0001
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION – MIDDLESEX COUNTY
2 DOCKET NO. MID-L-4527-06 AS
3
4
5 KAREN SAVARESE and STANLEY
SAVARESE, Husband and Wife, VIDEOTAPE
6 DEPOSITION UNDER
Plaintiffs, ORAL EXAMINATION
7 OF
JUDITH STADLER
8 VOLUME II
vs.
9
10 ABB LUMMUS CREST, INC.,
et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13
14 TRANSCRIPT of the stenographic notes
15 of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter,
16 as taken by and before TABITHA R. DENTE, a
17 Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public
18 of the State of New Jersey, held at the offices
19 of Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, 100 Southgate
20 Parkway, Morristown, New Jersey, on Wednesday,
21 March 17, 2010, commencing at 10:06 a.m.
22
23 BRODY DEPOSITION SERVICES
Certified Shorthand Reporters & Videographers
24 7 Elm Street
Westfield, New Jersey 07090
25 (908) 789-2000
0002
1 A P P E A R A N C E S :
2
3 COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
4 127 Maple Avenue
5 Red Bank, New Jersey 07701
6 (732) 747-9003
7 BY: CHRISTOPHER PLACITELLA, ESQ.
8 And JILLIAN SMITH, ESQ.
9 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
10
11 HOLLSTEIN, KEATING, CATTELL,
12 JOHNSON & GOLDSTEIN, P.C.
13 Willow Ridge Executive Office Park
14 750 Route 73 South, Suite 301
15 Marlton, New Jersey 08053
16 (856) 810-8860
17 BY: NANCY GREEN, ESQ.
18 Attorneys for the Defendant,
19 Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.
20
21
22
23
24
25
0003
1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):
2
3 O’TOOLE, FERNANDEZ, WEINER & VAN LIEU, LLC
4 60 Pompton Avenue
5 Verona, New Jersey 07044
6 (973) 239-5700
7 BY: BRUCE BRAENDER, ESQ.
8 Attorneys for the Defendant,
9 Clark Reliance Corp.
10
11 COTTEN, SCHMIDT & ABBOTT, LLP
12 550 Bailey Avenue, Suite 600
13 Fort Worth, Texas 76107
14 BY: LARRY E. COTTEN, ESQ.
15 (817) 338-4500
16 Attorneys for the Defendant,
17 E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co.
18
19 PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C.
20 100 Southgate Parkway
21 Morristown, New Jersey 07962
22 (973) 538-4006
23 BY: ROY ALAN COHEN, ESQ.
22 Attorneys for the Defendant,
23 E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co.
24
25
0004
1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):
2
3 MONTGOMERY, CHAPIN & FETTEN, P.C.
4 745 Route 202/206, Suite 101
5 Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807
6 (908) 203-8833
7 BY: GARY AHLANDIANAKIS, ESQ.
8 Attorneys for the Defendant,
9 J.H. France Refractories Co.
10
11 McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
12 1300 Mt. Kemble Avenue
13 Morristown, New Jersey 07962
14 (973) 993-8100
15 BY: MICHELLE HYDRUSKO, ESQ.
16 Attorneys for the Defendants,
17 Rockwell International Corp.,
18 Mobil Oil Corp., Flowserve US, Inc.
19
20 HARRIS BEACH, PLLC
21 100 Wall Street
22 New York, New York 10005
23 (212) 687-0100
24 BY: ABBY VOLIN, ESQ.
25 Attorneys for the Defendant, Kentile Floors, Inc.
0005
1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):
2
3 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN
4 200 Lake Drive East
5 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002
6 (856) 414-6000
7 BY: RACHEL von RHINE, ESQ.
8 Attorneys for the Defendant, Riley Power, Inc.
9
10 GARRITY, GRAHAM, MURPHY, GARAFALO & FINN, P.C.
11 1 Lackawanna Plaza
12 Montclair, New Jersey 07042
13 (973) 509-7500
14 BY: ANTHONY MARINO, ESQ.
15 Attorneys for the Defendants,
16 State Insulation Corp., United Conveyor Corp.
17
18 TIERNEY LAW OFFICES
19 1125 Land Title Building
20 100 South Broad Street
21 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19110
22 (215) 790-2400
23 BY: JOHN R. SEREDA, ESQ.
24 Attorneys for Defendant, Elizabeth Industrial
25 Supply
0006
1 A P P E A R A N C E S: (Cont’d)
2
3 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
4 502 Carnegie Center
5 Princeton, New Jersey 08540
6 BY: CHRISTOPHER IANNICELLI, ESQ.
7 And RYAN BLANEY, ESQ.
8 Attorneys for the Defendant, Yarway Corp.
9
10 HOFHEIMER, GARTLIR & GROSS, LLP
11 530 Fifth Avenue, Ninth Floor
12 New York, New York 10036
13 (212) 944-0500
14 BY: ROBERT HOWARD, ESQ.
15 Attorneys for the Defendant, Rapid American
16
17 REILLY, JANICZEK & McDEVITT
18 2500 McClellan Boulevard
19 Merchantville, New Jersey 08109
20 (856) 317-7180
21 BY: COLIN SCANLON, ESQ.
22 Attorneys for the Defendant, Cleaver-Brooks
23
24
25
0007
1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):
2
3 HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, LLP
4 40 Paterson Street
5 New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
6 (732) 545-4717
7 BY: DANIEL KUSZMERSKI, ESQ.
8 Attorneys for the Defendants, W.W. Grainger,
9 Goulds Pumps
10
11 SEGAL, McCAMBRIDGE, SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD.
12 United Plaza, 30 S. 17th Street, Suite 1700
13 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
14 (215) 972-9015
15 BY: THOMAS COLEMAN, ESQ.
16 Attorneys for the Defendant, Garlock Sealing
17 Technologies
18
19 CONNELL FOLEY, LLP
20 85 Livingston Avenue
21 Roseland, New Jersey 07068
22 (973) 535-0500
23 BY: RICHARD JAGEN, ESQ.
24 Attorneys for the Defendant, Superior Welding
25 Supply
0008
1 A P P E A R A N C E S: (Cont’d)
2
3 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
4 100 Century Parkway, Suite 200
5 Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054
6 (856) 727-6000
7 BY: JEANINE D. CLARK, ESQ.
8 Attorneys for the Defendant, Industrial Rubber,
9 Washington Group International
10
11 CARUSO, POPE, EDELL, PICINI, P.C.
12 60 Route 46 East
13 Fairfield, New Jersey 07704
14 (973) 667-6000
15 BY: NICHOLAS ALBANO, III, ESQ.
16 Attorneys for the Defendants,
17 JCP&L, Notte Safety Appliance
18
19 Also present:
20
21 Gerard Genna, Videographer
22
23
24
25
0009
1 I N D E X
2
3 WITNESS PAGE
4
JUDITH STADLER
5
6 Continued Direct Examination
by Mr. Placitella 13
7
Cross Examination by Mr. Cotten 110
8
Redirect Examination by Mr. Placitella 183
9
10
11
12 E X H I B I T S
13
Plaintiff’s
14 Exhibits
15 P-31 3/4/68 memo to Mr. Jeffress
from Mr. Drummond with attached
16 outline 16
17 P-32 12/5/79 letter to Mr. Humanick
from Mr. Allendorf 35
18
P-33 11/21/80 memo to various site
19 managers with attached 11/19/80
letter from Mr. Walters and
20 Guidelines For The Management Of
Chronic Occupational Illnesses 38
21
P-34 3/20/81 memo Asbestos-Related
22 Lung Abnormalities, Work
Restrictions 46
23
P-35 11/3/83 presentation by Dr.
24 Culpepper of DuPont’s asbestos
detection efforts 53
25
0010
1 E X H I B I T S
2
Plaintiff’s
3 Exhibits
4 P-36 Asbestos Compensation And
Litigation document 59
5
P-37 DU 036825 through 036834 61
6
P-38 4/19/89 cover memo re DuPont
7 Fraudulent Concealment case
and attached decision 65
8
P-39 7/27/84 memo to Mr. McClure
9 from Mr. Ingalls with attached
Energy & Environmental Affairs
10 Policy Manual guidelines 78
11 P-40 10/23/80 Stopps Memo Standby and
Stopps Letter Standby 82
12
P-41 10/31/80 Potential Asbestos
13 Exposure-Historical memo and
attached Q&A 82
14
P-42 10/24/80 Medical X-Ray Review
15 Program memo; 10/27/80 memo to
Company Physicians; Suggested
16 Communication to Supervision
and Employees; Q&A 86
17
18
Defendant’s
19 Exhibits
20 D-1 4/61 Maximum Acceptable
Concentrations of Air Contaminants
21 Safety And Welfare Engineering
Standard S2T 119
22
D-2 1/64 Respiratory Protective
23 Equipment, Safety And Welfare
Engineering Standard S2H 121
24
D-3 11/2/64 memo cover letter 123
25
0011
1 E X H I B I T S
2
Defendant’s
3 Exhibits
4 D-4 11/2/64 memo to Mr. Zapp, Jr.
from Dr. Stopps and trip report 126
5
D-5 11/9/64 memo to all plant
6 physicians from Dr. D’Alonzo
with attached summary 135
7
D-6 11/29/64 letter to Mr. McClean
8 from Dr. Stopps 138
9 D-7 8/23/66 memo to Dr. Neeld from
Dr. Stopps 141
10
D-8 10/25/66 meeting minutes to
11 Messrs. Zapp and Clayton from
Dr. Stopps 142
12
D-9 11/8/66 memo to all plant
13 physicians from Dr. D’Alonzo 144
14 D-10 4/11/67 memo to Construction
Division from Mr. Thatcher
15 with attached findings 145
16 D-11 7/11/68 letter to Mr. Linch
from Mr. Keuper with attached
17 air sample results 146
18 D-12 8/5/68 memo to Mr. Keuper from
Dr. Stopps 153
19
D-13 4/5/68 memo to field project
20 managers from Dr. Stopps 154
21 D-14 1/15/68 letter to Mr. Keuper from
Mr. Buckley with attached Asbestos
22 Bodies And Bioeffects, A Detective
Story 158
23
D-15 4/73 Measurement And Control Of
24 Asbestos Dust Exposure, Safety
Engineering Standard S4T 159
25
0012
1 E X H I B I T S
2
Defendant’s
3 Exhibits
4 D-16 1/2/69 memo to Mr. Zapp from
Mr. Naselow 163
5
6
7
8
9
10 LITIGATION SUPPORT
11
REQUESTS PAGE/LINE
12
13 by Mr. Placitella
14
Deposition transcript of
15 Mr. Gaskins as well as
all other outstanding
16 deposition transcripts 30/8
17 Cover documents related
to study 32/16
18
Memo discussing Dr. Stopps’
19 pulmonary function equipment 69/11
20
21
22 WITNESS DIRECTED NOT TO ANSWER
23
by Mr. Cotten 21/10
24 22/17
38/13
25
0013
1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today’s
2 deposition will be video-recorded. This is
3 day two, volume two of Savarese versus
4 DuPont, et al. Today’s date is March 17th,
5 2010. The time is approximately 10:06 a.m.
6 This is Docket Number MID-L-4527-09 AS.
7 This is the video-recorded
8 deposition of Judith Stadler being taken at
9 Porzio, Bromberg & Newman in Morristown,
10 New Jersey. Gerard Genna is the video
11 recorder. Tabitha Dente from Brody Court
12 Reporting Services is the court reporter.
13 All appearances will be noted in the
14 transcript.
15 Please administer the oath.
16
17
18 J U D I T H S T A D L E R,
19 having been duly sworn, was examined
20 and testified as follows:
21
22 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION
23 BY MR. PLACITELLA:
24
25 Q. Good morning. How are you?
0014
1 A. Good morning.
2 Q. We’re here to hopefully finish
3 your deposition today. Between last night and
4 this morning did you review any documents?
5 A. I looked at several that you had
6 given me yesterday that I had never seen before
7 and…that’s all.
8 Q. Nothing in addition to what we
9 went over yesterday?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Okay. Have you spoken to your
12 lawyers about the substance of your testimony at
13 all?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. Now, in your Texas
16 deposition, we were talking about that
17 yesterday. Under oath you were asked the
18 following question and you gave the following
19 answer just to pick up.
20 “During this time that this
21 activity directed toward evaluating and
22 controlling asbestos hazards on its sites,
23 including the period of 1965 through 1970, do
24 you know if any time during that time frame or
25 before that time frame whether even one person
0015
1 had made a claim that they had developed an
2 asbestos-related disease from working at a
3 DuPont facility?”
4 And your answer was “I am not
5 aware of any during that period of time.”
6 Do you recall that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. You stick by that
9 testimony.
10 A. Yes, I’m not aware of that.
11 Q. Now, if you recall yesterday,
12 P-29, I asked you about this March 4th — in
13 relation to that testimony, I asked you about
14 this March 4th, 1968 memo entitled “Asbestos
15 Exposure Hazard” where it talked about two
16 people from Waynesboro having asbestosis.
17 Do you recall that?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
20 Q. Have you ever looked at the memo
21 that preceded this particular memo?
22 A. Not –
23 Q. On the same date.
24 A. Not that I recall.
25 Q. Okay.
0016
1
2 (Whereupon, Exhibit P-31 is marked
3 for identification.)
4
5 Q. You have in front of you a memo
6 dated the same date, 3/4/68, subject, asbestos
7 exposure hazard, correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And it’s from a D.D. Drummond. Do
10 you know who that is?
11 A. No, I have no idea.
12 Q. Okay. And it talk — it says “the
13 attached outline was handed out at the Works
14 engineering meeting.” Where is Works? You know
15 what they’re talking about, Chambers Works?
16 A. I can only speculate, um, that
17 that’s what they would be talking about.
18 Q. Okay. “But we did not have time
19 to discuss the subject.” See that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And if you flip through, the first
22 page talks about asbestos exposure hazard,
23 correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Types of asbestos, health
0017
1 problems…
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And then if you flip
4 through to the page that’s Bates numbered
5 1100087…
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. Entitled “Legal Problems”?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. See that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you see that that’s the –
12 that’s what the March 4th, 1968 other letter
13 refers to?
14 A. Yes, I see the Waynesboro.
15 Q. Okay. And what it says is, under
16 legal problems, “employees file health claims
17 against present employer,” correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. “Nine to twenty years required to
20 develop asbestosis.”
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Correct? And it says in the
23 construction division you don’t have any
24 pre-employment exams.
25 A. Yes.
0018
1 Q. All right. Then it skips down and
2 it says about the number of lawsuits that the
3 Construction Division is involved in related to
4 asbestos.
5 Do you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And it says they’ve already paid
8 one lawsuit of $18.45 million. Right?
9 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
10 A. That’s what it says.
11 Q. And there’s five other pending
12 lawsuits, correct?
13 A. That’s correct.
14 Q. And there’s one at Seaford which
15 was won, but is being appealed.
16 A. That’s what it says.
17 Q. And then underneath it, it says
18 there are two incidences at Waynesboro
19 Construction where no formal action was taken.
20 Right?
21 A. That’s correct.
22 Q. All right. And then this memo,
23 the other March 4 memo, was written in response,
24 correct?
25 (Brief pause.)
0019
1 A. I don’t know if it’s response
2 because it appears that both are authored by
3 Drummond? I might be…
4 Q. Well, it says –
5 A. A little confused by this.
6 Q. Referring to the page legal
7 problems and it refers to the exact same subject
8 matter of the other March 4th (showing).
9 A. It appears to be the same subject
10 matter, I’m not sure if it’s a response, right.
11 Q. And basically what it’s saying is
12 with respect to the two Waynesboro cases, we
13 haven’t taken any action still, right?
14 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
15 A. Well, it says no action taken.
16 Q. Right.
17 A. I don’t know.
18 Q. And it says — but not included in
19 the prior memo is the fact that there –
20 somebody died who was an insulation worker at
21 our Chattanooga plant, right?
22 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. All right. Now, going back to the
25 memo I handed you this morning where it says
0020
1 they paid now one claim for $18.45 million and
2 there’s five other pending, does that change
3 your testimony at all as to whether DuPont had
4 notice of people making claims against them
5 between the years 1965 and 1970?
6 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
7 A. I think that I said at the time I
8 was not aware and I had not really seen these
9 memos, so I can say –
10 Q. So that testimony would have been
11 incorrect.
12 MR. COTTEN: Excuse me, she hadn’t
13 finished her answer, give her an
14 opportunity to finish her answer.
15 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m sorry.
16 A. And, therefore, because I’m now
17 looking at these I am aware that there were some
18 and at the time of my other testimony I was not
19 aware, so…
20 Q. All right. And the lawyers for
21 DuPont never gave you this information.
22 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
23 Q. Correct?
24 A. Uh, since this came out of the
25 files it was probably in all those files that I
0021
1 went through, but they’re not things that I
2 would have pulled or that I did pull and
3 actually read.
4 Q. Well, when they let you testify
5 under oath under penalty of perjury that there
6 were no such claims, did they then come forward
7 and say look at these documents because your
8 testimony may be mistaken?
9 A. I don’t think –
10 (DIRECTION) MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
11 Wait a minute, I think that’s an improper
12 question and I’m going to instruct the
13 witness not to answer. You’re getting over
14 into attorney privilege by asking that
15 question.
16 Q. After you gave this testimony
17 under oath that there were no claims or you were
18 aware of no claims from 1965 to 1970 as part of
19 the justification for how DuPont acted, did
20 anybody ever provide you with these documents to
21 demonstrate to you that your testimony was
22 incorrect?
23 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
24 A. No.
25 Q. Okay. As you sit here today, do
0022
1 you wish having given that testimony that these
2 documents would have been pointed out to you?
3 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
4 A. Um, perhaps, but I still stand by
5 the fact that I was not aware at the time.
6 Q. Yes, ma’am. But you wish you
7 would have had them before you gave that
8 testimony under oath in a court of law, correct?
9 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
10 A. That’s very difficult for me to say.
11 I think I tried to answer my questions as I knew
12 the facts at the time.
13 Q. Okay. So are you going to write a
14 letter now to the lawyer from this case and tell
15 him that your testimony in that case was
16 incorrect and that it needs to be changed?
17 (DIRECTION) MR. COTTEN: Objection, form, and
18 you don’t have to answer that about any
19 communications you might have with a
20 lawyer. Totally improper.
21 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.
22 (Brief pause.)
23 Q. Do you think if somebody paid $18
24 million that that would be a noteworthy event
25 that something that DuPont executives would know
0023
1 and remember?
2 A. I would think –
3 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
4 A. I would think someone would be
5 aware.
6 Q. Now, in your research, did you
7 make a determination when the first monitoring
8 was done on a DuPont facility for
9 asbestos-containing dusts?
10 A. The only monitoring that I am
11 aware of very specifically for which I saw
12 results were monitoring that they did at, uh,
13 Chambers Works and other sites following the
14 Stopps trip report.
15 Q. When was that?
16 A. Um, I would say that it was
17 probably ’66? Some of the monitoring data. I
18 do not recall the exact dates.
19 Q. Would you agree with me that it’s
20 a generally recognized principle of industrial
21 hygiene and one that if you can see dust in the
22 air, monitoring is warranted?
23 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
24 A. I think it depends upon the
25 situation. If you see dust in the air, is it
0024
1 dirt from outside or is it toxic dust or what is
2 it and then you would follow up with monitoring.
3 Q. If you see dust that could contain
4 asbestos in the air, you could see the dust,
5 would you agree with me that it is a recognized
6 principle of industrial hygiene that monitoring
7 should be done?
8 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
9 A. I would say, yes, at this point in
10 time that is definitely a principle.
11 Q. And that principle was recognized
12 all the way back to Merewether, was it not?
13 A. Well, I think that people were
14 monitoring dust, but it was a generic total dust
15 and it was not really until after that ’64 time
16 frame that they developed specific monitoring
17 for asbestos.
18 Q. Yes, ma’am. But for
19 asbestos-containing dust, that was recognized by
20 DuPont, right? They had a TLV for
21 asbestos-containing dust.
22 A. There was a TLV.
23 Q. For total dust, not just asbestos
24 dust.
25 A. Correct.
0025
1 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
2 Q. And it was a recognized principle
3 of industrial hygiene that if you saw an
4 atmosphere that could contain asbestos in that
5 dust that monitoring would be warranted; true?
6 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
7 A. Uh, I don’t know at that time that
8 that was necessarily believed to be
9 asbestos-containing dust, so, yes, if you see a
10 lot of dust in the air, the idea of monitoring
11 is, uh, an industrial hygiene practice.
12 Q. But as it relates to DuPont, no
13 dust studies were ever done that you could find
14 until some time after 1964. True?
15 A. No studies specific for asbestos
16 dust, yes.
17 Q. How about asbestos-containing
18 dust?
19 A. Or asbestos-containing dust,
20 there’s — I saw no records.
21 Q. Okay. And although there was a
22 standard in place at DuPont before that time, no
23 testing was done to determine whether that
24 standard was met or not.
25 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
0026
1 Q. True?
2 A. I don’t know that no testing was
3 done, I did not –
4 Q. You could find none.
5 A. I could find none.
6 Q. So unless other documents were
7 withheld from you, there is no evidence that you
8 can point to today to indicate that although
9 DuPont had a standard in place dust studies were
10 done to determine whether that standard was
11 exceeded. True?
12 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
13 A. Um, there were certainly no studies
14 within the corporate records. Most dust or any
15 kind of monitoring was held at the plant sites.
16 Q. Okay. What — during the course
17 of your research, what procedures did you find
18 that DuPont used to ensure compliance with
19 warnings and industrial hygiene safety
20 procedures at the plant level related to
21 asbestos?
22 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
23 A. What time period are you talking
24 about?
25 Q. Any time period.
0027
1 A. Certainly after they became aware
2 that the way they used asbestos in the plant
3 sites, then they developed procedures for
4 monitoring, they developed procedures –
5 specific procedures for protection of workers in
6 those areas.
7 Q. When was that?
8 A. Um, during the time period
9 following, um, and I would say between 1966 and,
10 and ’68 they had their own procedures and
11 eventually then began to follow OSHA procedures
12 after –
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. — 1970.
15 Q. So my question is what evidence
16 have you found that shows that DuPont management
17 was checking that those procedures were being
18 followed at the plant level.
19 A. Well, there were many, many, um,
20 memos that went back and forth. There were
21 memos from Mr. Keuper, for the Construction
22 Division, there were other memos indicating how
23 they were going about their dust control
24 programs and so forth and I know from the
25 procedures within DuPont that management at the
0028
1 site was responsible for seeing to it that
2 those, um, procedures that were developed were
3 carried out.
4 Q. Now, you told me yesterday, I
5 believe, that DuPont had an obligation to warn
6 all workers on their job about what they knew
7 about the dangers of asbestos; true?
8 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
9 A. They certainly, once they were aware
10 that there could be health issues within their
11 plant, then it was their obligation — they felt
12 obligated to tell their workers and that was
13 primarily through safety meetings, they had
14 weekly meetings with the workers and those were
15 the kind of things that they talked to people
16 about.
17 And that I’ve learned from reading
18 other depositions and talking to some of the
19 people that actually worked during that period
20 of time at the plant site.
21 Q. Who are those human beings? Who
22 are those people?
23 A. Well, Mr. Gaskins was one of them
24 and I think I named, um — or said that I spoke
25 with several individuals at the Spruance plant
0029
1 who had worked many other — or other places in
2 DuPont. Whose names I cannot recall today. I
3 would have to…look them up.
4 MR. PLACITELLA: Roy, in this six
5 million pages or whatever, did you give me
6 the Gaskins deposition.
7 MR. COHEN: First of all, I don’t
8 think it’s six million pages, you keep
9 using the same…
10 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, I’m just
11 going –
12 MR. COHEN: Six million.
13 MR. PLACITELLA: — by the Bates
14 numbers. Bates numbers stopped at six
15 million.
16 MR. COHEN: I was just assuming you
17 weren’t really counting, you –
18 MR. PLACITELLA: Oh, okay.
19 MR. COHEN: — were just going by
20 the numbers, so there aren’t six million or
21 nearly six million documents –
22 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.
23 MR. COHEN: — in there and whether
24 the Gaskins deposition is in there, I don’t
25 think so.
0030
1 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, is there a
2 reason if this witness looked at it in
3 preparation for her testimony that it was
4 never provided to me?
5 MR. COHEN: Well, you didn’t ask for
6 it. If you look at your deposition notice,
7 the deposition notice doesn’t ask for that.
8 (REQUEST) MR. PLACITELLA: Okay, well, I’ll
9 ask for it now and any other deposition
10 taken of any other DuPont employee that’s
11 been withheld from me so far.
12 MR. COHEN: Objection, move to
13 strike, that’s completely improper.
14 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.
15 Q. The –
16 MR. COHEN: If you wanted something,
17 you should have asked for it.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. Well, I
19 asked for it and I got a dump of six
20 million documents with no index.
21 MR. COHEN: Well, that’s not
22 accurate, either, move to strike.
23 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay, okay. We’ll
24 take that up before the judge.
25 Q. The — can you show me any
0031
1 evidence that the people in the Chambers Works
2 facility or the Rapauana plant were warned about
3 the dangers of asbestos?
4 A. Um, I know — I, I know nothing
5 about Rapauno, I’ve not seen memos or anything
6 about the specifics of Rapauno.
7 I do know that immediately prior
8 to when they were monitoring the workers at
9 Chambers Works when they did that monitoring and
10 they looked at their medical records, the people
11 who were pipe coverers, there are memos back and
12 forth about working with the unions there. That
13 was one of the things they would have done prior
14 to even looking at people’s medical records.
15 So the people at that time, at
16 least the people, the pipe coverers, were
17 definitely told about the, um, findings on
18 asbestos and they worked through the unions at
19 that time to even get permission to use their
20 medical records and things.
21 Q. Okay, and what year are you
22 talking about or range of years?
23 A. That would have been in the ’65 to
24 ’67 kind of time range.
25 Q. And you have those documents
0032
1 segregated at your home?
2 A. Not segregated. I would say it’s
3 in all the documents. There are –
4 Q. Part of your collection.
5 A. There are, there are cover
6 documents talking about how they’re going to
7 approach that study. You showed me the document
8 yesterday, the results, but there was a lot of
9 back and forth prior to that study.
10 Q. Okay. And you have those
11 documents at home.
12 A. Yes, that’s part of, I guess, what
13 you asked for…
14 Q. All right.
15 A. Yesterday.
16 (REQUEST) MR. PLACITELLA: I’d make a
17 request for all those documents.
18 Q. Do you have any proof that my
19 client’s husband or father was warned about the
20 dangers of asbestos by DuPont?
21 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
22 A. I have no specific proof. All I
23 know is the procedures that DuPont had for
24 safety meetings and informing people about what
25 they were working with.
0033
1 Q. But we now know from looking at
2 the documents yesterday that DuPont violated its
3 own procedures on a regular basis; true?
4 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
5 A. I don’t think that is true.
6 Q. Okay. You saw yesterday that
7 Chambers Works had a program for laundering
8 clothing of its employees, correct?
9 A. In certain work areas.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. Is my understanding.
12 Q. Did the Rapauano or Rapauno plant
13 the same — Rapauno plant have the same
14 procedure in place?
15 A. I have no idea.
16 Q. Well, was there a reason why you
17 would have it in one plant and not another?
18 A. It depended what people were
19 working with at that plant site and everything
20 like, um…the wearing of coveralls or whatever
21 the protective clothing requirements were was
22 more of a specific plant site requirement and
23 not an overall corporate requirement. In other
24 words, it was left up to the site depending upon
25 what they had there.
0034
1 Q. All right. So my client’s father
2 was just unlucky that he worked at the Rapauno
3 plant and not the Chambers Work plant.
4 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
5 Q. Right?
6 A. I can’t answer that.
7 Q. And his daughter was unlucky.
8 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
9 Q. Right?
10 A. I can’t answer that.
11 Q. All right. Now, you’re aware that
12 in the late 1970s the Department of Labor
13 actually launched an investigation concerning
14 what DuPont was doing with reporting the medical
15 findings at the Chambers Works plant, correct?
16 A. I’m aware there was an OSHA
17 citation concerning medical records and from
18 that particular citation, then, DuPont began to
19 look into, in fact, even prior to that they had
20 begun to look into particularly the reading of
21 X-rays and how that was done and who did it.
22 Q. Right. Because what OSHA said to
23 DuPont was that you were violating the law by
24 not putting down people who had abnormal X-rays
25 on their findings, you weren’t providing that
0035
1 information to OSHA.
2 Isn’t that what happened?
3 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
4 A. I’m not exactly sure that’s quite
5 the way it was.
6 I do know that there were
7 apparently X-rays that showed some sort of
8 asbestos disease, but what was recorded was not
9 that and, in fact, it became very apparent to
10 DuPont that they needed to tighten up just how
11 they did the reading of the X-rays because there
12 was not a consistent –
13 Q. Right.
14 A. — way to do that.
15 Q. It became apparent after they got
16 found out, right?
17 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
18 A. I think there’s some evidence that
19 they were aware that there were inconsistencies
20 in the way they were doing it before the
21 citation.
22 MR. PLACITELLA: Can we mark these?
23
24 (Whereupon, Exhibit P-32 is marked
25 for identification.)
0036
1
2 Q. You have in front of you P-32
3 which is a December 5th, 1979 memo or letter
4 from the U.S. Department of Labor to DuPont,
5 correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. At Chambers Works. And it says
8 “pursuant to our complaint investigation
9 regarding asbestos, we are requesting access to
10 medical records for each of the employees on the
11 attached list.”
12 Have you seen this document
13 before?
14 A. No, I’ve never seen this document
15 before.
16 Q. So you don’t — obviously have
17 never seen the attached list, which I don’t
18 have.
19 A. No, I haven’t.
20 Q. Okay. And soon thereafter what
21 happened was that the employees found out what
22 was happening to them and they sued DuPont for a
23 cover-up, right?
24 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
25 A. I’m aware there was a lawsuit, but I
0037
1 don’t know the details of it.
2 Q. Unfortunately I did not have the
3 actual document, but I did bring a copy from
4 January 31, 1980 of The Gloucester Times talking
5 about — and this was produced by DuPont.
6 DuPont’s a defendant in the court case and that
7 former employees alleged that they weren’t told
8 about the dangers of asbestos.
9 Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And then after that lawsuit was
12 filed and OSHA launched this investigation,
13 things started to change at DuPont in terms of
14 what they were doing with the employees X-rays;
15 true?
16 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
17 A. Um, it was in that time frame.
18 Q. Okay, what had been going on
19 before that is if the employees were not
20 symptomatic, that is, they didn’t have symptoms,
21 but they had abnormal X-rays, DuPont wasn’t
22 telling them that information, correct?
23 A. I can’t –
24 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
25 A. — confirm that.
0038
1 Q. And it wasn’t reporting it to
2 OSHA, either, correct?
3 A. I can’t confirm that.
4 Q. Okay.
5
6 (Whereupon, Exhibit P-33 is marked
7 for identification.)
8
9 Q. I have a standing question. Any
10 time I show you a document that demonstrates
11 that DuPont made a mistake you will let me know,
12 okay?
13 (DIRECTION) MR. COTTEN: Objection, form –
14 Q. Okay?
15 MR. COTTEN: — and I’ll instruct
16 you not to do that. If you have a question
17 for her, ask them one at a time.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.
19 Q. You have in front of you a
20 November 21, 1980 memo labeled “Personal and
21 Confidential, Logging Asbestos-Related Lung
22 Abnormalities.”
23 Have you ever been provided this
24 document before?
25 A. I don’t think I saw this document.
0039
1 I may have in the corporate collection.
2 Q. And it goes to site managers,
3 including people at Chambers Works?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. The next page dated November 19th,
6 1980 is entitled “Recording Asbestos-Related
7 Conditions on OSHA Form 2000.” Do you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you go down to the third
10 paragraph. It says “DuPont’s Medical Division
11 does not regard the benign asymptomatic
12 abnormality as an illness and, thus, our
13 practice has been that of not logging.”
14 See that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. “OSHA, however, maintains that
17 this condition is logable and has issued
18 citations for failure to log,” correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In other words, they weren’t
21 reporting to OSHA when they were finding
22 abnormal X-rays, right?
23 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
24 A. Um, abnormalities in terms of the
25 benign asymptomatic abnormality. It’s not just
0040
1 abnormalities in general.
2 Q. Yes, ma’am, I, I stand corrected.
3 A. Um-hum.
4 Q. But the regulations required,
5 since 1972, that those abnormalities be reported
6 to OSHA within six days of finding them,
7 correct?
8 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
9 A. Um, I’m not sure how OSHA worded the
10 standard and I think at that point in time it
11 was open to interpretation and certainly the
12 citation made it clear to DuPont that OSHA
13 wanted to see those benign abnormalities, also.
14 Q. Well, let’s see what DuPont says
15 about that. Look at page two under “Guidelines
16 for the Management of Chronic Occupational
17 Illnesses.”
18 (Brief pause.)
19 Q. See that? Where it says recording
20 an OSHA log?
21 A. I haven’t gotten as far as –
22 Q. Oh, I’m sorry.
23 A. — page two yet.
24 Q. I’m sorry.
25 (Brief pause.)
0041
1 A. Yes. I’ve read through half of
2 page two.
3 Q. Right. Down at the bottom under
4 five, “recording requirements” — you see that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. — it says “regulations require
7 logging within six working days”?
8 A. Yes, that’s an illness.
9 Q. Yes, ma’am. And then if you go to
10 the next page, it actually now includes what the
11 OSHA guidelines are for the diagnosis and
12 classification of asbestos-related medical
13 cases. Do you see that?
14 These are the revised guidelines
15 DuPont is now using.
16 A. Are you referring to this the date
17 of onset of illness? On the OSHA form?
18 Q. No, I’m looking at U-1. Bates
19 number 41646.
20 (Brief pause.)
21 A. Yes, this is, um, a guideline for
22 reporting these illnesses.
23 Q. Yes. And that’s the new guideline
24 based upon what OSHA wants, right?
25 (Brief pause.)
0042
1 A. I would say it’s based upon, um,
2 an understanding of what is required under OSHA.
3 Q. Okay. And what it says is that
4 you have to report pleural thickening and/or
5 plaques, right?
6 A. Yes, that’s considered under the
7 benign asymptomatic abnormalities.
8 Q. Right. That’s the stuff that
9 hasn’t been reported up to this point in time,
10 right?
11 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
12 A. Um, yes, that’s my understanding.
13 Q. Right.
14 A. Because that is something seen
15 without illness resulting at that point.
16 Q. And I want to show you again P-28
17 which we went over yesterday (handing).
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. See that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And we talked about whether they
22 were asbestos-related illnesses that people
23 should have been told about? Remember
24 yesterday?
25 A. Yes.
0043
1 Q. And you see page two, I actually
2 put it up on the screen so we can compare what
3 OSHA said you would do and what the findings
4 were in 1968.
5 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
6 Q. Right? You have on the left side
7 pleural thickening. See that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. That’s what OSHA said you should
10 report, right?
11 MR. COTTEN: Objection.
12 A. Well, OSHA standard came out much
13 later than this.
14 Q. Yeah, ’72, three years later. And
15 on the right side –
16 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
17 Q. — you had nine to twenty-seven
18 people in 1968 that were told they had pleural
19 thickening, right? Or weren’t told, but you
20 knew.
21 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
22 A. It was definitely on their medical
23 records at that…point in time that’s –
24 Q. Do you have any evidence, ma’am,
25 to demonstrate that between 1968 when this
0044
1 internal, confidential report went to DuPont and
2 1979 when DuPont was cited by OSHA that these
3 human beings were told or OSHA was told that
4 there were abnormal findings on their X-rays?
5 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
6 A. I have no knowledge of what people
7 were told at this point in time.
8 Q. Okay. So by OSHA’s definition,
9 certainly DuPont had in its possession in 1968
10 evidence of asbestos-related disease, right?
11 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
12 A. From looking at this from today, I
13 would say there is a good chance that some of
14 this may have been asbestos-related.
15 Q. Well…
16 A. But it’s also very difficult to
17 say from this study or from this summary what
18 the source of any of these findings might have
19 been, given that these people were working at
20 Chambers Works.
21 Q. Except the fact that the title of
22 the study is asbestosis, right?
23 A. Well…
24 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
25 A. The title of a study really had to
0045
1 do with looking at those people specifically who
2 were pipe coverers.
3 Q. Right. And the study title, what
4 does it say — I don’t have it in front of me.
5 What’s the title study say for that particular
6 document? You have it in front of you. What’s
7 it say?
8 A. Asbestosis study.
9 Q. Yes, ma’am.
10 And up to this point in time the
11 position of DuPont was that if you had abnormal
12 X-rays, so long as you weren’t symptomatic yet
13 they could put you back into the plant where you
14 could be exposed to asbestos once again.
15 MR. COTTEN: Objection –
16 Q. Right?
17 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
18 A. I don’t know the specifics of what
19 their policy was relative to having people go
20 back to work.
21 Q. Would that have been a good
22 industrial hygiene practice?
23 A. Um, that would have been totally a
24 practice and everything controlled by medical,
25 not in industrial hygiene practice.
0046
1 Q. Someone who has dedicated their
2 life to worker health and safety such as
3 yourself, would you condone a practice of
4 sending people with abnormal X-rays back into an
5 environment where they could potentially be
6 exposed again?
7 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
8 A. First of all, I think abnormal
9 X-rays is a very general term and I really can’t
10 answer the question.
11 Q. Okay.
12
13 (Whereupon, Exhibit P-34 is marked
14 for identification.)
15
16 Q. You have in front of you P-34, a
17 March 20th, 1981 memo entitled “Asbestos-Related
18 Lung Abnormalities.”
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Have you ever seen this document
21 before?
22 A. I don’t recall seeing it.
23 Q. There’s a whole bunch — it says
24 “Personal and Confidential” on it?
25 A. Yes.
0047
1 Q. How come it’s personal and
2 confidential?
3 A. Almost all of the communications
4 of DuPont said that and that was just primarily
5 to keep it within the company.
6 Q. And who are these people here?
7 Executives at DuPont? All these people copied?
8 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
9 A. The names are not familiar to me, so
10 I do not know if it was…medical or, or who
11 they were.
12 Q. And it’s entitled
13 “Asbestos-Related Lung Abnormalities,” correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Okay. And under the second
16 para — and there’s a section underneath that,
17 it says “Work Restrictions,” right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And the second paragraph says
20 “guidelines for physicians, Section U, page
21 three addresses the question. It says that if
22 the classification is benign asymptomatic
23 abnormality, then the employee can work in areas
24 with potential for asbestos exposure.”
25 Right?
0048
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is this the first time you found
3 that out today?
4 A. That would have been part of the
5 guideline.
6 Q. Is today the first time you found
7 out that DuPont was doing this to their
8 employees?
9 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
10 A. Um, it’s the first I’ve specifically
11 read this paragraph.
12 Q. Are you going to take that home
13 and put it in your collection?
14 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
15 Q. Ma’am? As an important document?
16 A. You need to — my intention is to
17 take home and put in my collection many of the
18 things you’ve handed to me today. And
19 yesterday.
20 Q. Thank you. This, by the way, was
21 after DuPont was cited and after they were sued,
22 right?
23 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
24 A. Um –
25 Q. This document.
0049
1 A. Um, yes, 1981 would have been
2 after the citation in ’79.
3 Q. And then what happened is DuPont
4 went back and looked — had somebody look at all
5 the prior X-rays of people in the plants to
6 determine what they had to report to OSHA,
7 right?
8 A. Um, I, I don’t know exactly what
9 procedure they used, but I think that in many
10 cases they did have many of the X-rays reread by
11 people who were certified to recognize –
12 Q. Right.
13 A. — asbestos disease.
14 Q. Right. And so, for example, in
15 Rapuano after they got sued or in Chambers Work
16 after they got sued by the Chambers Works
17 employees, they went back and looked at the
18 records and they found over five hundred
19 employees with asbestos-related abnormalities;
20 true?
21 A. I don’t know.
22 Q. Okay. I don’t have a copy of this
23 with me. I can e-mail it to Mr. Cohen if he
24 wants a copy at a break, but I didn’t — I found
25 this this morning. This is current
0050
1 asbestos-related X-ray list. DuPont 2195.
2 Do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. And it’s also labeled
5 confidential, correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. That means none of the employees
8 got the information, right?
9 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
10 A. Not necessarily does that mean that.
11 Q. Okay. And it says…for
12 Chambers — I’m assuming that’s Chambers Works?
13 See that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. It says for current
16 asbestos-related X-rays, 556 people.
17 MR. COTTEN: Objection.
18 Q. Right?
19 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
20 Please don’t misrepresent the document to,
21 to the witness.
22 Q. Does it have the number 556?
23 A. It has the number — it has the
24 number, um…and the title is “Current
25 Asbestos-Related X-ray List,” so I would assume
0051
1 from that that’s the number of X-rays…that
2 were –
3 Q. Yep.
4 A. — available.
5 Q. And the amount’s 556.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And then…it also has Rapauno
8 where my client’s father worked down at the
9 bottom. Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And how many asbestos-related
12 X-rays do they list for Rapauno?
13 A. Looks like a hundred and — this
14 is an eye test. 172?
15 Q. Right. So for just two plants in
16 the state of New Jersey, when they went back and
17 looked at what they were supposed to look at,
18 they found over seven hundred X-rays…that were
19 asbestos-related. According to this document,
20 right?
21 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
22 A. Um –
23 MR. COHEN: That’s not what the –
24 A. I’m not sure that it’s quite as you
25 stated it. It’s…current asbestos-related
0052
1 X-ray list would be, from my understanding,
2 X-rays from people who worked somewhere around
3 asbestos.
4 Q. Okay, that’s fair. We’ll get to
5 the exact diagnosis in a little while. You were
6 never provided this document before today?
7 A. No.
8 MR. COTTEN: Objection –
9 Q. This is the first time you’ve ever
10 seen it?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Is this the first time you’ve ever
13 found out that over seven hundred
14 asbestos-related X-rays were read?
15 A. I knew that they went back, I saw
16 memos –
17 MR. COHEN: Objection to form.
18 A. About –
19 MR. COHEN: That’s not what the
20 document says.
21 MR. PLACITELLA: I’ll prove it up.
22 A. I knew that they went back and
23 looked at X-rays. I’ve not seen the specifics.
24 Q. All right. They also found in a
25 bunch of people cancer, did they not?
0053
1 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
2 A. I don’t know the findings, I have
3 not read the findings.
4 Q. Okay.
5 MR. PLACITELLA: Can we mark this
6 next?
7
8 (Whereupon, Exhibit P-35 is marked
9 for identification.)
10
11 Q. You have in front of you P-35.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Entitled “DuPont’s Asbestos
14 Detection Efforts” by Burford Culpepper M.D. He
15 was their medical director, right?
16 A. For a period of time, yes.
17 Q. So what he said would be reliable;
18 don’t you think?
19 A. I would certainly think so
20 relative to detection efforts.
21 Q. And this is a draft of his talk
22 presented?
23 A. It doesn’t say that it’s a talk,
24 but it looks like from reading just the first
25 page that’s what it is.
0054
1 Q. Yes, ma’am. And if you go to page
2 two…third full paragraph, he says “one thing
3 is clear about asbestos, all asbestos-related
4 diseases are irreversible and there is generally
5 no curative medical treatment.” Correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. He says “the most frequently
8 recognized asbestos-related abnormality is
9 pleural thickening,” correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. That’s the same abnormality found
12 in the Chambers Works employees in 1968,
13 correct?
14 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
15 A. Um, certainly pleural thickening was
16 a thing that was found in those employees, yes.
17 Q. “Pleural thickening is thought to
18 be caused by asbestos fibers that have
19 apparently worked their way through the lung
20 tissue and have been stopped by tougher pleural
21 layers.” Correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And studies show that if you have
24 pleural thickening, you have a greater risk of
25 getting mesothelioma. He says that at the
0055
1 bottom, correct? I’m paraphrasing.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. Page three. “Asbestos
4 fibers may induce interstitial fibrosis of the
5 lung in the disease called asbestosis.” See
6 that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The 1968 Chambers Work document
9 had people, numerous people, with interstitial
10 fibrosis, did it not?
11 A. Yes, it did.
12 Q. Skip down to the next paragraph.
13 “X-rays in asbestosis cases
14 demonstrate interstitial fibrosis almost always
15 in the mid- to lower lobes. This fibrotic
16 condition may decrease elasticity of the lungs
17 and interfere with blood gas exchange. The
18 disease may progress with a disabling loss of
19 lung capacity with attending dyspnea on
20 exertion, chest pain.”
21 Were there complaints of chest
22 pain in the 1968 document?
23 A. There were.
24 Q. Rales, were there complaints of
25 rales in the 1968 document?
0056
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. “Pleural effusion or it may remain
3 stable for long periods with little
4 symptomatology,” correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Skip to page six. Second full
7 paragraph where he’s got the little number ten?
8 He says “in October of 1980, all U.S. DuPont
9 plants began a comprehensive review of medical
10 histories.”
11 See that part?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. That was after the OSHA citation
14 and after DuPont was sued, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And then page seven. Where it has
17 the little number eleven. “Of the 112,000
18 employees and pensioners evaluated, we found
19 twenty-two cases of malignancies which have been
20 accepted as being related to asbestos exposure.”
21 Correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did those people live or die?
24 A. Um, I’m certain that over a period
25 of time, um, deaths resulted from the
0057
1 malignancies.
2 Q. It says “about two hundred
3 employees were determined to have asbestosis.
4 That is parenchymal disease with demonstrated
5 pulmonary fibrosis as a minimum.” Correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And it says about 1,300 employees
8 had pleural thickening; true?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And those 1,300 employees,
11 according to this document, were at an increased
12 risk for getting mesothelioma by virtue of their
13 diagnosis, correct?
14 A. Um, certainly pleural thickening
15 is, is, um…comes before development of
16 mesothelioma.
17 Q. All right. And the fact that
18 these people got this disease was no surprise to
19 DuPont.
20 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
21 Q. Correct?
22 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
23 A. I think certainly by 1981 this was
24 well established, yes.
25 Q. He says in page eight, does he
0058
1 not, the Medical Director for DuPont, “not
2 surprisingly, the jobs involved in our
3 asbestos-related cases are primarily maintenance
4 positions such as insulators, pipe-fitters,
5 laggers, mechanics and millwrights.”
6 Correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Now, then what happened was once
9 the employees found out about their illness,
10 they started filing workers compensation claims
11 against DuPont just as DuPont worried would
12 happen, correct?
13 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
14 A. Uh, I’m not sure about the worrying
15 part, but there were people who filed…
16 Q. Well, remember when –
17 A. Workers comp and –
18 Q. — Dr. Stopps said back in 1964
19 that he was worried about lawsuits if the
20 asbestos exposure did not stop? Remember that?
21 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
22 A. There were certainly individuals who
23 mentioned this in memos such as Dr. Stopps.
24 Q. Okay. And from that point forward
25 DuPont kept track on an annual basis of the
0059
1 number of people who were suing them, right?
2 A. I’ve not seen those records.
3
4 (Whereupon, Exhibit P-36 is marked
5 for identification.)
6
7 Q. You have in front of you P-36.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Which was — has a Bates number, I
10 guess, of 38608. You see where it says on the
11 bottom “Asbestos Compensation and Litigation”?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And it goes from 1982 through
14 1984, correct?
15 A. I’m sorry, I — oh, I see, okay.
16 1982, three and four, yes.
17 Q. And it keeps track of the number
18 of people who are — got awards, that means the
19 court determined that they were — they had
20 asbestos-related disease.
21 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
22 Q. Right?
23 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. So, for example — what’s
0060
1 C&P? Do you know that? Because it breaks out
2 C&P and then it breaks out DuPont.
3 A. That’s one of the divisions of
4 DuPont that would have been Chemicals & Pigments
5 Division.
6 Q. So, for example, in 1982, there
7 were seventy-nine in DuPont generally and
8 forty-four in the Chemicals & Pigments Division?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And then in 1984 there were
11 ninety-nine in DuPont generally and forty-three
12 in the Chemicals & Pigments Division.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you know how long DuPont kept
15 track of these statistics?
16 A. No, I don’t. I would imagine they
17 may still keep track; I don’t know.
18 Q. Who would be in charge of that?
19 A. I do not know.
20 Q. Well, in the next year, 1985, they
21 actually started to keep track of people who
22 were dying at DuPont, right?
23 A. Well, they continued from many
24 years before that to have records on deaths of
25 individuals and the cause of death records for a
0061
1 long time within each individual’s file.
2 MR. PLACITELLA: Mark these.
3
4 (Whereupon, Exhibit P-37 is marked
5 for identification.)
6
7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at
8 11:05.
9 MR. COHEN: Chris, from a time
10 management standpoint, I mean, you’ll take
11 however long you’re going to take, but any
12 thoughts on how long you’re going to be?
13 MR. PLACITELLA: Maybe an hour.
14 MR. COHEN: And was there only one
15 copy of…let’s see, was it thirty…
16 MR. COTTEN: Thirty-three, was it?
17 MR. COHEN: Yeah.
18 MR. COTTEN: I think so.
19 MR. COHEN: Only one copy?
20 MR. COTTEN: Yeah.
21 MR. COHEN: Okay.
22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the video
23 record at 11:06.
24 Q. You have in front of you P-37,
25 Bates numbered…
0062
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 36825. I’m looking at the page
3 that’s Bates-numbered 36831 and I’ve put it up
4 on the screen.
5 What this chart shows is what
6 happened after 1979 when OSHA issued its
7 citation and DuPont had to start telling the
8 truth about what was going on in its plants;
9 true?
10 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
11 A. Well, this is a chart that goes from
12 the year 1979 to 1985.
13 Q. Right. And 1979 is the year that
14 OSHA provided the citation to DuPont, correct?
15 A. That’s correct.
16 Q. And what this chart shows is a
17 sharp increase in the awards for workers
18 compensation, correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. It also shows on page two, as of
21 1985 the total number of cases…for asbestos
22 from their surveillance program, correct?
23 A. You’re referring to this chart
24 rather than some…
25 Q. Yes, ma’am. It’s the same chart.
0063
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. And it says that as of 1985, there
3 were in excess of 2000 human beings with either
4 benign asymptomatic disease, benign symptomatic
5 disease or cancer, right?
6 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
7 A. That’s correct.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. That’s what’s on the chart.
10 Q. And if you flip to page 36828…it
11 tells you what happened at Chambers Works, does
12 it not?
13 A. Um, are you talking about this ten
14 most — ten sites?
15 Q. Yes, ma’am.
16 A. Is that where you are?
17 Q. Yes, ma’am.
18 A. Chambers Works is on this.
19 Q. It says for benign asymptomatic
20 disease there were 412 human beings, correct?
21 A. That’s correct.
22 Q. For symptomatic disease there were
23 66 human beings, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And eighteen people with cancer,
0064
1 correct?
2 A. That’s what it says.
3 Q. For a total of 496 people.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And in Rapauano, or Rapauno, there
6 were 121 people with benign asymptomatic
7 disease, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thirty-six with symptomatic
10 disease and six with cancer, right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Giving you 163 total human beings.
13 A. That’s correct.
14 Q. And then what they also did is
15 they tracked people as they were dying from 1978
16 forward. Correct? That’s on 36830.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And what the chart shows, I put it
19 up on the screen, is a sharp increase in the
20 number of deaths from 1978 forward, right?
21 A. Particularly in 1981 to ’85.
22 Q. Right.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And if you count back twenty to
25 forty years, given the latency period, when
0065
1 would these people have been exposed?
2 A. Um, in the sixties, corresponding
3 numbers.
4 Q. Right. Right about the time when
5 Dr. Stopps said no more exposure, right?
6 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
7 A. Yes, the, um, memo from Dr. Stopps
8 was in 1964.
9 Q. Now, you’re aware that this case
10 actually went all the way to the New Jersey
11 Appellate Courts, the case filed by the Chambers
12 Works and Rapauno employees. Did you know that?
13 A. No, I didn’t.
14
15 (Whereupon, Exhibit P-38 is marked
16 for identification.)
17
18 Q. You have in front of you Exhibit
19 38 which has a memo, but it attaches a copy of
20 the New Jersey Appellate Division decision dated
21 May 31, 1988 involving the Rapauno and Chambers
22 Work employees entitled Millison versus E.I.
23 DuPont.
24 Do you see that? Go to Bates
25 number 19718.
0066
1 A. I don’t want — this is one — it
2 begins at 19.
3 Q. Here (showing).
4 MR. COTTEN: One page further.
5 A. Oh, okay.
6 Q. This is during a period of time
7 when you actually worked at the Haskell
8 Laboratories, correct?
9 A. In 1988, yes.
10 Q. And were these circumstances made
11 known to the people at Haskell Laboratories in
12 1988?
13 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
14 A. I’m not sure, um…what you mean by
15 circumstances. Were we –
16 Q. Well, the fact that Rapauno and
17 Chambers Works employees had sued DuPont for a
18 cover-up.
19 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
20 A. Um, like I said, I was aware that
21 there had been lawsuits, but I was not privy to
22 knowledge specific to — about them.
23 Q. Can you go to what’s marked page
24 215 of the decision? Just so we have context,
25 you see in that lower right-hand corner where it
0067
1 says “plaintiffs are all past or present
2 employees at two DuPont New Jersey plants,
3 Chambers Works and Rapauno. Each plant
4 contained extensive piping which was insulated
5 with asbestos-containing materials”?
6 A. Yes, I see that.
7 Q. And could you flip to page 218?
8 On the right side of 218 in the first full
9 paragraph, do you see where it says “we have
10 earlier noted”?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The second — third full sentence
13 talks directly about what we were talking about
14 for the last couple of days, right? It says “in
15 1964 Dr. Gordo Stopps, then Chief of Physiology
16 at DuPont’s Haskell Laboratory, attended an
17 international conference held by the New York
18 Academy of Sciences on the biological effects of
19 asbestos.”
20 Correct?
21 MR. COHEN: We’re just going to
22 object on a form basis to just reading
23 parts of a legal opinion in a corporate
24 witness deposition.
25 MR. PLACITELLA: I understand.
0068
1 Q. See that?
2 A. Yes, I see.
3 Q. It says “Stopps prepared a report
4 which he forwarded to Dr. J.A. Zapp, Director of
5 the laboratory and to Dr. C.A. D’Alonzo,
6 DuPont’s Corporate Medical Director,” correct?
7 MR. COHEN: Same objection.
8 A. Yes, that’s the memo that we’ve
9 talked about previous.
10 Q. That’s what I’m trying to ask you.
11 That’s the memo we’ve been talking about, right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And that’s what’s been mentioned
14 directly in the court’s decision.
15 MR. COHEN: Same objection. Move to
16 strike.
17 Q. Can we go to page 219, please?
18 The bottom of page 219 on the left
19 starts out “in February 1967, however, Stopps
20 wrote ‘certain of the proposals made at the
21 October 25th meeting are being carried out, but
22 in general the medical recommendations have not
23 been implemented’.”
24 Have you ever seen that memo?
25 A. Yes, I –
0069
1 MR. COHEN: Same objection.
2 A. I’ve seen it.
3 Q. You’ve seen it?
4 A. I’ve seen a memo in which he talks
5 particularly he was interested in his pulmonary
6 function equipment and that’s what he was
7 referring to in that memo.
8 Q. Okay. Do you have that amongst
9 your possessions?
10 A. It’s somewhere in there, yes.
11 (REQUEST) MR. PLACITELLA: Because I don’t
12 have it so that would help if you would
13 provide it.
14 Q. And he says — it goes on to say,
15 “he noted that the past incidence of cancer did
16 not adequately reflect the current problem to
17 the exposed population because of the long
18 incubation period of asbestos-related
19 conditions. He urged the exposed population to
20 be monitored.”
21 Correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Does that refresh your memory as
24 to whether or not people in 1967 at DuPont were
25 being exposed to asbestos?
0070
1 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
2 A. Um, I certainly believe that people
3 were being exposed, the company just did not
4 have a handle at that particular time on the
5 extent of exposure and the levels of exposure
6 that could actually cause disease.
7 Q. And this memo that I haven’t seen
8 according to the court report says that Dr.
9 Stopps asked for certain things, but it was not
10 implemented, right?
11 A. That –
12 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
13 A. Um, he was trying to develop
14 pulmonary monitoring, um, pulmonary function
15 testing, and that’s what he was working on. It
16 was not implemented because the equipment was
17 really not available for use at plant sites. It
18 was the kind of thing that was, uh,
19 experimental, but by mid, I think, 1984 or 1974,
20 actually, they started using the pulmonary
21 function in the normal medical exams.
22 Q. Okay. And then in 1971 Dr. Stopps
23 quit out of frustration, right?
24 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
25 A. Um, I think that Dr. Stopps, um,
0071
1 left DuPont at that time, I…have no idea why.
2 Or where he went.
3 Q. Can you go to page 220? In terms
4 of what warnings were given people at the
5 Chambers Works and Rapauno plant, the court says
6 on the second paragraph “the only evidence
7 presented by DuPont by defendants concerning
8 their communication to plaintiffs about asbestos
9 was a 1977 memo on removal of
10 asbestos-containing insulation and a 1976 film
11 on the use of respirators. No DuPont executive,
12 medical or otherwise testified.”
13 I read that correctly?
14 MR. COHEN: Same objection.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Have you ever seen this 1977 memo
17 or this 1976 film?
18 A. I have seen the film that was
19 developed for communication; I have not seen
20 this memo.
21 Q. Would you disagree that the only
22 evidence that DuPont had as of 1988 that they
23 ever warned the workers at Rapauno and Chambers
24 Works was a memo from 1977 and a film from the
25 same year?
0072
1 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
2 Q. Or in the year before.
3 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
4 A. I have no idea what, what kind of
5 communications, um, they were using and whether
6 or not they had, uh, you know…written
7 communications they could have presented, so I
8 do not know.
9 Q. Well, if these were the only
10 warnings ever provided, would you agree with me
11 that that would have been unreasonable in light
12 of all the knowledge that DuPont had about the
13 dangers of asbestos?
14 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
15 A. I have knowledge from, um,
16 depositions of workers that, um, and I’m going
17 to quote the — Mr. Keuper and, certainly, Mr.
18 Gaskins, they all talked about the kind of
19 communications that went to workers in safety
20 meetings, um…
21 Q. I –
22 A. Whether any kind of written
23 materials were presented other than the
24 guidelines and that kind of thing, I do not
25 know.
0073
1 Q. Unfortunately I can’t ask you
2 about those because I wasn’t given them.
3 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
4 Q. The…
5 MR. COTTEN: Move to strike.
6 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, was I
7 provided them?
8 MR. COTTEN: Yes, you were.
9 MR. PLACITELLA: I was?
10 MR. COTTEN: Yes.
11 MR. PLACITELLA: I got the Gaskins
12 transcript?
13 MR. COTTEN: No, she was talking
14 about the different communications and you
15 got those –
16 MR. PLACITELLA: No.
17 MR. COTTEN: — in the –
18 Q. Was there a deposition of Mr.
19 Keuper, ma’am?
20 MR. COTTEN: We may be having an
21 argument about what you said. I thought
22 what you said had to do with communications
23 having to do with warnings. That’s what I
24 was referring to.
25 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. So there’s
0074
1 no dispute I wasn’t given the transcripts
2 of Mr. Keuper or, or Gaskins.
3 MR. COHEN: You didn’t ask for them
4 and don’t be so –
5 MR. PLACITELLA: They’re standard as
6 part of the Middlesex County
7 Interrogatories that you’re to turn over
8 all the transcripts of your witnesses and
9 all statements of your witnesses.
10 MR. COHEN: Don’t be so –
11 MR. PLACITELLA: I don’t need to ask
12 for them. They’re part of a standing order
13 that you produce them.
14 MR. COHEN: Well, we disagree.
15 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, okay. A
16 judge will decide.
17 Q. Okay, can we turn to page 221?
18 Second full paragraph under the number one.
19 It says — the court says “the
20 following proofs were virtually undisputed.
21 Each plaintiff evidenced symptoms of an
22 asbestos-related condition during his DuPont
23 employment between 1965 and 1979.”
24 Do you have any information to
25 refute that statement?
0075
1 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
2 A. No.
3 Q. Two. “None was informed of his
4 symptoms until 1978 or 1979 after OSHA conducted
5 its investigation, except H. Schwebel retired.”
6 Do you have any information to
7 refute that statement by the court?
8 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
9 A. I have no information on this
10 lawsuit at all, so…I really can’t refute
11 anything –
12 Q. Well, what I’m trying –
13 A. — in here.
14 Q. — to find out is in all the
15 documents that you’ve seen and all the research
16 that you’ve conducted, do you have any
17 information that would be contrary to these
18 findings by the court.
19 A. No.
20 Q. Okay. Three. “DuPont management
21 and physicians, including defendant doctors,
22 knew of the dangers of prolonged asbestos
23 exposure and its relationships to pulmonary
24 disease as early as the 1960s, yet, they gave
25 targeted employees known to them minimal
0076
1 information concerning those risks beginning
2 only in the mid to late 1970s.”
3 Do you have information in your
4 possession that you’ve learned through your
5 investigation to contradict that statement?
6 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
7 A. I really can’t say.
8 Q. Four. “Defendant doctors either
9 examined or reviewed X-rays of each plaintiff
10 knowing each was vulnerable after each evidenced
11 an asbestos-related condition and after the
12 symptoms shown were referred to in the DuPont
13 studies, including some of the same employees.”
14 Do you have any evidence to refute
15 that statement?
16 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
17 Q. In the court’s opinion.
18 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
19 A. I have no evidence one way or the
20 other.
21 Q. Five. “Each plaintiff was
22 continually advised by defendants that he had no
23 relevant health problems and returned to work
24 for DuPont in the asbestos environment.”
25 Do you have any information to
0077
1 refute that statement in the court’s opinion?
2 MR. COHEN: Same objection.
3 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
4 A. No.
5 Q. Six. “No responsible corporate
6 official or doctor denied individual or
7 corporate knowledge respecting a medical
8 understanding of the significance of plaintiffs’
9 X-rays at relevant times. While DuPont did
10 dispute that plaintiffs had established their
11 conditions worsened after defendant doctors
12 assured them of their health and they continued
13 to be exposed to asbestos, there was contrary
14 evidence.”
15 Do you have anything to elucidate
16 on that statement?
17 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you still stand by your
20 statement, ma’am, that DuPont made no mistakes
21 when it came to protecting the health and safety
22 of its employees and the other people on its
23 premises?
24 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
25 A. I don’t think I ever said DuPont
0078
1 never made mistakes.
2 Q. Would you agree with me that for
3 every employee that was not told, that was a
4 mistake?
5 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
6 A. I think whether, um, whether it was
7 understood what was on the X-ray is…still in
8 question, but it certainly would have been a
9 mistake not to tell someone that they had
10 something like pleural thickening.
11 Q. And what DuPont did is they went
12 to an outside agency and tried to come up with a
13 plan on how they were going to fight claims,
14 right?
15 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
16 A. I don’t know that.
17
18 (Whereupon, Exhibit P-39 is marked
19 for identification.)
20
21 Q. You have in front of you Exhibit
22 39?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. July 27, 1984 memo from D. Ingalls
25 at Wilmington, Delaware. Is that where the
0079
1 corporate headquarters are?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And it’s entitled
4 “Lawsuits-Plants,” correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And it talks about a manual on
7 guidelines on how to deal with lawsuits, right?
8 A. Well, it says “guidelines on
9 lawsuits,” so…
10 Q. Okay. And one of the things that
11 they said in order to protect themselves from
12 contractors suing them is to have DuPont
13 personnel go around and try to elicit admissions
14 from the people in the plants to help them
15 defend their cases, right?
16 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
17 A. I’m sorry –
18 Q. Look at –
19 A. — I don’t see that. Where are
20 you?
21 Q. Look at the next page. For –
22 A. I need a minute to look at this,
23 please.
24 Q. Yes, ma’am.
25 (Brief pause.)
0080
1 Q. You ready?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. On the second page under
4 “Lawsuits-Plants,” this talks about the number
5 of lawsuits being brought against plants by
6 contractors’ employees, right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And the third bullet down says “it
9 is particularly important to record statements
10 or admissions by the contractors’ employees,”
11 right?
12 A. Yes, it’s a — it — it’s sort of
13 a guideline to…promptly investigate the
14 accidents, take people’s statements about what
15 happened and so forth.
16 Q. And get statements from them that
17 you can use against them, right? Is basically
18 what they’re saying.
19 MR. COHEN: Objection. That’s not
20 what it says.
21 A. I, I don’t think that’s really
22 what’s implied.
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. PLACITELLA: Why don’t we take a
25 break.
0081
1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the video
2 record at 11:32.
3
4 (Whereupon, a brief recess is
5 taken.)
6
7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the video
8 record at 11:37.
9 Q. After DuPont was cited by OSHA in
10 1979 and after they were sued, the people at
11 corporate headquarters got together to come up
12 with a public relations campaign on how they
13 were going to deal with those issues. True?
14 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
15 A. I have no knowledge of that.
16 Q. And one of the things in their
17 public relations campaign was how they were
18 going to deal with the Stopps memo from 1964,
19 right?
20 A. I do not know.
21 Q. Because sixteen years later the
22 Stopps memo was still haunting them; true?
23 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
24 A. I don’t know.
25
0082
1 (Whereupon, Exhibits P-40 and P-41
2 are marked for identification.)
3
4 (Brief pause.)
5 Q. You have in front of you Exhibit
6 40 dated October 23rd, 1980 from the DuPont
7 Public Affairs Department in Wilmington,
8 Delaware, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. When does the Public Affairs
11 Department get involved in the matters of health
12 and safety?
13 A. I suppose whenever there are
14 health and safety issues.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. The, um…that would fall under
17 the Public Affairs Department.
18 Q. The title of the memo is “Stopps
19 memo standby,” right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Have you ever seen this before?
22 A. No. Can I have a moment to read
23 it?
24 Q. Yes, ma’am.
25 (Extended pause.)
0083
1 A. Okay, I’ve read it.
2 Q. Okay. This memo specifically
3 talks about the 1964 memo we discussed yesterday
4 by Stopps to the Medical Director, correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And in the second paragraph, it
7 talks about the memo is now part of the lawsuit
8 that was filed by the DuPont employee, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And it says “the contention made
11 in both cases is that DuPont should have
12 followed recommendations in the Stopps memo, but
13 did not.” Right?
14 A. Um, that’s what it says, yes.
15 Q. And down at the bottom, it says
16 “there appears little to be gained by protracted
17 discussion as to what was or was not done at
18 individual sites in the 1960s to control
19 asbestos exposure as details where they still
20 exist are always measured by today’s knowledge
21 and values.”
22 Correct?
23 A. That’s what it says, yes.
24 Q. And then they attach a standby
25 statement to provide to the media, right?
0084
1 A. Um, it looks like that’s what it
2 is, yes.
3 Q. No questions and answers will be
4 allowed. Right?
5 A. Um, that, that’s not exactly
6 what’s implied here.
7 During that period of time, um,
8 often with any kind of memo sent out by DuPont
9 there were, like, questions and answers sent
10 along with a memo for, you know, if people ask
11 you these questions, et cetera, you know kind of
12 like a guidance.
13 And so when there’s no Q&A means
14 this didn’t contain any kind of
15 question-and-answer…
16 Q. Right. Just a –
17 A. Format. It was not a format.
18 Q. — blanket statement this is all
19 we’re saying.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And then the next exhibit
22 eight days later and it’s entitled “Personal and
23 Confidential Special Control” and underneath it,
24 it says “Potential Asbestos
25 Exposure-Historical.”
0085
1 Do you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And it’s sent to, what, the
4 managers of all the DuPont plants?
5 A. I don’t know the position of the
6 individuals, it obviously lists many different
7 DuPont plants, so I’m not sure who they were.
8 Q. And this actually attaches
9 information — it actually attaches the Stopps
10 memo, right?
11 A. Um…yes, it says attached is his
12 memo.
13 Q. And, again, it says that the
14 contention is that DuPont should have followed
15 Stopps’s memo, but did not. Right?
16 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And if you get any questions from
19 the media, direct them directly to the DuPont
20 Public Relations Department in Wilmington,
21 right?
22 A. I’m still reading –
23 Q. Yes, ma’am.
24 A. — all this.
25 Q. Take your time.
0086
1 (Extended pause.)
2 A. Yes, that was fairly standard
3 within DuPont, asbestos or anything, that
4 statements to the public were handled by Public
5 Affairs Department.
6 Q. That’s fair. There was a separate
7 program for what the workers were going to be
8 told about the circumstances of 19 — of the
9 year 1980, wasn’t there?
10 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
11 A. Um, I don’t know.
12 Q. Well…
13 MR. PLACITELLA: Let’s mark this
14 next.
15
16 (Whereupon, Exhibit P-42 is marked
17 for identification.)
18
19 Q. Have you ever seen Exhibit 42
20 before?
21 A. Not that I recall.
22 (Extended pause.)
23 A. I’ve not read the entire thing
24 word for word, but I have an idea of…
25 Q. Okay.
0087
1 A. What’s here.
2 Q. After — this is an October 20th,
3 1980 memo?
4 A. October 24th, yes.
5 Q. 24th, yes. After the OSHA
6 investigation? Correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And it’s, again, labeled personal
9 and confidential?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And it’s sent to site managers all
12 over DuPont.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what it addresses is what the
15 site managers are supposed to tell the
16 supervisors and employees about what’s going on
17 with the medical X-ray review program, right?
18 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
19 A. Um, yes. I would say, if I may…
20 Q. Yes, ma’am.
21 A. This was very typical for DuPont
22 when there was a company-wide thing to provide
23 the information so that at all plant sites
24 everybody had the same information.
25 Q. Right.
0088
1 A. So whether it was asbestos or
2 anything else, um…
3 Q. Right.
4 A. This was the typical procedure to
5 make — to have a company-wide kind of
6 statement.
7 Q. And would a statement like this
8 come out without approval from the DuPont
9 Medical Department?
10 A. Um…
11 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
12 A. I don’t know.
13 Q. Was it part of DuPont’s
14 company-wide policy when they make these
15 statements to intentionally mislead the
16 employees?
17 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
18 A. Not to my knowledge.
19 Q. Included in this package is
20 information that is supposed to be provided to
21 the employees at the plant level, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. There’s actually suggested
24 communications to supervision and employees and
25 for the employees there are actually questions
0089
1 and answers. Right?
2 A. Yes, it’s in a question-and-answer
3 format so it makes it easier to follow.
4 Q. Okay. And one of the big
5 concerns, would you agree, with the employees at
6 this point in time would have been the subject
7 of cancer. And mesothelioma.
8 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
9 A. I would think so at this time.
10 Q. And would it be important to be
11 entirely accurate and truthful on that subject
12 matter to the employees; true?
13 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
14 A. I would think that accuracy would be
15 important, yes.
16 Q. If you go to page two of the
17 questions and answers…by the way, I’m looking
18 at the questions and answers.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. And I can only find…two that
21 touch on the subject of cancer. Am I correct
22 about that?
23 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
24 A. I see one, I — um, I have to read
25 the whole thing to…
0090
1 Q. All right. I’m going to direct
2 you to question eight.
3 A. Okay.
4 Q. It says “what is the difference
5 between asbestosis and cancer,” because that’s
6 what’s on the mind of the employees, right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. It says “simply stated,
9 asbestosis does not involve a cancerous
10 condition.”
11 That’s accurate, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. It says “a rare form of cancer
14 called mesothelioma is found in some persons who
15 have been exposed to asbestos,” correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. COTTEN: Objection, when you say
18 correct, are you asking her if you read it
19 correctly?
20 Q. Am I reading that correct?
21 A. You’re reading it correctly.
22 Q. All right. It then says
23 “mesotheliomas are far more frequent among
24 smokers exposed to asbestos than among
25 non-smokers so exposed.” Correct?
0091
1 A. You’ve read that correctly.
2 Q. That’s a lie, isn’t it?
3 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
4 A. I have no idea.
5 Q. Well –
6 A. I think there was a lot of
7 concern, certainly Dr. Selikoff wrote at that
8 time. I’m not sure that it applied to
9 mesotheliomas –
10 Q. Well…
11 A. — or general cancer.
12 Q. When the doctors at DuPont got
13 together and they were discussing this same
14 subject, they said the exact opposite, didn’t
15 they?
16 A. I don’t know.
17 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
18 (Brief pause.)
19 MR. PLACITELLA: Unfortunately — I
20 can print this out at a break if necessary.
21 Q. In 1972 were you aware that there
22 was a seminar on asbestos that involved the
23 medical people at DuPont?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you’ve seen this document up
0092
1 on the screen before.
2 A. I don’t know if I’ve seen the
3 document on the screen before, but I’ve — I
4 have seen the document.
5 Q. You’ve seen the document before.
6 Is it part of your collection?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. And it was called an
9 asbestos conference?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And it was dated and it happened
12 in June 1972, correct?
13 A. Yes. That’s correct.
14 Q. That was eight years before the
15 statement to the employees, correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And who was at that conference?
18 Lots of executives?
19 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
20 A. I would not phrase it as executives,
21 but it was people who were involved in safety
22 and health.
23 Q. Okay. There was a presentation by
24 Dr. Zapp? Is that correct?
25 A. That’s correct.
0093
1 Q. And Dr. Zapp was who at the time?
2 A. He was the Director of Haskell
3 Laboratory at that time.
4 Q. Did you ever work for him?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. He was your boss?
7 A. Not directly, but he was head of
8 the laboratory when I first started at DuPont.
9 Q. Was he a credible man?
10 A. As far as I know. I — let me say
11 no. He had just left right before I started so
12 he was not director at that time.
13 Q. Did he know –
14 A. But I know of him.
15 Q. Did he know what he was talking
16 about when it came to asbestos and disease?
17 A. Uh, I would certainly think so.
18 Q. Was there also a Dr. Reinhardt?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Who was he?
21 A. Well, at that time he was in the
22 Physiology Department and he is the one that
23 followed Dr. Zapp as director of the laboratory.
24 Q. So he eventually became your boss?
25 A. Um, not my direct boss, but he was
0094
1 head of the laboratory.
2 Q. So he was the head while you were
3 there.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I’m sorry I have to do this, just
6 give me a second.
7 (Brief pause.)
8 Q. In that conference did he discuss
9 mesothelioma?
10 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
11 A. Um, I don’t remember who discussed
12 what subjects. I don’t remember the specifics,
13 but I’m sure it was discussed.
14 Q. Okay. And he had actual slides
15 where he presented on mesothelioma?
16 A. Um, yes, it appears it says “next
17 slide mesothelioma.”
18 Q. And he says the latent period for
19 mesothelioma is forty years, correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. It’s rarely less than ten years,
22 correct?
23 A. That’s what he said.
24 Q. And he says to all the medical
25 people in charge of health and safety in 1972
0095
1 smoking has not been shown to be a contributory
2 factor as in the case of bronchogenic cancer,
3 does he not?
4 A. That, that’s correct, that’s what
5 he said.
6 Q. That’s directly the opposite of
7 what the employees at…DuPont were told in
8 1980, isn’t it?
9 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
10 A. That is different from what they
11 were told and I’m not sure whether there was any
12 additional new data at that time, um. My
13 understanding, however, is that this is the
14 correct version at that time.
15 Q. So would you agree with me that if
16 this is the correct version and nothing
17 substantially changed between then and the time
18 this memo was given out to — or this
19 information was given to the employees that the
20 employees were lied to.
21 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
22 A. Uh, it might have just been an error
23 or there may have been some sort of data that
24 they were relying on for that statement and I
25 really can’t speak to it.
0096
1 Q. Well, would you agree it’s
2 certainly not consistent with what your boss was
3 saying about smoking and mesothelioma.
4 A. It’s not consistent with what he
5 presented at — in 1972.
6 Q. And was he working still for
7 DuPont when this statement was made to the
8 employees at DuPont?
9 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
10 A. Uh, yes, he was still employed by
11 DuPont at that time.
12 Q. In this question and answer for
13 the DuPont employees –
14 A. Do I need to see it again?
15 Q. Yes, please.
16 (Brief pause.)
17 Q. In the questions and answers, does
18 it say anything about the fact that if you had
19 pleural disease you were at an increased risk
20 for mesothelioma?
21 A. I would have to take time to read
22 all the…
23 Q. Please do.
24 A. You’re talking about in the Q&A?
25 Q. Q&A.
0097
1 (Extended pause.)
2 A. It does not, uh, specifically — I
3 think your question was about, um, pleural
4 thickening?
5 Q. Yes, ma’am.
6 A. It does not specifically mention
7 it, it talks about abnormalities in general.
8 Q. Right. Given the fact that some
9 two thousand employees at DuPont were diagnosed
10 with pleural thickening, don’t you think it
11 would have been a good idea for DuPont to tell
12 the — those employees that they were at risk
13 for getting mesothelioma?
14 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
15 A. I think what it says is “the purpose
16 of this program is to identify existing
17 abnormalities and ensure that our physicians are
18 highly sensitive to them in the future” and that
19 I think would include the pleural thickening. I
20 don’t think the memo goes into specifics.
21 It says if they spot the
22 abnormalities they’re going to refer them, um,
23 to someone and so from that point I, I don’t
24 think they went into pleural thickening, per se.
25 Q. But these were the questions and
0098
1 answers for the employees.
2 A. Well, this was a guideline –
3 Q. Right.
4 A. — of the kind questions you might
5 expect. Again, we’re talking about throughout
6 the entire company. The person actually
7 communicating to people may not have much
8 knowledge about what was going on and this was a
9 guideline to them, so everybody was kind
10 of…had the same information.
11 Q. There is no statement in here to
12 tell the employees, the two thousand employees
13 who had pleural thickening, that they had a
14 higher risk of getting mesothelioma; true?
15 MR. COTTEN: Objection. Form.
16 A. Correct, there’s nothing in the Q&A.
17 Q. And in — your boss, when he met
18 with the medical people at DuPont, said that
19 workers who come home with contaminated clothing
20 can cause mesothelioma in their family members,
21 right?
22 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
23 A. Well, it starts earlier than that
24 and said several cases have been found in
25 persons living near a source of asbestos and
0099
1 even in members of families of asbestos workers.
2 And that’s going back to referring to the
3 Newhouse study.
4 Q. Yes, ma’am. That’s not in the
5 statement to the employees to tell them about
6 what they’re at risk for, either, is it?
7 A. Not in the one that you handed me,
8 no.
9 Q. Right. Have you seen anything in
10 your research to date to indicate that the
11 employees at DuPont were told that if you had
12 pleural thickening you were at an increased risk
13 for developing mesothelioma?
14 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
15 A. I have not seen that written down,
16 no.
17 Q. Can you present to me any evidence
18 today to show me that the employees at DuPont or
19 the contractors were told that if they brought
20 asbestos home on their clothing, their family
21 was at risk for getting mesothelioma?
22 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
23 A. I can’t say that they were or were
24 not told.
25 Q. Okay, I started the second part of
0100
1 this deposition with questions and answers. I
2 want to see if your answers have changed.
3 True or false, DuPont violated its
4 own safety standards when it came to protecting
5 workers from asbestos.
6 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
7 A. I still have problems with the way
8 that one is worded.
9 Q. You can’t say true or false?
10 A. No.
11 Q. DuPont continued to use asbestos
12 products on its premises long after it knew that
13 exposure to asbestos could cause cancer; true or
14 false?
15 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
16 A. I would say that certainly asbestos
17 was continued to be used in certain places as
18 long as workers were protected from airborne
19 exposures.
20 Q. So if you had to check this off on
21 a test, is it true or false?
22 A. True.
23 Q. DuPont made numerous mistakes when
24 it came to protecting workers on its premises
25 from exposure to asbestos; true or false?
0101
1 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
2 A. And previously I objected to
3 numerous mistakes, I think mistakes were made,
4 um…but I don’t characterize it as numerous
5 mistakes.
6 Q. How many is numerous to you?
7 A. Well, depends how you say it.
8 Certainly as we know today they did not
9 necessarily, um…point out pleural thickening,
10 um, and that was seen as, as, um…I would say
11 that would have been a mistake.
12 Q. And –
13 A. Now, you can say that was numerous
14 because it happened time and time again, but…
15 Q. And that goes to my next question.
16 DuPont intentionally withheld from workers the
17 fact that there was evidence of asbestos in
18 their lungs.
19 MR. COTTEN: Objection –
20 Q. True or false?
21 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
22 A. Um, I’m sure anything that we have
23 said seen there was evidence of asbestos in
24 their lungs. That’s different to my way of
25 thinking than evidence of something like pleural
0102
1 thickening.
2 Q. So if I changed it to DuPont
3 intentionally withheld from workers the fact
4 that there was evidence of pleural thickening in
5 their lungs, true or false?
6 A. And –
7 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
8 A. I still have problems with
9 intentionally withheld. I think they were
10 trying to do the right thing, but they were not
11 necessarily indicating to workers they had
12 pleural thickening.
13 Q. It just took ‘em sixteen years to
14 do it, right?
15 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
16 A. As time went on they certainly
17 understood this was important to relate to
18 workers.
19 Q. So you can’t answer this true or
20 false.
21 A. Correct.
22 MR. PLACITELLA: He’s gotta change
23 the tape.
24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at
25 12:11.
0103
1
2 (Brief interruption.)
3
4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the
5 record at 12:12.
6 Q. Next. DuPont provided misleading
7 information to workers about asbestos and
8 mesothelioma. True or false?
9 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
10 A. Again, I would say that I don’t
11 think in general that is true. Certainly, if
12 you want to point to the Q&A and say that one of
13 the sentences in there is incorrect, then that
14 would be true.
15 Q. Executives at DuPont ignored the
16 advice of DuPont medical directors in terms of
17 protecting workers from asbestos exposure. True
18 or false?
19 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
20 A. I can’t answer that.
21 MR. PLACITELLA: Thank you for your
22 time. I’ll pass the witness for now.
23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at
24 12:13.
25
0104
1 (Whereupon, a lunch recess is
2 taken.)
3
4 MR. COHEN: So I think we’ll do –
5 just procedurally we’ll do cross, Larry’s
6 going to do it, and I think he ought to sit
7 where you’re sitting.
8 MR. PLACITELLA: That’s fine, I’m
9 assuming you’re not going to show her any
10 documents you haven’t given to me
11 beforehand. Because that wouldn’t be very
12 nice. Given the fact that I asked you to
13 provide any documents that you went over
14 with the witness.
15 MR. COTTEN: We did ask you if you
16 would show us the documents you were going
17 to use with the witness and you refused to
18 do that.
19 MR. PLACITELLA: That’s not my
20 obligation, sir, under the New Jersey Court
21 Rules. It is, however, your obligation to
22 show me, so if you have documents I ask
23 that you give them to me now. You have
24 documents –
25 MR. COTTEN: It’s hard for us to
0105
1 know what you’ve seen and what you haven’t
2 seen.
3 MR. PLACITELLA: It’s hard for me
4 with six million documents to compare what
5 you gave me with what you didn’t give me.
6 So can you going to show me the documents
7 you’re going to go over with the witness?
8 MR. COTTEN: No.
9 MR. PLACITELLA: So can we call the
10 judge, please?
11 MR. COHEN: Well, how is it that you
12 don’t have –
13 MR. PLACITELLA: Because it’s my
14 examination. If you showed the witness
15 documents preparing her for her testimony
16 and you’re going to ask her about it, you
17 have an obligation to turn them over to me.
18 MR. COTTEN: Those were turned over
19 to you in the very first part of the
20 deposition.
21 MR. PLACITELLA: These are the only
22 ones?
23 MR. COTTEN: Only ones that we’ve
24 shown her.
25 MR. PLACITELLA: So these are the
0106
1 only ones you’re going to ask her about.
2 MR. COTTEN: I don’t know about
3 that.
4 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, that’s what I
5 need to know. That’s what I need to know
6 or we’ll call with judge. Please don’t
7 leave, let’s going to deal with this on
8 record. If you’re going to show her
9 documents other than –
10 MR. COHEN: First of all, keep your
11 voice down and be civil.
12 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m not keeping my
13 voice down.
14 MR. COHEN: What?
15 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m just talking.
16 I’m Italian, this is how I talk.
17 MR. COHEN: Well –
18 MR. PLACITELLA: All right. If
19 you’re going to show her documents that
20 have not been previously disclosed to me
21 despite my request, I ask that you give
22 them to me now or I will call the judge.
23 MR. COHEN: Well, I think –
24 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay, let’s call a
25 judge.
0107
1 MR. COTTEN: Wait a minute, just one
2 second.
3 (Brief pause.)
4 MR. COHEN: I would love to know
5 where in the rules you’re not supposed to
6 show us what you’re going to show the
7 witness, but if we’re going to cross the
8 witness we have an obligation to give you?
9 Where’s it say that?
10 MR. PLACITELLA: Let’s deal with it
11 with the judge.
12 MR. COHEN: That must only be in
13 your head.
14 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay, it’s only in
15 my head. Just like the new — just like
16 the interrogatories don’t require you to
17 give me statements that you have of your
18 own employees.
19 MR. COHEN: Well, I don’t think one
20 has anything to do with the other.
21 MR. COTTEN: We’ll be right back.
22 MR. PLACITELLA: Sure.
23
24 (Whereupon, a brief recess is
25 taken.)
0108
1
2 MR. COHEN: So we think you’ve seen
3 them, but we’ll make you a copy of them.
4 MR. PLACITELLA: That would be much
5 appreciated.
6 MR. COHEN: Yep.
7 MR. COTTEN: Now, there are some of
8 them that you’ve already used with the
9 witness that we –
10 MR. PLACITELLA: I have no problem
11 with that.
12 MR. COTTEN: Okay.
13
14 (Whereupon, a lunch recess is
15 taken.)
16
17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We’re on the
18 video record at 1:08.
19 MR. PLACITELLA: Larry, before you
20 start, let me just put my objection on the
21 record.
22 I previously asked counsel for
23 DuPont last week copies of any documents
24 that were shown to the witness or would be
25 used with the witness and no such documents
0109
1 were provided.
2 I then made the request again prior
3 to the lunch break, although it was a
4 little bit late, and that was at 12:15 and
5 at seven minutes to one somebody handed me
6 a package of documents and I’ve had not
7 enough time to go through them. Fully.
8 I…don’t believe that complies with our
9 Rules of Court and we’ll deal with it at a
10 separate time.
11 MR. COHEN: And just for the record,
12 we did make a request a while ago by letter
13 for the same things and we didn’t get them,
14 either, so…
15 MR. PLACITELLA: Right. And you’re
16 not entitled to them.
17 MR. COHEN: I realize that you have
18 a different view of that, that that kind of
19 obligation apparently only goes one way, so
20 I’m not aware of a rule like that, but if
21 there is one then I guess you’ll enlighten
22 us on it.
23 MR. PLACITELLA: I will bring it to
24 the attention in the context of the pro hac
25 vice motion filed with the court.
0110
1 MR. COTTEN: And one additional
2 thing I think for the record is that you
3 indicated you were provided with no
4 documents before the deposition started.
5 There was a set of documents that were
6 provided to you. I think what you’ve
7 talked about today is possibly some
8 additional documents that you hadn’t been
9 provided before.
10 MR. PLACITELLA: That is an absolute
11 correct statement.
12
13
14 CROSS-EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. COTTEN:
16
17 Q. Dr. Stadler, my name is Larry
18 Cotten and I’m here today representing DuPont
19 Company. I want to ask you a few questions.
20 Dr. Stadler, where were you born?
21 A. I was born in Harrisburg,
22 Pennsylvania.
23 Q. And where did you grow up?
24 A. In Harrisburg.
25 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, let me just
0111
1 object at this point.
2 To the extent that you are going to
3 try to conduct a direct examination of your
4 own witness in the context of a discovery
5 deposition which has been previously ruled
6 upon by the court in other cases I’ve been
7 involved with, I can’t stop you from doing
8 it, but I will move to strike all of it, if
9 that’s your intention, at the time of
10 trial.
11 Q. And I want to find out a little
12 bit and kind of following up on some of the
13 questions that you were asked on direct. I
14 think you told us where you went to college.
15 Where was that?
16 A. I went to undergraduate school at
17 Muhlenberg College. And –
18 Q. And where is that located?
19 A. That’s located in Allentown,
20 Pennsylvania.
21 Q. And where did you go to graduate
22 school?
23 A. I went to graduate school, I did a
24 Master’s of Education at Schiffensburg State
25 College in Schiffensburg, Pennsylvania and a
0112
1 Master’s Degree in Industrial Hygiene at the
2 University of Pittsburgh and I got my Ph.D. at
3 the University of Pittsburgh in Toxicology.
4 Q. When did your employment with
5 DuPont begin?
6 MR. PLACITELLA: It’s been asked and
7 answered in my examination. I don’t
8 understand why you’re doing this.
9 I will put you on notice that if you
10 intend on doing this we will not finish the
11 deposition today and we will come back
12 tomorrow and I will conduct an additional
13 cross-examination based upon your attempt
14 at direct examination of this witness.
15 So if you want to do it for another
16 day, just carry on.
17 Q. You can go ahead and answer.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: I will also bring
19 to the court’s attention in the context of
20 the pro hac vice motion this procedure
21 which I don’t think is permitted.
22 Q. Why don’t you go ahead and answer
23 the question?
24 A. I started at DuPont in 1984.
25 Q. And what did your duties consist
0113
1 of?
2 A. Um, I was a toxicologist for
3 DuPont, I started out in Chronic Studies which
4 are long-term studies and I moved into the
5 Inhalation Toxicology, um…Group within Haskell
6 Laboratory and then I went on to, uh,
7 supervisory positions and management of the
8 Toxicology Group at the laboratory.
9 And in the final years that I
10 worked there prior to my retirement, I was
11 working as a liaison to the Specialty Chemicals
12 Department.
13 Q. In the direct examination of you
14 today, yesterday and today, there were different
15 references in some of counsel’s questions and in
16 the documents that you were shown to different
17 departments and different sections of the DuPont
18 corporate structure.
19 Are you familiar with the DuPont
20 corporate structure?
21 A. I am generally familiar, yes, with
22 the corporate structure and it’s changed over
23 time.
24 Q. Would you describe the general
25 DuPont corporate structure?
0114
1 A. Generally, at the period of time
2 we’re talking about, the corporate structure was
3 such that there was an Employee Relations
4 Department which contained a Medical Division.
5 There were other departments that involved
6 various functions, uh, such as the Engineering
7 Department, various chemicals and then divisions
8 within those things. Haskell Laboratory in
9 particular was part of the Central Research
10 Department.
11 So there were many departments and
12 then there were subdivisions within them.
13 Q. Do you know when the DuPont
14 Medical Division was founded?
15 A. The Medical Department was founded
16 in 1915.
17 Q. There’s been some discussion about
18 different plants in this case. Did DuPont have
19 physicians located at its different plants?
20 A. Many of the plants had physicians
21 early on, um…say, in the 1960s. It was common
22 for the bigger plants to have physicians. Some
23 of the others might have shared the services of
24 physicians or might have relied — particularly
25 if they were in small towns might have relied on
0115
1 local physicians.
2 Q. What was the DuPont Safety & Fire
3 Division?
4 A. The Safety & Fire Division was a
5 different division. Their primary purpose was
6 to be concerned about fire potential and safety
7 issues, particularly at the plant sites.
8 Q. What was the DuPont Engineering
9 Department?
10 A. The Engineering Department was
11 primarily engineers and people who worked in
12 maintenance, that kind of thing. They dealt
13 with construction of new buildings and
14 maintenance and re — um…rebuilding and
15 refurbishing various existing plants.
16 So, um, that was primarily their
17 duties.
18 Q. On direct examination you were
19 asked questions concerning different principles
20 of industrial hygiene.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. First of all, I’d like to ask you
23 if you could tell the jury the difference
24 between case reports and epidemiology studies?
25 A. Case reports –
0116
1 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection,
2 qualifications.
3 A. Case reports in general are
4 individual reports usually by a physician of, of
5 a case in which they show the various symptoms
6 and things on one individual.
7 Epidemiology studies tend to
8 include much larger groups of individuals.
9 They’re usually formal studies with control
10 groups, that kind of thing, for basis of
11 comparison.
12 Q. With respect to case reports and
13 epidemiology studies, are those matters that are
14 involved in your field of expertise?
15 A. Well, I’m not an epidemiologist,
16 but certainly I certainly as a toxicologist used
17 and understood those general principles.
18 Q. Are those principles concerning
19 the difference between case reports and
20 epidemiology studies matters of concern for
21 industrial hygienists?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you know the difference between
24 a material being associated with a disease and a
25 material being determined to be a cause of a
0117
1 disease?
2 A. Yes.
3 One situation might be that an
4 individual has some association with something
5 and the other is actually showing that that
6 particular, um…material was actually the cause
7 of the disease. They use the term etiology,
8 it’s…what causes the disease.
9 Q. Do you know in the medical
10 literature the first medical epidemiology study
11 that showed that there was a causal link between
12 cancer and asbestos?
13 A. Um, I’m sorry, at this time I
14 cannot remember the first one.
15 Q. Are you familiar with the term
16 ‘industrial hygiene paradigm’ concerning the
17 control of potentially hazardous materials?
18 MR. PLACITELLA: Object to the form.
19 A. I know that often the term paradigm
20 is used for the overall process by which the
21 problem is actually addressed. In other words,
22 first of all, you have the recognition phase,
23 then you evaluate that and ultimately you
24 control whatever might be the cause of
25 something.
0118
1 Q. What is involved in the
2 recognition phase?
3 A. Generally that means that there is
4 — something has occurred that you recognize
5 that, perhaps, there is some sort of
6 relationship between a particular exposure, for
7 instance, and some outcome. That’s the
8 recognizing that there’s, oh, maybe a large
9 incidence of something going on and we need to
10 look at — if it’s occurring in one place, we
11 need to try to find out more about this.
12 Q. And what is the evaluation phase?
13 A. The evaluation phase generally
14 tends to be something like evaluating exposures,
15 looking to determine whether or not those
16 individuals having a particular illness, for
17 instance, have actually been exposed. Just the
18 overall evaluation of is there a link between
19 this particular, um…thing that might be
20 causing disease and the disease itself.
21 Q. And what is the control phase?
22 A. Control phase, then, is when you
23 put into place ways to control exposures and
24 prevent that disease.
25 MR. COTTEN: Would you hand the
0119
1 court reporter DuPont Exhibit 1 and ask her
2 to mark it, please.
3
4 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 1 is
5 marked for identification.)
6
7 Q. Doctor, do you have in front of
8 you DuPont Exhibit 1?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. And could you tell the jury what
11 that is?
12 A. This is a copy of “Maximum
13 Acceptable Concentrations of Air Contaminants”
14 contained in the DuPont document generally known
15 as S2T.
16 Q. And above where it says “S2T,”
17 would you read what’s in that bracket?
18 A. That’s “Safety And Welfare
19 Engineering Standard.”
20 Q. And what date was S2T issued?
21 A. This one was issued in April of
22 1961.
23 Q. If you would turn inside of S2T
24 and can you explain to the jury what S2T
25 consists of?
0120
1 A. This is generally a list of
2 acceptable concentrations to be used as guidance
3 in the workplace and what this is is really a
4 reproduction of the TLVs for, um, I would say
5 probably several hundred chemicals.
6 Q. If you would look at — on the
7 first page at 2.1…
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Of Exhibit 1. What does that
10 indicate as far as a relationship between these
11 maximum acceptable concentrations and the ACGIH?
12 A. Uh, these were recommended by the
13 American Conference of Governmental Industrial
14 Hygienists, which we always refer to as ACGIH,
15 and they are values which a group of scientists
16 in a special committee have put together for the
17 purposes of establishing these concentrations.
18 Q. On what page do you find a
19 reference to asbestos?
20 A. In this one, the reference to
21 asbestos is on page five under the Table Part 3
22 “Mineral and Non-Metallic Inorganic Dusts.”
23 Q. If you look back on page four,
24 there is another table concerning dusts?
25 A. There are. “Toxic Dust Fumes and
0121
1 Mists.”
2 Q. So asbestos as far as Exhibit 1 is
3 concerned is not reflected as a toxic dust?
4 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection, leading
5 your own witness.
6 A. The title of the table, Table Number
7 3, is “Mineral and Non-Metallic Inorganic
8 Dusts.”
9 MR. COTTEN: If you would, Miss
10 court reporter, mark the next exhibit as
11 DuPont Exhibit 2.
12
13 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 2 is
14 marked for identification.)
15
16 Q. Dr. Stadler, do you have in front
17 of you Defendant’s DuPont Exhibit 2?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. What is the title of Exhibit 2?
20 A. It says “Respiratory Protective
21 Equipment.”
22 Q. When was it issued?
23 A. It was issued in January 1964.
24 Q. And what is the designation for
25 this standard?
0122
1 A. This is S2H.
2 Q. And is the language in the bracket
3 above the designation S2H the same as on DuPont
4 Exhibit 1?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. What is Defendant’s Exhibit 2?
7 A. It is really a description of
8 respiratory equipment. It talks in general
9 about how and when respiratory equipment should
10 be used and then it goes into the various types
11 of respiratory equipment manufacturers, you
12 know, where you –
13
14 (Whereupon, the court reporter
15 requests clarification.)
16
17 A. Manufacturers. And then it talks
18 about selecting them and precautions with them,
19 has a general category of how to take care of
20 them, that kind of thing.
21 And then it, it also has tables
22 around the kinds of equipment that should be
23 used under various circumstances.
24 MR. COTTEN: Hand the court reporter
25 a document to be marked as DuPont Exhibit
0123
1 3, please.
2
3 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 3 is
4 marked for identification.)
5
6 Q. Dr. Stadler, do you have in front
7 of you what’s been marked as DuPont Exhibit 3?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. And do you recognize that
10 document?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What’s the date of the document?
13 A. November 2nd, 1964.
14 Q. And who is the author of the
15 document?
16 A. This was the memo from Dr. Stopps
17 to Dr. Alonzo.
18 Q. Now, we’ve heard testimony during
19 the course of the last two days about a trip
20 report. Is this, Exhibit 3, the trip report?
21 A. No, this is a cover letter that
22 was, um…in front of the trip report, so it –
23 Q. And it’s addressed to Dr.
24 D’Alonzo?
25 A. Yes.
0124
1 Q. Would you read the first two
2 sentences on the second paragraph of the letter
3 from Dr. Stopps to Dr. D’Alonzo?
4 A. It says “this meeting underlined
5 the fact that disease due to asbestos are no
6 longer chiefly found in workers in asbestos
7 mines and textile mills where the risks have
8 been recognized and guarded against. The risks
9 now are among the secondary users such as the
10 manufacturers, installers of insulation, but the
11 risks are highest where the environmental
12 conditions are most difficult to control.”
13 MR. PLACITELLA: Is there a
14 question? Move to strike. You can’t just
15 ask her to read something and not ask her a
16 question about it. Move to strike.
17 MR. COTTEN: I’m not through yet.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: Oh, okay. I guess
19 I tipped you off too early.
20 MR. COTTEN: Maybe so.
21 MR. PLACITELLA: Yeah, next time
22 I’ll be better.
23 MR. COHEN: Let’s limit the side-bar
24 comments.
25 Q. Dr. Stadler, in the paragraph that
0125
1 you just read there’s a reference to the word
2 ‘control.’ Does that have anything to do with
3 your testimony concerning the industrial hygiene
4 paradigm?
5 MR. PLACITELLA: Object to the form.
6 A. Uh, yes, I would say that is talking
7 about the control relative to such things as
8 engineering and so forth.
9 MR. PLACITELLA: Just so we’re
10 clear, when you say — you’re referring to
11 a sentence that says “highest where the
12 environmental conditions are most difficult
13 to control”?
14 MR. COTTEN: Yes, sir.
15 MR. PLACITELLA: And you’re saying
16 that means what she said? Okay. Just want
17 to make sure we’re talking about the same
18 thing.
19 Q. During this time frame in 1964,
20 did DuPont have industrial hygienists as its
21 employees?
22 A. Uh, yes, it did.
23 Q. And what was the purpose of having
24 those industrial hygienists?
25 A. There were individuals employed at
0126
1 Haskell Laboratory and also at least at Chambers
2 Works, I, uh, I really could not name other
3 industrial hygienists, under the employ of
4 DuPont, but there were individuals with that
5 responsibility and they were there to try to
6 protect the workers and provide guidance on how
7 to do that.
8 MR. COTTEN: Let’s the hand court
9 reporter the next exhibit and ask that it
10 be marked, please.
11
12 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 4 is
13 marked for identification.)
14
15 Q. Dr. Stadler, do you have in front
16 of you what’s been marked as DuPont Exhibit 4?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Do you recognize it?
19 A. Um, this was the memo and the
20 whole thing is the trip report was originally
21 written to Dr. Zapp by Dr. Stopps.
22 Q. I’d like to draw your attention to
23 the first sentence of the second paragraph of
24 DuPont Exhibit Number 4 and read that to
25 yourself and I’ll ask you a question about it
0127
1 when you’ve finished.
2 (Brief pause.)
3 A. Okay.
4 Q. Mr. Placitella had asked that the
5 DuPont Company provide a witness to testify
6 concerning DuPont’s knowledge about asbestos
7 hazards. I understand that you’re that person.
8 Does that particular sentence in
9 DuPont’s Exhibit Number 4 have any particular
10 meaning to you with regard to DuPont’s state of
11 knowledge as of that time?
12 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection to form.
13 A. I think it’s a very important
14 statement by Dr. Stopps here in, in terms of
15 sort of where — what kind of conclusions he
16 drew from this meeting in terms of we now have a
17 whole new scenario that, um, we’ve known about
18 asbestos diseases, but we’ve always sort of
19 thought of that as being in those trades where
20 raw asbestos is handled, they tend to be very
21 dirty, um, um…typically very dusty.
22 And so now what he is saying is
23 that this now brings to light that they have
24 actually seen some effects and have drawn
25 attention that you can have this in other types
0128
1 of workers.
2 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection to
3 competency.
4 Q. Dr. –
5 MR. PLACITELLA: Move to strike.
6 Q. Dr. Stadler, looking at the third
7 page of DuPont Exhibit 4 where the paragraph
8 starts with “Dr. Wagner”?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. If you would review that paragraph
11 including the last portion of it on page four.
12 (Brief pause.)
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. What was the subject disease that
15 is referenced in that paragraph?
16 A. Um, this paragraph talks…about
17 pulmonary malignancy.
18 Q. And what — and is there a
19 specific disease that’s referenced concerning
20 pulmonary malignancy?
21 A. Yes. It talks about both pleural
22 and peritoneal mesotheliomas.
23 Q. Do you know the portion of the
24 world where these diseases that are discussed in
25 this paragraph was located?
0129
1 A. It was in South Africa.
2 Q. And do you know independent of
3 this paragraph of the type of asbestos fiber
4 that Dr. Wagner was reporting on?
5 A. Yes. In fact, I’ve read Dr.
6 Wagner’s study and he reported on, um, in –
7 specifically in his study on chrysotile
8 asbestos.
9 Q. Let’s go to the next paragraph, if
10 you would, on page four. And are you familiar
11 with that paragraph?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What was — who were the…persons
14 that Dr. Stopps was talking about who gave
15 discussions at the conference that are
16 referenced in this paragraph?
17 MR. PLACITELLA: Object to the form.
18 I don’t have any idea what you’re talking
19 about.
20 A. Could you…
21 Q. Sure.
22 A. Repeat the question?
23 Q. In paragraph four it refers to
24 different persons who gave reports at the
25 conference. Who were those persons?
0130
1 A. It talks about Dr. Elmes of
2 Belfast and it was reported by Dr. Muriel
3 Newhouse.
4 Q. Do you know what the report that
5 Dr. Newhouse made what industry she reported on?
6 A. She actually reported on textile
7 industry.
8 Q. And do you know what fiber was
9 used in that textile industry?
10 A. This was asbestos, an asbestos
11 textile mill.
12 Q. If you’ll look at specifically the
13 sentence in the lower portion of the paragraph,
14 draw your attention to the sentence that begins
15 with the word ‘this factory opened’?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you see that?
18 A. It opened in 1913 and it says that
19 until recently it was a heavy user of
20 crocidolite.
21 Q. What is crocidolite?
22 A. It is a type of asbestos and I
23 can’t really remember the actual chemical
24 formula, but it is one of about oh, five or six
25 different forms of asbestos and this one in
0131
1 particular is the one that at that point in time
2 was basically believed to be associated with
3 mesothelioma because it was, um, Dr. Wagner’s
4 study in South Africa as well as Dr. Newhouse’s
5 study that were the larger studies and had a
6 large number of mesothelioma cases and related
7 those to exposures of — to crocidolite
8 asbestos.
9 Q. Just a minute ago we talked about
10 the paragraph on Dr. Wagner. Do you recall
11 that?
12 A. That’s correct.
13 Q. And in answer to my question you
14 referenced the asbestos fiber chrysotile. Did
15 you mean to say crocidolite?
16 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: Goes to impeach his
19 own witness.
20 Q. You’re familiar with Dr. Wagner’s
21 study?
22 A. Yes, I am, and it was crocidolite
23 that they were mining.
24 MR. PLACITELLA: Same objection.
25 Q. I’d like to draw to your attention
0132
1 the paragraph that begins on page four, it’s the
2 last paragraph of page four and goes over on to
3 page five.
4 Would you read that, please, to
5 yourself?
6 (Brief pause.)
7 Q. Yesterday you were asked some
8 questions by Mr. Placitella concerning this
9 paragraph. Do you recall that?
10 A. Um…I, I know he brought up Dr.
11 Owen, I think.
12 Q. Do you recall –
13 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection, I never
14 said anything about Dr. Owen.
15 Q. Do you recall being asked if that
16 paragraph included the occupation of
17 boilermaker?
18 A. Um, I really can’t say that I, I
19 remember exactly.
20 Q. You see on page five where it
21 references “and two were boilermakers”?
22 A. Yes, that I see.
23 Q. And then immediately after that,
24 what does it show parenthetically?
25 A. Um, ship-building.
0133
1 Q. Dr. Stadler, if you would turn to
2 page six –
3 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection move to
4 strike the answer, all you did was ask her
5 what was in the document.
6 MR. COTTEN: It was to reference to
7 what she did refer to yesterday.
8 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.
9 Q. On page six, if you would read to
10 yourself the last paragraph, please.
11 (Brief pause.)
12 A. Yes, I’ve…read it.
13 Q. And do you remember many of Mr.
14 Placitella’s questions were prefaced with
15 statements concerning Dr. Stopps’s writing here
16 where it says “it is important that no persons
17 within the company should be exposed to
18 asbestos.”
19 Do you remember that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I want to ask you a question about
22 the next sentence.
23 First, did Mr. Placitella read to
24 you and ask any questions about the next
25 sentence?
0134
1 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
2 A. Um, I don’t recall that, no.
3 Q. If you would for the record read
4 that next sentence, please.
5 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection,
6 improper.
7 A. “It is” –
8 MR. PLACITELLA: Form.
9 A. “Also, of course, important to
10 present this type of information in perspective
11 and not to cause undue alarm since there is no
12 reason to believe that good industrial hygiene
13 practice such as the use of masks on cutting
14 asbestos or using powdered or fiber asbestos
15 products is not completely effective in
16 preventing later disease.”
17 Q. Dr. Stadler, were there in place
18 and available to DuPont in that time frame, in
19 1964, 1965 and thereafter, different industrial
20 hygiene policies and procedures that, if
21 utilized, could protect against asbestos-related
22 disease?
23 A. Yes. There were things such as
24 engineering controls, certainly the availability
25 of respiratory protection and so on.
0135
1 Q. And in your becoming familiar in
2 order to be able to testify as to these matters,
3 do you know if DuPont employed such procedures?
4 A. Yes, it did.
5 MR. COTTEN: Ask the court reporter
6 to mark the next exhibit, please.
7
8 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 5 is
9 marked for identification.)
10
11 Q. Dr. Stadler, do you have before
12 you Defendant’s — DuPont’s Exhibit 5?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. What is Exhibit 5?
15 A. This is Dr. — a memo from Dr.
16 Alonzo addressed to all plant physicians.
17 Q. And what is attached to that memo?
18 A. This is where he attaches Dr.
19 Stopps’s trip report and sends it out — the
20 whole thing out to the plant physicians. He
21 also notes to note particularly the last
22 paragraph.
23 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection,
24 narrative. Move to strike, unresponsive.
25 Q. In reviewing the trip report which
0136
1 is attached to Defendant’s Exhibit 5, but is
2 DuPont’s Exhibit Number 4 the paragraphs in the
3 trip report describe, in part, certain working
4 conditions that the workers who had developed
5 disease had been exposed to; is that correct?
6 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection, leading
7 your own witness.
8 A. Well, it talks about the, the types
9 of things such as you would find in the mines
10 and mills, yes.
11 Q. And based upon your knowledge of
12 the working conditions at DuPont, how did the
13 conditions as reported in the DuPont Exhibit
14 Number 4, the trip report, compare to the
15 working conditions at the DuPont chemical
16 facilities?
17 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection,
18 competence.
19 A. Um, DuPont had dust policies, dust
20 control policies in place. This was for worker
21 safety and it certainly would not have been a
22 highly dusty and dirty environment.
23 DuPont had dust control policies
24 in place back to the middle 1800s because of the
25 explosive nature of the things that it worked
0137
1 with and it carried that through, even became –
2 even when it became a chemical company for the
3 protection of its workers.
4 And, also, in general a chemical
5 company had to keep its product clean and not
6 have a lot of dust and dirt in the product to
7 protect the quality of the product, so dust
8 control is very important to DuPont at that time
9 and it would not have been considered dust –
10 dirty and dusty.
11 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection, move to
12 strike. Non-responsive.
13 Q. Based upon your review of the
14 materials in order to prepare as a corporate
15 representative in this case with regard to the
16 matters raised on direct examination, did you
17 familiarize yourself with any dust procedures
18 that DuPont had in place prior to and including
19 1964?
20 A. Yes, I read particularly in the
21 safety manuals that they distributed to everyone
22 about controlling dust in the workplace and good
23 housekeeping practices and they had inspections
24 of the workplace to make sure that these kinds
25 of procedures were followed.
0138
1 MR. COTTEN: Let me get the court
2 reporter to mark the next document, please,
3 as Exhibit 6.
4
5 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 6 is
6 marked for identification.)
7
8 Q. Dr. Stadler, are you familiar with
9 DuPont Exhibit 6?
10 A. Yes, I’ve seen this.
11 Q. And, if you could, for the jury
12 what is DuPont Exhibit 6?
13 A. This is a memo, um, to, uh, I
14 think this is a Dr. McClean at the plant — as
15 Plant Medical Officer from Dr. Stopps at
16 Haskell.
17 Q. And what particular plant is Dr.
18 McClean located at?
19 A. It was at the Maydown Works in
20 England.
21 Q. And this is same Dr. Stopps that
22 attended the Selikoff conference in 1964?
23 A. That’s correct.
24 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection, leading
25 your own witness.
0139
1 Q. With respect to the second
2 paragraph in DuPont’s Exhibit Number 6, does
3 this indicate to you in November of 1965 matters
4 of import concerning DuPont’s knowledge of the
5 risk of asbestos hazards?
6 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection, leading.
7 A. Um, yes.
8 Q. And what does it indicate in that
9 regard?
10 A. Uh, here he is talking
11 particularly in the second paragraph about the
12 questions, what are the risks to those
13 individuals who are exposed to asbestos before
14 we recognized the possible risk of cancer and
15 then what kind of steps should be taken. To
16 protect these individuals.
17 Q. Are you familiar with the United
18 States Public Health Service?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What is the United States Public
21 Health Service?
22 A. Well, at that time that was a
23 major organization that did a lot, um — among
24 other things a lot of studies of plant sites,
25 they actually, uh pub — there were researchers
0140
1 there, they published epidemiology studies and
2 so forth.
3 Q. What does the third paragraph
4 indicate to Dr. McClean for Dr. Stopps
5 concerning the U.S. Public Health Service?
6 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection,
7 competency.
8 A. Um, he is talking about the work
9 that was going on there, uh, and to a certain
10 extent this was one of the things where they
11 were having interactions with people at, um,
12 um…Division of Occupational Health because
13 they were trying to get information on sampling
14 and then how to control health risks, uh,
15 because of their interactions with these
16 individuals.
17 Q. Does it show in what industry the
18 U.S. Public Health Service is looking?
19 A. This was, again, about asbestos at
20 that time. That’s what he was referring to.
21 Q. If you would turn to the next –
22 MR. COTTEN: Please, if you would,
23 mark the next document DuPont Exhibit 7,
24 please.
25
0141
1 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 7 is
2 marked for identification.)
3
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What is DuPont Exhibit 7?
6 A. It’s a memo to Dr. Neeld at
7 Chambers Works from Dr. Stopps and it is the
8 cover memo on the data that was taken from the
9 medical records of the pipe coverers at Chambers
10 Works.
11 Q. And what was the date of this memo
12 to Dr. Neeld?
13 A. August 23rd, 1966.
14 Q. Does Dr. Stopps in this memo to
15 Dr. Neeld indicate any evaluation by Dr. Stopps
16 concerning the study?
17 MR. PLACITELLA: Object to the form.
18 A. Um, well, one of the first things
19 that he says in here is that there was no cause
20 for concern of an incidence of cancer among
21 these workers and then he goes on to say that
22 drawing other conclusions may have doubtful
23 validity until there’s more data obtained and
24 then he suggests other data that would be good
25 follow-up to this study.
0142
1 Q. In the last paragraph on the first
2 page, there’s a reference to the union. Do you
3 see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And I believe in your — in answer
6 to some of the questions that you were asked you
7 made a reference to the union. Is this what you
8 were talking about?
9 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection, leading.
10 A. Um, well, I think I was really
11 thinking about whether the union knew about the
12 study ahead of time and the workers
13 participating in it, but this also mentions that
14 the union was well informed and was playing a
15 role in gathering the health information of its
16 people, so they knew, certainly, about the
17 health effects of asbestos here.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection,
19 non-responsive, move to strike.
20 MR. COTTEN: Please mark the next
21 exhibit as DuPont Exhibit 8.
22
23 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 8 is
24 marked for identification.)
25
0143
1 A. Okay, I, I’ve seen this before, so
2 I’m familiar with it.
3 Q. What is DuPont Exhibit 8?
4 A. It’s a memo entitled “The Medical
5 Aspects of The Use of Asbestos and Asbestos
6 Products Within The DuPont Company” and it’s a
7 memo to Dr. Zapp and Dr. Clayton from Dr.
8 Stopps. It’s kind of a summary of a meeting
9 that they held at the laboratory in October of
10 1966.
11 Q. Can you tell from your reading of
12 DuPont Exhibit Number 8 what its purpose was?
13 MR. PLACITELLA: Object to
14 competency.
15 A. Um, in terms of reading what this
16 says, I think the important part was that –
17 well, first of all, they state what the issues
18 were, but then they had a plan of attack that
19 was kind of an outcome of this meeting that they
20 held at the laboratory and they decided then
21 exactly what they were going to do relative to
22 defining exposures and the medical records and
23 then how they might implement…those things.
24 MR. PLACITELLA: Move to strike,
25 non-responsive.
0144
1 MR. COTTEN: If you would mark the
2 next exhibit, please, as DuPont Exhibit 9.
3
4 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 9 is
5 marked for identification.)
6
7 A. Yes, I’ve seen this before.
8 Q. What is DuPont Exhibit 9?
9 A. It’s a memo from Dr. Alonzo to all
10 plant physicians.
11 Q. What’s the date of it?
12 A. November 8th, 1966.
13 Q. From your reading of DuPont
14 Exhibit 9 and your familiarity with it, what is
15 it that Dr. D’Alonzo was sending to the
16 physicians?
17 A. This really kind of describes how
18 they made an effort to define the problem and to
19 develop preventive measures, so he is then
20 asking — it’s kind of a follow-up to the
21 previous meeting. He’s asking them, uh, some
22 information so that they can go forward with
23 their plan of attack as described earlier.
24 He called — he asked them
25 questions about the number of insulators that
0145
1 they have and so on.
2 MR. COTTEN: Mark the next exhibit
3 as DuPont Exhibit 10.
4
5 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 10 is
6 marked for identification.)
7
8 A. Um, I can’t read all the words, but
9 I can see what it is.
10 Q. What is DuPont Exhibit 10?
11 A. Uh, this is a memo to the
12 Construction Division, specifically Mr. Keuper,
13 it’s actually regarding an asbestos survey that
14 was done and the second page is a report of the
15 kind of findings that they got as a result of
16 this study.
17 This was exposure, specifically
18 they were trying to, uh…uh, look at exposure.
19 Q. Who is Mr. Keuper?
20 A. Mr. Keuper was the Safety
21 Superintendent for the Construction Division.
22 Q. Does DuPont Exhibit 10 indicate
23 the result or the findings from the study that
24 was done?
25 A. Yes.
0146
1 Q. What does it indicate?
2 A. It has — it indicates that when
3 they, when they did this they determined that
4 the exposures were well below the TLV of five
5 million particles per cubic foot, which was the
6 TLV at that time.
7 Q. When you say well below, what does
8 it indicate?
9 A. Um…the findings were not given
10 in numbers, but, instead, they were given as
11 things that were either, um…negligible, I
12 don’t think there were any of those; extreme
13 trace, which was a hundred to a thousand
14 particles per cubic foot.
15 Most of them were in the ST, or
16 small trace, category, that was somewhere over a
17 thousand particles per cubic foot and there was
18 trace over five thousand particles, but less
19 than .2 percent of the TLV.
20 MR. COTTEN: If you would now,
21 please, mark DuPont Exhibit 11, please.
22
23 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 11 is
24 marked for identification.)
25
0147
1 (Brief pause.)
2 A. I, I’ve seen this before, but I just
3 had to refresh my memory.
4 Q. What is DuPont Exhibit 11?
5 A. This is a memo from Ken Keuper of
6 the Construction Division to Adrian Lynch who
7 was at — an industrial hygienist at Chambers
8 Works.
9 Q. What is the date of Exhibit 11?
10 A. July 11th, 1963.
11 Q. And who are the persons that are
12 cc’d on Exhibit 11?
13 A. Um, Dr. Stopps, an individual by
14 the last name of Parsons and Mr. Allen. Those
15 two individuals were in the Engineering
16 Department.
17 Q. Now, what does Exhibit 11 consist
18 of in addition to the cover from Mr. Keuper?
19 A. It is data, uh, from a survey
20 conducted at — it says at construction sites,
21 so it would have been a number of different
22 sites and it gives the amount of sampling, the
23 particle counts and so forth of these various
24 samples taken in a number of, uh, plants across
25 the country.
0148
1 Q. On page two of Exhibit 11, do you
2 see a reference to Chambers?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. And are you familiar with reading
5 reports such as the one shown on page two of
6 Exhibit 11, uh…
7 A. Yes, I am.
8 Q. Is this something that an
9 industrial hygienist does?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And what does it indicate about
12 the level of particles found at Chambers in this
13 study in June of ’68?
14 A. Uh, well, across the top it
15 indicates particles of asbestos fibers and then
16 it, it breaks them down into various sizes and,
17 and what the average levels were, so it reports
18 this and this would have been, like, a summary
19 of the data.
20 Q. Is there any indication — do you
21 know in June of 1968 what the TLV was?
22 A. June of 1968, um, I believe that
23 was close to the time when it was dropped to two
24 million particles per cubic foot and prior to
25 that time it was five million. I’m not sure
0149
1 what month, though, that it actually was
2 changed, but it was prior to OSHA.
3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Excuse me, I’m
4 sorry, we have to take a break.
5 MR. COTTEN: All right, let’s change
6 the tape.
7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at
8 2:07.
9
10 (Brief interruption.)
11
12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We’re back on the
13 video record at 2:08.
14 Q. Dr. Stadler, we were talking about
15 page two of exhibit — DuPont Exhibit 11 and, in
16 particular, about the Chambers Works facility
17 and the measurements taken there.
18 How did, how did the measurements
19 that are reflected on page two of Exhibit 11
20 relate to the threshold limit values in that
21 time frame?
22 A. Well, the best way for me to
23 indicate that would be in the total particles
24 since the TLV was not breaking it down into
25 various size categories. At Chambers Works that
0150
1 was 0.57 particles per, uh — or million
2 particles per cubic foot compared to a TLV,
3 let’s say the lower TLV, which would have been
4 two, so it was still far below that.
5 Q. There are what appear to be
6 additional values to the right of the, of the
7 particles column. What are those other columns?
8 A. These are in columns, the first
9 saying less than five microns, which would have
10 been the length of the fiber, So these three
11 columns indicate how this — these numbers would
12 have been broken down by particle size.
13 Q. If you would turn to the last two
14 pages of Exhibit — DuPont Exhibit 11, please.
15 A. Yes, I’m familiar with this.
16 Q. What is that?
17 A. Uh, this is the description of the
18 means by which they took these samples. This
19 ultimately became the standard for collecting
20 asbestos fibers, personal, uh, samples, so they
21 were collected on a filter and then the filter
22 was dissolved and you counted the fibers on the
23 filter.
24 The evaluation procedure, uh, it
25 says here, was conducted by Mr. Felix Stein and
0151
1 they were having these things done at the
2 University of Pittsburgh, the counting of the
3 fiber — or the filters.
4 Q. How new was this technology in
5 1968?
6 A. Oh, this was very new, it had –
7 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection,
8 competency. You can answer.
9 A. It had been, um…they interact with
10 Jeremiah Lynch, he had published a paper and
11 this was a brand new methodology. Because prior
12 to that time they were using what we call an
13 impinger, a small vial filled with liquid, and
14 they were collecting the fibers in this liquid
15 and then taking samples of that out to try to
16 examine microscopically.
17 And it turned out this — well,
18 for one thing it was a lot of easier to use
19 because we’re talking a filter cassette which
20 was not a liquid that somebody had to pin on
21 them to try to carry around for a day and also
22 it was much more effective, this phase contrast
23 to microscopy was a much better way of picking
24 up asbestos fibers.
25 So it was new, the
0152
1 communications — I’ve read some communications
2 with Jeremiah Lynch. They talked about the fact
3 that the ACGIH was still requiring the impinger
4 method and DuPont had tried out this new method
5 and they were saying that we really like this
6 method, it’s much easier to use, we believe it
7 to be more accurate, et cetera.
8 They interacted with Mr. Lynch
9 relative to that and then they ultimately sent a
10 letter to the TLV Committee saying we’ve, we’ve
11 had good results with this and we, we really
12 believe it’s a much better way to sample
13 asbestos and that was ultimately accepted, the
14 TLV Committee ultimately, um, and then OSHA when
15 the OSHA standard was passed, this new method is
16 the one that was, uh, designated for use with
17 asbestos.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection — just
19 one second. Objection, non-responsive,
20 hearsay.
21 Q. Dr. Stadler, who is Jeremiah
22 Lynch?
23 A. He was an industrial hygienist
24 that worked with the Health Department.
25 Q. Is that the U.S. Public Health
0153
1 Service?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. COTTEN: If you would mark
4 DuPont Exhibit 12, please.
5
6 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 12 is
7 marked for identification.)
8
9 Q. What is DuPont Exhibit 12?
10 A. Uh, this is a memo to Ken Keuper
11 within the Construction Division from Dr.
12 Stopps.
13 Q. What is it about?
14 A. It’s talking about some results of
15 air sampling from the dust control program and
16 it indicates to them sort of a general statement
17 that the — in general, with the exception of
18 May the Construction Division, the samples
19 they’ve taken appear to be acceptable.
20 Q. What was the date of that memo?
21 A. Uh, that is August 5th, 1968.
22 MR. COTTEN: Let me get the court
23 reporter to mark the next exhibit as DuPont
24 Exhibit 13.
25
0154
1 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 13 is
2 marked for identification.)
3
4 A. Yes, I’ve seen this.
5 Q. What is DuPont Exhibit 13, please?
6 A. This is a memo sent out to field
7 project managers, this would have been in the
8 Construction Division. It came from Mr. Keuper,
9 uh, to the field project managers throughout
10 DuPont. It lists people at many DuPont plants.
11 It also, uh, copies many individuals in the
12 Engineering Department as well as Dr. Stopps.
13 Q. And those are on the cc’s of the
14 document?
15 A. Yes, and it — and cc’d on the
16 document were also all the site safety
17 supervisors in the Construction Division.
18 Q. What are site safety supervisors?
19 A. They were the people in the
20 Construction Division who had responsibility for
21 the construction site at a plant.
22 In other words, that was a
23 different person from the person who had general
24 safety responsibilities either for manufacturing
25 or whatever went on at that plant. There was a
0155
1 separate safety supervisor for the construction
2 that was going on at the site.
3 Q. From your review of this document
4 and your research and review to testify as
5 DuPont’s corporate representative, what…is
6 DuPont Exhibit 13 in relation to that?
7 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection, form.
8 A. Um, this exhibit really talks about
9 the very formalized dust control program that
10 was put in place in the Construction Division in
11 particular. The Construction Division sell
12 itself as being sort of the, the first, the,
13 um…the group that would have the greatest
14 potential for exposure to asbestos because of
15 all of the work of installing asbestos and that
16 kind of thing.
17 So Mr. Keuper actually sent this
18 out, it was a program that was developed and it
19 was developed regardless of what site people
20 were on. It became a corporate-wide policy for
21 the Construction Division.
22 Q. Does DuPont Exhibit Number 13
23 establish any initiatives?
24 A. Yes, it does.
25 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection to the
0156
1 form.
2 Q. What initiatives does it
3 establish?
4 A. It establishes the air monitoring
5 program for the site and so it talks about
6 the — that the safety personnel are responsible
7 for the control and the air monitoring program,
8 the filter in the plastic holder, uh, was to be
9 used for the air sampling. It establishes the
10 atmospheric dust control.
11 So in this case they were…they
12 were to, one, not use anything with crocidolite
13 in it. That was important because, certainly,
14 at that time people thought that mesothelioma
15 was associated primarily with crocidolite. They
16 were not to be using pressure spray application,
17 um, with, um…and that was to be eliminated.
18 They were to isolate all power
19 tools and equipment operations, um…the
20 equipment in the power shop was to be installed
21 with local exhaust ventilation. They were to
22 actually have some sort of shop cleanliness
23 program in place and they should actually have a
24 materials handling so there would not be any
25 kind of dust going in other places, so that when
0157
1 you received asbestos materials into the plant
2 you had to keep any dust down from the cartons
3 and so forth, so all of that was part of that
4 program.
5 And then they also within this
6 memo described the respiratory protection as
7 part of this program.
8 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection to the
9 extent it — she refers to things that
10 other people thought.
11 Q. Dr. Stadler, with respect to the
12 date April 5, 1968, what in your…with your
13 information was the TLV, prevailing TLV at that
14 time?
15 A. Um, that was about the time it
16 went from five, uh, million particles per cubic
17 foot to two million particles per cubic foot,
18 um –
19 Q. Does this document address TLVs?
20 A. This one actually addresses the
21 one that was set within DuPont.
22 Q. And what –
23 A. And this was not the official
24 ACGIH TLV, I think it’s, it’s important to
25 distinguish that here in the Construction
0158
1 Division it was set at 500,000 particles per
2 cubic foot and, um…that was DuPont
3 Construction Division level.
4 MR. COTTEN: If you would mark the
5 next exhibit as DuPont Exhibit 14, please.
6
7 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 14 is
8 marked for identification.)
9
10 A. Yes, I’ve seen this.
11 Q. What is DuPont Exhibit 14?
12 A. This is a memo from the Vice
13 President of Sales at Pittsburgh Corning
14 Corporation to Mr. Keuper.
15 Q. From your reading of the letter,
16 what is Dr. Buckley informing Mr. Keuper of?
17 A. Uh –
18 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection,
19 competency.
20 A. He is informing Mr. Keuper that
21 Unibestos, which is an insulation that was
22 manufactured by Pittsburgh Corning, he was
23 indicating to him that it does not contain
24 either chrysotile or crocidolite fibers and he
25 attaches a report from the Industrial Hygiene
0159
1 Foundation on asbestos bodies and bio-effects,
2 detective’s story, that was put together by, uh,
3 uh, a Mr. — a Dr. Davis and individuals within
4 the Industrial Hygiene Foundation.
5 Q. In the attachment to DuPont
6 Exhibit 14, is there a paragraph that has to do
7 with mesothelioma?
8 A. Yes, there is.
9 Q. And what does that indicate?
10 A. Well, it indicates that it’s a
11 very rare tumor and that the tumors appear to be
12 associated with exposure to only one type of
13 asbestos and that’s crocidolite and it talks
14 about it being blue in cover — in color and
15 comes primarily as mined in South Africa.
16 MR. COTTEN: If you could mark the
17 next exhibit as DuPont Exhibit 15, please.
18
19 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 15 is
20 marked for identification.)
21
22 MR. PLACITELLA: How much more you
23 got? I want to take a bathroom break.
24 MR. COTTEN: As soon as she finishes
25 with this document we can take a break.
0160
1 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, if you only
2 have a few more minutes I’ll wait.
3 MR. COTTEN: No, I’ve got more.
4 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.
5 Q. Dr. Stadler, if you would, what is
6 DuPont Exhibit 15?
7 A. Exhibit 15 is engineering standard
8 S4T.
9 Q. And when was it issued?
10 A. This one was issued in April of
11 1973.
12 Q. And what are the subjects that
13 DuPont Exhibit 15 addresses?
14 A. It’s titled “Measurement and
15 Control of Asbestos Dust Exposure.”
16 Q. And what does this standard do?
17 A. This standard outlines various
18 measures to be taken relative to asbestos dust
19 exposure and control and so it has various
20 sections in it, it talks about what the exposure
21 limits are, the control of dust. It goes into
22 various things about respiratory equipment, it
23 goes into hygiene, how to sample for asbestos
24 dust, um…
25 It talks about labeling of
0161
1 asbestos dust and, um…if you are doing
2 sampling there is a worksheet here.
3 Q. Are you familiar with what these
4 type standards such as DuPont Exhibit 15 are
5 used for?
6 A. Yes, these are used to communicate
7 standards throughout the company. DuPont had
8 many of these types of standards relative to
9 measurement and control of exposures to many
10 different chemicals and in 1973 they issued this
11 one relative to asbestos dust.
12 So S4T was a means by which they
13 communicated so that DuPont at all the sites
14 would be following the same kinds of procedures.
15 Q. If you would, focus your attention
16 on paragraph 2.1.
17 A. Okay.
18 Q. Does paragraph 2.1 indicate any
19 health concerns regarding asbestos?
20 A. Well, it says “asbestos and lung
21 cancer have long been associated with exposure
22 to asbestos” and “historically the incidence of
23 these diseases has been higher among asbestos
24 workers than among the general population.”
25 Q. Who at DuPont to your knowledge
0162
1 would be the persons that would utilize such an
2 engineering standard?
3 A. This would be engineers at the
4 plant sites, it would be safety and health
5 individuals who were in the safety departments,
6 it would be industrial hygienists, anyone with
7 some sort of responsibility to carry out any of
8 the things that were in the standard.
9 And then ultimately within DuPont,
10 the management was considered responsible for
11 seeing to it that the standards got carried out.
12 MR. COTTEN: Let’s take a break.
13 MR. PLACITELLA: Thank you.
14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the video
15 record at 2:29.
16 MR. PLACITELLA: Only need two
17 minutes.
18
19 (Whereupon, a brief recess is
20 taken.)
21
22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the video
23 record at 2:37.
24 MR. COTTEN: If you’d mark the next
25 exhibit, please. DuPont Exhibit 16.
0163
1
2 (Whereupon, Exhibit DuPont 16 is
3 marked for identification.)
4
5 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m sorry, are we
6 doing anything?
7 MR. COTTEN: Yes. She was reading
8 the document.
9 A. Just give me a chance to read it.
10 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay, I wasn’t.
11 Q. Dr. Stadler, have you reviewed
12 DuPont Exhibit 16?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And is this a document that is
15 part of the documents that you have had at your
16 disposal at DuPont’s corporate representative?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What is this document?
19 A. This is a document from Mr. –
20 A.B. Naselow to Dr. Zapp at Haskell.
21 Q. Does it make reference to any
22 asbestos-containing products?
23 A. Uh, yes. They talk about an
24 ingredient in radiator stop leak compounds and
25 the filler in cement block primers.
0164
1 Q. Day before yesterday in your
2 questioning you were asked about
3 disposes-containing paints. Is this cement
4 block primer what you were referring to?
5 A. I think in my mind I was thinking
6 in terms of primer being a paint, but when you
7 describe this, I think that — and I look at
8 this memo now, uh, it’s a filler in cement block
9 primer, so I think this is what I was thinking
10 about in my mind around having seen about a
11 primer.
12 MR. PLACITELLA: I just didn’t have
13 the opportunity because the witness went
14 too quick, so I’ll object to the leading
15 nature of the question. Retroactively.
16 Q. Dr. Stadler, on DuPont Exhibit
17 Number 16 there’s a reference to cement block
18 primers. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Are you aware of, uh…asbestos
21 content in DuPont products such as paint other
22 than this cement block primer?
23 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection.
24 A. Uh, no, I’m not.
25 MR. PLACITELLA: You’re not aware
0165
1 one way or the other or you’re not aware?
2 That didn’t happen.
3 THE WITNESS: I’m not aware.
4 MR. PLACITELLA: One way on the
5 other?
6 THE WITNESS: Uh…
7 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m trying to –
8 MR. COTTEN: You keep interrupting
9 her.
10 MR. PLACITELLA: So I don’t have
11 to –
12 MR. COTTEN: But you keep
13 interrupting her.
14 A. I’m not aware of any paints
15 containing asbestos.
16 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.
17 THE WITNESS: That DuPont made.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: I’ll ask it later.
19 MR. COTTEN: Does she have access to
20 the documents that have already been
21 referred to in counsel’s examination of
22 her?
23 MR. PLACITELLA: They’re right here.
24 MR. COTTEN: If you wouldn’t mind.
25 MR. PLACITELLA: No problem.
0166
1 MR. COTTEN: If you would place them
2 next to the witness.
3 MR. PLACITELLA: No problem. Roy, I
4 told…counsel that I have to leave by
5 four, I have an appointment I can’t change.
6 It’s unlikely that I will finish today
7 given the length of this direct examination
8 and nobody else in the room has yet asked
9 questions, so my intention is to finish the
10 deposition tomorrow.
11 MR. COHEN: Well, let’s see how far
12 we get.
13 MR. PLACITELLA: I could tell you
14 right now…you go another five minutes and
15 I’m not going to finish.
16 Q. If you would turn to Plaintiff’s
17 Exhibit 4, please.
18 THE WITNESS: Are these in order?
19 MR. PLACITELLA: Yes, ma’am. I did
20 it just for you.
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
22 A. Okay, I have four.
23 Q. And is…prior to your deposition
24 testimony in this case, had you ever seen
25 Exhibit 4 before?
0167
1 A. No, I hadn’t.
2 Q. And it’s not anything that you had
3 seen in the DuPont documents that you reviewed?
4 A. No.
5 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection, leading.
6 Q. Is — if you would, read for the
7 record what the top of Exhibit 4 indicates?
8 A. It says “company confidential, not
9 for publication in present form.”
10 Q. And who — what is the company
11 that is referred to in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4?
12 A. Standard Oil Company.
13 Q. If you would turn to Plaintiff’s
14 Exhibit 7, please.
15 MR. PLACITELLA: I’ll keep ‘em in
16 order for you, how’s that?
17 A. I have that.
18 Q. You were asked questions about
19 Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 that’s titled “Malignant
20 Mesothelioma of the Pleura” by Dr. Eisenstadt.
21 Do you recall that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What does the document Plaintiff’s
24 Exhibit 7 indicate in the very beginning about
25 the disease primary mesothelioma?
0168
1 A. That it’s a controversial entity,
2 refers to a growth originating from the
3 mesothelium and goes on to describe what
4 mesothelium is.
5 Q. Do you see a reference to a
6 Willis?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. What does the document indicate
9 about what Willis feels about mesothelioma?
10 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection,
11 competence.
12 A. It says that “Willis denies their
13 existence entirely and considers isolated masses
14 of the pleura as metastatic deposits.”
15 Q. And what about Anderson?
16 MR. PLACITELLA: What about
17 Anderson?
18 A. It says that “Anderson believes that
19 in most instances the neoplastic involvement of
20 the pleura originates from a bronchial cancer.”
21 Q. And what does the document,
22 Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7, indicate that attributes
23 to Ackerman and del Regato?
24 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection,
25 competence.
0169
1 A. It goes on to say that they’re
2 “convinced that primary pleural mesothelioma
3 exists, but consider it a rare disorder.”
4 Q. And what was the date of this
5 reprint — date of the article that’s reprinted
6 here?
7 A. There’s a date up here that says
8 1/16/75 that cannot –
9 Q. If I could direct your attention
10 to the bottom of the page.
11 A. Okay. Oh, I’m sorry. It’s
12 re-printed from Diseases of the Chest in
13 November 1956.
14 Q. If you would turn to Plaintiff’s
15 Exhibit 14, please.
16 A. I have that.
17 Q. Does Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14 on its
18 cover indicate what company this came from?
19 A. Uh, yes, this says, uh, that it
20 was by Roy Bonsib and it comes from Standard Oil
21 Company.
22 Q. In the top of the document, does
23 it indicate whether it’s a published document or
24 not?
25 A. Um, not — it says not for
0170
1 publication.
2 Q. If you would turn to…Plaintiff’s
3 Exhibit 15, please.
4 A. Okay, I have that.
5 Q. And –
6 MR. PLACITELLA: Can we — can we
7 keep these in order or –
8 THE WITNESS: Oops. I’m sorry.
9 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.
10 Q. This is an exhibit shown to you by
11 Mr. Placitella dated November 7, 1966. What
12 does it indicate about the…asbestos
13 crocidolite?
14 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection to the
15 form.
16 A. It says in paragraph three that “we
17 will not purchase or work with the crocidolite
18 form of asbestos pending further classification
19 of this material.”
20 Q. Is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15 a
21 document that you had available for your review
22 in preparation as a corporate representative?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And does it instruct you as to the
25 knowledge, state of knowledge of DuPont at that
0171
1 time?
2 A. Yes, because it talks about this
3 relationship, um, between crocidolite and
4 mesothelioma and even — it represents the South
5 African miners, discusses that.
6 Q. If you would turn to Exhibit 16,
7 please.
8 A. I have that.
9 Q. And, if you would, review to
10 yourself the first sentence. ?
11 MR. PLACITELLA: Can I just see what
12 you’re looking at so I know what you’re
13 looking at?
14 Q. Do you see that?
15 A. This is — yes, this is the memo
16 about the, uh…uh, dust masks.
17 Q. Uh –
18 A. MSA dust mask.
19 Q. What is MSA?
20 A. Mine Safety Appliances.
21 Q. And it references NIOSH as well;
22 is that correct?
23 A. Um…NIOSH criteria statement,
24 that’s right.
25 Q. What is NIOSH?
0172
1 A. Uh, National Institute of
2 Occupational Safety & Health. This was kind of
3 the government research arm while OSHA was the,
4 um…guidance and enforcement arm.
5 Q. Based upon your reading of this
6 Exhibit 16, had the criteria statements been
7 issued?
8 A. Um, yes, they talk about a recent
9 criteria statement.
10 Q. Had MSA taken any action as of yet
11 on May 6th, 1975 concerning the dust mask?
12 A. Um, it says it will result in them
13 withdrawing the asbestos dust approval for
14 their, uh, Dustface 66 filter mask.
15 Q. I’d like to turn your attention to
16 Exhibit 22, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 22.
17 A. Okay, I have that.
18 MR. PLACITELLA: Show me which one
19 it is just so I know.
20 THE WITNESS: (Handing).
21 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. Thank you.
22 Q. In looking at Exhibit 22 — and
23 this was a document you were asked questions
24 about, correct?
25 A. Yes.
0173
1 Q. By Mr. Placitella?
2 A. That’s correct.
3 Q. Does this indicate what amount of
4 the material is, is used?
5 MR. PLACITELLA: Object to the form.
6 A. It says how much is available for
7 human contact. Is that what you mean?
8 Q. Yes, and what does it indicate?
9 A. It says forty feet of tape and
10 heaters.
11 Q. And what is the date of this
12 document?
13 A. Uh, the date. It was signed on
14 August 24th, 1978.
15 Q. Does the document indicate
16 anything about protective measures?
17 A. Um…it talks about personal
18 protective equipment required and that’s –
19 Q. And what was required?
20 A. — approved asbestos dust mask.
21 And there’s also a ventilation system.
22 Q. Is there a recommendation at the
23 bottom of Exhibit 22?
24 A. Yes. It says “continue to wear
25 dust masks, rope off the area and identify so
0174
1 that nearby personnel cannot approach any closer
2 than one”…I think that’s one-fourth. No,
3 that’s four feet, sorry.
4 Q. If you turn to the next
5 exhibit…I guess these were all part of one
6 exhibit, it’s the next page of that exhibit.
7 A. Oh, I’m sorry. Yes, I have it.
8 Q. And what is that page?
9 A. This one is essentially the same
10 kind of thing, um. This time the job
11 description is a sawing of transite siding.
12 Q. And under the recommendation, what
13 does it indicate is recommended for that
14 process?
15 A. “Continue to wear dust mask, rope
16 off the area and identify so that personnel
17 cannot approach within ten feet of the job, use
18 of vacuum cleaner to remove dust as it’s
19 generated is recommended.”
20 Q. The next page, what does it
21 indicate as far as the date is concerned?
22 A. Um, 1977 it was signed.
23 Q. What is written –
24 A. Uh, September 19th, I’m sorry.
25 Q. That’s okay. What is this — what
0175
1 is the material that’s under review here?
2 A. A material…uh — well, it says
3 asbestos and it’s used as insulation inside GC
4 instruments and it’s encased.
5 Q. What does it, what does it
6 indicate should be done as far as protective
7 equipment?
8 A. To use dust masks and coveralls.
9 Q. And what does it indicate the
10 reason is?
11 A. Um…I’m sorry, I’m not really
12 sure, but it was certainly part of the…
13 Q. Is there, is there a place for a
14 stated reason on the document?
15 A. Um, it just says “do not handle.”
16 Q. And then the last page, what is
17 the date of the signatures on that page?
18 A. March 29th, 1978 that’s signed.
19 Initially.
20 Q. And is there an indication of a
21 safety procedure to be used?
22 A. Um, it has, uh, protective
23 equipment, coveralls, safety glasses and dust
24 respirator.
25 Q. And what is the job description
0176
1 above that?
2 A. Um, wrapping of asbestos tape on
3 piping and instruments.
4 Q. If you would turn to Exhibit 23,
5 please. In the top left-hand corner of Exhibit
6 23 what does it indicate?
7 A. That this is from Sabine,
8 s-a-b-i-n-e, River Works.
9 Q. And there’s a list of people that
10 this communication is directed to; is that
11 correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And can you tell from those
14 descriptions what those locations are?
15 A. Well, they appear to be locations
16 around the plant site, um…because it has
17 stores and research in the process laboratory
18 and so forth.
19 Q. In the body of the document on
20 page one, the last sentence of the first
21 paragraph, would you read that?
22 A. Safety engineering standard? Is
23 the one you’re referring to?
24 Q. The, the first paragraph, I’m
25 sorry.
0177
1 A. The –
2 Q. First paragraph, last sentence.
3 A. Last sentence, use of asbestos –
4 uh, I’m sorry. “Attached is a list of trade
5 names of asbestos-containing chemicals to assist
6 you in your search.”
7 Q. Do you know if the attachment that
8 is attached to Exhibit 23 is a list of materials
9 actually on that DuPont Sabine River Works site
10 or not?
11 A. Um, there’s no indication here so
12 I do not know.
13 Q. And do you know the source of this
14 trade name document?
15 A. Uh, no, I don’t.
16 Q. I’d like to draw your attention to
17 Exhibit 29, please. Do you have that in front
18 of you?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Do you recall that’s a document
21 that you were asked questions about?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And asked by Mr. Placitella?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And that — what’s the date of
0178
1 that document?
2 A. This is March 4th, 1968.
3 Q. I’d like to draw your attention to
4 the second bullet paragraph in the middle of the
5 first page.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is there any indication who the
8 workers that are referred to that page are
9 employed by?
10 A. Uh, no.
11 Q. And in the next bullet there’s a
12 reference to the death of an Armstrong
13 insulation worker at Chattanooga. Do you know
14 if that person was a DuPont employee or not?
15 A. No, I don’t.
16 Q. Going back up to that second
17 bullet point, do you know if those workers that
18 are referenced in that bullet point worked at
19 other locations in their work history?
20 A. I have no idea.
21 Q. Same true about the Armstrong
22 insulation worker?
23 A. Yes, I don’t know –
24 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection, leading.
25 A. — anything.
0179
1 Q. If you would turn to Exhibit 31,
2 please.
3 A. I have that in front of me.
4 Q. If you would turn to the third –
5 I’m sorry, fourth page of Exhibit 31, I’d like
6 to draw your attention to the third bullet
7 point.
8 MR. PLACITELLA: Can I see what
9 document you’re looking at?
10 THE WITNESS: (Handing).
11 MR. PLACITELLA: That’s all right.
12 A. When you refer to the fourth page,
13 the one ending in eight? The 87?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. You see the third bullet point
17 there?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Were you asked any questions by
20 Mr. Placitella about that third bullet point?
21 A. Um, I think he asked about whether
22 or not there was anything written about
23 employees being informed about asbestos hazards
24 and in this particular instance it indicates
25 that employees were informed of asbestos hazard.
0180
1 Q. Do you recall you were asked about
2 medical conditions including benign asymptomatic
3 lung abnormalities?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Are you familiar with what benign
6 asymptomatic lung abnormalities are?
7 A. Well, this would be a very general
8 term indicating that there is something unusual
9 about the lung and it may be pleural thickening,
10 it might be something like even asbestos bodies.
11 It would be something that’s not actually a
12 disease process, but that there is, uh,
13 something that is unusual in the lung.
14 MR. PLACITELLA: Objection, move to
15 strike, competency.
16 Q. What does benign mean?
17 A. Benign means non-cancerous in
18 general — generally in medical terms.
19 Q. And how do you know that it means
20 benign — how do you know the definition of
21 benign?
22 A. Through my background as a
23 toxicologist.
24 Q. And what does asymptomatic mean?
25 A. There are no, um, symptoms of
0181
1 disease.
2 Q. And how do you know that?
3 A. That would be reported by the
4 individual, for instance, or by, uh…in other
5 words, do they have difficulty breathing. Those
6 are typically symptoms that are reported by an
7 individual.
8 Q. Do toxicologists use the term
9 ‘asymptomatic’?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Turn to Exhibit 35, please.
12 A. Oh, wait a minute. We go from 34
13 to 36. I don’t have 35.
14 MR. COTTEN: It’s Dr. Culpepper’s…
15 (Brief pause.)
16 MR. COTTEN: We’ll move to another
17 one and come back to that one.
18 MR. COHEN: Then show her the copy
19 we marked and we’ll find it. I know it was
20 in the pile there.
21 MR. COTTEN: I need it to reference.
22 We’ll come back to it.
23 Q. Dr. Stadler, in answering my
24 questions here today have you based your answers
25 on your preparation to respond to plaintiff’s
0182
1 request for you to serve as the corporate
2 representative for DuPont with respect to the
3 notice of the deposition?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what is the basis for your
6 being able to respond and answer my questions?
7 A. I have looked at records,
8 corporate records, related to the asbestos
9 litigation. I’ve read depositions by others in
10 asbestos litigation cases, I’ve read published
11 manuscripts about various asbestos disease and
12 the studies that have been conducted
13 particularly in the time frame of reference.
14 I’ve also talked to individuals
15 who worked with asbestos at DuPont and I’ve
16 visited the plant site and then I also do rely
17 on my background as a toxicologist having worked
18 for the company for, uh, more than twenty years.
19 MR. COTTEN: Let’s take a break.
20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the video
21 record at 3:05.
22
23 (Whereupon, a brief recess is
24 taken.)
25
0183
1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the video
2 record at 3:10.
3 MR. COTTEN: Dr. Stadler, I very
4 much appreciate your time and attention and
5 I pass the witness.
6 MR. COHEN: We do have thirty-five.
7 MR. COTTEN: It’s okay.
8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Just going to go
9 off the record a moment. Off the video
10 record at 3:11.
11 (Brief pause.)
12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the video
13 record at 3:12.
14 MR. PLACITELLA: I have some
15 questions of you.
16
17
18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
19 BY MR. PLACITELLA:
20
21 Q. Between my examination and
22 examination by your attorney, did you have any
23 discussions with your lawyer?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Okay. You talked about case
0184
1 reports before?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Are case reports real people?
4 A. Case reports are people, yes.
5 Q. With real disease?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Who die.
8 A. Depends on the case report.
9 Q. And who leave families behind?
10 A. Like I said, whether people die
11 case reports are just a case report of a
12 disease.
13 Q. Well, if a case report that you
14 referred to with counsel for mesothelioma, those
15 people died and left their families behind,
16 right?
17 A. Uh, yes.
18 Q. They’re statistics with tears
19 wiped away; would you agree?
20 MR. COHEN: Objection.
21 MR. COTTEN: Objection to form.
22 MR. COHEN: Sorry, couldn’t help
23 myself.
24 MR. PLACITELLA: Yeah.
25 Q. As a toxicologist did you ever
0185
1 study causation for chimney sweeps?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And am I correct that they
4 established causation for scrotal cancer in
5 chimney sweeps based on case reports alone?
6 A. But there were a number of case
7 reports, yes.
8 Q. Right, and the name was Percival
9 Pot; do you remember that?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. And that was over two hundred
12 years ago, correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So it was known that case reports
15 could establish causation for industrial disease
16 for more than two hundred years, correct?
17 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
18 A. Certainly if there are enough case
19 reports and clusters, all that comes into play
20 and causation can be developed that way.
21 Q. Now, in terms of mesothelioma we
22 saw documents from DuPont’s own hands that
23 showed that there was epidemiologic evidence
24 proving asbestos causes mesothelioma in the
25 mid-1950s.
0186
1 Do you recall that?
2 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
3 A. I recalled that the definitive study
4 was later than that, in the 1960s.
5 Q. Ma’am, do you recall me showing
6 you DuPont’s own internal document from their
7 own medical people –
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. — indicating that mesothelioma
10 was recognized epidemiologically by the
11 mid-1950s?
12 A. I don’t think it said recognized
13 epidemiologically, but it did say that it was
14 recognized as, uh, a disease that could be
15 associated with asbestos, yes.
16 Q. Well, we’ll let the document speak
17 for itself.
18 You agree that DuPont has
19 acknowledged numerous times in its internal
20 correspondence that all forms of asbestos caused
21 mesothelioma; true?
22 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
23 A. I would say that that has become the
24 knowledge in later years, but, certainly, in the
25 time frame of, um…following Dr. Stopps’s trip
0187
1 report, the time frame of the Newhouse study and
2 so forth, people believed at that point in time
3 that it was associated with crocidolite.
4 Q. Ma’am, what was my question?
5 A. You were asking me if DuPont
6 acknowledged that it was associated with all
7 types of asbestos and that has certainly
8 occurred much later. As the knowledge became
9 wider.
10 Q. The Wagner study that you referred
11 to, do you recall that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the Wagner study had at least
14 ten percent — there was only thirty-three
15 people studied in the Wagner study who died,
16 right?
17 A. The Wagner study, as I recall, was
18 thirty-three.
19 Q. And at least ten percent of those
20 people were not exposed in the crocidolite
21 mines; true?
22 A. Uh, that’s correct, but they lived
23 in the area of the mines.
24 Q. No, ma’am, the document doesn’t
25 say that, does it? It says that there were
0188
1 people who worked on pipe covering that got
2 mesothelioma; true?
3 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
4 A. Um…in the Wagner study?
5 Q. Yes, ma’am.
6 A. I’m sorry…
7 Q. Well, let’s go to it.
8 (Brief pause.)
9 Q. I want to show you what’s been
10 marked P-1 which is a group of documents given
11 to me by your attorney and I’m going to show you
12 page 270 from the Wagner study (handing).
13 A. It’s my understanding that these
14 individuals, regardless of what their title was,
15 was that they were working in the asbestos
16 industry in Northwestern Cape Province in South
17 Africa.
18 Q. Ma’am, that’s not what that says,
19 is it?
20 A. Well, the title of this is diffuse
21 pleural mesothelioma and asbestos exposure in
22 the Northwestern Cape Province.
23 Q. Right, can you flip –
24 A. And it’s my understanding that
25 these individuals, regardless of what they
0189
1 were — of what their particular job category
2 was, was these were individuals in that area.
3 Q. Ma’am, can you look at that chart?
4 A. I’m looking at it.
5 Q. That’s a list of the thirty-three
6 cases from Dr. Wagner, correct?
7 A. That’s correct.
8 Q. And he lists how they were
9 exposed, does he not?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Some he says kids were exposed in
12 the environment, right?
13 A. That’s right.
14 Q. He says other people were exposed
15 because he worked — they worked in the mine,
16 right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And in the ones down at the bottom
19 he talks about people who were exposed to end
20 product not in the mine; true?
21 A. Uh, it never really says where
22 they were located, but, again, it’s my
23 understanding they were in that area down there.
24 Q. Well, ma’am, doesn’t it say, for
25 example, that one man maintained pipes in an
0190
1 explosive factory just like that which was run
2 by DuPont?
3 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
4 A. Um, it doesn’t say anything about it
5 being like anything run by DuPont.
6 Q. Well, you had a gun powder
7 explosive factory right the same exact time,
8 didn’t you, 1960?
9 A. Uh, DuPont had explosive
10 factories, yes.
11 Q. And in there it talks about a man
12 getting mesothelioma in a gun powder explosive
13 factory, not in a mine, right?
14 A. It says, um, maintaining steam
15 pipes in explosives factories.
16 Q. Yes. Doesn’t say he worked in a
17 mine, correct?
18 A. No.
19 Q. And steam pipe insulation, that’s
20 generally chrysotile insulation, is it not?
21 A. This whole paper as my
22 understanding business Capetown, that area, and
23 it says right up front that they had probable
24 exposure to crocidolite asbestos.
25 Q. Ma’am –
0191
1 A. That was in the abstract at the
2 very beginning of this paper, so I would assume
3 that they would not then turn around and put
4 some other kind of exposure in the chart.
5 Q. Well, that’s your assumption,
6 correct, ma’am? But the, but the chart on its
7 face –
8 A. That would be good scientific
9 practice, yes.
10 Q. But the chart on its face says the
11 man was exposed to pipe covering, right?
12 A. It, it just says what the job
13 category was.
14 Q. Right. Doesn’t say he worked in a
15 mine, correct?
16 A. No, it doesn’t.
17 Q. And the pipe covering was
18 traditionally chrysotile, right?
19 A. I didn’t know what they were using
20 in South Africa.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. I cannot comment.
23 Q. It also talks about people working
24 on boilers, correct?
25 A. That’s correct.
0192
1 Q. And those people got mesothelioma,
2 correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And they weren’t working in the
5 mine according to this chart, were they?
6 A. No.
7 Q. And the boiler insulation was
8 traditionally not crocidolite, either, was it?
9 A. I would say that’s correct in this
10 country, but I can’t tell you what was going
11 on –
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. — in South Africa.
14 Q. Now — so any indication that you
15 gave to this jury that somehow these — this
16 study only pertained to miners, that would be
17 incorrect –
18 MR. COTTEN: Objection –
19 Q. — true?
20 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
21 A. I think that, uh, that was, that was
22 really not what was said.
23 These people were people from
24 various places in, um, Northwestern Cape
25 Province and they were involved in very dusty
0193
1 kinds of places and it does say right in the
2 abstract that it’s a probable exposure to
3 crocidolite asbestos.
4 Q. Right, but…I won’t quarrel with
5 you anymore about it, ma’am. We’ll let the jury
6 decide. Can we look at P-23, please (handing)?
7 MR. COHEN: Objection, move to
8 strike.
9 Q. Your lawyer just asked you
10 questions about P-23?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. That’s the document that specifies
13 how much cancer-causing substance was in various
14 products at DuPont, right?
15 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
16 A. Um, yes, there’s a cover memo and
17 this was the list of various trade name products
18 and the fact that it had asbestos and what
19 percentage of asbestos was in that particular
20 product.
21 Q. Yes, ma’am. And that nine-page
22 list, which of those asbestos products contains
23 crocidolite?
24 A. It’s not indicated here.
25 Q. So when DuPont did its
0194
1 carcinogenic calculation, it didn’t do it based
2 upon whether it was crocidolite, chrysotile or
3 amosite, did it?
4 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
5 A. Um, I don’t even know that DuPont
6 did the calculation so, um, this was just a list
7 and it indicates the percentage of asbestos and
8 that’s just a general thing.
9 Q. Right.
10 A. There might be three or four kinds
11 of asbestos in a product or just one.
12 Q. Right, and they didn’t
13 distinguish, did they, when they did their
14 carcinogenic rating.
15 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
16 A. You keep using carcinogenic rating.
17 This is percentage of –
18 Q. When they specify how much
19 cancer-causing substance was in the –
20 MR. COHEN: Whoa, whoa, whoa,
21 whoa.
22 MR. COTTEN: Let her finish her
23 answer. Please let her finish her answer.
24 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m trying to get
25 out of here in a time that’s timely.
0195
1 A. Okay, and I — you keep saying
2 something that is not what’s in this document.
3 Q. I’ll withdraw the question and ask
4 the question this way.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. When they specify the amount of
7 cancer-causing substance in a product, they
8 didn’t distinguish between chrysotile,
9 crocidolite or amosite, did they?
10 A. No, and by they I cannot say that
11 this document was put together by DuPont, so…
12 Q. Well, it was attached to –
13 A. Whoever did that.
14 Q. It was attached to a DuPont memo,
15 was it not?
16 A. It was attached to a DuPont memo,
17 yes.
18 Q. And it –
19 A. I don’t know the origin of the
20 list.
21 Q. And it has a product code that
22 specifies the vendors that DuPont used, right?
23 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
24 A. Um.
25 Q. We did this yesterday.
0196
1 A. I don’t really know, um –
2 Q. Look at the back.
3 A. It’s product manufacturer code
4 references, but I don’t really know what that
5 means, either.
6 Q. Okay. Can you go — I’m not going
7 to ask you about all the other exhibits that I
8 talked to you about before, just the ones that
9 your lawyer went over with you.
10 Could you go to D-1, please?
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. D-1 is the 1961 standard?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. You were aware, were you
15 not, that New Jersey had a standard that
16 predated this by three years. Did you know
17 that?
18 A. No, I’m not aware of New Jersey’s
19 specific standards.
20 Q. But it wasn’t DuPont under the –
21 since it had a major — two major plants at the
22 very least, maybe four in New Jersey, weren’t
23 they subject to the New Jersey standards?
24 A. They would have been, yes.
25 Q. Yes, ma’am. But you didn’t
0197
1 mention that.
2 A. No.
3 Q. And this standard…it says that
4 basically you can use the standard, but it
5 doesn’t guarantee that people’s health are going
6 to be protected. There’s no fine line between
7 healthy and unhealthy, correct?
8 A. It does say you can’t set a fine
9 line, that’s correct.
10 Q. Okay. And then can we go to 1964.
11 Page two. Exhibit 2.
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. This is a recommendation for the
14 kinds of respirators that should be used,
15 correct?
16 A. That’s correct.
17 Q. And some of the respirators are
18 airline respirators, right?
19 A. Yes, that’s like air-supplied
20 suits.
21 Q. Right, you can’t just wear — you
22 have to wear a whole space suit.
23 A. That’s correct.
24 Q. Right. And when did you first
25 start giving space suits to people exposed to
0198
1 asbestos?
2 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
3 A. This, this is not an
4 asbestos-specific standard, but I know that
5 there were some highly toxic chemicals that
6 DuPont used and air-supplied suits were required
7 very early on, but I — you know, this is, this
8 is a generic document, it’s not specific for
9 asbestos.
10 Q. So which ones were for asbestos?
11 A. If there would have been knowledge
12 at that particular time about using certain
13 types, it depended on which — what kind of job
14 you were doing and, in general, you had
15 respirators that would have been dust-type
16 respirators and you would have had respirators
17 for chemical uses, but an air-supplied
18 respirator might be used under almost any kind
19 of situation, just depending on what the
20 exposure is.
21 Q. Okay, so when did DuPont start
22 using space suits?
23 A. I have no idea.
24 Q. Okay. Could be for asbestos,
25 though, according to your testimony, right?
0199
1 A. Uh, I’m not aware of the fact that
2 they did or didn’t –
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. — use them for asbestos.
5 Q. So when you testified about this
6 document, you didn’t know whether it applied to
7 asbestos or not?
8 A. I do not — I cannot tell from the
9 document that they have specific uses relative
10 to asbestos in this document. This is a
11 description in the document of the various types
12 of respirators –
13 Q. Well –
14 A. — that were available to workers
15 to use depending on the situation.
16 Q. Okay. Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 was
17 talked to you about by your attorney. Does it
18 also indicate that you get exposed from ripping
19 out insulation?
20 A. Um, could you point that out?
21 Q. Yes. Second full paragraph,
22 middle. “Such jobs at ripping out old
23 insulation.” “Must result in the production of
24 a dusty, asbestos-containing atmosphere.”
25 A. Okay, yes –
0200
1 Q. Yes, ma’am?
2 A. — it’s there.
3 Q. And that’s what happens when there
4 are people out in the field, not in shops with
5 ventilation, right? They rip the insulation off
6 the pipes or off the equipment. That’s what
7 they’re worried about here.
8 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
9 A. Um, that’s certainly one of the
10 potential jobs that could be done, yes.
11 Q. And that’s what my client was
12 doing in 1964. Did you know that? That’s what
13 her father was doing?
14 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
15 A. No, I didn’t.
16 Q. And it says what — at this point
17 you were doing — using about 200,000 pounds of
18 pipe insulation a year, right?
19 A. That’s what it says.
20 Q. I’m going to skip 1964, page four,
21 because that’s the trip report and we talked
22 about that too much. Same thing with Number 5.
23 Number 6.
24 A. I have that.
25 Q. This says, does it not, in the
0201
1 last page that to do this study would take a
2 very short period of time, correct?
3 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
4 Q. It says “since this will be a
5 study of existing medical records it is not
6 expected to take a long time.” Right?
7 A. I’m sorry, I don’t know where –
8 Q. Number 6, bottom of the page, page
9 one.
10 A. Oh, bottom of page one?
11 Q. Yes, ma’am.
12 A. I’m sorry. That’s right.
13 Q. And Dr. Stopps in 1964 urged that
14 a study be done, right?
15 A. I think that he really was
16 involved in trying to, um, uh…get support for
17 a study after he got back, so…
18 Q. Fine. Sixty-four.
19 A. Probably mostly 19 — early 1965.
20 Q. All right, and then in ’65 he said
21 let’s do the study again, right?
22 A. Um, he said that following the
23 study.
24 Q. Yes, ma’am.
25 A. Yeah.
0202
1 Q. But it wasn’t done until 1968,
2 right? Three more years.
3 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
4 A. Uh, the studies that were done
5 corporate, corporate-wide, that was when there
6 was an initiation in 1968.
7 Q. And the results, for instance, at
8 the Chambers Works plant didn’t come out until
9 1968, three years later, right?
10 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
11 A. I think it was 1967 that they had
12 initial results.
13 Q. Okay, okay. And then the workers
14 weren’t told about what the study showed, right?
15 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
16 A. Um, I wouldn’t say that.
17 Q. And then can we go to page seven,
18 please.
19 Your lawyer asked you about this
20 August 23rd, ’66 memo where they looked at the
21 pipe coverers at Chambers Works and they said
22 “while it would appear there was no cause for
23 concern as to undue incidence of cancer among
24 these workers, any other conclusion would be
25 doubtful until more data are obtained.”
0203
1 Correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In other words, don’t be so…sure
4 that everything’s okay until we get more data,
5 right?
6 A. Well, it says you can’t draw a lot
7 of conclusions from what you’ve got to date.
8 Q. Right. Just because there’s no
9 cancer in the current study doesn’t mean people
10 aren’t going to get cancer, right?
11 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
12 A. I don’t think that’s necessarily
13 what he was saying, no.
14 Q. And then he says that there were
15 four things that need to be done.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Right? Could you show me any
18 evidence as you sit here today that these four
19 things were done?
20 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
21 A. I do not know if any of this was
22 done.
23 Q. So, again, Dr. Stopps asks for
24 something and, again, it wasn’t done, correct?
25 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
0204
1 A. I can’t say that it was or was not
2 done; I do not have any data indicating results
3 from a follow-up.
4 Q. Well, don’t you think that given
5 the fact that your lawyers were going to ask you
6 questions about this document if there was
7 backup to this document that they would have
8 given it to you?
9 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
10 Q. Prepared you for this deposition?
11 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
12 A. Um, I have no idea if the
13 information was available even to them.
14 Q. All right, so it’s now the third
15 time where Dr. Stopps has asked for something as
16 it related to employee safety and health and the
17 third time where we have no evidence that it was
18 followed up on, right?
19 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
20 A. I can’t speak to it one way or the
21 other.
22 Q. Yes, ma’am. And Exhibit Number 8.
23 You were asked questions about this exhibit,
24 correct?
25 A. Yes.
0205
1 Q. But the problem with this exhibit
2 is that what they say is that they have no idea
3 what will be the safe dust concentration for
4 cancer, right?
5 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
6 Q. Bottom paragraph.
7 A. That’s correct; at this point in
8 time they had doubts about what would be safe.
9 Q. Right. And can we go to page –
10 Exhibit 9, please.
11 In Exhibit 9…what the Medical
12 Director for DuPont says is that you can get
13 mesothelioma even with relatively minor exposure
14 to asbestos, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Exhibit 10. You talked about
17 Exhibit 10 and these dust studies; do you recall
18 that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. These were done in shops, correct?
21 A. Um, it was Spruance construction
22 and, um…
23 Q. See on the second page where it
24 says “Asbestos Workers Shop”?
25 A. Yes, and then it’s got…using
0206
1 saws and so forth, but then there’s a line that
2 says “outside” and I’m not quite sure what that
3 is –
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. — but primarily those things with
6 data were shop type things like band saw,
7 sander, hand tools.
8 Q. Yes, ma’am. And so when they did
9 these dust studies, there were…hoods overhead
10 that sucked the dust out, right?
11 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
12 A. I really don’t know what the working
13 conditions were like, there certainly,
14 um…would have been the typical type situation
15 where there was ventilation in the shops.
16 Q. Well, didn’t you tell me before
17 that — and tell counsel that DuPont was careful
18 to make sure these shops were well ventilated
19 and it was a recognized principle of industrial
20 hygiene?
21 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
22 A. That’s correct, and –
23 Q. So when these –
24 A. — I cannot ascertain, though, if
25 all of the individual machines, saws, et cetera,
0207
1 in this study had local ventilation; I do not
2 know.
3 Q. So we can’t really tell one way or
4 the other what this study means without knowing
5 that, right?
6 A. And I think there’s probably some
7 greater description here by the industrial
8 hygienist that we don’t have available to us.
9 Q. Do you have it? Home?
10 A. No.
11 Q. It certainly would not mimic what
12 goes out — on out in the field where there is
13 no ventilation in place; true?
14 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
15 A. I don’t know.
16 Q. All right. So what is –
17 A. I can’t tell from what –
18 Q. — the value of the study, ma’am?
19 A. I can’t tell you what the
20 specifics were.
21 I know that when I looked at the
22 corporate records, that’s one of the things I
23 found was a lot of specific data, uh, the
24 industrial hygiene description of where they
25 were taking samples, that kind of thing that I
0208
1 did not keep in my possession, but there was a
2 lot of backup data to some — summary data in
3 memos.
4 Q. But as we sit here today, we don’t
5 know what the conditions of this study were.
6 A. That’s correct.
7 Q. Okay. Did you tell your lawyer
8 that when you were answering his questions?
9 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
10 A. Did I tell him what?
11 Q. That you didn’t know what the
12 conditions were under which this study was
13 conducted.
14 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
15 A. I don’t think I was asked that
16 specifically.
17 Q. Exhibit Number 11. You did not
18 mean in discussing Exhibit Number 11 to in any
19 way mislead the jury; true?
20 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
21 A. No, sir.
22 Q. First you — and why, by the way,
23 would you — why would you attach a fiber study
24 from 1968 to a 1963 document?
25 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
0209
1 That’s not a 1963 document.
2 MR. PLACITELLA: She indicated it
3 was a 1963 document.
4 A. I’m sorry, I think what it is is a
5 1968 document, but on my copy it looks more like
6 a three and an eight.
7 Q. Okay. And what it says that was
8 not gone over is that there were exposures
9 caused because of drafts produced by open doors
10 and windows, right?
11 A. Yes, where there were particle
12 counts in excess of a million particles per
13 cubic foot.
14 Q. Right. And other producers of
15 airborne particles were in the handling of
16 calcium silicate block material from shipping
17 carton through fabrication process, correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So when they were just taking the
20 product out of the box it was creating exposure,
21 right? Is that what this says?
22 A. That was, that was a potential
23 area of exposure in a…this is where he’s
24 summarizing what they were finding.
25 Q. Right.
0210
1 A. Um…
2 Q. Now, could you just flip a second
3 to Exhibit Number 13?
4 A. Okay, I have thirteen.
5 Q. The date of this is April 5th,
6 1968, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The date of the Exhibit Number 11
9 is July 11th, 1968, correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. That was after Exhibit 13 came
12 out; agreed?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what Exhibit 13 says, does it
15 not, is that DuPont is not using five million
16 particles per cubic foot, it’s using 500,000
17 particles per cubic foot, correct?
18 A. That’s what came out from Mr.
19 Keuper in this memo.
20 Q. But when you talked to the jury
21 when your lawyer was asking you questions you
22 never mentioned that. You only talked about two
23 million particles and five million particles,
24 correct?
25 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
0211
1 A. I was just — I was referring to the
2 TLVs at that time which were the ACGIH –
3 Q. Well –
4 A. — TLVs and that was the general
5 thing actually under S2T.
6 This particular thing came
7 directly from Mr. Keuper and I was not relating
8 the dates of the two things at the time I was
9 looking at Exhibit 11.
10 Q. All right, because the, the
11 standard in effect when these dust counts were
12 done in Exhibit 11 show that almost every one of
13 these dust counts was above DuPont’s own
14 threshold limit; true?
15 A. They — some of them would have
16 been above what Mr. Keuper wanted to see because
17 you had some that were at, uh, two and three
18 million particles per cubic foot and I –
19 Q. And Mr. Keuper wanted –
20 A. — know –
21 MR. COTTEN: Wait, wait.
22 A. I know some of the purpose of this
23 particular study which was done was to try to
24 determine what some of those jobs were that were
25 creating more, um, than they, than they wanted
0212
1 and kind of limits that were now to be held to.
2 Q. But that’s not my question, ma’am.
3 My question is as following.
4 You told this jury that these dust
5 counts were within the allowable dust
6 concentrations for the ACGIH, did you not?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. But what you didn’t say is that
9 almost all of these dust counts exceeded the own
10 standard that DuPont was using internally.
11 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
12 Q. Correct?
13 A. I did not bring up what Mr. Keuper
14 was asking of the Construction Division.
15 Q. Right. So, for example, if we go
16 to page two of Exhibit Number 11 and we look
17 at…for instance, what happened in Brevard,
18 that shows a dust count of almost four hundred
19 times what DuPont said was acceptable
20 internally. True?
21 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
22 A. It was definitely higher than the
23 goal that Mr. Keuper was setting, yes.
24 Q. At least four hundred times
25 higher, correct?
0213
1 A. Um, no, sir, not four hundred
2 times.
3 Q. How many times?
4 A. It would be less than ten times.
5 Q. Ten times.
6 A. You would expect it –
7 Q. Bad math.
8 A. — to be 5 –
9 Q. Got it.
10 A. — in the way this was done.
11 Q. Almost ten times.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And even the one that your lawyer
14 talked to you about for Chambers Works exceeded
15 DuPont’s own internal standard by a little bit,
16 right?
17 A. By a little bit, yes.
18 Q. So when you were making these
19 kinds of statements in the examination by your
20 counsel, it was just a mistake. You didn’t mean
21 to do it.
22 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
23 Q. Right?
24 A. I was referring to the, um,
25 company-wide standard under the TLVs.
0214
1 Q. And that didn’t even deal with
2 cancer because we know that DuPont didn’t know
3 what protected against cancer, right?
4 MR. COTTEN: Objection, form.
5 A. As the memos have indicated, there,
6 there was, um…no real feel for exactly what
7 would be the limit for cancer at that time.
8 Q. I have others, but in the interest
9 of time do you remember my true/false statements
10 at the end of my examination?
11 A. Um-hum.
12 Q. In light of everything that your
13 lawyer asked you on his examination, do any of
14 your answers change?
15 A. No, they do not.
16 MR. PLACITELLA: Thank you, I have
17 no further questions.
18 MR. COHEN: Just couple of
19 housekeeping things.
20 One is — and we’ll send you a
21 letter on it.
22
23 (Whereupon, an off-the-record
24 discussion takes place.)
25
0215
1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the video
2 record at 3:45.
3 MR. COHEN: We’ll make a request,
4 we’ll put it in writing for you, but we
5 want to get the slides that you used at the
6 deposition here.
7 MR. PLACITELLA: Any slides that I
8 show her you can have copies of.
9 MR. COHEN: And then there are three
10 things that we actually have on the table
11 that we wrote to the court about, I just
12 want to make sure we follow up on them.
13 Union records for the brother, the
14 father and the husband.
15 MR. PLACITELLA: The records for the
16 husband have been supplied. The records
17 for the father have been requested by
18 counsel for Mobil and I have no records for
19 the brother nor — or am I compelled to
20 produce them.
21 MR. COHEN: Medical records and
22 pathology slides; have they been supplied?
23 MR. PLACITELLA: You guys, that’s up
24 to you as a group. We don’t do that. We
25 gave the authorizations and it’s up to you
0216
1 to take care of that.
2 MR. COHEN: But you don’t have the
3 pathology slides.
4 MR. PLACITELLA: No, I do not.
5 MR. COHEN: And then the twenty –
6 MR. PLACITELLA: Not that I know of
7 anyhow. If they’re underneath my desk I’m
8 not aware of it.
9 MR. COHEN: Of the twenty or so
10 deposition transcripts, are you going to
11 identify which defendants you’re going to
12 use those against?
13 MR. PLACITELLA: No, if you saw my
14 letter from two days ago what I said was
15 that I produced those transcripts because I
16 thought it was my obligation to do that,
17 that I was not necessarily relying upon all
18 of them, but since I have them and they
19 were in my possession I thought I was
20 obligated to send them out and that’s what
21 I did and you have a follow-up letter to
22 that effect.
23 MR. COHEN: But that doesn’t answer
24 my question.
25 MR. PLACITELLA: Read the letter.
0217
1 MR. COHEN: Well, I…you just
2 paraphrased the letter and it doesn’t
3 answer my question which is I don’t want to
4 have to read twenty transcripts –
5 MR. PLACITELLA: You don’t have to.
6 It says the ones I’m going to rely upon.
7 MR. COHEN: Oh.
8 MR. PLACITELLA: As it relates to
9 DuPont. You’ll read the ones that talk
10 about DuPont.
11 MR. COHEN: Well, then, I haven’t
12 seen the letter and you didn’t say that
13 originally, so…any questions? We’re
14 done, thank you.
15 MR. PLACITELLA: Thank you, ma’am.
16
17 (Proceedings concluded.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0218
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3 I, TABITHA DENTE, a Certified Shorthand
4 Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New
5 Jersey, do hereby certify that prior to the
6 commencement of the examination, the witness was
7 duly sworn by me to testify to the truth, the
8 whole truth and nothing but the truth.
9 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing
10 is a true and accurate transcript of the
11 testimony as taken stenographically by and
12 before me at the time, place and on the date
13 hereinbefore set forth, to the best of my
14 ability.
15 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither a
16 relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel
17 of any of the parties to this action, and that I
18 am neither a relative nor employee of such
19 attorney or counsel, and that I am not
20 financially interested in the action.
21
22
23 _____________________________________
24 TABITHA DENTE, CSR NO. 1592
25
