AT&T Admits Knowledge of Asbestos Dangers

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY
2 DOCKET NO. L-5469-07 (AS)

3 PHILIP & KAREN DEGNAN, VIDEOTAPE
DEPOSITION UNDER
4 Plaintiff, ORAL EXAMINATION
OF
5 vs. CHARLES P. LICHTENWALNER

6 ALCATEL LUCENT, et al

7 Defendant(s),

10 TRANSCRIPT of the deposition of the
witness called for Oral Examination in the
11 above-captioned matter, said deposition being
taken pursuant to Superior Court Rules of
12 Practice and Procedure by and before RACHEL
SANTIAGO, a Notary Public and Shorthand
13 Reporter of the State of New Jersey, at the
offices of RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND,
14 PERRETTI, LLP, Headquarters Plaza, One
Speedwell Avenue, Morristown, New Jersey on
15 Tuesday, March 3, 2009, commencing at, 10:30 in
the forenoon.
16

22 BRODY DEPOSITION SERVICES
Certified Shorthand Reporters and Videographers
23 7 Elm Street
Westfield, New Jersey 07090
24 (908) 789-2000

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

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 Attorneys for Plaintiff

10 RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND, PERRETTI, LLP

11 Headquarters Plaza

12 One Speedwell Avenue

13 Morristown, New Jersey 07962

14 (973) 538-0800

15 BY: KELLY CRAWFORD, ESQ.

16 Attorneys for Defendant, AT&T

18 LAW OFFICE JOHN McGOWAN, LLC

19 54 Main Street

20 Chatham, New Jersey 07928

21 (973) 507-9511

22 BY: JOHN McGOWAN, ESQ.

23 Attorneys for Defendant, Deponent Lucent

1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Contd):

3 THACHER, PROFFITT & WOOD

4 25 DeForest Avenue

5 Summit, New Jersey 07901

6 (908) 598-5700

7 BY: ROBERT L. HORNBY, ESQ.

8 Attorneys for Defendant, Deponent Lucent

10 CONNELL FOLEY, LLP

11 85 Livingston Avenue

12 Roseland, New Jersey 07068

13 (973) 535-0500

14 BY: MEGAN ROBERTS, ESQ.

15 Attorneys for Defendant, Frank A. McBride

17 PICILLO, CARUSO, POPE, EDELL,

18 PICINI, P.C.

19 60 Route 46 East

20 Fairfield, New Jersey 07004

21 (973) 667-6000

22 BY: RICHARD J. KALUZINSKI, ESQ.

23 Attorneys for Defendant, Union Carbide

1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Contd):

3 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN

4 & GOGGIN

5 1845 Walnut Street

6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

7 (215) 575-2600

8 BY: KIMBERLEY WOODIE, ESQ.

9 Attorneys for Defendant, Henkels & McCoy

11 KENT & McBRIDE, P.C.

12 555 Route 1 South

13 Woodbridge Towers, 4th Floor

14 Iselin, New Jersey 08830

15 (732) 326-1711

16 BY: BRADLEY S. ROTHSCHILD, ESQ.

17 Attorneys for Defendant, T. J. McGlone

19 AHMUTY, DEMERS & MCMANUS

20 65 Madison Avenue

21 Morristown, New Jersey 07960

22 (973) 984-7300

23 BY: MICHAEL CALDARELLA, ESQ.

24 Attorneys for Defendant, Beach Electric

1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Contd):

3 HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN,

4 DUNST & DOUKAS

5 40 Paterson Street

6 New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903

7 (732) 545-4717

8 BY: DANIEL L. KUSZMERSKI, ESQ.

9 Attorneys for Defendant, Dyer Insulation

11 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN

12 216 Haddon Avenue

13 Westmont, New Jersey 08108

14 (856) 858-7200

15 BY: JASON T. SCHEETS, ESQ.

16 Attorneys for Defendants, Clark Partitions,

17 John Crane, Inc.

19 LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY J. GRACEFFO

20 485 Main Street

21 Hackensack, New Jersey 07601

22 (201) 342-9300

23 BY: ANTHONY J. GRACEFFO, ESQ.

24 Attorneys for Defendant, J.P. Patti Co.

1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Via Telephone)

3 NORRIS, MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, P.A.

4 721 Route 202-206

5 Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807

6 (908) 722-0700

7 BY: KERRY ROACH, ESQ.

8 Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant,

9 Rutgers State University of New Jersey

11 A L S O P R E S E N T:

12 William Kuzmin

13 Jennifer Haine

14 Meghan Kelleher

15 William Anderson

16 James M. Christe, Videographer

1 I N D E X

2
WITNESS PAGE
3
CHARLES P. LICHTENWALNER
4

5 Direct by Mr. Placitella 9

6 Cross by Mr. Graceffo 308

10 E X H I B I T S

11 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE

12 P-1 Document 150

13 (Exhibit annexed to transcript.)

1 C H A R L E S P A U L L I C H T E N W A L N E R,

2 Calle Sevilla 7, Apt. 1A, Utrera,

3 Spain, called as a witness, having been

4 first duly sworn according to law by a

5 Notary Public of the State of New Jersey,

6 testifies under oath as follows:

7 VIDEOGRAPHER: This begins

8 videotape Number One. This is the

9 Deposition of Charles Lichtenwalner in the

10 matter of Philip and Karen Degnan versus

11 Alcatel Lucent. Superior Court of New

12 Jersey, Middlesex County, L-5469-07.

13 Today is March 3, 2009, Time is 10:32 a.m.

14 This deposition is being taken at

15 1 Speedwell Plaza in Morristown, New

16 Jersey and is being made at the request of

17 Christopher Placitella of Cohen, Placitella

18 & Roth. The videographer is James Christe

19 and the court reporter is Rachel Santiago.

20 Would counsel all present please

21 state their appearances and whom they

22 represent and then, court reporter, swear

23 the witness in.

24 MR. PLACITELLA: Christopher

25 Placitella on behalf of the Plaintiff.

1 MR. MCGOWAN: John McGowan on

2 behalf of Lucent.

3 MR. HORNBY: Robert Hornby on

4 behalf of Lucent.

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Kelly Crawford on

6 behalf of AT&T.

7 MR. CALDARELLA: Michael Caldarella

8 on behalf of Beach Electric.

9 MS. ROBERTS: Megan Roberts on

10 behalf of Frank A. McBride.

11 MR. KALUZINSKI: Richard Kaluzinski

12 on behalf of Union Carbide.

13 MR. SCHEETS: Jason Scheets on

14 behalf of John Crane, Incorporated and

15 Clark Partitions.

16 MR. KUSZMERSKI: Daniel Kuszmerski

17 on behalf of Dyer Insulation.

18 MR. ANDERSON: Bill Anderson on

19 behalf of AT&T, and Im an observer.

20 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Bradley Rothschild

21 on behalf of T.J. McGlone.

22 MS. WOODIE: Kim Woodie on behalf

23 of Henkels & McCoy.

24 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PLACITELLA:

25 Q. Good morning, the last time we met

1 it was afternoon. That was in July. Do you

2 recall that?

3 A. I recall that, yes.

4 Q. Im sure that the last person you

5 wanted to see again was probably me, but at

6 this point you have been designated as a

7 witness for both AT&T and Lucent. Do you

8 understand that?

9 A. I understand that.

10 Q. Okay. Im going to just go through

11 the court order and see that you are the person.

12 Ive put up the court order from this case

13 signed by the special master and paragraph one

14 says the Defendant AT&T shall produce in

15 response of document productions and produce

16 the corporate representative with the most

17 knowledge concerning the historical use of

18 asbestos-containing products in New Jersey,

19 Bell Telephone, Bell Atlantic, and Verizon.

20 Are you that person?

21 A. I believe I am. Im not exactly

22 sure about the Bell Atlantic and Verizon. Its

23 my understanding in 1984 there was a divestiture

24 and thats when those companies came into

25 existence.

1 MS. CRAWFORD: And just for the

2 record, its subject to the injunction

3 that we placed in our response about that

4 particular issue.

5 Q. As far as you know you are the

6 person responsive to paragraph one?

7 A. Thats correct.

8 Q. All right. Paragraph Two says that

9 Defendant AT&T shall produce a response to

10 document production and produce a corporate

11 representative with the most knowledge

12 concerning the occupational health working

13 group and its activities related to the use of

14 asbestos-containing products in New Jersey,

15 Bell Telephone, Bell Atlantic, and Verizon. Do

16 you see that?

17 A. I see that.

18 Q. Are you that person?

19 A. Again, with the same caveat

20 mentioned before.

21 Q. All right. And youre the person

22 responsive to Paragraph Two?

23 A. I am.

24 Q. Okay. And there is a court order

25 entered before that with respect to Lucent Ive

1 put up on the screen. And it says that Lucent

2 is to produce a corporate representative with

3 the most knowledge of the asbestos-containing

4 products sold by Western Electric to Bell

5 Telephone and Bell Atlantic in Middlesex County

6 from 60 to 83; is that you or somebody else?

7 MR. MCGOWAN: John McGowan for

8 Lucent. Mr. Lichtenwalner is not being

9 produced for that. He is being produced

10 for Number Two not the court order but the

11 recommendation that you have up on the

12 screen.

13 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, it becomes a

14 court order if you dont object to it

15 after 30 days. So its a court order.

16 Q. Do have knowledge concerning the

17 products used by Western Electric and Bell

18 Telephone in the State of New Jersey?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. Okay. The second paragraph says

21 the Defendant Lucent Technologies shall produce

22 corporate representatives with the most

23 knowledge concerning Western Electrics

24 historical knowledge of the dangers of asbestos

25 within 30 days. Do you see that?

1 A. I see that.

2 Q. Is that you?

3 A. I believe it is.

4 Q. Okay. Now, the last time we spent

5 a number of hours talking about some of the

6 same subjects. Do you recall that?

7 A. I do, yes.

8 Q. All right. Are there answers that

9 you would, you reviewed that deposition, I take

10 it in preparation for today?

11 A. I did.

12 Q. Are there any answers that you gave

13 in that prior deposition that you would change

14 today?

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Im going to object

16 to the form of the question. He wasnt

17 produced in that capacity on the 25th.

18 Q. Okay. Would you change any of the

19 testimony?

20 A. I dont know of any that I would

21 change.

22 Q. So if I asked you each and every

23 one of those questions again now designated as

24 a corporate representative for AT&T and Bell,

25 youd give me the same answers.

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

2 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

3 A. The only caveat I would mention is

4 at that I had not seen any documents and now I

5 have.

6 Q. All right.

7 A. So there may be some further

8 knowledge that I have.

9 Q. All right. What areas have you

10 illuminated yourself on since the July

11 deposition that you would add to in the course

12 of this deposition?

13 A. I guess well have to discuss

14 those, whether or not you know. . .

15 Q. Okay. Now, you have been provided

16 with documents by both counsel for Lucent and

17 AT&T, correct?

18 A. Thats correct.

19 Q. All right. And when did you get

20 those documents?

21 A. Probably early February, first few

22 days in February.

23 Q. Okay. And when was the last set of

24 documents you received?

25 A. Probably a week ago.

1 Q. Now, between counsel for Lucent and

2 AT&T, they have produced to me relevant to this

3 case some 80,000 pages of documents. Did they

4 give you 80,000 pages of documents?

5 A. I could not say how many pages of

6 documents there were. I didnt count them.

7 There were certainly thousands of pages of

8 documents.

9 Q. Well, if you had to put a stack on

10 the table, how high would the stack be?

11 A. I couldnt say cause some of them

12 were provided electronically. The stack of

13 documents was about 10 inches high, but then

14 there were significantly more than that

15 produced, given to me electronically.

16 Q. Do you believe that you reviewed

17 anywhere near 80,000 documents?

18 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

19 A. I believe I did not read 80,000

20 documents.

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. Or pages of documents, sorry, pages

23 of documents.

24 Q. And the documents that you were

25 provided, did you have any say in the documents

1 that you were being given?

2 A. The documents were given to me.

3 Q. In other words, you didnt call up

4 counsel for Lucent or AT&T and say Im being

5 produced on these specific areas. These are

6 the documents I want you to go get from –

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Would you just pick

8 up that phone? I knew this wouldnt work.

9 Are we on or are we off? Let me call him.

10 VIDEOGRAPHER: Lets go off the

11 record, 10:40, and were off the record.

12 (Whereupon discussion is held off

13 the record.)

14 VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. Its 10:42.

15 Were back on the record.

16 MS. ROACH: Okay. This is Kerry

17 Roach with Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus

18 appearing on behalf of Rutgers the State

19 University of New Jersey, Third-Party

20 Defendant.

21 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

22 Q. You were informed as to what areas

23 AT&T and Lucent wanted you to testify about,

24 correct?

25 A. That is correct.

1 Q. All right. And you were aware from

2 your employment for Bell and AT&T what kinds of

3 records were available, business records were

4 available that may be responsive to those

5 issues, true?

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 A. Thats true.

8 Q. Okay. Did you ask either counsel

9 for Lucent or counsel for AT&T for specific

10 records that you thought would be important to

11 review in order to be prepared for todays

12 testimony?

13 A. I did not ask for any specific

14 records.

15 Q. All right. What, in fact, happened

16 was that the counsel for AT&T and Lucent

17 decided what records would be important and

18 gave them to you to review, true?

19 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

20 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

22 A. Thats true.

23 Q. Okay. So you dont know, as you

24 sit here, what relevant records there are to

25 your testimony that were not provided to you?

1 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

2 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

4 Q. True?

5 A. The records that were provided to

6 me I believe were records that I had seen

7 before and actually written some of them. And

8 they appeared to be, to my mind, as complete or

9 more complete than things that I had seen in

10 the past.

11 Q. Well, for example, you told me at

12 the last deposition that you had actually put

13 all of the records in terms of your hygiene

14 surveys, et cetera, on a word searchable CD-ROM;

15 do you recall that?

16 A. I recall that.

17 Q. And that you left that with your

18 employer when you were laid off; do you recall

19 that?

20 A. I recall that.

21 Q. Were you provided with that CD-ROM

22 in preparation for todays deposition?

23 A. I was not.

24 Q. Would that have been something that

25 would have been helpful to you in preparing for

1 the deposition?

2 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

3 A. I dont see that it would be more

4 helpful than the other documents that I have.

5 Q. Okay. How long did it take you to

6 review the materials that were provided to you

7 by counsel for AT&T and Lucent?

8 A. I spent about ten hours reading the

9 documents on my own, and I spent about six

10 hours yesterday discussing the documents.

11 Q. Now, when you say you spent six

12 hours yesterday discussing the documents, what

13 do you mean by that?

14 A. I sat in a conference room with the

15 attorneys and we went through the documents.

16 Q. Okay, when you say — what

17 attorneys?

18 A. Ms. Crawford, Mr. Hornby, and Mr.

19 Anderson.

20 Q. So while you were discussing the

21 issues related to the Lucent designation, the

22 lawyers for AT&T were in the room?

23 A. That is correct.

24 Q. And while you were discussing the

25 issues related to the AT&T designation, the

1 lawyers for Lucent were in the room?

2 A. That is correct.

3 Q. Okay. And you understand that

4 those subject matters arent exactly the same,

5 correct?

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form.

7 A. I understand that.

8 Q. All right. So what was discussed

9 between you and the lawyers while you were in

10 the room yesterday?

11 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

13 I direct him not to answer.

14 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, how could

15 you direct the witness not to answer?

16 MR. MCGOWAN: Its joint defense –

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Joint defense

18 privilege.

19 MR. MCGOWAN: — joint defense

20 privilege.

21 MR. PLACITELLA: Oh, you are all in

22 bed together now?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

24 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. Where in

25 the court rules does it say that theres a

1 joint defense privilege, which says that

2 Im not allowed to ask this witness what

3 you talked about when some other lawyer

4 was in the room?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Theres case law,

6 Chris, if you want to fight this out

7 another day, we can.

8 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, well do it

9 at another day. Youre not going to let

10 me ask him any of those questions?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Im not going to let

12 him answer those questions.

13 MR. PLACITELLA: So you understand

14 that if I prevail on that issue, hell

15 have to come back from Spain to answer

16 those questions.

17 MS. CRAWFORD: If you prevail on

18 that issue.

19 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. So lets

20 move on.

21 MS. CRAWFORD: We will.

22 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

23 Q. How long were you — you did it

24 about six hours?

25 A. I believe so.

1 Q. How many documents did you review

2 with them?

3 A. On the order of a hundred.

4 Q. Okay. And do you have those

5 documents with you?

6 A. I do not have any documents.

7 Q. Can we have those documents — did

8 those documents help you refresh your memory in

9 order to testify today?

10 A. Yes, they did.

11 MR. PLACITELLA: Can we have those

12 documents produced here now please?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: For the record, the

14 documents that we went over are the

15 documents, the subset of documents on

16 behalf of AT&T, the limited subset that

17 were provided to you subject to the

18 agreement that you and I had regarding

19 what documents the witness would be shown

20 in preparation for the deposition.

21 MR. PLACITELLA: Yeah, but you had

22 AT&T documents and Lucent documents.

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Well, Im telling

24 you on behalf of AT&T what those documents

25 are.

1 MR. PLACITELLA: All right. Lets

2 produce them here so we have them so we

3 know were all on the same page.

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Im telling you they

5 are the documents –

6 MR. PLACITELLA: I know. I want to

7 mark them as an exhibit for the deposition.

8 Can you please produce the documents that

9 you showed him yesterday that he said was

10 used to refresh his memory and the

11 documents that Lucent showed him yesterday

12 that were used to refresh his memory.

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Theyre the same

14 documents.

15 MR. PLACITELLA: I dont care

16 theyre the same documents.

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Chris, we went

18 through this specifically.

19 MR. PLACITELLA: I want the same

20 documents –

21 MS. CRAWFORD: You have them.

22 MR. PLACITELLA: — marked as an

23 exhibit to this deposition.

24 MS. CRAWFORD: You have them all.

25 MR. PLACITELLA: No. I dont know

1 if I have them all.

2 MS. CRAWFORD: We sent you

3 specifically –

4 MR. PLACITELLA: No.

5 MS. CRAWFORD: — ten days in

6 advance of the deposition –

7 MR. PLACITELLA: Yes.

8 MS. CRAWFORD: — the set of

9 documents –

10 MR. PLACITELLA: And I want them

11 marked as an exhibit to the deposition.

12 MS. CRAWFORD: And thats your

13 obligation to bring them here.

14 MR. PLACITELLA: No. It is

15 absolutely not my obligation. You

16 produced them to him, you reviewed them

17 with him, and you have the obligation to

18 produce them here. How was I going to

19 know what documents you were, specifically,

20 going to show him yesterday?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Because we gave them

22 to you.

23 MR. PLACITELLA: That doesnt mean

24 I know that those were the ones. There

25 was a bigger set. Okay. Well move on.

1 At a break well deal with it.

2 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

3 Q. The last time that we were here, we

4 talked about something known as the Occupational

5 Health Working Group, do you recall that?

6 A. I recall that.

7 Q. And that, again, is one of the

8 subject matters that you are being produced

9 here today on behalf of, right?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Which defendant are you here to

12 talk about the Occupational Health Working

13 Group for?

14 A. I believe I am here for both of

15 them.

16 Q. Okay. And you answered a number of

17 questions last time about the Occupational

18 Health Working Group; do you recall that?

19 A. I recall that.

20 Q. Would you change any of those

21 answers as you sit here today?

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

23 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

24 A. No.

25 Q. Okay. Now, the Occupational Health

1 Working Group was formed when?

2 A. Around 1972, 1973.

3 Q. All right. It was formed in

4 response to OSHA; is that true?

5 A. The Occupational Health Working

6 Group was formed in response to a number of

7 different things such as the Occupational

8 Safety and Health Act, the forming of the NIOSH

9 and the criteria documents that were generated

10 and understanding that the Bell System needed

11 to look into health problems as well as the

12 safety problems that were well covered by the

13 telephone company employees.

14 Q. Now, when you say Bell System, what

15 do you mean by that?

16 A. When I say Bell System, I mean AT&T

17 as the parent company; Western Electric as the

18 manufacturing arm, quite a number perhaps 27.

19 I dont remember the exact number of operating

20 telephone companies, and Bell Laboratories,

21 Bell Telephone Laboratories as the research

22 company.

23 Q. Okay. So when you refer to the

24 term Bell System, youre talking about all of

25 the companies under the AT&T umbrella during

1 the time that you worked there, correct?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. And that includes New Jersey Bell?

4 A. It does.

5 Q. Okay. Now, am I correct that

6 during the time that you worked for AT&T –

7 scratch that. I think you indicated the last

8 time that although your paycheck at some point

9 was being written by Bell Labs, you considered

10 yourself an employee of a AT&T; is that true?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

12 A. I always considered myself an

13 employee of AT&T.

14 Q. Okay. And am I correct that AT&T

15 assumed the duty to protect all the employees

16 in the Bell System as it related to safety and

17 health?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 It calls for a legal conclusion.

20 A. Exactly. That would have been my

21 answer. I dont know what the legal

22 requirements are for independent companies

23 whether theyre — so forth.

24 Q. Well, there are actually documents,

25 are there not, that you reviewed that would

1 indicate that AT&T assumed responsibility for

2 the health and welfare of all the employees in

3 the Bell System?

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

5 A. I dont recall ever reading a

6 document that said AT&T assumed the responsibility.

7 Q. All right. Here, I have put up a

8 document that was produced to me dated July 7,

9 1980, and its entitled Occupational Safety and

10 Health. Do you see that?

11 A. I do.

12 Q. Okay.

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Can you read that

14 from where youre sitting?

15 THE WITNESS: I have a difficult

16 time –

17 Q. Well, you can move up if you have

18 to. Thats fine. And to the right its the,

19 the logo is for what company?

20 A. AT&T, general, I cant read it

21 exactly.

22 Q. All right.

23 A. General telephone.

24 Q. And its a policy letter. Do you

25 see that on the upper left-hand side?

1 A. I see that, yes.

2 Q. And its two company presidents and

3 AT&T vice presidents. Do you see that?

4 A. I see that.

5 Q. And what company presidents, do you

6 know?

7 A. Company presidents I would assume

8 were the presidents of Bell Laboratories,

9 Western Electric, and the operating telephone

10 companies.

11 Q. Okay. And it says, see where it

12 says system policy requiring hazards? See that

13 first sentence? If you need to get up, this is

14 the best I could do with the quality of the

15 copy –

16 MR. MCGOWAN: You dont have the

17 hard copy?

18 MR. PLACITELLA: No. You have the

19 hard copy.

20 UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Can you tell

21 us what the Bates stamp number is on

22 that?

23 MR. PLACITELLA: I dont have a

24 Bates stamp number. I mean you have it, I

25 just dont have it in front of me.

1 THE WITNESS: Is the question you

2 were asking me to look for –

3 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

4 Q. The very first paragraph, what does

5 that say?

6 A. The Bell System has long accepted a

7 basic responsibility for employee safety and

8 health.

9 Q. All right. And is that consistent

10 with your understanding, sir, that this memo

11 that went out from AT&T to all the presidents

12 of the operating companies, is that the Bell

13 System has long occupied a basic responsibility

14 for employee safety and health?

15 A. Im sorry I didnt understand –

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

17 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

18 A. I didnt understand the question.

19 My statement about that would be that the Bell

20 System has long accepted a basic responsibility

21 for employee safety health is true. That does

22 not, this does not state that AT&T has long

23 accepted it.

24 Q. All right. And you dont believe –

25 A. AT&T as the corporate headquarters

1 company. The way this is phrased, the way I

2 would read it, Im not lawyer, but the way I

3 would read is that the Bell System and the Bell

4 System incudes the various operating telephone

5 companies. So, you know, whether or New Jersey

6 Bell is responsible for the safety and health

7 of its own people or whether AT&T is responsible

8 for the safety and health of New Jersey, I

9 would not be qualified to answer that.

10 Q. All right. Well, lets move on,

11 and well get into a little bit of that. This

12 is agreed on AT&T letterhead, right?

13 A. Yes, it is.

14 Q. And its going out to the president

15 of the all operating companies including New

16 Jersey Bell, correct?

17 A. I believe it is.

18 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

19 Q. So AT&T when it comes to — well,

20 let me just move on to — AT&T was responsible

21 for evaluating exposures to toxic substances

22 including asbestos within the Bell System,

23 would you agree with that?

24 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

25 A. I would, its my understanding that

1 the individual companies are responsible for

2 the safety and health of their employees so

3 that the company that the employee works for

4 would be responsible for an individuals safety

5 and health. You seem to be implying that AT&T

6 is responsible, but, if youre not, they would

7 be responsible is my understanding, would be

8 responsible for the AT&T employees.

9 Q. Oh, no. That wasnt the question I

10 asked. Im saying that AT&T was responsible

11 for evaluating exposures to toxic substances

12 for Bell System employees, true?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

14 A. I would say its not true.

15 Q. Okay. What is the, have you ever

16 heard of something called the Asbestos Study

17 Group?

18 A. From reading about it, yes.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. I might have known about it earlier,

21 but I forgot.

22 Q. What is the Asbestos Study Group?

23 A. My understanding is its a group

24 that was formed to take a look at the potential

25 exposures to asbestos in the Bell System.

1 Q. For all of the Bell System,

2 correct?

3 A. Possibly, not including Western

4 Electric.

5 Q. Okay. And that was something that

6 was formed at the, as a result of discussions

7 within the Occupational Health Working Group?

8 A. I believe thats the case, yes.

9 Q. All right. And Occupational Health

10 Working Group was headed by AT&T, true?

11 A. It was headed by the medical

12 director and the safety director of AT&T –

13 sorry, it was cochaired by the medical director

14 and safety director of AT&T.

15 Q. All right. The medical director

16 and safety director a AT&T cochaired the

17 Occupational Health Working Group, which set up

18 the Asbestos Study Group; would you agree with

19 that?

20 A. I believe they requested the study

21 group be set up at Bell Laboratories.

22 Q. Okay. And the purpose of the

23 Asbestos Study Group was to evaluate exposures

24 to asbestos to all the companies within the

25 Bell System with perhaps the exception of

1 Western Electric, true?

2 A. Thats my understanding.

3 Q. And the Asbestos Study Group was

4 comprised of, by the way, who is Dr. Capua.

5 A. Dr. Capua?

6 Q. Right.

7 A. Nick DeCapua –

8 Q. Or Mr. Capua.

9 A. Okay, yeah, Nick DeCapua, Im not

10 exactly sure. I believe his position was

11 engineering at AT&T.

12 Q. And I put up here the minutes of

13 1979 Occupational Health Working Group and I

14 blew up the bottom of page 2 where it talks

15 about who was going to be involved. You see

16 that?

17 A. I see that, yes.

18 Q. And it was AT&T Real Estate and

19 Property Management, right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. That was the company who owned the

22 various AT&T buildings, right?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 A. Owned many of them.

25 Q. Right. They were located at 195

1 Broadway?

2 A. Thats correct.

3 Q. In the headquarters for AT&T in New

4 York City, correct?

5 A. I dont know if that was their

6 headquarters, but its 195 Broadway Corporation.

7 Q. Also was AT&T Medical, correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. AT&T Safety?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Bell Telephone Environmental Health

12 and Safety?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And here New York Telephone

15 Building Technical Services?

16 A. Right.

17 MS. CRAWFORD: For the record,

18 could you read the Bates number?

19 MR. PLACITELLA: DEG308. Theres a

20 bunch of zeros. I cant get them all

21 down.

22 Q. The purpose of the asbestos study

23 group was to evaluate the potential for

24 employee exposure to airborne asbestos fiber in

25 company buildings, right?

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Okay. Now, am I correct that AT&T

3 took the lead in setting asbestos policy for

4 the Bell, the companies in the Bell Operating

5 System?

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 A. It took the lead, I wouldnt phrase

8 it that way. Im not sure what all of the

9 various operating telephone companies did.

10 Some of them may have been in front of AT&T

11 but. . .

12 Q. I put up another document here,

13 which I believe was given to you. This was

14 written to I believe your bosss boss Mr.

15 Wilkening, correct?

16 A. He was my supervisors boss, yes.

17 Q. All right. And the date is

18 February 2, 1979; see that?

19 A. I see that, yes.

20 Q. Okay. The Bates number here is DOR

21 a bunch of zeros 1061. You see that? And its

22 on AT&T letterhead, correct?

23 A. It is.

24 Q. And do you know who Mr. Copky is,

25 manager of real estate and property manager

1 group?

2 A. I do not.

3 Q. And he writes on the second

4 paragraph, in order to provide the OTCs –

5 whats OTCs?

6 A. Operating Telephone Companies.

7 Q. That would include New Jersey Bell?

8 A. It would.

9 Q. With a realistic and meaningful

10 asbestos program as quickly as possible, it

11 would first be necessary to examine all related

12 issues and possible consequences of various

13 courses of action. Do you see that?

14 A. I see that.

15 Q. Okay. So what is happening here is

16 that AT&T is taking charge for putting together

17 an asbestos program for operating companies, true?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 A. Theyre acting at the beginning to,

20 you know, to evaluate — Im sorry, whats the

21 question? It would first be necessary to –

22 Im sorry, I cant read that word.

23 Q. Let me ask the question this way.

24 Would you agree that AT&T took the lead in

25 designing a meaningful asbestos program for the

1 Bell Operating Companies?

2 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

3 A. I would say that AT&T did the

4 coordination for the, and tried to get the

5 information to get it.

6 Q. Okay. Now, both the AT&T and the

7 Occupational Health Working Group actually

8 established OSHA compliance guidelines for the

9 Bell Operating Companies including New Jersey

10 Bell, true?

11 A. OSHA establishes OSHA compliance

12 guidelines.

13 Q. But they established the guidelines

14 within the Bell Operating System for how the

15 Bell Operating System was going to comply with

16 OSHA requirements. Would you agree with that?

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

18 A. I would not phrase it that way.

19 AT&T and Bell Laboratories and other groups

20 established practices and policies and so forth

21 so employees could work safely and its

22 certainly so it could meet the OSHA guidelines

23 even beyond their guidelines.

24 Q. Right. And those practices and

25 policies were set for the Bell Operating

1 Companies. That was part of their function,

2 true?

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

4 A. Thats true.

5 Q. Okay. I put up here a document

6 dated January 7, 2080, again, this on –

7 MR. MCGOWAN: Im sorry, whats the

8 date?

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Im sorry?

10 THE WITNESS: The date is –

11 Q. The date is January 7, 80, sorry,

12 1980. 2080 Id really be, Id probably be

13 dead. Okay, this, again, is on AT&T

14 letterhead?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And it states the real estate and

17 property management group at AT&T is presently

18 working with the Occupational Health Working

19 Group to develop a package of general guidelines,

20 which will allow the BOCs. Whats BOCs or

21 TOCS?

22 A. It might be, if its BOCs its

23 Bell Operating Companies perhaps.

24 Q. Right. That includes New Jersey

25 Bell?

1 A. It would.

2 Q. To comply with OSHA, with the OSHA

3 asbestos standard.

4 A. Right.

5 Q. Am I right; is that your understanding?

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Is your question, is

7 that what the document says?

8 Q. No. Is that your understanding of

9 what happened?

10 A. Thats what the document is stating

11 and thats my understanding of what happened,

12 yes.

13 Q. Okay. Now, AT&T also established

14 guidelines for when respirators were going to

15 be used by employees within the Bell Operating

16 System, true?

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

18 A. I dont recall any instance where

19 respirators were required to be worn.

20 Q. But did AT&T establish guidelines

21 as to, for recommendations of when respirators

22 would be appropriate?

23 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

24 A. As an industrial hygienist, we

25 believe that respiratory protection is one of

1 the least effective ways of protecting

2 employees so as I said before, I am not aware

3 of any guidelines that would require respiratory

4 protection –

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. — in the Bell System.

7 Q. I had this document, which was

8 supplied to me by one of your lawyers, dated

9 November 1979 and it is entitled Respiratory

10 Protection. Do you see that?

11 A. I see that.

12 Q. And it says on the upper right-

13 hand corner that it was issued in November 1979

14 by AT&T. Do you see that?

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Can you read the

16 document?

17 A. It states at the top that it is a

18 Bell System practice plant. I cant read the

19 next word, but this does not appear to be a

20 Bell System practice as Ive seen — Ive seen

21 many Bell System practices. They are not in

22 this format.

23 Q. So in preparation for todays

24 deposition, neither Lucent nor AT&T provided

25 you with this document that talks about

1 respiratory protection as part of Bell System

2 practices?

3 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

5 A. I did not read this document.

6 Q. Is this the first time that you are

7 discovering that AT&T had a role in putting

8 together the Bell System practices for

9 respiratory protection?

10 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

11 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

12 A. As I stated before, this does not

13 look like a Bell System practice.

14 Q. But thats what it –

15 A. I am not sure where this document

16 came from. There is no logo on it anywhere.

17 Q. Well, it says Bell System practices,

18 doesnt it?

19 A. It does say Bell System practices

20 plant and some word that I cant read.

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. Thats what it states.

23 Q. But to be clear, although it has

24 AT&T in the right, and Bell System practices on

25 the left, and talks about respiratory protection,

1 this is not a document that was supplied to you

2 in preparation for todays deposition?

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

4 A. I did not say it was not supplied

5 to me. I said I did not read it.

6 Q. Okay. So its not a document that

7 you relied upon in any way?

8 A. Thats correct.

9 MR. HORNBY: Do you have a Bates

10 number?

11 MR. PLACITELLA: I dont. I must

12 have cut it when I was copying and pasting

13 last night.

14 Q. Am I correct that AT&T was

15 responsible for ensuring compliance with OSHA

16 within the Bell System?

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

18 A. I believe youd be incorrect. I

19 believe the individual companies would be

20 responsible for complying.

21 Q. Now, your boss was Mr. Schreibeis,

22 right?

23 A. Bill Schreibeis, yes.

24 Q. Right. And he, one of the

25 deposition, one of the documents that you were

1 provided in preparation for todays deposition

2 was his sworn testimony under oath, right?

3 A. Thats correct.

4 Q. All right. And did you read that?

5 A. I did.

6 Q. Okay. And was he a truthful man?

7 A. Yes, he was.

8 Q. Okay. And Im referring to page 74

9 of his deposition where he was asked the

10 following questions and gave the following

11 answers:

12 QUESTION: As an industrial

13 hygienist at the Bell Labs in the 1970s,

14 did you monitor the Federal OSHA

15 regulations with regard to asbestos

16 exposures?

17 ANSWER: Generally, yes.

18 Do you know who had the

19 responsibility for complying with OSHA as

20 it applied to asbestos in buildings in a

21 specific building within a Bell Operating

22 Company?

23 ANSWER: I assume the corporation

24 had that responsibility.

25 QUESTION: Which corporation are

1 you talking about?

2 ANSWER: AT&T.

3 Was that his sworn testimony under

4 oath?

5 MS. CRAWFORD? Objection to form.

6 Do you have a date of that deposition and

7 what Mr. Schreibeis was produced for on

8 that day?

9 MR. PLACITELLA: You have the

10 deposition. I got it from you.

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Okay.

12 MR. PLACITELLA: I know why he was

13 produced. You were suing all the other

14 companies saying it was their responsibility

15 for, and you were suing them, I think your

16 client was actually suing the asbestos

17 company saying it was their responsibility.

18 MS. CRAWFORD: This is a deposition

19 that was taken of Mr. Schreibeis as a

20 representative of AT&T on that day.

21 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.

22 MS. CRAWFORD: As a designated –

23 there is not date on the document. Just

24 for the record, I think it needs to be

25 clear.

1 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, you have,

2 why dont you go get them. You have them.

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Chris, they were all

4 provided.

5 MR. PLACITELLA: Right, exactly.

6 Are you telling me this isnt the

7 deposition that you gave me last week?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: No, Im not saying

9 that.

10 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.

11 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

12 Q. So your boss, under oath, indicated

13 that it was AT&T that was responsible for

14 making sure that there was compliance with

15 OSHA, true?

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

17 A. Thats the way the testimony

18 reads.

19 Q. Okay. Now, Bell Labs, who you

20 worked for, I think you told me last time,

21 actually did the health research for the Bell

22 Operating Companies, true?

23 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

24 A. Yes, it did.

25 Q. Okay. And the first testing that

1 was actually done concerning asbestos by Bell

2 Labs was when?

3 A. Based on the documents that I saw

4 on review and so forth, it would be I believe

5 in the early-70s –

6 Q. All right.

7 A. — when that was first done.

8 Q. Okay. And part of the function,

9 the last time you told me you thought it was

10 around 75, do you now, have you now changed

11 that testimony?

12 A. I have now changed that. Ive seen

13 some documents that I have not seen before that

14 show some testing done prior to 1975.

15 Q. Okay. But would you agree with me

16 that the majority of the testing that was done

17 was done after 1975 when you became employed by

18 Bell?

19 A. I would agree with that.

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

21 Q. Okay. Now, Bell Labs also

22 conducted the safety training for the Bell

23 Operating System Companies, true?

24 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

25 A. Untrue.

1 Q. I have here a document, DOR1076,

2 this is a document authored by you, sir,

3 correct?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. And what was the purpose of this

6 document when you wrote it? In fact, did you

7 have a chance to look at this document?

8 A. Ive had a chance to look at the

9 document.

10 Q. Okay.

11 A. This document basically is setting

12 the time frame for a recognition and evaluation

13 of occupational health hazard course that we

14 taught.

15 Q. All right.

16 A. Your previous question was whether

17 or not Bell Laboratories was responsible for

18 safety training in operating telephone

19 companies? I distinguish industrial hygiene

20 from safety training.

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. This was industrial hygiene

23 training.

24 Q. Okay.

25 A. We provided that. We did not

1 provide, I didnt provide, we did not provide

2 much of a safety training.

3 Q. Okay. So what Bell Labs did, they,

4 it provided training for industrial occupational

5 safety and health in terms of industrial hygiene

6 to the Bell Operating Companies?

7 A. To the safety supervisors and some

8 of the medical directors of the Bell Operating

9 Companies, correct.

10 Q. With the purpose that when you gave

11 training to the safety supervisors within the

12 Bell Operating Companies, whatever information

13 you provided to them, they would in turn provide

14 to their employees, true?

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

16 A. We did not do train the trainer. I

17 mean your question seems to imply it was train

18 the trainer. We were training people to do

19 recognition and evaluation as of the title of

20 occupational health hazards. It was not then

21 their job to go and train someone else.

22 Q. Okay. So your job was to make sure

23 on behalf of AT&T that the occupational health

24 professionals within the Bell Operating

25 Companies got the correct training in terms of

1 safe and health?

2 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

3 A. Our job was to see that the safety

4 professionals in the operating telephone

5 companies were made aware of occupational

6 health problems and how to approach them, and,

7 basically, become familiar with us so that we

8 could assist them in the industrial hygiene

9 problems that arose in the course of doing

10 their safety duties.

11 Q. And when you say assist them, how

12 would you assist them?

13 A. We, numerous ways. One is that we

14 would perform analysis of samples for them. We

15 would provide training for them. We would

16 discuss the problems with them. We would discuss

17 potential control measures, and we would go out

18 and perform industrial hygiene analysis.

19 Q. Does that include for asbestos?

20 A. It does.

21 Q. Okay. Now, what was your

22 understanding of the mission for the Occupational

23 Health Working Group?

24 A. The mission of the Occupational

25 Health Working Group was specified I believe in

1 the first minutes of the Occupational Health

2 Working Group. I reviewed that document. Its

3 the one that you have there.

4 Q. Is this the July 5, 1973, minutes?

5 A. Perhaps something around that time,

6 and, basically, there were a number of

7 different functions that they were supposed to

8 do. One was to provide assistance or

9 information to OSHA. One was to monitor OSHA

10 and the NIOSH criteria documents.

11 Q. I have up here in my little blue

12 box, exercise of constant vigilance in

13 evaluating health problems that affects

14 employees of the Bell System whether or not

15 they are part of proposed standards or criteria

16 documents. Was that your understanding?

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Object to form.

18 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

19 A. Well, thats certainly what it

20 says, and thats one of the things that we did.

21 Q. And employees of the Bell System

22 would include the employees at New Jersey Bell,

23 true?

24 A. That is correct.

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Had you finished

1 answering the question he asked you before

2 that?

3 THE WITNESS: Okay. What was the

4 question? Im sorry.

5 MS. CRAWFORD: It just seems you

6 were interrupted. I just want to make

7 sure.

8 MR. PLACITELLA: I wasnt trying to

9 interrupt him. Im just trying to get

10 through my 740 slides –

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Okay.

12 MR. PLACITELLA: — for the day.

13 See, when I do something short of that,

14 youll be in a better mood.

15 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

16 Q. What was the medical directors

17 responsibility at AT&T in terms of safety and

18 health vis-a-vis the Bell Operating Companies?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

20 A. I dont know that.

21 Q. Who was Dr. Dunn?

22 A. Dr. Dunn was a physician, who was

23 the Western Electric medical director. I

24 believe at some point he might have become an

25 AT&T medical director.

1 Q. And what was Dr. Dunns function,

2 to your knowledge, in terms of health and

3 safety for employees within the Bell Operating

4 System?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 Q. If any?

8 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

9 A. When I started in 1975, I believe

10 he was the medical director at Western Electric

11 so he would have been responsible for reviewing

12 things like Workers Compensation and injuries

13 and illnesses at Western Electric. He was also

14 part of the Occupational Health Working Group.

15 So his knowledge of the products and materials

16 supplied by Western Electric would have been

17 useful on the Occupational Health Working

18 Group.

19 Q. I put up as my slide a November 15,

20 1973, document, which I believe was provided to

21 you, Bates number is 1225. Have you seen this

22 document before?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Can you see the

24 document?

25 A. I dont recall, specifically, this

1 document.

2 Q. Okay. The last sentence of the

3 document talks about Dr. Dunn urged that we

4 review use of asbestos carefully because of its

5 potential danger. Do you see that?

6 A. I see that.

7 Q. Okay. What kind of review was done

8 in response to Dr. Dunns urging, if you know?

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

10 A. This is, you said a 1973 document?

11 Q. Correct, November 1973.

12 A. So one of the things I believe that

13 was done with respect to that was the creation

14 of the Bell System Services Group, which I

15 served on. And Ive also seen some other

16 documents I believe of asbestos, yeah, right.

17 Robert Edgerley provided a review of asbestos

18 exposures contacting people at Western Electric

19 that might have been in response to this

20 letter. So Ive seen a number of different

21 things that took place subsequent to 1973.

22 Q. Okay. Well get into that a little

23 bit. When he says because of its potential

24 danger, do you know what danger theyre

25 referring to, specifically, in this document?

1 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

2 A. Specific danger I would assume its

3 the hazards of asbestos.

4 Q. Including what?

5 A. Including lung cancer, mesothelioma,

6 asbestosis, shortness of breath.

7 Q. Okay. Now, am I correct that Dr.

8 Dunn actually had input into who within the

9 Bell Operating System was going to get medical

10 exams as a result of being exposed to asbestos?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

12 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

13 A. Dr. Dunn in his capacity as Western

14 Electrics medical director would have had

15 input into perhaps the medical exams for

16 Western Electric employees as a member of the

17 Occupational Health Working Group he would be

18 one of a number people that could make

19 recommendations for other companies.

20 Q. Okay. I put up this document,

21 December 5, 1975. This is on Western

22 Electrics letterhead this time. Do you see

23 that?

24 A. I see that.

25 Q. Okay. And its Dr. Dunns stationery?

1 A. It appears to be.

2 Q. And it says to all medical directors.

3 Do you know who that was?

4 A. Given the document that appears

5 there, it would appear to be the medical

6 directors in Western Electric.

7 Q. Okay. And, but a copy went to your

8 boss in, at Bell Labs. Do you see that?

9 A. I see that, yes.

10 Q. And also a –

11 A. And his boss, Marshall Hanley.

12 Q. All right. And why would this go

13 to Bell Labs if the letter was limited just to

14 Western Electric?

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

16 A. I dont know.

17 Q. Okay. When decisions were made by

18 the Occupational Health Working Group, how,

19 were those decisions or discussions distributed

20 to the Bell Operating Companies so that they

21 would be aware of what was going on within the

22 Bell, within the Occupational Health Working

23 Group?

24 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

25 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

1 A. The minutes of the Occupational

2 Health Working Group were distributed to the

3 medical directors and the safety director of

4 each of the Bell Operating Companies, sometimes

5 to an attorney as well if it was requested.

6 And then, in addition, if the Occupational

7 Health Working Group thought other action was

8 necessary, they would request system letters,

9 recommended letters or something like that.

10 But it would not come out of the Occupational

11 Health Working Group. It would come out one of

12 the operating divisions of AT&T.

13 Q. The system letters youre talking

14 about?

15 A. Thats correct.

16 Q. What division of AT&T would send

17 the letters that you referred to?

18 A. It would depend upon the particular

19 issue that was involved.

20 Q. Well, if letters came out related

21 to asbestos, what division would it come out

22 of?

23 A. Again, it would depend upon what

24 was involved. If it was asbestos in brake

25 linings, that would probably go to the people

1 who were in charged of motor vehicle maintenance.

2 If it was asbestos with respect to installation

3 crews, that would come out for the installation

4 part of AT&T. So it would all depend on what

5 was the appropriate organization to send it

6 out.

7 Q. Okay. So if were talking about

8 installing asbestos within the Bell Operating

9 System that it would come out of some division

10 of AT&T related to installing asbestos; is that

11 what youre saying?

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

13 A. No. AT&T would not — Im sorry.

14 AT&T would not, did not, as far as I know

15 install asbestos. When I said installing, I

16 meant installers. Installers are people who

17 installed telephones.

18 Q. Okay. When something was decided

19 by the Occupational Health Working Group as it

20 related to asbestos, how was that information

21 related to the companies within the Bell

22 Operating System?

23 A. As Ive said before, the minutes

24 would get distributed and if they felt it was

25 necessary, a letter would be distributed by the

1 appropriate operating party.

2 Q. And what was the purpose of those

3 minutes or the distribution of those letters?

4 A. The purpose or those minutes and

5 distribution was to let the medical directors

6 and the safety directors know what the

7 Occupational Health Working Group was looking

8 into was considering. It kind of was basically

9 information type of device that would allow

10 them to know what are the current issues with

11 respect to safety and health in their particular

12 domain.

13 Q. Well, when an Occupational Health

14 Working Group made a decision about what to do

15 with some aspect of asbestos, how was that

16 decision related?

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

18 A. As Ive said before, they would go

19 to the particular organization, operating

20 organization and request that a letter be put

21 out to specify the practices or procedures that

22 needed to be followed.

23 Q. Okay. Now, the Occupational Health

24 Working Group also direct what the Bell System

25 policies were as it related to warnings concerning

1 health and safety within the Bell Operating

2 System, true?

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

4 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

5 A. Not true.

6 Q. Ive put up a November 16, 1970,

7 minutes from the Occupational Health Working

8 Group. Have you seen these before?

9 A. I dont recall this particular one,

10 this specific one, no.

11 Q. Okay. And Im looking at the

12 document on the right side. You see where it

13 says manual for Bell System materials and

14 compounds. Do you see that?

15 A. I see that.

16 Q. All right. Im just going to blow

17 that up so you could see it a little bit

18 bigger, okay? Well, its not as clear. Thats

19 the best I can do with what I was given. What

20 was, what is your understanding of what the

21 manual for materials and compounds were within

22 the Bell System? What was that?

23 A. I am not aware of a manual of

24 materials and compounds in the Bell System.

25 Q. Do you see where it says Mister, I

1 think its Ederley?

2 A. Edgerley.

3 Q. Who is he?

4 A. He was a toxicologist working for

5 either George Wigley or Bill Schreibeis. Im

6 not sure exactly what his position was anyway.

7 Q. He was within your group?

8 A. We was within our group. He was

9 not in the Bell System Services Group, but he

10 was in the environmental health and safety

11 organization at Bell Laboratories.

12 Q. Okay. And was he working for Bell

13 Laboratories or AT&T?

14 A. Bell Laboratories.

15 Q. Okay. It says discussed the

16 possibility of updating the manual of Bell

17 Systems and materials compounds. Do you see

18 that?

19 A. I see that.

20 Q. What is the manual of Bell Systems

21 and materials compounds, materials and

22 compounds?

23 A. Im not familiar with that.

24 Q. Okay. Which is now three years out

25 of date. A straightforward updating of the

1 existing manual would not be a major undertaking.

2 Do you see that?

3 A. It continues on what Mr. Edgerley

4 questioned whether it be worth, and then its –

5 Q. Right. So up till today you never

6 knew that a manual was put out within the Bell

7 System concerning materials and compounds?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

9 A. I dont know of a manual of Bell

10 System and compounds going under that name. I

11 know there were various manuals — sorry,

12 documents that provided the materials, comcodes

13 as a for instance, materials that were provided

14 by Western Electric or materials, third-party

15 materials that were provided by Western

16 Electric giving the materials and the

17 compounds. But I knew them as comcode books or

18 other kinds of books. I never ran into the

19 term manual at Bell System materials and

20 compounds.

21 Q. Well, the books that youre

22 familiar with, what was the purpose of those

23 books?

24 A. The purpose of those books was for

25 the people in the operating telephone company

1 to order supplies.

2 Q. Okay. But not, youre not familiar,

3 just so were clear, with any manual that told

4 people how to use the supplies or the specific

5 compounds?

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

8 A. Im aware of a number of, you know,

9 there were Bell System practices. There were,

10 most of the products that were supplied

11 contained instructions on how to use them. One

12 of Mr. Edgerleys tasks was to review those for

13 us for safe handling and so forth. So, yeah,

14 there was quite a number of them. I am not

15 familiar with a compiled manual of all of the

16 products.

17 Q. Okay. But, apparently, that manual

18 from a review of this document was within the

19 purview of the Occupational Health Working

20 Group?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

22 Q. Would you agree with that?

23 A. I dont. As I said, I dont know

24 anything about that manual so I couldnt say

25 whether or not it was in the purview.

1 Q. Well, within, by looking at this

2 document — unfortunately, youre the person

3 thats been produced and there was — youre

4 the guy we have to ask the questions to?

5 A. Right, right.

6 Q. So based upon this document, the

7 manual for systems and compounds, system

8 materials and compounds was within the purview

9 of the Occupational Health Working Group. Would

10 you agree with that?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

12 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

13 A. The way I would phrase is, is that

14 the Occupational Health Working Group was

15 looking into and considered it his responsibility

16 to evaluate whether or not there were any

17 hazardous materials out there and whether they

18 could be worked with safely.

19 Q. And whether the manual should be

20 changed as a result of that particular, any

21 particular investigation, true?

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

23 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

24 A. The Occupational Health Working

25 Group would not go about changing the manual.

1 The manuals would be the responsibility of

2 other writers in the Bell System and they would

3 inform them of the need for changes.

4 Q. Okay. The Occupational Health

5 Working Group actually discussed and help make

6 decisions concerning policies related to

7 asbestos-containing materials, true?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

9 A. True.

10 Q. Okay. Im looking at this bottom

11 paragraph where it says asbestos exposure

12 formulation of policy. Do you see that?

13 A. I see it.

14 Q. It says a general discussion was

15 held on the need for a policy with regard to

16 employee exposure to insulation materials that

17 may contain asbestos. You see that?

18 A. I see that.

19 Q. So would you agree with me that as

20 of 1979 AT&T and the Occupational Health

21 Working Group still had no policy as it related

22 to employee exposure to insulation materials?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 A. I would not say not, no.

25 Q. Well, it says there was a need for

1 a policy. What policy was in effect before

2 1979 that youre aware of?

3 A. Basically, we were informing the

4 employees of the need for — well, we were

5 removing, you want to say its policy. I would

6 say its a policy. They removed asbestos

7 materials that were no longer needed in the

8 Bell System. We were training the –

9 Q. When you say they removed, who is

10 they?

11 A. Again, it would depend upon the

12 particular division, the materials that they

13 had so.

14 Q. Division of what AT&T?

15 A. Division of AT&T or the operating

16 telephone companies.

17 Q. Okay.

18 A. So, again, whoever had those

19 materials, if they had them, we were working at

20 that time, at this time frame, 1979, we were

21 working on installation, people working on

22 customer premises above hung ceilings. We were

23 working, looking at asbestos in brakes for

24 motor vehicle mechanics. At this point they

25 had, and, again, I would consider it a policy;

1 they had already removed transite covers for

2 the floor and ceiling for the cable runs and so

3 forth.

4 Q. Okay. The next sentence says this

5 issue has been discussed in the past without

6 any clear-cut decisions being reached. Do you

7 see that?

8 A. I see that.

9 Q. So although policies concerning

10 asbestos were discussed before 1979, there was

11 no clear-cut decision on what their policy

12 should be within the Bell System, true?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

14 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

15 A. I believe that the purpose of this

16 paragraph is to say that the AT&T, the Bell

17 System should come with an overall policy with

18 regard to asbestos. Individual issues as they

19 came up were addressed, practices and so forth

20 were written for those. And the purpose for

21 this thing here, is theyre looking for a

22 particular policy. And they even mention

23 further on that it would need to be at least in

24 two parts, company owned leased and rented, and

25 then customer premises.

1 Q. So what was being discussed here in

2 1979 was the need for two separate policies.

3 One within company owned buildings and one in

4 customer buildings, true?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 A. It was recognized that you would

7 probably need at least two policies. All

8 right. And up to this point in time there was

9 no clear-cut written policy on how to deal with

10 those issues within the Bell Operating System,

11 true?

12 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

13 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

15 A. If by policy you mean a policy with

16 regard to asbestos in toto, no, there was not;

17 however, there were many policies and practices

18 written for individual asbestos products or

19 particular concerns.

20 Q. Okay. Now, the Occupational Health

21 Working Group actually played a major role in

22 establishing what the — well, scratch that.

23 What is a material safety data sheet to you as

24 a hygienist?

25 A. Material safety data sheet is a,

1 information concerning the hazards and

2 environmental aspects, the materials that go

3 into a chemical.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. It needs to be provided by the

6 supplier of that chemical.

7 Q. And the Occupational Health Working

8 Group had a major role in establishing what was

9 going to be used in the material safety data

10 sheets within the Bell Operating System, true?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

12 A. Untrue.

13 Q. Not true?

14 A. Not true. The material safety data

15 sheets were supplied by the manufacturer of the

16 chemicals.

17 Q. Okay. I have here a November 28,

18 1978, minutes from the Occupational Health

19 Working Group. Do you see that?

20 A. I see it.

21 Q. And its signed by Mr. Degen. See

22 that?

23 A. I do.

24 Q. All right. And you see under where

25 it says materials safety data sheets?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. I blew it up so you could see it.

3 It says a short discussion was held on the

4 recent requests from various locations for

5 material safety data sheets on both Bell System

6 and general trade products, particularly

7 encapsulants and plugging compounds. Do you

8 see that?

9 A. I see it.

10 Q. As a means of responding to request

11 for information of this type, it becomes

12 increasingly important to update the red book.

13 Do you know what the red book is?

14 A. It, apparently, is the manual of

15 Bell System materials and compounds.

16 Q. And the red book, according to

17 this, as you said, is the manual for Bell

18 System material safety — and thats where the

19 material safety data sheets were incorporated

20 according to this document, true?

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

22 A. Not according to that document.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. Thats not what the document

25 states.

1 Q. All right. A short discussion was

2 held on recent requests on various locations

3 for material safety data sheets. Why would

4 material safety data sheets information be

5 requested from the Occupational Health Working

6 Group?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

9 A. I dont see that it says that the

10 material safety data sheets are requested from

11 the Occupational Health Working Group. The

12 people who are using those encapsulating and

13 plugging compounds would be requesting material

14 safety data sheets.

15 Q. Well, how would the Occupational

16 Health Working Group learn of requests from

17 people using materials for material safety data

18 sheets?

19 A. Basically, because they were aware

20 of the materials that were used in the

21 operating telephone companies and Western

22 Electric. The material safety data sheet may

23 have existed in this red book or manual of Bell

24 System practices, but, basically, material

25 safety data sheets go along with the product

1 itself.

2 Q. Right. But if you have a manual,

3 thats where everybody, anybody can go. If all

4 them are in one place in the red book, if you

5 had any question about any product, you can go

6 there and see what the material safety data

7 sheet was; isnt that the purpose?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

9 A. I dont know what the purpose is.

10 Like I said, Ive seen that one, but in

11 general, a manual would have a listing of the

12 products. It would not contain the material

13 safety data sheets. The material safety data

14 sheets would go along with the products. And,

15 once again, were talking encapsulating and

16 plugging compounds?

17 Q. Right.

18 A. Those are materials that perhaps

19 were provided by Western Electric but they were

20 materials that Western Electric would have

21 purchased the chemicals from another company.

22 And they would have had the responsibility for

23 providing the material safety data sheet.

24 Q. Well, wait a second, if Western

25 Electric makes a product using somebody elses

1 chemicals and the Western Electric made product

2 is distributed within the Bell Operating

3 System, youre saying its not Western

4 Electrics responsibility to supply material

5 safety data sheets?

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

8 A. Im saying that if Western Electric

9 packages chemicals that are manufactured by

10 another company, okay, they can use the

11 material safety data sheets provided by that.

12 And its my understanding that — sorry. Im

13 not aware of any chemicals that Western

14 Electric manufactured. They would package

15 chemicals provided by chemical manufacturers

16 and then provide those to the operating

17 telephone companies.

18 Q. All right. And when they packaged

19 those chemicals, wasnt it Western Electrics

20 responsibility to supply material safety data

21 sheets to the Bell Operating Companies?

22 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

23 A. Thats correct but they could have

24 supplied the material safety data sheets that

25 was provided to them by the chemical manufacturer.

1 Q. Or they could have done, provided

2 their own?

3 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

4 A. Or they could have provided their

5 own.

6 Q. But their obligation was to make

7 sure they got there one way or the other?

8 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

9 A. Okay. The obligation is to make

10 sure that it gets there the first time its

11 delivered. I believe the rules for material

12 safety data sheets are as the supplier needs to

13 provide the material safety data sheet the first

14 time they deliver it to a company.

15 Q. Okay.

16 A. Theres not a requirement to keep

17 providing them.

18 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

19 Q. Why does the Occupational Health

20 Working Group have anything to do with what

21 material safety data sheets are being supplied

22 within the Bell Operating System?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 A. One of things the Occupational

25 Health Working Group did was to evaluate the

1 chemicals that were being provided to the

2 operating telephone companies.

3 Q. So if in their opinion the material

4 safety data sheet that was being used for a

5 specific substance or chemical was insufficient,

6 the Occupational Health Working Group would

7 have input into supplying additional information

8 to employees within the Bell Operating Companies,

9 true?

10 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

12 A. The most effective way would be to

13 go back to the supplier of the chemical and

14 make sure that the information in the material

15 safety data sheet is improved rather than

16 supplying additional information.

17 Q. All right. So what youre saying

18 is the material safety data sheet would come,

19 it would be reviewed by Occupational Health

20 Working Group, and if it was determined by that

21 group to be insufficient, then the proper thing

22 to do was to have, was for the Occupational

23 Health Working Group to go back to the supplier

24 and say, we need you to make these changes.

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

1 Q. Is that what youre saying?

2 A. I never said that the Occupational

3 Health Working Group reviewed the material

4 safety data sheets.

5 Q. Well, why did they have anything to

6 do with material safety data sheets?

7 A. They might have reviewed them. But

8 you specified that the Occupational Health

9 Working Group reviewed material safety data

10 sheets. Ive never specified that at all. It

11 could have come to the attention of the

12 Occupational Health Working Group, but there

13 were deficiencies in the material safety data

14 sheets not that they reviewed the material

15 safety data sheets, but it could have come to

16 their attention.

17 Q. And if the Occupational Health

18 Working Group made a determination that the

19 information supplied in the material safety

20 data sheets were insufficient, they would have

21 had the opportunity to correct that problem,

22 true?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

25 A. They would not have correct that

1 problem. They would have gone to the people

2 responsible for that product, those material

3 safety data sheets and do that but –

4 Q. Including Western Electric for the

5 products it manufactured, true?

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 A. Including Western Electric for the

8 products that it probably repackaged in terms

9 of chemicals, encapsulants, and plugging

10 compounds.

11 Q. And just so were clear, were

12 going to move to another subject. Although you

13 are here to testify about the response of AT&T

14 and Lucent to what was done about the dangers

15 of asbestos, the lawyers for either AT&T nor

16 Lucent ever showed you the manuals of Bell

17 System materials and compounds, true?

18 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form.

19 A. I did not see it. Thats correct.

20 MR. PLACITELLA: Why dont we give

21 him a five-minute break.

22 VIDEOGRAPHER: Its 11:48. This is

23 going to be the end of Tape Number One.

24 Were off the record.

25 (Whereupon a brief recess is

1 taken.)

2 MS. ROACH: This is Kerry Roach on

3 behalf of Rutgers. I wanted to place on

4 the record an objection regarding the fact

5 that we did not receive notice of this

6 deposition until this morning, and as a

7 result, were reserving our right to

8 recall the witness if necessary. Thank

9 you.

10 MS. CRAWFORD: Kathy, just I had

11 never gotten served with your answer.

12 This is Kelly Crawford on behalf of AT&T

13 so I didnt have you as a party. So if

14 you could copy with your answer, I could

15 add you to my list?

16 MS. ROACH: And just so everybody

17 knows, my name is Kerry, not Kathy.

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Im sorry.

19 MS. ROACH: I just want the court

20 reporter to get that. Okay. We will send

21 you a copy.

22 VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. Its 12:02.

23 Were back on the record. And well begin

24 Tape Number Two.

25 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

1 Q. Okay. One of the areas that youve

2 been designated to testify about was the

3 historical knowledge of AT&T as it relates to

4 the dangers of asbestos. Do you recall that?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 MR. PLACITELLA: Go ahead. The

7 objection is?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: I dont think thats

9 what hes designated for, for AT&T if you

10 look at the designated topic.

11 MR. PLACITELLA: Oh, thats for

12 Lucent?

13 MR. MCGOWAN: Yes.

14 MR. PLACITELLA: I cant keep them

15 on track. Joint defense, I get it all

16 messed up, right.

17 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

18 Q. Okay. Am I correct, Im not sure

19 of all the documents that youve had an

20 opportunity to look at. I think I know them.

21 So Ill just ask some questions. Do you know

22 how far back AT&T or Lucents predecessors

23 knowledge about the dangers of asbestos go

24 historically?

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

1 A. I am not quite sure how one can

2 answer a corporations knowledge of asbestos.

3 I have a little bit of trouble. The individuals

4 in a corporation would know about it.

5 Q. Okay. Well, if an individual knows

6 presumably somebody in the corporation knows.

7 Would you agree with that?

8 A. I dont know if thats a legal

9 definition or not so I shouldnt answer that

10 question.

11 Q. Well, Ive tried to conduct some

12 research myself, and I just want to find out

13 whether your understanding is consistent with

14 my research whether information has been

15 provided to you, and Ill try not to take too

16 long.

17 My research has indicated that

18 information concerning the hazards of asbestos

19 to the Bell, in the Bell Operating System go

20 back to the 1920s. Have you seen anything to

21 support that research?

22 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

23 A. No, I have not.

24 Q. You are familiar with the fact that

25 AT&T and Western Electric were members of the

1 National Safety Council, true?

2 A. True.

3 Q. Okay. And did you ever attend

4 meetings of the National Safety Council on

5 behalf either Western Electric, Bell Labs, or

6 AT&T?

7 A. I believe I attended one meeting of

8 the National Safety Council, Congress, sorry,

9 National Safety Congress.

10 Q. I have here a document from 1929,

11 which were the National Safety Congress from

12 1929, and it indicates that one of the directors

13 was from Western Electric. Do you see that?

14 A. I see that.

15 Q. All right. Were you, in

16 preparation for your deposition today, were you

17 ever provided any information from either

18 Lucent or AT&T concerning Western Electrics

19 directorship of the National Safety Council?

20 A. Yes, I was.

21 Q. And what information were you

22 provided?

23 A. Information that Western Electric

24 people or AT&T people were members of the

25 National Safety Council, attended the National

1 Safety Congress.

2 Q. Including being directors.

3 A. I dont recall, specifically, that

4 they were directors but. . .

5 Q. Now, one of the things that were

6 discussed in this National Safety Congress in

7 1929 where Western Electric was a director, was

8 the issue of asbestosis. Do you see that?

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

10 A. I see that, yes.

11 Q. So in reviewing this material,

12 would it indicate to you that Western Electric

13 had notice of the dangers of asbestos going

14 back to the 1920s?

15 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

17 A. Western Electric would have had

18 notice of the dangers of asbestos for people

19 who were exposed to asbestos, yes.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. Not necessarily this doesnt say

22 that there were asbestos exposures in the Bell

23 System at AT&T and so forth.

24 Q. I will get to that later.

25 A. Okay.

1 Q. Youre aware, were you not that,

2 for example, cable splicers were using bags of

3 asbestos going back to 1924, are you aware of

4 that?

5 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

8 A. Cable splicers using bags — no,

9 Im not aware of that.

10 Q. Okay. Well get to that a little

11 later. Are you familiar with something known

12 as the American Standards Institute?

13 A. The American Standards Association

14 or the American National Standards Institute –

15 Q. Yeah, the American Standards

16 Association, correct.

17 A. Yes, yes.

18 Q. All right. And are you aware that

19 AT&T was a, on the executive committee of the

20 American Standards Association back in the

21 1940s?

22 A. I was not.

23 Q. Okay. Were you shown any documents

24 such as the one up on the screen that talked

25 about the participation of AT&T in the American

1 Standards Association in terms of issues

2 related to concentrations of toxic dust and

3 gases?

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

5 A. I was not shown anything.

6 Q. Okay. Are you aware that AT&T or

7 Bell Telephone had actually advertised in

8 popular magazines going back to the 1940s

9 where the dangers of asbestos were discussed?

10 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

11 A. I saw a document like that, yes.

12 Q. What document did you see?

13 A. I dont recall. It was a popular

14 magazine. It night have been Newsweek or some

15 kind of document like that.

16 Q. Okay. Im going to show you, have

17 you seen the 1948 Magazine from Business Week?

18 A. I was shown that, yes.

19 Q. When were you shown that?

20 A. Yesterday.

21 MR. PLACITELLA: By the way, that

22 wasnt part of the group of documents I

23 got from you that you said I had. I got

24 this somewhere else.

25 Q. Okay. The 1948 Business Week that

1 has a Bell Telephone ad in it?

2 A. It does.

3 Q. And that same document, that same

4 magazine discusses the ability of asbestos

5 could cause cancer. Do you remember that?

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

8 A. I was told thats one of the

9 articles in it.

10 Q. Okay. And in preparation for your

11 deposition today, I saw that one of the

12 documents that you were provide was the

13 deposition taken of Mr. Degen. Do you recall

14 that?

15 A. I do.

16 Q. Okay. And that deposition was a

17 deposition that was taken sometime in the

18 1990s, true?

19 A. Ill take your word for it. I

20 dont know what the date was.

21 Q. How many depositions of Mr. Degen

22 were you shown?

23 A. I believe one.

24 Q. You werent shown the deposition of

25 Mr. Degen from a couple of weeks ago?

1 A. I was not.

2 Q. This is Mr. Degens testimony from

3 a couple weeks ago. I want to know whether you

4 agree with it, and hes referring to the

5 document I just showed you. And it says, what

6 it tells you is that AT&T is advertising in a

7 magazine in 1948 that also links asbestos to

8 cancer, right?

9 ANSWER: They are in the same

10 magazine.

11 Do you agree with that?

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

13 A. Im sorry, I agree with his

14 testimony that I was not –

15 Q. His testimony.

16 A. — present at?

17 Q. No.

18 A. Im sorry, what was the question?

19 Q. Would you agree with his

20 conclusion?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

22 A. I would agree with his conclusion –

23 Q. You were also –

24 A. Given what youve shown me.

25 Q. Okay. Were you shown the 1950

1 Newsweek publication?

2 A. I was not.

3 Q. And this, again, has a Bell

4 Telephone System advertisement, correct?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 A. It appears to.

7 Q. Were you made aware that in that

8 same magazine where there was a Bell Telephone

9 System Advertisement there was a discussion by

10 Dr. Hooper concerning the ability of asbestos

11 to cause cancer.

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

13 A. I believe, I see it now.

14 Q. Would that indicate to you that by

15 1950 the Bell Telephone System would have had

16 notice about the relationship between asbestos

17 and cancer?

18 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

20 A. Asbestos exposures and cancer?

21 Q. Yeah.

22 A. Not necessarily asbestos exposures –

23 Q. Asbestos exposures, yes.

24 A. Asbestos exposure particularly high

25 levels of exposure.

1 Q. Well, it doesnt say anything about

2 high levels, does it?

3 A. No, it does not.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. But I suspect that you would find

6 that most of the, if you take a look at the

7 photograph, it does look like a rather dusty or

8 environment.

9 Q. Okay. In fact, you told me the

10 last time that asbestos was recognized as a

11 carcinogen back in the 1950s, true?

12 A. True.

13 Q. Okay. Am I correct that it was

14 known to companies within the Bell Operating

15 System that mesothelioma was linked to asbestos

16 exposure in the 1950s?

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

18 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

19 A. I dont, I have no knowledge of

20 that.

21 Q. Im going to show you whats been

22 provided to me as DOR1825, which is a white

23 paper on asbestos from the Medical Society of

24 the County of New York. Do you see that?

25 A. I see it, yes.

1 Q. Were you given a copy of this

2 document in preparation for todays deposition?

3 A. If I was, I dont recall reading

4 it.

5 Q. Ill just blow up the bottom. It

6 says in the late 1940s, bronchogenic carcinoma

7 began appearing with greater than expected

8 frequency and people working in the asbestos

9 industry. Do you see that?

10 A. I see that.

11 Q. All right. Then the next sentence

12 says in the mid-1960s mesothelioma showed a

13 similar increase in incidents in the same

14 population. Do you see that?

15 A. Same population meaning people

16 working in the asbestos industry?

17 Q. Yes.

18 A. Okay. I see that, yes.

19 Q. Is that consistent with your

20 understanding?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

22 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

23 A. Thats consistent with my

24 understanding. People working in the asbestos

25 industry had mesothelioma and perhaps

1 bronchogenic carcinoma.

2 Q. Okay. And, in fact, you told me

3 the last time that the need to monitor people

4 exposed to asbestos-containing dust in terms of

5 industrial hygiene principles, dated back to

6 the 1940s, true?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

9 A. I would imagine it did. I am not

10 too familiar with the history of asbestos

11 measurements.

12 Q. Well, in your last testimony you

13 said, I asked you the question, So it was

14 known in the 1940s that in order to assess

15 whether a hazard exist with people working with

16 asbestos-containing products that air

17 monitoring should be done; is that fair? And

18 your answer is, Thats true.

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

20 Q. Do you recall that testimony?

21 A. I recall that testimony.

22 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

23 Q. Would you recant that testimony?

24 A. I would not.

25 Q. Okay. Now, the AIHA, you are a

1 member of the AIHA?

2 A. I am and was.

3 Q. Okay. And your boss was a member,

4 true?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

7 A. Yes, I believe he was.

8 Q. And your bosss boss was a member –

9 A. Yes.

10 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

11 Q. — going back to the 1950s.

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

13 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

14 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

15 A. I dont know when they became a

16 member.

17 Q. Do you agree with me that the AIHA

18 was discussing the dangers to people exposed to

19 asbestos generated from asbestos-containing

20 products back in 1950s?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

22 A. I believe it was.

23 Q. AT&T was aware, was it not, of the

24 fact that low levels of asbestos exposure could

25 cause health problems.

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

2 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

3 A. I dont know where that comes form,

4 but, okay.

5 Q. I want to show you page 35 from

6 your former bosss deposition that I believe

7 was provided to you. And the question is

8 asked, Was that, as far as you know, the

9 opinion of AT&T in 1974 that the release of low

10 levels of asbestos dust particles over long

11 periods, over a long period of time, could

12 create health problems? And his answer is,

13 Yes. Do you see that?

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

15 A. Well, okay. I see that in that

16 document.

17 Q. Is that consistent with your

18 understanding of what AT&T knew?

19 A. It is not.

20 Q. Okay. Youre aware, AT&T rather,

21 was aware that low levels of asbestos exposure

22 could cause cancer, true?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 A. Low levels of asbestos is not, Im

25 not aware that they can cause cancer.

1 Q. All right. Well, Im going to show

2 you a March 20, 1974, document supplied to me

3 by one of your lawyers entitled asbestos fiber

4 measurements. Have you ever seen this document

5 before?

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 A. I dont recall seeing it.

8 Q. Do you recall who Mr. John Bestle

9 is?

10 A. No, I do not.

11 Q. It indicates in the second sentence

12 intermittent exposures of high concentration

13 levels as well as long-term exposures at lower

14 levels have been found to cause malignancies.

15 Do you see that?

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

17 A. I see that.

18 Q. Was that information ever transmitted

19 to you by anyone at AT&T, Western Electric, or

20 Lucent?

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

23 A. I dont recall reading it.

24 Q. Was this internal document ever

25 provided to you in preparation for todays

1 deposition?

2 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

3 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

4 A. If it was, I dont recall reading

5 it.

6 Q. Would you agree with me that

7 virtually all mesotheliomas are linked with

8 asbestos exposure?

9 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

10 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

12 A. I am not an epidemiologist so I

13 prefer you ask that to someone more knowledgable

14 in epidemiology.

15 Q. Well, let me ask you this question?

16 A. Youre aware, are you not, that

17 various tapes or training videos were produced

18 by AT&T to be provided on the issue of health

19 and safety to Bell, companies within the Bell

20 Operating Companies, true?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. All right. And when tapes or video

24 training sessions were produced, who would have

25 to approve the contents of those training videos?

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

2 A. Again, it would depend upon the

3 subject matter experts, but it would be, the

4 ones that I was familiar with, it would

5 typically be written by an outside supplier

6 with input from the industrial hygiene staff at

7 AT&T. They would be reviewed by our management,

8 possibly were reviewed over at — other people

9 as well.

10 Q. Would anything that was put in the

11 videos, would AT&T ever allow anything that was

12 put in those videos to be something that could

13 be considered untrue?

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

15 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection. Form.

16 A. AT&T is a big name you know. If it

17 were untrue they would definitely not be

18 acceptable.

19 Q. Would you agree with me that before

20 anything would be put in any kind of training

21 video or informational video that it was to be

22 distribution within the Bell Operating System

23 that it would have to be approved by AT&T

24 medical personnel?

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

1 A. I would not agree with that.

2 Q. Well, who would have to approve it?

3 A. Generally, it would –

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

5 A. Okay. Generally, it would be the

6 people, the management of the people who were

7 producing that video.

8 Q. Well, supposed it came out of the

9 Occupational Health Working Group, for example,

10 they asked that the video be produced, who

11 would have to approve the content of the

12 video?

13 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

15 A. Probably it be the, probably it

16 would be the, if it came out from the

17 Occupational Health Working Group and it was

18 given to the Bell Services Working Group, and

19 it were given to the Bell System Services

20 Group, it would be reviewed and approved by

21 management at Bell Laboratories and possibly

22 others.

23 Q. Including the medical people at

24 AT&T?

25 A. Possibly. Yes.

1 Q. Okay. I want to skip that. I want

2 to play a portion of a video that was produced

3 to me in discovery from AT&T and ask you if

4 youve ever seen this portion before, okay?

5 (Whereupon Mr. Placitellas shows

6 video.)

7 Q. Have you ever seen that before,

8 sir?

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

10 A. I dont recall this short clip, no.

11 Q. Would you disagree with what is in

12 this training video, sir?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

14 A. Id say that I wouldnt disagree,

15 but I am not an expert in the field.

16 Q. Would you — you are an expert in,

17 however, in industrial hygiene, true?

18 A. True.

19 Q. And would you agree with me that

20 friable asbestos in place releases fibers,

21 asbestos fibers into the atmosphere?

22 A. I would not agree with that.

23 Q. Would you condone such a statement

24 being made in a training video if it was not

25 true?

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

2 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

3 A. Im sorry. Could you rephrase that

4 question? Im not sure I understand it.

5 Q. Well, Im going to show you another

6 video. Tell me if you ever saw this before,

7 okay? I entitled this video Friable Asbestos

8 In Place Releases Fibers Into The Atmosphere.

9 Okay? Youll see if this is a mischaracterization

10 of my title.

11 (Whereupon Mr. Placitellas shows

12 video.)

13 Q. You hear that, sir –

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

15 Q. — where the training video said

16 that once it becomes friable it is releasing

17 fibers into the atmosphere and becoming a

18 health hazard?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

20 A. Its releasing or has released?

21 Im sorry, I missed the tense of the word.

22 Q. Well, is it material to you, sir,

23 whether its has or is?

24 A. The intent you seem to be saying is

25 that friable asbestos material releases fibers

1 into the atmosphere. It takes more than just

2 the friable asbestos material to release fiber

3 into the atmosphere. It needs some kind of

4 disturbance as well.

5 Q. Well, lets watch it again, if I

6 may.

7 (Whereupon Mr. Placitella shows

8 video.)

9 Q. Does this video, sir, say that this

10 friable asbestos product is now releasing

11 fibers into the atmosphere, which makes it a

12 danger? Is that what was on this training

13 video?

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

15 A. Thats what I heard on the video.

16 Q. Am I correct that Bell Labs

17 actually had a hand in pronouncing what was

18 going to be the action standard within the Bell

19 Operating Companies for exposure to asbestos?

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

22 A. I guess I dont understand the

23 question. We basic, the Bell Laboratories and

24 Bell System Services Group in general followed

25 the OSHA standards.

100

1 Q. But at some point in time there was

2 some confusion within the Bell Operating

3 Companies as to what level of exposure would

4 require medical monitoring to exposed employees,

5 would you agree with that?

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

8 A. No, I would not.

9 Q. Are you aware that AT&T reached out

10 to the head of the EPA to clarify what level of

11 asbestos exposure to Bell Operating Company

12 employees would be necessary before medical

13 surveillance of those employees would be

14 required?

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

16 A. Im aware that AT&T wrote a letter

17 to Mort Corn as the head of OSHA, not EPA.

18 Q. Sorry, youre correct.

19 A. And, basically, we questioned the

20 clarification of the statement in the OSHA

21 standard that said asbestos exposure — Im

22 sorry, I guess I dont remember exactly what

23 OSHA said, but the intent seem to be that

24 exposure to asbestos triggered medical

25 monitoring.

101

1 Given that asbestos is present in

2 outside ambient atmospheres, that might be

3 interpreted to read everyone, every employee,

4 who goes outdoors is required to get a medical

5 monitoring. And thats why what letter was

6 sent to Dr. Corn.

7 Q. And what did Dr. Corn tell you in

8 response?

9 A. He seemed to avoid the issue. He,

10 basically, as I recall, you probably have the

11 letter there. He said that its interesting

12 that we had lower concentrations of fibers

13 inside the building than outside the building.

14 And I believe the interpretation, although it

15 wasnt quite clear, was that exposure to

16 asbestos meant exposure above the action

17 level.

18 Q. And the action level was what?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

20 A. At that time action level was

21 probably zero point one fibers per cubic

22 centimeter, but I dont know exactly when that

23 became the action level.

24 Q. All right. I have here a 1/27/1977

25 letter on Bell Labs stationery. Do you see

102

1 that?

2 A. I do.

3 Q. And who is the person who authored

4 this statement?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 A. George Wilkening.

7 Q. Who is your boss?

8 A. He was the director of the

9 Environmental Health and Safety Group and my

10 managers manager.

11 Q. Okay. And he discusses the letter

12 that was received from Dr. Corn that you

13 referred to, true?

14 A. True.

15 Q. And if we skip down to the third

16 paragraph. See where I have the arrow?

17 A. I do.

18 Q. All right. Im going to blow that

19 up so its a little easier for you to read. He

20 says we now have something in writing which

21 ties medical examinations to, I guess, its

22 time-weighted exposure concentrations in excess

23 of point one fibers per cc. See that?

24 A. I do.

25 Q. Okay. At this point in time, did

103

1 it then become the policy of Bell Laboratories

2 and AT&T to make sure that any employee within

3 the Bell Operating System would receive medical

4 examinations if their exposure was in excess of

5 point one fibers per cc.

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

8 A. Thats what, yeah, that would be

9 OSHAs requirement and AT&T would certainly use

10 that or something more stringent.

11 Q. Well, it was actually AT&Ts

12 conclusion, was it not, that the failure to

13 provide medical surveillance when somebody was

14 exposed to point one fibers per cc would be

15 considered a serious violation of Federal law,

16 true?

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

18 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

19 A. Given that this one fibers per cc

20 and as George Wilkening said, statement that

21 this is current OSHA policy is brand new to

22 everyone, I doubt that OSHA would be able to

23 apply a serious violation to someone who failed

24 to provide medical monitoring. I mean this

25 appears to be, I might also interject that –

104

1 VIDEOGRAPHER: You dropped the

2 microphone.

3 A. — oh, Im sorry. This letter from

4 Dr. Corn was signed on his last day in office.

5 It appeared to many of us that he might have

6 been ducking the issue until he was no longer

7 head of OSHA. But the statement about zero

8 point one fibers per cc as a requirement for

9 medical monitoring, as George said, was new and

10 was not known to anyone until that Mort Corn

11 letter came out.

12 Q. And after that letter came out it

13 was the conclusion of AT&T that to allow anyone

14 inside the Bell Operating System to be exposed

15 to asbestos of levels of point one fibers per

16 cc or greater would be a serious violation if

17 they werent given medical surveillance, true?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 A. When you say serious violation, do

20 you mean serious violation in the sense of an

21 OSHA fine, or do you mean serious violation in

22 a general sense as interpreted by a lay person?

23 Q. I mean a serious violation as

24 interpreted by the health and safety people at

25 AT&T in charge of safeguarding the health and

105

1 safety of employees within the Bell Operating

2 Systems?

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

4 A. What I would say is that in the

5 Bell System we would not want anyone exposed

6 above zero point one fibers per cubic

7 centimeter.

8 Q. And let me just show you this

9 document. This is a December 7, 1978, minutes

10 from the Occupational Health Working Group. Do

11 you see that?

12 A. I see it.

13 Q. All right. And its Bates Number

14 597 by the way. Do you recall seeing this

15 document in preparation for todays deposition?

16 A. I dont recall reading this one.

17 Q. Okay. I want to just blow up the

18 bottom right corner so its a little easier to

19 read.

20 MR. HORNBY: Chris, is there a

21 Bates number for that second group?

22 MR. PLACITELLA: Its page 2,

23 whatever it is. I cut it off.

24 Q. It says, quote, medical examinations

25 prescribed by the standard will be required for

106

1 any seven to eight-hour time weighted average

2 concentration of point one fibers per cc or

3 greater. Failure to provide the required

4 medical examinations for employees exposed at

5 or above the standard level will be considered

6 a serious violation of the standard. Do you

7 see that?

8 A. I see that.

9 Q. All right. And this was the

10 opinion of the people on the Occupational

11 Health Working Group, true?

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

13 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

14 A. Thats the minutes from the

15 Occupational Health Working Group.

16 Q. And that included the medical

17 director for AT&T, true?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 A. True.

20 Q. And the health and safety people

21 from Western Electric, true?

22 A. True.

23 Q. And your boss, he was there, right,

24 Mr. Schreibeis? See where it says guests?

25 A. Guests.

107

1 Q. Left-hand side.

2 A. I see him, yes.

3 Q. Okay. So we now know that AT&T –

4 lets strike that. What was the purpose of

5 medical examinations for people exposed above

6 point one fibers per cc, if you know?

7 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

8 A. The purpose was to provide as early

9 possible warning of asbestos-related diseases

10 for asbestos workers.

11 Q. It wasnt just asbestos workers.

12 Is was anyone exposed, true?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

14 A. I dont know of anyone other than

15 asbestos workers who was exposed above zero

16 point one fibers per cubic centimeter.

17 Q. Okay. Maybe Ill get to that later

18 on.

19 A. The other point I would make is

20 that the, quote, serious quote violation

21 probably means that theyre referring to how an

22 OSHA inspector might interpret everything and

23 not, as you said, the lay person.

24 Q. Okay. So what theyre saying is if

25 OSHA ever found out that they werent getting,

108

1 they werent providing medical exams to people

2 exposed above point one fibers per cc, that

3 AT&T knew that OSHA would consider that a

4 serious violation, true?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 A. I believe thats what is stated

8 here.

9 Q. And when it says failure to provide

10 them required medical examinations for

11 employees, whose employees are they referring

12 to?

13 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

14 A. Theyre referring to employees of

15 the Bell System.

16 Q. Any of the operating companies

17 within the Bell System, true?

18 A. True.

19 Q. Okay. Internally at AT&T and Bell

20 Labs any exposure above ambient levels was a

21 concern, true? Any asbestos exposure above an

22 ambient level is a concern?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 Q. Let me strike that question. Do

25 you know what it means when you say somebody

109

1 was exposed to ambient levels of asbestos

2 exposure?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. What does that mean?

5 A. It means the levels that are

6 present in the background when theres, lets

7 say, no asbestos present or there is no work

8 going on where theres asbestos materials or

9 products.

10 Q. And any, and what AT&T and Western

11 Electric considered of concern was any exposure

12 above ambient levels, true?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

14 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

15 A. Of concern? They were investigated

16 I mean exposures would be investigated.

17 Q. Well, they considered it an

18 exposure to asbestos if it was above ambient

19 levels.

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

22 Q. True?

23 A. Given the Mort Corn decision here,

24 the exposure would above the permissible

25 exposure limit of zero point one fibers per

110

1 cubic centimeter.

2 Q. Well, thats not my question. My

3 question is that AT&T, Western Electric, the

4 members of the Occupational Health Working

5 Group considered any exposure above the ambient

6 level to be an exposure to asbestos.

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

9 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

10 A. No. They did not consider it an

11 exposure asbestos because the way the asbestos

12 standard was written is you measure asbestos in

13 terms of fibers. Not necessarily asbestos

14 fibers. Fiber is something thats defined as

15 at least three times longer than it is wide.

16 So you could measure something and come up with

17 a certain number of fibers per cubic

18 centimeter, and they may not be asbestos at

19 all. So, no, I would not agree with your

20 statement that any exposure to fibers would be

21 considered an asbestos exposure.

22 Q. Okay. I want to show you the

23 minutes from the November, the October 1, 1976,

24 of the Occupational Health Working Group. Did

25 you review, its Degnan-238. Did you review

111

1 these minutes in preparation for your deposition?

2 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

3 A. I may have.

4 Q. Okay. I know theyre a little hard

5 to read so I think its okay if you dont mind

6 to go up and look closely at the second

7 paragraph because I want to be clear on this

8 issue.

9 A. Just the latter part of it? Im

10 just wondering if this could be focused.

11 Q. Just to be fair to you — I dont

12 think so. I think this is the best document

13 they gave me. Just to be fair to you, you

14 should read the whole paragraph if possible.

15 MR. HORNBY: Chris, can he read it

16 off the computer?

17 MR. PLACITELLA: Its really not

18 clearer.

19 THE WITNESS: Oh, its not any

20 clearer?

21 MR. PLACITELLA: Thats how I got

22 it.

23 MS. CRAWFORD: If you cant read

24 it, you cant read it.

25 THE WITNESS: A subcommittee met

112

1 with the — do you want me to read it as

2 well as I can?

3 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

4 Q. Yes, please.

5 A. A subcommittee met with a

6 representative of the AT&T Legal Department

7 concerning the, something, in the asbestos

8 standard. As a result of the meeting a

9 tentative position has been adopted concerning

10 exposure levels that are, something, below –

11 Q. Far below?

12 A. Far below, perhaps. I cant tell.

13 The, something, maximum. Measured levels that

14 are no higher than that of ambient air samples

15 taken at the same time will not be considered

16 an occupational exposure for purposes of

17 medical surveillance. Measured levels that are

18 higher than ambient should be considered as an

19 exposure provided that the fibers are actually

20 asbestos. This may entail the frequent, is it

21 frequent? And the, something, or other

22 techniques. Mr. Kenny will perform the

23 availability of this equipment at 8BTL as well

24 as other alternatives prior to the next meeting.

25 Q. Okay. So if a measurement is made

113

1 of asbestos fibers and the levels are higher

2 than what would be in the ambient air, according

3 to the –

4 A. And I would add, with this

5 statement here, theres another clause that

6 youve left out I believe.

7 Q. Which is what?

8 A. Measured levels that are higher

9 than ambient should be considered an exposure,

10 I believe it says, provided that the fibers are

11 actually asbestos.

12 Q. That was my question. I wasnt

13 trying to trick you.

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. What I was saying was, if a

16 measurement was made out of asbestos fibers and

17 the measurement is higher than whats in the

18 ambient air, the doctors for AT&T and Western

19 Electric considered that an occupational

20 exposure to asbestos, true?

21 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

22 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form.

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 A. Again, with the clause that theyre

25 actually asbestos fibers.

114

1 Q. That wasnt my question. Is your

2 answer to my question yes?

3 A. Sorry. Please repeat the question.

4 Q. My question is, if a measurement is

5 made of asbestos fibers and those measurements

6 show a level higher than the ambient air, that

7 that would be considered by the doctors from

8 Western Electric and AT&T as a occupational

9 exposure to asbestos?

10 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

11 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

12 A. Thats what the document states.

13 But theres a problem with defining whether or

14 not the fibers are actually asbestos and. . .

15 Q. No. I qualify my question,

16 correct?

17 A. I didnt hear you say asbestos

18 fibers. Im sorry.

19 Q. Im going to do it again. Its not

20 a trick question, I promise you.

21 A. Okay.

22 Q. Ill give you one of these when

23 its tricky, okay? My question is, is a

24 measurement is made of asbestos fibers –

25 A. Okay.

115

1 Q. — and the measurement shows a level

2 higher than the number of fibers that would be

3 found in the ambient air, the doctors for

4 Western Electric and AT&T would consider that

5 an occupational exposure to asbestos?

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 A. I dont believe that they would

8 have at that time.

9 Q. Isnt that what that document says?

10 A. Thats what the document says,

11 yes.

12 Q. Okay.

13 A. One also has to remember that

14 theres statistics and were talking typically

15 very few fibers counted on the filter.

16 Q. Well, thats interesting you say

17 that because what you were using as –

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Could I have the

19 last question read back.

20 Q. The microscope that you used when

21 you were doing your counting was a phase

22 contrast microscope?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 A. Thats correct.

25 Q. And the phase contrast microscope,

116

1 would you agree with me did not have the

2 ability to account the majority of asbestos

3 fibers that would be present in the air when

4 someone was occupationally exposed to

5 asbestos?

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

9 A. It would depend upon how the

10 asbestos fibers got put into the air.

11 Q. Like, for example, what was the

12 magnification limit for the phase contrast

13 microscope in terms of the thinness of the

14 fiber?

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

16 A. It didnt matter about the thinness

17 of the fiber. A phase contrast microscope uses

18 phase contrast to be able to see fibers that

19 are actually, you use the phase contrast method

20 to be able to see fibers that are actually

21 smaller than could be seen if you werent using

22 the phase contrast method.

23 Q. I understand that. But if you use

24 for instance, you know what TEM is?

25 A. I do.

117

1 Q. Transmission Electron Microscope?

2 A. I do. I know that.

3 Q. If you use the TEM microscope, you

4 would see many more thin fibers than you would

5 see using a phase contrast microscope, true?

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

8 A. In an air sample, perhaps. Perhaps

9 not. I dont know about that.

10 Q. Any fiber that was what, less than

11 five microns in width you would not see with a

12 phase contrast microscope, true?

13 A. Untrue. Five microns in length –

14 Q. Length.

15 A. And you could easily see fibers

16 that were smaller than five microns in length.

17 It was five microns in length in a three to one

18 aspect ratio.

19 Q. What was, if you know, and then

20 Ill move on, what was the detection limit for

21 the microscope you used in terms of the thinness

22 of the fiber that you could see?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 A. Again, because it was phase

25 contrast microscopy, I dont know what the

118

1 detection limit was. But it was well below one

2 micron.

3 Q. Okay. Last time we talked about

4 something and you referred to it today I

5 believe called transite or cable holes. Remember

6 we talked about that?

7 A. Cable holes?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

9 A. Im sorry. No, I dont recall

10 cable holes.

11 Q. Do you know what a cable hole is?

12 A. Im not familiar with that term. A

13 cable vault? Im sorry.

14 Q. Do you recognize it as a cable

15 vault?

16 A. Cable vault, yes.

17 Q. Let me do it this way. Its

18 probably easier. Im going to show you a

19 diagram that I put up. Have you ever seen this

20 diagram before?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Do you have a Bates

22 number for that?

23 MR. PLACITELLA: No.

24 THE WITNESS: No. I dont recall

25 seeing that particular diagram.

119

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to the

2 form of the question.

3 Q. Does this diagram to you depict

4 anything youre familiar with?

5 A. It appears to be running a cable

6 bundle from one floor to the next.

7 Q. Okay. And the cable bundle are the

8 vertical lines that are represented to the

9 left-hand side of the diagram?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And there is a space, is there not,

12 between the upper level floor and the lower

13 level floor?

14 A. Theres a space between the ceiling

15 of the lower level –

16 Q. Correct.

17 A. — and the floor of the upper

18 level.

19 Q. Thank you very much. Thank you for

20 doing that. And that space was, did that have

21 a name to your knowledge?

22 A. That would be the hole I guess

23 between, you know, the hole in the floor. Its

24 a hole in the floor.

25 Q. Thats why I called it the cable

120

1 hole.

2 A. Oh, all right.

3 Q. Okay?

4 A. Okay.

5 Q. All right. So is it your understanding

6 that the flooring that was used was made from

7 transite?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

9 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form.

10 A. My understanding is that the

11 flooring was made of concrete in most of the

12 operating telephone company buildings.

13 Q. In the area where the cables were

14 run from one floor to another, how would you

15 get the cable through if it was made of

16 concrete?

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

18 A. Cut a hole or drill a hole, or in

19 many cases, it might have been pre, you know

20 when the building was constructed, they

21 probably had holes put in them.

22 Q. When you say, did they drill the

23 hole in the concrete itself?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Okay. Do you have an understanding

121

1 that the material in the area where the cables

2 would be run would actually be made of a

3 product known as transite?

4 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

5 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 A. My understanding is that transite

8 was used to cover the holes where the cable was

9 not run when theres holes in the floor, and

10 that material was removed at some point.

11 Q. Okay. So the hole where you would

12 run the cables through that, in part, was

13 covered by a product known as transite, true?

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

15 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

16 A. I believe transite was one of the

17 materials that was used.

18 Q. Okay. Now, I have here, it looks

19 like its Bates Number 53157. Do you see that?

20 A. I do.

21 Q. All right. And that is a, you see

22 where it says closing cable holes and slots?

23 A. I do.

24 Q. Okay. And this is a spec and a

25 specification is written by what company?

122

1 A. Western Electric.

2 Q. All right. So Western Electric is

3 the company that provided the specifications

4 for how you were going to deal with closing

5 cable holes and slots in the Bell Operation

6 System, true?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

8 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form.

9 A. Yes, they did.

10 Q. Okay. Now, and that included New

11 Jersey Bell as well, true?

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

13 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

14 A. It did.

15 Q. Now, I have a picture up here.

16 Does that accurately reflect what it would look

17 like where the cables were running through the

18 floor and through the transite.

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

20 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

21 A. I dont know that it was transite

22 in that particular picture. I cant tell from

23 looking at it. It could have been something

24 else, steel for instance. But that is, it

25 looks like a cable bundle running through the

123

1 floor.

2 Q. All right. Lets do it this way,

3 maybe it will help you.

4 (Whereupon Mr. Placitella shows a

5 video.)

6 Q. Does that refresh your memory as to

7 why the transite, by the way, I got this from

8 AT&T, does that refresh your memory as to

9 whether transite was used and if that, in fact,

10 is transite?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

12 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

13 A. The video says it is transite. I

14 couldnt tell. I think you asked, specifically,

15 if that was a piece of transite, and I as I

16 said, I couldnt tell by looking at the video

17 whether or not it was.

18 Q. Okay. It also indicated that it

19 was the practice to cut the transite on site,

20 correct –

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

22 Q. — when new cable had to be run from

23 one floor or another.

24 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form.

25 A. It says that one should not cut the

124

1 transite as I read, understand that video.

2 Q. Lets do to again, okay? I know

3 this is the best sound quality that I was

4 provided with. I want you to listen for me and

5 determine whether the video indicates that

6 historically what was going on in the Bell

7 Operating Companies was that the transite was

8 cut on site.

9 A. Okay. I am not arguing that

10 historically it was.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. But the video, I believe the point

13 of the video is to say to stop cutting the

14 transite.

15 Q. Okay. Lets talk about it just so

16 were on the same page.

17 A. All right.

18 Q. Okay.

19 (Whereupon Mr. Placitella shows a

20 video.)

21 Q. Does that refresh your memory when

22 they talk about being cut on site?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

25 A. I wasnt arguing that historically

125

1 it was cut on site.

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. I was just trying to say that they

4 also imply that older installations may still

5 have it implying that newer insulations may

6 not.

7 Q. When it was cut on site, did you

8 see any documents in your review of the

9 materials that were provided to you to indicate

10 that were special precautions used in the clean

11 up of the debris that was generated after it

12 was cut?

13 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

15 A. I dont recall seeing any documents

16 regarding clean up of debris.

17 Q. All right. Did you see any

18 documents to indicate that something like a

19 hepa vacuum was used in order to clean up the

20 debris when the product was cut on site?

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

23 A. I recall one document when someone

24 did some testing with a vacuum cleaner, but I

25 dont recall if they specified a hepa vacuum –

126

1 Q. Okay.

2 A. — to look at reducing exposures by

3 it.

4 Q. Am I correct that once the product

5 was cut and the dust was generated in the

6 cutting on site, that it would stay in the area

7 unless it was properly abated?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

9 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

10 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

11 A. In the area or the air?

12 Q. In the area where it was done.

13 A. If thats the case, it would stay

14 there, yes.

15 Q. And do you know whether any testing

16 was ever done by AT&T, Western Electric, Bell

17 Labs, anybody, to indicate what level of

18 asbestos fibers remained in the air in a

19 specific location where the asbestos-containing

20 transite was cut?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

22 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

23 A. Im not aware of any testing that

24 was done for that.

25 Q. When the transite was cut on site,

127

1 would you expect that when it was put back down

2 you would have to push the cable through the

3 new area where the transite was cut?

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

5 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

6 A. No. I would expect that the cable

7 would already be in place.

8 Q. Okay. So what would happen? They

9 take the transite out, cut it, then fit it in?

10 A. I believe they would take the

11 transite out. They would run the new cable,

12 and then they would mark the same transite for

13 whatever new cable had to be installed and put

14 it back in place. But I have to admit that I

15 have never seen this operation performed.

16 Q. Okay. Are you aware, have you seen

17 anything in the documents that you were

18 provided to indicate that after that transite

19 was cut, any steps were taken to make sure the

20 ends where it was cut, the areas where they

21 were cut, were somehow encapsulated to prevent

22 the asbestos fibers from being released into

23 the air?

24 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

25 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

128

1 A. I did not see any document like

2 that.

3 Q. Are you aware of any practice or

4 procedure that was instituted by AT&T, Western

5 Electric, or any other entity to encapsulate

6 the area where the asbestos, where the fiber

7 was actually cut as part of this process?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

9 A. Long after the time frame I believe

10 that were talking about there was some

11 industrial hygienist at Holmdel I believe that

12 looked into some of these measurements or

13 something like that. But Im not aware of

14 anything during this time frame prior to 1984.

15 Q. Okay. Am I correct that AT&T and

16 Western Electric actually dictated the policies

17 around what was going to be done with the

18 transite used in the Bell Operating Companies?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

20 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

21 A. Policies regarding what was to be

22 done with transite. I know there were

23 documents that came out that said we no longer

24 use transite, replace it with steel covers. I

25 saw those that came out I believe 1973 or 74

129

1 if thats what you mean by dictating the

2 policies. There was also I believe I saw a

3 practice about how to cut them.

4 Q. Okay. Well, I think this is what

5 youre referring to. This is an AT&T document

6 dated September 20, 1974. Have you seen this

7 document before?

8 A. I believe this is the one that I

9 saw.

10 Q. All right.

11 A. This is the one that recommends

12 using steel instead of –

13 Q. Correct.

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. Correct.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And this recommendation, by the

18 way, is not coming from the operating companies

19 themselves, this is coming from the top,

20 right?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

22 A. Its coming from AT&T.

23 Q. And what it says is, can you look

24 down to the second paragraph? By the way, it

25 says chief engineer, general plant manager,

130

1 medical directors, and OSHA coordinators. Is

2 that for all the Bell Operating Companies?

3 A. I believe it would be.

4 Q. Okay. And the second paragraph

5 says, see where it says effective?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. All right. I want to see if I can

8 blow that up to make it easy. Actually,

9 theres a paragraph above that. It says

10 attached to this letter is a temporary

11 instruction being issued by Western Electric to

12 replace existing instructions regarding

13 transite floor and wall coverings, correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Is that your, these interim measures

16 — scratch that. These interim measures were

17 adopted after a series of meetings between

18 Western Electric, Bell Telephone Laboratories,

19 and AT&T Plant Engineering and Medical

20 Departments, true?

21 A. Thats what it says, yes.

22 Q. The Bell Operating Companies like

23 New Jersey Bell they had nothing to say about

24 this, did they?

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

131

1 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

2 A. The Western Electric is replacing

3 these things. Western Electric installation

4 crews would generally be the ones that would

5 have been running the cables and installing

6 their switching machines.

7 Q. Right.

8 A. So had nothing to say about it?

9 Id imagine if they had interest in it, they

10 would have had a lot to say about it.

11 Q. Well, Im going get to that in a

12 second. But the decision to not use transite

13 anymore in the Bell Operating Company

14 facilities including New Jersey Bell, came from

15 Western Electric and AT&T, would agree with

16 that?

17 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 A. I would agree with that.

20 Q. Okay. But the problem, sir, was

21 that employees of AT&T were complaining about

22 cutting transite and fearing for their health

23 way back in the 1960s, would you agree with

24 that?

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

132

1 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

2 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

3 A. I am not aware of any of those

4 concerns.

5 Q. I want to show you an excerpt from

6 Mr. Schreibeis deposition. He was your boss,

7 true?

8 A. True.

9 Q. And the following questions and

10 answers were provided.

11 And to do that, you had to cut

12 transite board, right?

13 Right.

14 And there was concern on the part

15 of the employees in cutting that transite

16 board that they may be releasing asbestos

17 fibers into the air.

18 ANSWER: Yes.

19 Do you remember which group of

20 employees expressed that concern back in

21 the 1960s?

22 ANSWER: Yes.

23 Which group was that?

24 ANSWER: The maintenance people.

25 Do you see that?

133

1 A. I see that.

2 Q. Is that the first time that you

3 learned today that there were people in

4 maintenance complaining back in the 1960s that

5 they were being made to cut transite?

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form.

8 A. The thing continues onto that says

9 particular geographic region Bell Labs Murray

10 Hill.

11 Q. Right. That was New Jersey, right?

12 A. Yes, but it was not New Jersey

13 Bell. Were talking Bell Laboratories

14 employees and these would be employees that

15 Bill Schreibeis worked with on a daily basis in

16 the same building.

17 Q. Thats exactly my point. Right

18 here in the State of New Jersey in Bell Labs

19 where you worked, correct, there were

20 maintenance people who were complaining in the

21 1960s about cutting transite and what it might

22 do to their health.

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

25 Q. True?

134

1 A. Thats the testimony of Mr. Schreibeis.

2 Q. Do you have any reason to dispute

3 that testimony?

4 A. I do not.

5 Q. Is this information that was

6 provided to you by the lawyers for either AT&T

7 or Lucent in preparation for todays

8 deposition?

9 A. It is.

10 Q. Okay. Now, as a result of this,

11 Bell Laboratories was actually worried about

12 people cutting transite here in New Jersey,

13 werent they?

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

15 A. Bell Laboratories was worried about

16 operations that could have created dust

17 whenever asbestos-containing products were

18 disturbed.

19 Q. And that included cutting transite

20 way back in the 1960s, true?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

22 A. I would imagine so.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. I dont know what time Bill

25 Schreibeis started work at Bell Labs. Im

135

1 surprised that he was there –

2 Q. In 65?

3 A. — maybe the late 60s.

4 Q. 1965?

5 A. Okay, yeah, I started in 69. I

6 think he was about five years before me.

7 Q. See from page 29 of his deposition

8 he was asked the following question.

9 Why were the employees concerned

10 about asbestos in the 1960s?

11 ANSWER: I dont know.

12 Was it a health-related issue.

13 ANSWER: Yes.

14 Describe the nature of the

15 health-related issue back in the 1960s.

16 ANSWER: They were concern about

17 inhaling asbestos fibers.

18 QUESTION: Were you concern about

19 them inhaling asbestos fibers back in the

20 1960s?

21 ANSWER: Yes.

22 See that?

23 A. Yeah, right.

24 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

25 Q. So cutting transite asbestos was a

136

1 concern to Bell Laboratories back in the 1960s

2 would we agree with that?

3 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

5 A. I would agree with that.

6 Q. And, in fact, it wasnt until 1970

7 that the subject of replacing transite inside

8 the Bell Operating Companies first was

9 discussed, true?

10 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

11 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

12 A. I wouldnt have any knowledge of

13 when it was first discussed.

14 Q. Okay.

15 A. I saw documents in the 1970s

16 that. . .

17 Q. This is a document that was

18 produced to me in connection with this case.

19 The Bates number is somewhat unclear on the

20 lower right-hand corner, and its dated June

21 1974. Do you see that?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. Okay. And have you seen this

24 document before today?

25 A. I believe I might have reviewed

137

1 this one.

2 Q. Okay. See where it says CIEs

3 activity with it BTO regarding the reevaluation

4 of the cable hole?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Whos CIE? Do you know?

7 A. That I do not know.

8 Q. It says in 1970, CF&M, do you know

9 who they were?

10 A. No, I dont.

11 Q. Requested AT&T to approve the

12 substitution of transite cable hole covers with

13 steel plates. Do you see that?

14 A. I see that.

15 Q. And was it done in 1970 when the

16 request was made?

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

18 A. I believe it was somewhere around

19 73 or 74 when it was done.

20 Q. It indicates, however, that test

21 results obtained in the engineering research

22 center at Princeton indicate that in certain

23 instances, the airborne fiber count was in

24 excess of the OSHA requirement. Do you see

25 that?

138

1 A. I see that.

2 Q. So were you aware that the cutting

3 of transite in relation to cable holes exceeded

4 the OSHA limits?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 A. No, I was not.

8 Q. Okay. Was that information made

9 known to you prior to today by either the

10 lawyers for AT&T or Western Electric?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

12 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

13 A. I may have read this, yeah.

14 Q. Are you aware, sir, that despite

15 having complaints about cutting transite, which

16 contained asbestos in the 1960s that AT&T and

17 Western Electric were installing almost 60,000

18 square feet a year in their facilities?

19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

21 A. I dont know the amounts, no.

22 Q. Would it concern you as an

23 industrial hygienist charged with protecting

24 employees health and safety to know that

25 60,000 square feet of transite was being

139

1 installed per year even after 1970?

2 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

4 A. I would not be concern if the

5 transite was not being cut or disturbed in any

6 way.

7 Q. But it was being cut, wasnt it?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

9 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

10 A. I dont know that it was being cut,

11 and I dont know where it was being cut.

12 Q. You dont know where. Okay. Sir,

13 how long back in time was transite — let me

14 just do this so you dont think Im making

15 anything up. You see here where it says that

16 the use of, approximately, 60,000 square feet a

17 year, Western Electric on the top line?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 A. I see that, yes.

20 Q. How far back in its history prior

21 to 1970 was Western Electric and AT&T allowing

22 transite to be installed in the Bell Operating

23 Companies facilities?

24 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

140

1 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

2 A. I have no knowledge of that.

3 Q. Would you agree it goes back at

4 least 20 years?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 A. Again, I have no knowledge of that.

8 Q. Sir, when was OSHA instituted?

9 A. 1972.

10 Q. Even after OSHA was instituted in

11 1972 and the subject of substitutes was being

12 discussed, AT&T and Western Electric was still

13 installing more than 60,000 square feet of

14 transite every year in Bell Operating System

15 Companies; isnt that true?

16 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

18 A. Thats what it says on that

19 document. I would also point out that the

20 documents that I read Mr. John Simpson of Bell

21 Laboratories had to be consulted to replace the

22 transite with steel. John Simpson was a fire

23 protection engineer.

24 The purpose of those transite

25 covers was to prevent fires in the Bell

141

1 System. One has to worry about balancing risks

2 and the risk of a fire was quite great, the

3 risk of, you know, you cant leave those cable

4 hole uncovered.

5 Q. Well, the problem –

6 A. And whether or not the steel would

7 be an appropriate thing, thats what John

8 Simpson, and I believe thats one of the

9 reasons that it took a while. John Simpson had

10 to perform fire tests to be sure that the

11 replacement that they were looking into. The

12 Bell System was very careful about safety, and

13 it could not arbitrarily decide to remove

14 something thereby increase a safety hazard.

15 Q. Okay. Well, heres the issue. The

16 first discussion at least that we can document

17 of replacing the transite was 1970, true?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

20 A. Thats the first one Ive seen

21 documented.

22 Q. All right. The replacement took

23 another, the discontinuation to another four

24 years, true?

25 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

142

1 Q. 1974.

2 A. The discontinuation, before the –

3 okay. It took them four years to decide that

4 the steel could replace the transite.

5 Q. Right. How many tests were run in

6 that four-year period, do you know, to

7 determine whether steel would work?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

9 A. I dont have access to John

10 Simpsons records so I dont know what tests he

11 did.

12 Q. Part of the problem, sir, wasnt

13 it, was that Western Electric was making and

14 selling the transite. And if they discontinued

15 the transite theyd have to buy replacement

16 from somebody other than Western Electric;

17 isnt that what was going on here?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

20 A. I was not aware that Western

21 Electric made transite. I thought transite was

22 a trademark of some other company.

23 Q. You were not aware that Western

24 Electric was involved in the manufacture of the

25 transite used in the Bell Operating Companies?

143

1 A. The manufacture of the transite or

2 the supplying of the transite to operating

3 telephone companies?

4 Q. Either one. They were making money

5 off it, right?

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

8 A. I dont know that they were making

9 money off of it. All I know is that transite

10 is a trademark name of some other company not

11 Western Electric.

12 Q. When Western Electric supplied

13 product to the Bell Operating Companies, did

14 they give it for free or did they charge for

15 it?

16 A. They charged for it.

17 Q. So they made a profit from

18 supplying the transite, true?

19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

21 A. Western Electric in a sense did not

22 make a profit. The whole of the Bell System

23 was, the profit was controlled by the Public

24 Utilities Commissions of the various states.

25 Q. So who made the profit, AT&T?

144

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

2 A. The operating telephone companies.

3 I dont know that Western Electric was a profit

4 making center.

5 Q. Well, who was the ultimate profit

6 making center? Was that AT&T?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

8 A. The operating telephone companies

9 at AT&T.

10 Q. Okay. During this period of time

11 from 1970 to 1974 when the substitute of

12 transite was being considered, what warnings

13 were provided to people who were cutting the

14 transite in the Bell Operating Company System –

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

16 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

17 Q. — during this four-year period?

18 A. Im not aware of any warnings that

19 were provided and most of the transite when it

20 was being installed would have was been

21 installed by Western Electric installers.

22 Q. What warnings were provided to the

23 people who were working in the central offices

24 who would be in the vicinity of where the

25 transite was being cut in the central offices?

145

1 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

2 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

3 A. I dont know that the it was being

4 cut in those central offices. And the other

5 point is Im not sure why a warning should be

6 issued if theres no exposure.

7 Q. Excuse me. You remember the,

8 youre aware, are you not, that the cutting of

9 the transite in the central offices actually

10 violated the OSHA regulations –

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

12 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

13 Q. — by the levels that were generated

14 during that cutting?

15 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

17 A. You showed me one document from

18 Princeton Engineering Research Center that said

19 it was above it. Thats the only evidence that

20 I have.

21 Q. Well, there was lots of discussion,

22 was there not, amongst the health and safety

23 period, people at AT&T and Western Electric

24 during this 1970 and 1974 period concerned

25 about whether the cutting of transite in the

146

1 central offices would exceed OSHA limits,

2 true?

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

4 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

5 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

6 A. Im not aware of that, but I would,

7 you know, no, I dont know that.

8 Q. Sir, would you agree that by 1974

9 of March the health effects of asbestos cable

10 hole covers were well-known within –

11 A. The health effects of cable –

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Wait. Let him

13 finish his question.

14 A. Okay. Im sorry.

15 Q. — were well-known in the Bell, to

16 Bell Laboratories?

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

18 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

19 A. I dont know that an asbestos cable

20 hole cover causes health effects.

21 Q. Okay. You see, this is a March 18,

22 1974, memo. And its on Bell Labs letterhead.

23 Do you see that?

24 A. I see it.

25 Q. And its authored by a Mr. Freid.

147

1 Do you know him?

2 A. No, I dont.

3 Q. Okay. And the subject matter on

4 the left side is transite cable hole cover. Do

5 you see that?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. And it says, the first sentence,

8 the health problems associated with a

9 generation of asbestos particles in the field

10 use of transite cable hole cover plates places

11 are fully understood by the buildings, and I

12 cant read that word, laboratories. Do you see

13 that?

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

15 A. Buildings and, yeah, right.

16 Q. Right.

17 A. Although I and Mr. Ferg is the head

18 of the Telephone Building Planning Department.

19 Q. Where did he work?

20 A. Well, I presume Whippany Road.

21 Q. Is that here in New Jersey?

22 A. Yes, it is.

23 Q. All right. And the reason they

24 were well understood; is that prior to 1974,

25 there were tests run that showed that if you

148

1 were in a central office cutting the transite

2 cable hole cover that you could generate

3 asbestos levels that would exceed that permitted

4 by OSHA, true?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

8 A. No. I dont know that thats

9 true. Ive only seen the one document that you

10 just showed me.

11 Q. Okay. This is a year earlier, July

12 5, 1973. This is on Western Electric stationery.

13 Do you see that?

14 A. Right.

15 Q. Have you seen this document before

16 today?

17 A. I may have.

18 Q. And what it says in the third

19 paragraph down is, the airborne concentration

20 in a central office of asbestos fibers

21 generated from the transite cutting process is

22 presently unknown, you see that?

23 A. Right.

24 Q. Okay.

25 A. I would argue against your statement

149

1 that it was –

2 Q. Im going to get to that. Im

3 going to convince you before its over.

4 A. Okay.

5 Q. Okay?

6 VIDEOGRAPHER: May we take our

7 break now?

8 MR. PLACITELLA: Sure.

9 VIDEOGRAPHER: Thanks. Its 1:22

10 this is the end of Tape No. 2.

11 (Whereupon a brief luncheon recess

12 is taken.)

150

1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

2 (Exhibit P-1 premarked by Mr.

3 Placitella.)

4 VIDEOGRAPHER: Its now two

5 oclock. This is Videotape Three. Were

6 back on the record.

7 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

8 Q. Okay, just to re-orient where we

9 were. Do you recall that before lunch we

10 talked about AT&T and Western Electric

11 discussing the need to replace the transite

12 cable covers with steel in 1970, remember that?

13 A. I recall that, yes.

14 Q. Okay. And I want to walk through

15 the progression of what happened next. The

16 next document I was able to find was a document

17 from July 1973 on Western Electric letterhead,

18 the subject transite cable hole covers. Do you

19 see that?

20 A. Yes, I do.

21 Q. Were you provided a copy of this

22 document in preparation for your deposition

23 today?

24 A. I dont recall this specific

25 document.

151

1 Q. And this is now what, some three

2 years after the 1970 discussions, true?

3 A. It appears to be.

4 Q. And its probably at least a year

5 before OSHA was put into place, true?

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 A. I believe so.

8 Q. And if you look down at the third

9 paragraph, see where it says the asbestos

10 concentration in central offices of asbestos

11 fibers generated from the transite cutting

12 process is presently unknown. See that?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

14 A. I see that.

15 Q. So as of this point no testing has

16 been done to determine what the level of

17 asbestos fibers were generated when cutting

18 transite in central offices even though it was

19 discussed back in 1970 that there would be a

20 replacement, true?

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

23 A. Mr. Ferg doesnt have that information

24 apparently.

25 Q. Did you see any information that

152

1 existed between 1970 and 1973 concerning

2 testing to determine what level of asbestos

3 fiber was generated during the cutting of

4 transite in the central offices?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 A. I did not see any.

7 Q. Okay. Now, it goes on to say,

8 however, we may have been, we may be in

9 violation of OSHA when working with transite

10 cable hole covers, true?

11 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

12 A. It says we have been advised that

13 we may be, yes.

14 Q. Do you know who advised them?

15 A. No, I do not.

16 Q. But clearly the issue about whether

17 cutting transite cable hole covers in central

18 offices being in violation of OSHA was being

19 discussed at Western Electric, true?

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

22 A. Im just trying to find out, this

23 is a Western Electric letter. I believe its

24 addressed to Mr. Ferg of, perhaps at Bell Lab.

25 I dont know who sent it.

153

1 Q. Now, that was in July. This letter

2 was from a couple of months earlier in May

3 1973, and this os May 24, 1973. Have you ever

4 seen this document before?

5 A. I dont recall seeing this

6 document.

7 Q. Do you know who Mr. V.J. Myers, who

8 is the addressed, the person who received this

9 document?

10 A. No. It appears to be from 222

11 Broadway, which would, I would imagine — well,

12 222 Broadway, as I recall, was a joint long

13 lines and New York Telephone building.

14 Q. Do you know the name of the person

15 who sent it?

16 A. No, I do not.

17 Q. Okay. And the re is cutting of

18 asbestos cable hole covers in central offices,

19 correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And they discuss in the first

22 paragraph a Western Electric occupation health

23 examination guide? See that?

24 A. I see that.

25 Q. All right. It says, lets start,

154

1 as you probably know, all central offices have

2 special asbestos covers for cable holes, which

3 exist between floors. Do you see that?

4 A. I see that.

5 Q. It does not say some central

6 offices. It says all, true?

7 A. Thats true.

8 Q. It says the covers must be cut to

9 the contour of the cable going through the

10 hole. Thats what you told me before, right?

11 A. Thats what I said before, yes.

12 Q. Exactly how much asbestos dust is

13 generated by the cutting process is presently

14 unknown comma consequently we do not know if we

15 are in compliance with OSHA regulations. See

16 that?

17 A. I see that.

18 Q. So as of this time, three years

19 after the discussion of replacing the transite,

20 its still not known whether theres a violation

21 in the cutting?

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

23 Q. True?

24 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

25 A. Apparently the author of this one

155

1 does not know.

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. I would also point out that saying

4 all, but he also mentions that as long as

5 asbestos fibers are released into the work

6 environment in any concentration, the exposed

7 employee shall be placed in the medical

8 surveillance program.

9 Q. Right.

10 A. Which includes physical examinations –

11 Q. Right. So the next sentence says –

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Let him finish his

13 answer.

14 Q. Oh, Im sorry.

15 A. The author apparently believed

16 that, which sort of contradicts what you

17 pointed out as other documents.

18 Q. Well, does it really contradict it

19 when we come to the conclusion, sir, that it

20 was AT&Ts position that any exposure above

21 ambient levels was considered an occupational

22 exposure? Remember that document?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 A. Of asbestos fibers.

25 Q. Right. And what he says here is,

156

1 however, according to the Western Electric

2 occupational health examination guide, have you

3 ever seen such a document?

4 A. I have not, no.

5 Q. It was never provided to you?

6 A. It was not.

7 Q. As long as asbestos fibers are

8 released in the work environment in any

9 concentration, the exposed employee shall be

10 placed on medical surveillance. The was the

11 policy apparently according to this author,

12 true?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

14 A. Thats what it says in the letter.

15 Q. Okay. Thats 1973. Now lets go

16 to March 20, 1974, almost a year later. Were

17 you shown this document in preparation for your

18 deposition?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

20 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

21 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

22 A. I dont recall reading it.

23 Q. Okay. Do you recall, sir, seeing

24 it at any time when you worked for Bell

25 Laboratories or AT&T?

157

1 A. No, I dont recall.

2 Q. And what this document says is

3 seven out of the nineteen samples were in

4 excess of the 1976 TLV and one exceeded the

5 present TLV, true?

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 A. That what it says.

8 Q. All right. And then what happens,

9 sir, is that sometime thereafter, Western

10 Electric in conjunction with AT&T decide to

11 discontinue using the transite as cable hole

12 covers, right?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

14 A. Thats the time frame, yes.

15 Q. Sometime like a year later April

16 1974 it looks like?

17 A. I believe so.

18 Q. All right. So as the chronology

19 goes, employees make complaints about cutting

20 transite in the 1960s, which were concerns of

21 Western Electric and Bell Labs, true?

22 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

23 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

24 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

25 A. Employees at Bell Laboratories made

158

1 complaints.

2 Q. Yeah.

3 A. You said Bell Laboratories and

4 Western Electric.

5 Q. Im sorry, at Bell Laboratores,

6 true?

7 A. True.

8 Q. Okay. In 1970, the need to

9 substitute transite with steel is discussed,

10 true?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

12 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

13 A. In 1970 they discuss finding a

14 substitute. Steel is proposed but is not

15 approved by the fire protection people.

16 Q. Okay. And then in 1972 OSHA is

17 passed, true?

18 A. True.

19 Q. And then no tests are run until

20 1974, two years after OSHA is passed even

21 though there is internal discussion at AT&T and

22 Western Electric that there might be violation

23 of OSHA policy, true?

24 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

159

1 A. I dont know when the test were

2 conducted.

3 Q. This was March 20, 1974, when

4 theyre talking about testing, right? See the

5 date on the top?

6 A. It doesnt say that the testing was

7 conducted in March of 1974.

8 Q. Okay. So between 1970 and 1974 no

9 action was taken by Western Electric or AT&T to

10 warn the people who are in the area where the

11 transite was being cut that they could be

12 subject to exposure exceeding the TLV.

13 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

15 Q. True?

16 A. Im sorry, was there a question

17 there?

18 Q. That was the question?

19 A. I missed it.

20 Q. At no time between 1970 and 1974

21 when it was determined that they werent going

22 to use transite anymore, were people who were

23 in the area where the transite was being cut in

24 the central offices warned about potential

25 exposure to asbestos in those areas?

160

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

2 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

3 A. Im not aware of any warnings.

4 Q. And the people who would have come

5 after the cutting was done to do work in area

6 where the asbestos was cut, they werent warned

7 that the environment might be contaminated

8 between 70 and 74, true?

9 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

10 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

11 A. As I said, Im not aware of any

12 warnings.

13 Q. Okay. And, in fact, in 1973, a

14 year after OSHA was passed, and in the same

15 year that there was concern expressed about

16 OSHA violations while cutting it, Western

17 Electric put another 67,000 square feet of

18 transite in the Bell Operating Companies.

19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

21 Q. True?

22 A. I cant verify that.

23 Q. Well, thats what you saw in the

24 documents.

25 A. That what I saw in the documents.

161

1 Q. You have nothing to dispute that.

2 A. I have nothing to dispute it.

3 Thats correct.

4 Q. All right. Now, what happens next

5 is that in 1974 the heat comes down from AT&T

6 and Western Electric were not going to use

7 asbestos-containing transite in the central

8 offices anymore. Are you with me?

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

10 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

11 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

12 Q. Are you with me?

13 A. Are you going to install transite.

14 You said are not going to use?

15 Q. Install, correct, correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. But no steps are taken at that

18 point in time to do any kind of recall of the

19 transite already in place, true?

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

22 A. I believe thats true.

23 Q. And, in fact, the transite remained

24 in place, and continued to expose employees in

25 the Bell Operating Companies for many years

162

1 thereafter.

2 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

3 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

4 Q. True?

5 A. False. If transite remained in

6 place, it did not continue to expose employees.

7 Q. Well, what would happen, sir, when

8 they had to take the transite out and recut it

9 after 1974 in order to do the work on the

10 cable?

11 A. I believe they were instructed to,

12 they had to recut the transite.

13 Q. Okay.

14 A. They were supposed to replace it

15 with steel.

16 Q. But the problem was that you

17 actually got complaints from the union five

18 years after 1974 that they were being forced to

19 work with transite cable hole covers that they

20 believed that they were concerned would cause

21 cancer, true?

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

23 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

24 A. Im not aware of those union

25 complaints.

163

1 Q. Are you saying to me, sir, that in

2 preparation for your deposition today, the

3 lawyers for AT&T and Lucent never provided you

4 with any documents to show you that the union

5 was complaining that theyre afraid the workers

6 were going to get cancer five years after you

7 discontinued using these products?

8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

10 A. I dont recall seeing any document.

11 Q. This is a May 1979 document, Bates

12 Number 1038 from the Communication Workers of

13 America. See that?

14 A. I see it.

15 Q. Was this document provided to you?

16 A. If it was, I didnt read it.

17 Q. Okay. And this is now seven years

18 after OSHA, true?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

20 A. Im looking for the date. Im not

21 seeing it right now. I guess 79 is that the

22 date?

23 Q. See on the bottom?

24 A. On the bottom. I was looking at

25 the top.

164

1 Q. Its also on the top, youre right.

2 A. Okay.

3 Q. Right.

4 A. I guess it says 79.

5 Q. 5/11/79?

6 A. Okay.

7 Q. You see where it says old asbestos

8 covers that are now being replaced contain a

9 cancer causing agent?

10 A. I see thats what youve written.

11 I would imagine thats what it says.

12 Q. Okay. Can you tell me what steps

13 between 1974 and 1979 Western Electric or AT&T

14 took to make sure that the people in the field,

15 in the Bell Operating Companies knew that the

16 transite cable covers were capable of causing

17 cancer if they were exposed to dust generator

18 from those covers?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

20 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

21 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

22 A. I do know that the Bell System

23 Services Group took quite a number of samples,

24 myself among them, in central offices to look

25 for the presence of asbestos. And we did not

165

1 see any in those central offices.

2 Q. Yeah, but do you remember the last

3 time we had a discussion, I asked you,

4 specifically, you took samples in the cafeteria,

5 you took them over where the people were

6 answering the phones. But did you ever take

7 them in the area where the cable, the cable

8 hole covers were actually cut? And your answer

9 was youre not aware of any.

10 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

12 A. We took them in the areas where the

13 cable hole covers were cut. We did not take

14 them while they were being cut.

15 Q. So you went in and looked to see

16 where exactly the areas where they were being

17 cut and what did you find?

18 A. We found basically nothing or well

19 below zero point one fibers per cubic

20 centimeter.

21 Q. See, the problem was right, that

22 the asbestos that was being cut, a lot of it

23 ended up falling into the holes between the

24 floors. Are you aware of that?

25 A. I doubt that. If you take a look

166

1 at the video that you showed, it showed them

2 cutting it on a vice. That was not cut in the

3 area of the cable hole cover.

4 Q. Were you aware –

5 A. I would suspect thats where they

6 would do the cutting.

7 Q. Were you aware that there were

8 actual complaints made that there was asbestos

9 in the holes between the floors as a result of

10 cutting the cable covers?

11 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

13 A. I was not made aware of that.

14 Q. Why not?

15 A. I would be quite surprised that –

16 if we had heard about that in the Bell System

17 Services Group, thats certainly something we

18 would have looked at.

19 Q. Okay. You see this is now six

20 years later after you got the complaint about

21 people and the Bell Operating Companies being

22 exposed to cancer causing asbestos. See that,

23 July 10, 1985?

24 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

25 A. I see that.

167

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

2 Q. And who is it addressed to, sir?

3 A. George Beckloff, M.D., Medical

4 Director of AT&T Technologies Incorporated so.

5 Q. Hes the medical, sir?

6 A. Of AT&T Technologies. Im not

7 familiar with that division of the system.

8 Q. Okay. Well, if somebody was a

9 medical director of an operating company, would

10 they have gotten information from AT&T and

11 Western Electric about the dangers of asbestos?

12 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Im just going to

14 object to the record cause the document

15 also postdates 1984.

16 A. Once again, I dont believe AT&T

17 Technologies, Im trying to remember. I think

18 AT&T Technologies might have been a spin-off or

19 subset of Western Electric.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. And not an operating telephone

22 company.

23 Q. Okay. And it says, and its from

24 the union, correct?

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

168

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. And he says Dear Dr. Beckloff, in

3 past years installers were frequently exposed

4 to airborne asbestos particles during the

5 course of various work operations. Do you see

6 that?

7 A. I see that.

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

9 Q. It says the greatest exposure

10 probably was from asbestos cable hole covers on

11 most cable running jobs. Installers cut those

12 asbestos covers with hack saws causing a great

13 deal of dust. Did I read that correct?

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

15 A. Thats what it says, yes.

16 Q. Over a period of time, dust

17 containing asbestos fibers accumulated in the

18 cable holes and this in turn became airborne

19 anytime a cable hole was opened. Respirators

20 or even dust masks were not available. See

21 that?

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

23 A. I do.

24 Q. After this complaint was lodged,

25 what, if anything, did AT&T or any of the other

169

1 others companies in charge of the employee

2 safety and health do to investigate this

3 complaint?

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

5 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 A. I dont know. I havent seen this

8 before.

9 Q. So if you received this kind of

10 statement or this kind of complaint in 1985,

11 what would you have recommended be done in

12 order to address this issue?

13 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection. And

15 again, hes here as a designated witness.

16 And the objection limits his testimony to

17 pre-1984.

18 Q. You can answer it.

19 A. Basically, it would depend on what

20 the company is, but post 1984, Bell Laboratories

21 was part of AT&T. If this was Western Electric,

22 I probably would have passed this, if I had

23 received this, I would have passed it on to the

24 Western Electric Industrial Hygienist that were

25 responsible for that. If it was an operating

170

1 telephone company, I would have basically

2 passed it on to the operating telephone company

3 and suggested that Bell Laboratories was ready

4 to assist them on a contract basis.

5 If I had seen it prior to 1984, we

6 certainly would have been interested in making

7 measurements where this potential exposure

8 would have existed. I dont recall ever

9 getting any requests or anything like that.

10 And asbestos was something that we were

11 definitely interested in, and we were urgently

12 looking for any kind of potential exposures

13 that might cause health hazards.

14 That was our job. Thats what we

15 were paid to do. And we were, I thought we

16 were quite diligent in going out and looking,

17 trying to get information on where we could

18 find potential exposures and determine what the

19 exposures were and that control measures were

20 necessary.

21 Q. Yes, sir, I appreciate that. I

22 appreciate that. The problem is unless

23 somebody tells you, theres nothing you can do

24 about it, true?

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

171

1 A. Untrue. We, basically, were

2 assigned to go out and talk to people, find out

3 what the exposures were. That was the purpose

4 of the baseline industrial hygiene survey.

5 Q. All right. Did you ever go in the

6 cable holes and determine whether there was

7 asbestos exposure from unpacking the cable

8 holes?

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

10 Q. Did you ever do any readings?

11 A. We did not.

12 Q. But you knew, for example, that

13 going back to 1924, bags full of asbestos were

14 jammed into cable holes from time to time,

15 true?

16 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

17 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 A. False. I did not know anything

20 about the bags of asbestos-containing

21 material. I dont know what time frame I

22 became aware of that, but I suspect it was well

23 after 1984.

24 Q. So youre saying to me that

25 although you went to work as a hygienist and

172

1 you were put in charge of doing surveys to

2 safeguard the health of employees in the Bell

3 Operating Companies, no one told you that they

4 were shoving bags that contained asbestos into

5 these cable holes historically until sometime

6 after 1984.

7 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

8 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

10 A. That is correct. No one told me

11 about that.

12 Q. Okay.

13 A. I also saw some documents about the

14 number of bags of asbestos-containing material

15 and Im not exactly sure what the time frame

16 was. I believe the number of bags was 149 or

17 something like that, that had been purchased.

18 Q. Yeah, but that was years after they

19 were discontinued, right?

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

22 A. I believe that was the year that

23 they were discontinued. Someone did a survey

24 to find out how many had been ordered in the

25 previous seven years. And they found out that

173

1 in the previous seven years 149 had been

2 ordered.

3 Q. Right.

4 A. Which is a surprisingly small

5 number given the number of central offices that

6 the Bell System had.

7 Q. But no one went back to see how

8 many bags were shoved in the holes all over the

9 Bell Operating System, did they?

10 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

11 A. Prior to those seven years, prior

12 to that document, Im not aware of it.

13 Q. And this document that was written

14 by the, this wasnt just some union guy, right?

15 This was written by the president of the union,

16 true?

17 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 A. Thats what it says.

20 Q. And what he says here is that hes

21 talking about what historically happened, not

22 what happened in 1985, true?

23 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

24 A. Hes talking about people with over

25 13 years or something like of service.

174

1 Q. Right. Not 1985 only, true?

2 A. Thats what he is referring to.

3 Q. And he says what the practice was.

4 And he says over a period time dust containing

5 asbestos fibers accumulated in the cable

6 holes. See that?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

8 A. I see that.

9 Q. But just to be clear, at no time,

10 no document that you looked at, no one you

11 spoke to, no transcript thats given to you,

12 have you found any evidence that there was

13 testing concerning what kind of exposure

14 occurred for people who had to go into the

15 cable holes, true?

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

17 A. People did not go into the cable

18 holes.

19 Q. Took material out of the cable

20 holes. Ill amend my question.

21 A. Okay. Im not aware of any

22 documents for that, but I do know that we did

23 extensive monitoring in central offices in the

24 general air. And the normal exposure that

25 people worked in the central offices both in

175

1 the switching areas and in the distribution

2 frames, the levels were low typically below

3 ambient levels measured outside the buildings.

4 Q. Well, Im going to get to that, but

5 you went and you tested, for instance, where

6 the, some of the equipment was, right?

7 A. We tested where the people were

8 working where the equipment was.

9 Q. You tested the cafeterias?

10 A. We tested cafeterias.

11 Q. You tested some hallways?

12 A. We tested hallways.

13 Q. You tested some bathrooms?

14 A. We tested bathrooms.

15 Q. But you never tested the place

16 where they shoved the asbestos in for 70

17 years.

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

20 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

21 A. Untrue. We tested the areas by the

22 main distribution frames and that would be the

23 areas where they would be, if they had to,

24 remove a cable hole cover. We tested those

25 areas. We tested the area in the central

176

1 office switching areas where people would be

2 walking around. So, yes, we did test it.

3 I might have mentioned that in

4 industrial hygiene we have a couple of ways of

5 testing. We test under normal operations and

6 we did numerous tests among that. And we also

7 test what would be considered worse test

8 operations.

9 Q. When were the first tests run by

10 your office, AT&T, Western Electric, any of

11 them to determine whether there was asbestos

12 exposure in areas where cable hole covers were

13 installed?

14 A. I saw a letter by Robert Edgerley

15 where he discussed asbestos measurements with

16 Western Electric installation people prior to

17 the time when I joined the Bell System Services.

18 When I joined the Bell System Services Group in

19 1975, thats when we started testing in those

20 areas.

21 Q. So the first time you tested people

22 who were exposed as bystanders in the Bell

23 Operating Companies was after 1975, would you

24 agree with that?

25 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

177

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

2 A. I was not employed in the Bell

3 System Services Group until 1975 so, yes, I

4 would have to say that I didnt do any testing

5 until 1975 and later.

6 Q. Well, have you been provided with

7 any documents to indicate that anybody else did

8 any testing?

9 A. As I said earlier, I saw a memo

10 from Robert Edgerley where he discussed

11 asbestos measurements taken by Western Electric

12 industrial hygienist prior to the 1975 time

13 frame.

14 Q. Now, in addition to the asbestos on

15 the floor, the transite was also used on the

16 walls in the central offices, true?

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

18 A. Thats what the document say.

19 Q. Okay. Well, you have nothing to

20 dispute that?

21 A. I have nothing to dispute that.

22 Q. Do you know what a cable rack is?

23 A. I do.

24 Q. What is a cable rack?

25 A. A cable rack is a place where the

178

1 cables general come from floor to floor.

2 Theres, what Im considering a cable rack,

3 theres two different types. One would be a

4 cable rack that supplies power to the central

5 office switching. I dont think youre

6 referring to that.

7 Youre referring to the main

8 distribution, I would call it the distribution

9 frame, the main distribution frame. Cables

10 come up through the cable holes, go into, I

11 believe the either the vertical or the

12 horizontal side that gets connected to the

13 cables that go from floor to floor. The

14 horizontal or vertical side on the other side

15 of that basically go to the switching machines.

16 Q. Okay. And the cable racks are

17 affixed to the transite walls, true?

18 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

19 A. I dont think any of the walls were

20 transite and the cable racks that Im familiar

21 with, if youre talking central offices, or

22 free-standing devices made of metal that hold

23 the wires.

24 Q. I think were talking about two

25 different things. I apologize.

179

1 A. It could be. I was thinking of

2 central offices. Are you referring now to

3 something else?

4 Q. Well, let me do it this way. Its

5 probably easier. Pictures are always better.

6 By the way, do you recall if the material

7 thats used in the central offices is actually

8 referred to as asbestos lumber?

9 A. I do not.

10 Q. Were you ever made aware of that?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Okay. I have a document that was

13 provided to me by your counsel and on the left

14 hand, eight point nine. Have you ever seen

15 this document before by the way?

16 A. I do recall reading that stuff.

17 Q. Okay. It says asbestos lumber

18 covers of cables holes in floors, shafts, or

19 walls and of cable slots. You see that?

20 A. I do.

21 Q. All right. Does that refresh your

22 memory about asbestos lumber?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 A. It does.

25 Q. Okay. And what was, the asbestos

180

1 lumber for the floors, that was the transite

2 that weve been talking about for the last 45

3 minutes, true?

4 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

5 A. I believe it was.

6 Q. What was the asbestos lumber used

7 for shafts and walls?

8 A. I dont know about shafts. I

9 believe the asbestos lumber, if you want to

10 call it that, it would be used, again, to

11 provide a fire safe material where they have

12 cables passing through walls.

13 Q. Okay. Now, theres a diagram on

14 the right that comes with this document and it

15 talks about — see where I have the blue

16 arrow?

17 A. I do.

18 Q. And there is, and you see the line

19 down on the left, asbestos lumber cover?

20 A. At the moment, oh, I do now, yes.

21 Q. Now, you see the vertical wall

22 going up, you see that?

23 A. I must admit that I had trouble

24 understanding what these sections were, so is

25 that a wall? Thats a vertical line?

181

1 Q. Do you know whether that was the

2 wall made out of asbestos lumber?

3 A. I dont recall any walls being made

4 of asbestos lumber.

5 Q. You just dont know one way or the

6 other?

7 A. I dont know one way or the other.

8 Q. Okay. What about shafts, what do

9 they mean by shafts made out of asbestos

10 lumber?

11 A. Again, I dont know what they mean

12 by shafts of asbestos lumber.

13 Q. Do you know whether the asbestos

14 lumber in the central offices was ever drilled

15 into?

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

17 A. I never saw it being done.

18 Q. You actually did some tests in

19 another context for the drilling of transite

20 yourself, didnt you?

21 A. I dont recall doing that. I know

22 that some tests were made. I dont recall.

23 Q. You dont recall yourself doing the

24 test?

25 A. I dont recall.

182

1 Q. Okay. Now, remember we talked

2 about the asbestos bags that they were shoved

3 into the hole between the floor and the ceiling,

4 remember that?

5 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

6 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

8 A. As I read the document, I dont

9 recall ever seeing it, but as I read the

10 document, they were call temporary bags.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. That would be I guess replaced

13 later on with mineral wool bags.

14 Q. Well, you got kind of somebody just

15 kind of selected documents and gave them to

16 you. They didnt give you all the documents

17 and stuff on the cable bags, right?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

20 A. I dont know that. I know the ones

21 I was given. I cant say that I got all of the

22 documents.

23 Q. All right. Lets look at the video

24 and see what you actually say in your training

25 video about the bags, okay? You tell me if

183

1 they talk about them being temporary bags.

2 (Whereupon Mr. Placitella shows

3 video.)

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

5 Q. Have you ever seen that video

6 before, sir?

7 A. I dont recall. Perhaps I have.

8 Q. That blue bag thats in the mans

9 hand, is that what an asbestos bag would look

10 like other than the color?

11 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form

13 and my objection to the characterization

14 of the photograph.

15 Q. Well, lets play it again, make

16 sure were doing the same thing.

17 (Whereupon Mr. Placitella shows

18 video.)

19 Q. Did you understand, sir, that the

20 older versions of bags before the replacement

21 project contained asbestos?

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

23 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

24 A. Thats what was stated on the

25 video.

184

1 Q. And, sir, those bags, they were

2 manufactured by Western Electric, werent

3 they?

4 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

5 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

6 A. I dont know who manufactured them.

7 They were supplied by Western Electric.

8 Q. Well, this is a document I got from

9 your lawyers. Does it say that its a Western

10 Electric bag?

11 A. It says its a Western Electric

12 bag, but it says R9440 so Im not sure what the

13 R means, but the different letters in front

14 of them typically tell whether they were –

15 also, if you noticed what I said before, its a

16 temporary cable hole closure.

17 Q. Yes, sir. Cause thats something

18 that happened in the later years close to 1974,

19 true?

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

22 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

23 A. Again, I dont know what the time

24 frame was.

25 Q. Well, the document, the bags that

185

1 were used going back to the 1920s, they

2 werent temporary bags. They were shoved in

3 the cable holes as permanent fire stopping,

4 werent they?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

8 A. I would have no knowledge of that.

9 Q. Okay. I put up another document

10 marked Degnan-1536. Do you see that?

11 A. I see it.

12 Q. Have you seen this document before

13 today?

14 A. I dont recall seeing this one.

15 Q. This talks about discovery of an

16 asbestos cable hole bag. See that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. And it says it has been

19 recently come to our attention that an old

20 cable hole bag dating back to the 1920s has

21 been discovered packed in a cable hole. Do you

22 see that?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 A. I see that.

25 Q. Assuming that this happened

186

1 sometime in 1970, would you agree with me that

2 if it was there from the 1920s that it wasnt

3 temporary?

4 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

6 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

7 A. It may have been temporary when it

8 was put in.

9 Q. Now, sir, so what we now know is

10 that cable hole bags that contained asbestos

11 were used in the Bell Operating Companies going

12 back to the 1920s, true?

13 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to the form.

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

15 A. Thats what the document states.

16 Q. Okay. And those bags were off

17 white in color, true?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to the form.

20 A. I said I havent read the document

21 so that could be what it says.

22 Q. All right. Lets look. Im going

23 to blow up Number Five on the bottom. See, if

24 an old cable hole bag off white in color with

25 the designations 944 or 9440, you see that?

187

1 A. I see that.

2 Q. All right. So the bags that

3 contained asbestos going back to the 1920s, at

4 least according to this report, were off white

5 in color.

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

8 A. Okay.

9 Q. Do you agree?

10 A. Again, I havent seen the bags, and

11 so I dont know. I dont know the specifications.

12 Q. Okay.

13 A. This is not a specification for the

14 bags.

15 Q. This is what somebody found when

16 they went looking.

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. And what happened was, that those

19 bags, they were finally discontinued in 1974,

20 right?

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

22 A. I saw a document that said that, I

23 believe it was 1974 that said they should

24 discontinue the use and they should pull out

25 all of the 149 that have been ordered in the

188

1 last seven years.

2 Q. Right. But no program was put

3 together to look in all the other cable holes

4 throughout the Bell System to see how many

5 other asbestos bags were left.

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 A. Im not aware of any program for

8 doing that. And as this document implies, at

9 least this one starts out with, be careful when

10 youre opening it up.

11 Q. Sir, you read my clients, Mr. Degnans

12 deposition, true?

13 A. I did.

14 Q. Are you aware of anything, anywhere

15 that indicated that Mr. Degnan was warned to be

16 careful when he opened the cable holes or

17 worked around the cable holes that he could be

18 exposing himself to asbestos?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

20 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

21 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

22 A. Im not aware that Mr. Degnan

23 specified that he opened the cable holes. I

24 dont recall seeing that in the testimony.

25 Q. You dont remember one way or the

189

1 other?

2 A. I dont remember him saying that.

3 Q. Do you remember Mr. Degnan talking

4 about working with off white cable hole bags?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 A. Yes, I guess I do remember some

8 statement like that.

9 Q. And do you recall or have you seen

10 any information anywhere that would indicate

11 that AT&T or Western Electric warned Mr. Degnan

12 not to protect himself when he was around white

13 cable holes?

14 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

16 A. I dont see one would need to be

17 warn. The bags as I saw specifications for

18 them were made of canvas or some kind of

19 cloth. The asbestos was inside.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. One would not expect to get

22 airborne asbestos fibers on it. If its

23 asbestos, its covered with a cloth bag.

24 Q. Was any test ever done by Bell

25 Labs, AT&T, or Western Electric, to your

190

1 knowledge, to determine whether the asbestos

2 fibers could be released from the handling of

3 the bag?

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

5 A. Im not aware of any tests that

6 were done.

7 Q. You agree with me, sir, that

8 asbestos fibers can be, the ones that kill you,

9 microscopic, true?

10 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

12 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

13 A. Almost certainly the microscopic

14 ones. The larger ones are going to settle out

15 in the air.

16 Q. And canvas, would you agree with me

17 sir, that canvas is a porous material?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

20 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

21 A. No.

22 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that

23 microscopic fibers have the inherent capacity

24 to pass through the spaces in a piece of

25 canvas?

191

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

2 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

3 A. It would be highly unlikely for

4 them to pass through that.

5 Q. Why do you say that?

6 A. Because the canvas for the fibers

7 would basically act as a filtering material

8 such a respirator or a dust mask that people

9 use. And any fibers that were inside would

10 likely be trapped. Any concentration of fibers

11 that you would have inside the bag would be

12 greatly attenuated by passing through a cloth

13 bag.

14 Q. Well, youre aware, arent you that

15 even these cloth respirators, masks, allow a

16 certain percentage of asbestos to pass through

17 them?

18 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

20 A. My understanding of the aerosol

21 physics fibers are much more likely to be

22 captured than the other small particles.

23 People that work with hepa filters, hepa

24 filters are 99.97 percent efficient at

25 capturing fibers — of capturing particles at

192

1 three-tenths of a micro. Asbestos fibers

2 because they are long and wide, they are much

3 more likely to be captured than the 99.97

4 percent.

5 Q. Sir, the description of using cable

6 hole bags in the cable holes, they werent

7 placed really nice and calmly in the hole, were

8 they?

9 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

10 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

11 A. As Ive said, Ive never seen the

12 operation, so.

13 Q. Sir, have you reviewed documents

14 that show that the bags were shoved into the

15 hole tightly because the purpose was to act as

16 a fire stop?

17 A. Yes.

18 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

19 Q. And when you pull out the bags that

20 are shoved in tightly through a small whole, is

21 it your opinion, sir, that theres no ability

22 of the asbestos fibers to be generated when

23 youre manipulating those bags?

24 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

25 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

193

1 A. It is my opinion that there is a

2 very chance of asbestos fibers escaping from

3 the inside of the bags.

4 Q. And thats because you did tests to

5 determine that that could happen, true?

6 A. No. Thats based on my knowledge

7 of industrial hygiene principles, aerosol

8 physics, and things like that.

9 Q. But all you had to do to determine

10 whether people were at risk was to run a test.

11 You had one of the greatest testing laboratories

12 in the world, didnt you?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

14 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

15 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

16 A. I had the ability to run the test,

17 but no one ever informed me. I was not aware

18 of asbestos being placed inside bags. I dont

19 know what the time frame was, but it was well

20 after 1984.

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. And I would further add that we,

23 specifically, went out and we asked people, we

24 asked the supervisors, we asked the employees

25 we were working with, we asked medical

194

1 directors, we asked the safety directors what

2 are the hazards that youre working with. And

3 we made a deliberate effort to evaluate those

4 hazards so.

5 Q. Just like you, right, if somebody

6 didnt tell them it was asbestos, they wouldnt

7 know it was a hazard, right?

8 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

10 A. I would think, I dont know what

11 these were defined as other than R9440, but I

12 suspect they might have been designated as

13 asbestos, again, because its fireproofing so.

14 Q. Right.

15 A. I dont believe there was any

16 deliberate effort — Im sorry, Im certain

17 AT&T would not make a deliberate effort to hide

18 the fact that the bags contained asbestos from

19 their employees.

20 Q. Well, Im not implying that, sir.

21 What Im saying is that you –

22 A. Youre implying that we wouldnt

23 know because the employees wouldnt know. My

24 statement is that, you know, that AT&T and New

25 Jersey Bell was very careful in letting its

195

1 employees know what they were working with, and

2 if they had that, it would not have been a

3 hidden thing from them that there asbestos in

4 those bags. And I believe that I would have

5 learned, and we would have done testing.

6 Q. Well, thats my point the fact that

7 the bags contained asbestos go back to the

8 1920s and it was your job to do the testing

9 and nobody ever told you that the bags contained

10 asbestos. Dont you find that remarkable?

11 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

13 A. No, I dont because there were

14 thousands of products that were in the Bell

15 System.

16 Q. But one of your jobs was –

17 A. And this particular, these bags

18 were used very infrequently. There was not a

19 whole lot of running cables from floor to

20 floor. That was typically done when you

21 installed the central offices. So were

22 talking an operation that would be done — I

23 probably shouldnt guess, but I would guess in

24 a given central office once a year if that.

25 Q. Okay.

196

1 A. And it would take to do that,

2 probably a half an hour to an hour or two.

3 Were not talking a continuous exposure such as

4 a person who works at an asbestos mine

5 manufacturing plant providing insulation.

6 Were talking a very brief duration exposure.

7 Youre asking if I were to ask you know what

8 hazards that you were exposed to as a lawyer, I

9 suspect I wouldnt get a complete listing of

10 everything. But I would try to evaluate what

11 those were.

12 Q. I appreciate that. Just for the

13 record, do you remember what my question was?

14 A. Your question, your statement I

15 believe was that it was unusual or you were

16 surprised that I had not been informed of the

17 asbestos in these bags.

18 Q. Okay. Let me just back up and then

19 Ill move on.

20 A. Okay.

21 Q. Youre hired to do testing to

22 determine if theres a health hazard in various

23 locations in the Bell Operating System, true?

24 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

25 Q. True?

197

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Okay. And one of the things youre

3 testing is for asbestos, true?

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. And you run tests from the time.

6 You get there in 1975 up through the divestiture

7 in 1974, true?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. And no one ever told you that the

10 bags in the cable holes might contain asbestos

11 during that time period, true?

12 A. I dont recall ever hearing that.

13 Q. Now, do you know what an asbestos

14 pad is?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. What is an asbestos pad?

17 A. The asbestos pad that Im familiar

18 with is a woven, a pad, a woven pad made out of

19 asbestos.

20 Q. All right. And that was used by

21 cable splicers?

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

23 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

24 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

25 A. I dont recall the cable splicers

198

1 using asbestos pads.

2 Q. Do you recall Mr. Degnan testifying

3 that he used an asbestos wiping pad in conjunction

4 with welding?

5 A. Soldering I believe was the term he

6 used –

7 Q. Soldering.

8 A. — and I believe, I remember him

9 stating he used an asbestos pad.

10 Q. Okay. And that was a recognized

11 source, a potential exposure to asbestos in the

12 Bell Operating Companies, true?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

14 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

15 A. False.

16 Q. False?

17 A. False.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. I did some testing of the soldering

20 operations. I actually took a short course on

21 how to do the soldering operations. I was

22 given a leather glove, and I was given a cloth

23 pad that I used for doing the wiping. It did

24 not contain asbestos or I believe it did not

25 contain asbestos. It looked to be a cloth

199

1 pad.

2 Q. Okay. So the one you ran the test

3 didnt have asbestos.

4 A. I didnt do a test on it, but the

5 one that I was using, did not contain asbestos.

6 Q. Well, how could you be doing a test

7 on asbestos if you were using something that

8 didnt contain asbestos?

9 A. I was doing a test on lead and

10 solder.

11 Q. Oh, okay. Were you ever made aware

12 that before you got to, you started to work for

13 Bell Labs that the cloth that was used in the

14 soldering operations contained asbestos?

15 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

17 A. I was not informed.

18 Q. Never?

19 A. No, I dont recall being told

20 that.

21 Q. This is a document that was provided

22 to me by your counsel and its entitled,

23 Control of Asbestos Exposure by James Degen.

24 Whos James Degen?

25 A. James Degen was an assistant safety

200

1 director at AT&T, and I believe the secretary

2 of the OHWG.

3 Q. And you worked with him?

4 A. He worked for AT&T. I worked for

5 Bell Labs. Yes, I knew him.

6 Q. Okay. And Im just going to focus

7 where the blue arrow is. See where it says

8 additional actions have been taken on other

9 sources of potential, and other sources of

10 potential exposure have been identified. These

11 include work practices and special equipment

12 for brakes and clutch work. You see that?

13 A. I see that.

14 Q. Replacement of asbestos gloves with

15 the different material. You see that?

16 A. I see that.

17 Q. Substitute of a fiberglass heat

18 shield, heat shield pad for the original

19 asbestos pad. See that?

20 A. I see that.

21 Q. All right. So were you ever told

22 before today that the asbestos shield pad

23 contained asbestos before it had fiberglass?

24 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

25 A. I dont recall that, no. I just

201

1 know that 1975, 76 I took a short course in

2 lead wiping and I was given a cloth pad.

3 Q. All right. Well, let me show you

4 the next, this I got directly from AT&T.

5 A. Okay.

6 Q. Lets watch it together. Did you

7 ever see that before today?

8 A. Possibly. Ive seen those soldering

9 stations.

10 Q. The pad that you used, did it look

11 like that?

12 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to form.

13 A. The pad that Im referring to was

14 pads that were used by cable splicers for work

15 in the cables, Im not talking about a

16 soldering iron. Im talking about soldering

17 parts. This is a soldering iron that would be

18 used by central office technicians not by cable

19 splicers.

20 Q. And you recognize that as an

21 asbestos pad?

22 A. Possibly an asbestos pad.

23 Q. Would you consider, lets look at

24 it again. Would you consider this particular,

25 well, Ill just blow it up. Would you consider

202

1 this particular pad friable or nonfriable based

2 upon observation?

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

4 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

5 A. I have no way of determining one

6 way or the other.

7 Q. Well, you see all that asbestos,

8 does that look like something you should be

9 breathing in?

10 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

11 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

12 A. That looks to me like the flux from

13 the solder, not dust.

14 Q. Can you tell me in your review of

15 all the materials in preparation for todays

16 deposition, have you ever seen a single test

17 performed by AT&T, Western Electric or Bell

18 Labs to determine whether a cable splicer using

19 asbestos pads would be exposed to asbestos

20 fibers?

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

23 A. I dont recall doing any tests or

24 anyone in the group doing any tests of asbestos

25 while they were using the leather gloves and

203

1 the cloth pads that were in use at the time we

2 did our test by the cable splicers. We were

3 doing –

4 Q. But, sir, you did your test after

5 you got there in 1975. They already stopped

6 using the asbestos, didnt they?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

9 A. If they had stopped using it, there

10 was no way I could test to find out what their

11 exposures were.

12 Q. Thats exactly my point. And in

13 reviewing the historical documents, did you see

14 any tests done by anybody at AT&T, Western

15 Electric or Bell Labs about whether asbestos

16 was released when working with asbestos-containing

17 wiping pads?

18 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

20 A. Again, Im not aware of asbestos-

21 containing wiping pads so I couldnt have

22 reviewed that.

23 Q. You understand that in addition to

24 the transite board used in central offices

25 there was also transite pipe or ductwork used

204

1 out in the field by Bell Operating Companies,

2 true?

3 A. True.

4 Q. Okay. And youre aware that that

5 transite ductwork contained, approximately, 40

6 percent asbestos, true?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

9 A. I dont know the percentage, but I

10 wouldnt be surprised.

11 Q. And about 10 percent of that

12 product was actually know as crocidolite

13 asbestos, true?

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

15 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

16 A. I dont know.

17 Q. I have put up another document

18 provided by your counsel related to transite

19 conduit. Do you see that?

20 A. I see it.

21 Q. Do you see where it says chrysotile

22 asbestos 25 percent?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And 10 percent crocidolite?

25 A. I see that.

205

1 Q. Approximately, 35 percent total?

2 A. Right.

3 Q. Okay. Were you shown this document

4 in preparation for todays deposition?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

6 A. I was not.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. Or if I was given it, I didnt read

9 it.

10 Q. It was the opinion, was it not, of

11 AT&T and Bell Labs and Western Electric that

12 exposure to asbestos generated from transite

13 ductwork could cause mesothelioma?

14 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

16 A. No. What exposure? Im sorry.

17 Q. No?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Okay. Im going to show you whats

20 been marked, I guess its 29912 provided to you

21 by counsel. See on the top it says transite

22 overview outline.

23 A. I see that.

24 Q. And it says what is transite pipe.

25 And it says what?

206

1 A. Im sorry Im missing it.

2 Q. See right on the bottom?

3 A. Oh, cementitious and asbestos-containing.

4 Q. All right. And you see underneath

5 where it says how it is a health threat?

6 A. Right.

7 Q. And you see under the section

8 Associated Diseases?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10 Q. And it says one of the diseases is

11 mesothelioma, true?

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

13 A. Thats correct.

14 Q. And another one is asbestosis?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And another one is lung cancer.

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Were you shown this document by

19 your lawyers in preparation for todays

20 deposition?

21 A. No. But I would point out that

22 this is a transite overview outline. And if

23 you take a look at how is it a health threat,

24 friable crumbles under simple hand pressure;

25 nonfriable enclosed in a hard compound.

207

1 Transite I would define as B,

2 nonfriable, enclosed in a hard compound. This

3 appears to be an outline to inform people of

4 transite, its like a training session so you

5 can talk about –

6 Q. Right.

7 A. — whether its friable or

8 nonfriable. You can point out the fact that

9 the transite is generally or is nonfriable.

10 The associated diseases, the way

11 they have it is a health threat, but those are

12 associated diseases for asbestos not necessarily

13 for transite.

14 Q. Well –

15 A. And, again, it would be the

16 materials transite when inhaled as an exposure.

17 Not transite sitting in the ground or on the

18 floor or anything like that. It would only be

19 the fibers, of the asbestos fibers for the

20 transite also generated.

21 Q. Right.

22 MR. MCGOWAN: I just want to object

23 to it. I dont see a date on this. So

24 the objection –

25 MR. PLACITELLA: Theres no date.

208

1 Q. See where it says on the top

2 transite overview outline?

3 A. I do.

4 Q. It says what is transite pipe,

5 right?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And then it says how is it a health

8 threat, right?

9 A. Right.

10 Q. It doesnt say how is some other

11 product a health threat. It says how is

12 transite pipe a health threat, true?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

14 Q. Sir?

15 A. What it says is, is how is it a

16 health threat. What is this? Its an outline.

17 This is an outline used I believe as part of a

18 training session. But when theyre talking

19 about how is it a health threat, I dont

20 believe theyre talking about intact transite

21 pipe.

22 Q. Well, I agree with you. But the

23 problem is that its not always intact, right?

24 Sometimes its cut, true?

25 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

209

1 A. Transite pipe was not cut by

2 splicers –

3 Q. I didnt ask you that question,

4 sir. I said sometimes it was cut, true?

5 A. Transite was cut, yes.

6 Q. Sometimes it was broken with a

7 hammer in order to fix the cable inside, true?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

9 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

10 A. Ive never seen that done.

11 Q. Youve never seen it? Youve never

12 seen a training video where the worker breaks

13 it with the hammer?

14 A. I have not.

15 Q. Okay. Sometimes you pull the cable

16 through the duct, true?

17 A. Thats true.

18 Q. Okay. Now, when it talks, when it

19 says here associated diseases, its talking

20 about asbestos that may be released from the

21 transite pipe however that happens, true?

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

23 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

24 A. I believe thats what the purpose

25 is, yes.

210

1 Q. And one of the diseases that it can

2 cause is mesothelioma, true?

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

4 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

5 A. True.

6 Q. Okay. Now, youre aware that

7 asbestos exposure occurs from pulling cable

8 through transite duct, true?

9 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

10 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

11 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

12 A. False. Ive seen documents that

13 there is no exposure when theyre pulling.

14 Q. Well, have they ever shown you the

15 documents that show there is exposure or did

16 you only see the ones that did when they wet it

17 down?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

19 A. I recall seeing I think three

20 different documents on that pulling so.

21 Q. All right. So no one showed you

22 any documents in preparation for the deposition

23 that indicated that the pulling of cable

24 through the transite duct could cause asbestos

25 exposure; is that what youre saying?

211

1 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

2 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

3 A. I dont recall seeing any documents

4 like that.

5 Q. Okay. I have here a document from

6 Bell Laboratories, thats who you work for,

7 right?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. From 1976, right?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. You were there then.

12 A. I was.

13 Q. And its September 3, 1976, correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. And it talks about a survey done of

16 people pulling cable through transite ductwork,

17 true?

18 A. True.

19 Q. And the conclusion and the results

20 are that although the values are low, the

21 results of the samples indicate an exposure may

22 occur from employees pulling cable through

23 transite duct, correct?

24 A. Thats what the statement says.

25 Q. Ill blow it up. Did I read that

212

1 correctly?

2 A. You read it correctly, yes.

3 Q. Okay.

4 A. And Ill point out that you did not

5 read the statement that the levels were below

6 zero point one fibers per cubic centimeter.

7 Q. Im going to get to that part in a

8 little bit, okay? But the conclusion was that

9 exposure may occur, correct?

10 A. The conclusion was that exposures

11 above zero point one fibers per cubic centimeter

12 had not occurred but they may occur.

13 Q. Right. Because when they did the

14 test it was wet outside, right?

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

16 A. Possibly. Most of the manholes in

17 New Jersey were wet.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. At least the ones that I encountered.

20 Q. Now, this is another document from

21 9/27/76. Do you see that?

22 A. I see it.

23 Q. And you see where it talks about

24 potential — you see where my blue arrow is?

25 A. I see it.

213

1 Q. Are what does that say about

2 potential exposures –

3 A. It may exist for certain employee

4 groups, such as, brake mechanics, maintenance

5 men working on work insulating materials and

6 plant personnel pulling cable through transite

7 duct. Those were typically done by line crew,

8 not by cable splicers.

9 Q. Did I ask you any questions about

10 cable splicers yet?

11 A. No, you have not.

12 Q. Okay. And what it says is, plant

13 personnel pulling cable through transite duct

14 is a potential exposure, true?

15 A. Thats what it says.

16 Q. All right. And, in fact, what you

17 testified to under oath, was the pulling cable

18 through transite duct typically contaminated

19 manholes where people would work, true?

20 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

22 A. I dont believe that was the

23 statement I made.

24 Q. Okay. Im going to show you your

25 testimony from last time, sir, under oath.

214

1 Well, you knew that pulling the

2 transite cable through, pulling the cable

3 through the transite typically contaminated

4 the manhole.

5 ANSWER: True.

6 QUESTION: You know that people

7 would then go into the manhole, true?

8 Your answer, True.

9 Q. Do you remember giving that

10 testimony?

11 A. I do.

12 Q. And you remember you were actually

13 asked those questions another time when you

14 were being deposed and you gave the same exact

15 answer under oath?

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. Yes, sir?

19 A. I dont recall what my, the

20 questions to the statements were in that.

21 Q. Are recanting that testimony today

22 under oath?

23 A. I am not.

24 Q. Okay. Now, in fact, sir, you

25 actually wrote a document yourself that

215

1 indicated that you can contaminate manholes by

2 pulling transite, by pulling cable through

3 transite duct, right?

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

5 A. I dont recall that document.

6 Q. Do you recall this document, sir,

7 recognition in the evaluation of occupational

8 health hazards?

9 A. I do.

10 Q. And you see, you were one of the

11 authors, sir?

12 A. I was.

13 Q. Okay. And you see where it says

14 while youre at AT&T Bell Labs?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And you see where it says problem,

17 type or location?

18 A. I do.

19 Q. And what location is that?

20 A. Manholes.

21 Q. And it says possible contaminate

22 agent, and does it list asbestos?

23 A. It does.

24 Q. And the common source for the

25 contaminant agent is listed as what, sir?

216

1 A. Transite duct.

2 Q. Now, part of the problem was that,

3 well, scratch that. You knew that cable splicers

4 went into manholes, true?

5 A. True.

6 Q. Okay. And there was a procedure

7 set up for what was supposed to happen before

8 somebody went in a manhole, right?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. They were supposed to attempt to

11 purge the manhole so that there would be no

12 toxic gases.

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Right. The problem was that that

15 often did not occur, true?

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

17 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

18 A. False.

19 Q. False?

20 A. False.

21 Q. Okay. This is the same baseline

22 study, sir, from August 1976, are you familiar

23 with that?

24 A. Okay. Yes, I am.

25 Q. And you see where the arrow is?

217

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. All right. And you see what is

3 considered unsatisfactory?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. They are the procedures observed

6 for entering the manhole, true?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Because the problem was that

10 although it was supposed to be done, it often

11 was not done, true?

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

13 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

14 Q. Thats what your own survey showed.

15 A. Our own survey showed you, if you

16 take a look at the sentence above that, general

17 and maintenance and use of ventilator and gas

18 monitors, I believe it was gas meters.

19 Q. Right, ventilation.

20 A. The point that we were worried

21 about primarily was the gas meters.

22 Q. Well, you said general maintenance

23 and use of ventilation. That was putting the

24 air in the hole, right?

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

218

1 Q. Thats what you said was the problem?

2 A. No. Well, if thats what we said,

3 thats not what we meant.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. What this was about was the gas

6 meters. The procedure called for first testing

7 the manholes with a gas meter. Before you even

8 tested the manhole with a gas meter, youre

9 required to test the gas meter itself. The

10 main concern that we had there was you would

11 test for, you would check your meter, you would

12 test the manhole with the meter, you would

13 ventilate. We call that purge, and then we

14 would test again.

15 And most of the concerns that we

16 had, at this time, were the procedures for

17 entering the manhole. And the primary concern

18 that we had was the people running the manhole,

19 the use of that gas meter.

20 Q. Okay. But thats not what you

21 wrote.

22 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

23 A. It says procedures of self-

24 covering the entrance and work in manholes.

25 Q. And above that it says use of

219

1 ventilation, doesnt it?

2 A. Use of ventilation and use of

3 general maintenance and use of ventilators and

4 gas meters. So its the general maintenance of

5 the ventilators and its use of the gas meters.

6 Q. Yeah.

7 A. Thats what that, as I recall,

8 thats what we were referring to.

9 Q. I have no quarrel with that. The

10 problem was, is that you knew thats the one

11 thing that you dont do anywhere near transite

12 is use forced air, true?

13 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

14 Q. That was a no, no.

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

16 A. You use the term transite, and I

17 would not say transite. Transite itself is

18 cementitious, and it is not, you know, you can

19 blow air on transite. It wont cause a

20 problem. Dust from transite or asbestos, stuff

21 like that, I would agree with your statement.

22 Q. Well, we know, do we not, that some

23 dust from pulling transite typically contaminated

24 the manhole. Thats what you testified under

25 oath, true?

220

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

2 A. Thats correct.

3 Q. And it was an absolute no, no to

4 push forced air into an area that contained

5 dust from the transite, true?

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

7 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

9 A. False. That pushing the air could

10 purge the dust as well as the gases and vapors.

11 Q. Well get to that too.

12 A. And I believe some of the testing

13 shows that.

14 Q. All right. This is part of the

15 training video for the person who worked around

16 asbestos transite ductwork, okay?

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

18 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

19 Q. By the way, do you see this person,

20 does he have a respirator on?

21 MR. HORNBY: Objection. I think

22 this mischaracterizes this video.

23 Q. Oh, Ill just play it.

24 (Whereupon Mr. Placitella shows

25 video.)

221

1 Q. Ill play it again.

2 (Whereupon Mr. Placitella shows

3 video.)

4 Q. Sir, it was prohibited, was it not,

5 by your own training video to use compressed

6 air anywhere around asbestos transite duct?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

8 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

9 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

10 Q. True?

11 A. Thats what the video states.

12 Q. But thats exactly what you did as

13 part of the procedure for purging the manhole.

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

15 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

16 Q. True?

17 A. False. Use of compressed air is

18 not, when you talk of compressed air, youre

19 typically talking about high pressure air

20 typically 30 PSI or greater. Were talking

21 about your manhole blowers that is much less.

22 So compressed air in this context is not the

23 use of a manhole blower.

24 Q. Well, you knew that blowing the air

25 in the manhole was going to raise the dust

222

1 level, didnt you?

2 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

3 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to Form.

4 A. Its going to, blowing the air in

5 the manhole. Its going to clean the manhole

6 before they can go into it.

7 Q. But it doesnt get it all out, does

8 it?

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

10 Q. Sir?

11 A. Youre talking to a physicist.

12 Q. Well –

13 A. Getting it all out if youre

14 talking about parts per million level, parts

15 per trillion level. It does not get it all

16 out.

17 Q. Lets just check, okay? Whos

18 Patricia Higgins?

19 A. Patricia Huggins?

20 Q. Huggins.

21 A. Was an industrial hygienist working

22 in the Bell Services Group.

23 Q. All right. And she did a test in

24 1981 for what would happen when you blew the

25 air into the manholes, true?

223

1 A. This is for Chesapeake and

2 Potomac. I did review a couple of those

3 Conducted at –

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Take a minute or two

5 to read it.

6 MR. HORNBY: Im going to object to

7 the document to the extent it doesnt have

8 the attachments that go along with it.

9 MR. PLACITELLA: Ive got the

10 attachment coming next.

11 A. Now, Degen requested it — questions

12 regarding asbestos exposure during work in

13 manholes situated near heavy traffic intersections.

14 So were talking about I believe brake dust.

15 Is the purpose of this study.

16 Q. Well, could you either distinguish

17 between the brake dust and the dust that

18 typically contaminated the manholes from the

19 transite duct?

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

22 A. Im sorry. I guess I dont

23 understand.

24 Q. Well –

25 A. Brake dust would be perhaps picked

224

1 up by manhole ventilators and blown into the

2 manhole. If theres cars stopping near it, I

3 guess it could also, it wouldnt generally wash

4 in because the manhole covers were sealed

5 fairly tight. The stuff from the transite

6 would have come in through the cable ducts so

7 theres two different sources –

8 Q. Okay.

9 A. — and theres two different routes

10 of deposition inside the manhole.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. So Im not sure what you mean by

13 could I distinguish between the two.

14 Q. Theres two different sources.

15 A. Two different sources, right.

16 Q. Lets be clear, theres two

17 different sources of asbestos that could

18 contaminate a manhole.

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

20 Q. One is from brakes, and the other

21 is from the transite dust, true?

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

23 A. The different potential sources of

24 asbestos in the manhole, correct.

25 Q. Okay.

225

1 VIDEOGRAPHER: Im sorry. Its

2 3:19 this is the end of Tape Number Three,

3 and were off the record.

4 (Whereupon a brief recess is

5 taken.)

6 MR. HORNBY: Chris, just to place

7 an objection on the record, a previous

8 objection on the use of the video that was

9 characterized –

10 VIDEOGRAPHER: Want to go on the

11 record first?

12 MR. HORNBY: Yeah.

13 VIDEOGRAPHER: Its 3:29. Were

14 back on the record with Tape Number Four.

15 MR. HORNBY: We want to put our

16 objection on the record on the use of

17 video that was characterized as an AT&T

18 training video that related to air

19 compressor and the transite duct. Its

20 our understanding that thats a Southern

21 Bell video from 1991.

22 MR. PLACITELLA: You guys didnt

23 make that?

24 MR. HORNBY: Thats our

25 understanding. Its Southern Bell 1991.

226

1 Im just the messenger.

2 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay.

3 MS. CRAWFORD: I join in the

4 objection –

5 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, you produced

6 it.

7 MS. CRAWFORD: For clarification I

8 want to also have an objection on the

9 record to all of your headings and your

10 slides.

11 MR. PLACITELLA: You dont like

12 them?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: I dont like them.

14 Im objecting to them.

15 MR. PLACITELLA: Oh, okay. Ill go

16 back. You and I will fix the ones you

17 think are inaccurate.

18 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

19 Q. Youre ready?

20 A. If you are?

21 Q. All right. My slide heading says

22 asbestos exposure increased by blowing air in

23 manhole; is that accurate based on this

24 document?

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

227

1 A. Thats inaccurate because exposure

2 implies a person is exposed, and I believe this

3 document shows that when they do the purging,

4 before they enter the manhole, the levels were

5 higher. Theres no one in the manhole like

6 that.

7 Q. Okay. Well, lets go right to it.

8 A. If you have the results there?

9 Q. Im going to go right to the

10 results.

11 A. Okay.

12 Q. See where it talks about Table

13 One? Let me go to Table One.

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. Do you recognize these are the

16 results?

17 A. From?

18 Q. From this test.

19 A. Right.

20 Q. Okay. You see where on the upper

21 left it says manhole one. You see that?

22 A. I do.

23 Q. Okay. You see where it says

24 personal sample above ground?

25 A. I do.

228

1 Q. Thats the ambient air, correct?

2 A. No. Personal sample means its a

3 sample taken on a person. Its not an ambient

4 air sample. I would consider ambient air

5 sample something thats not taken on a person.

6 So this would be the person whos standing

7 above the ground not in the manhole.

8 Q. All right. So the person above the

9 ground, theyre, for the two samples above the

10 ground are roughly the same, right, .013 and

11 .018?

12 A. I believe thats the case and the

13 above ground would be the ambient sample that

14 would be the one.

15 Q. Thats my point.

16 A. Okay.

17 Q. That would be the sample of

18 somebody who would be, what they would be

19 exposed to by the ambient air.

20 A. Okay.

21 Q. Correct?

22 A. I believe so.

23 Q. Okay. And then we go to the

24 purging. You see that?

25 A. I do.

229

1 Q. And that sample is nine times

2 greater than the ambient air sample, true?

3 A. Thats correct. But theres no one

4 in the manhole during that time.

5 Q. Im not fighting you on that yet.

6 A. Okay.

7 Q. Okay?

8 A. Im sorry.

9 Q. Okay. You see down manhole two?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Right? In manhole during purge

12 more than ten times the ambient air, true?

13 A. Okay.

14 Q. Okay. You see on the right-hand

15 side, manhole two? You see that? In manhole

16 after purge?

17 A. During continuous ventilation, I

18 see that.

19 Q. Right. So what would happen is

20 after the purge, the guy would go down and the

21 ventilation would keep going, right?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. And that is four times that of the

24 ambient air, true?

25 A. True.

230

1 Q. Okay.

2 A. Its also well below .01.

3 Q. All right. That wasnt my

4 question. Its four times below the ambient

5 exposure, right?

6 A. It is correct and its also less

7 than point one fibers per cubic centimeter.

8 Q. But we went through this morning,

9 did we not, the statement by AT&T that anything

10 above ambient exposure was an occupational

11 exposure. Do you recall that?

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

13 A. I recall that and I also recall

14 that we had an AT&T statement that said above

15 asbestos fibers and above point one fibers per

16 cubic centimeter.

17 Q. Okay. That had to do with triggering

18 the medical monitoring, correct?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Okay. What were talking about

21 here is in somebody who goes in the manhole

22 even after it is purged, they are exposed to

23 asbestos levels four times that of somebody

24 exposed in the ambient air.

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

231

1 Q. True? Thats what it says.

2 A. Thats what these results are

3 showing.

4 Q. All right. And, again, they did

5 another sample, and this time, the second one

6 showed that the person who went in the manhole

7 after the purging was exposed to six times that

8 of somebody who would have been exposed only in

9 the ambient air, true?

10 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

11 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

12 A. The level is .062 and it is less

13 than .1. I might also point out that the

14 number of fibers counted is, approximately, the

15 same.

16 Q. My question, sir, is the person who

17 went into the manhole and was tested, was

18 exposed to asbestos fibers four times greater

19 than if you would have been exposed outside the

20 manhole, true?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

22 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

23 A. From this study, again, I would

24 point out that the number of fibers counted if

25 you take a look at the air bars on that, is

232

1 typically the square root of M. The square

2 root of 25 is 5 so it would be somewhere

3 between 5 and 30.

4 Basically, Im just trying to say

5 were talking about very low levels. Were

6 talking about a wide range of variability in

7 these kinds of things, but, yes. One is .06

8 and the other is other one is .006.

9 Q. So if youre unlucky enough to go

10 into a manhole before its purged, your

11 asbestos exposures could be dramatically higher

12 than somebody who is exposed to ambient levels,

13 true?

14 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

16 A. Its possible.

17 Q. And if you go into the manhole even

18 after its purged, your exposure to asbestos is

19 at least four times greater than somebody who

20 never went into the manhole who was just

21 breathing the air outside on the street.

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

23 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

24 Q. True?

25 A. False.

233

1 Q. Thats not what that says?

2 A. Youre basically are making, youre

3 generalizing I believe to the general from a

4 specific test. So if you want to restrict it

5 to this particular test, I will agree with

6 you. The way you phrased it, it sounded as if

7 you were saying that if you would go into the

8 manhole, it would be six or ten times higher.

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. And the way I understand it, with

11 this test, thats what the results show for

12 this test, but I would be very leery of

13 generalizing this to every manhole, every

14 manhole entry kind of thing –

15 Q. All right.

16 A. — and so forth. Thats my

17 objection to your statement.

18 Q. Okay. I appreciate your objection.

19 So let me rephrase it. Based upon these tests

20 run by your company that if you go into the

21 manhole after its purged, in other words, its

22 supposed to clean everything out allegedly,

23 your exposure to asbestos is still four times

24 higher than the person who is standing up on

25 the street in this test?

234

1 A. This particular manhole and this

2 particular day, thats what the results

3 showed.

4 Q. Well, we went to two different

5 manholes, right, manhole one and manhole two?

6 A. These particular manholes on that

7 particular day.

8 Q. We didnt just do one manhole. We

9 did two and the results were kind of the same,

10 right?

11 A. Thats correct.

12 Q. Are there any other tests that

13 youre aware of that you saw either while

14 working or in preparation for the dep that

15 contradict this test?

16 A. There were other tests that I saw

17 of measuring asbestos in manholes at the cable

18 points and there might have been — I guess

19 not. This is the, I believe this is the only

20 one. You would perhaps know more for brake

21 fibers, but there were other ones I believe

22 there were transite.

23 Q. Well, we dont know that it was

24 just brake fiber. That was just a concern and

25 the reason for the test, correct?

235

1 A. Right. And we also dont know, we

2 had some studies that showed the brakes when

3 they break down, turn into forsterite.

4 Q. Right.

5 A. So youre no longer talking about

6 chrysotile asbestos.

7 Q. Right. But now theyre talking

8 about fibers counted, right?

9 A. And, again, this is the same thing

10 I said before. Asbestos measurement counts

11 fibers and it does not distinguish between

12 other types of materials and asbestos unless

13 you do, as you pointed out, transmission

14 electron microscopy or scanning electron

15 microscopy.

16 Q. Which was never done in these

17 tests.

18 A. Sorry. We did transmission as

19 scanning electron microscopy for asbestos

20 analysis. This particular set of tests, it was

21 not done.

22 Q. Okay.

23 A. The other point is, again, I am not

24 sure what the date for this was.

25 Q. 1983.

236

1 A. Yeah. That was the time. EPA got

2 into the asbestos business with schools and

3 thats when people started using transmission

4 electron microscopy, but that didnt come until

5 much later.

6 Q. Okay. Do you know what an asbestos

7 heat shield is?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. What is it?

10 A. Its a shield thats meant to

11 provide heat, shield a person from heat.

12 Typically radiant heat but it could be other

13 things. And I would imagine theres one made

14 out of asbestos.

15 Q. Youre aware that asbestos blankets

16 were used in the Bell Operating System by Bell

17 Operating employees?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

20 A. No, Im not. I havent seen any

21 of them.

22 Q. No?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Are you aware that asbestos

25 blankets were eventually discontinued by

237

1 Western Electric and AT&T because they are

2 afraid that the blankets were causing cancer?

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

4 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

5 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

6 A. Im aware that they didnt exist at

7 the time that I came there. I would imagine

8 that they were not taken out because they were

9 causing cancer but they were aware if the

10 fibers were released, they had the potential to

11 create problems, health problems.

12 Q. Okay, okay.

13 A. The blanket itself I dont think

14 its necessarily going to cause cancer.

15 Q. Right. This is a 1980, you were –

16 scratch that. March 21, 1980, Bell Labs from

17 David Rayner. Who is he?

18 A. David Rayner was an industrial

19 hygienist at the Bell System Services Group,

20 current the vice chancellor at NC State.

21 Q. Okay. This is on Bell Laboratory

22 stationery?

23 A. It is.

24 Q. And you see the section that talks

25 about heat shield blankets over on the left-hand

238

1 corner on the bottom.

2 A. I do.

3 Q. Have you ever seen this document

4 before?

5 A. I dont recall seeing it.

6 Q. Also ccd on this document is your

7 boss and your bosss boss.

8 A. It would have been his boss as

9 well.

10 Q. Okay. And it talks about products

11 in use as of 1980, true?

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

13 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

14 A. Free bulk sample sent. It doesnt

15 say if they were in use or where they — it

16 just gives where they came from.

17 Q. Well, it says analysis by X-ray

18 diffraction revealed that the major crystalline

19 component of the heat shield blanket is

20 chrysotile asbestos. You see that?

21 A. I see that.

22 Q. Would they be doing an analysis of

23 something that wasnt being used?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Why?

239

1 A. I know I did a lot of analysis

2 myself, and I was given products that had, you

3 know, had been used in the past.

4 Q. Okay. See where it says, second to

5 last paragraph, see where it says existing

6 asbestos blankets?

7 A. I see that.

8 Q. Does that indicate to you, sir,

9 that they were being used as of 1980?

10 A. It implies that, yes.

11 Q. And you see the paragraph above it

12 where it says Federal regulations have placed

13 limits on the use of products or materials,

14 which contain or are made of asbestos because

15 of the carcinogenicity associated with this

16 material? Did I read that correct?

17 A. You read it.

18 MR. PLACITELLA: Kelly forgot to

19 say object to form.

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Did you read it

21 incorrectly?

22 MR. PLACITELLA: No, but you always

23 say object to form even if I read it

24 correctly.

25 MS. CRAWFORD: No, when you read it

240

1 incorrectly.

2 MR. PLACITELLA: No, you do it all

3 the time.

4 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

5 Q. Okay. Because of the health risks

6 associated with the use of asbestos, it is

7 recommended that the use of asbestos-containing

8 blankets be discontinue and the blankets be

9 properly disposed of. Did I read that

10 correctly, sir.

11 A. You did.

12 Q. Were you aware that asbestos

13 blankets were in use in the Bell Operating

14 System while you were doing your testing on

15 behalf of Bell Laboratories?

16 A. I was not.

17 Q. Was this information ever disclosed

18 to you?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Was it ever disclosed to you before

21 today?

22 A. If it was, I dont remember.

23 Q. Okay. Youre also aware, sir, that

24 asbestos-containing gloves were used by

25 employees in the Bell Operating System, true?

241

1 A. True.

2 Q. And we discussed that at some

3 length last time. Im not going to spend a lot

4 of time on it now. You are aware, however,

5 that tests were done of people using asbestos-

6 containing gloves, true?

7 A. I believe there was tests of people

8 who were inspecting the gloves.

9 Q. And those tests showed that the

10 handling of the gloves violated OSHA limits,

11 true?

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

13 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

14 A. I dont believe they did, but

15 youll have the results up shortly.

16 Q. Okay. By the way, does that look

17 like an asbestos glove to you, sir?

18 A. Its possible.

19 Q. See, this is the testing that was

20 done. Its marked DEG-999. You see the

21 section under General Building Asbestos Gloves?

22 A. I do.

23 Q. All right. It says point six

24 fibers per cc?

25 A. It does.

242

1 Q. Is that, sir, six times greater

2 than the OSHA action limit for medical

3 surveillance?

4 A. It is not necessarily. I believe

5 that what is missing from here is the time

6 weighted average. And these are just the

7 results of the test that were done. So testing

8 the asbestos gloves is not likely to take eight

9 hours a day. So the results that you see here

10 are not eight-hour time weighted averages.

11 Q. Okay. So why did you report them

12 if they didnt mean anything?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

14 A. Basically, as we discussed earlier,

15 well, perhaps not, but we would do measurements

16 while people were exposed. And if we needed to

17 do an eight-hour time weighted average, we

18 would then make assumptions about what the

19 exposure was during the time that they were not

20 exposed.

21 Q. Lets supposed somebody had

22 asbestos gloves and they used them for a full

23 day? Theres testimony in this case to that

24 effect.

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

243

1 Q. Would that be an eight hour –

2 A. Im not aware of anyone using

3 asbestos gloves for a full day. The only use

4 that I know of asbestos gloves were to put out

5 fires. And I dont recall anyone ever using an

6 asbestos glove to put out a fire.

7 Q. Well, you dont know how they were

8 used, specifically, in 1975 in total when you

9 got there, true?

10 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

12 A. Well, thats true but we asked

13 about them. Asked about the use.

14 Q. Who asked?

15 A. The Bell System Services Group

16 asked the employees that we worked with, the

17 supervisors that we worked for support.

18 Q. Yeah, what was being used at the

19 time, correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Not what happened before you got

22 there.

23 A. Okay.

24 Q. All right. And when you did the

25 test, at least this test shows point six fibers

244

1 per cc generated from the use of the gloves,

2 true?

3 A. During the time it was used, yes.

4 Q. And by the way, whats the main

5 district frame aisle? What does that mean?

6 A. Main distribution frame aisle.

7 Q. What does that mean?

8 A. Basically, well, first of all, its

9 an aisle and you have your main distribution

10 frame. So this would be the frames where the

11 cables would come up, lets say, from floor to

12 floor.

13 Q. Uh-hum.

14 A. And then it would be distributed to

15 the switching machines.

16 Q. Okay. Would you agree thats where

17 cables splicers may work?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

19 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to form.

20 Form.

21 A. No. Thats not where cable

22 splicers would work. Thats where, well, Im

23 sorry, on one side of the frame cable splicers

24 might work. On the other side it would be

25 central office technicians.

245

1 Q. Correct. And you see there, sir,

2 where it says the cleaning of the equipment in

3 the main distribution frame aisle itself

4 generated of point one three fibers per cc?

5 A. I do.

6 Q. And that number as a stand-alone

7 was also above the OSHA action limit for

8 medical surveillance, true?

9 A. False. It was not necessarily

10 above the OSHA action limit as an eight-hour

11 time weighted average.

12 Q. Well, did you ever go back after

13 you got this reading from somebody who is just

14 wiping down this equipment and do a time

15 weighted average to see what kind of risk they

16 had?

17 A. We typically did time weighted

18 averages. Thats not what appears here.

19 Q. What appears here?

20 A. What appears here is a compilation

21 of the measurements as made, and, unfortunately,

22 it does not report the duration for these

23 samples.

24 Q. Well, do you have, are you aware of

25 any documents that talk about the duration of

246

1 the sample?

2 A. Other than the individual reports,

3 no, Im not.

4 Q. All right. But what would do know

5 is the people who were in the aisles where the

6 main distribution frames were exposed by this

7 reading to point one three fibers per cc,

8 true?

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

10 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

11 A. During the duration they were

12 cleaning. I would also point out that this is

13 a cleaning operation and whenever you do

14 cleaning theres generally a lot of dust thats

15 generated. A lot of dust means lots of

16 particles. It means its difficult to count.

17 It means youve got a lot of particles that are

18 at least three times longer than theyre wide

19 and at least five microns long so it doesnt

20 necessarily imply asbestos exposure.

21 Q. Well, it says fibers per cc,

22 correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. It doesnt say particles per cc.

25 A. Thats correct. The fiber is

247

1 something thats three times longer than it is

2 wide.

3 Q. Did you do any follow-up study to

4 find out whether, what these people were

5 actually being exposed to asbestos?

6 A. There was, no.

7 Q. Why not?

8 A. We didnt believe there was

9 asbestos in the area.

10 Q. Well, these are your tests for

11 potential asbestos exposures.

12 A. Thats correct. But I would also

13 point out that at that time there was a

14 short-term exposure limit that was probably

15 something like two fibers per cubic centimeter.

16 And this thing is well above that — well below

17 that, sorry.

18 Q. Yes, sir, but that was different

19 than the action level for medical surveillance,

20 true? That was point one.

21 A. As an eight-hour time weighted

22 average, correct.

23 Q. All right. What you have here for

24 people handling the gloves in a general

25 building is point six, correct?

248

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

2 A. During the time they were using the

3 gloves, yes.

4 Q. And then the people in the

5 distribution frame aisles point one three,

6 true?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

8 A. Thats what the results show. But

9 they dont show the duration of the sample.

10 Q. Now, in 1970, it was well-known

11 that using fireproofing that contained asbestos

12 in a building could cause cancer, true?

13 A. I dont believe thats true.

14 Q. All right. Sir, this is an AT&T

15 document dated, it looks like June 23, 1970?

16 See that?

17 A. I see that.

18 Q. Were you shown a copy of this

19 document in preparation for your deposition?

20 A. I may have been. I dont recall

21 this specifically.

22 Q. Okay. And you see what it says on

23 the first line? Why dont you read it so I

24 dont get accused of reading it wrong.

25 A. Recent articles in various building

249

1 trade publications and newspapers have referred

2 to possible health hazards associated with the

3 use of sprayed asbestos fireproofing or on

4 steel framed buildings.

5 Q. Keep going.

6 A. Okay. Material –

7 Q. Medical.

8 A. Medical research has, something,

9 about asbestos fibers can be injurious to an

10 individuals health; therefore, if asbestos

11 fireproofing is, something, or –

12 Q. Specified?

13 A. Specified, yeah, proposed or

14 specified on a building project, it must be

15 applied in such a manner as to not endanger

16 the, something. Apply the asbestos or people

17 in the vicinity of the application.

18 Individuals applying the asbestos,

19 so were talking about the people who are

20 spraying on the asbestos fireproofing or

21 individuals around them.

22 Q. Or anybody in their vicinity?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. Okay. In 1970, from your review of

25 the information provided to you, was AT&T aware

250

1 of the potential for asbestos fireproofing to

2 cause cancer?

3 A. AT&T was aware of the potential for

4 asbestos fibers to cause cancer.

5 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that

6 when asbestos fireproofing is applied to

7 structural steel that it has the capacity to

8 contaminate the environment in which it was

9 applied?

10 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that

13 unless proper abatement procedures are used,

14 any asbestos that contaminated that environment

15 would likely persist over time?

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

17 A. I suspect it would not. I suspect

18 that its a dirty enough job that when you

19 apply spray-on fireproofing that you need to

20 clean the area after youre done.

21 Q. Well, can you clean the area, sir,

22 with normal brooms and get all the asbestos out

23 of the building and get it out of the room?

24 A. I dont know how they cleaned the

25 areas.

251

1 Q. Okay. Would you agree, sir, that

2 AT&T when it was using fireproofing in its

3 buildings was concerned about people being

4 exposed to asbestos through the return air

5 ducts in the buildings that its employees

6 inhabited?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

8 A. Most AT&T buildings did have

9 spray-on asbestos insulation. They were made

10 out of concrete and steel. The use of whether

11 or not asbestos fibers in the, from the plenum

12 and so forth could be a problem was one of the

13 issues that we addressed.

14 Q. Would you agree — Im going to

15 skip that video right now cause it takes too

16 long. Would you agree that AT&T was concerned

17 about exposure through return air plenums from

18 asbestos fireproofing?

19 A. I would agree that thats one of

20 the issues that we looked at, yes.

21 Q. In fact, youre aware, are you not,

22 that as of 1970, Western Electric was already

23 looking for substitutes so they wouldnt have

24 to use asbestos fireproofing in AT&T, true?

25 A. The AT&T buildings that I was

252

1 familiar with, the central offices and so

2 forth, as I said before, virtually all of them

3 were concrete encased in steel. They did not

4 have spray-on fireproofing in those buildings.

5 Most of the buildings that are spray-on were

6 leased buildings.

7 Q. Youve tested a bunch of buildings

8 owned by AT&T that had asbestos fireproofing

9 above the ceiling, did you not?

10 A. I did.

11 Q. Okay. Now –

12 A. — but whether they were owned by

13 AT&T or rented, Im not sure –

14 Q. Well, were going to get to that in

15 a second. Who is Dunn, Dr. Dunn?

16 A. Dr. Dunn as weve said before I

17 believe was the medical director of Western

18 Electric. He subsequently became medical

19 director at AT&T.

20 Q. Okay. And that was a deposition

21 that was supplied to you in preparation for

22 this deposition, true?

23 A. True.

24 Q. And on page 13 of his deposition

25 Dr. Dunn was asked the following question and

253

1 he gave the following answer.

2 Are you aware in 1970 that Western

3 Electric was considering alternatives to

4 the use of spray asbestos fireproofing in

5 interior duct linings?

6 ANSWER: Western Electric per se,

7 yes.

8 QUESTION: So Western Electric was

9 actually considering alternatives to the

10 use of spray fireproofing in 1970?

11 ANSWER: Yes.

12 Do you remember that testimony,

13 sir?

14 A. I dont remember the testimony. I

15 remember reading it. Does that refresh your

16 recollection that in preparation for todays

17 deposition, you learned that as of 1970,

18 Western Electric was exploring alternatives for

19 using asbestos fireproofing in AT&T buildings?

20 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

22 A. I remember being confused by the

23 statement that spray asbestos fireproofing in

24 interior duct linings confused me because Im

25 not aware of spray asbestos fireproofing being

254

1 applied to the interior of duct linings. So I

2 was confused by this testimony.

3 Q. Okay. Did you call, did you do

4 anything to further investigate it?

5 A. I did not.

6 Q. Now, let me just go back for a

7 second before I keep going. There were many

8 tests that were done by Bell Labs that showed

9 asbestos levels in AT&T occupied buildings

10 exceeded the OSHA limit, correct?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

12 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

13 A. Incorrect.

14 Q. Have you seen this document before,

15 sir, September 24, 1976, interim report?

16 A. Yes, I have.

17 Q. Okay. And what was the subject of

18 this document? How did it come about?

19 A. I believe this is the first

20 findings of what we, results of what we had

21 found in New Jersey Bell and other testing,

22 yes, sir.

23 Q. And the results for asbestos in the

24 building areas, do you see that?

25 A. Asbestos in the building?

255

1 Q. On the bottom.

2 A. I see that, yes, right.

3 Q. Do you see where it is ranges from

4 point zero one to point zero nine? You see

5 that?

6 A. I do.

7 Q. Okay. And you see where, well, let

8 me just go to the next document. I think Ill

9 make things easier. I think thats confusing.

10 Hoes Lane, you did testing at Hoes Lane, true?

11 You personally.

12 A. I personally did testing but that

13 would have been sometime after 1984.

14 Q. Correct. And Hoes Lanes was also

15 known as Raritan River Plaza; is that correct?

16 A. I dont know. I knew it as Hoes

17 Lane.

18 Q. You know that Mr. Degnan worked in

19 the Hoes Lane during construction, right? Did

20 you read that in his deposition?

21 A. I read that in his deposition.

22 Q. And this is a document that was

23 produced to us by your counsel and you see

24 where it says structural steel, built 1971?

25 A. I do.

256

1 Q. All right. That was after Western

2 Electric was looking for substitutes for asbestos

3 and fireproofing, true?

4 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

5 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

6 A. Perhaps they were looking for it,

7 yes.

8 Q. Now, lets just –

9 A. The other point is Im not sure. I

10 believe this was not a Western Electric

11 engineered building.

12 Q. Yeah.

13 A. I believe somebody else put up the

14 building.

15 Q. It was 195 Broadway. Who were

16 they?

17 A. They were the people who put up

18 buildings for AT&T.

19 Q. They were the real estate arm of

20 AT&T, right?

21 A. Thats correct.

22 Q. They had their headquarters in the

23 AT&T headquarters in New York City, right?

24 A. Thats correct.

25 Q. Okay. And the, it says the

257

1 structural steel here was put up in 1971. See

2 that?

3 A. Thats what it says.

4 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

5 Q. And this document, however, was

6 generated in 1984, right?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. And what happened was that at some

9 point in time you were called in to give advice

10 to AT&T as part of an abatement project, true?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

12 A. To give advice, perhaps I was

13 called in to do the monitoring of the abatement

14 project.

15 Q. Fair enough. And you see up here

16 where it says Raritan River Center 444 Hoes

17 Lane?

18 A. I do.

19 Q. That the building that you went in

20 yourself and took a look at, right?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. And what you found is that there

24 was exposures occurring for people who would go

25 above the ceilings because of the fireproofing,

258

1 true?

2 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

3 Again, Mr. Lichtenwalner is on behalf of

4 AT&T. Hes not here to talk about these

5 documents. Hes here to talk about these

6 documents here.

7 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, but he did

8 the readings.

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Yeah, I know. But

10 you had him as a fact witness in July and

11 you didnt ask for all of this.

12 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, you didnt

13 give me all the stuff in July, you gave it

14 to me –

15 MS. CRAWFORD: No, you have these

16 documents.

17 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, we are. Let

18 the judge decide, okay?

19 THE WITNESS: You mentioned

20 exposure, so, again, I dont know that we

21 measured exposure for people working above

22 the hung ceilings.

23 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

24 Q. You see here where it says Raritan

25 River Center, 444 Hoes Lane?

259

1 A. I do.

2 Q. Okay. And this is September 23,

3 83. See that?

4 A. I do.

5 Q. Okay. And the top on the

6 right-hand side says enclosure in the form of

7 suspended ceiling barrier is currently used in

8 most building areas. Air samples collected in

9 representatives occupied areas indicate

10 airborne fiber concentrations are well below

11 current OSHA standards for asbestos fiber. See

12 that?

13 A. I see that.

14 Q. However, current building conditions

15 and building practices do not sufficiently

16 minimize the potential for exposure. Do you

17 see that?

18 A. I do.

19 MS. CRAWFORD: I want to put

20 another objection on the record, Chris.

21 Anything that has an AT&T DEG Bates Number

22 from one to 1248 is a document that you

23 were given several months before July 2008

24 when Mr. Lichtenwalner was produced as a

25 witness on these topics.

260

1 MR. PLACITELLA: The only problem

2 is you were supposed to produce a fact

3 witness as a representative and you still

4 havent done it.

5 MS. CRAWFORD: I will. I will do

6 that.

7 MR. PLACITELLA: And youre still

8 in violation of the court order.

9 MS. CRAWFORD: I will do that.

10 MR. PLACITELLA: And since hes

11 here –

12 MS. CRAWFORD: And you and I have

13 an agreement hes not here to talk about

14 this –

15 MR. PLACITELLA: Well, he is here

16 to talk about it. Im going to ask him

17 the questions, okay?

18 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

19 Q. It says other concerns including

20 the absence of hung ceilings in the loading

21 docks, mechanical equipment rooms, penthouse,

22 and equipment closets. You see that?

23 A. I see that.

24 Q. And the lack of maintenance and

25 replacement of ceiling tiles after they have

261

1 been removed, correct?

2 MS. CRAWFORD: Note my objection.

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. All right. Now, this is a document

5 generated by you, correct?

6 A. Thats correct.

7 Q. And it was generated on January 31,

8 1985.

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. And its a memorandum for record

11 and it relates to various buildings in Hoes

12 Lane, true?

13 A. Correct.

14 MS. CRAWFORD: For the record, the

15 document number for AT&T DEG-943.

16 Q. And it says the primary purpose of

17 the service was to ensure that contractors

18 conducting the removal comply with stated

19 precautions, which provide isolation of the

20 work area from the remainder of the building,

21 correct?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. Okay. It says monitoring data

24 collected throughout the removal projects were

25 below the OSHA permissible limit, right?

262

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. So youre the person now in here

3 doing this.

4 A. I was one of the people, yes.

5 Q. Now, lets go back, historically in

6 this building and see what other information

7 you have provided. This goes to the same

8 building in 1976. And its the subject of

9 discussions of the Occupational Health Working

10 Group. Do you see that?

11 A. I see that.

12 Q. Have you see this document before?

13 A. I dont recall reading these

14 particular minutes.

15 Q. All right. You see where it says

16 the representatives from the 195 Broadway

17 Corporation, thats the AT&T Holding Company,

18 right?

19 A. Thats the AT&T real estate

20 company.

21 Q. Right. Expressed concern over the

22 possible employee exposure at three of the

23 buildings at the Raritan River Center.

24 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form

25 and to your characterization of the

263

1 documents referring to the same building

2 that Mr. Lichtenwalner worked in.

3 Q. See that?

4 A. I see it.

5 Q. It says the buildings are of metal

6 deck construction whereby the entire underside

7 of each floor was sprayed with a material

8 resembling asbestos. Did I read that correctly?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. In most of the office spaces

11 material is enclosed by a false ceiling that

12 also serves as the return air plenum; however,

13 in the mechanical rooms and stairwells the

14 insulation material is still exposed. Did I

15 read that correctly?

16 A. You did.

17 Q. In these areas, particularly the

18 stairwells, there is daily evidence of

19 insulating material flaking off and falling on

20 the floor. Were you ever provided any

21 information before you did your testing in 1983

22 and 1984 that there was daily evidence of

23 asbestos-containing materials falling to the

24 floor to potentially expose building occupants?

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form,

264

1 same objection.

2 A. I did summarize the minutes so I

3 probably was provided with this document.

4 Q. Okay. And do you know what action

5 was taken in 1976 by AT&T when this complaint

6 was made known to them?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

8 A. If you read further, I believe it

9 says something about air samples taken by,

10 something, reveals fibers. So, again, Im not

11 familiar with what action was taken with

12 respect to that.

13 Q. Im going to show you a document

14 here, Bells Communications Research Inc.,

15 questions and answers on the asbestos

16 management program. See that?

17 A. I see that.

18 Q. And theres a section on 444 Hoes

19 Lane. Thats the same address as the building

20 that was built in 1971 that we went through

21 before, correct?

22 A. I believe so.

23 Q. Located in Piscataway, New Jersey,

24 right?

25 A. I believe so.

265

1 Q. And it says where is asbestos

2 found? The substance is found above the

3 ceiling tiles and light fixtures in a space

4 used for running wires, cables, air

5 conditioning ducts and the structural beams

6 used to support the building, correct?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. So what we found out was that the

9 buildings that were constructed in 1971, in

10 fact, used sprayed-on asbestos, true?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

12 A. True.

13 Q. This is after AT&T found out that

14 asbestos could cause cancer, true?

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection?

16 A. After AT&T found out that asbestos

17 exposures in mining, milling –

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. — and so forth kind of processing

20 operations, those things were known to cause

21 cancer. I dont believe it was known that

22 asbestos from hung ceilings was known to cause

23 cancer at that time, and Im not sure that its

24 still is a known. . .

25 Q. Whats the basis for that statement,

266

1 sir, that AT&T only knew about production

2 facilities? What document are you referring to

3 about cancer?

4 A. Im referring to the documents in

5 the medical literature about people who had

6 cancer and mesothelioma. I dont know that you

7 can, that there was any evidence in the 1970

8 time frame or even today that people working in

9 buildings with spray-on asbestos insulation

10 have, are likely to get asbestos-related

11 diseases –

12 Q. Sir –

13 A. — from that spray-on insulation.

14 Q. Sir, were you aware that in 1969

15 the City of New York banned the use of spray-on

16 asbestos in its buildings? Did you know that?

17 A. I dont know the date, but, yes,

18 Im aware of the fact that they did that as

19 part, when the World Trade Towers were being

20 constructed.

21 Q. And are you aware that the

22 corporate headquarters of AT&T were in the very

23 city where use of asbestos was being banned for

24 fireproofing?

25 A. And the reason that it was banned

267

1 was because there was a tremendous amount of

2 over spray and so forth that was getting all

3 over the building. Again. High levels of

4 asbestos exposure both to the people applying

5 it and to the people around it.

6 Q. Yes, sir. And what happened was

7 that two years later, AT&T went ahead and used

8 asbestos fireproofing in the building in

9 Piscataway, New Jersey, where Mr. Degnan

10 worked, right?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection?

12 A. I guess they did.

13 Q. Okay. Now, the fireproofing that

14 was found, the asbestos was found in Hoes Lane

15 was somewhere between 14 to 15 percent

16 asbestos, true?

17 A. I believe thats probably true.

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Continuing my

19 objection.

20 Q. This is the minutes from the

21 Occupational Health Working Group, July 15,

22 1976. See it says as discussed at the last

23 meetings of HWG, you see that?

24 A. Right.

25 Q. Apparently, this was big enough

268

1 concern within AT&T that it went all the way up

2 to the Occupational Health Working Group as a

3 subject of regular discussion, true?

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

5 A. I dont about regular discussion,

6 but it was certainly brought up by these

7 minutes.

8 Q. Well, it was brought up. It was

9 discussed by the medical director for Western

10 Electric, true?

11 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to Form.

12 A. I dont know who.

13 Q. Well, Dr. Dunn. See over there on

14 the left.

15 A. Dr. Dunn was one of the people. I

16 dont know that he did the discussion.

17 Q. He was part of the discussion.

18 A. He was present at the meeting,

19 yes.

20 Q. And your boss, he was there too?

21 A. Bill Schreibeis, yes, he was there

22 too.

23 Q. And Mr. Wilkening, his boss, was

24 there too.

25 A. Correct.

269

1 MR. HORNBY: Chris, just to point

2 out, down on this one is AT&T.

3 Q. Correct, Dr. Dunn switched over to

4 AT&T by this time.

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Okay. Now, air sampling was actually

7 done above the ceiling at this location, true?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

9 A. I dont recall.

10 Q. And the air sampling they found

11 significant elevated levels of asbestos exposure,

12 true?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

14 A. I dont recall.

15 Q. I put up here, I guess its AT&T

16 Degnan-1013 and 1014. See where it says

17 1/12/84 results of personal sampling conducted

18 during simulated hung ceiling tasks?

19 A. I see that.

20 Q. Okay. Were these the samples that

21 you did?

22 A. I dont recall doing them.

23 Q. Somebody else did them?

24 A. Myself or probably, given that its

25 a Bell Laboratories document, it was probably

270

1 someone in our group.

2 Q. Okay. And they had certain findings,

3 correct?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. All right. And the findings ranged

6 from point zero eight all the way up to point

7 five nine fibers per cc of fiber in the air

8 above the hung ceilings true?

9 A. For a 49 minute sample, correct.

10 Q. All right. That was above the

11 ambient air level, was it not, sir?

12 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

13 A. Yes, it was.

14 Q. Was it normal course of practice,

15 sir, for cable, for people working with cable

16 to go above suspended ceilings and do their

17 work?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

19 A. It was but not splicers. They were –

20 Q. Splicers never spliced above ceilings,

21 sir?

22 A. Splicers did not splice above

23 ceilings. That would be installers that would

24 do that. Im sorry, they wouldnt be splicing

25 above the ceiling. Installers would run

271

1 cable. This, again, is a disturbance somewhat

2 of the material. This is not what you would

3 get if you were, when its undisturbed.

4 Q. Well, the problem, however, sir, is

5 — let me go to the next document for a second.

6 This is from 1/27/84. This is from Huggins

7 again, correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. And its copied to your boss and

10 your bosss boss. See that?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Okay. Im going to blow that section.

13 See where it says review of this data indicates

14 that depending on the amount of time, the

15 worker is involved in hung ceiling work, eight-hour

16 time on average exposure. Concentrations may

17 range from point zero one fibers to point five

18 fibers per cc. See that, sir?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

20 A. I do.

21 Q. Now, thats talking about eight-hour

22 time weighted average, correct?

23 A. Thats what it says.

24 Q. Not a snapshot, true?

25 A. Thats what it says. I believe

272

1 thats miswritten given the other results that

2 you showed me of the point five as a 49-minute

3 sample.

4 Q. Well, it was miswritten. Did you

5 ever see any objection to this document in any

6 of the documents you reviewed?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

8 A. I never saw an objection to that

9 document.

10 Q. And it says the Occupational Safety

11 and Health Administrations permissible level

12 is two fibers per cc, but theres an action

13 level for point one fibers per cc, correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

16 Q. And it says results of area

17 sampling in Table Two indicate fibers

18 concentration both above and below the hung

19 ceiling during the work period are significantly

20 elevated, true?

21 A. Thats what it says.

22 Q. Okay. Can you tell me, sir, who

23 was warned as a result of these findings that

24 they needed to get medical surveillance in

25 order to protect their health?

273

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

2 A. I believe the person that was

3 warned would have been, if any, these results

4 were disseminated, as I said, through the

5 minutes. This particular document was

6 distributed. But the OHWG minutes went to the

7 medical directors and the safety directors and

8 the operating telephone companies.

9 Q. But not the document that said that

10 there was significantly elevated levels in the

11 buildings where the Bell Operating employees

12 were actually working, true?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

14 A. By 1984 I believe all of the

15 medical directors and the safety directors of

16 the operating telephone companies were aware of

17 the problem or the potential problems for people

18 working above hung ceilings.

19 Q. But the other problem, sir, was it

20 not, that if there was elevated fibers above

21 the ceilings they had the potential to be

22 circulated within the building as a result of

23 return air current, true?

24 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

25 A. Yes. But not necessarily as high

274

1 as the levels for the person who was working

2 immediately adjacent to it.

3 Q. I agree with that, sir. What

4 warnings were given by Bell Laboratories to the

5 people who occupied this building that they

6 could be potentially exposed to asbestos as a

7 result of the return air current because the

8 asbestos was friable above the hung ceilings?

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

10 A. It would not have been Bell

11 Laboratories purview, if you want to use that

12 term, to notify people about that. It would be

13 the people who were working in this building.

14 The other thing –

15 Q. Well, how about the people who

16 owned the people, sir, AT&T –

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

18 Q. — did they have a responsibility to

19 tell people who were working in the building

20 that they would be potentially exposed to

21 asbestos as a result of the fibers that were

22 floating around above the ceiling?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection. Note my

24 objection to your characterization,

25 ownership, and the time frame of the

275

1 document.

2 A. I dont know that theres a

3 requirement to notify people of a potential

4 exposure. So that the way you phrased the

5 question, you said potential exposure. The

6 other thing is what would have been done with

7 respect to this would be to change the work

8 practice or stop the working with — again,

9 this was all simulated work above the hung

10 ceiling to determine what the levels were.

11 And as a result of this, there

12 would have been changes in the work practice so

13 that the installers did not need to disturb the

14 asbestos. And thats exactly what we did.

15 Q. Did you go back and tell the people

16 who installed that were doing the installation

17 before this that they better get checked out

18 that medical monitoring was available to them?

19 Did you do that?

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

21 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

22 A. We informed the people who were

23 part of this study of the results of the

24 study. The was part of our standard practice.

25 Q. That wasnt my question, sir.

276

1 Remember, sir, when before it was stated that

2 it would be a serious violation of OSHA policy

3 not to provide medical monitoring for somebody

4 who was exposed to levels above the action

5 area, remember that statement, sir?

6 A. Was exposed as in exposed during

7 the past? I dont believe that precisely

8 characterizes the statement.

9 Q. Well, sir –

10 A. You cant be exposed, you know, I

11 dont know that theres a requirement to go

12 back and notify people of exposures in the

13 past.

14 Q. So even though you now had

15 information that there were people working in

16 this building that performed tasks that would

17 have exposed them to levels above OSHA limits,

18 AT&T did nothing to tell those people about

19 their exposures –

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

21 Q. — is that what youre saying?

22 A. The people who performed these

23 tasks and had those exposures would be the

24 installers and work practices or changes would

25 have been done for the installers.

277

1 Q. Sir –

2 A. And I know that for a fact because

3 I dealt with the safety director of New Jersey

4 Bell, and I know that was one of his particular

5 concerns.

6 Q. What was one of his particular

7 concerns?

8 A. The potential exposure for his

9 installers working above hung ceilings primarily

10 at customer premises.

11 Q. And did you tell him that you were

12 now that the installers, if they continued to

13 do the same thing, would be exposed to levels

14 above the OSHA limit?

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

16 A. He would have had access to the

17 OHWG minutes, and I know he was aware of that.

18 Q. Well, this wasnt part of the OHWG

19 minutes, sir, correct?

20 A. These documents that you showed me

21 before I thought triggered this study.

22 Q. Have you seen any OHWG minutes that

23 indicated that AT&T or Bell Laboratories transmitted

24 this information?

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection. What

278

1 information?

2 Q. The information that there was

3 exposure above OSHA limits for people working

4 above ceilings at Hoes Lane.

5 A. Not, specifically, at Hose Lane.

6 Q. Okay. Now, would you agree with

7 me, sir, that we now know from looking at the

8 these documents that asbestos fireproofing was

9 used at Hoes Lane, true?

10 A. True.

11 Q. Okay. And we know that happened

12 sometime after 1971, true?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

14 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

15 A. Yeah. I would imagine, I thought

16 you said it was built in 1971.

17 Q. Well, you saw the section that said

18 structural steel went up in 71, true?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. So the fireproofing would have gone

22 on after the structural steel, would you

23 agree?

24 A. It would have gone on immediately

25 after the –

279

1 Q. Correct.

2 A. — structural steel. So if the

3 structural steel went up in 1971, I suspect

4 within a few weeks or certainly probably days

5 the spray-on insulation would have gone on.

6 Q. All right. Now, youre aware, are

7 you not — by the way, when you did your

8 testing at Hoes Lane, did you test any of the

9 walls to see if there was asbestos-containing

10 joint compound installed in the walls?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

12 A. No, we did not.

13 Q. Why not?

14 A. We didnt know that joint compound

15 contained asbestos.

16 Q. Well, your boss did.

17 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

18 Q. Didnt he?

19 A. I dont know.

20 Q. Well, do you know that he actually

21 went to U.S. Gypsum sometime in the mid-1970s

22 and was looking for a substitute on behalf of

23 AT&T, did you know that?

24 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

25 A. I did not.

280

1 Q. Okay. Your boss knew about this

2 project, did he not?

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

4 Q. The 44 Hoes Lane project?

5 A. Which project? The construction of

6 Hoes Lane?

7 Q. No, the testing.

8 A. The testing that was done, yes.

9 Q. But it was never recommended that

10 it be determined whether or not there was

11 asbestos throughout that building on the walls

12 as a result of joint compound, true?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

14 A. As I recall, the walls were glass

15 on the outside. And I believe they were

16 concrete block or cinder block or concrete on

17 the core. And when we did the, when the

18 removal was done, it was stripped completely.

19 There were no other walls up.

20 Q. But there was installed in the

21 offices, was there not, Sheetrock?

22 A. I dont recall if it was Sheetrock

23 or if it was open plan office. I believe it

24 was open plan office so there may not have been

25 Sheetrock. It may have been. I dont recall

281

1 what was there. When I looked at it, it was

2 stripped of all the furniture and the walls.

3 Q. Okay.

4 A. Other than the core section.

5 Q. Okay. So whatever walls were there,

6 they were gone by the time you got there.

7 A. With the exception of the internal

8 walls and the external walls.

9 Q. Okay. But isnt one of the most

10 dangerous operations that somebody can do as it

11 relates to asbestos is to actually tear down

12 walls and do remodeling?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection. Its

14 getting well beyond the scope of his

15 testimony.

16 MR. PLACITELLA: Im going to get

17 there. Im going to get right there.

18 A. Possibly spraying it on is more

19 hazardous, Im sorry, generates greater

20 concentrations. Im not sure. Again, it

21 depends on how you remove it.

22 Q. Well, if you knocked down walls,

23 thats a really dangerous thing to do if it has

24 asbestos, true?

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

282

1 A. Walls typically do not contain

2 asbestos. Were talking about spray-on ceiling

3 insulation.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. So if you knocked down a wall, it

6 wouldnt necessarily release asbestos fibers

7 from the ceiling.

8 Q. Okay. Let me just show you this.

9 (Whereupon Mr. Placitella shows

10 video.)

11 Q. Have you ever seen this video, sir?

12 It talks about the remodeling of walls that

13 contain asbestos.

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

15 A. I remember that actor, yes.

16 Q. And why do you remember that actor?

17 A. I guess from the gray hair.

18 Q. This is part of the video, the

19 training video.

20 (Whereupon Mr. Placitella shows

21 video.)

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection. I object

23 to questions about this video of this

24 witness.

25 Q. Do you recall ever seeing this

283

1 video, sir?

2 A. This is a different one than the

3 one we saw previously?

4 Q. Yes, sir?

5 A. I dont recall this one.

6 Q. Okay. Do you know, did you read in

7 Mr. Degnans deposition where he says he

8 believes where he was exposed to joint compound

9 during the construction of the Hoes Lane

10 project?

11 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

12 A. I dont recall joint compound. I

13 do recall him talking about the Hoes Lane

14 project.

15 Q. Okay. Sir, have you seen this

16 document from January 22, 1975?

17 A. I dont recall this particular

18 document.

19 Q. This is a document that was

20 authored by your boss, correct?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. And it talks about a memorandum

23 that was authored by his boss, correct?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. And what it says is, it says your

284

1 memorandum of January 10, 1975, to Mr. Wilkening

2 illustrates another part of environment that

3 contains asbestos fibers, fiber. See that?

4 A. I do.

5 Q. We are surrounded by endless products

6 such as roofing, shingles, brake linings, floor

7 tile, gaskets, antifreeze, et cetera, that

8 contain asbestos. Did I read that correctly?

9 A. You did.

10 Q. In addition, so outcropping of

11 asbestos rock result in a natural background

12 level in certain areas of the country, correct?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Then he goes on to talk about joint

15 compound, does he not?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And he says regarding the asbestos

18 and Sheetrock joint compound, the local sales

19 office of the United States Gypsum Company at

20 210 Summit Avenue, Montvale, New Jersey, with a

21 zip code, was contacted for information. They

22 indicated that a new product had just been

23 introduced on the market that eliminated the

24 asbestos hazard. You see that?

25 A. I see that.

285

1 Q. Does the indicate to you, sir, that

2 your boss and his boss was aware of the hazard

3 presented when using asbestos-containing joint

4 compound?

5 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

6 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

7 A. That indicates that my boss was

8 aware of the fact that joint compound contained

9 asbestos not that there was a hazard from it.

10 Q. Well, does it say, sir, that they

11 indicated that a new product had just been

12 developed, you see that part?

13 A. I do.

14 Q. That eliminated asbestos hazard?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. So he was, there was a discussion

17 by your boss and his boss about the asbestos

18 hazard from joint compound, true?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

20 A. There was discussion that joint

21 compound contains asbestos, which would be

22 considered a hazard. But –

23 Q. Right. Clearly your boss knew that

24 joint compound contained asbestos, true?

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Did you finish your

286

1 answer to the previous question?

2 THE WITNESS: I believe I did. Im

3 sorry, I missed your –

4 Q. Your boss was aware that joint

5 compound contained asbestos, true?

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

7 A. As of this date of this memo, yes.

8 Q. And his boss was aware, true?

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And it wasnt until 1977, am I

12 correct, that joint compound was banned as an

13 asbestos-containing product?

14 MR. MCGOWAN: Object to Form.

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

16 A. I dont know when it was banned. I

17 know that, Im not familiar when it was banned.

18 Q. Okay. Are you aware, sir, and if

19 youre not, thats fine, that joint compound

20 was banned because of the cancer risk by the

21 Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1977?

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

23 A. I wasnt aware of that, no.

24 Q. Sir, can you tell me, I take it

25 youre also not aware that the Consumer Product

287

1 Safety Commission considered just four days of

2 exposure to be significant in their opinion –

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

4 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

5 Q. — correct?

6 A. A high yet reasonably foreseeable

7 exposure is the term that they used.

8 Q. Yeah. They said the commission

9 considered the use of patching compounds by the

10 consumer for six hours a day, four times a year

11 to be a high yet reasonably foreseeable exposure,

12 true?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection. Beyond

14 the scope of his testimony.

15 A. Thats what it states.

16 Q. Well, Im asking you.

17 A. Its also saying that the Consumer

18 Product Safety Commission uses different

19 standards as if primarily protecting the public

20 as opposed to employees.

21 Q. And thats –

22 A. And OSHA would. The same thing

23 with EPA.

24 Q. And thats something that you knew

25 as an employee as an industrial hygienist,

288

1 true?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. But the lungs for a consumer are no

4 different than the lungs of a worker, would you

5 agree with that?

6 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection. Do you

7 have anymore questions relevant to the

8 topics that hes here today for?

9 MR. PLACITELLA: Yes, in a minute.

10 Q. Yes, sir?

11 A. What, Im sorry, is there no

12 difference?

13 Q. The lungs of a consumer are no

14 different than the lungs of a worker.

15 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection and

17 argumentative.

18 A. I have no knowledge that theyre

19 any different.

20 Q. Okay. Now, Im going to show you

21 another clip that was provided to me. Im

22 going to ask you some questions about it.

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to the use

24 of any of these videos of this witness.

25 (Whereupon Mr. Placitella show

289

1 video.)

2 Q. Now, to be fair, I pieced together

3 a whole bunch of the videos and the various

4 warnings that I saw on the videos. And my

5 question to you is, are you aware of any of

6 these kinds of warnings being provided to Mr.

7 Degnan when he worked at the Hoes Lane facility

8 owned by AT&T in Piscataway, New Jersey?

9 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

10 A. I am not. I did not know Mr.

11 Degnan.

12 Q. Well, in all of the documents that

13 you reviewed in preparation for todays

14 deposition, did you see anything that would

15 indicate that any kind of a warning like this

16 was provided by AT&T during the construction of

17 a Hoes Lane facility?

18 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection. Beyond

19 the scope of this testimony today.

20 A. I dont know. I know that as

21 youve gotten this document, this training

22 video and so forth, that was provided by AT&T

23 for use by the operating telephone companies.

24 I dont know the time frame in which it was

25 provided.

290

1 Q. Sir, did you see anything in any of

2 the documents that you reviewed to indicate

3 that people like Mr. Degnan who are working in

4 AT&T buildings, owned by AT&T were ever warned

5 about the dangers associated with being in a

6 room where joint compound was being installed?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection. Beyond

8 the scope.

9 A. No. I do not.

10 Q. Did you see any documents to

11 indicate that people like Mr. Degnan could be

12 exposed to asbestos as a result of working in a

13 work environment contaminated by the spraying

14 of asbestos?

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

16 A. Im sorry. I dont believe that

17 they would be working in those areas while

18 asbestos was being sprayed on.

19 Q. I agree with that, sir, but

20 afterwards they would go into that environment

21 and unless it was abated, there might still be

22 some asbestos there, would you agree?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

24 A. Asbestos there, yes, not necessarily

25 in the air.

291

1 Q. Okay. Now, sir, theres a document

2 here entitled Bell Communications Research that

3 I received from your attorneys called Recognizing

4 Health Hazards. Have you ever seen this document

5 before?

6 A. I saw this document as part of the

7 preparation for today.

8 Q. Okay. And theres a section on

9 asbestos, true?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. And underneath it on the right-hand

12 side it talks about possible sources, correct?

13 A. Correct.

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

15 Q. And it says studies have shown that

16 Bell Operation Company workplaces generally do

17 not expose employees to hazardous concentrations

18 of asbestos fibers, correct?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Okay. And, in fact, it says less

22 than one percent of the company owned and

23 leased buildings were suspected of containing

24 asbestos substances, true?

25 A. True.

292

1 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

2 Q. But Hoes Lane we knew there was

3 asbestos now, dont we?

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So it was one of the one percent?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And it says and where asbestos

9 products do exist, exposure levels are well

10 below those permitted by current OSHA standards,

11 correct?

12 A. Thats what it says.

13 Q. And then further on, in the same

14 document, it talks about cable splicing. You

15 see that?

16 A. I do.

17 Q. Okay. And what it talks about

18 dangers to cable splicers. It says cable

19 splicing and repair. Do you see that?

20 A. I do.

21 Q. And it says the hazards are

22 solvents, true?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. Lead?

25 A. No. It says expect these hazards.

293

1 Q. Expect these hazards.

2 A. It does not say that they are

3 hazards, but expect them.

4 Q. Fair enough. Expect these hazards,

5 solvents, lead, compressed gasses.

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Who was the Bell Communications

8 Research recognizing health hazard intended

9 for?

10 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

11 A. Again, this was Bell Communications

12 Research so this would have been subsequently

13 to 1984. It is not Bell Laboratories.

14 Q. Uh-hum.

15 A. Im fairly certain this was

16 something that was put out by Jim Degen to the,

17 what were they called, the seven Baby Bells at

18 that point that had been divested from AT&T.

19 Q. And Jim Degen worked for who at the

20 time?

21 A. Bell Communications Research.

22 Q. Okay. And what was their relationship

23 to AT&T?

24 A. There was no direct legal relationship

25 at that time I believe. They were a completely

294

1 separate company owned by each of the, owned by

2 all of the seven regional Bell Operating Companies.

3 It was just a term used at the time.

4 Q. I did my best to look through these

5 80,000 plus documents that were supplied and

6 you were given documents. So let me just ask

7 you some questions because maybe you saw

8 something that I didnt see.

9 In all of your research in preparation

10 for todays deposition, did you see anything

11 that indicated that cable splicers were warned

12 about asbestos exposure from using asbestos-

13 containing wiping pads?

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

15 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to Form.

16 A. I did not.

17 Q. In all of your research, did you

18 see anything that indicated that cable splicers

19 were warned about potential exposure from

20 asbestos-containing blankets?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

22 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

23 A. I did not but then they werent

24 using blankets at the time, asbestos-containing

25 blankets at the time that I was looking at it.

295

1 Q. I understand that, but Im just

2 talking about because youre here as a

3 representative talking about the historical use

4 of asbestos products.

5 A. Right.

6 Q. Okay. And Im asking you that in

7 all of the research that you did and all the

8 pertinent information that was provided to you,

9 did you see anything that indicated that people

10 using asbestos blankets were warned that they

11 could potentially harm their health?

12 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

14 A. I saw no evidence that they could

15 be potentially harmed by the use of those

16 blankets. I saw no warnings that was provided

17 to them.

18 Q. Well, you did see the documents

19 that said they were discontinued because of

20 potential cancer hazard, right?

21 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

22 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

23 A. Potential cancer hazard, correct.

24 Q. In all of your research and all of

25 the information provided for you, did you see

296

1 anything to indicate that people like Mr.

2 Degnan were warned not to be in the area where

3 transite cable hole covers were being cut?

4 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

5 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

6 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

7 A. I did not see anything like that.

8 Q. Did you see anything in all your

9 research to indicate that there were warnings

10 given to anybody to indicate that they were at

11 risk of getting injured by being in the vicinity

12 of cable hole covers being cut?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

14 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

15 A. I didnt see any evidence that

16 cable hole covers being cut created a large

17 hazard, and I didnt see any evidence that they

18 warned that being in the vicinity would be a

19 problem.

20 Q. Well, sir, you did see documents

21 today, did you not, that indicating the cutting

22 of transite cable hole covers in central

23 offices exceeded the OSHA exposure limits, you

24 did see those documents, did you not?

25 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

297

1 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

2 A. I dont recall that.

3 Q. As you sit here today, did you see

4 anything to indicate that people who worked in

5 central offices, at any time, were warned that

6 the cutting of transite cable hole covers were

7 exceeding the OSHA limits?

8 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

9 A. I dont recall seeing that, no.

10 Q. Did you see any, in all of your

11 research and in all of the information provided

12 to you, did you see any indication, indicating

13 that warnings were provided to people who

14 would, as part of their job, have anything to

15 do with the cable holes that they were

16 potentially exposed to asbestos as a result of

17 working in or around those cable holes?

18 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

20 A. I did not. The evidence, the

21 documents that I saw showed to me that when

22 they discovered that there was asbestos in

23 those things, they looked around for a

24 replacement and the replacement was steel.

25 Q. Okay.

298

1 A. Thats the evidence that I saw.

2 Again, its sort of an industrial hygiene

3 thing. If you have a product that youre

4 concern about, substitution is your primary

5 means of controlling it. Beyond that theres

6 other methods. But substitution is the primary

7 one.

8 Q. Yes, sir.

9 A. If you substituted a less hazardous

10 product, one would assume that theres no need

11 to warn people about the hazards of the previous

12 product.

13 Q. Yes, sir, you agree with me that it

14 is a generally recognized principle of

15 industrial hygiene dating back to the 1930s

16 that if you have not substituted for a less

17 dangerous product, that the employees or

18 workers should be warned, true?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

20 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to Form.

21 A. Theres a number of other steps

22 that would be taken, but thats one of them,

23 yes.

24 Q. And that dated, the principle, even

25 for asbestos, dated back all the way to the

299

1 1930s, true?

2 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

3 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

4 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

5 A. I wasnt around in the 1930s, and

6 Im not an expert on historical industrial

7 hygiene. But I dont have any evidence to

8 dispute that.

9 Q. Okay. There was no warnings ever

10 provided about the potential for exposure to

11 asbestos from return air plenums in AT&T

12 buildings, true?

13 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

14 A. Id say false. The cable, sorry,

15 the installers were instructed in different

16 techniques that they could use so.

17 Q. When did that first happen, sir?

18 A. I couldnt say. It was sometime in

19 the 1975 to 80 time frame.

20 Q. Well, what about the people who

21 were in the building, sir, were they ever

22 warned? Did you see any evidence in all of

23 your research, in the documents that were

24 provided that people in the building were

25 warned that asbestos could be returned to their

300

1 breathing environment because of a return air

2 plenum?

3 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

4 A. We did not make it a policy to

5 inform people of potential hazards unless there

6 was a likelihood of that being an actual

7 hazard. We went out and we measured air

8 concentrations in office buildings, and we did

9 not see levels above the OSHA permissible

10 exposure limit so we did not warn them.

11 Q. Sir, youre aware that Mr. Degnan

12 went down a manhole, true?

13 A. If he was a cable splicer, that was

14 part of his job.

15 Q. Did you see anything in all of your

16 research, in everything that was provided to

17 you by counsel for AT&T and Lucent that

18 indicated that cable splicers who entered

19 manholes would be exposed to asbestos up to

20 four times greater than the ambient air levels

21 above?

22 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

23 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

24 MR. MCGOWAN: Form.

25 A. You showed me the document of the

301

1 asbestos work that was done in Chesapeake and

2 Potomac, and I believe there might have been

3 some other stuff in Overland Park, Kansas.

4 Q. But were the people, the cable

5 splicers ever warned that they were potentially

6 exposed to asbestos by entering manholes?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

8 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

9 A. I believe there were general

10 asbestos videos that were provided as part of

11 training. I believe that would have been

12 provided to cable splicers, but I couldnt say

13 specifically.

14 Q. But that didnt happen until the

15 1980s, right?

16 VIDEOGRAPHER: I dont want to lose

17 anymore testimony unless we go off the

18 record now.

19 Q. 1980, correct, after that?

20 A. I dont know the time frame.

21 VIDEOGRAPHER: Were going to take

22 a break, right?

23 MR. PLACITELLA: Yeah.

24 VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. Its 4:49.

25 This is the end of Tape Number Four.

302

1 Were off the record.

2 (Whereupon a brief recess is

3 taken.)

4 VIDEOGRAPHER: Its now 4:58.

5 Were back on the record, and were

6 starting Tape Number Five.

7 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

8 Q. In all of your research and your

9 personal experience and anything provided to

10 you by counsel for AT&T and Lucent, do you have

11 any information to indicate that cable splicers

12 like Mr. Degnan were warned that they would

13 potentially be exposed to asbestos as a result

14 of their work in a Bell Operating Company?

15 A. Other than the asbestos training

16 that they would have received or the videos,

17 no.

18 Q. And that was sometime in the 80s?

19 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

20 A. I dont know the time frame.

21 Q. Okay. Weve gone through a lot of

22 stuff today that you saw and some stuff you

23 never saw, true?

24 A. Thats correct.

25 Q. Having had how the opportunity to

303

1 review the documents I showed you plus the

2 documents shown to you by counsel, do you

3 believe as a corporate representative for AT&T

4 or Lucent that they made any mistakes in terms

5 of protecting the health and safety of employees

6 in the Bell Operating Companies?

7 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

8 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

9 A. I dont know of any mistakes that

10 they made.

11 Q. You agree with me then, sir, that

12 everything that was done in terms of asbestos

13 and health and its relation to Bell Operating

14 employees was done on purpose.

15 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

16 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

17 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

18 A. Was done on purpose — I dont like

19 the way that sentence is phrased. I would say

20 that all of the people that I knew in the Bell

21 System were very concerned about the health and

22 safety of the employees. They would not have

23 done anything to jeopardize their health or

24 safety.

25 Q. That wasnt my question.

304

1 A. So they would purposely do things

2 to not jeopardize the health and safety of

3 employees. If you want to use the word

4 purpose, thats the way I would phrase it.

5 Q. I am not suggesting to you, sir,

6 and I dont want you to take offense that you

7 did anything because you could only do, you

8 could only act on information provided to you.

9 Do you agree with that?

10 A. Thats a general philosophical

11 statement of the whole world.

12 Q. Right. In other words, if you

13 werent told about the asbestos bans in cable

14 holes, you couldnt do anything about it,

15 true?

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

17 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

18 A. True.

19 Q. If you werent told that their

20 cable splicers were using asbestos-containing

21 wiping pads as part of their job, you couldnt

22 do anything about it, true?

23 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

24 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection to Form.

25 A. Part of my job was to find out if

305

1 such products were being used.

2 Q. At the time you worked there. Im

3 talking about historical.

4 A. Thats correct.

5 Q. What Im saying if you werent

6 provided historical information on what

7 practices went on before you got to AT&T or

8 Bell Labs, theres nothing you could do about,

9 true?

10 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

11 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

12 A. It was not part of our job to take

13 a look at what had been, gone on in the past.

14 Q. Okay. Thats fair. Would you

15 agree with me then that anything from your

16 review of the documents, historically, even

17 before you got there, that all the actions

18 taken by AT&T and Western Electric in relation

19 to asbestos and health were deliberate?

20 MS. CRAWFORD: Objection.

21 MR. MCGOWAN: Objection.

22 MR. HORNBY: Objection.

23 A. I dont know that people ever do

24 undeliberate actions. So I guess I dont

25 understand what a nondeliberate action would

306

1 be. If youre taking an action, its deliberate.

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. Perhaps if you dont take an

4 action, it would be. The term deliberate, I am

5 not quite sure how one should define that.

6 Q. Okay. You currently live in Spain?

7 A. I do.

8 Q. And is that your temporary residence,

9 permanent residence?

10 A. I have a contract for one year.

11 Whether that becomes permanent or not, at least

12 its my permanent residence as of right now.

13 Q. Who is that with, that contract?

14 A. That is with a company called Spain

15 Agility First Support.

16 Q. Okay. Were you paid to prepare

17 your testimony for today?

18 A. I was, sorry, I will be.

19 Q. And what rate are you paid?

20 A. $175 an hour.

21 Q. And does that include the time that

22 you spend here?

23 A. It includes the time that I spend

24 here in this room, yes.

25 Q. What about the time since youve

307

1 been here on Saturday?

2 A. Only the time that I spent

3 discussing the attorneys.

4 Q. And does it also include the time

5 for preparation?

6 A. It includes time for preparation.

7 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. Now, Im

8 going to have, just for the record, this

9 has been marked P-1 for identification.

10 And, counsel, Ill accept your representation,

11 that, unless you assume you want to

12 represent it, that these are the documents

13 that you provided Mr. Lichtenwalner for

14 his review prior for todays deposition.

15 MS. CRAWFORD: For the record, the

16 production of P-1 is the copy of documents

17 that AT&T provided to Mr. Lichtenwalner

18 for purposes of preparing for this

19 deposition.

20 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. So Ill

21 attach these to the transcript. Im going

22 to defer and let some of the lawyers — I

23 think youve had enough of me. So Ill

24 let some of the other lawyers ask questions,

25 and if theres time, I may ask another

308

1 question. Thank you, youre very

2 cooperative.

3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRACEFFO:

4 Q. My name if Anthony Graceffo. I

5 represent J.P. Patti Company. Are you familiar

6 with J.P. Patti Company?

7 A. I am not.

8 Q. Do you have any information at all

9 concerning materials, asbestos-containing

10 materials that J.P. Patti would have supplied,

11 distributed, installed to any of the AT&T sites?

12 A. I do not have any information.

13 Q. Thats all I have.

14 MS. CRAWFORD: Thank you. Do you

15 want to take a break? I think were good.

16 VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. This concludes

17 todays proceeding of Video Tape Five.

18 Were going off the record. Time is 5:06

19 p.m.

20 (Deposition adjourned at 5:06 p.m.)

309

1 CERTIFICATION OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT

3 I, Rachel Santiago, hereby certify that

4 the transcript I have herein produced is within

5 the guidelines adopted by the State of New

6 Jersey Administrative Code and I certify to the

7 following:

8 I am not related to any party involved in

9 this action and I have no financial interest in

10 the outcome of this action.

11 I am a court reporter, an unbiased agent

12 of the courts and the transcript produced

13 herein is a verbatim record of the testimony as

14 testified to under oath within a judicial body

15 created by statute of the State of New Jersey.

16 Also, I am a duly authorized Notary Public

17 of the State of New Jersey or an otherwise

18 acceptable Foreign Commissioner of Deeds, duly

19 authorized to administer oaths for the purpose

20 of this record.

21 My commission expires August 2012. Notary

22 Public NO. 2204535.

25 Signature_________________

New Jersey Mesothelioma Lawyers | Philadelphia Mesothelioma Lawyers

Do You Want to Know Your Legal Options?

Search

The Law Offices of Cohen, Placitella and Roth

Popular Keyword Searches