, state whether such product was mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. (b) The names o f the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each product mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. (c) The trade or brand name o f each o f those products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or sold. (d) The date each o f the named products was placed on the market. (e) A description o f the physical (chemical) composition o f each o f the named products, including the type o f asbestos contained in the product and the percentage o f asbestos put in each product. (f) The date each o f the products was removed from the market and no longer sold or distributed and the reason or reasons therefor. (g) The date asbestos was removed from such products, if ever, and the reasons therefor. (h) A description o f the physical appearance o f each o f the named products. (i) A detailed description o f the intended uses o f the named products. (j) Identify the last year that you sold each asbestos-containing product. ANSWER: DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES. F:\KELLYYDISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -8 See General Objection No. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follow s: The follow ing divisions or subsidiaries o f Union Carbide operated the Calidria business during the course o f its existence: Corporate D ivisions o f Calidria (1963-19851 (1963-1965) (1965-1967) (1967-1970) (1970-1984) (1984-1985) Nuclear Division M ining and Metals D ivision Chemicals and Plastic D ivision M ining and Metals D ivision UMETCO, a wholly owned subsidiary o f Union Carbide, through Calidria Corporation, a w holly owned subsidiary of UMETCO. Calidria consisted o f raw chrysotile asbestos in a unique short-fiber formulation which Union Carbide mined at or near King City, California. Calidria's chem ical formula is Mg6(OH)gSi4 OJ0. Union Carbide produced four grades o f Calidria asbestos: standard, super standard, high purity, and resin grade; the different grades reflect varying degroes o f purity o f content. Each grade was sold in both pelletized and fibrous form. In appearance, Calidria is grey (pelletized) or white (fibrous) in color and powdery in substance. The following is a representative listing and description o f the various brands o f Calidria mined and marketed by Union Carbide: PRODUCT SYMBOL PRODUCT CODE DESCRIPTION HPO HPO-C HPP HPP-JAP R-G110 652101 R-G 110-D R-G 144 652501 A-14 R-G 244 653001 R-G 444-0 651001 651101 651601 651701 Resin-Grade, Open Fiber 652201 Resin-Grade, Open Fiber 652801 Resin-Grade, Open Fiber 653301 High Purity, Open Fiber High Purity, Open Fiber High Purity, Pellets High Purity, Pellets, 4-Ply bags 15% + 325 Resin-Grade, Open Fiber, 15% + 325 Resin-Grade, Open Fiber Resin-Grade, Open Fiber, 10% Stearic DEFENDANT'S STTPPI.ElVfENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -9- A -28 SG-100 SG-102 654001 654201 SG-130 654501 SG-144 654801 SG-200 655001 SG-210 655301 S G -444-0 T-135-0 656001 T-135-P 656301 CG-100 656601 CG-135-0 CG-135-P 653601 Standard Grade, Pellets Standard Grade, Pellets, Standard Grade, Open Standard Grade, Open Super Standard Grade, Super Standard Grade, 655501 High Purity, Open Fiber, High Purity, Pellets, Coatings Grade, Pellets 656801 656901 657301 657601 657001 Resin-Grade, Open Fiber, Silica Treated 100-lb. bags Fiber, 30% + 325 Fiber, 45% + 325 Pellets Open Fiber, 15% + 325 Standard Grade, Open Fiber, 5% Stearic, Hydrophobic Titanated, 35%, Anatase Titanated, 35%, Anatase Coatings Grade, Open Fiber, Titanated 35 %, Rutile Coatings Grade, Pellets, Titanated, 35%, Rutile Super-Visbestos Super Standard Grade;, Cracked Pellets Visbestos Standard Grade, Open Fiber Oilbestos Standard Grade, Open Fiber, 5% Stearic, Hydrophobic Calidria, due to its unique physical properties, short fiber length in particular, was not suited for use in thermal or frost insulation. Calidria consisted o f raw asbestos which was marketed and sold by Calidria distributors to manufacturers or producers who incorporated and used Calidria in their products or production processes. Calidria was not sold by Union Carbide or, according to the best information available to Union Carbide, by Calidria distributors to consumers or DEFENDANT'S STIPPT.KMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES^ F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCRCKj .SUP PAGE -10- other "end-users". The following is a representative list o f different brands o f Calidria asbestos and the applications for which they were marketed: Calidria Product SG-100 SG-130 SG-200 Super Visbestos SG-210 HPP HPO RG-110 RG-144 RG-244 Apolications Vinyl-Asbestos Floor Tile Masonry Coatings Rubber Floor T ile Drilling Muds M astics Asphaltic Coatings , Rubber Sheet Goods Mineral Board (Japan) Paper (Japan) Asphaltic Coatings, Adhesives Asphaltic Spray Coatings Aluminized Coatings M astics, Caulks and Sealants Adhesives (Epoxy, Casim, Phenolics) Coatings Vinyl Plastisols (High Build, Dip Coatings) M astics, Caulks and Sealants (Vinyl, Butyl, Polysulfide, B itum inous) Polyester Resins (Laminating, Gel Coats, Putties) Caulks and Sealants (Vinyl, DEFENDANT'S STIPPT.EMENTAT, RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE Butyl, Acrylic, Polyurethane) Coatings (Epoxy, Urethane, Asphaltic) In addition to the different markets in which the Calidria products listed above were respectively sold, other brands o f Calidria may have been sold within the same markets. Such brands o f Calidria were distinguished on the basis o f grade (purity o f content), form (fibrous or pelletized) or chemical treatment, or a combination o f the above. See also Union Carbide's responses to Interrogatories 4 and 5. INTERROGATORY N O . 7 : D o any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials o f any kind or character, relating to the design, preparation, or introduction into the market o f the products listed in. Interrogatory N o. 6 still exist? If so, state: (a) A description o f each such document. (b) The name, address, and job title o f each person who currently h:is possession o f each document, and where the documents are currently located. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Union Carbide further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and unclear. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follow s: Calidria was not an asbestos-containing product, but rather consisted o f raw fiber sold in pelletized or fibrous form. See UCC's response to Interrogatory N o. 6. Union Carbide maintains a repository o f asbestos-related documents. Some o f the documents contain information about the mining and milling process. Upon P laintiff s request, Union Carbide w ill make its Repository o f Documents available to Plaintiff for review and replication at a suitable time and place. Union Carbide's custodian o f records for asbestos-related documents is Mrs. Elba Pozo, Kelley D rye & Warren, Two Stamford Plaza, Stamford, Connecticut 06901. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -12- Before distributing, selling, or placing the products listed in your responses to Interrogatory N os. 3-6 into the streams o f commerce, were any tests conducted to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirm ative, state: (a) The names o f the products tested and the date o f each test. (b) The name, address, and job title o f each person conducting the tests or involved with conducting the tests. (c) The results o f the tests. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide: responds as follows: Two studies o f Calidria asbestos were made by the Chemical H ygiene Fellowship o f Mellon Institute on behalf o f Union Carbide: 1. The first study was entitled "The Fibrogenic Potential o f Asbestos Products Via Intraperitoneal Injection In Guinea Pigs, Rats and Rabbits and by the Intratracheal Route in the Rat". Although Union Carbide cannot represent that it knows the names o f the persons who conducted the study, the following individuals did sign the study: Edwin R. Kinkhead, B .S ., Research Assistant, Urbano C. Pozzani, M .S ., Senior Fellow and Charles P. Carpenter, P h .D ., Assistant Administrative Fellow . A lso, the follow ing persons received an acknowledgment in the study: Charles C. Hahn, B .S ., Junior Fellow and John M . King, P h .D ., DVM , Fellow . The study was completed on July 8, 1966. The purpose o f the study was to evaluate the degree o f fibrogenicity o f asbestos mined at Union Carbide's King City, California facility as compared with other forms o f asbestos. A copy o f the study's report w ill be supplied if requested. 2. The second study was entitled "Calidria Asbestos Resin Grade RG244, Tracheal Insufflation o f Rat Lungs with Interpretation o f Pathology After 20, 60, 90, and 180 Days". Although Union Carbide cannot represent that it knows the names o f the persons who conducted the study, Charles P. Carpenter, P h .D ., Administrative Fellow , was the editor o f the study's report. In addition, the following individuals were named as contributors to the study: D .L . Geary, Jr., E.R . Kinkhead, R.C . Myers and D .J. Nachreiner. The study DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS* MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLYVDISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -13- was completed on September 3, 1971. The purpose o f the study was to evaluate the degree o f fibrogenicity o f Union Carbide's RG244 as compared with other forms o f asbestos. A copy o f the study's report w ill be supplied if requested. In addition to the above two tests, and in addition to chemical analyses o f Calidria which Union Carbide may have undertaken, in the m id-1960's Union Carbide (operated with the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit o f the Llandough Hospital in the United Kingdom to conduct a "trace element analysis" o f asbestos and provided samples o f Calidria asbestos for such analysis. Union Carbide may also have conducted "patch tests" to determine the impact, if any, o f Calidria on skin and other soft tissue. Union Carbide is currently endeavoring to locate reports o f these tests. INTERROGATORY N O . 9 : D o any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials o f any kind or character, relating to the testing o f the products referred to in Interrogatory N o. 6 now exist? If so, state: (a) A description o f each such document. (b) The name, address, and job title o f each person who currently has possession o f each document, and where it is presently located. ANSW ER: See General Objection No. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably ca lcu la te to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as fo llo w s: Union Carbide maintains in its Repository documents which may be responsive to this Interrogatory. The reports o f the two tests referred to in Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 8 are included in the Repository. Union Carbide's custodian o f records for asbestos-related documents is Mrs. Elba Pozo, Kelley Drye & Warren, Two Stamford Plaza, Stamford, Connecticut 06901. INTERROGATORY N O . 10: DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS* MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -14 Did Defendant or any o f its predecessor or subsidiary companies make any design changes or modifications as a result o f those tests described in responses to Interrogatory N o. 8? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The trade names o f the products changed. (b) The nature o f the changes made and the date o f such changes or modifications. (c) The name, address, and job title o f each person responsible for having caused a change to be made, or having made a change or modification. ANSW ER: See general objection no. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follow s: Calidria always consisted o f raw chrysotile asbestos, with a unique and short fiber physical configuration, sold in pelletized and fibrous form . The chemical formula has always been Mg6(OH)8Si4 O10, and Calidria has always been tremolite free. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 6. INTERROGATORY NO . 11: After releasing the products listed in Interrogatory N o. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use o f or exposure to the materials, such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The names o f the products tested and the dates o f such tests. (b) The name, address, and job title o f each person who conducted those tests. (c) The results o f those tests. (d) Whether, as a result o f the tests, any products were removed from the market. (e) The names o f all products removed from the market as a result o f these tests. ANSW ER: DEFENDANT'S SI ?PPi F.MENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DKC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE ' 15' See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatories 8 and 10, including the objections set forth therein. INTERROGATORY N O . 12: D o any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials o f any kind or character, relating to the potential health hazards o f the products listed in Interrogatory N o. 6 now exist? If so, state: (a) The name o f each product. (b) A description o f each document and how it relates to each product. (c) The name, address, and job title o f each person who currently has possession o f each document, and where it is presently located. ANSW ER; - See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as w ell as vague and ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 7, Union Carbide maintains in its Repository documents which may be responsive to this Interrogatory. Upon P lain tiffs request, Union Carbide w ill make its Repository o f Documents available to Plaintiff for review and replication at a suitable tim e and place. Union Carbide's custodian o f records for asbestos-related documents is Mrs. Elba Pozo, K elley D rye & Warren, Two Stamford Plaza, Stamford, Connecticut 06901. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Did Defendant or any o f its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result o f the tests discussed in your response to Interrogatories N o. 10 or 13? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The names o f the products changed or m odified. DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -16- (b) The name, address, and job title o f each responsible for having made a change or modification. (c) The nature o f the hazard or defect which resulted in such change or m od ification . ANSW ER: See Union Carbide's responses to Interrogatories 6 and 10, including all objections set forth therein. INTERROGATORY N O . 14: Has Defendant or any o f its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material or any kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility o f injury resulting from the use o f the asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory N o. 6? If so, state: (a) The names o f each relevant product. - (b) The exact wording o f each warning statement on each printed material. (c) A description o f the printed material other than the warning statement. (d) The method used to distribute the warning to persons likely to use the product. (e) The date each warning was issued, distributed, or placed on packaging. (f) The name, address, and job title o f each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning. (g) The current location o f any such printed material and the custodian thereof. (h) The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, L e , the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. ANSW ER: See general objection no. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Union Carbide objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follow s: DEFENDANT'S STTPPTEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -17- Starting September 1, 1972 Union Carbide distributed Material Safety Data Sheets setting forth precautions and instructions for the proper and safe use o f Calidria. In addition, listed below are brochures and documents which have been made available by Union Carbide to Union Carbide's Calidria customers, many o f which contained information on potential hazards associated with excessive asbestos exposure and information as to how to control or avoid such hazards. Since Union Carbide sold the Calidria business in 1985, the material listed below has not been in use by Union Carbide. Except where the dates are stated herein, the tim e o f publication and the author o f each item is presently unknown. I. GENERAL A . "Calidria" Booklet, John Crane B. Asbestos Fibers, R. Byrne C. Business Reply Card, John Crane D . Rubber Booklet, John Crane E. Grinding Asbestos Pellets, R. Bym e F . FD A Status - Asbestos in Paper. G. N ew Additives Induce Thixotropy - Reprint o f John Myers Speech. H . N ew Idria Chrysotile an Unusual Ore Yields. New Products, R. W oolery I. Cationic Asbestos for Waste Water Treatment,John Myers J. Asbestos Products for Oil Pollution Control,JohnMyers K. Zeta Potentials o f Some Minerals. L . US Patent Office - Waste and Water Treatments, R. W oolery M . M ineralogy o f the Coalinga Asbestos D eposit, Mumpton and Thompson N . Bulk Handling Demonstration O. Electron Micrograph Illustrations. P. Asbestos Magazine Reprinting - John Myers - Pellets. Q. Rubber World Reprint. R. Suggested Primer Sealer for Masonry and Weathered Roofing, 3JG-123B. S. Suggested Exterior W hite Hi-Build Flexible Coating, 3JG-124B. T. Suggested Exterior White Insulating R oof Coating, 3JG-121B. U . Suggested Weather-Barrier R oof Coating and Lagging Compound, E-1297. H. RESIN GRADE PRODUCTS A . General. 1. "Calidria" RG-144 & RG-244, John Myers 2. U se o f Cowles D issolver, R. E. Bym e 3. "Calidria" RG Products for Vinyl Plastisol Sealant Applications. 4. "Calidria" Asbestos for a High Build D ip Coating Plastisol N F-12. 5. "Calidria" RG-144 & RG-244 Asbestos in PVC Plastisols. 6. Rubber Research Elastomerics. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS* MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -18- 7. Plasticizer Viscosity Control with "Calidria" Asbestos RG-244 & R G -144. B. RG-110 (Price Schedule). 1. V iscosity Control Agent for Asphaltic Compounds. 2. Polyester Premixes Comparative Cost & Performance Data. C. RG144 (Price Schedule). 1. RG-144 Brochure, John Crane 2. RG-144 Performance Data, John Crane 3. RG-144 Product Characteristics. 4. RG Asbestos Improves Thixotrophic Properties o f Highway Markers. 5. PVP Reprint. 6. Asbestos Beefs Up Plastics & Adhesives to Extend Their U se. D . RG-244 (Price Schedule). 1. RG-244 Brochure, John Crane - 2. RG-244 Comparative Performance Characteristics, John Crane 3. RG-244 Product Characteristics & Specifications. 4 Ultrasonic Dispersion o f RG-244, B. L. Ingalls 5. RG-244 as a Thixotrope for Polyester R esins, B. L. Ingalls 6. Polyester Putty & Patching Compounds. 7. "Epoxy Coal Tar Coatings." 8. "Chlorinated Rubber Roofing Compound", B. L. Ingalls 9. High Build Vinyl Maintenance Paints. 10. Zinc-Rich Primers. 11. Vinyl Coal Tar Formulation Suggestions. 12. Formulating Plastisol Sealants with Silane Adhesion Promoters. 13. RG-244 Health Brochure. E. RG-600 Brochures. 1. Cost Effectiveness Optimization o f Reinforced Polyolefins; 10/4/76 (Ancker & Leung). 2. RG-600 Inquiry Form, John Crane 3. Coupled Chrysotile Asbestos Reinforced Thermoplastics (Ancker). 4. RG-600 Request Form, John Crane 5. RG-600 Patent Literature - 3,939,278; December 23, 1975. 6. RG-600 Health Brochure. DEFENDANT' RTTPPT.KMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP Py 7. Reinforced Polyolefins for Large Structural Foam Parts; 2/8-11/77, M ichno 8. Structural Foam is Launched into an Era o f Great Diversification; August 1976. ID. STANDARD GRADE PRODUCTS A . General. 1. "Calidria" Asbestos Standard Grade Products, Typical Properties, John M yers B. SG-100 (Price Schedule). 1. SG-100 "Calidria" Asbestos for U se in Vinyl and Asphalt Floor C overin gs. 2. SG-100 Saves Up to One-Half (12) the Amount o f Asbestos. 3. Flintkote Report. C. SG-130 (Price Schedule). - D . SG-200SG200X (Price Schedule). E. 1. SG-200SG-200X Product Characteristics. F. 2. TJC Brochure. 3. UCAR Latex 153 for Water-Based Caulks and Sealants. 4. Typical Product Characteristics and Specifications SG-210. 5. Suggested Interior Texturing or Exterior Spackling Formulation (17-C H R -41). IV. HIGH PURITY A. General. 1. Effects o f Chrysotile Asbestos Additions to C ellulosic Paper - RGW. 2. "Calidria" High Purity Asbestos for Porosity Control, Pinhole Reduction, and Improvement in Two-Sidedness. 3. Properties o f Asbestos Suitable for U se in C ellulosic Paper, Naumann. 4. How High Purity Asbestos is Used for Pitch Control in Papermaking, W oolery. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -20 5. Paper Trade Journal - Asbestos Product Aids Retention, Boosts Opacity and Disperses Pitch, Ingalls. 6. "Calidria" Asbestos for Paper Coatings. B. High Purity Open (Price Schedule for HOP & HPP). 1. Typical Product Characteristics for HPO, John M yers. 2. The Trial o f Calidria HOP in N ew R ochelle Water Pollution Control Plant. 3. Addition Rates for HOP in Primary W aste Treatment, John M yers. 4. Suggested Dark Green Acrylic Tennis Court Topcoat E-1400. C. High Purity Pellets. 1. Typical Product Characteristics for HPP, John Myers. V. TITANATED PRODUCTS A. T-135 (Price Schedule). 1. T-135 Opacifying Agent. 2. "Calidria" Asbestos T-135 for V iscosity Control & Pigmentation. 3. T -135-0 for Spray Acoustic & Texture Compounds. 4. Chemical 26 Reprint - Checking Opacity. VI. COATING GRADES A. CG-135 (Price Schedule). VII. DRILLING A. Oil and Gas Journal Reprint. In addition, the follow ing material, some o f which is listed above in the: form o f brochures, articles or addresses, has been prepared: 1. "Calidria Asbestos RG-244 - An Economical E ffective Thickener and Thixotrope for Polyester Resins, Plastisols, Epoxies, Phenolic Adhesives Organosols" 9/70. DEFENDANT'S STTPPT.KMKNTAT. RESPONSES TO PLATNTEFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLYVDISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -21- 2. "CALEDRIA Asbestos, Resin-Grade 144, An Effective Low Cost 'thickening Agent and Thixotrope for Epoxy Resin Systems" - 7/71, John Crane. 3. "CALEDRIA Asbestos Resin-Grade - 144 and Resin-Grade 224", John Myers. 4. "CALIDRIA Asbestos, Low Cost Highly Effective Reinforcer and Filler for Rubber, Two Grades: High-Purity and T-135" - 10/70, John Crane. 5. "CALIDRIA Asbestos, a Unique and Versatile Fiber With Proven Applications as an Extender, Thickener, Reinforcer, Pacifier" 574. 6. "New Additives Induce Thixotropy, Provide Sag and V iscosity Control," presented by John L. Myers to Western Coatings Technology Society Meetings in Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver, in May 1969. 7. "Asbestos," by Robert E. Byrne, Jr., Area Manager, CALIDRIA Asbestos Marketing and Technology, M ining and Metals D ivision, Union Carbide Corporation, published March, 1972 in Modem Plastics Encyclopedia, M cGraw-Hill, Inc. 8. "Calidria Asbestos Pellets" by John L. M yers, Former Product and Production Manager for Union Carbide's Calidria Operation, published October 1971 in Asbestos, reprinted by Union Carbide. V ni. HEALTH AND SAFETY A . General. 1. "Material Safety Data" for CALIDRIA Asbestos published September 1, 1972 and revised September 1, 1976 by Union Carbide Corporation. 2. "Chrysotile Asbestos in Plastics," presented May 14, 1974 at the 32nd annual technical conference o f the Society o f Plastics Engineers at San Francisco, by John L. M yers, Marketing Manager, Asbestos, Union Carbide. 3. "Handling Asbestos - Chrysotile Asbestos in Plastics," June 16, 1975, by John L. M yers, Marketing Manager Asbestos Union Carbide. 4. "Grinding CALIDRIA Asbestos Pellets," by Robert E. Bym e, Jr., Area Manager, CALIDRIA Asbestos, Marketing and Technology, Mining and Metals D ivision, Union Carbide Corporation. 5. Brochure "'Calidria' Asbestos Pellets Health and OSHA Information" Published November 1, 1977 by Metals D ivision, Union Carbide Corporation, Niagara Falls, New York. DEFENDANT'S SIMPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLA rN nFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -22- 6. "Consumer Safety in Plastics System Containing Bound Asbestos Fibers presented on November 9, 1977 at the NATEC M eeting o f the Society o f Plastics Engineers at Denver by Dr. H .B. Rhodes, Manager Marketing Services-Asbestos, Union Carbide. 7. "What You Should Know About Asbestos and Health," published by the Asbestos Information Association, disseminated by Union Carbide. B. RG-244. 1. Brochure "'CALEDRIA' Asbestos RG-244 - Health and OSHA Information," published February 1, 1975 and revised October 1, 1977 by Marketing and Technology Department, M ining and Metals D ivision, Union Carbide Corporation, Niagara Falls, New York. 2. "'CALIDRIA' Asbestos RG-244 - Typical Chemical Analysis," date o f publication unknown. IX. ALA rAsbestos Information Association! MATERIAL A) In addition to the above, Union Carbide made the follow ing documents and brochures, which were prepared and published by the Asbestos Information Association, available to Calidria customers: 1. Testimony by George W . Wright, M .D . before U .S . Dept, o f Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Hearing on Proposed Occupational Asbestos Standard, March 14-17, 1972. 2. Testimony by J. Corbett M cDonald, M .C . - same as above. 3. OSHA Regulations - 6/7/72. 4. EPA Regulations - 4/6/73. 5. NY Times Article and Rebuttals (Article - 1/21/73, Rebuttals - 2/25/73). 6. AIA Response to the W all Street Journal - 6/15/72. ` 7. "Airborne Asbestos" National Research Council, 1971. 8. "Airborne Asbestos" - Summary. 9. "Airborne Asbestos" - References. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -23- 10. Asbestos Bulletin (Asbestos Information Committee, London - 9/72). 11. CIBA GEIGY - UK 2/72. 12. QAMA Folder 13. WHO Report - 10/72 14. Target Health Hazard Fact Sheet (SILICA) 15. "Asbestos Has Its Defenders" - The Journal o f Commerce, 4/20/73 16. "The Familiar Aroma o f Panic" - Editorial, Plastics Technology 3/73 17. Dust Counting - S. G. Bayer, R. D . Zummalde, T. A . Brown - Feb. 1969 U .S . Dept, o f Health, Education and W elfare 18. Dust Monitoring Equipment & Costs - 2/19/73 19. ALA - "Protecting The Asbestos Worker" 20. ALA - "Asbestos and Health" 21. AIA - "The Asbestos Information Association/North America" 22. AIA - "Asbestos and Health Questions and Answers" 23. AIA - "What Asbestos Is: How and Where It Is Used" 24. The Northern Miner - "Asbestos Completely Exonerated etc." - 4/19/73 25. Partnership for Prevention - "The Insulation Industry Hygiene Research Program" - 4/70 26. Asbestos - Reprint from National Safety News - 10/73 27. AIA Answer to TIME magazine - 2/1/74 28. AIA/"What Every Employee Should Know About Asbestos" -2/74 29. AIA Response to "Consumers Research" - 1/28/74 30. "Asbestos Health Question Perplexes Experts," C&EN - 12/10/73 DEFENDANT'S STTPPEEMENTAE RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLYVDISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -24- 31. Disputes on the Safety o f Asbestos - N ew Scientist 3/7/74 32. JLM Speech (SPE Paper) 33. RG-244 Health Booklet 34. Asbestos in the Atmosphere - A IA/NA 35. Asbestos in Water - AIA/NA 36. Asbestos & Silica Dust in the Drywall Industry. Part 1 - N ov/D ec. 1975, Dr. Rhodes. 37. Asbestos & Silica Dust in the Drywall Industry. Part 2 - Jan./Feb. 1976, Dr. Rhodes. _ 38. Detection o f Chrysotile Asbestos in Airborne Dust from Thermosetting Resin Grinding. 1975, Faulring. 39. AIA/NA Molding & Fabrication o f Asbestos-Containing Plastic Products, Work Practices . 40. Instructions for Sampling o f Airborne Asbestos Fibers 41. Procedure for Pump Calibration used for Monitoring o f Asbestos Dust E m ission s . B) The following information pamphlets were mailed to Calidria customers beginning in 1977: 1. "Calidria Asbestos SG-130 and SG-210" sales brochure (1968). 2. "Safe U se o f Calidria RG244" (February 1973). 3. "Calidria Asbestos RG-600 Health and OSHA Information" (February 1, 1975). 4. "Calidria Asbestos RG 244 Health and OSHA Information" (October 1, 1977). 5. "Calidria Asbestos Pellets Health and OSHA Information" (November 1, 1977). DEFENDANT'S SUPPT ,F,MRNTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S' MASTER IN rEUROGATOKHES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP Py 6. Letter to Calidria Customers with health and safety enclosures (October 24, 1977). 7. Letter to Calidria distributors with health and safety enclosures (September 10, 1979). 8. Letter to Calidria customers with health and safety enclosures (August 20, 1979). . 9. Letter to Calidria Customers with health and safety enclosures (October 1, 1980). 10. Letter to Calidria Customers with health and safety enclosures (November 23, 1981). 11. Letter to Calidria Customers with health and safety enclosures (December 9, 1981). During the early days o f Union Carbide's Calidria business (which began in 1963), medical and industrial health officials at Union Carbide issued asbestos toxicology reports which were distributed to sales and other appropriate personnel. Warning labels were added to Calidria packages in 1968 and toxicological information first appeared in sales literature in that year. Material Safety Data Sheets were mailed to Calidria customers beginning in 1972. AIA/NA information pamphlets were made available to customers starting in 1972 and were mailed to customers beginning in 1977 at the latest. The health and safety literature made available and disseminated by Union Carbide to its Calidria customers warned o f possible serious adverse health effects associated with the excessive inhalation o f asbestos fiber, advised customers on ways to control or avoid such hazards, including the use o f respirators as a way to avoid the hazards. In addition to the dissemination o f health and safety information, Union Carbide took active steps to help insure that Calidria was handled and used in a clean and safe manner and environment: Union Carbide employed shrink-wrap, tight-fitting packaging to prevent leakage, spillage, or dust emission during the shipment o f Calidria. Union Carbide also developed pelletized forms o f Calidria which would reduce dust emission; and starting in 1972, Union Carbide offered to take dust counts o f the premises o f Calidria customers in order to help them maintain a safe working environment, a service which many Calidria customers utilized (Calidria was not sold to the general public or other "end-users", but rather wais marketed only to manufacturers or producers who used Calidria in their products or production processes). Dr. Harry Rhodes, an industrial hygienist, supervised Union Carbide's dust monitoring program. Upon p la in tiffs request, Union Carbide w ill make copies o f results o f such dust counts available to the plaintiff for review and duplication at a suitable time and place. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISCUJCCROG.SUP PAGE -26- INTERROGATORY N O . 15; Before 1970, had you received notice that any individual or individuals, other than those Plaintiffs who have filed personal injury actions in Texas State Courts is or are claiming or has or have claimed an injury as a result o f using asbestos products manufactured and/or sold by your company or any o f its predecessors or subsidiaries before 1970? If so, state: (a) The name and address o f each claimant. (b) The date o f notice o f each claim. (c) A description o f the claim. (d) The type o f injuries allegedly sustained. (e) The name and address o f each attorney who represents each individual making a claim . (f) The style and court number o f each claim . , (g) The disposition o f each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. ANSW ER: See General Objections 4 and 5. Union Carbide also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide was first named in a lawsuit alleging injury from exposure to asbestoscontaining products in 1970. Union Carbide maintains records including a com plete print out o f all asbestos-related suits naming Union Carbide Corporation. Suit records are in the custody o f Mrs. Elba Pozo, Custodian o f Documents. Upon P lain tiffs request, Union Carbide w ill make a computer listing o f all cases available for review at a suitable time and place. INTERROGATORY N O . 16: Were your asbestos products distributed, marketed, packaged, labeled and/or sold by companies other than your own? If the answer is affirm ative, list the names and addresses o f each o f those com panies, and the products in question. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -27- ANSWER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: N o. See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 3. INTERROGATORY NO . 17: Did you or any o f your predecessors, successors, or subsidiaries have any distributors or sales representatives o f asbestos products in the States o f Alabama, Florida, M ississippi, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas and Virginia? if so, state: (a) The name and address o f each such distributor or sales representatives. (b) The years in which such company or person distributed, marketed, or sold your products. (c) What products were distributed, marketed, or sold in what years. ANSW ER: See general objection no. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Inteirogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Approximately three-quarters o f Calidria sales were made directly by Union Carbide. Distributors accounted for the remaining approximate 25% o f all Calidria sales. Union Carbide, however, no longer mines or sells Calidria and thus no longer maintains Calidria distributors. The follow ing is a list o f former Calidria distributors which Union Carbide has been able to identify: Presently Known Former Calidria Distributors (1963-1985) 1) A llied Resin Corporation 2) American Industrial Chemical Corporation 3) Bouffard Associates 4) A .T . Callas Company 5) D . & F. Distributing, Inc. 6) Harrisons 8c Crosfield (Canada1) DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES. F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -28` 7) Harrisons & Crosfield (Pacific) 8) Lenape Chemicals, Inc. 9) Technical Petroleum Company 10) Technical Products, Inc. 11) M ontello, Inc. 12) Harwick Chemical Corp. 13) Plastex, Inc. 14) Union Carbide International 15) Western Chemical & Manufacturing Company 16) McKesson Chemicals, Inc. 17) Apperson Chemicals, Inc. 18) Amsco D ivision - Union Oil Company o f Calif. 19) Hamblet & Hayes Co. 20) Marco Chemical D ivision - W . R. Grace & Company 21) Wonder State Industries 22) The Permutit C o., Inc. 23) Van Waters and Rogers 24) Ambrosia Industrial, Inc. 25) Southern Fiberglas Supply The follow ing may have been distributors in the states o f Alabama, Florida, M ississippi, Oregon, W ashington, Georgia, Arkansas, Texas and Virginia: D & F Distributing, Inc. Harrisons & Crosfield (Pacific) Lenape Chemicals, Inc. M ontello, Inc. INTERROGATORY N O . 18: List each em ployee (including any physicians and/or hygienists) who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not limited to, physicians and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number and job title o f each o f those individuals and who has, had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards o f asbestos. ANSW ER: See general objection no. 4. Union Carbide further objections to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Union Carbide objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follow s: DEFENDANT'S STTPPT.KMKNTAT, RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KEIXY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -29- Union Carbide consulted various experts in the medical and industrial hygiene professions concerning precautions that should be followed by persons involved in the use or handling o f Union Carbide's Calidria asbestos. During the early days o f Union Carbide s Calidria business, industrial hygienists at Union Carbide issued asbestos toxicology reports which were distributed to sales and other appropriate personnel. The advice o f the experts was incorporated, as appropriate, on Calidria warning labels and in the safety literature that Union Carbide made available and disseminated to its Calidria customers. Union Carbide's various divisions employ Industrial Hygienists for their respective facilities and premises. C .C . Smith currently serves as V ice President in charge o f Union Carbide's o f Community and Employee Health, Safety and Environmental Protection Department which is primarily responsible for establishing corporate HS&EP standards and for assessing business group performance against those standards and applicable governmental requirements. During the period o f the Calidria business, Dr. Harry Rhodes, an industrial hygienist, supervised Union Carbide's dust count program. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 49, below. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials o f any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health o f human beings? If so, state: (a) The name o f each such publication. _ (b) The date o f publication and the names o f the author and publisher (if any). (c) The date received by Defendant, if known. (d) The name, job title, and address o f each person who currently has possession o f each publication and its present location. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Union Carbide further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and unclear. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: DEFENDANT'S SUPPT-EMENTAI, RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLYADISC\UCCROG.SUP Union Carbide's knowledge concerning potential health hazards possibly associated with excessive asbestos fiber inhalation developed gradually. Sources o f information as to possible health concerns o f which Union Carbide is presently aware included general and scientific literature on the topic and reports or memoranda by Union Carbide em ployees. Upon the plain tiffs request, copies o f such reports and memoranda, which Union Carbide has located, w ill be made available at a suitable tim e and place for review and duplication by the plaintiff. Union Carbide's custodian o f records for asbestos-related documents is Mrs. Elba Pozo, K elley Drye & Warren, Two Stamford Plaza, Stamford, Connecticut 06901. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 14. INTERROGATORY N O . 20: Has Defendant or any o f its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time been a member o f any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards o f asbestos comprised o f other manufacturers, miners, marketers, and/or sellers or asbestos products? If so, state: (a) The name and address o f each such association or organization. (b) The dates during which Defendant or any o f its subsidiaries or predecessors were members. (c) The names and dates o f any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any o f the named associations or organizations. (d) Whether any o f those publications are still in your possession, and if so: (i) A description o f the publication, including the date. (ii) The current location o f such publications. (iii) The custodian o f such publications. (iv) The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: DEFENDANT'S STTPPEKMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLYVDISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -31- Union Carbide was a member o f the Industrial Health Foundation, the American Industrial Health Association and Asbestos Information Association/North America. Union Carbide may also have cooperated with work undertaken by the Pneumoconiosis Research Council o f the United Kingdom, The Organization Resources Recovery Organization, and the Insulation Industry H ygiene Research Program. Union Carbide or Union Carbide personnel also participated in activities o f the National Safety Council. Union Carbide has no presently available record o f association with any other organization listed in the plaintiff"'s interrogatory. Union Carbide presently can find no documents relating to the IHF in its files. With respect to AIA documents, see Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory 14. Union Carbide also has in its possession a copy o f at least one edition o f the newsletter published by the Insulation Industry Hygiene Research Program. In addition, Union Carbide possesses files which may contain miscellaneous correspondence to or from the AIA or other organizations. Upon plaintiffs' request, Union Carbide w ill make such relevant, non privileged files available for review and replication at a suitable time and place. INTERROGATORY NO . 21: Identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products listed in your answers to Interrogatory N os. 3-6 were manufactured, assembled, or prepared for sale or marketing, specifying which plants produced each item , the dates each plant is or was in operation, and the time span during which each named item was produced or manufactured. ANSW ER: . ' See General Objection No. 4. Union Carbide also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Calidria was mined and milled at or near King City, California. See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatories 6 and 10. INTERROGATORY N O . 22: Have printed sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any o f its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents for purposes o f marketing or advertising products containing asbestos? If so, state: (a) The name, address, and job title o f each person or entity who prepared such m aterials. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -32- (b) The name, address, and job title o f each person who currently has possession o f such materials and their present location. (c) The date the materials were prepared. (d) The media used to disseminate the sales materials. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union carbide further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide; responds as follows: According to Union Carbide's best available information, Union Carbide had for its Metal D ivision (including Calidria), a Public Relations em ployee who may have engaged an outside advertising agent for some o f its business dealings.- During the period o f tim e in which Union Carbide mined and sold its short fiber Calidria asbestos, John Crane was the Public Relations person in the Metals D ivision. Mr. Crane has since left Union Carbide. In addition, Union Carbide also employed many sales people. During the early days o f Union Carbide's Calidria business (which began in 1963), medical and industrial health officials at Union Carbide issued asbestos toxicology reports which were distributed to sales and other appropriate personnel. Warning labels were added to Calidria packages in 1968 and toxicological information first appeared in sales literature in that year. Material Safety Data Sheets were mailed to Calidria customers beginning in 1972. AIA/NA information pamphlets were made available to customers stating in 1972 and were mailed to customers beginning 1977 at the latest. The health and safety literature made available and disseminated by Union Carbide to its Calidria customers warned o f possible serious adverse health effects associated with the excessive inhalation o f asbestos fiber, advised customers on ways to control oi avoid such hazards, including the use o f respirators as a way to avoid the hazards. In addition to the dissemination o f health and safety information, Union Carbide took active setups to help insure that Calidria was handled and used in a clean and safe manner and environment: Union Carbide employed shrink-wrap, tight-fitting packaging to prevent leakage, spillage, or dust em ission during the shipment o f Calidria; Union Carbide also developed pelletized forms o f Calidria which would reduce dust emission; and starting in 1972, Union Carbide offered to take dust counts o f the premises o f Calidria customers in order to help them DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -33 maintain a safe working environment, a service which many Calidria customers utilized (Calidria was not sold to the general public or other "end-users", but rather was marketed only to manufacturers or producers who used Calidria in their products or production processes). Dr. Harry Rhodes, an industrial hygienist, supervised Union Carbide's dust monitoring program. Upon p lain tiffs request, Union Carbide w ill make copies o f results o f such dust counts available to the plaintiff for review and duplication at a suitable tim e and place. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatories 7 and 14. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTTEFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -34- INTERROGATORY NO . 23: Have any written or printed materials or instructions o f any kind or character been prepared by Defendant or any o f its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents indicating how asbestos products should be used and maintained? If so, state: (a) The name, address, and job title o f each person who prepared such materials or instructions or assisted in their preparation. (b) The name, address, and job title o f each person who currently has possession o f such materials or instructions and their present location. (c) The dates o f distribution or use and the manner in which such materials or instructions were distributed to purchasers o f Defendant's products or those o f its subsidiaries or predecessors. (d) The year each such written material or instruction was prepared and disclosed to potential consumers. ANSW ER: See Union Carbide's responses to Interrogatories 6, 7, 14, 22 and 50, including all of the objections set forth therein. INTERROGATORY N O . 2 4 : Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the claim s made by Plaintiffs in these cases? If so, list the name o f each insurance carrier, the amount o f initial coverage, amount o f coverage remaining at the present time, and the effective dates o f each policy. (If properly answered, this Interrogatory need not be supplemented as to the remaining amount o f coverage). ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Subject to these objections, and without making any admission with respect to the plaintiff's claims, Union Carbide also responds as follow s: Union Carbide possesses sufficient insurance coverage to enable it to cover the p lain tiff s claim s. INTERROGATORY NO . 25: As to the disease asbestosis, state: DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTtFFS, MASTER INTERRO ATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -35- (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation o f asbestos fibers by humans. (b) How Defendant became aware o f the existence o f the disease. (c) Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects o f the disease and/or asbestos exposure. (d) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. (e) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in any written form. (f) Who is the custodian o f such information. (g) The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation o f asbestos fibers. ANSW ER: See General Objections N o. 4 and 5. Union Carbide also objects on the; grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Union Carbide also objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls on Union Carbide to render an expert medical response. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide recognizes that the excessive inhalation o f asbestos fiber may be associated with the development o f serious and potentially fatal disease. Union Carbide also understands that the onset and development o f such disease in a person may be related to and affected by, among other factors, the particular type o f fiber that is inhaled, cigarette smoking, and environmental conditions, in addition to the person's medical history and condition. Union Carbide's knowledge concerning potential health hazards possibly associated with excessive asbestos fiber inhalation developed gradually. Sources o f information as to possible health concerns o f which Union Carbide is presently aware included general and scientific literature on the topic and reports or memoranda by Union Carbide em ployees. Upon the p lain tiffs request, copies o f such reports and memoranda, which Union Carbide has located, w ill be made available at a suitable time and place for review and duplication by the plaintiff. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatories 7, 14 and 50. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -36- INTERROGATORY NO . 26: As to the disease lung cancer, state: (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation o f asbestos fibers by humans. (b) How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware o f the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure. (c) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects o f asbestos exposure. (d) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. (e) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. (f) Who is the custodian o f such information. , (g) The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation o f asbestos dust and fibers. ANSW ER: See General Objections No. 4 and 5. Union Carbide also objects on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Union Carbide also objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls on Union Carbide to render an expert medical response. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide recognizes that the excessive inhalation o f asbestos fiber may be associated with the development o f serious and potentially fatal disease. Union Carbide also understands that the onset and development o f such disease in a person may be related to and affected by, among other factors, the particular type o f fiber that is inhaled, cigarette smoking, and environmental conditions, in addition to the person's medical history and condition. Union Carbide's knowledge concerning potential health hazards possibly associated with excessive asbestos fiber inhalation developed gradually. Sources o f information as to possible health concerns o f which Union Carbide is presently aware included general and scientific literature on the topic and reports or memoranda by Union Carbide em ployees. DEFENDANT'S STTPPT EMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -37- Upon the p lain tiffs request, copies o f such reports and memoranda, which Union Carbide has located, w ill be made available at a suitable tim e and place for review and duplication by the plaintiff. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatories 7, 14 and 50. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: A s to pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques, state: (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor fir st learned that such disease was caused by inhalation o f asbestos fibers by humans. (b) H ow Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware o f the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. (c) W ho within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects asbestos exposure. (d) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. (e) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. (f) Who is the custodian o f such information. ANSWER: See General Objections N o. 4 and 5. Union Carbide also objects on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Union Carbide also objects to this interrogatory to the. extent that it calls on Union Carbide to render an expert medical response. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide recognizes that the excessive inhalation o f asbestos fiber may be associated with the development o f serious and potentially fatal disease. Union Carbide also understands that the onset and development o f such disease in a person may be related to and affected by, among other factors, the particular type o f fiber that is inhaled, cigarette smoking, and environmental conditions, in addition to the person's medical history and condition. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PL A IN U FFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLYVDISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -38- Union Carbide's knowledge concerning potential health hazards possibly associated with excessive asbestos fiber inhalation developed gradually. Sources o f information as to possible health concerns o f which Union Carbide is presently aware included general and scientific literature on the topic and reports or memoranda by Union Carbide em ployees. Upon the plaintiff's request, copies o f such reports and memoranda, which Union Carbide has located, w ill be made available at a suitable time and place for review and duplication by the plaintiff. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatories 7, 14 and 50. INTERROGATORY N O . 28: As to the disease mesothelioma, state: (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation o f asbestos fibers by humans. (b) The date on which Defendant first suspected that mesothelioma v/as caused by inhalation o f asbestos dust and fibers. (c) How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware o f the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. (d) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects o f asbestos exposure. (e) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. (f) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. (g) W ho is the custodian o f such information. (h) Whether Defendant agrees that there is no known medical cure for m esotheliom a. ANSWER: See General Objections No. 4 and 5. Union Carbide also objects on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Union Carbide also objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP P' calls on Union Carbide to render an expert medical response. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide recognizes that the excessive inhalation o f asbestos fiber may be associated with the development o f serious and potentially fatal disease. Union Carbide also understands that the onset and development o f such disease in a person may be related to and affected by, among other factors, the particular type o f fiber that is inhaled, cigarette smoking, and environmental conditions, in addition to the person's medical history and condition. Union Carbide's knowledge concerning potential health hazards possibly associated with excessive asbestos fiber inhalation developed gradually. Sources o f information as to possible health concerns o f which Union Carbide is presently aware included general and scientific literature on the topic and reports or memoranda by Union Carbide em ployees. Upon the p lain tiffs request, copies o f such reports and memoranda, which Union Carbide has located, w ill be made available at a suitable time and place for review and duplication by the plaintiff. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatories 7, 14 and 50. INTERROGATORY NO . 29; As to gastro-intestinal cancer, laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal caner or lymphatic cancer, state: (a) The type o f cancer and the date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation o f asbestos fibers by humans. (b) What cancers has the Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers? (c) The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation. (d) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effects asbestos exposure. (e) What information was disseminated with Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. (f) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -40- (g) Who is the custodian o f such information. ANSW ER: See General Objections N o. 4 and 5. Union Carbide also objects on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Union Carbide also objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls on Union Carbide to render an expert medical response. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide recognizes that the excessive inhalation o f asbestos fiber may be associated with the development o f serious and potentially fatal disease. Union Carbide also understands that the onset and development o f such disease in a person may be related to and affected by, among other factors, the particular type o f fiber that is inhaled, cigarette smoking, and environmental conditions, in addition to the person's medical history and condition. Union Carbide's knowledge concerning potential health hazards possibly associated with excessive asbestos fiber inhalation developed gradually. Sources o f information as to possible health concerns o f which Union Carbide is presently aware included general and scientific literature on the topic and reports or memoranda by Union Carbide em ployees. Upon the p lain tiffs request, copies o f such reports and memoranda, which Union Carbide has located, w ill be made available at a suitable time and place for review and duplication by the plaintiff. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatories 7, 14 and 50. INTERROGATORY N O . 30: D oes Defendant contend that asbestos products can be manufactured or designed so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or exposed to them? If the answer is affirm ative, explain in detail, and attach any studies or surveys on wliich this answer is based. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, especially insofar as it calls for Union Carbide to respond with respect to products it did not manufacture or sell. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory 3. Calidria was not an "asbestos product", but rather consisted o f raw chrysotile asbestos with a unique short fiber physical DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -41- form sold in both fibrous and pelletized states. Union Carbide sold Calidria to manufacturers and producers for use in their products, or production processes. Union Carbide provided customers with information on how to handle asbestos without creating dusty conditions and to avoid potential hazards. During the early days o f Union Carbide's Calidria business (which began in 1963), medical and industrial health officials at Union Carbide issued asbestos toxicology reports which were distributed to sales and other appropriate personnel. Warning labels were added to Calidria packages in 1968 and toxicological information first appeared in sales literature in that year. Material Safety Data Sheets were mailed to Calidria customers beginning in 1972. AIA/NA information pamphlets were made available to customers starting in 1972 and were mailed to customers beginning in 1977 at the latest. The health and safety literature made available and disseminated by Uni on Carbide to its Calidria customers warned o f possible serious adverse health effects associated with the excessive inhalation o f asbestos fiber, advised customers on ways to control or avoid such hazards, including the use o f respirators as a way to avoid the hazards. In addition to the dissemination o f health and safety information, Union Carbide took active steps to help insure that Calidria was handled and used in a clean and safe manner and environment: Union Carbide employed shrink-wrap, tight-fitting packaging to prevent leakage, spillage, or dust emission during the shipment o f Calidria. Union Carbide also developed pelletized forms o f Calidria which would reduce dust emission; and starting in 1972, Union Carbide offered to take dust counts o f the premises o f Calidria customers in order to help them maintain a safe working environment, a service which many Calidria customers utilized (Calidria was not sold to the general public or other "end-users", but rather was marketed only to manufacturers or producers who used Calidria in their products or production processes). Dr. Harry Rhodes, an industrial hygienist, supervised Union Carbide's dust monitoring program. Upon p lain tiffs request, Union Carbide w ill make copies o f results o f such dust counts available to the plaintiff for review and duplication at a suitable tim e and place. INTERROGATORY N O . 31: Describe in detail the types o f packages or packaging which Defendant or any o f its subsidiary or predecessor companies used for asbestos material or products, listing the dates each type o f package was used, a physical description o f each type o f package, and providing a description o f any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. ANSW ER: See General Objection No. 4. Union Carbide objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: DEFENDANT'S STTPPEEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROG ATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -42- Calidria asbestos was mostly transported in plastic or Kraft type paper bags, although some Calidria had been shipped in bulk in railroad hopper cars. Each bag conlained the following information: Union Carbide's corporate name and address, the net weight o f material supplied, the applicable grade o f asbestos, the lot number identification, and, starting in 1968 a cautionary statement. A t the request o f some custom ers, a limited amount o f Calidria asbestos was sold in plain Kraft bags, which contained only the cautionary statement. U nless the customer requested otherwise, between approximately the m id-1970's and June 1985 all Kraft bags containing Calidria asbestos were individually shrink wrapped (encased by a tight fitting plastic film ); an entire pallet containing a number o f such bags was also completely covered with the tight fitting plastic film . See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 50. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Has Defendant or any o f its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as buyer or seller, concerning asbestos materials or asbestos products? I f so, state, as to each such agreemen t: (a) The name o f the company manufacturing the asbestos products. (b) The trade name affixed to those products. (c) The periods o f tim e covered by each such agreement. (d) The volum e, in dollar amount, o f each transaction. (e) The initial purchaser o f the products. ANSWER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carb ide responds as fo llo w s: N o. See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatories 3 and 6. Union Carbide sold its asbestos initially as Union Carbide Asbestos and then under the name "Calidria". Union Carbide, however, packaged Calidria asbestos for the M ontello Corporation for sale under the tradenames o f Visbestos, Super V isbestos, T elvis, Imcobest and U nivis. Union Carbide also packaged Calidria for the ARCO company for sale under the name Arcovis, and for the International Mines and Chemical Company for sale under the DEFENDANT'S STTPPT.EMENTAT, RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -43- name Surelift. Calidria was also sold dom estically in limited quantities under the names Visquick and Oilbestos by distributors which Union Carbide is presently unable to identify. Union Carbide objects to responding to this interrogatory with respect to overseas sales on the grounds that such information is irrelevant and immaterial to matters at issue in this case. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: List the name and address o f each company from which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor purchased materials or asbestos products which Defendant sold or distributed in any form, stating the form o f the materials, the dates o f such purchases, and the ultimate disposal o f such materials. ANSW ER: N ot applicable. See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatories 3 and <5, including all o f the objections set forth therein. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: D oes Defendant or any o f its subsidiaries or predecessor currently have possession o f any writings or contracts on those rebranding agreements set forth in the answer to Interrogatory N o. 32? If the answer is affirm ative, state: (a) The name, address, and job title o f each person having custody o f each o f those documents and their current location. (b) A brief description o f each such document, including the dates and the parties signatory. ANSW ER: . N ot applicable. See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 32, including the objections incorporated therein. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Prior to 1968, did any person file a claim against a Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any o f its subsidiaries or predecessors alleging that he/she contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers? If so, provide: (a) A list o f the claim s, including each claimant's name, address anc the date each claim was filed, and including the caption and jurisdiction o f the claim. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS* MASTER INTERROGA TORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCRCXt.SUP PAGE -44- (b) The disease alleged in each such claim. (c) A brief summary o f the disposition o f each such claim. (d) The name, address and title o f the person having custody o f the I'ecords pertaining to each such claim. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 5. Union Carbide also objects to responding further on the grounds that claims at non-Calidria facilities, not involving Union Carbide's Calidria asbestos, are irrelevant to this case. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide res]>onds as fo llo w s: In the entire course o f its operation, and to date, no asbestos-related claim has ever been filed by any em ployee o f Union Carbide's Calidria M ine and M ill. (One employee filed a claim for an unknown pulmonary disease.) D r. Duane Hyde, o f King City, California, a non-Union Carbide physician who provided medical service to employees o f the King City mine and m ill, is familiar with this lack o f asbestos-related incident. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: D id Defendant or any o f its subsidiaries or predecessors maintain written minutes o f corporate m eetings, either board o f directors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards o f asbestos products? If so, for each such set o f minutes, state: (a) The dates o f each such meeting. (b) The general subject matter discussed at each meeting. (c) W ho was in attendance at each meeting. (d) Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained. (e) By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format. (f) Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles o f those individuals. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAI. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROG ATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCRCX3.SUP PAGE -45- ANSWER; See General Objections N os. 4 and 5. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide maintains minutes from its Board o f Directors. After a reasonable review o f these minutes up through the date Union Carbide sold its King City mine and m ill in June 1985, the minutes reflect no reference to the health hazards at the mine or Calidria asbestos in general. INTERROGATORY NO . 37; D o you or any o f your subsidiaries, including foreign business entities, currently manufacture any products containing asbestos? If so, state: (a) As to each product, whether such product is mined, manufactured, and/or marketed or sold. (b) The names and addresses o f the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each o f those products. (c) The trade or brand name o f each o f those products minded, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. (d) The date each o f the named products was placed on the market. (e) A description o f the physical (chemical) composition o f each o f the named products, including the type o f asbestos contained in the product. (f) A description o f the physical appearance o f each product and its packaging. (g) A detailed description o f the intended uses o f each o f the named products. (h) Whether there are any warning labels on said products or containers regarding potential asbestos-related health hazards. ANSW ER: See General Objection No. 4. Union Carbide also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to DEFENDANT'S STTPPT.KMKNTAT. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE ~46 the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Union Carbide also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for information not relevant to this case. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: N o. See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 3. INTERROGATORY N O . 38: State whether you or any o f your predecessors and/or subsidiaries maintain, from 1940 through the present or for any portion thereof, copies o f invoices, shipping documents, bills o f lading, purchase orders, or other documents o f a similar nature relating to the mining, manufacture, marketing, sale or distribution o f asbestos products. If so, state: (a) The location o f such documents. (b) The name and address o f the custodian o f the documents. (c) The format in which the documents are kept, i.e ,. hard copy, microfilm, m icrofiche, etc. (d) In what form the documents can be accessed, L e., by state, by product, etc., and if by product, whether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide; responds as follows: Union Carbide possesses copies o f invoices o f Calidria sales made by Union Carbide to Calidria customers. Union Carbide also maintains a computer data base o f such sales. Since Union Carbide sold its Calidria business in 1985, Union Carbide, at present, can make no representation as to the completeness o f its records. The aforementioned constitute the most complete records o f Calidria sales currently available to Union Carbide. Union Carbide lacks, however, a record o f sales made by Calidria distributors, who accounted for approximately 25 % o f all Calidria sales. Upon p la in tiffs request, Union Carbide w ill make its sales records available to the plaintiff for review and duplication at a suitable tim e and place. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 7. DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAI. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -47- INTERROGATORY N O . 39: W ill you call company representatives as witnesses at the trial o f any o f these cases? If so, list: (a) The name, address, and job title o f each company representative who may be called. (b) A summary o f the testimony expected to be given by each such witness. (c) List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style o f the case, case number, date o f testimony, and the name o f the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs in that case. ANSW ER; See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Union Carbide objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: See Response to Interrogatory N o. 39 in Defendant Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, In c.'s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production o f Documents, previously filed with this court. Additionally, discovery is ongoing and, to date, Union Carbide has not determined which other w itnesses, if any, it may call at trial o f these cases. INTERROGATORY N O . 40: Have Defendant or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever acquired through purchase, reorganization, or merger another corporation, company, or business which manufactured, sold, processed, distributed, or contracted or supplied products containing asbestos? If so, for each such entity, state: (a) Full and correct name; (b) Principal place o f business; (c) State o f incorporation; (d) Date o f acquisition by Defendant; DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -48- (e) Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business in the State o f Texas; ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as fo llo w s: In 1976 Union Carbide acquired another company which prior to its acquisition by Union Carbide had manufactured a line o f mastic sealants, coatings and adhesives, some of which contained small quantities o f asbestos. The asbestos fiber in those products was encapsulated by binder ingredients in the production process. The company sold the division which produced these products and ceased producing all asbestos containing products (except for TRE-HOLD, a tree sprout inhibitor) prior to Union Carbide's acquisition o f the company. Union Carbide also acquired the Bakelite Corporation which had manufactured the Bakelite phenolic. See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 3. Other companies, in particular the M agnolia W elding Supply Company, Inc. and Gas Technics Gases & Equipment Centers o f Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc., acquired, by Union Carbide may also have sold asbestos products. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Was each o f your asbestos products generally expected to reach, or pad aged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? If not, with respect to any such product, explain in what way the Defendant claims its products were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the user. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as fo llo w s: Calidria was not an asbestos product but rather consisted o f raw chrysolile, asbestos with a unique short fiber configuration, sold in pelletized and fibrous forms. Calidria was sold by Union Carbide and by Union Carbide distributors to manufacturers and producers for use in their products or production processes as a fiber, reinforcer, opacifier, thixothrope (thickener) and the like. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S* MASTER INTERROGATORIES. F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP ~ PAGE -49- See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 31. INTERROGATORY NO. 42; For each asbestos-containing product identified in response to Interrogatory N o. 6, identify all foreseeable users such as insulators, helpers, pipefitters, welders, machinists, plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, boilermakers, shipwrights and riggers, etc. o f any o f Defendant's asbestos-containing products. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as fo llo w s: Calidria was not an asbestos product but rather consisted o f raw chrysolite, asbestos with a unique short fiber configuration, sold in pelletized and fibrous forms. Calidria was sold by Union Carbide and by Union Carbide distributors to manufacturers and producers for use in their products or production processes as a fiber, reinforcer, opacifier thixothrope (thickener) and the like. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatories 6 and 41. INTERROGATORY N O . 43: Based upon the material contents o f your asbestos-containing products, the method o f manufacturing, and the method o f application, can such products be generally applied without liberating asbestos fibers into the air? (a) If there is a different answer concerning different products manufactured, sold, distributed, or used by your company, then specify the different products by precise manufacturer's name and popular name. (b) If there is a difference in your answer depending on the year or years in which a particular product was used, then specify in detail what year or years you are referring to and the specific products you are referring to any year involved. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -50- the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide; responds as fo llo w s: Calidria was not an asbestos product but rather consisted o f raw chrysctile asbestos with a unique short fiber configuration, sold in pelletized and fibrous forms. Calidria was sold by Union Carbide and by Union Carbide distributors to manufacturers and producers for use in their products or production processes as a fiber, reinforcer, opacifier tiiixothrope (thickener) and the like. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 31. During the early days o f Union Carbide's Calidria business (which began in 1963), medical and industrial health officials at Union Carbide issued asbestos toxicology reports which were distributed to sales and other appropriate personnel. Warning labels were added to Calidria packages in 1968 and toxicological information first appeared in sales literature in that year. Material Safety Data Sheets were mailed to Calidria customers beginning in 1972. AIA/NA information pamphlets were made available to customers starting in 1972 and were mailed to customers beginning in 1977 at the latest. The health and safety literature made available and disseminated by Union Carbide to its Calidria customers warned o f possible serious adverse health effects associated with the excessive inhalation o f asbestos fiber, advised customers on ways to control or avoid such hazards, including the use o f respirators as a way to avoid the hazards. In addition to the dissemination o f health and safety information, Union Carbide took active steps to help insure that Calidria was handled and used in a clean and safe manner and environment: Union Carbide employed shrink-wrap, tight-fitting packaging to prevent leakage, spillage, or dust em ission during the shipment o f Calidria. Union Carbide also developed pelletized forms o f Calidria which would reduce dust emission; and starting in 1972, Union Carbide offered to take dust counts o f the premises o f Calidria customers in order to help them maintain a safe working environment, a service which many Calidria customers utilized (Calidria was not sold to the general public or other "end-users", but rather was marketed only to manufacturers or producers who used Calidria in their products or production processes). Dr. Harry Rhodes, an industrial hygienist, supervised Union Carbide's dust monitoring program. Upon p lain tiffs request, Union Carbide w ill make copies o f results o f such dust counts available to the plaintiff for review and duplication at a suitable tim e and place. INTERROGATORY NO . 44: Was it a foreseeable use o f your asbestos-containing products that they may have been removed, stripped, or replaced at some time after installation? ANSWER: DEFENDANT'S STTPPi.FMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTKRROGTORIES F:\KELLY\DISCVUCCROG.SUP PAGE '51 See General Objection No. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Inoerrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Calidria was not an asbestos product but rather consisted o f raw chrysotile asbestos with a unique short fiber configuration, sold in pelletized and fibrous forms. Calidria was sold by Union Carbide and by Union Carbide distributors to manufacturers and producers for use in their products or production processes as a fiber, reinforcer, opacifier tliixothrope (thickener) and the like. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 31. INTERROGATORY NO. 45; Before 1970, did you or your subsidiaries or predecessor(s) ever arrange for any labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company to go to job sites where your products were being used or installed to make or take dust level counts? If so, state when this procedure started, the purpose o f such procedures, and all results o f such procedures. ANSW ER: See General Objections No. 4 and 5. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Starting in 1972, Union Carbide offered to take dust counts o f the prem ises o f Calidria customers in order to help them maintain a safe working environment., a service which many Calidria customers utilized. Union Carbide would then advise customers o f results and state the rules to minimize or maintain a dust free environment. Dr. Harry Rhodes, an industrial hygienist, supervised Union Carbide's dust monitoring program. Upon plaintiffs request, Union Carbide w ill make copies o f such dust counts available to the plaintiff for review and duplication at a suitable time and place. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: If Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take? DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -52- ANSW ER: See Union Carbide's responses to Interrogatories N o. 14 and N o. 45, including the objections set forth therein. INTERROGATORY N O . 47: Has your company or its subsidiaries or predecessor(s) ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies designed to assist in minimizing or eliminating the inhalation o f asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to the use o f your company's products? If so, give the following: (a) Name o f the person or firm conducting such studies; (b) The date the studies began and the date they were completed; (c) The nature o f any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation o f asbestos dust fibers; ANSW ER: . See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as fo llo w s: ' Calidria was not an asbestos-containing product, but rather consisted o f raw chrysotile fiber sold in pelletized and fibrous form. Among the several unique physical properties o f Calidria which each tend to render, Calidria is not hazardous are the extreme shortness o f the fiber and the lack o f tremolite contamination. Nevertheless, Union Carbide took many steps to allow customers to minimize the overt dust from Calidria. During the early days o f Union Carbide's Calidria business (which began in 1963), medical and industrial health officials at Union Carbide issued asbestos toxicology reports which were distributed to sales and other appropriate personnel. Warning labels were added to Calidria packages in 1968 and toxicological information first appeared in sales literature in that year. Material Safety Data Sheets were mailed to Calidria customers beginning in 1972. AIA/NA information pamphlets were made available to customers starting in 1972 and were mailed to customers beginning in 1977 at the latest. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLYVDISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -53- The health and safety literature made available and disseminated by Union Carbide to its Calidria customers warned o f possible serious adverse health effects associated with the excessive inhalation o f asbestos fiber, advised customers on ways to control or avoid such hazards, including the use o f respirators as a way to avoid the hazards. In addition to the dissemination o f health and safety information, Union Carbide took active steps to help insure that Calidria was handled and used in a clean and safe manner and environment: Union Carbide employed shrink-wrap, tight-fitting packaging to prevent leakage, spillage, or dust emission during the shipment o f Calidria. Union Carbide also developed pelletized forms o f Calidria which would reduce dust emission; and starting in 1972, Union Carbide offered to take dust counts o f the premises o f Calidria customers in order to help them maintain a safe working environment, a service which many Calidria customers utilized (Calidria was not sold to the general public or other "end-users", but rather was marketed only to manufacturers or producers who used Calidria in their products or prod uction processes). Dr. Harry Rhodes, an industrial hygienist, supervised Union Carbide's dust monitoring program. Upon p lain tiffs request, Union Carbide w ill make copies o f results o f such dust counts available to the plaintiff for review and duplication at a suitable time and place. INTERROGATORY N O . 48: D oes your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever had, a Research Department? If so, give the year such Research Department was established, and whether or not such Research Department has operated continuously since being established. State also: (a) The amount o f time and money expended each year on research concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products? (b) What percentage o f gross sales did your company or its predecessor(s) spend on research concerning the health effects o f asbestos? (c) State in detail the purposes, duties, and responsibilities or such Research Department. ANSW ER: See General Objections N o. 4 and 5. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reiisonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follow s: DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -54- Calidria consisted o f raw chrysotile fiber mined by Union Carbide and was not an "asbestos-containing" product. Studies and evaluations on the unique properties o f Calidria may have been conducted at Union Carbide's Tarrytown and Tuxedo, New York facilities, as w ell as King City mine site and elsewhere. Dr. Mumpton and Dr. Neumann, <md Mr. Slim Thompson as w ell as Dr. Tom Hall and John Myers may have been involved or have information about these studies or information. If the plaintiff desires additional information about physical or chemical evaluations o f the Calidria fiber, Union Carbide w ill make its document repository available to the plaintiff, subject to any objections on relevancy. See also Union Carbide's responses to Interrogatories N o. 6, N o. 8 and No. 61. INTERROGATORY N O . 49: D oes your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever had, a M edical Department? If so, state: (a) The year such M edical Department was established; (b) Whether or not such Medical Department has operated continuously since being established; (c) The name o f each director, chief, or head o f your M edical Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a M edical Director or Medical Department, and the las known address and phone number o f each; (d) State the duties and responsibilities o f such M edical Department. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f adm issible evidence. Union Carbide objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Union Carbide's M edical Department was formally organized in 1939. Prior to that Union Carbide and Union Carbide facilities consulted physicians as appropriate upon need. The medical directors at Union Carbide have included the follow ing individuals for the years respectively indicated below: DEFENDANT'S SUPPT.EMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS * M ASTER INTERRO G ATO R'S F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP (1) Girard Cranch [1938-1945] (4) Thomas A. Lincoln [1978-1985] (2) Thomas N aie [1945-1963] (5) T. Guy Fortney [1985-1989] (3) John J. W elsh [1963-1978] (6) Jean B. Case [1989-Present] The present duties o f Union Carbide's medical director include coordination o f all o f Union Carbide's medical programs, including employee physical examination programs; recommendations with respect to medical policies, standards and procedures; and administration o f medical services at Union Carbide's corporate headquarters, a corporate epidemiology program, a medical program for employees traveling overseas and an alcoholism prevention and treatment program. The medical director reports to the corporate V ice President in charge o f Union Carbide's Community and Em ployee Health, Safety and Environmental Protection Department. In addition, Dr. Hilton Lewinsohn served as M edical Director, Chemicals & Plastics Group. Dr Lewinsohn is a recognized expert in asbestos-related medical matters and pathologies. INTERROGATORY NO . 50: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever place any warning directly on any o f its asbestos-containing product or on their packaging. If so, identify the product(s) and year said warning was first applied. ANSW ER; See General Objection No. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad,, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Union Carbide objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follow s: Union Carbide had used two cautionary statements on its Calidria packaging: The first cautionary statement was used from June 22, 1968 through May 1972, and read as follows: "Warning: Breathing dust may be harmful. Do not breathe dust." The second cautionary statement was prescribed by OSHA in 1972 and was first printed on Calidria packaging in June o f that year and was used by Union Carbide until the sale o f the Calidria mine and mill in 1985; this second cautionary statement read as follow s: "Caution. Contains asbestos fibers. Avoid creating dust. Breathing asbestos dust may cause serious bodily harm." DEFENDANT'S STTPPEEMENTAE RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROG VTORIES F:VKELLYYDISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -56 INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever stamp or place the name o f the company, its initials, or any identifying logo on any o f its asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the name brand names o f such products, a description o f such stamp or logo and the dates such were placed on the referred products. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as fo llo w s: N o. Calidria consisting o f raw chrysotile, with a unique short fiber configuration, sold in fibrous and pelletized form. The product itself was thus not subject to such imprinting. INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Has your company, or your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries, ever devised a research plan to develop, or actually developed or had developed, a product which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for one or more o f your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date that such research plan was began and when such asbestosfree product was first placed on the market. ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calcul ated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as fo llo w s: N ot applicable. Calidria was not an asbestos-containing product, but rather consisted o f raw chrysotile fiber, with a unique short fiber configuration. Calidria was sold to manufacturers and producers for use in their products or production processes. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever recall any products containing asbestos from the market or stream o f commerce? If so, state: (a) A ll details o f such recall; DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -57- (b) The name o f the product recalled, including the reason for the recall and the names and current addresses o f those individuals who determined that it should take place; (c) The dates o f recall; (d) The purpose for the recall. ANSW ER: See General Objection No. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: N ot applicable. See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 52. INTERROGATORY NO . 54: Before 1970, did you ever manufacture or sell products which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date such asbestos-free products were first placed on the market. ANSW ER: See General Objection No. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: Not applicable. See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 52. INTERROGATORY N O . 55: Have any products you identified in your response to Interrogatory N os. 52 and 54 not performed as intended? Please list all such products that have not performed as intended. ANSW ER: See General Objection No. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. UCC further objects to this interrogatory on the DEFENDANT'S STIPPIKMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELXY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -58- grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and unclear.Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: N ot applicable. See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 52. INTERROGATORY N O . S6- D id your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever make, order, or arrange for any industrial hygiene surveys regarding asbestos or asbestos-containing dust? If so, give the date o f such surveys and state who, or what entity , was responsible for completion o f such surveys. ANSW ER: See Union Carbide's responses to Interrogatories N o. 8 and N o. 45, including the objections set forth therein. INTERROGATORY NO. 57: As to either the threshold lim it values or maximum allowable concentrations o f both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference o f Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state: (a) The year in which Defendant or any predecessor(s) or subsidiaries were first advised o f such lim its or concentrations; (b) The name o f the employee or official o f the company receiving such advice; (c) H ow Defendant received notice o f such lim its or concentrations. ANSW ER: See General Objections 4 and 5. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. M oreover, to the extent the interrogatory seeks a scientific definition, it improperly seeks without foundation to require an expert opinion. Inasmuch as the plaintiffs do not allege that they or anyone for whom they state a claim were ever employed by Union Carbide or at any job site controlled by Union Carbide, such information is irrelevant and immaterial to matters at issue in this case. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: y\ DEFENDANTS ST7PPIJEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -59- During the time that Union Carbide operated its Calidria business (1963-1985), Union Carbide was aware o f and recognized the early (pre-1972 OSHA Standard) Threshold Limit Value set forth by the American Conference o f Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and the later Threshold Limit Value established by OSHA in 1972. Union Carbide included the early ACGIH Threshold Limit Value in toxicological reports distributed to Calidria sales personnel and disseminated the later OSHA standard to Calidria customers in material safety data sheets, and AIA and other health and safety literature made available or sent to Calidria customers. Union Carbide also offered to take air samples o f the premises o f Calidria customers. In evaluating whether a sample met the Threshold Limit Value, Union Carbide has maintained that when uncertainty existed as to distinguishing non-asbestos from asbestos particles, all particles should be counted. Dr. Harry Rhodes, an industrial hygienist, supervised Union Carbide's dust monitoring program for Calidria customers. See also Union Carbide's response to Interrogatory no. 14. INTERROGATORY NO . 58: Were the threshold lim it values or maximum allow able concentrations inquired about in Interrogatory N o. 63 for total dust, and not asbestos dust alone? ANSW ER: . See Union carbide's response to Interrogatory N o. 57, including all o f ;:he objections set forth therein. INTERROGATORY N O . 59: State in detail what tests, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold lim it values o f asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing your asbestos-containing products. ANSW ER: See Union Carbide's response to Interrogatories 8, 14, 25 and 57, including all o f the objections set forth therein. INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Please state the following with respect to each expert witness you that you may call during trial o f these cases. Please designate with specificity the expert witnesses that you may call, including: DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -60- (a) The name, address, and job classification o f each such expert witness; (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The substance o f the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary o f the grounds for each opinion; (d) Whether any person identified in subparagraph (a) above has provided a report or other documentation to you, and if so, identify and produce etch such document or report; (e) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above; (f) Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treatises, articles, published and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarly works authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Alternatively, in lieu o f said response, attach a copy o f a resume or curriculum vitae and a list o f publications to your answers. ANSW ER; , See Preliminary Statement and General Objections, which are incorporated herein as i f fully rewritten. Objection the interrogatory is overly broad given the parame ters and subject matter o f this case. Further objecting, the information requested is not relevant. Also, the interrogatory exceeds the scope o f permissible discovery under T.R .C .P. 166b(2)(e) and 166b(3). Further objecting, the question seeks information already in the possession o f Plaintiffs, or the reason any such information is not already in the possession o f Plaintiffs is because Plaintiffs did not timely provide information and materlds to Defendant in a tim ely manner. Subject to the foregoing objections, defendant incorporates herein by reference Defendant's List o f Expert W itnesses and Defendant's Designation o f Deposition Testimony (including all supplements), all filed or to be filed in this case. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, see General Objection No. 4. See also Response to Interrogatory N o. 60 in Defendant Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, In c.'s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production o f Documents, previously filed with this court. INTERROGATORY NO. 61; Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, o f each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge o f facts relevant to these cases involving, but not limited to: DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS1 MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -61- (a) Identification o f asbestos-containing products to which each and every individual Plaintiff, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, allegedly was exposed or facts disputing the identification o f asbestoscontaining products in this case. (b) Each and every individual Plaintiff's, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged damages, injuries and/or facts disputing each and every Plaintiff's alleged damages and/or injuries; (c) The negligence o f any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause o f each and every individual P lain tiffs, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged injuries and/or damages; (d) Each o f Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed Answer in each o f these cases. ANSW ER: See Preliminary Statement and General Objections, which are incorporated herein as if fully rewritten. Objection the interrogatory is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unnecessarily expensive, harassing, and annoying. Objection the question seeks irrelevant information and information protected by the work product exem ption. Objection the Interrogatory exceeds the scope o f permissible discovery pursuant to T .R .C .P . 166b. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant reserves the right..to supplement this answer, subject to all objections now raised or that can be raised if information later becomes available. Defendant incorporates herein by reference Defendant's List o f Potential W itnesses, Designation o f Deposition Testim ony, and Designation o f Expert W itnesses (winch includes all supplements designations), all filed or to be filed in this case. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, see General Objection No. 4. Union Carbide objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: The responses to these interrogatories were prepared by counsel for Union Carbide Corporation based on information either contained in business records or provided by present and former Union Carbide em ployees. In particular, John L. M yers, former Product and Production Manager for asbestos (Calidria) has provided much information. Sides and other business records used to respond to these interrogatories are under the control o f Mrs. Elba Pozo, Custodian o f Records, K elley Drye & Warren, Two Stamford Plaza, Stamford, CT 06901. John Myers has been involved in various aspects o f Union Carbide Corporation's Calidria asbestos business since 1966, and has familiarity with many facets o f the business and of the Calidria product. From 1970-1981, Mr. Myers held the M etals D ivision position DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLYVDISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -62- o f Marketing Manager - [for] asbestos. From 1981 until June 30, 1985, he served in the Metals D ivision as Product and Production Manager - [for] asbestos. John Myers is no longer employed by Union Carbide. John Myers was first employed by Union Carbide in May 1951. In addition, the discovery process and Union Carbide's own investigation are ongoing. As a result, Union Carbide may yet identify individuals familiar with the particular facts o f this case. In addition, see Response to Interrogatory N o. 61 in Defendant Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, In c.'s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories and Requests for Production o f Documents, previously filed with this court. INTERROGATORY NO . 62: Please identify documents which w ill be used at time o f trial, (Exhibit List, Deposition List), which are relevant to each o f Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSW ER: See Preliminary Statement and General Objections, which are incoipoiated herein as if fully rewritten. Objection this interrogatory is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily expensive, harassing, and annoying. Objection the question seeks information protected by the work product, witness statements, party communications, and expert exemptions o f T .R .C .P . 166b and the attorney-client privilege o f T .R .C .E . 503. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant incorporates herein by reference Defendant's Designation o f Exhibits, Deposition Testim ony, Potential Fact W itnesses and Expert W itnesses (including all supplemental designations) filed or to be filed in this case. Defendant incorporates herein by reference all responses to discovery served by all Plaintiffs in this case. Defendant expressly reserves the right to use all documents covered by all authorizations and releases Defendant(s) has/have requested Plaintiff(s) to provide to Defendant(s). Defendant expressly reserves the right to use all documents filed, designated or relied upon by other Defendants or by Plaintiffs in this case. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, see General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: See Response to Interrogatory N o. 62 in Defendant Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Master Intel rogatories and Requests for Production o f Docum ents, previously filed with this court. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS'MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP p' INTERROGATORY NO . 63: When, if ever, did Defendant or any o f its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy o f the article entitled "A Health Survey o f Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels", published in January, 1946 in the Journal o f Industrial H ygiene & Toxicology, and authored by W . Fleischer and P. Drinker, et al ("the Fleischer-Drinker Report")? (a) Identify the name and position o f the em ployee or officer who received same; (b) Please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Fleischer-Drinker" study prior to 1968; (c) Please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; (d) Please identify the name(s) and address(es) o f any person(s) who can verify your above response; (e) Did Defendant ever rely on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the; workplace without risk o f asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; (f) If so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in w hole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory N o. 63(a) above; (g) If your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker report in w hole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) above? ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this itnterrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its obligations, Union Carbide responds as follow s: Union Carbide was never in the business o f selling asbestos containing products to naval ship yards. After a reasonable review o f its files, Union Carbide can presently only confirm that from and after July 1982, when Dr. Hilton Lewinsohn joined Union Carbide's staff, it possessed the article entitled "A Health Survey o f Pipe Covering Operations and Constructing Naval Vessels" by Fleischer, V ilis, Galle and Drinker. DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS'MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE INTERROGATORY NO . 64: W hen, if ever, did Defendant or any o f its predecessors-in-interest first receive a copy o f the article entitled "A Study o f Asbestos in the Asbestos Textile Industry", published in 1938 in Public Health B ill, N o. 241, U .S . Public Health Service and authored by W . (c) Dreessen ("the Dreessen Report")? (a) Identify the name and position o f the employee or officer who received same, (b) Please produce all documents generated by Defendant which di scuss or in any way reference the "Dreessen" study prior to 1968; (c) Please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; (d) Please identify the name(s) and address(es) o f any person(s) who can verify your above response; (e) Did Defendant ever rely on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the workplace without risk o f asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bysfcinder; (0 If so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory N o. 63(a) above; (g) If your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Dreessen report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63(e) above? ANSW ER: See General Objection N o. 4. Union Carbide further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. Subject to its objections, Union Carbide responds as follow s: Union Carbide was never in the business o f selling asbestos containing products to naval ship yards. After a reasonable review o f its files, Union Carbide can presently only confirm that from and after July 1982, when Dr. Hilton Lewinsohn joined Union Carbide s staff, it possessed the article entitled "A Study o f Asbestos in the Asbestos Textile Industry", published in 1938 in Public Health B ill, N o. 241, U .S . Public Health Seivice and authored by W. (c) D reessen ("the Dreessen Report"). DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS'MASTER INTERROGATORIKS F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP Respectfully submitted, DeHAY & ELLISTON, L .L .P . 1500 Maxus Energy Tower 717 North Harwood Street Dallas, Texas 75201-6508 Telephone: (214) 953-5454 Telefax : (214)953-5455 By: 0 - ^ ^ f? GREG HJ3EVEL State Bar N o. 02275800 KELLY C. CAPERTON State Bar N o. 00787199 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy o f the above and foregoing document has been forwarded to Plaintiffs' counsel o f record, by hand delivery, on the 29th day o f November. 1995. ( J KELLY O. . 0 CAPERTON DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS'MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCCROG.SUP PAGE -66-  IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide"), hereby responds to Plaintiffs' Master Interrogatories as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS A. Union Carbide objects to any interrogatory or request that purports to impose upon Union Carbide any obligations not expressly set forth in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. B. Union Carbide objects to plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests to the extent that they request information and identification of documents which are protected by any privilege, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege, the joint-defense privilege, and the work product doctrine, and Union Carbide and its counsel hereby assert such privilege with respect to such documents. C. Union Carbide objects to plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests on the grounds that they have been propounded indiscriminately to every defendant without any attempt to tailor them to any individual defendant and, as such, are vague, ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F : \K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C . ROG Page 1 D. Union Carbide objects to plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests on the grounds that many of these interrogatories are repetitive, redundant or overlapping as to subject matter. The repeated requests for substantially identical information serves no useful purpose and causes Union Carbide unnecessary burden and expense. E. Union Carbide objects to plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests on the grounds that plaintiffs have failed to identify any Union Carbide products to which plaintiffs were exposed. Without any identification by plaintiffs of specific products, Union Carbide cannot adequately determine what interrogatories and requests are proper and relevant to these actions. In addition, Union Carbide objects that plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests are overly broad and irrelevant as the information sought is not in any way limited in time or to activities which transpired in Texas or to the exposure of these plaintiffs to any product of Union Carbide. F. Union Carbide objects to plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests on the grounds that many of the interrogatories and requests are so broad, vague, ambiguous or uncertain that Union Carbide cannot determine the precise nature of the information sought and, therefore, is required to respond or cannot respond without an unreasonable risk of inadvertently providing a misleading, confusing, inaccurate, or incomplete response. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERRO G ATO RIES F : \K E L L Y \D IS C \ C C . ROG Page 2 G. Union Carbide does not concede that any of its answers to plaintiffs' interrogatories or responses to plaintiffs' requests are or will be admissible evidence at a trial of this action, and Union Carbide does not waive any objection, on any ground, whether or not asserted herein, to the use of any such answer or response at trial. H. Union Carbide states that these responses are accurate as of the date made. However, Union Carbide's investigation of information that may be responsive to plaintiffs' interrogatories and requests is continuing and Union Carbide reserves the right to supplement these responses when its investigation is complete. I. The foregoing General Objections are hereby explicitly incorporated into each and all of the responses hereinafter provided. OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS A. Union Carbide objects to the instructions ani definitions supplied by plaintiffs with regard to these interrogatories and requests on the grounds that the definitions are overly broad, vague, and often inconsistent with the normal usage and meaning of such words. These definitions constitute an unreasonable expansion of the interrogatories and requests themselves. Union Carbide has therefore responded to the interrogatories in the manner consistent with a normal understanding of the language used in the response and to the RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES , F :\K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .ROG Page 3 extent necessary to fairly and fully respond to the interrogatories and requests. B. Union Carbide objects to plaintiffs' definitions and instructions to the extent those definitions and instructions request Union Carbide to make any inquiry beyond that which is required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or to the extent they seek to include documents not within Union Carbide's custody or control. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1 : State the name, address, job title, length of by Defendant, and a year-by-year list of'all other titles, or jobs held when working for Defendant of who has supplied any information used in answering interrogatories. time employed positions, each person these ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State whether or not you are a corporation. If so, state your correct corporate name, the state of your incorporation, the address of your principal place of business, the name and address of the person or entity authorized to accept service of process on your behalf, and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Texas. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERRO G ATO RIES , F : \KEIiLY\DISC\UCC. RCX3 Page 4 Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time engaged in the mining and subsequent sale of material containing asbestos fibers? If so, identity the location of the mine(s), the years of its operation, the type of asbestos mined and whether you sold any asbestos to any Defendants in the Dallas County asbestos litigation. ANSWER; This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 4 : Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time manufactured or sold. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 5 ; Identify by name each product containing asbestos fibers that Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time marketed or sold. ANSWER; This answer will be provided. . INTERROGATORY NO. 6 : _ If the answer to one or more of the last three interrogatories is in the affirmative or lists any products, state as to each named product the following: (a) As to each product, state whether such product was mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. (b) The names of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each product mined, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. (c) The trade or brand name of each of those products mined, manufactured, marketed and/or sold. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .R O G ' Page 5 (d) The date each of the named products was placed on the market. (e) A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product and the percentage of asbestos put in each product. (f) The date each of the products was removed from the market and no longer sold or distributed and the reason or reasons therefor. (g) The date asbestos was removed from such products, if ever, and the reasons therefor. (h) A description of the physical appearance of each of the named products. (i) A detailed description of the intended uses of the named products. (j) ANSWER: Identify the last year that you sold each asbestos- containing product. ' This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the design, preparation, or introduction into the market of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 still exist? If so, state: (a) A description of each such document. (b) The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where the documents are currently located. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES , F:\KEITY\DISC\U CC.RO G Page 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Before distributing, selling, or placing the products listed in your responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 into the streams of commerce, were any tests conducted to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of, or exposure to, the materials such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The names of the products tested and the date of each test. (b) The name, address, and job title of each person conducting the tests or involved with conducting the tests. ' (c) The results of the tests. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do any documents, including but not limited to written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written materials of any kind or character, relating to the testing of the products referred to in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: (a) A description of each such document. (b) The name, address, and job title of each person who ' currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Did Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies make any design changes or modifications as a result of RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F :\K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .ROG Page 7 those tests described in responses to Interrogatory No. 8? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The trade names of the products changed. (b) The nature of the changes made and the date of such changes or modifications. (c) The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having caused a change to be made, or having made a change or modification. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: After releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public, were any tests conducted on them to determine potential health hazards resulting from the use of or exposure to the materials, such as asbestos, contained in those products? If the answer is affirmative, state: * (a) The names of the products tested and the dates of such tests. (b) The name, address, and job title of each person who conducted those tests. ' (c) The results of those tests. (d) Whether, as a result of the tests, any products were removed from the market. (e) The names of all products removed from the market as a result of these tests. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Do any documents, including written memoranda, specifications, recommendations, blueprints, or other written RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F : \K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C . ROG Page 8 materials of any kind or character, relating to the potential health hazards of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 now exist? If so, state: (a) The name of each product. (b) A description of each document and how it relates to each product. (c) ANSWER; The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of each document, and where it is presently located. This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 13; . Did Defendant or any of its subsidiary companies make any design changes as a result of the tests discussed in your response to Interrogatories No. 10 or 13? If the answer is affirmative, state: . (a) The names of the products changed or modified. (b) The name, address, and job title of each responsible for having made a change or modification. (c) ANSWER: The nature of the hazard or defect which resulted in such change or modification. This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Has Defendant or any of its predecessor or subsidiary companies at any time published or distributed any printed material, including brochures, pamphlets, catalogs, packaging or other written material or any kind or character containing any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of the asbestos-containing products listed in Interrogatory No. 6? If so, state: (a) The names of each relevant product. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F :\KELLY\DISC\UCC.ROG Page 9 (b) The exact wording of each warning statement on each printed material. (c) A description of the printed material other than the warning statement. (d) The method used to distribute the warning to persons likely to use the product. (e) The date each warning was issued, distributed, or placed on packaging. (f) The name, address, and job title of each person responsible for having drafted or issued the warning. (g) The current location of any such printed material and the custodian thereof. (h) ANSWER: The form in which such literature or printed material can be accessed, i .e ., the manner in which such literature is indexed or stored. . This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: . , Before 1970, had you received notice that any individual or individuals, other than those Plaintiffs who have filesd personal injury actions in Texas State Courts is or are claiming or has or have claimed an injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured and/or sold by your company or any of its: predecessors or subsidiaries before 1970? If so, state: (a) The name and address of each claimant. (b) The date of notice of each claim. (c) A description of the claim. (d) The type of injuries allegedly sustained. (e) The name and address of each attorney who represents each individual making a claim. (f) The style and court number of each claim. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCC.ROG ' Page 10 (g) The disposition of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. ANSWER; This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 16 Were your asbestos products distributed, marketed, packaged, labeled and/or sold by companies other than your own? If the answer is affirmative, list the names and addresses of each of those companies, and the products in question. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 17i Did you or any of your predecessors, successors, or subsidiaries have any distributors or sales representatives of asbestos products in the States of Alabartia, Florida, Mississippi, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas and Virginia? if so, state: (a) The name and address of each such distributor or sales representatives. (b) The years in which such company or person distributed, marketed, or sold your products. (c) ANSWER: What products were distributed, marketed, or sold in what years. This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: _ List each employee (including any physicians and/sr hygienists) who has acted in a medical advisory capacity to your company at any time during the past 40 years, including, but not RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES , F : \K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C . ROG Page 1 limited to, physicians and industrial hygienists, and the current address, telephone number and job title of each of those individuals and who has, had or may have had any knowledge regarding the hazards of asbestos. ANSWER; This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 19; Does Defendant have in its possession any books, pamphlets, memoranda, or written materials of any kind or character that would indicate that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can be hazardous to the health of human beings? If so, state: (a) The name of each such publication. (b) The date of publication and the names of the author and publisher (if any). (c) The date received by Defendant-, if known. (d) ANSWER; The name, job title, and address of each person who currently has possession of each publication and its present location. This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time been a member of any trade organization or association that published or disseminated any documents or information relating to the hazards of asbestos comprised of other manufacturers, miners, marketers, and/or sellers or asbestos products? If so, state: (a) The name and address of each such association or organization. (b) The dates during which Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors were members. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F :\K E L iY \D IS C \U C C .ROG Page 12 (c) The names and dates of any publications, minutes, or reports published, written, or disseminated by any of the named associations or organizations. (d) Whether any of those publications are still in your possession, and if so: (i) A description of the publication, including the date. (ii) The current location of such publications. (iii) The custodian of such publications. ANSWER; (iv) The method or manner in which such publications are maintained. This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 2 1 s t Identify by name and location each plant or manufacturing facility in which the products listed in your answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3-6 were manufactured, assembled, or prepared for sale or marketing, specifying which plants produced each item, the dates each plant is or was in operation, and the time span during which "each named item was produced or manufactured. ANSWER; This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 22; Have printed_sales materials been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents for purposes of marketing or advertising products containing asbestos? If so, state: (a) The name, address, and job title of each person or entity who prepared such materials. (b) The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials and their present location. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F :\K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .ROG Page 13 (c) The date the materials were prepared. (d) The media used to disseminate the sales materials. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Have any written or printed materials or instruct ions of any kind or character been prepared by Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies or their agents indicating how asbestos products should be used and maintained? If so, state: (a) The name, address, and job title of each person who prepared such materials or instructions or assisted in their preparation. (b) The name, address, and job title of each person who currently has possession of such materials or instructions and their present' location. (c) The dates of distribution or use and the manner in which such materials or instructions were distributed to purchasers of Defendant's products or those of its subsidiaries or predecessors. (d) The year each such written material or instruction was prepared and disclosed to potential consumers. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Does Defendant have insurance policies that might cover the claims made by Plaintiffs in these cases? If so, list the name of each insurance carrier, the amount of initial coverage, amount of coverage remaining at the present time, and the effective dates of each policy. (If properly answered, this Interrogatory need not be supplemented as to the remaining amount of coverage). ANSWER: RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES , F : \K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C . ROG Page 14 T h is a n sw er w ill be p r o v id e d . INTERROGATORY NO. 25; As to the disease asbestosis, state: (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. (b) How Defendant became aware of the existence of the disease. (c) Who within the company first discovered, recognized or understood the adverse consequences or effects of the disease and/or asbestos exposure. (d) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. (e) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or-predecessor ir. any written form. (f) Who is the custodian of such information. (g ) The date on which you first received knowledge or information that asbestosis was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: As to the disease lung cancer, state: (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. (b) How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and its relationship to asbestos exposure. RESPO NSES OF U N IO N CARBIDE TO P L A IN T IF F S ' MASTER INTERRO G ATO RIES F :\K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .R O G ' Page 15 (c) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects of asbestos exposure. (d) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. (e) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendants or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. (f) Who is the custodian of such information. (g) ANSWER: The date on which you first received knowledge or information that lung cancer was caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers. This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 2 7 : As to pleural disease, pleural thickening or pleural plaques, state: (a) The date on which Defendant or its subsidiar/ or predecessor first learned that such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. (b) How Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware of the disease and that it was caused by exposure to asbestos. (c) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered or recognized the adverse consequences or effects asbestos exposure. (d) What information was disseminated within Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. (e) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor in a written form. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES , F : \K E L L Y \D IS C \O C C . ROG ' Page 16 (a) The type of cancer and the date on which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor first learned ';hat such disease was caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers by humans. (b) What cancers has the Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor became aware can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers? (c) The date on which Defendant first suspected other cancers were caused by asbestos inhalation. (d) Who within the company or its subsidiary or predecessor first discovered the adverse consequences or effects asbestos exposure. (e) What information was disseminated with Defendant's company or its subsidiary or predecessor regarding such adverse consequences or effects. (f) Whether any such information is still maintained by Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor i:i a written form. - (g) Who is the custodian of such information. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Does Defendant contend that asbestos products can be manufactured or designed so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to persons working with or exposed to them? IE the answer is affirmative, explain in detail, and attach any studies or surveys on which this answer is based. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Describe in detail the types of packages or packaging which Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies used for asbestos material or products, listing the dates each type of RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F :\K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .ROG Page 18 package was used, a physical description of each type of package, and providing a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Has Defendant or any of its subsidiary or predecessor companies at any time entered into a "rebranding" agreement with any other company, either as buyer or seller, concerning asbestos materials or asbestos products? If so, state, as to each such agreement: (a) The name of the company manufacturing the asbestos products. (b) The trade name affixed to those products. (c) The periods of time covered by each such agreement. (d) The volume, in dollar amount, of each transaction. (e) The initial purchaser of the products. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: List the name and address of each company from which Defendant or its subsidiary or predecessor purchased materials or asbestos products which Defendant sold or distributed in any form, stating the form of the materials, the dates of such purchases, and the ultimate disposal of such materials. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Does Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessor currently have possession of any writings or contracts on those RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F :\K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .ROG Page 19 rebranding agreements set forth in the answer to InterrogatoryNo. 32? If the answer is affirmative, state: (a) The name, address, and job title of each person having custody of each of those documents and their current location. (b) A brief description of each such document, including the dates and the parties signatory. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 35; Prior to 1968, did any person file a claim against: a Worker's Compensation carrier covering Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors alleging that he/she contracted a disease from inhaling asbestos fibers? If so, provide: (a) A list of the claims, including each claimant:'s name, address and the date each claim was filed, and including the caption and jurisdiction of the: claim. (b) The disease alleged in each such claim. (c) A brief summary of the disposition of each such claim. (d) The name, address and title of the person having custody of the records pertaining to each such claim. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Did Defendant or any of its subsidiaries or predecessors maintain written minutes of corporate meetings, either board of directors, departmental, or otherwise, which reflect discussions pertaining to any subject matter related to asbestos, asbestos health hazards of asbestos products? If so, for each such set of minutes, state: RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY \D ISC\U CC.RO G Page 20 (a) The dates of each such meeting. (b) The general subject matter discussed at each meeting. (c) Who was in attendance at each meeting. (d) Where and by whom the written minutes are presently maintained. (e) By whom the minutes were taken and put into final format. (f) ANSWER: Whether the minutes were abstracted and reports disseminated to other individuals, and if so, the names and job titles of those individuals. This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Do you or any of your subsidiaries,'including foreign business entities, currently manufacture any products containing asbestos? If so, state: (a) As to each product, whether such product is mined, manufactured, and/or marketed or sold. (b) The names and addresses of the companies mining, manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling each of those products. (c) The trade or brand name of each of those products minded, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold. (d) The date each of the named products was placed on the market. (e) A description of the physical (chemical) composition of each of the named products, including the type of asbestos contained in the product. (f) A description of the physical appearance of each product and its packaging. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F :\K E L L Y \D IS C \D C C .R O G '' Page 21 (g) A detailed description of the intended uses of each of the named products. (h) Whether there are any warning labels on said products . or containers regarding potential asbestos-related health hazards. ANSWER; This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: State whether you or any of your predecessors and/or subsidiaries maintain, from 1940 through the present or for any portion thereof, copies of invoices, shipping documents!, bills of lading, purchase orders, or other documents of a similair nature relating to the mining, manufacture, marketing, sale or distribution of asbestos products. If so, state: (a) The location of such documents. (b) The name and address of the custodian of the documents. (c) The format in which the documents are kept, 1.e ., hard copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc. (d) In what form the documents can be accessed, 1,e ., by state, by product, etc., and if by product, vrhether kept according to asbestos or non-asbestos. ANSWER; This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 39; Will you call company representatives as witnesses at the trial of any of these cases? If so, list: (a) The name, address, and job title of each company representative who may be called. (b) A summary of the testimony expected to be given by each such witness-. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER IN TER R O G A TO R IES F : \K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C . ROG P age 22 (c) List any and all previous times that the named witnesses have either given deposition or trial testimony in an asbestos-related case, including the jurisdiction, style of the case, case number date of testimony, and the name of the attorney taking the deposition for the Plaintiffs in that case. ANSWER; Union Carbide objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it improperly and prematurely seeks discovery of trial witnesses in contravention of the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine and statutory procedures for the discovery of the identity of trial witnesses. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Union Carbide responds as follows: ' John L . Myers: Former Production Manager of Asbestos (Calidria). Can testify about Calidria information and products, to whom and how Calidria was marketed and sold, including information concerning warning labels, cautions/ and other health and safety information and assistance provided by Union Carbide Corporation to its Calidria Customers. Hilton Cecil Lewinsohn, M.D.: Former Assistant Corporate Medical Director. Can testify on medical issues in relation to asbestos generally and Calidria asbestos in particular. Dr. Thomas J. Hall: Is knowledgeable about the early years of the Calidria business including both the mining process and sales policies as well as general considerations about "he product. INTERROGATORY NO. 40; Have Defendant or its subsidiaries or predecessors ever acquired through purchase, reorganization, or merger another corporation, company, or business which manufactured, sold, RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERRO G ATO RIES . F :\K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .ROG Page 23 processed, distributed, or contracted or supplied products containing asbestos? If so, for each such entity, state: (a) Full and correct name,- (b) Principal place of business; (c) State of incorporation; (d) Date of acquisition by Defendant; (e) ANSWER: Whether or not the business entity was ever authorized to transact business in the State of Texas; This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Was each of your asbestos products generally expected to reach, or packaged to reach, the consumer or user, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold? If not, with respect to any such product, explain in what way the Defendant claims its products were altered or substantially changed after sale or distribution and before reaching the user. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: For each asbestos-containing product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6, identify all foreseeable users such as insulators, helpers, pipefitters, welders, machinists, plasterers, drywall finishers, carpenters, boilermakers, shipwrights and riggers, etc. of any of Defendant's asbestoscontairting products. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F :\K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .R O G ' Page 24 Based upon the material contents of your asbestos-containing products, the method of manufacturing, and the method cf application, can such products be generally applied without liberating asbestos fibers into the air? (a) If there is a different answer concerning different products manufactured, sold, distributed, or used by your company, then specify the different products by precise manufacturer's name and popular name. (b) ANSWER; If there is a difference in your answer depending on the year or years in which a particular product was used, then specify in detail what year or years you are referring to and the specific products you ar referring to any year involved. This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 44; Was it a foreseeable use of your asbestos-containing products that they may have been removed, stripped, or replaced at some time after installation? ANSWER: This answer will be provided. - INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Before 1970, did you or your subsidiaries or predecessor(s) ever arrange for any labor inspectors, insurance company inspectors or anyone from your company to go to job sites where your products were being used or installed to make or take dust level counts? If so, state when this procedure started, the purpose of such procedures, and all results of such procedures. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F :\K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .R O G ' Page 25 If Defendant performed or had performed any dust level counts, what action, based on the results, did your company take? ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Has your company or its subsidiaries or predecessor(s) ever conducted or caused to be conducted any studies designed to assist in minimizing or eliminating the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibers by those exposed to the use of your company's products? If so, give the following: (a) Name of the person or firm conducting such studies; (b) The date the studies began and the date they were completed; (c) The nature of any action to eliminate or minimize the inhalation of asbestos dust fibers; ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Does your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever had, a Research Department? If so, give the year such Research Department was established, and whether or not such Research Department has operat.ed continuously since being established. State also: (a) The amount of time and money expended each year on research concerning asbestos or asbestos-containing products? (b) What percentage of gross sales did your company or its predecessor(s) spend on research concerning the health effects of asbestos? (c) ANSWER: State in detail the purposes, duties, and responsibilities or such Research Department:. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES . F :\K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .R O G ' Page 26 T h is a n sw er w i l l b e p r o v id e d . INTERROGATORY NO. 49; Does your company have, has it ever had, or have your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever had, a Medical Department? If so, state: (a) The year such Medical Department was established; (b) Whether or not such Medical Department has operated continuously since being established; (c) The name of each director, chief, or head of your Medical Department year by year, beginning with the first year you had a Medical Director or Medical Department, and the las known address and phone number of each; (d) ANSWER: State the duties and responsibilities of such Medical Department. - This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever place any warning directly on any of its asbestos-containing product or on'their packaging. If so, identify the product(s) and year said warning was first applied. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever stamp or place the name of the company, its initials, or any identifying logo on any of its asbestos-containing products? If so, please state the name brand names of such products, a description of such stamp or logo and the dates such were placed on the referred products. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY \D ISC\U CC.RO G ' Page 27 ANSWER: T h is a n sw er w ill b e p r o v id e d . INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Has your company, or your predecessor(s) or subsidiaries, ever devised a research plan to develop, or actually developed or had developed, a product which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for one or more of your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date that such research plan was began and when such asbestos-free product was first placed on the market. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever recall any products containing asbestos from the market or stream of commerce? If so, state: (a) All details of such recall; (b) The name of the product recalled, including the reason for the recall and the names and current addresses of those individuals who determined that it should take place; (c) The dates of recall; (d) The purpose for the recall. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Before 1970, did you ever manufacture or sell products which did not contain asbestos and which could be substituted for your asbestos-containing products? If so, state the date such asbestos-free products' were first placed on the market . ANSWER: RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F :\K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .R O G ' Page 28 T h is a n sw er w ill be p r o v id e d . INTERROGATORY NO. 55; Have any products you identified in your response; to Interrogatory Nos. 52 and 54 not performed as intended? Please list all such products that have not performed as intended. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Did your company or its predecessor(s) or subsidiaries ever make, order, or arrange for any industrial hygiene surveys regarding asbestos or asbestos-containing dust? If so, give the date of such surveys and state who, or what entity , was responsible for completion of such surveys. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. ' INTERROGATORY NO. 57: As to either the threshold limit values or maximum allowable concentrations of both asbestos dust and total dust provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, state: . (a) The year in which Defendant or any predecessor(s) or subsidiaries were first advised of such limits or concentrations; (b) The name of the employee or official of the company receiving such advice; (c) How Defendant received notice of such limits or concentrations. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' M ASTER IN T E R R O G A T O R IE S F : \K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C . ROG R age 29 Were the threshold limit values or maximum allowaole concentrations inquired about in Interrogatory No. 63 for total dust, and not asbestos dust alone? ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: State in detail what tests, if any, Defendant ever made with regard to the quantity, quality, or threshold limit values of asbestos dust or particles to which workers were exposed while using, working with or around, or installing your asbestoscontaining products. ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Please state the following with respect to each expert witness you that you may call during trial of these cases. Please designate with specificity the expert witnesses that you may call, including: (a) The name, address, and job classification of each such expert witness; ' (b) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; (c) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion; (d) Whether any person identified in subparagraph (a) above has provided a report or other documenttior to you, and if so, identify and produce each such document or report ; (e) Identify all documents that you have provided to each person identified in response to subparagraph (a) above ; (f) Describe in detail the education and work history of, and identify any books, treatises, articles, published RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER IN TERR O G A TO R IES , F : \K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C . ROG Page 3 0 and unpublished reports, studies or other scholarlyworks authored by any individual identified in response to subparagraph (a) above. Alternatively, la lieu of said response, attach a copy of a resume or curriculum vitae and a list of publications to your answers. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and is an improper request in a master set of interrogatories as each individual case is different and will require different and unique witnesses. Defendant further objects on the grounds that it purports to call for disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, and that it improperly and permaturely seeks the disclosure of experts in contravention of the statutory procedures of discovery. Subject to and without waiver of these objections: (a) 1. Dr. Hans Weill, a Board Certified Pulmonary Specialist at Tulane Medical School, 1700 Perdido 'Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. 2. Dr. Harry B. Demopoulos, Pathologist, Health Maintenance Programs, Inc., P.O. Box 252, Valhalla, New York 10595. 3. Dr. H. Corwin Hinshaw (by deposition), retired Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the University of California School of Medicine, P.O. Box 546, Belvedere, California 94920. 4. Dr. Edward A. Gaensler, Boston University Medical Center, 80 East Concord Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02118. Drs. Weill, Demopoulos, Hinshaw, and Gaensler, if called to testify, are expected to provide testimony in the following areas: a. Anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory system; b. The nature of asbestos; c. The symptomatology, disease process and diag nosis of asbestos and cancer associated with RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER IN TERRO G A TO RIES . F :\ K E L L Y \ D I S C \ U C C .ROG P ag e 31 the respiratory system, peritoneum and peritoneal cavity; d. The nature and extent of medical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of obstructive pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber exposure; e. The effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifes tation of obstructive and restrictive condi tions and diseases of the respiratory system; f. Methods of diagnosis of various diseases particularly means of establishing the dif ferential diagnosis of alleged asbestosrelated diseases with other non-asbestosrelated diseases; g. Incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis, compared with non-asbestoti.c asbestos workers and with the general popu lation; h. Cigarette smoking and its effect on the lung; i. The relationship of cigarette smoking to cancer of the lung and cancers of other site;s with reference to epidemiological studies and physiologic effect; j . Difference between impairment and disability; k. Effect of asbestosis on disability and life expectancy; l. The lack of a relationship between presence of pleural plaques and a later development of any form of cancer; and m. The history of evolution and knowledge of asbestos related diseases. It is also expected that Drs. Weill, Demopoulos, Hinshaw, and Gaensler will testify that the medical community became aware that insulators with prolonged intense exposure might be at risk RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGA TORIES . F:\KELLY \D ISC\U CC.RO G Page 3 for asbestos related diseases in the late 1960's or early 1970's. Drs. Hinshaw, Weill, Demopoulos, and Gaensler will not testify concerning the diagnosis or physical condition of these particular Plaintiffs. 5. Dr. R. Keith Wilson, Respiratory Consultants of Houston, 6535 Fannin, Fondren Building, Houston, Texas 77030. 6. Dr. Peter Heidbrink, a Board Certified Pulmonary Specialist at Southwest Pulmonary Associates, St. Paul Professional Building #2, 5959 Harry Hines Boulevard, Suite 711, Dallas, Texas 75235. 7. Dr. George Delclos, Pulmonary Section F907, Methcdist Hospi tal, 6565 Fannin, Houston, Texas. 8. Dr. Gregory Foster, North Texas Pulmonary Associates, 375 Municipal Drive, Suite 140, Richardson, Texas 75080. 9. Dr. Scott R. Donaldson, North Texas Pulmonary Associates, 375 Municipal Drive, Suite 140, Richardson, Texas 75080. 10. Dr. Paul M. Stevens, a Board Certified Pulmonary Disease Specialist and Professor of Medicine at the Baylcr College of Medicine in Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. 11. Drs. Stevens, Wilson, Heidbrink, Delclos, Foster, and Donaldson will testify concerning their examination and diagnosis of the physical condition of the particular Plain tiffs. It is expected that Drs. Wilson, Heidbrink, Stevens, Delclos and Foster will testify that the Plaintiffs do not have asbestosis and will further testify concerning the overall condition and the relationship of that condition, if any, to Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos. Each doctor will also testify concerning the following areas: a. Anatomy and function of the respiratory and circulatory systems; b. The nature of asbestos; c. The symptomatology, disease process and diag nosis of asbestos and cancer associated with the respiratory system, peritoneum and peri toneal cavity; RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER IN TERRO G A TO RIES . F : \KELLY\DISC\UCC. ROG P age 33 d. The nature and extent of medical and scientific knowledge regarding any association of obstructive pulmonary disease with asbestos fiber exposure; e. The effect of exposure to substances other than asbestos on the development and manifes tation of obstructive and restrictive condi tions and diseases of the respiratory system; f. Methods of diagnosis of various diseases particularly means of establishing the dif ferential diagnosis of alleged asbestosrelated diseases with other government warn ings, smoking, and some areas of state-ofthe-art. g. Incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestos, compared with non-asbestotic asbestos workers and with the general popula tion; h. Cigarette smoking and its effect on the lung; i. The relationship of cigarette smoking to cancer of the lung and cancers of other sites with reference to epidemiological studies and physiologic effect; j . Difference between impairment and disability; k. Effect of asbestosis on disability and life expectancy; l. The lack of a relationship between presence of pleural plaques and a later development of any form of cancer. 12. Dr. Elliott Hinkes, a Board Certified Oncologist and Hematologist at 301 North Prairie Avenue, suite 311, Inglewood, California 90301. Dr. Hinkes will testify concerning the relationship of asbestos and smoking to the development of cancer. Dr. Hinkes will also testify concerning the incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis or exposure to asbestos-containing insulation products. 13. Dr. Keith Morgan, who will testify on state-of-the-art and the Saranac papers, to the effect that the Defendants could RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F : \K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .ROG Page 34 not have known and users were at risk until approximately the late 1960's . 14. Dr. Forde A. Mclver, Pathology Associates, P.A., 135 Rutledge Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29401. Dr. Mclver will testify on state-of-the-art and the Saranac papers, to the effect that the Defendants could not have known end users were at risk until approximately the late 1960's. 15. Dr. Joseph M. Miller, Box 365, New Hampton, New Hampshire. Dr. Miller will testify on state-of-the-art and the Saranac papers, to the effect that the Defendants could not have known end users were at risk until approximately the late 1960's. 16. Dr. Jesse Steinfield, who will testify concerning government warnings, smoking, and some areas of state-of-the art. 17. Dr. Stephen Ayres, Sanger Hall Room 1-014, Box 565, MCV Station, Richmond, Virginia 23298. Dr. Ayres will testify on state-of-the-art and the Saranac papers, to the effect that the Defendants could not have known end users were at risk until approximately the late 1960's. 18. Dr. Elvin Adams, General Conference of SDA's, 6840 Eastern Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20012. Dr. Adams will testify on asbestos-related diseases' effects, and in particular on smoking's effects. ` 19. Dr. Thomas Wheeler, The Methodist Hospital, Department of Pathology, 6565 Fannin Street, Mail Station 205, Houston, Texas 77030. Dr. Wheeler will testify regarding general pathology and the pathology of the Plaintiff and/or Plain tiff's decedent. 20. Dr. Robert O'Neal, Route 1, Box 168, Perkinston, Mississippi 39573. Dr. O'Neal will testify regarding general pathology and the pathology of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's dece dent . 21. Dr. Andrew Churg, The University of British Columbia, 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, B. C. Canada V6T1W5, phone number 604-228-7111. Dr. Churg will testify regarding general pathology and the pathology of the Plaintiff and/or Plain tiff's decedent. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER IN TERRO G A TO RIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCC.ROG P age 35 2 2 . Dr. James Robert Shepherd, III, University of Texas Health Center at Tyler, Department of Radiology, P.0. Box 2003, Tyler, Texas 75710. Dr. Shepherd is a B reader and will testify regarding the radiographs of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's decedent. 23. Dr. Sam H. Cade, Jr., Radiology Department, Baylor University Medical Center, 3500 Gaston Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75242. Dr. Cade is a B reader and will testify regarding the radiographs of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's decedent. 24. Dr. Allan Shulkin, Medical City Dallas Hospital, 7777 Forest Lane, Suite 202, Dallas, Texas 75230. 25. Dr. Bobby F. Craft, Industrial Health, Inc., 640 Fast Wil mington Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah 84106. Dr. Craft will testify that the medical community became aware that in sulators with prolonged intense exposure might be at risk for asbestos related diseases in the late 1960's or early 1970's . 26. Dr. Jeffrey S. Lee, Building 512, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112. Dr. Lee will testify that the medical community became aware that insulators with prolonged intense exposure might be at risk for asbestos related diseases in the late 1960's or early 1970 s. 27. Dr. Oscar Auerbach, 158 Long Hill Drive, Short Hills, New Jersey 07078. Dr. Auerbach will testify regarding the pathology of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's decedent. 28. Dr. Donald Greenberg, The Methodist Hospital, Department of Pathology, 6565 Fanning, 2nd Floor, Houston, Texas 77030. Dr. Greenberg will testify regarding the pathology of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's decedent. 29. Dr. Michael D. Henderson, 330 Rittiman Road, San Antonio, Texas 78209. Dr. Henderson will testify concerning the relationship of asbestos and smoking to the development of cancer. Dr. Henderson will also testify concerning the incidence of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis or exposure to asbestos-containing insulation products. 30. All physicians who have seen, examined, and/or treated Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's decedent. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER IN TERRO G A TO RIES , F : \KELLY\DISC\UCC. ROG Page 35 31. Dr. John E. Craighead Chairman, Department of Pathology A249 Given Medical Building University of Vermont College of Medicine Burlington, Vermont 05401 32. A. Mitchell Polinsky, Ph.D. Stanford University Stanford, California 94305 33. Dr. Robert Jones Tulane Medical School 1700 Perdido Street New Orleans, Louisiana 34. Louis Calvin Solmon University of California in Los Angeles Los Angeles, California 35. Mr. Phillip Bettoli, GAF Corporation, 1361 Alps Road, Wayne, New Jersey 07470. Mr. Bettoli will testify concerning the utility of asbestos-containing products. 36. Charles Henry Drummond, III Ceramic Engineering Ohio State University 2041 College Road Columbus, Ohio 43210 37. Defendants reserve the right to call as expert witnesses all physicians who have seen, examined, or treated plaintiff; reviewed plaintiff's medical records; and/or been designated as a witness by any other party to this action. 38. Defendants reserve the right to use any affidavit, deposition, answer to interrogatories, and/or answers to requests for admissions made by any party to this action. 39. Defendants incorporate by reference, the depositions listed in Defendants' Designation of Deposition Testimony. 40. Defendants reserve the right to call any witness who may be necessary for rebuttal testimony. 41. James E. Lockey, M.D., M.S., 3848 Chimney Hill Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45241. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER IN TERRO G A TO RIES F :\KELLY\DISC\UCC.ROG Page 37 42. Lyle Haack who will testify as to products manufactured by CertainTeed Corporation. 43. Dr. Phillip Cagle, Pathologist, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, Texas 77030, who will testify regarding general pathology and pathology of Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's decedent. 44. All other expert and factual witnesses listed by plaintiffs and defendants in this lawsuit. 45. William C. Schwingen, GAF Building Materials Corporation, 1361 Alps Road, Wayne, New Jersey, 07470. Mr. Schwingen is an employee of GAF Building Materials Corporation. He will be testifying regarding products manufactured by GAF or The Ruberoid Co., including the manufacturing process. His testimony may also include the topics referred to in connec tion with Mr. Bettoli. 46. Dr. H. Corwin Hinshaw, by deposition testimony in "William L. Nicar v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., et al", No. W-81-CA-8. 47. Dr. H. Corwin Hinshaw, be deposition testimony in "In Re: Related Asbestos Cases", No. C-83-6251-RFP, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; "In Re" Related Shipyard and Applicator Cases: Alameda County Asbestos Litigation", in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda; Misc. No. 959, "In Re: Shipyard and Applicator Cases" (Clapper & Brayton) Consolidated for Discovery, in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Solano; and "In Re" San Francisco Asbestos Complex Litigation", in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the City and County of San Francisco. 48. Dr. H. Corwin Hinshaw, by deposition testimony in "Jimmie L. Vaughan v. Johns-Manville, et al", No. CA3-810070-F; "William L. Nicar v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., et al", No. W-81-CA-008."Donald C. Lanier v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., et al", No. CA-80-1983; Jesse Cupit v. JohnsManville Sales Corp, et al", No. CA-81-0082; "Jerry Lynn Coon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., et al", No. CA-81-0077; "James L. Bush v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al", No. Ca-810088; "Charles T. Burrow v. Johns-Manville Corp.,. et al", No. CA-80-1984; Ernest E. Adams v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., et al", No. CA-80-1982; "A. E. Jacks v. Johns- RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY\DISC\UCC.ROG ' Page 38 60. Any d e p o s itio n ta k e n by any p a r ty in th i s c a s e . 61. John L Myers, Hilton Cecil Lewinsohn, M.D. and Dr. Thomas o . Hail, as referenced above in Defendant's Answer to . Interrogatory No. 39, are fact witnesses. However, certain areas of their testimony may be considered to include expert opinions. To that extent, they are designated as expert Defendant may call expert witnesses regarding its Calidria product. These experts will be able to testify about either the Properties of the Calidria asbestos, such as its 1fn?fch-,aPd lack of tremlite or other contamination,or the lack of health hazards from exposure to Calidria, or both. Such experts are the following: 62 . Dr. Hilton Lewinsohn, Hartford, CT Dr. Ed Ilgren, Bryn Mawyr, PA Dr. Mark Van Baalen Harvard University Cambridge, MA D r. Allen Gibbs Pathology Department Landough Hospital Penarth, Glamorgan UK CFC I XX (MD) (Mineralogist) (Mineralogist) (Pathologist) Professor Fred Pooley (Mineralogist) School of Engineering Dept, of Mining & Minerals University of Wales P.O. Box 917 Cardiff, Wales CF21XH Fred A. Mumpton Rockport, New York (Geologist) (b) See answer to Interrogatory No. 60(a). RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO P L A IN T IF F S ' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F :\KELLY\DISC\UCC.ROG \ Page 40 (c) See answer to Interrogatory No. 60(a). (d) None, unless previously provided to plaintiff's counsel. (e) The medical records of individual plaintiffs, as well as any and all documents listed in Defendant's Answer to Interrogatory No. 62. (f) Curriculum vitae to be supplemented as Exhibit "A" . INTERROGATORY NO. 61; Please state the name, present address and present telephone number, along with the experience and qualifications, if applicable, of each and every person, known to Defendant or to Defendant's agents, having knowledge of facts relevant to these cases involving, but not limited to: (a) Identification of asbestos-containing products to which each and every individual Plaintiff, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, allegedly was exposed or facts disputing the identification of asbestos-containing products in this case. (b) Each and every individual Plaintiff's, separate and distinct from all other Plaintiffs within.the group, alleged damages, injuries and/or facts disputing each and every Plaintiff's alleged damages and/or injuries; (c) The negligence of any person or entity other than Defendant which Defendant contends was a cause of each and every individual Plaintiff's, separate s.nd distinct from all other Plaintiffs within the group, alleged injuries and/or damages; (d) Each of Defendant's defenses enumerated in Defendant's last filed Answer in each of these cases. ANSWER: See Preliminary Statement and General Objections, which are incorporated herein as if fully rewritten. Objection the interrogatory is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unnecessarily expensive, harassing, and annoying. Objection the question seeks RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGA TORIES . F :\K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C .R O G ' P age 41 irrelevant information and information protected by the! work product exemption, objection the Interrogatory exceeds! the scope of permissible discovery pursuant to T.R.C.P. 166b. Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant reserves the right to supplement this answer, subject to all objections now raised or that can be raised if information later becomes available. Defendant incorporates herein by reference Defendant's List of Potential Witnesses, Designation of Deposition Testimony, and Designation of Expert Witnesses (which includes all supplements designations), all filed or to be filed in this case. (a) Defendant may call as a witness the Plaintiff and any persons listed by the Plaintiff as his co-workers regarding their knowledge of the facts relevant to the Plaintiff's case. (b) See Answers to Interrogatories No. 39 and No. 60(a). (c) See Answers to Interrogatories No. 60(a) and 61(a!. In addition, Defendant may call the Plaintiff regarding his own actions, including his history of smoking. (d) See Answers to Interrogatories No. 60(a), 61(a) and 61(c). INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Please identify documents which will be used at t:,,me of trial, (Exhibit List, Deposition List), which are relevant to each of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSWER; See Preliminary Statement and General Objections, which are incorporated herein as if fully rewritten. Objection this interrogatory is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily expensive, harassing, and annoying. Objection the question seeks information protected by the work product, witness statements, party communications, and expert exemptions of T.R.C.P. 166b and the attorney-client privilege of T.R.C.E. 503. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant incorporates herein by reference Defendant's Designation of Exhibits, Deposition Testimony, Potential Fact Witnesses and Expert Witnesses (including all supplemental designations) filed or to be filed in this case. Defendant incorporates herein by reference all responses to discovery served by all Plaintiffs in this case. Defendant RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F:\KELLY \D ISC\U CC.RO G Page 42 expressly reserves the right to use all documents coverad by all authorizations and releases Defendant(s) has/have requested Plaintiff(s) to provide to Defendant(s). Defendant expressly reserves the right to use all documents filed, designated or relied upon by other Defendants or by Plaintiffs in this case. 1. Invoices for sales made to facilities. 2 . Sample Warning Labels used on Calidria packages. 3. Various brochures and other literature relating to health and safety disseminated to Union Carbide Calidria customers. 4. See exhibit list attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Defendant will supplement this answer with further exhibits as they become known to Defendant. INTERROGATORY NO. 63; When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-ininterest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Health Survey of Pipe Covering Operations in Constructing Naval Vessels", published in January, 1946 in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene & Toxicology, and authored by W. Fleischer and P. Drinker, et al ("the Fleischer-Drinker Report")? (a) Identify the name and position of the employee or officer who received same; (b) Please produce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "FleischerDrinker" study prior to 1968; (c) Please produce all documents upon which your responses above are based; (d) Please identify the name(s) and address(es) cf any person(s) who can verify your above response; (e) Did Defendant ever rely on the Fleischer-Drirker Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the workplace without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES . F : \K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C . ROG Page 43 (f) If so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 6 3 (a) above; (g) If your answer to 63(e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Fleischer-Drinker report in whole or in part for the proposition stated :.n 63 (e) above? ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 64: When, if ever, did Defendant or any of its predecessors-in interest first receive a copy of the article entitled "A Study of Asbestos in the Asbestos Textile Industry", published :,,n 193 8 in Public Health Bill, No. 241, U.S. Public Health Service and authored by W. (c) Dreessen ("the Dreessen Report")? (a) Identify the name and position -of the employee or officer who received same; (b) Please prctduce all documents generated by Defendant which discuss or in any way reference the "Dreessen" study prior to 1968; (c) Please produce all documents upon which your responses above.are based; (d) Please identify the name(s) and address(es) of any person(s) who can verify your above response; (e) Did Defendant ever rely on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part as a basis that Defendant's asbestos products could be used in the workplace without risk of asbestos-related health impacts to the consumer and/or bystander; (f) If so, please produce every document which evidences in any way that Defendant relied on the Dreessen Report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in Interrogatory No. 63(a) above; RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F : \K E L L Y \D IS C \U C C . ROG Page 44 (g) If your answer to 63 (e) is yes, when was the first date Defendant relied on the Dreessen report in whole or in part for the proposition stated in 63 (e) above? ANSWER: This answer will be provided. INTERROGATORY NO. 65: Please identify documents or things, including x-rays, MRIs, CT-scans or other materials which will be used at time of trial (Exhibit List, Deposition List), which are relevant to each of Defendant's enumerated defenses in Defendant's last filed Answer. ANSWER: See General Objections and Preliminary Statement, if any, which are incorporated herein as if fully rewritten. Objection to the extent the request seeks information protected by the (a) attorney-client privilege, (b) the attorney work product doctrine, (c) any applicable privilege relating to communications between counsel for defendant and counsel for other defendants in this or other cases regarding defense of this case, (d) any applicable privilege relating to communication's between defendant's employees or counsel and defendant's insurers regarding the defense of this claim or claims of this type, (e) any privilege relating to confidential trade secrets, proprietary information or confidential communications with any government agency, (f) the expert witness exemption, (g) the witness statements exemption, (h) the party communications exemption, (i) the right of privacy, or (j) any other privilege. Objection to the extent the request seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection to the extent the request is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, unnecessarily expensive, harassing, and annoying. RESPONSES OF UNION CARBIDE TO PLAINTIFFS' MASTER INTERROGATORIES F :\KELLY\DISC\UCC. ROG ' ' Page 45