Document jyj2V8kDQ1zMD1kLaz7GJd78Q

' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MAX G. WILLIAMS, and MAUREEN D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY, et al Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 86-0-714 W.R. GRACE & CO.'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following answers are based upon facts known or believed by W.R. Grace & Co. ("Grace") at the time of answering these interrogatories. Much of the information is sought from many years ago and is, therefore, difficult or impossible to reconstruct or retrieve. Grace therefore, reserves the right to amend these answers as and if new or better information becomes available to it or if errors are discovered. , Plaintiff worker alleges exposure to "asbestos and asbestos related insulation materials" while employed as a general laborer from 1959 to 1985, however, he alleges exposure to a Grace or Zonolite product at only one work site during that entire period. In his answers to interrogatories propounded by Grace, plaintiff worker alleged exposure to "W.R. Grace Zonolite Mono Kote Fite Proofing" at the Northwestern Bell Telephone Bldg., Omaha, NE, while employed by Hawkins Construction Co. Plaintiff worker did not provide specific dates of his employment at this work site. However, in plaintiff worker's medical records, it is stated that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos fireproofing while working at a telephone building from 1961 to 1962. Plaintiff worker provided names of additional employers and job sites in his answers to interrogatories. In an attempt to provide answers to plaintiffs' interrogatories, Grace caused the review of all its existing sales and shipping records during the relevant time period to determine whether it sold or shipped any commercial asbestos-containing products to the employers and job sites named by plaintiffs. In addition, employees of Grace who would have knowledge of such sales were interviewed. No one who was interviewed has a memory of any such sale. The only document that was located that referred to any of the plaintiffs' employers or job sites is one undated document which indicates sales of Zonolite Acoustical Plaster/Plastic to a contractor other than the plaintiff worker's employer at a site identified by the plaintiff worker. Grace denies that this information is relevant to plaintiffs' claim because plaintiff worker has neither alleged exposure to this product nor identified this contractor as an employer. Therefore, unless otherwise stated in an answer to a specific interrogatory, these answers are limited to Zonolite Monokote (MK-1) and (MK-3). These are spray fireproofing products which contained commercial asbestos, were manufactured by the Zonolite Company, and were used in the commercial construction industry during the years when plaintiff worker apparently was at a telephone building. To the extent that these answers refer to Grace, they are further limited to the activities of Grace's -2- Construction Products Division ("CPD") within the United States during the relevant time periods. Any reference to the manufacture, sale or distribution of a product by an entity other than Grace, e.g., by the Zonolite Company, should not be considered an admission that Grace is liable or responsible for injuries alleged to have resulted from the manufacture, sale or use of such product. Grace reserves the right to object to the admissibility of all or part of any answer to an interrogatory or request for admission on this basis. To the extent that these interrogatories call for information beyond the limitations stated above, an objection is made thereto as being irrelevant, immaterial, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the answers thereto are privileged and/or protected. Grace further objects to these interrogatories insofar as they seek production of any information constituting a trade secret, confidential financial data or other confidential research, development or commercial information. Grace further objects to these interrogatories insofar as they seek information which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, which evidences or constitutes attorney work product, or which is otherwise not discoverable under the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Grace objects to the plaintiffs' definitions of "identify", "you" and "your" as contained in the introduction to plaintiffs' interrogatories, on the grounds that they are overly broad, -3- unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Grace further objects to the definition of "your asbestos products" on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and subject to various interpretations. Grace further objects to all of the plaintiffs' instructions and definitions to the extent that they impose obligations beyond those permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORIES ^INTERROGATORY 1 Please state the name, address and job title of each person who has supplied information used in answering these interrogatories. ANSWER 1 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving or in any way limiting this objection or the General Objections interposed above, Grace states that these answers were prepared with the assistance of many employees and representatives of Grace, with the assistance and advice of Grace counsel, retained counsel and their staffs, who, in the course of preparing for these and other cases have interviewed many individuals and have reviewed voluminous records of Grace. INTERROGATORY 2 Please state whether or not you are a corporation; if so, please state your correct corporate name, the state of your incorporation, the address of your principal place of business and whether or not you have ever held a Certificate of Authority to do business in the State of Nebraska. ANSWER 2 Yes; W.R. Grace & Co.; Connecticut; Grace Plaza, 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036; yes. -4- INTERROGATORY 3 Has defendant at any time engaged in the manufacture of products containing asbestos fibers? ANSWER 3 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in that the term "asbestos fibers" is undefined and thus capable of various interpretations. Subject to these objections and to the General Objections interposed above Grace states yes. INTERROGATORY 4 Has defendant at any time engaged in the mining of material containing asbestos fibers? ANSWER 4 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in that the term "asbestos fibers" is undefined and thus capable of various interpretations. Subject to these objections and to the General Objections interposed above Grace states that it has never mined commercial asbestos. Further answering, Grace states that it has in the past and continues in the present to mine vermiculite which may contain asbestiform tremolite. Vermiculite is subjected to a purification process which leaves only trace amounts of tremolite, if any amount at all, in finished products that contain vermiculite. INTERROGATORY 5 Has defendant at any time engaged in the marketing and sale of products containing asbestos fibers? ANSWER 5 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in that the term "asbestos fibers" is undefined and thus capable of various interpretations. Subject to these objections and to the General Objections interposed above Grace states yes. INTERROGATORY 6 If the answer to one or more of the last three questions is affirmative, please state as to each affirmative answer the following: a. The trade or brand name of each such product mined, manufactured and/or marketed. -5- b. The dates each of such products were placed on the market. c. The dates each of such products were withdrawn from the market, if ever. d. A description of the physical (the chemical) composition of each such product including the type of asbestos contained in each such product. e. A description of the physical appearance of each such product. f. A detailed description of the intended uses of each such product. g. The name of the manufacturer of each such product. ANSWER 6 a. See Product Appendix Nos. 1-2(a) b. See Product Appendix Nos. 1-2(c) c. See Product Appendix Nos. l-2(d) d. See Product Appendix Nos. 1-2(b) e . See Product Appendix NOS . 1-2(f) f. See Product Appendix Nos . l-2(g) 9- See Product Appendix Nos . 1-2(d) INTERROGATORY 7 Prior to releasing the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6 to the public for sale, were any tests conducted on same to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of materials contained therein? ANSWER 7 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in that the phrase "potential health hazards" is undefined and subject to various interpretations. Subject to this objection and to the General Objections interposed above, Grace states not to its knowledge. -6- INTERROGATORY 8 If so, please state: a. The name, address and job classification of each individual who conducted such tests. b. The dates such tests were conducted. c. The results of said tests. ANSWER 8 Not applicable. INTERROGATORY 9 After releasing said products to the public, were any tests conducted thereon to determine potential health hazards involved in the use of materials contained therein. ANSWER 9 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in that the phrase "potential health hazards" is undefined and subject to various interpretations. Subject to this objection and to the General Objections interposed above, Grace states the following concerning tests relating to the spraying of Mono-Kote fireproofing (MK-3): 1. Tabershaw-Cooper Associates conducted air sampling in July, 1970, at three buildings in San Francisco. Fiber concentrations in all spray areas, except for one reading, were found to be below the then existing Threshold Limit Value for occupational exposures. 2. In 1970, the Werby Laboratory reported on air samples taken by Grace employees during Mono-Kote spraying operations in Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles, California, Omaha, Nebraska and Bethpage, New York. Fiber concentrations were found to be well within the then existing threshold limit values set by the ACGIH. 3. In 1968, the California Department of Public Health, Bureau of Occupational Health and Environmental Epidemiology conducted studies involving the mixing and application of MonoKote at the building construction site of the Beverly Hills High School, Beverly Hills, California. The studies showed that the total asbestos fibers in the air were well below the existing threshold limit values established by the ACGIH. 4. In 1972, the Department of Labor and Industries, State of Washington, conducted air sampling during Mono-Kote spraying operations at the Bank of California Center, Seattle, Washington. -7- Fiber concentrations were found to be within the then existing threshold limit values set by the ACGIH. - INTERROGATORY 10 If so, please state: a. The name, address and job classification of each person conducting said tests. b. The dates such tests were conducted. c. The results of said tests. ANSWER 10 See answer to Interrogatory No. 9, above. INTERROGATORY 11 Has defendant at any time published and/or distributed any brochures, pamphlets or other written materials of any kind or character that contain any warnings concerning the possibility of injury resulting from the use of the products listed in Interrogatory No. 6? ANSWER 11 Yes. INTERROGATORY 12 If so, please state: a. The wording of each such warning. b. A description of each such printed material. c. The method used to distribute the warning to persons who are likely to use the products. d. The date each such warnings were issued. e. The name, address and classification of each person who presently has possession of the above-described documents. ANSWER 12 See General Objections interposed above. Subject to these objections, Grace states that the 1970 Grace brochure published in Sweet's Catalog of 1971 contained the following paragraphs: -8- POLLUTION AND HEALTH: Because of the constantly changing conditions involving fireproofing and its relation to pollution and health, we recommend that you contact your Zonolite sales office for the latest data on these subjects. Recent tests at Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. have provided some fireratings on an asbestos-free formula Mono-Kote. Other tests and ratings will follow." Existing formulations of Mono-Kote contain minimal amounts of asbestos which are locked in during the mixing process. Mono-Kote is wet mixed, pumped and sprayed, and hardens to a cementitious mass. Job-site tests show air fiber counts well below occupational Threshold Limit Values proposed by government bodies. Relevant, non-privileged and non-trade secret documents responsive to this interrogatory will be produced to plaintiffs in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually convenient time. INTERROGATORY 13 Have you received notice that any person other than the plaintiff was claiming injury as a result of using asbestos products manufactured and/or sold by your company (both prior to and subsequent to the filing of this action)? ANSWER 13 Yes. INTERROGATORY 14 If so, please state: a. The name and address of each claimant. b. The date of notice of each claim. c. A description of the claim, if any. d. The type of injuries allegedly sustained. e. The name and address of each attorney who represents individuals making such claims. f. The style and court number of each claim currently pending. g. The resolution of each claim that has been settled or taken to judgment. -9- ANSWER 14 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Grace further objects on the grounds that the information regarding personal injury claims is a matter of public record and thus is as readily available to plaintiffs as j.t is to Grace. > INTERROGATORY 15 Do you have any records indicating that any products containing asbestos fibers were sold to Cagle, Inc. of Omaha, Nebraska during the years 1957 to, and including 1981? ANSWER 15 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and immaterial in that plaintiff worker has not stated that he was employed by Cagle, Inc. --^ INTERROGATORY 16 If so, please state: a. The trade or brand name of each such product sold; b. The dates each such product was sold; c. The amount of each such product sold; d. The intended uses of each such product sold; --A e. Whether or not you will produce such records without a request for production. ANSWER 16 Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory No. 15, above. INTERROGATORY 17 Do you have any records indicating that any products containing asbestos fibers were sold to Radisha Construction Co. of Omaha, Nebraska during the years 1957 to, and including 1981? ANSWER 17 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and immaterial in that plaintiff worker has not stated that he was employed by Radisha Construction Co. -10- INTERROGATORY 18 If so, please state: a. The trade or brand name of each such product sold; b. The dates each such product was sold; c. The amount of each such product sold; d. The intended uses of each such product sold. e. Whether or not you will produce such records without a request for production. ANSWER 18 Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory No. 17, above. INTERROGATORY 19 Do you have any records indicating that any products containing asbestos fibers were sold to Foreman Brothers Construction Company of Omaha, Nebraska during the years 1957 to, and including 1981? ANSWER 19 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant and immaterial in that plaintiff worker has not stated that he was employed by Foreman Brothers Construction Company. INTERROGATORY 20 If so, please state: a. The trade or brand name of each such product sold. b. The dates each such product was sold. c. The amount of each such product sold. d. The intended use of each such product sold. e. Whether or not you will produce such records without a request for production. ANSWER 20 Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory No. 19, above. -11- INTERROGATORY 21 Are your asbestos products now or have they in the past been marketed and sold by companies other than your own? ANSWER 21 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections and to the General Objections interposed above, Grace states that Zonolite Company originally had license agreements with many licensee/processors in which the products all bore Zonolite labels. After Grace's acquisition of Zonolite most of these licensees were acquired by Grace. INTERROGATORY 22 If so, please list the name and address of each such company, the dates sold and the product name if different than your response to Interrogatory 6(a). ANSWER 22 Relevant, non-privileged and non-trade secret documents which are responsive to this interrogatory will be produced in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. INTERROGATORY 23 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? ANSWER 23 Yes. INTERROGATORY 24 If so, please state for each such publication: a. The name of each such publication, document or written material. b. The date each such document, memoranda or written material was published and the name of the publisher and author. c. The name, job title and address of each, person who currently has possession of such documents. -12- ANSWER 24 Subject to the General Objections interposed above, Grace states that relevant, non-privileged and non-trade secret documents which are responsive to this interrogatory will be produced in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. INTERROGATORY 25 Has defendant undertaken to investigate the occurrence in plaintiff's complaint? ANSWER 25 See the General Objections interposed above. Grace has not investigated the occurrence in plaintiffs' complaint other than the records review and interviews described in the General Objections and the discovery conducted thus far in this case. INTERROGATORY 26 If so, please state: a. The name, address and job title of the person participating in each such investigation. b. List each written record pertaining to such investigation and its location and custodian. c. Has defendant obtained statements from any witnesses? d. If so, please list each witness who has given a statement and the name, address and job title of each person having custody of any such statement. ANSWER 26 a. and b. See answer to Interrogatory No. 25, above, c. and d. No. INTERROGATORY 27 Has defendant at any time been a member of any "trade organization" or "association" composed of other manufacturers, miners, and/or sellers of asbestos products? ANSWER 27 Yes. -13- INTERROGATORY 28 If so, please state: a. The name and address of each such association or organization. b. The dates during which defendant was a member. c. The names of any publications published by or written by such association or organization. ANSWER 28 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to this objection and to the General Objections interposed above, Grace states that it has attended annual meetings of the Asbestos Information Association since approximately 1977. Further answering, Grace has been a member of the Perlite Institute from 1968 to the present, a sustaining member of the American Industrial Hygiene Association since 1976, a member of the National Safety Council since approximately 1971, and a member of the American Industrial Health Council since 1978. Grace has been a member of the Association of Walls and Ceilings International since the 1970's, a member of the Vermiculite Institute from 1963 to 1971, a member of the Exterior Insulation Manufacturers Association since 1984 and a member of the Safe Buildings Alliance since the spring of 1984. _^ INTERROGATORY 29 Please identify by location and product, each plant in which products listed in your answer to interrogatory No. 6 have been manufactured and/or mined and the dates said plants have been in operation. ANSWER 29 See Product Appendix Nos. l-2(e) INTERROGATORY 30 Please list the name and address of each business entity from whom you have received raw asbestos and the dates and amounts received. ANSWER 30 Each plant purchased commercial asbestos on a plant-by-plant basis. W.R. Grace & Co. has determined thus far that the major suppliers of commercial asbestos were Johns-Manville, National -14- Gypsum and Carey-Canada. Some commercial asbestos was purchased from Pacific Asbestos Company. Investigation is continuing. The total pound volume of asbestos purchased by Grace is unknown. Dollar volume known or known approximately for the years 1969 through 1973, is as follows: 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 165,000 $193,000 $493,000 $129,000 $147,000 These figures are for all Grace processing plants producing fireproofing and thermal insulation products in the United States. INTERROGATORY 31 Have sales materials been prepared by defendant or its agent for purposes of marketing or advertising defendant's asbestos products? ANSWER 31 Yes. INTERROGATORY 32 If so, please state: a. The name and address of each person or entity who prepared same. b. The name, addresses and title of each person who presently has possession of same. c. The date same was prepared. d. The media used to disseminate the sales material. ANSWER 32 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further answering, Grace states that many individuals have been responsible for marketing and/or advertising over the years. The Grace employees with these responsibilities were as follows: Christopher L. Lawson Director of Marketing Communications Construction Products Division -15- W. R. Grace & Co. ' 62 Whittemore Ave. Cambridge, Massachusetts February 1986 - present 02140 Kenneth T. Cheetham Director of Advertising and Public Relations Construction Products Division W. R. Grace & Co. 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 1978-February 1986 Richard F. Waltrous Director of Advertising and Public Relations Construction Products Division Approximately late 1976-late 1977 Phillip R. Strand (deceased) Director of Advertising Zonolite Company (later Construction Products Division, W. R. Grace & Co.) Late 1960's-late 1979 Daniel Boone (Winnetka, Marketing Manager Zonolite Company Prior to late 1960's Illinois) r We also employed the services of the following: Fuller, Smith & Ross Chicago, Illinois & New York City Prior to 1963 - early 1970's Charles Palm & Co. Bloomfield, Connecticut -1974 - 1979 INTERROGATORY 33 Is defendant aware or possessed of knowledge concerning any causal connection between exposure to asbestos or asbestos products and: (a) Asbestosis? (b) Lung cancer? (c) Mesothelioma? (d) Other cancers? -16- ANSWER 33 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in that it lacks sufficient specificity regarding type of asbestos, and the level, duration, nature, and manner of exposure. Further, this interrogatory calls for an expert opinion. Subject to these objections and to the General Objections interposed above, Grace states yes. INTERROGATORY 34 If you affirmatively answered any subpart of Interrogatory No, 33, please state: (a) When and how defendant first learned of such connection? (b) If knowledge was obtained by attendance at any conference, lecture, convention, symposium or meeting, identify such meeting, and provide identity of persons attending and any documents obtained. (c) If knowledge was obtained from medical or scientific studies, or any other published work, identify the same. (d) If otherwise obtained, identify manner of communication and any documents obtained. ANSWER 34 a.) Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections and to the General Objections interposed above, Grace states that it cannot identify the precise date or manner on or by which it became aware or possessed of knowledge concerning such connection as to each specific subpart. Nevertheless, Grace states that it appears that, in 1955, Zonolite Company personnel were informed of a disability claim for alleged asbestosis by a person, possibly named Weismantle, who worked for the California Zonolite Companv in Sacramento. Further answering Grace states that from its investigation to date it appears that the Zonolite Company, which Grace did not acquire until 1963, was informed by the Montana State Board of Health in 1956 that inhalation of asbestos dust had been reported to be associated with the development of pulmonary fibrosis among workers depending upon length of exposure and the nature and concentration of the dust. Grace expressly denies that this information is relevant to the subject matter of this suit or attributable to Grace. -17- b. ) In 1974, Harry Eschenbach and Peter Kostic attended a seminar sponsored by Johns-Manville held at a hotel in Framingham, Massachusetts. The seminar Concerned general health issues related to asbestos and compliance with OSHA and other government regulations. James Cintani and John Ottinger of Grace attended a meeting at New York University on Asbestos: Environmental Hazards. The meeting was held on June 17, 1969. A copy of an article by Paul Brodeur entitled "The Magic Mineral" (The New Yorker, 1968) appears to have been distributed. Dr. Irving Selikoff presented a report on the health hazards of asbestos. In or around the summer of 1969, T. Egan of Grace attended a meeting in Ottawa, Canada at which Dr. Irving Selikoff made a presentation regarding the health hazards of asbestos. In or around Nov. 4, 1969, T. Egan attended the 52nd annual convention of CPLIA in Las Vegas, Nevada. At the convention, Dr. Selikoff spoke about the health hazards of asbestos. His remarks were transcribed and are contained in Vol. I, Convention Proceeding, CPLIA, 52nd Annual Convention. Robert H. Locke has approximately seven writings he received from the AIA beginning in May, 1982. They include informational memoranda, AIA news and notes, notification of a meeting with agenda, general information about AIA, and correspondence. c.) Grace currently has a library at its Construction Products Division in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The library contains among other things a collection of medical information pertaining to the effects of asbestos upon human health. Most of such information has been obtained since the mid-1970's. Grace states also that it has copies of the following articles: ? 1. "Asbetos Health Question Perplexes Experts," C&EN, . December 10, 1973, pp. 17-19. t 2. Reports on Research: MIT. ILP. "Case Study of Productivity and Regulation: The Asbestos Industry," adapted from Priest, Dr. W. Curtiss, "Government Regulation: Trends and Prospects," ILP Symposium at MIT. \ 3. Last page of article from Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 51, No. 4, April 1979, p. 525. Received June 17, 1982. 4. Nurminen, M., "A Study of the Mortality of Workers in an Anthophyllite Asbestos Factory in Finland," Work Environ. Health, 1972, pp. 112-118. -18- 5. Meurman, L.O., Kiviluoto, R. and Hakama, M., "Mortality and Morbidity Among the Working Population of Anthophyllite Asbestos Miners in Finland," British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1974; 31:105-112. 6. Meurman, L.O., Kiviluoto, R. and Hakama, M., "Combined Effect of Asbestos Exposure and Tobacco Smoking on Finnish Anthophyllite Miners and Millers," Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 1979, pp. 491-495. Received February 4, 1982. - 7. Verma, D.K. and Middleton, C.G., "Exposure in the Ceiling and Wall Texture Process," Occupational Health and Safety, pp. 21-24. ^ 8. Proposed Rules, Federal Reqister, Vol. 44, No., 202, pp. 60062-63, Vol. 44, No. 243, pp. 73127, 73128, October 17, 1979. Received October 17, 1979. _. 9. "State Curbs Asbestos: California Contractors Protest Sprayed Fireproofing Guidelines". 10. Acheson, E.D. and Gardner, M.J., "Mesothelioma and Exposure to Mixtures of Chrysotile and Amphibole Asbestos," Archives of Environmental. Health, July/August 1979, pp.240-242. Received September 26, 1979. 11. Gibbs, G.W., "Etiology of Pleural Calcification: A Study of Quebec Chrysotile Asbestos Miners and Millers, "Archives of Environmental Health, March/April, 1979, pp. 76-83. Received June 6, 1979.--------------------- 12. "Federal Health Standards Challenge Standards Board," "Asbestos Exposure Rules Must Be Same As Feds," Cal-OSHA Reporter, Vol. 6, No. 24, June 4, 1979. Received June ll, 1979. 13. Berry, G. and Wagner, J.C., "Effect of Age at Inoculation of Asbestos on Occurence of Mesotheliomas in Rats," 1976, pp. 477-483. Received June 15, 1977. 14. Rohl, A.N., Langer, A.M. and Selikoff, I.J., "Environmental Asbestos Pollution Related to Use of Quarried Serpentine Rock," Science, Vol. 196, pp. 1319-1322, June 17, 1977. Received June 15, T977. 15. McDonald, J.C., Gibbs, G.W., Liddell, P.D.K., and McDonald, A.D., "Mortality After Long Exposure to Cummingtonite Grurterite," For Presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Thorasic Society, Abstract, May 1977. 16. "Fibers May Be Released in Process of Exfoliation of Vermiculite Ore," Occupational Safety & Health Reporter, 1977. -19- 17. Greene, P.A. (Staff Associate, Health Research Group, Public Citizen), "OSHA Serves a Corporate Client: Ignoring Asbestos in Vanderbilt Industrial Talc," December 15, 1976. 18. Berry, G., Newhouse, M.L. and Turok, M., "Combined Effect of Asbestos Exposure and Smoking on Mortality from Lung Cancer in Factory Workers," The Lancet, pp. 476-479, September 2, 1972. Received December 6, 1976. 19. Office of Toxic Substances, EPA, "Identification of Selected Federal Activities Directed to Chemicals of Near-Term Concern: Asbestos, Arsenic, etc.," July, 1976. Received November 10, 1976. 20. Jones, H., "Dose Effect Relationships in Carcinogenesis and The Matter of Threshold of Carcinogenesis," 1976. 21. Flickinger, J. and Standridge, J., "Identification of Fibrous Material in Two Public Water Suppliers," 1975. 22. "Standard for Occupational Exposure to Asbestos: Ninth Draft," Task Group on Naturally Occurring Inorganic Fibers, American Society for Testing and Materials, December 15, 1975. 23. National Paint & Coatings Association, "Talc and the OSHA Asbestos Standard 1910.93a," Safety & Health Bulletin, No. 20, December 5, 1974. 24. Gross, P., Harley, R.A., Swinburne, L.M., Davis, J.M.G. and Greene, W.B., "Ingested Mineral Fibers," Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 29, pp. 341-347, December, T574. Received December 9, 1974. 25. Key, M.M., "Asbestos Exposure in Surface Coal Mines and Surface Work Areas of Underground Mines: Findings of Fact," Federal Register Vol. 39, No. 151, August 5, 1974. 26. Myers, J.L., "Chrysotile Asbes'tos in Plastics," Union Carbide Corporation, Mining and Metals Division, December 20, 1973 . 27. Draft Report of the International Labour Organization's Meeting of Experts on the Safe Use of Asbestos, Geneva, December 11-18, 1973. 28. Enterline, P.E. and Henderson, V., "Type of Asbestos and Respiratory Cancer in the Asbestos Industry," Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 27, p. 312, November 1 $73. 29. Gross, P. and Harley, R.A., "The Locus of Pathogenicity of Asbestos Dust," Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 27, pp. 240-242, October, 197 3. Received November 1, 1973. -20- 30. Wagner, J.C., Berry, G., Skidmore, J.W. and Timbrell, V., "The Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos in Rats," pp. 252269, 1974. 31. Weinhouse, S., "National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' Conference on Extrapolation of Data from Animals to Man," 1976. Received March 31, 1977. 32. "Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration Proposed Standards Amendments for Metal and Nonmetallic Open Pit Mines," Occupational Safety & Health Reporter, 1973, pp. 458-459. Received September 12, 1973. 33. "Asbestos," National Safety News, August, 1973. --> 34. "New Magnetic Technique Finds Deposits of Asbestos Dust in Lungs of Workers," Newspaper article. Received May 25, 1973. 35. "EPA: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants," Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 66, pp. 8820-8850, April 6, 1973. 36. "EPA Sets Final Air Standards for Asbestos, Mercury and Beryllium," Environmental News, March 30, 1973. ------- 37 . Porter, B., "An Asbestos Town Struggles with a Killer". Received February 22 1973. 38. Webster, I., "Asbestos and Malignancy,", S.A. Medical Journal, pp. 165-171, February 3, 1973. 39. Sherrill, R., "Asbestos, The Saver of Lives, Has a Deadly Side," The New York Times Magazine, January 21, 1972. 40. National Institutes of Health; HEW News Release Re: Cancer-Causing Asbestos, January 8, 1973. 41. Wagner,J.C., Berry, G. and Timbrell, V. , "Mesothelioma in Rats After Inoculation With Asbestos and Other Materials," American Journal of Cancer, 28:173-177, 1973 42. Stanton, M.F., "Some Etiological Considerations of Fibre Carcinogenesis," Biological Effects of Asbestos, pp. 289-294, 1973. 43. Selikoff, I.J., Nicholson, W.J., and Langer, A.M., "Asbestos Air Pollution," Archives of Enlvironmental Health, Vol. 25, July 1, 1972. 44. Abstracts: Smith, W.E., Hubert, D.D., and Badollet, M.S., "Biologic Differences in Response to Long and Short Asbestos Fibers"; Reeves, A.L., Puro, H.E., Vorwald, A.J. and Smith, R.G., "Fibrogenicity and Carcinogenicity of Amosite, -21- Crocidolite, and Chrysotile in Animal Experiment," pp. 177, 189. Received June 18, 1972. 45. "OSHA: Standard for Exposure to Asbestos," Federal Register, vol. 37, No. 110, pp. 11318-11322, June 7, 1972. Received June 13, 1972. 46. "Asbestos, Lung Cancer From Cigarettes (sic) Linked: Doctors Report Mineral Does Not Cause Disease But Enhances Smoking Dangers," Los Angeles Times, July 27, 1972. Received August 3, 1972. 47. U.S. Department of Labor New Release, "OSHA Establishes New Standard for Employee Exposure to Asbestos Dust," June 7, 1972. Received June 14, 1972. 48. Reitze, W.B., Nicholson, W.J., Holaday, D.A., and Selikoff, I.J., "Application of Sprayed Inorganic Fiber Containing Asbestos: Occupational Health Hazards," American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, pp. 178-191, March 1972. 49. Stanton, J.F. and Wrench, C., "Mechanisms of Mesothelioma Induction with Asbestos and Fibrous Glass," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, pp. 797-822, Vol. 48, NcT! March 197'2.-------------------------------------- 50. Gibbs, G.W. and Lachance, M., "Dust Exposure in the Chrysotile Asbestos Mines and Mills of Quebec," Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 24, pp. 189-197, March 1972. 51. Beck. E.G., Holt, P.F. and Manojlovic, N., "Comparison of Effects on Macrophage Cultures of Glass Fibre, Glass Powder, and Chrysotile Asbestos," British Journal of Medicine, 1972:29: 280-286. Further, Grace will produce relevant, non-privileged and non trade secret documents responsive to this interrogatory to plaintiffs in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. d.) In June, 1970, Peter Kostic corresponded with H.G. Donovan at Johns Manville regarding Dr. Corbett McDonald's publication of an article entitled, "Research on Asbestos and Health: A Progress Report to Employees of the Quebec Asbestos Mining Industry". Thomas Egan of CPD received a letter dated May 11, 1971 from D. L. Shank, Industrial Manager of the National Gypsum Company, that enclosed an article entitled "Prevention in the Insulation Industry", from the April 1971 edition of Minerals Processing magazine. Shank also sent a copy of the letter and the article to Joseph Schachter, CPD's Director of Purchases. -22- Thomas Feit of CPD received a letter dated September 7, 1971 from James F. Reis, Special Representative, Asbestos Fiber Sales, Johns-Manville Sales Corp. that enclosed three articles: 1.) Asbestos and the General Public 2.) Asbestos and Human Health 3.) Source and identification of Respirable Fibers. INTERROGATORY 35 Is defendant aware of any medical literature or studies that indicated that there is an association between asbestos exposure and: (a) Asbestosis? (b) Lung cancer? (c) Mesothelioma? (d) Other cancers? ANSWER 35 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in that the term "association" is undefined and thus subject to various interpretations. Subject to these objections and to the General Objections interposed above, Grace states yes. INTERROGATORY 36 If you affirmatively answered any subpart of Interrogatory No. 35, please state: (a) When and how defendant first learned of such connection. (b) If knowledge was obtained by attendance at any conference, lecture, convention, symposium or meeting, identify such meeting and provide identity of persons attending and any documents obtained. (c) If knowledge was obtained from medical or scientific studies, or any other published work, identify the same. (d) If otherwise obtained, identify manner of communication and any documents obtained. ANSWER 36 Grace states see answer to Interrogatory No. 34, above. -23- INTERROGATORY 37 Identify all documents concerning any communication to anyone by you or your medical directors or management regarding health hazards associated with asbestos exposure. - ANSWER 37 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is bverly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Relevant, hon-privileged and non-trade secret documents which are responsive to this interrogatory will be produced in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. INTERROGATORY 38 Identify any documents concerning communications by anyone to you, your medical directors, or management, concerning health hazards associated with asbestos exposure. ANSWER 38 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Relevant, non-privileged and non-trade secret documents containing information responsive to this interrogatory will be produced in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. INTERROGATORY 39 As to any knowledge possessed by defendant at any time referred to in your answer to Interrogatories 37 and 38, did you educate your employees, distributors or purchasers of the hazards known to you ana the safety precautions necessary to guard against asbestosis and other diseases arising from the use and handling of your products? ANSWER 39 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is argumentative and misleading in that it assumes that the use and handling of Grace products causes asbestosis and other diseases. Grace further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections and to the General Objections interposed above Grace states that certain of its employees would from time to time discuss the use of Grace products with its customers. It is impossible to recreate those conversations. Further answering Grace states that the 1970 -24- Grace brochure published in Sweet's Catalog of 1971 contained the following paragraphs: "POLLUTION AND HEALTH: Because of the constantly changing conditions involving fireproofing and its relation to pollution and health, we recommend that you contact your Zonolite sales office for the latest data on these subjects. Recent tests at Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. have provided some fire-ratings on an asbestos-free formula Mono-Kote. Other tests and ratings will follow." "Existing formulations of Mono-Kote contain minimal amounts of asbestos which are locked in during the mixing process. Mono- Kote is wet mixed, pumped and sprayed, and hardens to a cementitious mass. Job-site tests show air fiber counts well below occupational Threshold Limit Values proposed by government bodies." In addition, Grace states that beginning in 1976, the form of Material Safety Data Sheets, it notified customers of the need to wear NIOSH/MESA-approved respirators when threshold limit values were exceeded. in Also starting in 1976 or 1977, Grace affixed a caution regarding nuisance dust to the packaging of its vermiculite products. This caution read: CAUTION AVOID CREATING DUST BREATHING DUST MAY BE HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH USE WITH ADEQUATE VENTILATION OR WITH RESPIRATORY PROTECTION As to Grace employees, Grace states that the use of respirators at its vermiculite mine and processing plants preceded Grace's acquisition of Zonolite in 1963. At Grace's mine in Libby, Montana, respirators have been mandatory since about 1954 for all employees working in dusty areas. Respirators were in use at several of Grace's expanding plants prior to 1965, also because of dust. In 1972 Grace placed government required signs in its vermiculite mines and expanding plants carrying the following warning: ASBESTOS DUST HAZARD Avoid Breathing Dust. Wear Assigned Protective Equipment. Do Not Remain In Area Unless Your Work Requires It. Breathing Asbestos Dust May Be Hazardous To Your Health. -25- Grace also published the following brochures for its employees: 1.) What You Should Know About Tremolite and Health; 2. )There Are Some Things You Should Know; and 3.) Before You Bec^in. These brochures were published after Grace discontinued the manufacture of commercial asbestos containing products. Relevant, non-privileged and non-trade secret documents which are responsive to this interrogatory will be produced to plaintiff in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. ) / ] INTERROGATORY 40 If the answer to Interrogatory No. 39 is in the affirmative, please identify: (a) When and in what manner customers, insulators, factory workers and the general public were so informed; (b) Documents communicating or otherwise disseminating such information; (c) Programs initiated or sponsored to establish or promote safety procedures, methods or usage of equipment. (d) Published articles or reports by employees (present or prior, including those medical directors, scientists, engineers or other professionals; (e) Symposia or lectures sponsored for the benefit of asbestos or other workers and/or the general public. ANSWER 40 See answer to Interrogatory No. 39, above. INTERROGATORY 41 When and by what manner were you first aware of the hazards relating to exposure to asbestos or asbestos products: (a) For inside insulators and other users and workers; (b) For outside insulators and other users and workers. ANSWER 41 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections and to the General -26- Objections interposed above, Grace states that R.A. Bleich, Libby Plant Manager received a letter, dated May 11, 1964, from Benjamin F. Wake, Industrial Hygiene Engineer, Division of Disease Control, Montana State Board of Health. Mr. Wake's letter makes reference to the article co-authored by Dr. Irving J. Selikoff as published April 6, 1964 in the Journal of the American Medical Association that pertained to building trade insulation workers. Further answering, Grace states that in or around the summer of 1969, T. Egan of Grace attended a meeting in Ottawa, Canada at which Dr. Irving Selikoff made a presentation regarding the health hazards of asbestos. INTERROGATORY 42 If you have knowledge or information concerning the following, answer in the affirmative or negative, whether: (a) Early detection of mesothelioma results in any appreciable rate of cure or arrest; (b) A single exposure to asbestos may cause mesothelioma, or other cancers or asbestosis; (c) Cumulative or multiple exposures to asbestos result in a greater risk of harm to the exposed person; (d) An outside insulator has a risk of harm from exposure to asbestos or asbestos products; (e) Stripping or removing old asbestos creates a greater risk of harm than installation of asbestos or asbestos products; (f) Cancer resulting from exposure to asbestos develops generally after: (1) 1-5 years; (2) 6-10 years; (3) 11-20 years; (4) More than 20 years; (g) There is any known relationship between smoking and mesothelioma; (h) There is any reported use of mesothelioma other than exposure to asbestos. -27- ANSWER 42 Grace objects to this i nterrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in that it lacks sufficient specificity regarding type of asbestos, and the level, duration, nature, and manner of exposure. Furthe r answering, this interrogatory calls for an expert opinion. INTERROGATORY 43 As to each answer to Interrogatory No. 42, identify at least one person or document upon which answering defendant relies. ANSWER 43 Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory No. 42, above. INTERROGATORY 44 Does defendant contend that asbestos products can be manufactured so as to eliminate all potential health hazards to workers installing same or otherwise exposed to same? ANSWER 44 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Grace further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is argumentative and misleading in that it assumes that there were dangers associated with the use of the products listed in the Product Appendix. INTERROGATORY 45 If so, please explain. ANSWER 45 Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory No. 44, above. ___ ^ INTERROGATORY 46 Please describe in detail the type of packages in which defendant has sold asbestos material, listing the dates each type of package was used, a physical description thereof, and a description of any printed material or trademarks that appeared thereon. ANSWER 46 See Product Appendix Nos. l-2(h). -28- INTERROGATORY 47 If any employee or officer of defendant has testified at trial or by deposition in any "asbestos litigation", or before any Congressional Committee or administrative agency concerning asbestos exposure, pulmonary or asbestos-related diseases or industrial hygiene relating to asbestos use, state: a. The name, address and title of each person who testified. b. The date, location and forum of such testimony. c. Whether defendant has a copy of such testimony. d. Whether defendant will voluntarily produce such testimony. ANSWER 47 Grace objects to this interrogatory subpart on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to this objection and to the General Objections interposed above, Grace states that certain of its employees have testified on behalf of Grace by oral deposition or trial testimony in matters concerning products containing commercial asbestos, as follows: 1. Wilfred Archambo 2/27-8/84 In RE: Massachusetts Asbestos Cases, M.B.L. I & M.B.L. II (Dist. of Mass.) Donald L. Bailey 1/28-9/86- The Corporation of Mercer University v. National Gypsum Co., Case No. 85-126-3-MAC (M. D. GA) Mark Baker 1/5/84 - Greenville County School District v. U. S Gypsum, et al., No. 82-3142-14 (Dist. SC) Alfred Baretta 6/1/83 - Lona P. Shultz v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., efc al., No. 1-92-83 (Knox County Circuit Court, Tennessee) -29- Richland County School District One v. Johns-Manville~Sales Corp., et al.~j No. 82-CP-40-3050 (Court of Common Pleas, Richland, County., SC) 5. Jane Behan 5/13/83 - Lona P. Shultz Richland County School District One 8/15-6/84 - Michael A. Archie, et al. v. Carey Canada, Inc. , et al., No. 84-4447 (Middlesex County Superior Court, Mass.) 6. Donna Black 1/9/85 - Hazel F.Blough v. Pfizer, Inc., et al.. No. 84-0209 (Western Dist. of PA) Idella Kennell v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., No. 84-0208 (Western Dist. of PA) 7. George W. Blackwood 12/19/85 & Mercer University 1/14/86 8. Ralph Bragg 1/9/85 - Hazel F. Blough Idella Kennell 11/5/86 & 11/14/86 - Dayton Independent School District v. w. R. Grace & Co., et al.. No. B-81-277-CA; B-81-293-CA (Eastern Dist. of Texas) 9. Harry Brown 1/24/86 - Mercer University 10. Norman T. Burns 1/27/86 - State of Maryland V. Keene Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 1108600 (Anne Arundel Circuit Court, Maryland) 11. John Cahalane 6/17/82 - Duoavviiud Duuonnaaxldu Sjnmu iuthn vv . Wrt ., R. uGiraqcuec o&t vC- uo.,r e t. a 1.~ No. 776803 (4th Judicial District, Hennepin County, Minnesota) -30- 12. Timothy Carrothers 8/5/83 - Greenville County School District 13. William Cavanaugh 1/23/86- State of Maryland Mercer University 14. Melvin Chambers 8/5/83 - Greenville County School District 15. Judson Chapin 12/16/86 - Dayton Independent School District 16. Kenneth Cheetham 6/1/83 - Lona P. Shultz Richland County School District One 17. Roger W. Cole 12/13/85 - Sherry Wolfe, et al., v. U. S. Gypsum Co., et al . , C/A No. 2-83-329 (E. D. of TN) Mercer University Spartanburg County School District v. National Gypsum Co., et al., C/A No. 83-1744-14 (Dist Of SC) City of Greenville v. W. R. Grace & Co., et al. ,' Kershaw County Board of Education v. W. R. Grace & Co., et al~ No. 85-CP-28-58 (Court of Common Pleas, SC) 1/13/86 & 1/30/86 - State of Maryland 18. Barbara Cross 8/16/84 - Michael A. Archie -31- 19. Art Dean 6/18/86 Adams-Arapahoe School District No. 28-J v. Celotex Corp., et al., No. 84-C-1974 (District of Colorado) School District of Independence, MO, No. 30 v. U. S. Gypsum, et al., Case No. CV 84-5334 (Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri) 20. Arthur D'Errico 8/15/84 - Michael A. Archie 6/20/86 - Anchorage School District v. w. R. Grace, Case No. A-85-098 (Dist. of Alaska) 1/6/87 - Methodist Health Systems, Inc., v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., et al., No. 85-2553-GA (Western Dist. of TN) 21. Heyman C. Duecker 1/15-16/86 Mercer University 22. Fred Eaton 10/21-2/86 Dayton Independent School District 23. Thomas Egan 1/9/85 - Hazel F. Blough Idella Kennell 8/21/86 & 11/24/86 Anchorage School District 9/22/86 - School District of Independence, MO, No. 30 24. Robert Ericson 1/9/85 - Hazel F. Blough Idella Kennell 1/24/86 - Mercer University 25. Harry A. Eschenbach 6/17/82 - David Donald Smith 8/18/83 - Richland County School District One -32- 1/8/85 - Hazel F. Blough Idella Kennell 1/17/86 - Mercer University 6/20/86 & 8/7/86 School District of Independence, MO, No. 30 9/5/86 - Anchorage School District 26 Thomas Feit 1/9/85 - Hazel F. Blough Idella Kennell 7/23/85 & 10/7/85 - Los Angeles Unified School District v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., et al., Case No. 440-31/ (California Superior Court 9 Los Angeles County) 12/18/85 & Mercer University 12/18/87 8/20+22/86 Anchorage School District 11/13/86 Melvin Oxnam v. Abel Corp., et al., C/A No. (California Superior Court, Solano County) 5/7/87 - Dayton Independent School District 27. Robert Frohlich 8/18/83 - Richland County School District One 28. John Grimaldi 3/21/84 - In RE: Massachusetts Asbestos Cases, M.B.L. I & M.B.L. II 29. Gerald F. Hall 9/18/85 - Los Angeles Unified School District 30. Thomas Hamilton 12/19/83 - Greenville County School District -33- 31. James B. Henderson 1/20/86 - State of Maryland Mercer University 32. Oiva Kallio 1/29/87 - City of Manchester v. National Gypsum, Co., et al., Case No. 83-143-L (Dist. of NH) 33. Robert H. Locke 1/14/86 - Mercer University 34. Earl Lovick 12/20-1/83 Greenville County School District 35. Cortland Lowe 3/21/84 - Greenville County School District 36. Jeremiah McCarthy 8/6/86 - School District of Independence, MO, No. 30 37 . James Ralph McLeod 9/16/86 - City of Enterprise, a Municipal Corporation, for and on Behalf of Enterprise City Board of Education v. W. R. Grace & Co., et al., Civil Action No. 85-T-914-S (Circuit Court for Coffee County, AL) 38. Robert Merther 6/16/82 - David Donald Smith 8/29/84 - Nina A. Bowman v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., No~ C-2-81-1492 (Southern District of Ohio) 8/30/85 & 12/18/85 Los Angeles Unified School District 39. Marjorie Metcalf 5/31/83 - Lona B. Shultz 6/2/83 - Richland County School District One 12/11/86 - Dayton Independent School District -34- 6/1/87 - Ashwaubenon School District and Green Bay Area Public Schools v. United States Mineral Products Co., et al.j File No. 85-CV-3131 (Circuit Court, Brown County, Wisconsin) 40. Donald Mueller 3/22-3/84 - In RE: Massachusetts Asbestos Cases, M.B.L. I & M.B.L. II 41 . James F. Murphy, Jr 6/1/83 - Lona B. Shultz Richland County School District One 42. Marvin J. Odesky 1/14/86 - State of Maryland 43. Walter Payment 9/16/83 - Greenville County School District 11/4/86 - Dayton Independent School District 44. Thomas Pezzullo 1/8/85 Hazel F . Blough Idella Kennell 45. Walter Pickthall 4/22/75 - Adolph Carl Kerger v. Owens-Corning Fibergl as, et al., No. 655195 (California Superior Court) 46. Gary Poindexter 9/4/86 - Anchorage School District 47. Douqlas Powlinq 3/29/84 - In RE: Massachusetts Asbestos Cases M.B.L. I & M.B.L. II, 48 . Paul Reif 5/31/83 - Lona P. Shultz Richland County School District One -35- 49. Richard Rettew 12/17/86 - Dayton Independent School District 50. Francis Ricci 8/16/84 - Michael A. Archie 51. William Rogers 2/22/84 - In RE: Massachusetts Asbestos Cases, M.B.L. I & M.B.L. II 52. Arnold Rosenberg 5/19/87 - Anchorage School District 53. Richard Schneider 8/18/83 - Richland County School District One 10/31/86 Dayton Independent School District Lawrence Shu, Ph.D. 12/19/83 Greenville County School District Samuel Lee Templeton 1/4/84 & 7/16/84 Greenville County School District 56. George E. Tierney 8/14+17/84 Michael A. Archie 57. Joseph Timmons, Sr. 1/5/84 - Greenville County School District 58. Stan Titus 2/23-4/84 In RE: Massachusetts Asbestos Cases, M.B.L. I & M.B.L. II, 59. Larry Venard 4/23/87 - Maryland Casualty Co., v. W. R. Grace & Co. S3-CIV-7451 (Southern Dist. of New York) -36- 60 9/17/85 - Los Angeles Unified School District 12/20/86 & Mercer University 1/14/87 5/6/87 - Anchorage School District 61. Robert Walsh 5/18/87 - Anchorage School District 62. C. H. Wendell 9/3/86 - Anchorage School District 63. Bruce Williams 4/15/87 - Kansas City v. W. R.Grace & Co., et (Jackson County Circuit Court, Mo) 64. Jack Wolter 1/9/85 - Hazel F. Blough Idella Kennell 65. Reed Wriqht 8/16/84 - Michael A. Archie 66. Dr. Julie Chi-Sun Yang, Ph.D. 6/1-2/83 - Lona P. Shultz Richland County School District One 12/21/83 - Greenville County School District 8/29/84 - Nina A. Bowman 1/29/86 - Mercer University 67. George Zisson 8/14/84 - Michael A. Archie Bruce R. Williams and Thomas P. Feit presented arguments and data and delivered a statement to the EPA in hearings concerning proposed regulations under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants held commencing February 15, 1972 in Los Angeles, California. Further answering, Grace states that Robert -37- Chaney of the California Zonolite Company appeared before the City of San Francisco Board of Examiners on July 21, 1970 to give his opinion as to the Board's proposed ben on spray fireproofing containing asbestos. Walter Pickthall, San Francisco District Sales Manager for CPD, was scheduled to appear but could not attend due to a personal emergency. On July 23, 1970, David G. Powell, Harvey L. Waxman, and James Cintani of CPD appeared at a meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Environmental and Occupational Hazards of Asbestos Fibers of the Philadelphia Department of Public Health to present data pertaining to spray fireproofing products. On March 14, 1972, Walter Pickthall attended a meeting of The Building Standards Co-ordinating Council of the State of California and gave a presentation regarding proposed Assembly Bill 314. On December 6, 1972, Thomas P. Egan submitted a statement to the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency concerning proposed Minnesota regulation APC-17 relating to the use of asbestos material. Grace knows of no person having copies of the transcription of depositions in the Kennell and Blough cases. Copies of transcripts of all other depositions are available at the offices of Grace's outside legal counsel, Casner^ Edwards & Roseman, 30 Federal St., Boston, Massachusetts. INTERROGATORY 48 At the time of the development of each asbestos product listed in Answer No. 6 did you attempt to determine whether the product complied with the then applicable standards, safety orders, regulations, laws, rules and design requirements of any city, county, state or the Federal Government of the United States? a. If the answer is in the negative, please state the reasons for not conducting such an analysis and identify the name of the person deciding not to conduct the analysis. b. If the answer is in the affirmative, identify those safety standards, safety orders, regulations, laws, rules or other ordinances which you claim you considered. ANSWER 48 Grace objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections and to the General Objections interposed above, Grace states that the products listed in the Product Appendix were manufactured according to applicable industry standards. Further answering, Grace states that relevant, non-privileged and non-trade secret documents which are responsive to this interrogatory will be produced in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. -38- INTERROGATORY 49 Did you receive or give any warning, instructions or information as to the dangers of asbestos inhalation when you purchased, sold shipped and delivered each order of asbestos products? If so, for each shipment: a. Describe in detail each such warning, instruction or information given or received. b. State whether such warning, instruction or information was oral or written. c. If oral, identify the substance of the warning, instruction or information given and the date and name of the person to whom given or from whom received by other defendants. ANSWER 49 See the General Objections interposed above. Subject to these objections, Grace states not to its knowledge. Further answering, see answer to Interrogatory No. 39, above. INTERROGATORY 50 Did defendant ever recommend to purchasers or users of the asbestos products listed in your Answer No. 6 that respirators, protective masks and/or protective clothing be worn with the product? If so, state: a. The date or dates when such recommendation was made to each purchaser. b. The date or dates when each such recommendation was made to each user. c. Who made the recommendation? d. Who received the recommendation? e. If oral, the manner and substance of the recommendation? f. If written, identify the document by title, date, file designation and author of each such recommendation and the location and present custodian of each such recommendation. ANSWER 50 Beginning in 1977, Grace notified customers in the form of Material Safety Data Sheets of the need to wear NIOSH/MESAapproved respirators if threshold limit values were exceeded. The Material Safety Data Sheets will be made available for inspection in Boston, Massachusetts at a mutually agreeable time. -39- INTERROGATORY 51 Does the defendant expect to call expert witnesses at the trial of this case? ANSWER 51 Grace has not yet decided whom it will call at the time of rial but reserves the right to do so prior to trial. When such decision is made, the information requested will be supplied in an appropriate manner. INTERROGATORY 52 If so, please identify: (a) Any expert witness whose testimony you intend to use at trial of this case; (b) The subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify; (c) The substance of the facts and opinions to which each expert is expected to testify; (d) Any former co-worker or supervisor of the plaintiff whom you have interviewed or intend to call as a witness in this litigation. ANSWER 52 Not applicable. See answer to Interrogatory No. 51, above. INTERROGATORY 53 Do you contend that the plaintiff's injuries are not causally related to asbestos-exposure? If so, identify: (a) All documents that you contend support this assertion; (b) All witnesses having knowledge of facts relevant to this contention; and (c) State all facts that you contend support this assertion. ANSWER 53 Grace is unable to answer this interrogatory at this time because it has not obtained sufficient information from plaintiffs and other sources to make this determination and reserves the right to do so prior to trial. Further answering, Grace will assert that there is no causal relationship between such injuries and exposure to its products. -40- INTERROGATORY 54 Do you contend that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent? If so: (a) Identify all documents and witnesses supporting this contention; and (b) State all facts upon which this contention is based. ANSWER 54 Grace is unable to answer this interrogatory at this time because it has not obtained sufficient information from plaintiffs and other sources to make this determination and reserves the right to do so prior to trial. INTERROGATORY 55 Do you contend that the plaintiff's claim is barred by Laches or the Statute of Limitations? If so: (a) State all facts that you contend support this defense; and (b) Identify all documents and witnesses that you contend support this defense. ANSWER 55 Grace is unable to answer this interrogatory at this time because it has not obtained sufficient information from plaintiffs and other sources to make this determination and reserves the right to do so prior to trial. INTERROGATORY 56 Do you contend that plaintiff received warnings of the danger of asbestos-containing products? If so, identify all witnesses and documents that support this contention. ANSWER 56 Grace is unable to answer this interrogatory at this time because it has not obtained sufficient information from plaintiffs and other sources to make this determination and reserves the right to do so prior to trial. -41- INTERROGATORY 57 Do you intend to assert a defense based on an allegation that plaintiff did not personally handle asbestos products and that you therefore could not have known of the dangers plaintiff incurred by exposure to your products? If so, please state: (a) All facts that you contend support this defense; (b) All documents, including medical articles that you cfontend support this defense; and (c) All co-worker witnesses having knowledge of facts relevant to this defense. ANSWER 57 Grace is unable to answer this interrogatory at this time because it has not obtained sufficient information from plaintiffs and other sources to make this determination and reserves the right to do so prior to trial. W.R. Grace & Co by its attorney Dated: GRASS, WELCH, VINARDI, KAUFMAN & DAY, P.C. 800 Commercial Federal Tower 2120 South 72nd Street Omaha, Nebraska 68124 -42- Commercial Asbestos Containing Products l.a. Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-1). b. Chemical Composition: approximately 11.9% short fiber Chrysotile asbestos, vermiculite, plaster of paris, Portland cement, ZOD concentrate. c. 1959 by the Zonolite Company, 1963 by Grace. d. Produced by Zonolite Company from 1959. Virtually all sales ended by 1962, although there were some sales until approximately 1969. e. The product was manufactured at some or all of the plants listed below. Approximate dates of production are not known. (1) Phoenix, Arizona (2) Los Angeles, California (3) Sacramento, California (4) Denver, Colorado (5) Tampa, Florida (6) Wilder, Kentucky (7) New Orleans, Louisiana (8) Dearborn, Michigan (9) Minneapolis, Minnesota (10) Omaha, Nebraska (11) Trenton, New Jersey (12) Albany, New York (13) Portland, Oregon (14) Travelers Rest, South Carolina (15) Dallas, Texas (16) Spokane, Washington. f. Cementitious light beige fireproofing material. g. Cementitious fireproofing. h. This product was packaged in multi-walled, pastedvalve bags constructed of two 60 pound plies of natural kraft paper, which is prescribed by the transportation industry, specifically, National Motor Freight Classification 100-1. 2. a. Zonolite Mono-Kote (MK-3). b. Chemical Composition: Short fiber chrysotile asbestos, Vermiculite, Plaster of Paris, Sodium lauryl sulfate. Contained approximately 13.23 percent 7M or 12.18 7R short fiber chrysotile asbestos by weight. c. Produced by Zonolite Company from 1959 to 1963 Produced by Grace from 1963 until 1973. d. Produced by Zonolite Company from 1959 to 1963 Produced by Grace from 1963 until 1973. e. The product was manufactured at some or all of the plants listed below. Where approximate dates of production are known, they are also listed. (1) Phoenix, Arizona (Glendale); 1960-1973 (2) North Little Rock, Arkansas; 1959-1973 (3) Los Angeles, California; 1959-1973 (4) Newark, California; 1965-1973 (5) Sacramento, California (6) Santa Ana, California; 1972-1973 (7) Denver, Colorado; 1959-1973 (8) Jacksonville, Florida; 1968-1973 (9) Tampa, Florida; 1960-1967 (10) Chicago, Illinois (W. Chicago); 1959-1973 (11) Wilder, Kentucky (12) New Orleans, Louisiana; some MK-3 was made at this plant for a short period in the early 1960's (13) Easthampton, Massachusetts; 1964-1973 (14) Dearborn, Michigan (15) Minneapolis, Minnesota; 1960-1972 (16) St. Louis, Missouri; 1959-1973 (17) Omaha, Nebraska; 1962-1973 (18) Trenton, New Jersey; 1964 (19) Albany, New York (20) Weedsport, New York; 1965-1973 (21) Portland, Oregon; 1963-1973 (22) Ellwood City, Pennsylvania; mid-1960's (23) New Castle, Pennsylvania; 1969-1973 (24) Travelers Rest, South Carolina; 1959-1965 (25) Kearney, South Carolina; 1966 or 1967-1973 (26) Dallas, Texas (27) Spokane, Washington; 1959-1973 (28) Milwaukee, Wisconsin f. Light beige cementitious material. g. Fireproofing. h. This product was packaged in multi-walled, pastedvalve bags constructed of two 60 pound plies of natural kraft paper, which is prescribed by the transportation industry, specifically, National Motor Freight Classification 100-1. CERTIFICATION COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, SS. ) ) ) Merrie E. Schippereit, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says she is a Vice-President of Finance, of the Construction Products Division of W.R. Grace & Co., defendant in the above-entitled action; that she has read the foregoing answers to interrogatories and knows the contents thereof; that said answers were prepared by and with the assistance of employees and representatives of the corporation, with the assistance and advice of counsel, upon which she has relied; that the answers set forth herein, subject to inadvertent or undiscovered errors, are based on and therefore necessarily limited by the records and information still in existence, presently recollected and thus far discovered in the course of the preparation of these answers; that consequently W.R. Grace & Co. reserves the right to make any changes in the answers if it appears at any time that omissions or errors have been made therein or that more accurate information is available; and that subject to the limitations set forth herein the said answers are true to the best of her present knowledge, information and belief. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a coj forwarded this day depositing same in the United addressed to: States Mail, foregoing was 1987, by postage pre-paid, Lisa A. Blue Baron & Budd 8333 Douglas Avenue, 10th Floor Dallas, Texas 75225 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Frank Watson, Jr. 516 Equitable Bldg. Des Moines, IA 50309 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas H. Hart, III Ronald L. Motley Blatt & Fales, P.A. Box 365 Barnwell, S.C. 29812 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Donald E. Earnshaw 512 Elkwood Mall Center Building 42nd & Center St. Omaha, Nebraska 68105 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas A. Otepka Gross, Welch 800 Comm. Fed. Twr. 2120 South 72nd Street Omaha, Nebraska 68124 Attorneys for Defendant W. R. Grace & Co. 1329A -2-