Cable splicers who worked for the Bell operating companies had significant exposure to asbestos capable of causing mesothelioma. The following deposition details the products used and some of the information in the possession of AT&T.
1
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
2 IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
3 ————————-x
4 MALLORY DORMAN, :
5 Personal Representative :
6 of the Estate of DORIS :
7 FAYE DORMAN, his wife, :
8 deceased, :
9 Plaintiff : Case No. 07-41685 CA 42
10 :
11 v. :
12 : PAGES 1 through 193
13 ADVANCED AUTO PARTS, :
14 INC., et al., :
15 Defendants :
16 ————————-x
17 Videotaped Deposition of AT&T Corporation by its
18 corporate designee, Ralph V. Collipi, Jr.
19 Washington, DC
20 Wednesday, September 30, 2009
21 Reported by: Joanne Liverani, RMR
22 ASSIGNMENT NO. 87262
2
1
2
3
4 September 30, 2009
5 9:54 a.m.
6
7 Videotaped Deposition of AT&T Corporation by its
8 corporate designee, Ralph V. Collipi, Jr.,
9 held at the offices of:
10
11 Crowell & Moring
12 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
13 Washington, DC 20004-2595
14
15 Pursuant to notice, before Joanne Liverani, RMR, a
16 Notary Public of the District of Columbia.
17
18
19
20
21
22
3
1 APPEARANCES:
2 For the Plaintiff, MALLORY DORMAN, PERSONAL
3 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DORIS FAYE DORMAN, HIS
4 WIFE, DECEASED
5 HartleyLaw,LLC
6 Post Office Box 2492
7 Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29465-2492
8 (843)388-1330
9 chartley@ChristianHartley.com
10 BY: Christian Hartley, Esq.
11 -and-
12 The Ruckdeschel Law Firm, LLC
13 5126 Dorsey Hall Drive
14 Suite 201
15 Ellicott City, Maryland 21042
16 (410)884-7825
17 horvat@rucklawfirm.com
18 BY: Z. STEPHEN HORVAT, Esq.
19
20 For the Defendants, AT&T CORPORATION, SOUTHERN BELL
21 Coffey Burlington
22 2699 S. Bayshore Drive
4
1 Suite A
2 Miami, Florida 33133-5428
3 (305)858-2900
4 RBurlington@coffeyburlington.com
5 BY: Robert Burlington, Esq.
6
7 THE FOLLOWING APPEARANCE WAS MADE VIA SPEAKERPHONE:
8 For the Defendant, ALCATEL-LUCENT, USA, INC.
9 Bennett, Aiello, Cohen & Fried
10 25 SE 2nd Avenue
11 Miami, Florida 33131-1503
12 (786)363-4455
13 EThompson@bennettaiello.com
14 BY: Eric Thompson, Esq.
15
16 Also Present:
17 Steve Schaal, Videographer
18
19
20
21
22
5
1 C O N T E N T S
2 EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS: PAGE
3 RALPH V. COLLIPI, JR.
4 Examination By Mr. Hartley 8
5
6 Collipi Deposition Exhibits PAGE
7 1 Notice of Continuation of the 9
Videotaped Deposition Duces Tecum of
8 the Corporate Designee of AT&T
Corporation
9
2 notes made by the witness labeled 26
10 Timeline of Med Dept History
11 3 Bates stamp ATT-FL-DOR-0093469 58
through 473
12
4 multipage document entitled 60
13 Occupational Medicine in Western
Electric
14
5 blank sheet numbered 9 on the right 62
15 side followed by a multipage document
entitled Longevity and Good Health
16
6 multipage document entitled Modern 64
17 Medical Concepts for Industry
18 7 multipage document dated June 1, 74
1922, entitled Safety Code, The
19 Pacific Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Bell System, And Associated
20 Companies
21 8 multipage document dated 1929, 75
entitled Safety Code, Universal
22 Safety, Southwestern Bell Telephone
6
1
9 notes made by the witness labeled 82
2 Overall Timeline
3 10 one-page document dated March 26, 101
1970, Re: Asbestos Health
4 Information Article, sent by J.G.
Wall, M.D.
5
11 notes made by the witness labeled 106
6 Sampling
7 12 notes made by the witness labeled 106
Transite Duct
8
13 Bates stamp LUC 02234 through 241 120
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
7
1 VIDEOGRAPHER: This is tape one
2 of the videotaped deposition 30(b)(6) of Ralph V.
3 Collipi in the matter of Mallory Dorman, et al.
4 versus Advanced Auto Parts, et al., in the Circuit
5 Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for
6 Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 07-41685 CA
7 42.
8 The deposition is being held at 1001
9 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC, on
10 September 30th, 2009. The time on the monitor is
11 9:54.
12 My names Steve Schaal, and Im the
13 videographer. The court reporter is Joanne
14 Liverani.
15 Will counsel please introduce themselves
16 and state whom you represent?
17 MR. HARTLEY: Christian Hartley
18 for the plaintiffs.
19 MR. BURLINGTON: Robert
20 Burlington on behalf of AT&T Corp.
21 MR. HORVAT: Steve Horvat –
22 MR. THOMPSON: Eric Thompson –
8
1 Eric Thompson on behalf of defendant Alcatel-Lucent
2 USA, Inc.
3 MR. HORVAT: Steve Horvat for
4 the plaintiffs.
5 VIDEOGRAPHER: Would the court
6 reporter please swear in the witness.
7 Thereupon,
8 RALPH V. COLLIPI, JR.,
9 the Witness, called for examination by counsel for the
10 Plaintiff, and, after having been sworn by the notary,
11 was examined and testified as follows:
12 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF, MALLORY
13 DORMAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DORIS
14 FAYE DORMAN, HIS WIFE, DECEASED
15 BY MR. HARTLEY:
16 Q Would you tell us your name, please?
17 A My name is Ralph V. Collipi, Jr.
18 Q Mr. Collipi, weve met before in this
19 same — in this same deposition on other topics;
20 true?
21 A Thats correct.
22 Q Okay. You understand today, just as you
9
1 did then, that you are here to speak as the voice
2 of AT&T on the topics for which you have been
3 designated?
4 A Thats correct.
5 (Collipi Exhibit No. 1 – Notice of
6 Continuation of the Videotaped Deposition
7 Duces Tecum of the Corporate Designee of AT&T
8 Corporation – was marked for identification.)
9 BY MR. HARTLEY:
10 Q Okay. Im showing you what is marked as
11 Exhibit 1 to AT&Ts corporate deposition. Its the
12 continuation of that deposition.
13 Have you seen that continuation, the
14 notice of continuation?
15 A Yes, I have.
16 Q Okay. And I have highlighted on the –
17 I think towards the la — end of it there the two
18 topics that we are here to speak about today. Is
19 that accurate?
20 A Thats correct.
21 Q Okay. What — would you read the first
22 of the two highlighted topics?
10
1 A The history, development, and substance
2 of your corporate epidemiology program. And the
3 history, development, and substance of your
4 corporate medical program.
5 Q Okay. The — the first one is the
6 corporate epidemiology program; is that correct?
7 A Thats correct.
8 Q And thats topic number 15?
9 A Thats correct.
10 Q You are prepared today to address that
11 topic for AT&T?
12 A Yes, I am.
13 Q Okay. And what did you do to prepare
14 yourself to address topic number 15, regarding
15 AT&Ts corporate med — corporate epidemiology
16 program?
17 A I reviewed records from the company,
18 from the medical department, including the
19 occupational health working group minutes.
20 Whatever records I could find from the medical
21 directors.
22 I also interviewed approximately 20
11
1 people, including those that may still be employed
2 by AT&T and those who are no longer with the
3 company, including a few of the corporate medical
4 directors.
5 Q Anything else that you can think of as
6 we –
7 A I reviewed dozens of boxes of documents
8 and also asked the lawyers to do additional
9 searches for certain types of information, where I
10 thought I might need more info.
11 Q When you asked the lawyers to do that,
12 did they comply?
13 A Yes, they did.
14 Q Okay, good.
15 How did you choose what you reviewed for
16 topic number 15?
17 A Well, the main items of interest that
18 were the occupational health and working group
19 minutes, and those seemed to be included in
20 Dr. Dorothea Johnsons files that we — that we
21 were able to — the lawyers were able to find.
22 Q Dorothea, D-O-R-O-T-H-E-A?
12
1 A Thats correct.
2 Q And who was Dorothea Johnson?
3 A She was the corporate medical director
4 until about 1987, I believe.
5 Q What was the beginning of her tenure?
6 A I believe she was a physician for one of
7 the Bell Operating Companies.
8 Q Do you know when she started?
9 A I recall sometime in the 50s, I
10 believe.
11 Q And she worked her way up to being in
12 charge of the — the corporate — to being
13 corporate medical director for AT&T?
14 A Thats correct.
15 Q Do you know which operating company she
16 was a — employed by initially?
17 A I dont recall specifically.
18 Q Is there — is there one operating
19 company thats — that was more likely to move
20 people up in the ranks into AT&T?
21 A I dont think so.
22 Q Okay. Were Dr. Johnsons medical file
13
1 or files maintained as a — as a discrete unit?
2 A Its hard to say. I believe the files
3 were found in storage.
4 Q Okay. Have — have you seen the
5 original paper copies of her files versus
6 photocopies from the lawyers?
7 A What Ive –
8 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
9 form.
10 THE WITNESS: What I reviewed
11 were paper files.
12 BY MR. HARTLEY:
13 Q Her original files like the ones that
14 were — in the file cabinets at some point?
15 A Ones that were in boxes that were in
16 storage with the record archivist the — the
17 company used.
18 Q Okay. Now, you interviewed 20 people.
19 How did you choose who you interviewed?
20 A I interviewed three medical directors.
21 I interviewed Dr. Bond, who was the corporate
22 medical director in the 60s. I also interviewed
14
1 Dr. Bidnick, who was the medical director after
2 Dr. Johnson. I interviewed some nurses that are no
3 longer with the corporation. I also interviewed
4 some of the environment health and safety
5 professionals that I work with. And interviewed
6 some paralegals relative to record search.
7 Q Okay. Anybody else that — does that
8 make up all of the 20 people?
9 A I also interviewed the people who took
10 care of the records from the medical department
11 when it was shut down in 2005. And I believe that
12 was a — basically a clerical person and a
13 paralegal.
14 Q Okay. How long did this investigation
15 last?
16 A Id say Ive been working on this for
17 about six months. Probably anywhere from, you
18 know, 10 to 20 hours a week of my time in addition
19 to my full-time job responsibilities.
20 Q Has this — has this investigation taken
21 you away from your full-time job responsibilities
22 prior to being asked to help with this lawsuit?
15
1 A Ive done a lot of this on my own time.
2 Q Off the record I think you told me what
3 your title was. I am going to try to re — re –
4 maybe just tell me what your title is.
5 A My title is director of technical
6 support for AT&T environment health and safety
7 organization.
8 Q Okay. Now, I know that at — at the
9 prior — at our prior meeting you gave us a pretty
10 detailed history of your career with the
11 communications industry.
12 Can you give me the short version of
13 your jobs over the years, without too much –
14 A Sure.
15 Q Okay.
16 A I started in April 1979 at Western
17 Electric plant in North Andover, Mass., or
18 Merrimack Valley Works, I worked as an industrial
19 hygienist there until August of 1995. And at that
20 time I went to work for the long distance part of
21 the company. It was called the network services
22 division of AT&T.
16
1 Q Mm-hmm.
2 A I was on that assignment until we got
3 bought, AT&T got bought by Southwest Bell
4 Communications Company in 2005, at which time we
5 became part of that corporation, which took the
6 name of AT&T.
7 Q Okay. Let me ask you a question
8 briefly. You were — you made a transition at some
9 point, in — after 1995 from Western Electric to
10 AT&T?
11 A In 1995, it was no longer called Western
12 Electric. It was — the factory was called AT&T
13 Technologies.
14 Q When did that — when did the change –
15 when did you no longer actually work for Western?
16 A Well, that would have been — I worked
17 for what was Western Electric up until 1995.
18 Q Okay.
19 A It was just basically a name change
20 of — of a company at that time.
21 Q And then — and was Western still
22 related to AT — or — or what was Western, when
17
1 you were at that factory that you were — what was
2 it called when — when the change occurred in 1995?
3 Was that factory –
4 A It was called AT&T Technologies, I
5 believe.
6 Q Okay.
7 A Mm-hmm.
8 Q So A — AT&T Technologies you just
9 tran — did you — you just made a — did you think
10 of it as a change of employers when you went to
11 work for AT&T or was it more like a lateral room in
12 the same organization?
13 A It was just — it was just a change of
14 name.
15 Q Okay. Okay. Now, when we — when you
16 started telling — you — you told me about your
17 interviews a little bit and who you interviewed.
18 Do you have notes from your interviews?
19 A No.
20 Q You took no notes when you interviewed
21 Dr. Bond; true?
22 A True.
18
1 Q Was anyone else there with you?
2 A I did have — when I interviewed
3 Dr. Bond, I did have the attorneys in the room with
4 me. We were on the phone together.
5 Q Okay. Is Dr. Bond still an employee of
6 the company?
7 A No, Dr. Bond is retired. Hes in his
8 80s.
9 Q I guess what — what did you talk to
10 Dr. Bond about?
11 A I talked to Dr. Bond about the structure
12 and function of the medical department.
13 Q Okay.
14 A During his tenure.
15 Q How did the process go? Did the
16 attorneys ask Dr. Bond questions when you were
17 there?
18 A They asked some questions; I also asked
19 questions.
20 Q Okay. What — what did you find out
21 from Dr. Bond?
22 A Well, I found out that each of the
19
1 operating companies had their own medical
2 department. He commented that they were very
3 independent. And each of the medical departments
4 made their own decisions about how they would run
5 their operations. That the corporation used to
6 have regular meetings of the medical directors to
7 share information, to try to ensure quality and
8 consistency and peer review amongst the
9 organizations.
10 Q Anything else?
11 A I talked to him a little bit about the
12 structure of OHWG, Occupational Health Working
13 Group, that was formed.
14 Q Okay. What did he tell you about that?
15 A He told me that that was formed as a
16 result of some of the ongoing regulatory activity
17 with OSHA to make sure the company was responding
18 properly to the new OSHA requirements and standards
19 that were coming out.
20 Q Okay. What was Dr. Bonds tenure, if
21 you know?
22 A I think he retired sometime in late
20
1 60s/early 70s.
2 Q Okay. Was he there when O — OHWG
3 was — was formed?
4 A He was.
5 Q When was that?
6 A I believe it was around 1973.
7 Q You — I think you indicated to me that
8 he was the medical director for AT&T?
9 A I believe so, yes.
10 Q And was that from — during the 1960s
11 and into the 70s?
12 A I believe so.
13 Q Prior to that, where had he worked?
14 A I dont recall specifically. I think he
15 worked out of the Midwest.
16 Q Okay. And what was his first name?
17 A I think its Marcus.
18 Q Did he go by Marc?
19 A I referred to him as Dr. Bond.
20 Q Okay. When — when — did Dr. — did
21 you ask Dr. Bond what — what he knew about the
22 hazards of asbestos as a — as a medical doctor
21
1 during the time that he was medical director?
2 A I did.
3 Q What did he tell you?
4 A He told me that sometime in the 50s or
5 60s he was aware of some — of the fact that
6 asbestos can cause asbestosis and mesothelioma.
7 Q What else did he tell you about when –
8 when he learned about the hazards of asbestos?
9 A He told me he learned it mostly from
10 reading articles and some of the professional
11 organization involvement that he was involved with.
12 Q Okay. What professional organizations
13 did he tell you he was involved with?
14 A I recall the Indus — Industrial Medical
15 Association.
16 Q Okay. What else?
17 A Do you mind if I refer to my notes?
18 Q I would be glad to have you refer to
19 your notes if it will help you.
20 A Okay.
21 Q Any time you have papers that will help
22 you answer questions –
22
1 A Great, thank you.
2 Q — please refer to them.
3 MR. HARTLEY: E-mail your office
4 to do it.
5 BY MR. HARTLEY:
6 Q And as youre looking — looking in your
7 notes are you referring to some of the notes that
8 you — that you gave — you thoughtfully gave me a
9 copy of today?
10 A I am.
11 Q Okay. Would — when you get to the page
12 that you — or the set that youre referring to,
13 would you go ahead and let me know?
14 A Im on the set thats called Timeline
15 of the medical department history.
16 Q Not the overall timeline?
17 A Right.
18 Q I will see if I can — okay.
19 A And Im looking at the last page. It
20 just shows some of the memberships of our
21 physicians. He — he was a member of the AMA. And
22 the Industrial Medical Association, I recall, and I
23
1 believe American Academy of Occupational Medicine.
2 Those are the ones I recall.
3 Q Okay. So the — the first one that you
4 gave me was the Industrial Medical Association,
5 which is listed there; correct?
6 A Right.
7 Q That was one of the ones that he — you
8 believe that Dr. Bond told you he was a member of?
9 A Right.
10 Q Okay. And then he was — given his
11 position you would expect him to be a member of the
12 American Medical Association?
13 A Thats correct.
14 Q And you — and thats actually what you
15 recall to be true?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And then you told me one more and I lost
18 it.
19 A The American Academy of Occupational
20 Medicine, I also recall.
21 Q Okay. Was he someone who participated
22 in the Industrial Hygiene Foundation?
24
1 A I dont know that. He didnt tell me
2 that.
3 Q Okay. Now when you say he didnt tell
4 you that, are you — do you believe you have an
5 encyclopedic recollection of what he told you or
6 are you saying you know he — or you just dont
7 remember for sure one way or the other?
8 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
9 form.
10 THE WITNESS: I dont recall him
11 telling me that –
12 BY MR. HARTLEY:
13 Q Okay.
14 A — and Im — Im pretty sure I did not
15 ask him that.
16 Q Are you familiar with the Industrial
17 Hygiene Foundation?
18 A Yes, I am.
19 Q And you — what do you know — do you
20 know what that is?
21 A I believe it was a organization that was
22 started — was predominantly in the 60s and 70s.
25
1 Q Okay. Did you — have you reviewed
2 documents that indicate A — AT&Ts membership in
3 the Industrial Hygiene Foundation over time?
4 A I think I did review a document from
5 1967, about — it was a Health Achievement Award
6 application. I think I can pull it out if youd
7 like.
8 Q I — I think I know which document
9 youre speaking of. So maybe well — well get
10 there. Why dont I do this, though, for purposes
11 of making sure that I do this right.
12 Because you have very kindly given us –
13 Im going to do it the long way and take up a lot
14 more stickers than I wouldve other done it –
15 otherwise done it, but Im going to mark each of
16 your sets of notes as an exhibit as we go forward
17 rather than marking them as one collective set.
18
19 MR. HARTLEY: So Im going to
20 mark as Exhibit 1 — 2, since weve al — we have
21 referred to it, your notes entitled Timeline of
22 medical department history.
26
1 (Collipi Exhibit No. 2 – notes made by the
2 witness labeled Timeline of Med Dept
3 History – was marked for identification.)
4 BY MR. HARTLEY:
5 Q Have I marked that as –
6 A Yes.
7 Q And does that appear to be a full and
8 complete copy of your notes as the corporate
9 representative for AT&T, on the medical department
10 history?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Okay. Did you talk to Dr. Bond about
13 the importance of — to AT&T of protecting workers
14 and their families from the hazards of the
15 workplace?
16 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
17 form.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, Dr. Bond was
19 very committed to worker safety.
20 BY MR. HARTLEY:
21 Q Okay. Was he compit — committed to
22 making sure that workers didnt take poisons home
27
1 to the work — to the home?
2 A I would have to presume he was, based on
3 his commitment towards worker safety.
4 Q Because if you protect workers, you will
5 protect people at home?
6 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
7 form.
8 THE WITNESS: I would say thats
9 probably true, yes.
10 BY MR. HARTLEY:
11 Q Thats the — the — the principle of
12 eliminating exposure to the worker would also
13 protect people at home; wouldnt it?
14 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
15 form.
16 THE WITNESS: In some instances,
17 yes.
18 BY MR. HARTLEY:
19 Q It would at least protect — it would at
20 least protect family members from the worker
21 bringing home materials to the home; true?
22 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
28
1 form.
2 THE WITNESS: Depending on what
3 the hazard is, yes.
4 BY MR. HARTLEY:
5 Q Certainly protecting workers from
6 exposure to asbestos — asbestos would prevent
7 workers from bringing asbestos home from work that
8 they got at work — got it — they were exposed to
9 at work anyway to the work — to the house; true?
10 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
11 form.
12 THE WITNESS: Sure, depending on
13 the type of industry youre talking about.
14 BY MR. HARTLEY:
15 Q Well, if someone is not exposed to
16 asbestos at work, they cant bring asbestos home
17 from work to their house; true?
18 A Probably true, yes.
19 Q When you say probably true, isnt it
20 absolutely true?
21 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
22 form.
29
1 THE WITNESS: Well, I think
2 again it depends on the type of industry youre
3 talking about.
4 BY MR. HARTLEY:
5 Q Well, I — I think its more of a
6 logical thing, isnt it, if — if youre not
7 exposed to it at work, you cant bring it at home
8 from work; true?
9 A Sure, Ill agree with that.
10 Q Okay. Thats all I meant to say.
11 A Okay.
12 Q Now, you mentioned in — in — that
13 Dr. Bond told you about regular meetings of the
14 medical department?
15 A Thats correct.
16 Q Where are the files kept that relate to
17 what was discussed at those regular meetings for
18 the medical department?
19 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
20 form.
21 THE WITNESS: I dont know.
22 BY MR. HARTLEY:
30
1 Q Did you look for those files?
2 A I did — I did find some minutes from a
3 meeting. In Phoenix, Arizona in 1976.
4 Q Okay.
5 A But I did also find in Dr. Greenes
6 notes, in his talks that he gave, Dr. Greene was
7 the medical director for Pacific Telephone in the
8 50s and 60s. He — I believe he stated in his
9 notes that they began annual meetings of the
10 medical departments sometime in the 50s, 1950s,
11 and that they had an annual meeting every year and
12 I think that continued on right up until sometime
13 in the 1980s, based on my inquiries with
14 Dr. Johnson as well.
15 Q Okay. Where did you — the files from
16 Dr. Bond came from an archive somewhere?
17 A I dont know that Ive seen Dr. Bonds
18 files. Ive seen Dr. Johnsons files.
19 Q Dr. — Dr. Johnsons files, okay.
20 Did you ask to see Dr. Bonds files?
21 A I asked to see whatever medical files
22 were available, medical department files were
31
1 available.
2 Q And who did you ask for those?
3 A I asked the lawyers.
4 Q The lawyers are the ones who — who had
5 control of all the documents that you got to see?
6 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
7 form.
8 THE WITNESS: I would say for
9 the most part they were the ones who provided me
10 the documents.
11 BY MR. HARTLEY:
12 Q Is there — are there any documents you
13 got from people other than lawyers?
14 A Not that I can recall. I think the
15 important point is that there has not been a
16 medical department for the company since 2005, so
17 there really were no kind of central files for the
18 medical department. So whatever we could find in
19 archives is what I was able to review.
20 Q Okay. You — you would agree with me
21 that — that many, many years of — of medical
22 files could be a very valuable tool to looking at
32
1 the issues of disease and causation; true?
2 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
3 form.
4 THE WITNESS: They could have
5 some — provide some information, yes.
6 BY MR. HARTLEY:
7 Q One of the topics that youre here to
8 talk about is the corporate — corporate
9 epidemiology program. Was — was there such a
10 thing?
11 A I dont believe there was a formal
12 epidemiological program, but Dr. Dunn was an
13 epidemiologist.
14 Q Okay.
15 A And I think the company did a couple of
16 studies that I would probably consider
17 epidemiological studies.
18 Q Okay. Now, do you know, did you — did
19 you make any effort to determine what happened,
20 if — to the files of the medical department after
21 2005?
22 A I did.
33
1 Q Okay. What did you find out?
2 A I found out that the files were sent to
3 Iron Mountain, and that most of those files were
4 medical records for individuals.
5 Q Okay. Iron Mountain is a company, not a
6 place; true?
7 A Right. They have a warehouse –
8 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
9 form.
10 Iron Mountain, Michigan.
11 THE WITNESS: They — they — I
12 believe theyre a company that does archive files.
13 BY MR. HARTLEY:
14 Q Okay. Just to be clear, those files
15 werent all sent to a place called Iron Mountain,
16 Michigan; are they?
17 A I dont believe so –
18 Q Were they?
19 A — no.
20 Q Okay. Did — did you inquire as to what
21 the volume of material was that had been sent to
22 Iron Mountain?
34
1 A I did.
2 Q How much was it?
3 A I was told there were 2100 boxes of
4 files.
5 Q Okay. Did someone at your request or
6 otherwise review those 2100 boxes to determine what
7 should — should and should not be shown to you?
8 A I did. I talked to paralegal, with –
9 thats currently with AT&T –
10 Q Okay.
11 A — about that. And she told me that
12 they were pretty much all medical files for
13 individuals.
14 Q Okay. Do you know how many individuals
15 files were contained in 2100 boxes?
16 A I dont know how many. But I know,
17 based on my discussions with a — a nurse from the
18 Midwest, Jean Eichenberger, who was no longer with
19 the company, that the files that she had sent to
20 Bedminster to be archived were medical records for
21 employees, from the Midwest, and she had told me
22 that other regions were — had been instructed to
35
1 send their files to Bedminster, New Jersey, as
2 well.
3 Q And — and these files, were they
4 simply — were they solely for people who were
5 considered employees of AT&T?
6 A Yes, I was told –
7 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
8 form.
9 THE WITNESS: I was told that
10 they were medical records for employees.
11 BY MR. HARTLEY:
12 Q Okay. And what Im getting at is, I
13 mean, the Bell System over the years — at one
14 point had as many as two million employees; right?
15 A I dont think there were that many.
16 Q Okay.
17 A I want to recall about 750,000 to a
18 million employees.
19 Q Okay. Well, either — lets — lets –
20 lets go with 750,000.
21 The — the medical files for 750,000
22 people couldnt fit in 2100 boxes; could they?
36
1 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
2 form.
3 THE WITNESS: I dont know that.
4 BY MR. HARTLEY:
5 Q How were the — did the paralegal,
6 Ms. Eichenberger?
7 A Thats not the paralegal; she was a
8 nurse.
9 Q Right, she is the nurse, okay.
10 Who — who did she — who — who was she
11 a nurse for?
12 A She was a nurse for AT&T.
13 Q Okay. Did they — are there any
14 operating company employee records in that set of
15 records that were sent to Bedminster, I think you
16 said?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Do you have an understanding as to
19 why — why those records were sent to Bedminster?
20 A Because the medical department in
21 Midwest was closing down at the time.
22 Q Do you have any understanding as to why
37
1 they were — they were retained, I guess, is where
2 Im getting? Were they –
3 A Why were the medical files –
4 Q — was there a reason for them being
5 retained?
6 Yes.
7 A The company retention policy is to keep
8 medical files from — for 30 years after
9 termination of employment.
10 Q Okay. Is there an ongoing process of –
11 of purging files that get to be 30 years plus a
12 day?
13 A I dont know that. Thats handled by
14 our legal department.
15 Q Okay. Did you inquire as to whether any
16 of the folks whose records had been retained had
17 suffered from asbestos-related disease?
18 A I inquired as to whether or not the
19 information was searchable. And I was told that
20 the only way it could be searched was by Social
21 Security number.
22 Q Okay, was one of the concerns that you
38
1 had — Im sorry, go ahead. Were you finished –
2 A I was going to say, I dont believe its
3 possible to search the files by a term like
4 asbestos disease or anything like that.
5 Q Okay. Given the con — given the
6 context of this case, did you — did you ask, and
7 because this deals with asbestos disease, did you
8 ask if there was any record of — of instances of
9 potential asbestos disease in — in the worker
10 population of the Bell System?
11 A Do you mean in the medical files
12 themselves?
13 Q Well, I meant anywhere but I guess I
14 was — I was asking you in the context of the
15 medical files. So but –
16 A Im not aware –
17 Q — answer the broader of those two
18 questions, if you dont mind, and I guess that
19 would be the better way to go.
20 A Okay. Would you mind just restating the
21 question, please.
22 Q Sure. Have — have you inquired as to
39
1 whether theres — there was any record kept of
2 potential asbestos-related disease in the Bell
3 System workforce?
4 A I have.
5 Q Okay. And what did you find out?
6 A I found out from our risk management
7 organization that there are some worker
8 compensation claims.
9 Q Okay. How far back do they go?
10 A They told me that the earliest claim
11 theyre aware of is in 2000.
12 Q Did you find out about third-party
13 lawsuits like this one where people were suing
14 AT&T? Are there any claims like that that youre
15 aware of other than the cases in which youve given
16 depositions?
17 A Some of the workers compensation claims
18 could be result of the lawsuits, I was told.
19 Q How many workers — did you get — did
20 you get the compensation files?
21 A No, I did not.
22 Q Did you get any kind of communication
40
1 that indicated what — what sorts of claims were
2 made, whether they were mesothelioma, asbestosis,
3 lung cancer, things like that?
4 A I did.
5 Q Okay. What did you find out?
6 A I found out that there was one
7 mesothelioma claim out of the more than 100,000
8 claims against the company.
9 Q Hundred thousand total workers
10 compensation claims?
11 A Hundred thousand plus, right, that are
12 currently in our — in our database.
13 Q All right. Did you get any instance –
14 any indication of the incidents of mesothelioma
15 amongst Bell System employees that had been
16 recorded, if any, by the Bell System?
17 A Could you ask that question again? Im
18 not sure I understand what youre asking.
19 Q Yeah, I — I can ask it in a more direct
20 way.
21 All right. Do you know how many
22 mesothelioma cases have occurred in Bell System
41
1 workers?
2 A Im only aware of the one that I just
3 told you about.
4 Q And youre aware of — youre aware of
5 the Herndon case that we met on the last time, too;
6 right? Or is that the same case?
7 A Thats not the case I was made aware of,
8 no.
9 Q Okay. So you know about the — you know
10 about Mr. Herndon, who has mesothelioma, because
11 you testified in his case, when we first met?
12 A Correct.
13 Q Thats two; right?
14 A Okay.
15 Q Okay. Are there any others that youre
16 aware of in any other context other than having
17 heard about a workers compensation claim or
18 testifying in — in the Herndon case?
19 A I am not.
20 Q Did you inquire as to whether there were
21 others?
22 A I did.
42
1 Q Okay. Where did you inquire?
2 A With our risk management organization,
3 who manages our claims.
4 Q And when you asked the risk management
5 organization they didnt tell you about
6 Mr. Herndons case, they just told you about the
7 one comp claim; right?
8 A They didnt have — Mr. Herndons case
9 was not in one of the ones they identified.
10 Q Okay. Given that you were aware of
11 Mr. Herndons case, did it give you some concern
12 that maybe they werent — the — the risk
13 management people werent fully aware of all the
14 potential cases?
15 A Not really.
16 Q Okay. What about now? Now that Ive
17 pointed it out to you.
18 A Well, Im — Im not sure when
19 Mr. Herndon made his claim.
20 Q Okay. When did you make your inquiry
21 with risk management?
22 A About a week ago.
43
1 Q Well, I think its a — its a fair
2 statement that — that Mr. Herndons claim was
3 before a week ago; true?
4 A True.
5 Q So they didnt — so they didnt — so
6 they — we know that it, like of the — of the
7 claims that you are aware of, the — they — they
8 were only aware of half of them; true?
9 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
10 form.
11 BY MR. HARTLEY:
12 Q One out of two?
13 A To — to the best of my knowledge, they
14 are not aware of Mr. Herndons claims. It was not
15 in the — found in the database search that they
16 did.
17 Q Okay. Now, do you consider — do you
18 consider the Western Electric employees to be part
19 of the Bell System?
20 A They were, they were at one time.
21 Q Okay. So and youre — are you
22 familiar — are you aware of Mr. Adams case, Larry
44
1 Adams?
2 A I dont believe so.
3 Q Okay. Was — was that — was risk
4 management aware of the Larry Adams mesothelioma
5 lawsuit thats filed in — in Dade County, Florida?
6 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
7 form.
8 THE WITNESS: I wouldnt have
9 asked them that because I dont believe I was aware
10 of that either.
11 BY MR. HARTLEY:
12 Q Okay. Well, do you know the name of the
13 person who they — whose — whose claim they were
14 aware of?
15 A I dont recall the name but it wasnt
16 Adams and it wasnt Herndon.
17 Q Do you know where — where the case was
18 located, the claim was located?
19 A It was a Pacific Telephone case.
20 Q Im going to apologize to you in advance
21 the way this is going, but with six months — six
22 months of investigation youve got — youve got a
45
1 lot of information that Im sort of trying to find
2 out, and its — unfortunately its a cumbersome
3 process so I apologize for bouncing around.
4 Did you make inquiries during your
5 investigation, did you make any inquires –
6 inquiries with Lucent to see if they had –
7 Alcatel-Lucent now, I think, your former
8 employer –
9 MR. THOMPSON: Object. Object
10 to form.
11 MR. HARTLEY: Okay.
12 BY MR. HARTLEY:
13 Q — as to whether they had any records
14 of — of potential asbestos-related diseases such
15 as mesothelioma in their worker –
16 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
17 BY MR. HARTLEY:
18 Q — population?
19 A I did not.
20 Q Did you do — in — in terms — during
21 the 50s, 60s, and 70s, Western Electric had a
22 medical department; right?
46
1 A Thats correct.
2 Q And I think wasnt Dr. Dunn — the head
3 of the medical department at Western Electric for a
4 period of time?
5 A Im not sure if he was. I recall
6 Dr. Cassuto as being head of the medical department
7 for Western Electric.
8 Q Okay. Dr. Dunn worked in — in the
9 medical department of Western Electric?
10 A I believe Dr. Dunn worked for Dr. Bond.
11 Q Oh, okay. Maybe Im confused.
12 Do you know if the — if the records
13 from the medical department that — that you had
14 access to included records of folks from Western
15 Electric?
16 A Can I go back to the last question. I
17 believe Dr. Dunn worked for Dr. Schowalter and not
18 Dr. Bond.
19 Q Sure.
20 A I believe Dr. Schowalter took over for
21 Dr. Bond.
22 Q Okay.
47
1 A And Dr. Dunn worked for him.
2 Q Okay. Did the — did the medical files
3 you were provided by counsel for AT&T include any
4 files from Western Electrics medical department?
5 A I recall seeing a letter from
6 Dr. Cassuto and there mightve been some other
7 Western Electric correspondence in there.
8 Q Did — Dr. Cassuto was a Western
9 Electric medical guy?
10 A He was a medical director of Western
11 Electric, I believe.
12 Q Okay.
13 A Yeah.
14 Q In — in terms of your Exhibit 2, which
15 is a timeline that you created from your — from
16 the information that youve gathered over the six
17 months or so that youve been working on this;
18 true?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Okay. You indicate at the very
21 beginning that the occupational health program was
22 initiated by Theodore Vail, general manager of
48
1 American Bell Telephone Company, in 1878; is that
2 right?
3 A Thats correct.
4 Q What was the source of that information?
5 A It was one of Dr. Greenes talks, and
6 also some of the history I got was from the 1967
7 application by Western Electric for a Health
8 Achievement Award.
9 Q Now, did you — did the document that
10 youve — that gave you this, Dr. Greenes talk, is
11 that in the materials that you brought with you
12 today?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Okay. Could you — are — could you
15 access that relatively easily?
16 A I think so.
17 Q Okay. As youre looking for it, do you
18 remember the context of the — the speech? Was it
19 relating to that award at the National Safety
20 Council? I guess youll see once you see the
21 document and it will give the context.
22 A Sorry, I need to look at one more thing.
49
1 This is the — Im not sure what this
2 document is from. I believe this is part of one of
3 Dr. Greenes talks, but this has the information
4 about Theodore Vail.
5 Q Okay.
6 A Which is highlighted.
7 Q This is the front page of it right here?
8 A I believe so, mm-hmm.
9 Q Okay.
10 A This is also a reference in this
11 application package by Western Electric,
12 Occupational Medicine and Western Electric that
13 talks about the first physician being hired in 1886
14 at the Hawthorne Works.
15 Q Okay. All right, I probably should have
16 started this deposition with the — with the, sort
17 of clarifying — under most circumstances, and this
18 isnt for you, Im not asking you a question, Im
19 just going to make an objection on the record.
20 MR. HARTLEY: Yesterday — at
21 some point yesterday, I dont know exactly the
22 time, we received a delivery of a series of
50
1 materials that were produced in response to our
2 request for production in this case, that have been
3 pending for quite a while, and also, I guess, as
4 notice as to what the witness had been given to
5 prepare for the deposition.
6 Unfortunately, due to the — due to the
7 need to travel, I havent been able to review any
8 of these. And Ive talked to Mr. Burlington about
9 the possibility that we would do everything we
10 could to review them tonight so that I could finish
11 questioning about them tomorrow, but we did do want
12 to put on the record that we have received a great
13 deal of information very close in time to the
14 deposition and — and are — have not been able to
15 review everything, unfortunately.
16 BY MR. HARTLEY:
17 Q When — when did you get the –
18 MR. BURLINGTON: Im just going
19 to respond because you have made it in the nature
20 of an objection. So –
21 MR. HARTLEY: Yes, absolutely.
22 MR. BURLINGTON: Just — just to
51
1 respond to the record not to get into an argument
2 about it.
3 But by and large, everything that was
4 reviewed by the witness was either previously
5 produced in early discovery in the Herndon case and
6 in this case, but as well, every effort was made to
7 get to you the documents in advance of the
8 deposition, although the deposition notice
9 specifies that he is to bring to the deposition
10 with him the documents.
11 So we — we actually got you the
12 documents earlier than what had been specified or
13 asked for in the notice of deposition, which
14 requested he bring them to the deposition.
15 So un — undeniably theres a lot of
16 documents but they were provided prior to todays
17 deposition, rather than for the first time at the
18 deposition, with the sole exception of a very
19 small, discrete set of documents which I handed you
20 this morning.
21 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. The
22 correspondence will bear out what — what was
52
1 produced when. But some documents were produced to
2 us day before yesterday, I think. Not a small
3 portion, but a fairly large portion. More than he
4 has brought with him today to rely upon. And in
5 addition, new documents were provided today, which
6 I dont know, what is that, like four — three or
7 four inches of documents?
8 MR. BURLINGTON: Just — just
9 about and –
10 MR. HARTLEY: Yeah.
11 MR. BURLINGTON: — and that
12 would be consistent with the notice that requests
13 that he bring them with him to the deposition;
14 i.e., today.
15 MR. HARTLEY: True, except for
16 the fact that all of the stuff that shouldve
17 been — that was requested in the deposition would
18 have clearly fallen — fallen within the discovery
19 that was served in this case more than six months
20 ago.
21 MR. BURLINGTON: Well –
22 MR. HARTLEY: Thats — thats
53
1 the –
2 MR. BURLINGTON: — and I note
3 that youd mentioned youd been traveling but –
4 and I can go through and identify the exact
5 documents that had been produced, and produced to
6 your co-counsel, Mr. Ruckdeschel. I have the whole
7 list. So –
8 MR. HARTLEY: Go ahead. Or put
9 on — put that — you want to put that document in
10 the record and we can — so you dont have to –
11 MR. BURLINGTON: Id be happy to
12 recite it; these are my own notes.
13 MR. HARTLEY: Oh, okay.
14 MR. BURLINGTON: All depositions
15 have previously been produced so those were not
16 reproduced as — as part of what was delivered.
17 MR. HARTLEY: All — all
18 depositions of what?
19 MR. BURLINGTON: The depositions
20 that were taken in the Herndon case and the
21 depositions that preceded in — in this case.
22 So those werent reproduced because you
54
1 have all those transcripts.
2 The O — OHWG meeting minutes and
3 materials were produced as part of what you
4 received the day before yesterday.
5 The — there was a small subset that I
6 handed over today because we didnt have them ready
7 then.
8 Theres a — the — the Lucent Herndon
9 exhibits were provided to Mr. Ruckdeschel. The
10 AT&T Herndon exhibits were identified and produced
11 to Mr. Ruckdeschel. The AT&T Dorman exhibits were
12 identified and produced and a complete set was
13 delivered to Mr. Ruckdeschel on September 29th.
14 The medical — what we call the medical
15 surveillance set, a copy set in chronological order
16 was provided and an identical set of those
17 materials was delivered to you, either yesterday or
18 the day before yesterday.
19 The environmental quality committee
20 minute meetings [sic], copies of those four
21 documents were delivered to Mr. Ruckdeschel on
22 September 29th.
55
1 I assume he provided you with everything
2 that we had sent to him.
3 MR. HARTLEY: My concerns are
4 only about the things that we got yesterday,
5 according to — that were apparently sent but not
6 delivered on the 28th and they were delivered
7 yesterday at some point. While Im sure you — I
8 dont know about you because you came up to prepare
9 for this deposition, but I was actually traveling
10 yesterday and couldnt — couldnt do both — both
11 receive documents at my office and travel with
12 them.
13 MR. BURLINGTON: I dont — I
14 dont doubt that. I traveled yesterday as well.
15 MR. HARTLEY: Okay.
16 MR. BURLINGTON: Im just saying
17 that — that everything that has been provided –
18 MR. HARTLEY: Has not been
19 provided according — was not provided well in
20 advance of the deposition. Some of it was provided
21 yesterday when we were — when I was traveling,
22 which is all I said.
56
1 MR. BURLINGTON: Okay. Well,
2 just Im not going to quibble, but the — the
3 materials that youve received yesterday,
4 regardless of whether you had an opportunity to
5 look at them yesterday or last night, I — I dont
6 know. But they were supposed to be produced here
7 this morning at the deposition. We got them to you
8 sooner.
9 If you didnt have a chance to look at
10 them because of traveling, I dont doubt, but I
11 dont want the record to reflect that documents
12 were not produced in advance of the deposition,
13 when they were, with the sole exception of what I
14 identified earlier today when I came in this
15 morning.
16 MR. HARTLEY: Sure.
17 And — well go back on — on to the
18 record.
19 BY MR. HARTLEY:
20 Q In terms of — in terms of when did you
21 get the box of materials that you have over there
22 to review? Did you get those day before yesterday?
57
1 A Those materials are — are a subset of
2 the dozens of boxes of records that I reviewed over
3 the past six months.
4 Q So –
5 A And I have made copies of them and
6 flagged them, and I thought those were things that
7 I might need to support my deposition.
8 Q So are there any of those documents that
9 you got in the last couple of days that they –
10 A No.
11 Q So you have had all those documents
12 that — that youve reviewed for — for months;
13 true?
14 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
15 form.
16 THE WITNESS: I have not had
17 them all for months.
18 I probably had — got the last of them
19 about a month ago, the last of the documents.
20 BY MR. HARTLEY:
21 Q Okay.
22 MR. HARTLEY: I guess just for
58
1 the purposes of making — maybe its easiest — no,
2 Im going to mark it. Im going to mark as
3 Exhibit 3 the speech on occupational safety and
4 health that you took the quotations from that we
5 identified in Exhibit 2.
6 (Collipi Exhibit No. 3 – Bates stamp
7 ATT-FL-DOR-0093469 through 473 – was marked
8 for identification.)
9 BY MR. HARTLEY:
10 Q And it is — this speech, I think you
11 believe came from Dr. Greene; is that right?
12 A Thats correct.
13 Q Okay. How did you identify who — who
14 gave the speech?
15 A I had a — I had some files that were
16 marked as Dr. Greenes talks. And it appeared that
17 he had sent a copy of his talks to one of his
18 peers, because I found a thank you note, thanking
19 him for sending the talks, so they were all
20 together and thats where I got that particular
21 document.
22 MR. BURLINGTON: Just for our
59
1 record, the witness is going to need that back for
2 his records. You have an identical set.
3 MR. HARTLEY: Well, were going
4 to have him — were going to mark this one and –
5 and she can copy it and get it back to him.
6 We dont — she doesnt need to keep the
7 originals — but we want to get a copy of it, and
8 thats all I need to say. But she will — he can
9 get it back, no problem.
10 BY MR. HARTLEY:
11 Q Do you know — do you know the date of
12 this speech?
13 A I could not find a date on that.
14 Q Did you talk — I think you talked to
15 Dr. Greene, didnt you?
16 A No, Dr. Greene is deceased.
17 Q Oh, okay. You would — you would be
18 very skilled if you could, then.
19 MR. HARTLEY: Then well make –
20 mark as Exhibit 4 the document that you brought
21 with you, entitled Occupational Medicine in
22 Western Electric.
60
1 (Collipi Exhibit No. 4 – multipage document
2 entitled Occupational Medicine in Western
3 Electric – was marked for identification.)
4 BY MR. HARTLEY:
5 Q What — what is the source of this
6 document, do you know?
7 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
8 THE WITNESS: I believe I found
9 that document in Dr. Johnsons files. And I
10 believe thats an application that Western Electric
11 submitted for the Health Achievement Award, which
12 they won in 1967.
13 BY MR. HARTLEY:
14 Q This document doesnt have any Bates
15 stamps on it. Do you know if –
16 MR. HARTLEY: Has this been
17 produced?
18 MR. BURLINGTON: Everything in
19 his box you have.
20 MR. HARTLEY: Do you know for
21 sure that this has been produced?
22 MR. BURLINGTON: Yes.
61
1 MR. HARTLEY: cause just
2 telling me that its in the box that has been
3 produced, doesnt have Bates stamp number on it,
4 thats why Im asking.
5 MR. BURLINGTON: Does not have a
6 Bates stamp on it.
7 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. Was this
8 produced a long time ago or — or yesterday?
9 MR. BURLINGTON: I know it was
10 produced yesterday; I dont know if it was produced
11 a long time ago. But when we take a break Ill
12 find out from David.
13 MR. HARTLEY: Okay.
14 BY MR. HARTLEY:
15 Q How — how long have you had this
16 occupational medicine in Western Electric?
17 A I believe I got that about a month ago,
18 in the last of the medical files I reviewed.
19 Q Was this in a publication?
20 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
21 BY MR. HARTLEY:
22 Q And I guess the better term is, was this
62
1 published?
2 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
3 THE WITNESS: I dont know. I
4 believe its an application for the Health
5 Achievement Award. If you read through the
6 document, it seems to be in that context.
7 BY MR. HARTLEY:
8 Q I guess maybe the easiest thing to do is
9 are there oth — are there other documents that you
10 can think of that helped you produce the timeline
11 of the medical department history that is marked as
12 Exhibit 2?
13 A There are some other talks by Dr. Greene
14 that give me pieces of history. Let me see if I
15 can find it.
16 This is a talk by Dr. Greene in 1961 on
17 longevity and health.
18 (Collipi Exhibit No. 5 – blank sheet numbered
19 9 on the right side followed by a multipage
20 document entitled Longevity and Good Health
21 – was marked for identification.)
22 BY MR. HARTLEY:
63
1 Q Okay.
2 A It has some history about the PacTel
3 company.
4 Q Okay.
5 A Medical department.
6 Q This one doesnt have Bates stamp
7 numbers on it either.
8 When did you get this one?
9 A I have probably had that for at least a
10 month or so. It was in Dr. Johnsons files.
11 MR. HARTLEY: I am going to mark
12 this exhib — mark this document, which is a speech
13 by Clide Greene, on longevity and good health.
14 BY MR. HARTLEY:
15 Q Do you know the date of the Longevity
16 and Good Health speech?
17 A Its on the back page.
18 Q Ju — June 22, 1961.
19 A At the — I also have another speech
20 given by Dr. Greene.
21 Q Mm-hmm.
22 A February 27th, 1959. Modern Medical
64
1 Concepts for Industry, that has a little bit of
2 history in it, about the PacTel company medical
3 department.
4 MR. HARTLEY: We will mark that
5 speech entitled Modern Medical Concepts for
6 History as Exhibit 6 to this deposition.
7 (Collipi Exhibit No. 6 – multipage document
8 entitled Modern Medical Concepts for
9 Industry – was marked for identification.)
10 BY MR. HARTLEY:
11 Q When did you get this one?
12 A The same time I got all of Dr. Greenes
13 information, about a month or so ago.
14 Q Okay. Are these all –
15 MR. HARTLEY: All these
16 speeches, were they all produced yesterday; is that
17 the first time?
18 MR. BURLINGTON: Thats my
19 understanding.
20 MR. HARTLEY: Okay.
21 MR. BURLINGTON: But Ill
22 confirm that when we take a break.
65
1 BY MR. HARTLEY:
2 Q Okay. When did you make your first
3 inquiry as to where the medical files for AT&T were
4 located?
5 A Probably sometime in July.
6 Q Now — what month is it now? Is it –
7 its almost October. Tomorrows October 1st;
8 right?
9 A Thats correct.
10 Q Okay. When did you first get an answer
11 as to where the medical files were?
12 A It took me actually a couple of weeks to
13 track them down.
14 Q Okay. So sometime in July you found out
15 where they were?
16 A July, end of July, beginning of August,
17 around that time.
18 Q Okay. And then did they start giving
19 you some, as soon as you found out where they were?
20 A The medical files that I found were
21 medical records for employees.
22 Q Okay.
66
1 A Medical files from Dr. Johnson were
2 provided in dozens of boxes, and were here –
3 Q Here being –
4 A At — at the Crowell & Moring offices.
5 And I traveled here at least once a month over the
6 past six months to kind of trudge through those
7 files and find things that I thought were
8 pertinent.
9 Q Okay. When is the first time that you
10 knew that — that the medical departments files,
11 not medical records but these files, were here at
12 Crowell & Moring, six months ago I guess?
13 A Probably about six months ago, yep,
14 mm-hmm.
15 Q Was — were — was Dr. Greenes — were
16 they — were the speeches here, you just hadnt
17 seen them yet?
18 A Thats correct. It took me quite some
19 time to go through the dozens of boxes of records.
20 Q And those — these speeches have been
21 very helpful for you in preparing for this
22 deposition; havent they?
67
1 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
2 form.
3 THE WITNESS: Theyve helped me
4 to learn some history about the medical department.
5 BY MR. HARTLEY:
6 Q Is there any reason that they — they
7 couldnt have — that you know of that they
8 couldnt have been provided to me prior to
9 yesterday?
10 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
11 form.
12 THE WITNESS: I dont know. I
13 suppose that they could have sent you all the
14 dozens of boxes I got, and you couldve looked
15 through those as well.
16 BY MR. HARTLEY:
17 Q Okay. Cause as far as you know,
18 theres no reason they couldnt have done that;
19 true?
20 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
21 form.
22 THE WITNESS: No, I dont know
68
1 of a reason why not.
2 BY MR. HARTLEY:
3 Q Have you been through all of the — at
4 this point, sitting here today, have you been
5 through all of the — the medical department files
6 that were made available to you here at Crowell &
7 Moring?
8 A Yes, I have.
9 Q Are there some — are there other ones
10 that — that havent been made available to you, as
11 far as you know?
12 A Not that Im aware of.
13 Q How many boxes did you say were here?
14 A I — probably somewhere between 30 and
15 40 boxes.
16 Q Okay. And — and of those, have you –
17 have you taken out all of the things that you
18 thought were important and put them into your –
19 for this — for your topics, anyway, today and put
20 them into the box thats to your right?
21 A I have.
22 Q Okay.
69
1 MR. HARTLEY: I think that –
2 before this is done Im just going to — were
3 going to — Im going to make a copy of all of them
4 because I think it just has to be done, thats the
5 only way it will ever be able to — to memorialize
6 whats important to you is that — is doing it that
7 way. I dont want to necessarily go through all of
8 them, but were going to — were going to get the
9 court reporter to retain them for a period of time
10 so we can get a copy service to make copies of
11 them.
12 MR. BURLINGTON: Copy of what?
13 MR. HARTLEY: His box.
14 MR. BURLINGTON: You have that.
15 You have –
16 MR. HARTLEY: The one he brought
17 with him is going to be copied. Thats what
18 were — were marking — well mark as an exhibit
19 at the end if I have it.
20 MR. BURLINGTON: Thats exactly
21 what you have. You have exactly what he has. You
22 have that exact box.
70
1 MR. HARTLEY: Okay, well, I
2 may –
3 MR. BURLINGTON: I mean if you
4 want to make another copy of it –
5 MR. HARTLEY: We may.
6 MR. BURLINGTON: — at your
7 expense but Im just telling you, maybe at a break
8 you want to compare the boxes, but you have the
9 exact box that he has.
10 MR. HARTLEY: I — I think that
11 exact box that he has is the one that was produced
12 yesterday; right?
13 MR. BURLINGTON: Thats my
14 understanding.
15 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. Thats –
16 theres no way that I can during a break make a –
17 make a detailed comparison of the two — because
18 they came so late and its — it would be nearly
19 impossible to do that.
20 MR. BURLINGTON: Well, Im –
21 Im representing to you that its the exact same
22 set of documents, but youre — thats up to you.
71
1 MR. HARTLEY: All right.
2 BY MR. HARTLEY:
3 Q We — were there any other documents
4 that you — that you relied on especially in your
5 mind to help you come up with your — with the
6 timeline that weve marked as Exhibit 2?
7 A I do — I believe I mention them there.
8 Some legacy documents from the 20s that are
9 probably not in here, but what they are, are health
10 and safety manuals. One is from June 1st, 1922.
11 Q Okay.
12 A And one is from 1929, which is a
13 Southwest Bell safety manual.
14 Q Do you have access to those?
15 A I have them electronically.
16 Q All right. Do you have them on that
17 computer right there electronically?
18 A I do.
19 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. Well, that
20 would be something that we could — we could work
21 around. If you could give them to me — you gave
22 me your flash drive with your notes, so what I
72
1 would like to do now, since those are important, is
2 take this flash drive and give it back to you and
3 get those notes — get those other documents, and I
4 will put them on my computer and also give them to
5 the court reporter and we will give them exhibit
6 numbers.
7 MR. BURLINGTON: Okay, lets
8 take a break, while we do that.
9 MR. HARTLEY: Sure.
10 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the
11 record, the time is 11:02:07. Were off the
12 record.
13 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
14 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going back
15 on the record, the time is 11:17:39. Counsel may
16 proceed.
17 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. This is
18 a — while we were off the record, I have obtained,
19 after review by counsel for AT&T, I have obtained
20 the two documents on a flash drive which I will
21 mark as the next exhibits to the deposition. We
22 will mark the first one, as soon as I get it –
73
1 access to it. Its not showing up on my computer.
2 As soon as I get access to it, I will mark the
3 first one as Exhibit 7 — on my Mac — here it is.
4 BY MR. HARTLEY:
5 Q Which one did you refer to first, the
6 safe — the Pacific Telegraph — Telephone &
7 Telegraph 1922 or the Southwestern Bell; which one
8 would be the first one in your mind?
9 A The 1922 one, the Pacific Tel.
10 Q Okay, they both say 1922 on them, thats
11 why –
12 A No, the Southwest Bell one I believe is
13 actually 1929.
14 Q Okay. The file name is 22 but the date
15 is 1929. Okay?
16 A Right.
17 MR. HARTLEY: So for
18 clarification sake I will mark as Exhibit 7 the
19 PacTel, Pacific Tele — Telephone & Telegraph, 1922
20 safety manual.
21 (Collipi Exhibit No. 7 – multipage document
22 dated June 1, 1922, entitled Safety Code,
74
1 The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company,
2 Bell System, And Associated Companies – were
3 deemed marked and later the actual document
4 was marked for identification.)
5 MR. HARTLEY: And then
6 Exhibit 8 –
7 MR. BURLINGTON: Did you say
8 1922?
9 MR. HARTLEY: Yes, mm-hmm.
10 THE WITNESS: 1922 for the
11 PacTel.
12 MR. BURLINGTON: Okay, Im
13 sorry.
14 MR. HARTLEY: And as soon as I
15 have a look at them Ill confirm the second date.
16 And the second one which will be Exhibit 8 is the
17 1929 Safety Code, Universal Safety Southwestern
18 Bell Telephone Company Plant Department.
19 (Collipi Exhibit No. 8 – multipage document
20 dated 1929, entitled Safety Code, Universal
21 Safety, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company,
22 Plant Department – were deemed marked and
75
1 later the actual document was marked for
2 identification.)
3 MR. HARTLEY: And so that we
4 dont forget, Im going to mark a couple of blank
5 pages so that we can put them back, so we get them
6 printed out.
7 And you — AT&Ts counsel now has a copy
8 of these and theyre going to put Bates stamp
9 numbers on them; correct?
10 MR. BURLINGTON: Correct.
11 MR. HARTLEY: Okay.
12 MR. BURLINGTON: I thought you
13 were going to e-mail them or Ralph is going to
14 e-mail them to David.
15 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. He didnt
16 give them to him already. Thats what — I thought
17 I understood that he had. Okay.
18 MR. BURLINGTON: I just — I
19 know theyre not marked yet for production.
20 MR. HARTLEY: Yeah, Im looking
21 at them now and because of the size of them, they
22 wont e-mail. Theres 27 megabytes and 30
76
1 megabytes cause theyre high quality scans. So –
2 MR. BURLINGTON: Well take care
3 of them.
4 MR. HARTLEY: Yeah, okay. Hell
5 give them to you, I think hell work with you.
6 Heres your flash drive back and heres
7 the cover for it.
8 BY MR. HARTLEY:
9 Q All right. In the six months that you
10 have been looking at these two issues for AT&T, you
11 have reviewed — reviewed a whole bunch of
12 materials, historic materials over time; true?
13 A Thats correct.
14 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
15 form of the question.
16 THE WITNESS: Thats correct.
17 BY MR. HARTLEY:
18 Q How long have you been looking at
19 materials to prepare for the — for the two topics
20 on which youve been designated?
21 A Probably for the past six months.
22 Q Okay. Youve seen a great deal of
77
1 historic materials that deal with the issues of the
2 health and industrial hygiene aspects of asbestos
3 and other kinds of materials; true?
4 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
5 form.
6 THE WITNESS: Thats correct.
7 BY MR. HARTLEY:
8 Q Youve seen — youve seen industrial
9 hygiene, health and safety information that related
10 directly to asbestos; right?
11 A I have.
12 Q Youve seen general industrial hygiene
13 and safety information that relate to many kinds of
14 toxic things other than asbestos; true?
15 A Thats correct.
16 Q Some of the things in the Bell System
17 that were identified as hazards early on were lead;
18 true?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Gases — gases that could overcome
21 workers or that were explosive? Those were I –
22 those were early identified hazards in the Bell
78
1 System?
2 A Manhole hazards.
3 Q Yeah, okay. What other sorts of early
4 hazards were identified by the medical and safety
5 people in the Bell System?
6 A Carbon monoxide, microwave radiation,
7 noise, vinyl chloride.
8 Q Whats the — what are the hazardous
9 effects of vinyl chloride?
10 A Vinyl chloride is identified as a
11 carcinogen, was identified in one of the 14 — as
12 one of the 14 criteria documents that came out in
13 1973 from NIOSH as a carcinogen.
14 Q Okay. From your review of the files of
15 the medical department that youve seen, people in
16 the medical departments at various Bell System
17 entities, youve — youve seen that there was a
18 great deal of awareness of how to protect workers
19 from hazards; true?
20 A Yes.
21 Q There was an awareness of the — the
22 foundations of industrial hygiene, of — of
79
1 isolating people from hazardous exposures early on;
2 wasnt there?
3 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
4 form.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think the
6 Bell System has always had significant safety
7 cultures as part of the corporate — their
8 corporate culture, I guess.
9 BY MR. HARTLEY:
10 Q The — from your review of the files
11 over the last six months, wouldnt you agree with
12 me that AT&T had all the tools it needed to protect
13 workers from the hazards of asbestos and their
14 families from the hazards of asbestos?
15 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
16 form.
17 THE WITNESS: AT&T had a great
18 resource in that they had Bell Labs, which — Bell
19 Labs was probably on the cutting edge of industrial
20 hygiene work at the time.
21 BY MR. HARTLEY:
22 Q Right. And — and — and –
80
1 MR. BURLINGTON: Were you
2 finished with your answer?
3 MR. HARTLEY: Im sorry. Yeah,
4 if youre not –
5 THE WITNESS: I — I was done.
6 BY MR. HARTLEY:
7 Q AT&T knew, based on what youve reviewed
8 in the 1940s, for instance, that to — if you
9 wanted to prevent a toxic — if you wanted to
10 prevent toxic injury you — one way to do it was to
11 prevent toxic exposure; true?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And the industrial hygiene community
14 knew from the 1930s on that if you wanted to
15 protect people from asbestos disease, you protected
16 them from exposure to asbestos; true?
17 A You protected them from high levels of
18 exposure over long periods of time.
19 Q Okay. Okay. In terms of the — in –
20 in terms of your statement about high levels over
21 long periods of time, are you able to point me to
22 any documents in the AT&T files that youve
81
1 reviewed that talk about the need to protect
2 workers from high level of exposure to asbestos
3 over long periods of time?
4 A Id like to take a look at my notes if
5 you dont mind.
6 Q Absolutely. When you — if its not in
7 the medical department history let me know what
8 number set of notes you are looking at or what the
9 title is, if you dont mind.
10 A Theres a letter from March of 1970.
11 Q Youre — which notes are you referring
12 to?
13 A Im in my Overall Timeline file. Its
14 on the third page.
15 Q Okay, let me just get there so I can
16 mark it and then well carry on.
17 Okay, its the biggest one. The Overall
18 Timeline.
19 MR. HARTLEY: Well mark the
20 Overall Timeline as Exhibit 9 to the deposition.
21 (Collipi Exhibit No. 9 – notes made by the
22 witness labeled Overall Timeline – was
82
1 marked for identification.)
2 BY MR. HARTLEY:
3 Q Im going to show it to you first, if
4 thats all right.
5 I have shown you what I have marked as
6 Exhibit 9.
7 Is that a full and complete copy of your
8 Overall Timeline? It might be — I have it open on
9 my computer if theres a word that youre searching
10 for or something like that.
11 A No, I wanted to make sure all the pages
12 were there. It looks –
13 Q Oh.
14 A — it looks complete.
15 Q Okay. Sorry, I didnt understand that.
16 Thats fine. Okay, its complete.
17 You were referring to a page in here a
18 minute ago?
19 A Page 3.
20 Q Page 3.
21 A On March 26th, 1970 letter.
22 Q Okay.
83
1 A Let me pull out the — its a letter
2 from a Dr. J.G. Wall, medical director of general
3 departments, relative to a health — asbestos
4 health information article. He clearly states:
5 Studies have demonstrated that two factors common
6 in most cases of lung disease known as asbestosis
7 are: Long term exposures quote — (many years),
8 and an extremely high concentration of asbestos
9 dust and fibers. (Handing.)
10 Q What is the source of this — this 1970
11 letter?
12 A Im not really sure; I found it in the
13 medical department files. But the context of the
14 letter seems to discuss the spray-on — application
15 of spray-on asbestos that was going on at the World
16 Trade Center in New York City, and it appears that
17 some people had expressed concern about it.
18 And he actually states in the letter
19 that: The current use in World Trade Center
20 construction, that the New York City Health
21 Department and Air Pollution Control authorities
22 have approved the use. And it also states that:
84
1 The health authorities have been periodically
2 sampling the air around the World Trade — Trade
3 Center to check on the safety of the operation.
4 And then in quotes it says in the letter: In our
5 opinion the present situation does not represent
6 any health hazard for Bell System employees working
7 in the area. End quote.
8 Q So what hes — I mean — it appears to
9 me that hes saying that the Bell System employees
10 who are working near the World Trade Center arent
11 in any danger; isnt that what you think hes
12 saying?
13 A It appears thats what hes saying.
14 Q Okay. Now, the — the scientific
15 literature dealing with asbestos disease prior to
16 this indicates that people who work with people who
17 work with asbestos are getting sick from
18 mesothelioma; doesnt it?
19 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
20 form.
21 THE WITNESS: If the people that
22 are working work in high hazard industry, such as
85
1 insulators, asbestos manufacturing, shipyards,
2 those type of operations, but certainly you
3 wouldnt see, expect to see that type of hazard
4 from telephone company operations because our
5 workers did not get involved with high levels of
6 asbestos exposure.
7 MR. HARTLEY: Object to the
8 non-responsive portion.
9 BY MR. HARTLEY:
10 Q But in terms of — I mean my question
11 really went to what was in the literature prior to
12 1970; that youre aware, arent you, sir, that
13 there were — there were reports in the medical
14 literature that people who worked in the vicinity
15 of areas where asbestos was used were getting
16 mesothelioma; true?
17 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
18 form.
19 THE WITNESS: Im aware that
20 people that got asbestos-related disease were
21 people who were exposed to high levels of asbestos
22 over long periods of time.
86
1 It is a chronic illness.
2 BY MR. HARTLEY:
3 Q Okay. I — I guess I want to make sure
4 we are clear as we go through this that we — we
5 talk about what AT&T was aware of, okay.
6 Not — I mean I think that you — Im
7 not — were you giving me AT&Ts position there or
8 your own?
9 A I — Im reiterating what Dr. Wall says
10 in his letter, whos a medical director for AT&T.
11 Q Okay. AT&T was aware of the meeting in
12 1965 at the New York Academy of Sciences; true?
13 A I dont know that, specifically.
14 Q The — the — are you familiar with the
15 fact that there was a conference at the New York
16 Academy of Sciences — it wasnt at the academy, it
17 was actually at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel — where
18 Dr. Selikoff and several other people made a big
19 presentation about what theyd been learning over
20 the years relating to asbestos?
21 A Im not familiar with that specific
22 meeting.
87
1 Q Okay. AT&T had people that went to it;
2 didnt they?
3 A I dont know that.
4 Q Did you — was there — were there any
5 files in the medical department that — that dealt
6 with asbestos hazard? Was there like a big file
7 that said asbestos that somebody had kept?
8 A Not that I saw. The asbestos materials
9 were — anything related to asbestos were
10 intermingled with whatever medical department
11 records I went through.
12 Q Okay. Was there — did you see any
13 correspondence with Dr. Selikoff?
14 A I did not.
15 Q Do you know who he is?
16 A I do.
17 Q Okay. Are you — is AT&T aware of
18 Dr. J.C. Wagners paper from 1960 that was a case
19 series of mesothelioma cases in South Africa?
20 A Im not personally familiar with that
21 paper.
22 Q Okay. By the 1960s it was known that
88
1 people who lived in the vicinity of — of
2 installations using asbestos, that they might be at
3 risk, people just living in the area; true?
4 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
5 form.
6 THE WITNESS: I am familiar with
7 in some industry that people living in the vicinity
8 of manufacturing facilities that manufactured
9 asbestos and could be at risk.
10 BY MR. HARTLEY:
11 Q Okay. When is the first instance in
12 your — in your review of the — of the medical
13 files, when is the first instance that you saw that
14 the — that anyone in the Bell System monitored for
15 the presence of asbestos in the air?
16 A Can I look at my notes?
17 Q Of course. And — and you dont even
18 have to ask.
19 A Okay, thank you.
20 Q You can — you can ask — you can do it
21 any time you want.
22 A This file Im looking at is titled
89
1 Sampling. It is a January 21st, 1971 letter,
2 from Dr. Schowalter, who was the corporate medical
3 director to Dr. Herren, South Central Bell medical
4 director, and it talks about the Bell System
5 Environmental Quality Council, and it says that:
6 The Bell System Environmental Quality Council has
7 considered the health implications of using
8 asbestos in Bell System facilities, particularly
9 the spray application material onto building
10 surfaces, and more especially, the use of asbestos
11 to coat the interior surfaces of return air
12 plenums. In response to committee –
13 MADAM REPORTER: Return air
14 plenums?
15 THE WITNESS: Plenums.
16 MR. HARTLEY: Yes, P-L –
17 P-L-E-N-U-M-S.
18 THE WITNESS: In response to the
19 committees recommendations, a small number of air
20 samples were collected in the interior spaces and
21 ventilation systems of old and newly constructed
22 Bell System buildings. The analysis of these
90
1 samples revealed uniformly low concentration of
2 asbestos fibers, i.e., well below current standards
3 on permissible exposure levels.
4 BY MR. HARTLEY:
5 Q Okay. So what — from getting to the –
6 does that document indicate the first instance that
7 AT&T is aware of that it measured for the presence
8 or absence of asbestos in the air?
9 A Thats the first evidence I found in the
10 records.
11 Q Okay. Now, the only way to know whether
12 there are high, low, or — or medium quantities of
13 asbestos in the air is to measure it; right?
14 A Thats correct.
15 Q Okay. So now does AT&T consider one
16 fiber per cc in the air a high, low, medium or some
17 other amount of — amount of asbestos in the air;
18 what does it consider that?
19 A One fiber per cc is actually ten times
20 the permissible exposure limit that is prescribed
21 by OSHA at this time.
22 Q Okay. Does AT&T think that one fiber
91
1 per cc is safe?
2 A At one time the OSHA permissible
3 exposure limit was as high as ten fibers — sorry,
4 five fibers per cc.
5 Q Thats — thats — thats true.
6 My question doesnt go to — I mean OSHA
7 never considered — doesnt even consider the
8 current standard safe; does it?
9 A Im not aware of that.
10 Q Right. OSHA — OSHA set the OSHA
11 standard at — at 0.1 fibers per cc time weighted
12 average recognizes that at that level there will be
13 several excess cancers in 100,000 people; true?
14 A Ive not seen that information.
15 Q Okay. I — getting back to my — my
16 question that kind of we — where we got into
17 the — does — does AT&T consider one fiber per cc
18 a low exposure?
19 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
20 form. Give me a time frame. Currently?
21 MR. HARTLEY: Ever.
22 MR. BURLINGTON: Okay.
92
1 BY MR. HARTLEY:
2 Q Is that a low exposure, one fiber per
3 cc?
4 MR. BURLINGTON: Asked and
5 answered.
6 You can respond.
7 THE WITNESS: Its fairly low
8 con — considering what the recommended exposure
9 levels have been over the years.
10 I believe back as far as 1938 the
11 recommended permissible exposure level was ten
12 fibers per cc.
13 BY MR. HARTLEY:
14 Q Did you see that — are you — Im –
15 where is the source of the ten fibers per cc
16 number? Im trying to get — Im a little
17 surprised by that.
18 A I believe I saw it in some literature
19 that I may have reviewed. Industry — I believe it
20 was Industrial Hygiene Foundation recommended
21 level.
22 Q Where did you get this material that you
93
1 reviewed?
2 A Just in my — some of my online reviews
3 of asbestos history.
4 Q Where did you go online? I mean did –
5 what — what site?
6 A I just did a Google search. I dont
7 remember the specific site, but you know, in just
8 my online searches, just trying to get an idea of
9 some of the history of asbestos use and exposures
10 over the years.
11 Q Okay. So — so I want to make sure that
12 I didnt confuse anything here.
13 AT&T believes that one fiber per cc is a
14 relatively low exposure?
15 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to form.
16 Asked and answered.
17 THE WITNESS: Comparatively
18 speaking, to — Ive read some literature including
19 something from Dr. Selikoff that estimated that
20 worker exposures may have approached as much as a
21 thousand fibers per cc back in the 20s and 30s.
22 BY MR. HARTLEY:
94
1 Q Okay. Did your review of the materials
2 in preparation for this deposition indicate that
3 AT&T had information about the amount of exposure
4 prior to that 1971 measuring of the fireproofing
5 that you, spray-on fireproofing, that you
6 referenced in your sampling document? Is there any
7 indication that youve seen that AT&T had any
8 information about the levels of exposure to Bell
9 System workers or their spouses?
10 A I did not see any sampling data before
11 that and I believe as asbestos became a concern, in
12 particular the 1973 NIOSH criteria document, which,
13 by the way, did not identify asbestos as a
14 carcinogen, it identified it as a physical hazard.
15 And at that time AT&T did due diligence to try to
16 identify where they used asbestos, what were the
17 potential exposures, and took steps to try to
18 eliminate it from their operations wherever
19 possible.
20 Q Okay. Asbestos has been identified as a
21 carcinogen way before OSHA had come along; true?
22 A Yes, I believe Dr. Selikoff confirmed
95
1 that in his study of the shipyard workers.
2 Q Well, we — we know from your
3 interviewing Dr. Bond that he knew in the 1950s and
4 60s that asbestos was a carcinogen; true?
5 A Thats what he told me, yes.
6 Q So if he knew, somebody — it was
7 knowable; true?
8 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
9 form.
10 THE WITNESS: It was knowable
11 for people working in the asbestos industry.
12 Certainly not a concern in the telephone industry.
13 BY MR. HARTLEY:
14 Q Well, what we know is that the telephone
15 industry wasnt concerned about the carcinogenic
16 potential of asbestos in the 1950s and 60s; right?
17 A Right.
18 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
19 form.
20 THE WITNESS: True, because they
21 didnt feel it was a significant hazard to their
22 workers.
96
1 BY MR. HARTLEY:
2 Q You havent seen a single shred of
3 evidence that the tel — that AT&T or the Bell
4 System had looked at the issue of whether there was
5 a hazard to their workers, have you, in the 1960s?
6 A I did not see any evidence of that, no.
7 Q So there — so speaking for AT&T, you
8 can point me to no evidence whatsoever that AT&T
9 had any reasonable basis for believing that there
10 was not a risk of exposure to — from exposure to
11 asbestos in the Bell System; true?
12 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to form.
13 THE WITNESS: At that time the
14 risk of disease from asbestos was associated with
15 industries other than telecommunications. There
16 would not — there would not have expected that
17 asbestos was a hazard because the data was not
18 there at the time. And I think it was at — at
19 that time, into the early 70s, the Bell System
20 made Herculean efforts to try to evaluate what type
21 of potential exposures they had to their employees,
22 including hundreds of sampling activities that went
97
1 on to try to evaluate what the hazard was and then
2 take any actions as a result.
3 BY MR. HARTLEY:
4 Q You — you havent seen any
5 information — any evidence whatsoever that prior
6 to, lets say 1965 for starters, prior to 1965 that
7 AT&T did anything whatsoever to determine whether
8 there was a hazard related to asbestos in the Bell
9 System; right? Nothing?
10 A Not that Ive seen.
11 Q Okay. It wouldve been simple for AT&T
12 to ask the suppliers of asbestos if there were any
13 hazards related to their materials; wouldnt it?
14 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
15 form.
16 THE WITNESS: They could have.
17 BY MR. HARTLEY:
18 Q Right.
19 A Sure.
20 Q And – when — there were times when
21 AT&T — when operations that they performed put
22 people at risk and AT&T actually undertook to warn
98
1 people who might be injured by that risk; true?
2 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
3 form.
4 THE WITNESS: They identified
5 potential hazards and developed work practices or
6 modified their work practices to best protect their
7 people.
8 BY MR. HARTLEY:
9 Q Okay. Another thing that your review of
10 the medical and, I guess the medical files is
11 essentially what youve been looking at; right?
12 A For the most part, yes.
13 Q Okay. The review — your review of the
14 medical files over time shows you that AT&T
15 undertook to advise the Bell System about the
16 hazards of things that it thought were important;
17 true?
18 A Thats correct.
19 Q Okay. It gave a great deal of guidance
20 to the Bell System, to the operating companies, as
21 to how to do things safely; didnt it?
22 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
99
1 form.
2 THE WITNESS: It gave them
3 guidance, but the operating companies were
4 independent and it was their responsibility to
5 operate — it was the operating companys
6 responsibility to make sure that they understood
7 the hazards, communicated the hazards, and protect
8 their workers.
9 BY MR. HARTLEY:
10 Q It — it was reasonable for the
11 operating companies to rely on AT&T to give them
12 the information about the hazards since there was a
13 constant flow of information about hazards; true?
14 MR. BURLINGTON: Object –
15 object to the form.
16 THE WITNESS: AT&T was a
17 resource for the operating companies.
18 BY MR. HARTLEY:
19 Q And it was reasonable for the operating
20 companies to rely on AT&T for those — for
21 information about health and safety; true?
22 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
100
1 form.
2 THE WITNESS: They relied on
3 them for information because not all the operating
4 companies had the — the same types of resources,
5 like a Bell Labs.
6 BY MR. HARTLEY:
7 Q Right. For instance, there — there
8 werent a — there werent Pacific Telegraph –
9 Telephone & Telegraph practices that were sent to
10 AT&T where AT&T was expected to follow them; were
11 there?
12 A Not that Im aware of.
13 Q It went the other way. AT&T sent out
14 the Bell System practices and the Bell System was
15 supposed to follow the AT&T Bell System practices;
16 true?
17 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
18 form.
19 THE WITNESS: They were
20 recommended practices, yes.
21 BY MR. HARTLEY:
22 Q And when someone like AT&T recommends
101
1 something, youre entitled to rely on their
2 recommendations as being prudent; true?
3 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
4 form.
5 THE WITNESS: True, but its
6 still up to the Bell Operating Companies to decide
7 how they run their company, and their operations.
8 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. Now, I — I
9 shouldve done this before. I — you referenced
10 this March 26th, 1970 letter from Dr. Wall, J.G.
11 Wall, medical director-general departments,
12 regarding asbestos health — health and
13 information. I didnt mark it so I just wanted
14 to — to mark a copy of it.
15 (Collipi Exhibit No. 10 – one-page document
16 dated March 26, 1970, Re: Asbestos Health
17 Information Article, sent by J.G. Wall, M.D.
18 – was marked for identification.)
19 MR. BURLINGTON: Is there a
20 number on it?
21 MR. HARTLEY: Yeah, theres no
22 Bates stamp number on it so –
102
1 MR. BURLINGTON: I mean you
2 marked it as an exhibit.
3 MR. HARTLEY: Ten. Sorry.
4 BY MR. HARTLEY:
5 Q Now. Am — am I understanding correctly
6 that its AT&Ts position that the operating
7 companies should reasonably have been able to rely
8 on AT&Ts advice about health and safety, but
9 the — that the operating companies also a role in
10 that?
11 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
12 form.
13 THE WITNESS: I would say thats
14 correct.
15 BY MR. HARTLEY:
16 Q Okay. So, for instance, even though
17 AT&T was advising the operating companies about
18 hazards, and — you know, lets talk about one
19 particular one, for instance, hazards in dealing
20 with conduit, okay.
21 There were some — there were some Bell
22 System practices that AT&T sent out that dealt with
103
1 hazards such as, like dont drop the conduit on
2 your foot because its heavy and it could break
3 your foot, and things like that; right?
4 A Right.
5 Q Okay. So even though AT&T was sending
6 out those practices to — to the operating
7 companies, the operating companies — well, let me
8 start again.
9 Even though AT&T was sending out those
10 Bell System practices related to conduit to the
11 operating companies, the operating companies also
12 could reasonably rely on the — the suppliers of
13 the conduit to give them information about the
14 hazards of — of the products being supplied; true?
15 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
16 form.
17 THE WITNESS: They could.
18 BY MR. HARTLEY:
19 Q So in — in a — in a situation where
20 were talking about ex — exposure to asbestos
21 from — from fiber cement conduit, both AT&T and
22 Western Electric had some duty to advise the Bell
104
1 System workers about the hazards of those
2 materials; true?
3 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
4 form.
5 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
6 THE WITNESS: Are you saying
7 that the fiber conduit is an — is an asbestos
8 hazard?
9 BY MR. HARTLEY:
10 Q Well, lets — well, it is an asbestos
11 hazard as — as identified by AT&T; true?
12 A Its an asbestos-containing material,
13 but in its form, it is a non-friable form of
14 asbestos.
15 MADAM REPORTER: A non what?
16 THE WITNESS: Non-friable,
17 F-R-I-A-B-L-E.
18 BY MR. HARTLEY:
19 Q Okay, I — I understand that youre –
20 youre — you have a position about the potential
21 for release of asbestos. AT&T identified fiber
22 conduit as a potential asbestos hazard; true?
105
1 A Low potential.
2 Q Have you seen the — have you seen the
3 results of the testing that was done on conduit for
4 fiber release?
5 A I have seen some results, yes.
6 Q Okay. Have you seen all of them?
7 A I can take a look at my notes.
8 In the sampling results that were done
9 on fiber conduit operations, they were all well
10 below the PEL based on the information I found. In
11 fact the manufacturer of fiber conduit is the
12 largest — to date is — and currently is the
13 largest use of asbestos in the U.S. right now.
14 MR. HARTLEY: I object. I dont
15 think thats responsive to my question.
16 BY MR. HARTLEY:
17 Q I asked you, have — have you seen all
18 of the sampling that was available to AT&T over the
19 years dealing with conduit? Do you know that –
20 A Ive seen what was in the records.
21 Q Okay. And — and does your sampling
22 worksheet — your sampling notes, do they disclose
106
1 everything, list all the things that you believe
2 you have seen?
3 A They are probably there. If theyre not
4 on that, they are on my notes that are titled
5 Transite Duct.
6 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. Then let us
7 mark as Exhibit 11, your Sampling notes.
8 (Collipi Exhibit No. 11 – notes made by the
9 witness labeled Sampling – was marked for
10 identification.)
11 MR. HARTLEY: And as
12 Exhibit 12 — got to find them first, last one.
13 Exhibit 12, Transite Duct.
14 (Collipi Exhibit No. 12 – notes made by the
15 witness labeled Transite Duct – was marked
16 for identification.)
17 BY MR. HARTLEY:
18 Q There wasnt a pending question, I will
19 ask another one.
20 The — there are a number of ways that
21 AT&T identified over the years that asbestos could
22 be liberated from these transite ducts; true?
107
1 A Based on the sampling Ive seen, its
2 very unlikely because the levels I saw were pretty
3 much half the current PEL.
4 Q You could — youve seen reference in
5 the Bell System practices to using a hand tool to
6 taper the ends of the conduit; true?
7 A I believe Ive seen that, yes.
8 Q That would involve basically shaving off
9 the ends of this asbestos cement material with a
10 machine with a — while standing with your — right
11 in front of it; true?
12 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
13 form.
14 THE WITNESS: Im not familiar
15 with the exact process of how they would taper the
16 end of the duct — duct.
17 BY MR. HARTLEY:
18 Q You — they had like a hand tool that
19 you would crank around; right? You cant see me on
20 the — but –
21 A I have seen reference to that, yes.
22 Q Okay.
108
1 A Yes.
2 Q And that would — and the way that did
3 that was through manual pressure, it — it was sort
4 of like sharpening a pencil almost; it would kind
5 of take off the ends — edges so that it would have
6 a nice paper taper and fit into the next coupling;
7 right?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And you — you havent seen any
10 reference to measurements when that was going on;
11 right?
12 A Let me look at my notes, please.
13 Q Sure.
14 MR. HARTLEY: But I want you to
15 take notes to do it. Keep a list of the to-dos.
16 Mm-hmm.
17 THE WITNESS: The sample result
18 that I — that I reviewed were not for that
19 particular operation.
20 BY MR. HARTLEY:
21 Q Okay. And — and of course there were
22 no sampling results for when the material was cut;
109
1 true? With a power saw or a manual saw?
2 A I dont believe so. I believe the
3 sampling results that I saw were relative to
4 pulling cable through the conduit duct, and
5 breaking the conduit duct to do a repair.
6 Q Okay. Information that youve seen
7 indicates that there was a — there was sampling
8 done during a wet period and that there were req –
9 requests for sampling during a dry period but those
10 were never done; true?
11 A I could not find results for sampling
12 during the dry period.
13 Q And we know that if you sample during
14 the wet period, there — its less likely that
15 fibers would become airborne; true?
16 A Thats probably true.
17 Q So to this day, AT&T isnt able to point
18 us to any proof that it sampled to see whether
19 there is fiber released during wet times — dry
20 times of the year from pulling cable through
21 conduit; true?
22 A I was not able to find that.
110
1 Q And if you want to know the extent of a
2 hazard, especially dealing with asbestos, you need
3 to measure it, dont you?
4 A You do. But you have to look at the
5 operation in question. Transite duct, which
6 contains asbestos, is tightly bound up in that
7 cement matrix and so you would not expect to see
8 fiber release from disturbance of that material.
9 Q You have in your review of materials
10 seen reference to measurements of air when manholes
11 were being blown out, I guess is the term Im
12 thinking of, where theyre cleaning out the air
13 that has been sitting there with forced air; true?
14 A Yes, I have.
15 Q And — and those measurements all
16 indicate that the air outside the manhole was –
17 had less asbestos in it than — the man — the air
18 inside the manhole; true?
19 A I saw one sample result that showed a .1
20 fiber — I think .13 fibers per cc during
21 ventilation of the manhole.
22 Q And my question –
111
1 A However, there are no employees in the
2 manhole when the manholes being ventilated.
3 Q Okay. But that — my question was,
4 the — the evidence that youve seen shows that
5 theres more asbestos in the manholes than outside
6 the manholes in every instance; true?
7 A Ive only seen that one instance and I
8 did not know the source of that asbestos, whether
9 it came from the conduit duct or it mightve been a
10 source from outside the manhole that migrated into
11 the manhole.
12 Q Okay. There are many things that the
13 workers in the Bell System took in there that might
14 contain asbestos, like blankets for — for putting
15 over lines when theres soldering going on; true?
16 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to form.
17 THE WITNESS: Im not aware
18 of — Im not aware of any asbestos blankets that
19 we used in the Bell System.
20 MR. HARTLEY: Really?
21 Okay. We need to take a break while he
22 changes the tape.
112
1 VIDEOGRAPHER: Were going off
2 the record. The time is 12:05:25. This is the end
3 of tape number one. Were off the record.
4 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
5 VIDEOGRAPHER: Were going back
6 on the record. The time is 12:11:33, this marks
7 the beginning of videotape number two with the
8 deposition of Ralph Collipi. Counsel may proceed.
9 BY MR. HARTLEY:
10 Q What sources of asbestos hazard was AT&T
11 aware of over time?
12 A The asbestos-containing materials that
13 AT&T identified included asbestos gloves, fiber
14 conduit pipe, and transite board used for cable
15 hole covers. Canvass bags used in cable hole
16 covers. Some buildings might have had spray-on
17 materials. Buildings had vinyl asbestos tile and
18 asbestos containing mastic for the tile.
19 There were some phenolic blocks, thats
20 spelled P-H-E-N-O-L-I-C, that were asbestos
21 containing. There were asbestos washers in some of
22 the very old legacy equipment. There was some
113
1 asbestos-coated wire that was in the notes
2 discontinued in the 1940s. I think those are all
3 that come to mind right now.
4 Q Okay. Have you seen measurements of
5 asbestos exposure potential from cable hole cover
6 work?
7 A I have.
8 Q Okay. Did you bring those materials
9 with you today?
10 A I did.
11 Q Okay. Would you get those out for me?
12 A Sure. I just need to look through my
13 notes to make sure I can find documents.
14 Q No problem.
15 A This particular document is dated
16 March 20th, 1974, and it includes some sampling
17 done while cutting asbestos cable hole covers. The
18 sampling was done over an eight hour — sorry, I
19 have to just refer to a couple of things here.
20 The samples were done as a time weighted
21 average. (Handing.)
22 Q What are the results of your search?
114
1 Anything else other than this one document?
2 A Thats the one that I found.
3 Q And from the time that we — I — you
4 havent been just sitting here waiting for me; you
5 have been looking for more in case there are –
6 A I just double-checked to see if there
7 were any others.
8 Q Okay. Okay. Now, this document doesnt
9 have a Bates number from this case on it, although
10 it does have a Bates No. LUC02234 through LUC02239.
11 So these are time weighted averages
12 reported in here; true?
13 A Thats what it says, yes.
14 Q Okay. Now –
15 MR. HARTLEY: Is this one that
16 was produced yesterday, day before yesterday,
17 yesterday? Cause we didnt –
18 MR. BURLINGTON: It may have
19 been produced –
20 MR. HARTLEY: The important part
21 has — was not previously produced.
22 MR. BURLINGTON: Well –
115
1 MR. HARTLEY: Thats why Im
2 asking. The — the results werent there on the
3 other.
4 MR. BURLINGTON: Its got a
5 Bates stamp number on it.
6 MR. HARTLEY: Not for this case
7 though.
8 MR. BURLINGTON: But it was in
9 addition to any previous time it was produced it
10 was produced with the materials yesterday.
11 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. He says
12 its in the stuff from yesterday.
13 MR. BURLINGTON: Its in the
14 same box. Did you take it out of your box?
15 THE WITNESS: I did, yeah.
16 MR. BURLINGTON: Its in the
17 same exact box. And youre — you should have the
18 Bates stamp number on yours.
19 MR. HARTLEY: Right. Well –
20 okay. Well, this is a –
21 BY MR. HARTLEY:
22 Q You — you — can you tell me what the
116
1 range of the time weighted averages were for
2 cutting cable hole covers?
3 A Yes, as a time weighted average it
4 ranged from .1 fibers per cc to 5.2 — one sample
5 showed 5.2 fibers per cc.
6 Q So as a time weighted average, every
7 single one of the activities sampled back in 1974
8 exceeded the current OSHA PEL; true?
9 A Exceed or are at. There are two samples
10 that are 0.1.
11 Q Well, if — if you — today if we had a
12 measurement of — of 0.1 that would be — mean that
13 you were exceeding the OSHA, then that would be an
14 action level; true?
15 A Thats correct.
16 Q Youd have to do something to protect
17 workers?
18 A Yes.
19 Q You should be doing something to keep –
20 keep below even 0.1, but at 0.1 youre obligated by
21 law to do something; true?
22 A True, but at 1974, 0.1 is 50 times less
117
1 than the PEL at the time.
2 Q Right. We see there that — that the –
3 there were exposures that were over even the PEL in
4 1974, when — when there had been an emergency
5 temporary standard enacted; right?
6 A It was one that was above five which was
7 a current PEL.
8 Q Right.
9 A And then there was a — at the time OSHA
10 had proposed lowering the standard to two fibers
11 per cc of air, and there are six samples that are
12 above two.
13 Q Right. And at that time actually NIOSH
14 had proposed a much lower level than OSHA had put
15 into effect; true?
16 A I believe thats true.
17 Q So — and just so were clear, the — at
18 least one sample was 52 times the current PEL;
19 true? 5.2 is 52 times the current PEL?
20 A Thats correct.
21 However –
22 MR. HARTLEY: Its
118
1 non-responsive but go ahead.
2 THE WITNESS: However, this just
3 to qualify, this is a time weighted average. When
4 workers cut transite board, it was something they
5 would do for a couple of minutes on very infrequent
6 occasions as part of their installation tasks. So
7 its very doubtful that workers wouldve approached
8 anything near the PEL while cutting transite board.
9 BY MR. HARTLEY:
10 Q I dont understand that.
11 We have proof here that they were even
12 at the lowest level here, the current PEL is
13 exceeded; true?
14 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
15 form.
16 THE WITNESS: The current PEL is
17 exceeded but we protect our workers based on what
18 are the standards at the time.
19 BY MR. HARTLEY:
20 Q Right, you wouldnt want to do more than
21 was required by law; would you?
22 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
119
1 form.
2 THE WITNESS: You do whats
3 required to protect your workers. And if you look
4 at the issue of PELs, they are studied, and based
5 on current information they may be adjusted. And
6 if you look at the history of OSHA standards,
7 thats something thats done on a regular basis to
8 this day as more information becomes available
9 about the potential hazard of that material.
10 BY MR. HARTLEY:
11 Q When — when did you get this document?
12 A It was in the, you know, files I got six
13 months ago, and, you know, took all that time to
14 slug through all the documents.
15 Q Okay.
16 MR. HARTLEY: Where are the rest
17 of the stickers? Theyre here somewhere, I just
18 have got to find them. She kindly — came up
19 pre-numbered at some point.
20 Im going to mark that document as
21 Exhibit 13.
22 (Collipi Exhibit No. 13 – Bates stamp LUC
120
1 02234 through 241 – was marked for
2 identification.)
3 BY MR. HARTLEY:
4 Q So I — so I understand, the — the
5 highlighting on this — on Exhibit 13 is yours;
6 true?
7 A Thats correct.
8 Q The underlining was on the copy that you
9 received?
10 A Thats correct.
11 Q Do you know who did the underlining?
12 A I dont.
13 Q No, you dont?
14 A I dont.
15 Q I think we established this previously
16 but AT&T had government contracts over the years?
17 A Thats correct.
18 Q And along with government contacts –
19 contracts came requirements, legal requirements,
20 that AT&T maintain minimum health standards for
21 the — their workers; true?
22 A Thats probably true.
121
1 Q Youre familiar with the Walsh-Healey
2 Act?
3 A I am.
4 Q The Walsh-Healey Act required AT&T to
5 keep exposures to asbestos below the threshold
6 limit value; didnt it?
7 A The asbestos standard did that.
8 Q Okay. The — the Walsh-Healey Act came
9 before the OSHER — OSHA asbestos standard; didnt
10 it?
11 A Yes, the Walsh-Healey Act requires
12 employees to protect their workers.
13 Q Many states, for instance, the state of
14 New Jersey had a threshold limit value before the
15 OSHA standard was enacted in 1970; true?
16 A I dont know that.
17 Q AT&T as a company is aware that there
18 were various health and safety laws enforced in the
19 50 states, different ones in different states
20 sometimes, and it was required to follow all of
21 them; true?
22 A Sure.
122
1 Q So if the state of Illinois, where AT&T
2 had substantial assets, it had Western Electric
3 there, and it had the Bell Operating Companies
4 there; right?
5 A Yes.
6 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
7 form.
8 BY MR. HARTLEY:
9 Q AT&T had its own operations in — in
10 Illinois over time; didnt it?
11 A Yes.
12 Q A — AT&T was required to be aware of
13 the laws that governed employment of people in –
14 in factories and the like there; true?
15 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
16 form.
17 THE WITNESS: Thats correct.
18 BY MR. HARTLEY:
19 Q Okay. Was AT&T aware that in the 1930s
20 that the — the threshold limit value of five
21 million particles per cubic foot was required to be
22 observed by law in Illinois?
123
1 A I — Im aware of that.
2 Q Okay. How did you become aware of that?
3 A In my research of — on asbestos
4 history.
5 Q Okay. Western Electric was — was a
6 member of the Illinois Manufacturers Association;
7 wasnt it?
8 A I dont know that.
9 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
10 BY MR. HARTLEY:
11 Q What did — where did you learn that
12 the — the TLV of Illinois was five million
13 particles per cu — cubic foot and the like?
14 A In some of my online search Im familiar
15 with that prescribed standard.
16 Q Okay. Given that — given that you know
17 that AT&T was required to ensure that its workers
18 werent exposed over the threshold limit value;
19 true?
20 A Thats correct.
21 Q Okay. And the only way to know that is
22 to measure the air; true?
124
1 A You could also presume that, based on
2 the type of operations that you have.
3 Q Right.
4 A Five million particles per cubic foot is
5 a very high concentration on fibers that you
6 wouldnt expect to see in telecommunication
7 operations.
8 Q Well — well, Im — Im not sure I
9 understand where youre coming from. You believe
10 that — that five million particles per cubic foot
11 of — of asbestos in the air would be visible to
12 the human eye?
13 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
14 form.
15 THE WITNESS: Perhaps. Im not
16 sure.
17 BY MR. HARTLEY:
18 Q If its not visible, the only way to
19 know if youre exceeding the — the TLV would be to
20 measure; true?
21 A True. However, you have to look at what
22 the operations are.
125
1 If the operation doesnt appear to pose
2 a potential hazard, we certainly dont take samples
3 for every type of hazardous material that we use in
4 our operations.
5 Q We know the best you can tell, AT&T
6 didnt ever take a sample until required to by
7 OSHA; did it?
8 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
9 form.
10 THE WITNESS: AT&T did sampling
11 to try to evaluate the type of hazards they had,
12 and based on the sampling it appears the hazards
13 were minimal. And a lot of the sampling that was
14 done showed levels to be somewhere near ambient
15 levels of asbestos.
16 BY MR. HARTLEY:
17 Q Okay. The 5.2 fibers per cc time
18 weighted average isnt minimal; is it?
19 A No, its not.
20 Q Thats a — thats an extreme hazard;
21 isnt it?
22 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
126
1 form.
2 THE WITNESS: Im not sure Id
3 call it extreme.
4 BY MR. HARTLEY:
5 Q Okay. Does AT&T believe that 5.2 fibers
6 per cc time weighted average exposure to asbestos
7 is a — an extreme hazard?
8 A You have to look at the context as to
9 when the sample was taken and what the prescribed
10 permissible exposure limit was at that time.
11 Q It — it –
12 A You only know what you know at that
13 time.
14 Q Does AT&T believe that an exposure to –
15 to a worker at — at 5.2 fibers per cc is
16 acceptable?
17 A I would say no, not now.
18 Q Did it believe it — believe that by –
19 exposures to asbestos were ever acceptable if they
20 could have been avoided?
21 A If you look in the memo I gave you, it
22 identified that those were above the PEL, and based
127
1 on that the company decided it was important to
2 take action, which they did, to eliminate the use
3 of transite for cable hole covers.
4 Q And when the — the Exhibit 13, the
5 March 20, 1974 memo, the — the information was out
6 there that there was plans to lower the PEL to well
7 below what it was — what it was in 1974; true?
8 A Thats correct.
9 Q And the reasons for that were because
10 there was — there appeared to be substantial risk
11 at well below the 1974 level; true?
12 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
13 form.
14 THE WITNESS: Thats probably
15 the reason for lowering it, yes.
16 BY MR. HARTLEY:
17 Q It was recognized by AT&T that these
18 exposures would not be acceptable by law in the –
19 in the not — in the very near future; true?
20 A Correct. But I think that sampling
21 represents a worst-case scenario. And as I stated
22 earlier, when our workers did cut transite board in
128
1 the field, it was infrequent, and it was done over
2 a very short period of time.
3 So I think these samples represent a
4 worst-case scenario and it was important for AT&T
5 to understand the potential hazard, that — thus
6 the reason for the sampling and based on the
7 sampling there was quick action taken to eliminate
8 that product from our operations.
9 And I think that shows due diligence on
10 the part of the company to evaluate the hazard and
11 take the measures necessary to protect their
12 workers once they understood what the potential
13 hazard was.
14 Q Okay.
15 MR. HARTLEY: Object to the
16 non-responsive portion.
17 BY MR. HARTLEY:
18 Q Between 1960 and 1974, when this — this
19 memo was authored, have you identified anything
20 that indicates that AT&T undertook to determine if
21 there was a safe level of exposure to asbestos at
22 any level?
129
1 A I did not find that in my record search.
2 Q AT&T understands today, doesnt it, that
3 there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos;
4 right?
5 A I dont agree with that.
6 Q Im asking what AT&T understands.
7 A AT&T will follow the prescribed PELs by
8 OSHA, and if you look at the current PEL by OSHA of
9 .1 fibers per cc, the average worker will breathe
10 somewhere between four and eight cubic meters of
11 air in an eight-hour period.
12 Q Okay.
13 A Which means that a worker could,
14 according to the current OSHA standard, breathe as
15 many as 800,000 fibers in a day. And according to
16 OSHA, the PELs are levels above — below which
17 workers should be able to work for their lifetime
18 without any adverse health effects.
19 So I have to disagree with your
20 statement that no level of exposure is safe.
21 MR. HARTLEY: Objection,
22 non-responsive.
130
1 BY MR. HARTLEY:
2 Q You understand that, for instance, that
3 the United States EPA takes the position that
4 theres no safe level of exposure to asbestos?
5 A I understand that the EPA does not allow
6 you to emit asbestos fibers into the air as part of
7 NESHAPS.
8 Q Okay. Does AT&T understand that the
9 United States EPA has stated that there is no safe
10 level of exposures to asbestos?
11 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
12 form.
13 THE WITNESS: Well, the levels
14 of exposure to asbestos are really governed by OSHA
15 and not by the EPA.
16 BY MR. HARTLEY:
17 Q I understand that thats –
18 MR. HARTLEY: Let me object to
19 non-responsive.
20 BY MR. HARTLEY:
21 Q Do you know that the E — does AT&T know
22 that the EPA has taken the position that theres no
131
1 safe level of exposure to asbestos?
2 A I dont know that personally.
3 Q Okay, does AT&T know that the World
4 Health Organization has taken the position that
5 there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos?
6 A I dont personally know that.
7 MR. BURLINGTON: Just state an
8 objection. Again, this witness is here today on
9 the history, development, and substance of
10 corporate environment — Im sorry, of the
11 corporate medical program and the epidemiology
12 history, so in terms of what EPA states today or
13 the World Health Organization states today, thats
14 beyond what he has been designated here for.
15 MR. HARTLEY: Im not sure I –
16 I agree, but on the other hand, he brought up these
17 things in his personal views and I want to make
18 sure what — since hes mixing his personal views
19 with the AT&T position, I want to make sure that we
20 dont have a confusion on the record as to what –
21 what — whos making the statements. Thats all.
22 Thats the only reason I asked. I — I didnt open
132
1 that can of worms is where I — where Im coming
2 from.
3 MR. BURLINGTON: Well — I
4 wont — I wont debate it.
5 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. Good.
6 MR. BURLINGTON: Thats my
7 objection.
8 BY MR. HARTLEY:
9 Q On a personal level, let me see if we
10 cant — avoid digging — del — delving deeply
11 into all this. You — you indicated that you
12 believe, I think, personally that theres probably
13 a safe level of exposure to asbestos; is that
14 essentially what you were saying to me?
15 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
16 form. Hes not here personally. Hes here as a
17 corporate representative.
18 But go ahead and respond.
19 THE WITNESS: As an industrial
20 hygienist I believe there are safe levels because
21 asbestos is naturally occurring in the environment.
22 There are asbestos fibers in the ambient air, and
133
1 as I said earlier, workers can breathe hundreds of
2 thousands of fibers a day and still be within the
3 OSHA guidelines. In addition, physiologically
4 there are mechanisms in the body that will remove
5 asbestos fibers that are inhaled, such as
6 mucocilliary– muco –
7 BY MR. HARTLEY:
8 Q — cilliary escalator?
9 A — escalator, phagocytosis, and — and
10 lymphatic drainage. And those are well documented
11 in the literature.
12 Q Sure. But that –
13 You — you werent taking a position on
14 that for AT&T. You were taking that — you were
15 saying that as a — as an industrial hygienist;
16 true? Thats what Im getting at.
17 A I am an industrial hygienist but I am
18 here to represent AT&T.
19 Q Okay. Is — is that AT&Ts position
20 about whether theres a safe level of exposure to
21 asbestos?
22 A AT&T will protect our workers based on
134
1 the OSHA PELs that are out there.
2 Q And — and we discussed earlier that
3 OSHA — OSHAs PEL recognizes that — that the PEL
4 isnt a safe level; true? That there is an excess
5 risk of cancer even at 0.1 fibers per cc; true?
6 A I believe thats true.
7 Q And — and given that, AT&T agrees that
8 the current OSHA PEL isnt a safe level; true?
9 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
10 form of the question. Again this exceeds the scope
11 of his — his designated testimony that you
12 requested in the notice. Dealing with history, not
13 with current.
14 MR. HARTLEY: Recent history.
15 THE WITNESS: A — AT&Ts
16 position would be that if our workers are working
17 and their exposures below the PEL, then it is a
18 safe workplace.
19 MR. HARTLEY: Okay.
20 BY MR. HARTLEY:
21 Q AT&T recognizes that the OSHA PEL of 0.1
22 fibers per cc is not considered a safe level by
135
1 OSHA; true?
2 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
3 form.
4 THE WITNESS: If its not
5 considered a safe level, why is it permissible to
6 expose employees to that level?
7 BY MR. HARTLEY:
8 Q Thats a good question.
9 A If you look at the dem — definition of
10 a permissible exposure level –
11 Q Okay.
12 A — it clearly states that workers
13 exposed below that level can work throughout their
14 lifetime without risk of adverse health effects.
15 You have to look at the definition of what a PEL
16 is.
17 Q Okay. All right.
18 So were clear about, this is Exhibit 13
19 Im going to read you these. I dont know — well,
20 maybe if you — it will be easier so — because I
21 know you dont have a copy of it handy, Im going
22 to give you this.
136
1 Starting at the highest level, I think
2 its 5.2 fibers per cc time weighted average, in
3 1974 AT&T did not believe that that was a safe
4 level of exposure to asbestos for its workers;
5 true?
6 MR. BURLINGTON: Objection to
7 the form, asked and answered.
8 BY MR. HARTLEY:
9 Q — 5.2?
10 A I would say thats true based on the
11 action that AT&T took after doing the sampling
12 and — and doing the hazard evaluation.
13 Q Whats the next lowest exposure –
14 next — next highest, rather?
15 A Looks like 3.5 fibers per cc.
16 Q Okay. In 1974, did AT&T believe that
17 3.5 fibers per cc time weighted average exposure to
18 asbestos was a safe level of exposure?
19 A Its a level that was allowed under the
20 PEL, but AT&T knew that the standard was being
21 revised to two fibers per cc and, in fact, it
22 states so in this memo.
137
1 Q So they knew that that was not a safe
2 level, 3.5 fibers per cc?
3 A Correct.
4 Q Okay. Whats the next largest value
5 that was measured?
6 A Looks like 2.9 fibers per cc.
7 Q Okay. In 1974, did AT&T believe that
8 2.9 fibers per cc was a safe level of exposure to
9 asbestos?
10 A I will give you the same answer as I
11 gave you on the last one, which was, it was allowed
12 under the PEL. But AT&T knew that the PEL would be
13 revised in July 76, and based on that they
14 recognized and stated in the memo it was above the
15 future PEL and they felt they had to take some
16 action, which they did to eliminate this hazard.
17 Q The next number?
18 A 2.8 fibers per cc.
19 Q Was that a safe level as far as A –
20 AT&T was concerned in 1974?
21 A Ill give you the same answer I gave I
22 on the other two.
138
1 Q Okay. Whats — whats the breaking
2 point? What level did A — AT&T think was a safe
3 level of exposure in 1974?
4 A AT&Ts always really taken the position
5 try to minimize exposure as much as possible. So
6 even though the majority of these samples were
7 below the proposed standard for July 1st, 76,
8 they felt it was prudent to take action to
9 eliminate this potential hazard from the workers.
10 And its stated, you know, in the memos and — and
11 history thats identified for these cable hole
12 covers, its quite clear.
13 Q What actions did AT&T take to make sure
14 that those people who had been exposed to those
15 levels were monitored and warned about their excess
16 exposure to asbestos?
17 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
18 form.
19 THE WITNESS: The medical
20 department did agree to provide medical
21 surveillance for workers who had a history of
22 cutting transite cable hole covers even though
139
1 there is no requirement to perform medical
2 surveillance on — on historic exposure — people
3 who had historic exposure.
4 They also took action to eliminate the
5 transite — use of transite as a cable hole cover
6 and replaced it with sheet metal covers and did
7 that in 1974 when these samples were taken.
8 BY MR. HARTLEY:
9 Q Did AT&T let those workers know, those
10 workers who had been overexposed to asbestos, know
11 that they had in fact been exposed at — at levels
12 above the PEL at the time?
13 A It really wouldve been up to the
14 employer to notify their workers about potential
15 hazards. In addition, there were changes made to
16 some of the company documents about the use of
17 transite and that it should no longer be used and
18 that should be removed from the system and that was
19 sent out to the operating companies, and in
20 particular Western Electric.
21 Q I guess you — you didnt mention that
22 they notified the workers as far as you know; true?
140
1 A I cant tell you what each of the
2 operating companies did. But it was certainly
3 their responsibility to notify workers of all
4 potential hazards.
5 Q Do you know Western Electric, did — did
6 they notify their workers?
7 A I cant tell you specifically they
8 notified all their workers, but Western Electric
9 was well aware of the situation. They were
10 involved in the sampling effort and Dr. Cassuto
11 certainly knew about it.
12 Q Who — who were the recipients of the
13 information about these excess exposures to
14 asbestos from cutting cable hole covers?
15 A You mean the folks who get this memo?
16 Q Yes.
17 A There is a John Bestel, B-E-S-T-E-L, I
18 dont know who he is. But theres also Dr. Dunn
19 was copied. Frank Worden who was an industrial
20 hygienist for — for the corporate Western
21 Electric.
22 It also copied a W.K., looks like
141
1 Hammel, H-A-M-M-E-L, and a M.W. Sagal, S-A-G-A-L,
2 and I dont know who those two people are.
3 Q You — you know from your review of the
4 materials from the Occupational Health Working
5 Group that they were aware of those results; right?
6 A They were.
7 Q So this — these exposures were
8 exposures of concern to everyone in the Bell
9 System; true?
10 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
11 form.
12 THE WITNESS: They were — they
13 were mostly a concern for Western Electric
14 installers because they were the ones who would cut
15 the transite cable hole covers.
16 BY MR. HARTLEY:
17 Q Most of the time they were doing that,
18 though, they were doing it in — in facilities
19 where other Bell System workers who were not
20 employed by Western Electric were present; true?
21 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to form.
22 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
142
1 THE WITNESS: Thats probably
2 true.
3 BY MR. HARTLEY:
4 Q Because that was happening in central
5 offices, in — in cable vaults, and things like
6 that, which — which were typically manned by Bell
7 Operating Company employees; true?
8 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
9 form.
10 THE WITNESS: Thats true.
11 MR. HARTLEY: Why dont we take
12 a break. I think I sense that everybody needs to
13 take a short break for lunch, half an hour, if we
14 can do, and as soon as we can get it.
15 Is that good with you guys?
16 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the
17 record, the time is 12:52:11. Were off the
18 record.
19 (Thereupon, at this point in the proceedings
20 a luncheon recess was taken.)
21 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going back
22 on the record, the time is 1:56:10.
143
1 Counsel may proceed.
2 MR. HARTLEY: Thank you.
3 BY MR. HARTLEY:
4 Q I think right before we left we were
5 talking about the fact that AT&T was aware of the
6 fact that when cable hole covers, transite cable
7 hole covers were cut, it — it wasnt just Western
8 Electric employees who had potential for exposure
9 to that asbestos; true?
10 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
11 form.
12 THE WITNESS: For the most part
13 it would have been only Western Electric because
14 the cable hole covers were not allowed to be cut in
15 the central office space itself because the company
16 tries to avoid creating any dust in the central
17 office because the electronic equipment is
18 sensitive to it.
19 So if they were going to cut a cable
20 hole cover theyd generally take it outside or
21 theyd take it into a work room to do that work.
22 So, you know, its pretty unlikely that operating
144
1 telephone folks wouldve had any appreciable
2 exposure to asbestos during that operation.
3 MR. HARTLEY: Objection,
4 non-responsive.
5 BY MR. HARTLEY:
6 Q AT&T was aware that there was a
7 potential for exposure to operating company
8 employees when cable hole covers were cut; true?
9 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
10 form. Asked and answered.
11 THE WITNESS: The potential
12 exposure was very minimal, if any.
13 BY MR. HARTLEY:
14 Q I guess the — there was potential
15 exposure and AT&T was aware of it; right?
16 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
17 form.
18 THE WITNESS: Potential exposure
19 really wouldnt have been anything more than what
20 folks typically get from ambient exposure.
21 BY MR. HARTLEY:
22 Q The potential would be much higher
145
1 had — if cable hole covers were cut in — inside
2 the facilities, where operating company employees
3 were working; true?
4 A The potential exposure really only would
5 have been towards a person cutting the cover,
6 because as I stated earlier, it was something that
7 was done infrequently and was done maybe only –
8 took maybe a minute or so to — to cut the cable
9 hole cover to shape it so — so it could be placed
10 around the cables.
11 Q Okay. And in terms of an Exhibit 13,
12 where did — where did they cut the cable hole
13 covers?
14 A I need to look at that, please.
15 MR. HARTLEY: Is it in these
16 documents that we brought today? Is exhibits — he
17 says he produced it. Can you find that document,
18 the other copy of it that they sent to you
19 yesterday, in these documents. Should be here;
20 right? Didnt you print them and bring them?
21 MR. HORVAT: Yes.
22 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. Can you
146
1 find them and bring them to me.
2 THE WITNESS: It doesnt say
3 specifically where these were cut. It does have a
4 diagram, figure one, entitled Sample stations for
5 asbestos at the Columbus central office.
6 It does show the operator at a bench
7 thats — a saw bench thats 15 inches high, and a
8 table thats 24 inches high. But it doesnt say
9 specifically where in the central office this
10 cutting is done. And again, you know, this is
11 all — this is a case you probably — you wouldnt
12 see these kind of exposures on a normal tour of
13 duty because they would not do this much cutting.
14 If you look at these samples, sample
15 time range from 30 minutes to 74.6 minutes. And
16 typically, when this material was cut in the field,
17 it was only done for a minute or two to fabricate
18 the panel around the cables.
19 MR. HARTLEY: Okay, I will
20 object to the non-responsive portion.
21 BY MR. HARTLEY:
22 Q Youve never seen it cut in the field;
147
1 have you?
2 A I have not.
3 Q Okay. And that document indicates, at
4 least on its face, that the cutting was taking
5 place inside — inside the — the central office;
6 right?
7 A It does. But as I stated earlier, they
8 were not allowed to create dust in the central
9 office, but they did have workrooms and work areas
10 they could go to to do that kind of work.
11 Q All right. All that being the case,
12 this says that it was doing — going on inside
13 central office, doesnt it, this document?
14 A It does, yes.
15 Q Okay. And what other bases do you have
16 for claiming that there were no cut — that this
17 activity of cutting cable hole covers did not take
18 place inside the central office, in the presence of
19 operating company employees?
20 A Id need — Id need to take a look at
21 my documents for that.
22 Q Okay.
148
1 A See if I can find that.
2 Q Please do.
3 MR. HARTLEY: While hes
4 looking, did you know — did — did you guys
5 produce a disk with these documents in his thing or
6 in his materials or just a paper copy?
7 MR. BURLINGTON: I believe just
8 a paper copy.
9 MR. HARTLEY: Okay, can you –
10 MR. BURLINGTON: I believe.
11 MR. HARTLEY: Can you –
12 MR. BURLINGTON: Ill find out.
13 MR. HARTLEY: Why dont we take
14 an off the record while hes looking and see if you
15 can — so if you can — cause we cant find –
16 MR. BURLINGTON: Were off the
17 record?
18 MR. HARTLEY: Sure.
19 VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record,
20 the time is 2:04:33. Were off the record.
21 (Discussion held off the record.)
22 VIDEOGRAPHER: Were going back
149
1 on the record, the time is 2:14:53. Counsel may
2 proceed.
3 (The reporter read the record as requested.)
4 BY MR. HARTLEY:
5 Q And?
6 A And I couldnt find anything in the
7 documents specifically stating that. However, it
8 is company practice and has been for years that we
9 do not allow the creation of dust in the central
10 offices because of the sensitivity of the
11 electronic equipment could cause damage to the
12 electronic equipment.
13 MR. HARTLEY: Okay, Ill object
14 to the non-responsive portion of that.
15 BY MR. HARTLEY:
16 Q Now, have — have you reviewed the
17 testimony of any of the — any of my clients over
18 the — that have worked in the Bell System?
19 A Ive reviewed several depositions, but I
20 believe they were all AT&T or Western Electric
21 people. Or Bell Labs.
22 Q Okay, so those — and those depositions
150
1 were of — of my clients; right? You — you –
2 well, you havent read it — you havent — you
3 dont know about –
4 A Is Jim Degen your client?
5 Q No, hes definitely not my client.
6 Did you — well, that was my question
7 initially so you — as part — you had — you
8 didnt read Mr. — Mr. Dormans testimony?
9 A I dont believe I did.
10 Q Okay. And you didnt read Mr. Hern –
11 Herndons testimony?
12 A I — Im sure I did not read his.
13 Q Okay. I presume, then, you havent read
14 Larry Adams testimony?
15 A I have not.
16 Q What about that case in California that
17 you mentioned, did you read the testimony of that
18 Pacific Bell worker?
19 A Thats a Workers Comp claim.
20 Q Right, did you read any testimony?
21 A I dont know any details about that
22 claim.
151
1 Q Have you done anything methodical to
2 determine whether or not this cutting of cable hole
3 covers actually occurred inside as — other than
4 when the Bell System tested — tested the exposures
5 that were occurring when that activity was done
6 inside?
7 A I have not.
8 MR. BURLINGTON: Christian, in
9 these — language here at Exhibit 235 I think is
10 what youre looking for –
11 MR. HARTLEY: Ex — Exhibit 235
12 is the — is what is Exhibit 19?
13 MR. BURLINGTON: I believe so.
14 Why dont you take a look and confirm. Because I
15 dont know how many pages you have. Look at that.
16 (Handing.) Is that the same?
17 MR. HARTLEY: Yes, your
18 Exhibit 235 — it is not Bates stamped either so –
19 MR. BURLINGTON: Yeah, I know,
20 Im — but Im looking at the trial exhibits.
21 Thats all I have. Daves going to bring down the
22 Bates stamp number.
152
1 But is that the same document, the
2 complete set?
3 MR. HARTLEY: It — it appears
4 to be. Now, just since we had a — sort of
5 substantial off-the-record discussion, upon further
6 review of the documents that were delivered
7 yesterday, it appears that the document, which we
8 got, which is now marked as Exhibit 13 to this
9 document [sic], was not produced to us yesterday as
10 originally believed by counsel, and so we have –
11 now that weve determined that, they are
12 endeavoring to produce a copy of the — the
13 March 20, 1974 cable hole cover asbestos fiber
14 mea — measurements testing that is Exhibit 13, and
15 electronic copies of all of the documents that were
16 produced — that were supposed to have been
17 produced to us yesterday in preparation for this
18 deposition.
19 Is that — is that accurate?
20 MR. BURLINGTON: No.
21 MR. HARTLEY: Which part is –
22 MR. BURLINGTON: Thats not
153
1 accurate. First of all, according to the
2 deposition notice they were to be produced at the
3 deposition today. So –
4 MR. HARTLEY: I — I — when I
5 said supposed, I meant you said earlier today you
6 gave us all the documents yesterday, and were
7 telling you thats not true because theyre not in
8 them. Thats all I meant to say.
9 MR. BURLINGTON: Okay. Okay. I
10 dont — I dont — Whether its true or not, I
11 dont know.
12 MR. HARTLEY: Well, Im telling
13 you its not true.
14 MR. BURLINGTON: It is true –
15 well, what you tell me is you cant find it in the
16 box –
17 MR. HARTLEY: That you
18 delivered.
19 MR. BURLINGTON: — and — and
20 theres a lot of material in the box so maybe –
21 Id be happy to look through your box if you like
22 because Im just sitting here –
154
1 MR. HARTLEY: Youve got to be
2 kidding me. You can go –
3 MR. BURLINGTON: No, I would be
4 happy to do that. But in the meantime I have, as I
5 said I would, contacted David Ross to find the
6 Bates stamp numbered document that I understand is
7 in — is in the box –
8 MR. HARTLEY: Im telling — Im
9 telling you, you didnt deliver it, and if you
10 didnt keep a record of what you delivered to us
11 yesterday –
12 MR. BURLINGTON: Well, we did.
13 MR. HARTLEY: — theres no
14 proof that you did it.
15 MR. BURLINGTON: We have a
16 complete record. Thats the one that the witness
17 is testifying from; it is an identical box, mirror
18 image box. But beyond that, this document is –
19 was listed as a trial exhibit. Its — its in the
20 trial exhibit binders and was previously produced
21 in production.
22 MR. HARTLEY: It was not
155
1 produced.
2 MR. BURLINGTON: Okay.
3 MR. HARTLEY: Im telling you
4 youre wrong.
5 MR. BURLINGTON: Okay.
6 MR. HARTLEY: I — I actually
7 know what you produced and you didnt produce it.
8 MR. BURLINGTON: Okay. I — I
9 may be wrong. I dont think I am. But –
10 MR. HARTLEY: I know youre
11 wrong.
12 MR. BURLINGTON: Okay. I may –
13 MR. HARTLEY: We actually asked
14 you for this portion of the document before, and
15 you never produced it. Although its been here for
16 six months.
17 MR. BURLINGTON: Well, thats in
18 the accurate either. But –
19 MR. HARTLEY: What is accurate
20 then? Where was this document for the last six
21 months if it wasnt here?
22 MR. BURLINGTON: What is
156
1 accurate is that the documents that you got are a
2 mirror image of the box the witness is testifying
3 from.
4 Your statement that you couldnt find it
5 right now, you may be wrong, and Im happy to look
6 for you, but nonetheless, nonetheless were looking
7 for a document that — that has already been — I
8 just showed it to you in the trial exhibits.
9 MR. HARTLEY: It wasnt — the
10 trial exhibits were not produced to us. If they
11 were produced, they were produced yesterday.
12 MR. BURLINGTON: No, the trial
13 exhibits were identified and produced to
14 Mr. Ruckdeschel.
15 MR. HARTLEY: You cant –
16 you — when?
17 MR. BURLINGTON: On the day that
18 they were due, unlike your exhibit –
19 MR. HARTLEY: When were they
20 produced?
21 MR. BURLINGTON: The day they
22 were due.
157
1 MR. HARTLEY: Youre telling me
2 these two documents which you said were not given
3 to us until yesterday these two pages –
4 MR. BURLINGTON: No, I didnt
5 say they werent given to you yesterday. I said
6 they were given to you yesterday in addition to
7 having been previously produced, and –
8 MR. HARTLEY: Look for the
9 documents in — in what he claims because theyre
10 wrong and not in there? Okay.
11 MR. BURLINGTON: And in the
12 meantime someone here is looking for the Bates
13 stamped number of what was given to you yesterday.
14 Thats whats accurate.
15 MR. HARTLEY: Let me — is
16 that — are these the documents that they produced
17 yesterday, Steve?
18 MR. BURLINGTON: Yes.
19 MR. HARTLEY: Find this document
20 in your — in your fi — in your materials, please,
21 sir. The one with the Bates stamp since its a
22 mirror image of what you produced yesterday.
158
1 MR. BURLINGTON: No, Exhibit 13
2 is what Im talking about. Find — what youre
3 holding up now is — is physicians guide that was
4 given to you this morning –
5 MR. HORVAT: Yesterday.
6 MR. BURLINGTON: — or whenever
7 is was — okay. But thats not Exhibit 13.
8 MR. HARTLEY: Well, Im asking.
9 Are you telling me — you told me a minute ago on
10 the record that this box of material which was
11 delivered to us yesterday –
12 MR. BURLINGTON: I dont see the
13 box. You want to show it to me?
14 MR. HARTLEY: You want to see
15 the box? Here, do you see the box?
16 MR. BURLINGTON: Give me — give
17 me the box.
18 MR. HARTLEY: Youre not going
19 to take hold of our box. Youve now –
20 MR. BURLINGTON: Wait a minute.
21 These are the documents that we gave to you?
22 MR. HARTLEY: Thats right.
159
1 MR. BURLINGTON: Im happy to
2 look through it to determine –
3 MR. HARTLEY: I — I cant tell
4 you if hes done anything to these documents since
5 youve sent them to us yesterday. They are work
6 product.
7 MR. BURLINGTON: I dont know
8 either then, so –
9 MR. HARTLEY: I know you didnt
10 give us these documents. And you — if you cant
11 prove it –
12 MR. BURLINGTON: We can — we
13 can agree to disagree.
14 MR. HARTLEY: You guys are –
15 MR. BURLINGTON: But Im happy
16 to go through your box, that you dont want me to
17 go through, to see if I can find what you say you
18 cant find.
19 MR. HARTLEY: Have at it. Is
20 there — wait. First, is there anything in there?
21 Okay.
22 MR. BURLINGTON: And is this
160
1 everything that we gave you or is there stuff
2 thats not in there? Is this everything?
3 MR. HORVAT: That is everything.
4 MR. BURLINGTON: Okay. I dont
5 want to hold up questioning while Im doing this,
6 so –
7 MR. HARTLEY: I definitely dont
8 want you to either.
9 BY MR. HARTLEY:
10 Q Did you find the document, the mirror
11 image document that he — that he represented was
12 in there thats with a Bates stamp?
13 MR. BURLINGTON: What?
14 THE WITNESS: Can I see the
15 document again, please, the one –
16 MR. HARTLEY: Hes got it now.
17 The safety –
18 THE WITNESS: The physicians
19 guide?
20 MR. HARTLEY: Yes.
21 THE WITNESS: Hold on. Ill
22 find it.
161
1 MR. BURLINGTON: Youre asking
2 him to look for this?
3 MR. HARTLEY: Yes, youre
4 telling me — I — I — you said on the record that
5 we have the exact same thing thats in his box,
6 except none of his have Bates stamps in there.
7 MR. BURLINGTON: Right.
8 MR. HARTLEY: So I dont see
9 theres any way that they could be identical.
10 There — theyre clearly not the same documents.
11 They may have — they may be — you may have
12 attempted to produce the same documents, but
13 theyre not the same ones because they dont have
14 Bates stamps on them.
15 MR. BURLINGTON: I told you that
16 earlier today. I said the difference is, between
17 his box and your box, theres two differences.
18 He has put his documents in
19 chronological order. The box that was produced to
20 you was not in chronological order.
21 MR. HARTLEY: Okay.
22 MR. BURLINGTON: Second, his box
162
1 has tabs on all of his documents, little stickies,
2 whereas yours did not. And I was told the reason
3 yours is Bates stamped and his wasnt was because
4 we didnt have time to take all the stickers off of
5 his and put Bates stamps on them.
6 MR. HARTLEY: Okay. You dont
7 need to look for that document then. Weve
8 established that theyre not — theyre not mirror
9 images of one another.
10 MR. BURLINGTON: Im not going
11 to argue with it — with you about that.
12 MR. HARTLEY: Okay.
13 BY MR. HARTLEY:
14 Q From your review of the historic medical
15 files of AT&T, what things have you identified that
16 AT&T did to protect workers and their families from
17 the hazards of asbestos?
18 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
19 form, asked and answered.
20 THE WITNESS: Well, AT&T did
21 hazard assessment. Once they identified where we
22 had products that contained asbestos, they
163
1 performed hazard assessment where they thought
2 there could be a hazard. They did sampling. Based
3 on the sampling they came up with a strategy for
4 how they would address it. In the case of the
5 cable covers already mentioned, they agreed to
6 replace them with a metal cover.
7 In the case of asbestos gloves, they
8 took action to remove all those gloves from the
9 Bell System central offices. In the cases of
10 spray-on asbestos, they came up with a strategy for
11 how to protect installers who might have to work
12 above dropped ceilings.
13 In the case of asbestos washers, they
14 replaced those washers with a — an alternate
15 material. In some instance — in the case of brake
16 mechanics, they researched an adequate type of
17 vacuum that the mechanics could use for brake and
18 clutch servicing so that they could vacuum off
19 the — the brake drums and the clutch mechanisms
20 before they did their repair work. They also put
21 out an extensive guide on procedures for brake
22 mechanics. They also prescribed medical
164
1 surveillance for all the brake mechanics and
2 supervisors.
3 So they did quite a bit of — of work to
4 either eliminate the material, put work practices
5 in place, provide medical surveillance, and provide
6 training for our folks.
7 BY MR. HARTLEY:
8 Q Okay. Nothing that you mentioned there
9 happened before 1970; did it?
10 A No.
11 Q One of the earliest hazards identified
12 by the — in the Bell System to its workers and
13 their families was lead; right?
14 A Yes, lead was a concern, yes.
15 Q It — it was known from the — very
16 early on that lead poisoning could be transmitted
17 home to the families on — on the clothes and
18 person of the worker; right?
19 A I didnt see anything in the
20 documentation relative to bringing lead dust home
21 and endangering families.
22 Q Okay. You did see stuff in the
165
1 documents, in the medical files, about the prep –
2 the — the need to wash hands before eating and
3 things like that; true?
4 A Thats correct.
5 Q And thats because the lead gets on
6 peoples hands and then it stays on there, and it
7 can wipe off in places like the mouth when they eat
8 or were — get into their lungs when they smoke;
9 right?
10 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
11 form.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, thats
13 correct.
14 BY MR. HARTLEY:
15 Q And — and similarly if someone were to
16 touch lead and then won — go home they would bring
17 that lead home with them potentially; true?
18 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
19 form.
20 THE WITNESS: Thats potentially
21 true, yes.
22 BY MR. HARTLEY:
166
1 Q As an industrial hygienist, you –
2 you — youre aware that that risk has been known
3 for many, many years, even before the — the
4 hazards of asbestos were known; true?
5 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
6 form. Far beyond the scope for which hes been
7 designated as a witness.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe
9 thats true.
10 BY MR. HARTLEY:
11 Q In — in some parts of the Bell System,
12 for instance, in the man — manufacturing
13 businesses like — I think you mentioned earlier
14 the Hawthorne Works. Do you — do you remem — are
15 you familiar with that facility?
16 A I am.
17 Q There were a number of different
18 manufacturing operations going on there, in that
19 very large campus in Illinois; true?
20 A Thats correct.
21 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
22 BY MR. HARTLEY:
167
1 Q Are they — they manu — they
2 manufactured things with many different hazardous
3 materials; true?
4 A Thats correct.
5 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form,
6 beyond the witnesss scope of testimony.
7 BY MR. HARTLEY:
8 Q And — and at the — at the Hawthorne
9 Works they — they knew and — that poisons could
10 be taken out of the facility on the — the clothing
11 and person and provided showers to handle that
12 is — issue; didnt they?
13 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
14 THE WITNESS: Im not familiar
15 with the details of how they handled the hazards at
16 the Hawthorne Works.
17 BY MR. HARTLEY:
18 Q One way to reduce or eliminate the risk
19 of bringing home hazards from the workplace,
20 according — at least as AT&T understands it would
21 be to provide showers and uniforms; true?
22 A Thats correct.
168
1 Q And showers could clean the person and
2 uniforms could remove a lot of the toxins before
3 someone leaves the facility; true?
4 A Thats correct.
5 Q That wouldve been one way to reduce
6 asbestos exposure being taken home from work by any
7 Bell System employee, to provide them with
8 information, uniforms, and showers?
9 A Depending on the operation, the
10 exposure.
11 Q Okay. Thats something thats been
12 known to AT&T for — since well before 1950; isnt
13 it?
14 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
15 form, the question. When you say something thats
16 been known, youre referring to the previous
17 question about asbestos.
18 MR. HARTLEY: It wasnt about
19 asbestos. Maybe it was. Let me — Ill rephrase
20 it –
21 MR. BURLINGTON: I think it was.
22 MR. HARTLEY: — Ill rephrase
169
1 it. Thats fair.
2 BY MR. HARTLEY:
3 Q AT&T knew about the — the mechanisms
4 for protecting workers and their families,
5 including showers, uniforms, and lockers, separate
6 lockers for clothing before 1950, as a — as a
7 strategy for protecting people from toxins; true?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Fair enough.
10 Are you aware, from your review of any
11 of the materials of any instances where AT&T or
12 others in the Bell System employed those
13 mechanisms, showers, uniforms, separate lockers, to
14 protect workers and their families from hazards
15 that were at the workplace?
16 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to form.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, we used to do
18 it at Merrimack Valley Works.
19 BY MR. HARTLEY:
20 Q Okay. You started there in 1979?
21 A 1979.
22 Q It had been going on there for quite a
170
1 while before that; hadnt it?
2 A Probably so –
3 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
4 THE WITNESS: Probably since the
5 facility was built.
6 BY MR. HARTLEY:
7 Q Which was when?
8 A I believe late 50s.
9 Q Okay. From your review of the medical
10 files, you would agree with me that in many ways,
11 AT&T was a pioneer in the field of occupational
12 health; true?
13 A I would agree, yes.
14 Q You would expect AT&T, given the — its
15 position as a pioneer in occupational health to
16 be — to stay up on the cutting edge of
17 occupational health issues; true?
18 A I would and I think they did.
19 Q Okay. AT&T was a — the medical
20 department played an important role with the
21 National Safety Council over — over time; didnt
22 it?
171
1 A I think the company safety director
2 played a role with the National Safety Council.
3 Q And did you review Mr. Degens
4 deposition, the one that I took?
5 A I did.
6 Q Okay. And you saw there were two days
7 of it?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Okay.
10 A I reviewed them both.
11 Q And did you see the documents that we
12 showed him during that time?
13 A I did.
14 Q You saw the documents that indicated
15 that AT&T medical people were present at
16 conferences where asbestos disease was discussed?
17 A I believe I did; the exhibits from the
18 deposition?
19 Q Yes, right.
20 A Yes, I saw those.
21 Q And thats one of the reasons why you
22 believe, as the spokesperson for AT&T, that you can
172
1 say that they were on the cutting edge of
2 occupational health issues?
3 A Its one of many reasons.
4 Q Okay. The — Im trying to think –
5 yes.
6 You did, I — I guess you did then when
7 you read — reviewed the materials from Mr. Degens
8 deposition, youll recall that in the 1960s, at
9 that conference that Dr. Selikoff presented, that
10 there were discussions about there being no safe
11 level of exposure to asbestos; right?
12 A I recall the discussion.
13 Q Okay. And — and what did you find in
14 your — in — in the historic documents in your
15 investigation in toto that led you to believe that,
16 in fact, these folks in 1965 — in 1964 were wrong
17 and that there is in fact a safe level of exposure
18 to asbestos?
19 A Im sorry, can you repeat the question?
20 MR. HARTLEY: Lets — lets go
21 off the record so you can do whatever business.
22 VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the
173
1 record, the time is 2:27:37. We are off the
2 record.
3 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
4 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going back
5 on the record, the time is 2:56:30. Counsel may
6 proceed.
7 MR. HARTLEY: Okay.
8 BY MR. HARTLEY:
9 Q Im going to show you. I — I think we
10 were referring to this discussion off the record
11 and rather than repeat the question in the — in
12 the abstract, I would read to you. This is from
13 the discussion, a transcript of a discussion held
14 at the New York Academy of Sciences meeting that
15 took place in New York City at the Waldorf-Astoria
16 Hotel, and in the discussion section dealing with
17 dust control and threshold limit values there was a
18 discussion where a Mr. C.G. Addingley, who was from
19 the British Belting and Asbestos Limited in
20 England, stated essentially, quote: We do not
21 believe there is any safe limit. We have our ideas
22 as to how low we can get, and we are always
174
1 striving to get right down to zero.
2 We also have our ideas about the
3 American limit of five million particles per cubic
4 foot as a safe limit. We know that there is no
5 scientific value — scientific basis for that limit
6 whatever. And I think that Dr. T. Hatch, if he –
7 if Dr. T. Hatch had been here, he wouldve agreed
8 with that because it has been taken up in the past.
9 I will show it to you. I highlighted it
10 for you so you can see that I ultimately read it
11 correctly.
12 MR. BURLINGTON: For the record,
13 would you identify the page?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is Page
15 335 of the New York Academy of the Sciences Classic
16 Reprint, Annals of the New York Academy of
17 Sciences, Volume 132, Article 1, Biological Effects
18 of Asbestos.
19 MR. BURLINGTON: Is there a date
20 on that?
21 THE WITNESS: December 31st,
22 1965.
175
1 MR. HARTLEY: Now, thats the
2 date of the publication. The actual conference
3 that its recording took place in 1964, just for
4 claritys sake.
5 THE WITNESS: First of all, the
6 five million particles per cubic foot –
7 BY MR. HARTLEY:
8 Q Let me ask, did — did I get it — do –
9 do you see I read what he said?
10 A Yes, its — you read it properly.
11 Q Okay. May I — may I have it back for a
12 second.
13 A Sure.
14 Q Thats the only question pending right
15 now. And then Ill ask you — Im going to ask you
16 a little about it in a minute.
17 The next thing youll see here, and I –
18 is — is a gentleman named Mr. John Wells, from the
19 US Rubber Company in Newman, Georgia — Newnan,
20 Georgia.
21 MR. BURLINGTON: Just for the
22 record, I think he was completing an answer when
176
1 you asked for the book back.
2 MR. HARTLEY: Theres was –
3 other than did I read it correctly, was my
4 question, is — there wasnt any –
5 THE WITNESS: I believe there
6 was a question before that when you asked me to
7 read it.
8 BY MR. HARTLEY:
9 Q What question did you think you were
10 answering? Ill let you answer. Go ahead. If
11 youre going to — Im just going to –
12 A I need you to repeat it because Ive
13 been distracted now.
14 Q Okay. Did you want to explain the –
15 were you trying to explain whats here? Is that
16 what you wanted to do?
17 A I was just going to make the point that
18 five million particles per cubic foot is not an
19 asbestos standard, it is a total dust standard.
20 Q Okay. I agree with you.
21 A I think you cant mix apples and oranges
22 there.
177
1 Q I — I wasnt trying to. I was just
2 reading the document so far. Apples and oranges
3 mix — mixing will come later.
4 The next — and Ill give it to you to
5 confirm what Ive said, but John Wells from US
6 Rubber Company, Newnan, Georgia, says: I would
7 like to briefly — briefly review the work that we
8 have undertaken. And then he says: The textile –
9 the asbestos textile mill in Hogansville, Georgia
10 has been producing textile since 1941. And theres
11 some more discussion.
12 And then down here highlighted, again it
13 says: In terms of what has been considered a safe
14 dust count in the area, we started out with a
15 theory, because everyone said it was so, that the
16 five million particles per cubic foot was a safe
17 figure. Our own conclusion as we began seeing what
18 was happening in our own process was that the only
19 safe amount of asbestos dust exposure was zero and
20 that the efforts in terms of achieving that lay
21 basically in engineering, and, secondly, in
22 education. But as far as a safe level of asbestos
178
1 dust is concerned, our own conclusion in
2 Hogansville, Georgia is that there is no safe
3 level. The safe level is nil, and anything above
4 that level represents certain risk.
5 Just make sure that I got that mostly
6 correct if not completely correct.
7 MR. BURLINGTON: I object to the
8 form of the question.
9 THE WITNESS: Do you mind if I
10 look at title of this?
11 MR. HARTLEY: No, you can look
12 at anything you want.
13 THE WITNESS: Again, Ill
14 reiterate that five million particles per cubic
15 foot was a total dust figure and not an asbestos
16 exposure limit, and hes talking about total dust
17 and asbestos dust in the same breath. And I — I
18 have issues with that.
19 BY MR. HARTLEY:
20 Q As — as well you should and thats in
21 fact what theyre saying. Theyre saying that
22 the — that that old standard didnt mean anything
179
1 because it was — it doesnt tell you how much
2 asbestos youre getting in your lungs; right?
3 A True. I believe in some of the things
4 Ive read that the 5 million particles per cubic
5 foot equated to around 38 fibers per cc of air.
6 Q And you probably have seen also that
7 theres absolutely no basis for that conversion
8 because it depends on how many — how much of the
9 dust is asbestos versus non-asbestos dust; true?
10 A True. And I think the sampling methods
11 and — and local methods have evolved significantly
12 since this time.
13 Q And do you remember from — from reading
14 Mr. Degens deposition that there was a proposal in
15 the 1950s that for dust that caused cancer, that
16 there should be a safety factor built into the
17 TLVs?
18 A I dont recall that specifically, that
19 discussion.
20 Q Okay. But given that AT&T was on the
21 cutting edge of medical — environmental medicine
22 and — and occupational medicine, they wouldve
180
1 been aware of the proposals out there to — to
2 adjust TLVs for carcinogens; true?
3 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
4 form.
5 THE WITNESS: I dont think you
6 can consider total dust a carcinogen.
7 BY MR. HARTLEY:
8 Q Right. But you can consider asbestos a
9 carcinogen just like the medical director at AT&T
10 did; true?
11 A True.
12 Q And in 1958, it would come as no
13 surprise to AT&T that there were proposals out
14 there to reduce the TLV by a safety factor of as
15 much as 500 when a carcinogen was concerned; true?
16 A I dont know that specifically. But
17 1958 is well before Dr. Selikoffs work.
18 Q I agree. In fact because — because
19 people knew a long time before Dr. Selikoffs work
20 that asbestos was causing cancer; true?
21 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
22 form.
181
1 THE WITNESS: They knew it was
2 causing cancer in certain types of industries like
3 asbestos mining, asbestos manufacturing, people
4 doing insulation work.
5 BY MR. HARTLEY:
6 Q Okay. And once — once people became
7 aware of the association between an exposure and an
8 agent or — and a disease, it was on them, such –
9 people like AT&T to find out what was the safe
10 level; right?
11 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
12 form.
13 THE WITNESS: Im not sure its
14 up to AT&T to find out what the safe level is. I
15 think they depend on literature, research, and
16 whats prescribed, from the standpoint of OSHA or
17 whatever regulatory agency is in place. Just
18 because something is a carcinogen doesnt mean that
19 theres no safe exposure level.
20 BY MR. HARTLEY:
21 Q Right. But you shouldnt just assume
22 that an exposure is safe. You should — AT&T
182
1 shouldve looked into what level was safe because
2 its workers were being exposed; true?
3 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
4 form.
5 THE WITNESS: Not to the effect
6 that workers were being exposed in the asbestos
7 industry. AT&T was not in the business of
8 manufacturing asbestos. And I think thats a –
9 quite a different aspect than having incidental use
10 of asbestos containing materials in your — in your
11 operations.
12 BY MR. HARTLEY:
13 Q One of its divisions was in the bes –
14 business of manufacturing things with asbestos;
15 right?
16 A Western Eletric might have –
17 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
18 THE WITNESS: — Western
19 Electric might have had some asbestos washers that
20 they manufactured, yes.
21 BY MR. HARTLEY:
22 Q Its more than just washers, they had
183
1 all kinds of materials with asbestos in them;
2 didnt they?
3 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to form.
4 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
5 THE WITNESS: Im not sure
6 exactly what Western Electric would have
7 manufactured, all their materials that might have
8 contained asbestos.
9 BY MR. HARTLEY:
10 Q They used phenolics in their products;
11 right?
12 A Right, but that was not –
13 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
14 THE WITNESS: Right, but that
15 was not manufactured by — phenolic was not
16 manufactured by Western Electric.
17 BY MR. HARTLEY:
18 Q No, the product that used the phenolics
19 were; true?
20 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
21 THE WITNESS: The product that
22 used the phenolics.
184
1 BY MR. HARTLEY:
2 Q Yes, true?
3 A But the — but the asbestos in the
4 phenolic is in a bound matrix.
5 Q Until its cut, drilled, or otherwise
6 destroyed; right?
7 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
8 THE WITNESS: Can I ask
9 specifically what product — phenolic product
10 youre talking about?
11 BY MR. HARTLEY:
12 Q Let me ask you what ones youre talking
13 about because youre — youre suggesting that
14 theyre all encapsulated?
15 A Im aware of ebony power boards.
16 Q Okay.
17 A Which Im assuming youre concerning now
18 a phenolic product?
19 Q Did you — do you consider it a phenolic
20 product? I guess you know more about your products
21 than I do.
22 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
185
1 form.
2 BY MR. HARTLEY:
3 Q I thought it was an cementitious
4 material, kind of like transite, black material –
5 A I need to look at my notes.
6 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
7 THE WITNESS: Okay. The ebony
8 power boards were not a phenolic. The phenolics
9 that I found were phenol blocks that were
10 manufactured by Union Carbide.
11 BY MR. HARTLEY:
12 Q So they were made with Bakelite?
13 A Bakelite, thats correct.
14 Q Bakelite con — contained crocidolite
15 asbestos?
16 A The information I found said it
17 contained 15 percent asbestos, but didnt say
18 specifically if it was crocidolite.
19 Q And — and what happened was that
20 Western Electric took that Bakelite material and
21 molded it into something that — and then did some
22 other stuff to it and sent it out as a product;
186
1 right?
2 A I believe thats true.
3 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
4 BY MR. HARTLEY:
5 Q Okay. Why do you believe thats true?
6 MR. THOMPSON: Form.
7 THE WITNESS: It says in my
8 notes that they were used in 18 and 19 wirewound
9 resistors. Phenolized asbestos insulators they
10 were called. It says its a — asbestos paper
11 impregnated with phenolic varnish and phenolic
12 molding compounds as a protective insulator with
13 resisting element.
14 BY MR. HARTLEY:
15 Q Okay. And there were other
16 asbestos-containing products manufactured by
17 Western Electric; true?
18 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form,
19 beyond the witnesss desig — designated scope of
20 testimony.
21 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to form.
22 THE WITNESS: I believe they did
187
1 provide asbestos washers as part of their
2 components. For some of their equipment.
3 BY MR. HARTLEY:
4 Q And as best you can tell from your
5 review of the files that were available from the
6 medical department, there was no indication that
7 anyone in the Bell System had identified any
8 potential hazards for asbestos in those products
9 they were manufacturing?
10 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to form.
11 THE WITNESS: Id say its
12 fairly unlikely there was much of a hazard with
13 those products.
14 MR. HARTLEY: Objection to the
15 non-responsive portion.
16 BY MR. HARTLEY:
17 Q Did you see anything in the materials
18 that indicated that they had made any investigation
19 to determine whether there was — whether there was
20 any risk to workers from those asbestos exposures?
21 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
22 THE WITNESS: You wouldnt
188
1 expect there to be a risk, because, as it says
2 here, it was a — coated with a varnish, and was a
3 molded — a molding compound. So it would be a
4 non-friable type of material.
5 MR. HARTLEY: That wasnt my
6 question, though, so Ill object to as
7 non-responsive.
8 BY MR. HARTLEY:
9 Q Did you see any evidence that — that
10 there was an investigation as to any potential
11 risk? Thats all Im asking.
12 A There was an investigation –
13 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
14 THE WITNESS: Im sorry. There
15 was an investigation into the phenol blocks
16 themselves. And in the letter we got from — from
17 Union Carbide to L.E. Welker Engineering, and
18 Western Electric, Columbus, Ohio, is stated the
19 material is a, quote, dust free, solid material.
20 BY MR. HARTLEY:
21 Q Okay. Western Electric purchased raw
22 asbestos from Johns Manville; didnt it?
189
1 MR. THOMPSON: Object to form.
2 This witness is an AT&T representative, not a
3 Western Electric representative.
4 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
5 form and to the scope of the question as exceeding
6 his designated status under number 15 and 17 of the
7 deposition notice.
8 THE WITNESS: What do you mean
9 by raw asbestos?
10 BY MR. HARTLEY:
11 Q Bags of asbestos. Fluffy –
12 MR. THOMPSON: Objection.
13 BY MR. HARTLEY:
14 Q — fluffy, snowy white asbestos from
15 Johns Manville?
16 MR. THOMPSON: Same objection.
17 THE WITNESS: Based on my
18 knowledge of what happened at Merrimack Valley,
19 when the facility was built, they did use troweled
20 on asbestos on — on steam pipes, HVAC ducts, pipe
21 lagging; and I did know some of the pipefitters who
22 were there when the facility was built, and they
190
1 did tell me that they used bags of asbestos and
2 mixed it up like cement and applied it on with an
3 troweled material and covered that material with a
4 canvass covering.
5 BY MR. HARTLEY:
6 Q Okay. Did you see any evidence in your
7 review of the medical files that AT&T was concerned
8 about those folks doing insulation work around
9 employees?
10 MR. BURLINGTON: Object to the
11 form.
12 THE WITNESS: Can you be more
13 specific about what you mean by insulation work?
14 Insulation of what?
15 BY MR. HARTLEY:
16 Q Of anything. I guess — Im not
17 talking — with thermal, asbestos thermal
18 insulation?
19 A Well, as I stated, it mightve been done
20 as part of construction, in the 50s and perhaps
21 even the 60s, but it was certainly not part of
22 telephone company operations.
191
1 MR. HARTLEY: I think probably
2 the smartest thing to do here is to — to — for me
3 to read the documents now. So Im going to take –
4 Im going to adjourn for today so I can get all
5 these documents that we have — came in and look
6 them over so I can focus this a little better.
7 So why dont we get together and be
8 ready to start promptly at nine tomorrow if thats
9 okay with you?
10 THE WITNESS: Yeah, thats fine
11 with me.
12 MR. BURLINGTON: Yes.
13 VIDEOGRAPHER: Were going off
14 the record, the time is 3:14:27. This concludes
15 the deposition from today. The total number of
16 videotapes is two. Were off the record.
17 (Thereupon, at 3:09 p.m. the deposition was
18 adjourned until Thursday, October 1, 2009.)
19 (The witness reserved signature.)
20
21
22
192
1
2
3 * * *
4
5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEPONENT
6
7 I, Ralph V. Collipi, Jr., do hereby acknowledge I
8 have read and examined the foregoing pages of testimony,
9 and the same is a true, correct and complete
10 transcription of the testimony given by me, and any
11 changes and/or corrections, if any, appear in the
12 attached errata sheet signed by me.
13
14 ____________________ _______________________
15 Date Ralph V. Collipi, Jr.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
193
1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
2 I, Joanne Liverani, the officer before whom the
3 foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that
4 the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing
5 deposition was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of
6 said witness was taken by me in stenotype and thereafter
7 reduced to typewriting under my direction; that said
8 deposition is a true record of the testimony given by
9 said witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to,
10 nor employed by any of the parties to the action in
11 which this deposition was taken; and, further, that I am
12 not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel
13 employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or
14 otherwise interested in the outcome of this action.
15
16
Joanne Liverani,
17 Registered Merit Reporter
and Notary Public for the
18 District of Columbia
My Commission expires:
19 July 31, 2010
20
21
22
194
1 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET
2
3 RE: Esquire Deposition Solutions
4 File No. 15961
5 Case Caption: MALLORY DORMAN
6 vs. ADVANCED AUTO PARTS,INC., et al.
7 Deponent: Ralph V. Collipi, Jr.
8 Deposition Date: September 30, 2009
9 To the Reporter:
10 I have read the entire transcript of my Deposition taken
11 in the captioned matter or the same has been read to me.
12 I request that the following changes be entered upon the
13 record for the reasons indicated. I have signed my name to
14 the Errata Sheet and the appropriate Certificate and
15 authorize you to attach both to the original transcript.
16
17 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________
18 ____________________________________________________________
19 Reason for change:__________________________________________
20 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________
21 ____________________________________________________________
22 Reason for change:__________________________________________
195
1 Deposition of Ralph V. Collipi, Jr.
2
3 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________
4 ____________________________________________________________
5 Reason for change:__________________________________________
6 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________
7 ____________________________________________________________
8 Reason for change:__________________________________________
9 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________
10 ____________________________________________________________
11 Reason for change:__________________________________________
12 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________
13 ____________________________________________________________
14 Reason for change:__________________________________________
15 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________
16 ____________________________________________________________
17 Reason for change:__________________________________________
18 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________
19 ____________________________________________________________
20 Reason for change:__________________________________________
21 SIGNATURE:__________________________________DATE:___________
