Chevron and Asbestos

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY
2 DOCKET NO.: MID-L-2068-06

3
ERNEST HORVATH,
4 Individually and as
Executor of the Estate
5 of his wife, VIDEOTAPE
FRANCIS HORVATH, DEPOSITION UNDER
6 ORAL EXAMINATION
Plaintiff, OF
7 STANLEY DRYDEN
vs.
8
CHEVRON USA, INC.,
9
Defendants.
9

10 TRANSCRIPT of the deposition of the witness,

11 called for Oral Examination in the above-captioned

12 matter, said deposition being taken pursuant to

13 Superior Court Rules of Practice and Procedure by

14 and before MARC BRODY, a Notary Public and Certified

15 Shorthand Reporter of the State of New Jersey, at the

16 offices of McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP,

17 1300 Mount Kemble Avenue, Morristown, New Jersey, on

18 Tuesday, September 25, 2007, commencing at approximately

19 10:00 in the forenoon.

21 BRODY DEPOSITION SERVICES

22 Certified Shorthand Reporters & Videographers

23 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 220

24 Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095

25 (732) 283-5737

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

3 COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

4 115 Maple Avenue

5 Red Bank, New Jersey 07701

6 (732) 747-9003

7 BY: CHRISTOPHER PLACITELLA, ESQ.

8 Attorneys for Plaintiff

10 GARRITY, GRAHAM, MURPHY, GAROFALO & FLINN

11 1 Lackawanna Plaza

12 Montclair, New Jersey 07042

13 (973) 509-7500

14 BY: MICHAEL P. MCGRATH, ESQ.

15 Attorneys for Defendant, State Insulation

17 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

18 Met Life Building

19 200 Park Avenue

20 New York, New York 10166

21 (212) 801-9200

22 BY: WILLIAM SILVERMAN, ESQ.

23 Attorneys for Defendant, Robert A. Keasbey Co.

1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):

3 McGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C.

4 23 Vreeland Road

5 Florham Park, New Jersey 07932

6 (973) 822-1110

7 BY: NICHOLAS DEMATTHEIS, ESQ.

8 Attorneys for Defendant, Madsen & Howell

11 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN

12 216 Haddon Avenue, P.O. Box 2222

13 Westmont, New Jersey 08109

14 (856) 858-7200

15 BY: CHRISTOPHER KELLEHER, ESQ.

16 Attorneys for Defendants, Central Jersey,

17 United Engineering

19 GREENBERG, DAUBER, EPSTEIN & TUCKER, P.C.

20 One Gateway Center, Suite 600

21 Newark, New Jersey 07102

22 (973) 643-3700

23 BY: LINDA HARVEY, ESQ.

24 Attorneys for Defendant, Grinnell Mechanical

1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):

3 HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, LLP

4 40 Paterson Street

5 New Brunswick, New Jersey 0801

6 (732) 545-4717

7 BY: JACOB GROUSER, ESQ.

8 Attorneys for Defendants, P&H Mining,

9 Joy Mining

11 WEINER LESNIAK, LLP

12 629 Parsippany Road

13 Parsippany, New Jersey 07054

14 (973) 403-1100

15 BY: ALLA KOSTINSKY, ESQ.

16 Attorneys for Defendant, Manitowoc

1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):

3 HARDIN, KUNDLA, McKEON & POLETTO, P.A.

4 673 Morris Avenue

5 Springfield, New Jersey 07081

6 (973) 912-5222

7 BY: MICHAEL JARDIM, ESQ.

8 Attorneys for Defendant, Calon

10 PICILLO, CARUSO & O’TOOLE, P.C.

11 60 Route 46 East

12 Fairfield, New Jersey 07004

13 (973) 667-6000

14 BY: HARRY ANAGNOSTOPOULOS, ESQ.

15 Attorneys for Defendant, Union Carbide

17 McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP

18 1300 Mt. Kemble Avenue

19 Morristown, New Jersey 07962

20 (973) 425-8703

21 BY: NANCY MCDONALD, ESQ.

22 AND: JOSEPH LASALA, ESQ.

23 Attorneys for Defendant, Chevron U.S.A.

1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):

3 McCARTER & ENGLISH

4 Gateway 4, 100 Mulberry Street

5 Newark, New Jersey 07102

6 (973) 622-4444

7 BY: MITCHELL KURTZ, ESQ.

8 Attorneys for Defendant, Wabco North America

10 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN

11 200 Lake Drive East, Suite 300

12 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002

13 (856) 414-6000

14 BY: NADIRA KIRKLAND, ESQ.

15 Attorneys for Defendant, D.B. Riley,

16 Henkels & McCoy

18 BUDD LARNER, LLP

19 150 JFK Parkway

20 Short Hills, New Jersey 07078

21 (973) 379-4800

22 BY: DAVID NOVACK, ESQ.

23 Attorneys for Defendant, Nacco Materials

24 Handling Co.

1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont’d):

3 MARIN GOODMAN, LLP

4 40 Wall Street, 67th Floor

5 New York, New York 10005

6 (212) 661-1151

7 BY: MARGARET LOTILO, ESQ.

8 Attorneys for Defendant, Fluor Daniels

10 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP

11 502 Carnegie Center

12 Princeton, New Jersey 08540

13 (609) 919-6600

14 BY: CHRISTOPHER IANNICELLI, ESQ.

15 Attorneys for Defendants, Yarway Corporation,

16 Santa Fe Braun, Inc.

19 ALSO PRESENT: Robert Kowalczyk, Videographer
Nationwide Video
20

1 I N D E X

2 WITNESS PAGE

3 STANLEY DRYDEN

4 Direct by Mr. Placitella 11

1 E X H I B I T S

2 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE

3 P-1 Deposition Notice 11

4 P-2 Document dated September 16, 1968 11

5 P-2A Management Newsletter, August 1972 11

6 P-2B Management Newsletter, August 1972 11

7 P-2C Management Newsletter, August 1972 11

8 P-2D Guide for Ordering Personal Safety 11
Equipment
9
P-2E Guide for Ordering Personal Safety 11
10 Equipment

11 P-2F Guide for Ordering Personal Safety 11
Equipment
12
P-3 Dust Producing Operations in the 66
13 Production of Petroleum Products
and Associated Activities by
14 Roy S. Bonsib

15 P-4 Carcinogenic Hydrocarbons and 87
Related Compounds, A Literature
16
P-5 Review dated July 2, 1945 87
17 Occupational Cancer, A Challenge to
the Physician
18
P-6 Summary of the Plant Industrial 87
19 Hygiene Problems dated April 12, 1949

20 P-7 Appendix A To Minutes of 13th Meeting 96
Of Medical Advisory Committee entitled
21 Memorandum on Measures for the Control
of the Hazard Associated with
22 Carcinogenic Materials and Products
In the Petroleum Industry
23

1 E X H I B I T S

2 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE

3 P-8 Medical Advisory Committee Reports 99
And Publications, 1943-1955
4
P-9 Malignant Mesothelioma of the Pleura 101
5 by H.B. Eisenstadt, M.D.

6 P-10 Primary Malignant Mesothelioma of 103
the Pleura by H.B. Eisenstadt, M.D.
7 and F.W. Wilson, M.D.

8 P-11 Occupational and NonOccupational 108
Exposures to Asbestos by W.C. Hueper
9
P-12 Shell Oil Document dated November 22, 113
10 1965, Subject: Health Hazards from
Asbestos
11
P-13 Memorandum dated October 23, 1973, 118
12 Oak Point Safety Program

13 P-14 Document dated November 13, 1973, 127
Safety Audit, Oak Point Plant
14
P-15 Industrial Work Clothes: Their 130
15 Provision and Laundering by Roy S.
Bonsib, dated January 28, 1948
16
P-16 Article entitled, Asbestos Is 135
17 Described as Killer Time Bomb
Dated February 26, 1973
18
P-17 Memo dated February 13, 1973, 136
19 Comment on articles re: Asbestos
in newspapers
20

1 S T A N L E Y D R Y D E N,

2 2795 Ribera Road,

3 Carmel, California, sworn.

4 (Prior to the deposition, documents

5 P-2, P-2A, P-2B, P-2C, P-2D, P-2E, and

6 P-2F were marked for Identification.)

7 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PLACITELLA:

8 Q. Good morning. How are you?

9 A. Fine, thank you.

10 Q. I’m Chris Placitella. I’m here to take

11 your deposition in the Horvath case. I understand

12 you had your deposition taken before.

13 A. Yes, I have.

14 Q. At least two times or more than two times?

14 A. More than two times.

15 Q. How many times?

16 A. I would say five or six times.

17 Q. You are familiar with the rules of a deposition?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. I’ll ask you questions, you respond to the

20 best of your ability. If your lawyer objects, don’t

21 answer the question until we can figure out what we

22 all forgot from law school a long time ago.

23 A. Okay.

24 MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this P-1.

25 (The above document is marked as

1 P-1 for Identification.)

2 Q. I have a Deposition Notice in this case

3 marked P-1 for Identification. Have you seen this

4 before?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You are the person designated by Chevron

7 as the person with the most knowledge concerning

8 Chevron that includes Standard Oil of California’s

9 historic knowledge of the dangers of asbestos and

10 the steps taken to protect those people forcibly

11 exposed to asbestos as a result of asbestos

12 installed or removed from Chevron industrial

13 facilities before 1976. Do you understand that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Have you done anything to investigate the

16 areas of inquiry designated in this deposition

17 notice?

18 A. Yes, I have.

19 Q. What have you done?

20 A. I reviewed some depositions of myself and

21 other people regarding asbestos cases.

22 Q. What else?

23 A. I reviewed some documents that were

24 produced to you and were attached to one of those

25 depositions.

1 Q. When you say you reviewed the depositions,

2 I have been supplied with two sets of depositions.

3 The depositions of, I think, your former boss, John

4 Spence. Did you review that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. How many of his depositions did you

7 review?

8 A. I believe just one.

9 Q. You said you reviewed your own deposition?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Which deposition?

12 A. In a 1991 case.

13 Q. Did you review any of the other

14 depositions you have given?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Besides Mr. Spence’s deposition and your

17 deposition, have you reviewed any other depositions?

18 A. There were two by Stan Judd.

19 MR. PLACITELLA: Do you have those because

20 they weren’t supplied to me?

21 MR. LaSALA: We didn’t receive a

22 request for deposition transcripts. We can

23 certainly get you the transcript of Mr. Judd’s

24 deposition and if they are here, we can make them

25 available today. I have to check.

1 MR. PLACITELLA: I thought the

2 depositions were part of everything he reviewed, but

3 I’ll have some reading to do at lunchtime.

4 Q. Did you do anything else in order to

5 repair for today’s deposition?

6 A. I had some discussions here yesterday with

7 Mr. LaSala and Miss McDonald.

8 Q. Did you speak with any current or former

9 employees of Chevron or Standard Oil?

10 A. No. Excuse me. I did speak with Matt

11 Mostis of the Chevron law department.

12 Q. I have a series of documents that were

13 produced to me by Chevron. What I want to do is

14 hand them to you and to Mr. LaSala and tell me if

15 this is the sum total of the documents you reviewed.

16 From what I can tell, this is the only thing I was

17 given.

18 If you need more time you can do it over a

19 break or Mr. LaSala or Miss McDonald can take a look

20 at it. What I have been given are essentially these

21 documents marked P-2 A thru F.

22 MR. PLACITELLA: Maybe during the break

23 you can go over them and see if I’m missing

24 anything, but I don’t think I am?

25 MR. LaSALA: Sure.

1 A. Excuse me. When I mentioned deposition,

2 did I mention a deposition by Dan Barber?

3 Q. You didn’t.

4 A. I want to make the record clear on that.

5 Q. Since I had not been provided the

6 depositions, what, if any, significance to you was

7 the deposition that you reviewed of Stanley Judd in

8 terms of responding to this notice?

9 A. As I recall it was just background

10 information. Nothing specific about this case.

11 Background in terms of what Chevron’s practices

12 were.

13 Q. What was significant about what you read

14 in Mr. Judd’s deposition about Chevron’s practices?

15 A. Nothing significant. Just added to my

16 general understanding or helped me remember my own

17 experience.

18 Q. And Mr. Barber, what, if any, significance

19 was there to you when you reviewed Mr. Barber’s

20 deposition?

21 A. Mr. Barber said some things I didn’t

22 remember myself.

23 Q. Would was Mr. Barber’s position, if you

24 recall?

25 A. He was manager of the safety division of

1 Chevron Corporation or Standard Oil Company of

2 California, which became Chevron Corporation.

3 Q. Do you know what period of time?

4 A. From the time I joined the company and

5 before until sometime in the early ’80s.

6 Q. What was the thing you remembered that he

7 remembered that –

8 A. When asbestos insulation was removed in

9 the field that it was wetted before removal.

10 Q. At what point in time?

11 A. He said from when he was — even before he

12 was manager of corporate safety he was safety

13 manager at El Segundo and they were doing it at that

14 time.

15 Q. Am I correct each refinery was operated

16 autonomously?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And the practice of one refinery did not

19 necessarily mean that the same practice was used at

20 another refinery?

21 A. That’s correct.

22 Q. Did Mr. Barber have any information as it

23 related to the Chevron facility or Standard Oil

24 facility in Perth Amboy?

25 A. I’m sure did he but I don’t recall seeing

1 anything like that in the deposition.

2 Q. What about Mr. Judd, what was his

3 responsibility?

4 A. When I joined the company he was senior

5 industrial hygienist and he gave me work direction

6 in the first few years of my career at Chevron.

7 Q. Did you review any documents related to

8 Chevron’s membership in the National Safety Counsel?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Had you ever seen any documents to that

11 effect in preparation for any of your prior

12 depositions or during the course of your work

13 history at Chevron?

14 A. When you say documents about Chevron’s

15 membership, what do you mean?

16 Q. You were aware, I think you testified,

17 that Chevron was a member of the National Safety

18 Counsel, correct?

19 A. I believe I did, yes.

20 Q. When you worked as an industrial hygienist

21 for Chevron were you ever provided information given

22 to Chevron by the National Safety Counsel related to

23 the dangers of asbestos?

24 A. I don’t recall seeing anything like that.

25 Q. Chevron was a member of the American

1 Petroleum Institute?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you yourself attended meetings of the

4 American Petroleum Institute on behalf of Chevron,

5 correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Information on the dangers of asbestos was

8 shared between oil companies at the API meetings,

9 correct?

10 A. I believe so, yes.

11 Q. Did you review any documents related to

12 the American Petroleum Institute in preparation for

13 your deposition today?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Do you know whether Chevron or its

16 attorneys have in their possession documents related

17 to the American Petroleum Institute and Chevron’s

18 involvement?

19 A. At this time I don’t.

20 Q. When you say at this time, what do you

21 mean by that?

22 A. Whether they have those documents at this

23 time.

24 Q. Had you ever seen documents during the

25 course of your historical career pertaining to

1 Chevron’s involvement with the American Petroleum

2 Institute?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. What documents did you see and when did

5 you see them?

6 A. That’s a very difficult question to

7 answer. There are documents on noise control, there

8 were documents — I can’t remember all the

9 documents.

10 Q. Where were those documents kept, if you

11 recall?

12 A. At Chevron?

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. Mostly in the files of the industrial

15 hygiene department.

16 Q. Where was that?

17 A. San Francisco, most of the time.

18 Q. Was a request made of the industrial

19 hygiene department for any of those documents in

20 preparation for today’s deposition to your

21 knowledge?

22 A. I don’t know.

23 Q. Who is the custodian of those documents,

24 if you know?

25 A. Presently?

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. I don’t know.

3 Q. Who was it when you were there?

4 A. It was me as long as I was an industrial

5 hygienist.

6 Q. You were the custodian of the API

7 documents in the possession of Chevron for as long

8 as you were there?

9 A. I’m not sure what you mean by custodian.

10 I had ultimate responsibility for the group and

11 virtually all of its belongings.

12 Q. Did that file contain historical documents

13 pertaining to Chevron’s involvement with the

14 American Petroleum Institute?

15 A. I believe so, but I’m not sure.

16 Q. Did you consult with any people involved

17 currently in industrial hygiene or the Chevron

18 medical department in preparing for your deposition

19 today?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Did you review any hygiene surveys that

22 Chevron conducted related to asbestos in preparation

23 for your deposition today?

24 A. No.

25 Q. You are aware such surveys exist, correct?

1 A. I’m aware such surveys existed. I don’t

2 know what their current state is.

3 Q. You were asked about them in other

4 deposition, were you not?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And they were produced at other

7 depositions, were they not? You went over them,

8 actually had your name on them.

9 A. I don’t remember.

10 MR. PLACITELLA: Is there some reason

11 why those surveys were not turned over as part of the

12 document production?

13 MR. LaSALA: They were never turned

14 over to us.

15 MR. PLACITELLA: I’m not pointing

16 fingers at you.

17 MR. LaSALA: I understand. We have

18 requested that information and requested it

19 specifically as of yesterday when we learned of it.

20 We have been told it has not been found, but

21 that was certainly something that was on the list

22 from very early on. These exhibits were from one of

23 the depositions and they are the only exhibits from

24 the deposition we have.

25 MR. PLACITELLA: I would ask that

1 Chevron, as a company, turn over all of the

2 industrial hygiene information that they have in

3 their possession or their lawyers have in their

4 possession. I understand you don’t have it.

5 MR. LaSALA: The other caveat would

6 be the Special Master’s recommendations in terms of

7 these surveys, it would be limited to Perth Amboy

8 for a certain period of time.

9 MR. PLACITELLA: Okay. I’m not sure,

10 but we will move on.

11 MR. LaSALA: We can look at that at

12 the break.

13 MR. PLACITELLA: Right.

14 Q. Have you reviewed any Workers Compensation

15 files related to asbestos and Chevron or Standard

16 Oil of California?

17 A. In preparation for today?

18 Q. Yes.

19 A. No.

20 Q. Had you ever reviewed such documents

21 during the course of your consultancy or employment?

22 A. I can’t recall that I did.

23 Q. In addition to the documents that you were

24 provided by Chevron’s counsel, did you ask to look

25 at any documents that you knew existed in

1 preparation for your deposition that weren’t

2 otherwise provided to you?

3 A. I asked to look at a deposition I gave in

4 a different case and I asked if they had it and I

5 asked if they had access to a summary of industrial

6 hygiene monitoring data which they have not been

7 able to find.

8 Q. Is that related to the Oak Point facility

9 or Oakwood?

10 A. The deposition is related to the Oak Point

11 facility, yes.

12 Q. And the summary of hygiene information

13 related to things you did at that facility?

14 A. No. It was a summary across Chevron’s

15 facility.

16 Q. Who prepared that summary?

17 A. I was involved in that.

18 Q. Who else?

19 A. I don’t recall.

20 Q. When is the last time you saw that

21 summary?

22 A. I don’t recall.

23 Q. Did you see it at any of your prior

24 depositions?

25 A. I don’t remember whether I did or not.

1 Q. Have you ever testified at trial on behalf

2 of Chevron?

3 A. No.

4 Q. How long did you meet in preparation for

5 today’s deposition?

6 A. Most of the day yesterday.

7 Q. And were any facts disclosed to you by

8 your lawyers not connected with legal advice as it

9 relates to Chevron?

10 MR. LaSALA: Do you understand that

11 question?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Did the attorneys provide you with any

14 facts that you would rely upon as the basis for your

15 historical knowledge that were not connected to

16 legal advice? They weren’t giving you legal advise,

17 they were giving you factual information?

18 MR. LaSALA: I’ll direct him not to

19 answer. Our discussions would be in the context of

20 an attorney/client relationship and representation.

21 If it relates to this case, we are providing him

22 with advice on this particular case.

23 Q. Have you been supplied with anything as it

24 relates to your testimony today that didn’t come

25 from Chevron lawyers?

1 A. No.

2 Q. Everything that you are going to testify

3 about today came directly from you to you from

4 Chevron’s attorneys?

5 A. Or from my own memory.

6 Q. Fair enough. I’m talking about

7 documentary evidence.

8 A. Right.

9 Q. Do you believe that you made a good faith

10 effort to investigate all the information available

11 to the company concerning the subject matter of this

12 deposition?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So you didn’t think there was any other

15 information you needed in order to prepare yourself

16 adequately to talk about what Chevron’s historical

17 knowledge of the dangers of asbestos are?

18 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

19 You can answer.

20 A. No, I don’t believe there was anything

21 else I needed.

22 Q. You obtained a Masters in industrial

23 hygiene from Harvard in 1964?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You joined Chevron as an industrial

1 hygienist in ’68?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You left in 1993?

4 A. That’s correct.

5 Q. And have you been paid as a consultant by

6 Chevron after that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. At what rate?

9 A. Differing rates depending on the jobs I

10 was doing.

11 Q. What is the rate you are being paid for

12 this testimony today?

13 A. We haven’t set on a specific rate.

14 Q. What is the rate you got paid the last

15 time you testified on behalf of Chevron?

16 A. $150 an hour.

17 Q. Does that include your travel time and so

18 forth?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What happens at the end of this, you send

21 them a bill and they pay it?

22 A. I hope so.

23 Q. The group you worked for was the

24 industrial hygiene and toxicology group when you

25 first got there?

1 A. There was a lot of name changes. I have a

2 hard time sorting them all out. It was something

3 like that.

4 Q. The head of your group when you got there

5 was Jack Spence?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Jack or John? I don’t want to –

8 A. He went by Jack.

9 Q. The name of the company when you started

10 was Standard Oil of California, correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. You eventually became the manager of

13 industrial hygiene and health surveillance?

14 A. No.

15 Q. What was your final title?

16 A. I don’t know what my final title was. I

17 first became manager of industrial hygiene. Later I

18 became manager of health surveillance. I was no

19 longer manager of industrial hygiene at that time.

20 Q. Had you ever had the occasion to visit the

21 Chevron facility in Perth Amboy?

22 A. I believe I did visit it briefly a couple

23 of times.

24 Q. What was the purpose of your visit?

25 A. I don’t recall. I think it was primarily

1 a social call on the safety engineer there.

2 Q. Were you familiar with the industrial

3 hygiene practice at Chevron Perth Amboy?

4 A. I would not say I was.

5 Q. Did you ever conduct any hygiene surveys

6 safety audits of the Chevron Perth Amboy facilities?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Had you ever reviewed any industrial

9 hygiene or safety audits conducted by others of the

10 Chevron Perth Amboy facility?

11 A. I don’t recall doing that.

12 Q. To your knowledge was the Chevron Perth

13 Amboy facility similar in what it produced to other

14 refineries owned by Chevron?

15 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

16 You can answer.

17 A. I believe the products were essentially

18 the same.

19 Q. Was it your understanding that the Chevron

20 facility also had an asphalt plant?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Was it also your understanding that

23 asbestos-containing products were manufactured at

24 Chevron asphalt plants?

25 A. They were manufactured at some asphalt

1 plants, but not all.

2 Q. Do you know whether asbestos-containing

3 products were manufactured at the Perth Amboy

4 asphalt plant?

5 A. To the best of my knowledge no, they were

6 not.

7 Q. Who would know that for sure?

8 A. Somebody that knows about products and

9 where they were manufactured. I don’t know who that

10 would be.

11 Q. I think you told me before that each

12 refinery was operated autonomously. Am I correct

13 that it was up to each refinery to determine how it

14 was going to handle asbestos within the refinery?

15 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

16 A. Ultimately that’s true.

17 Q. There was no corporate wide policy

18 concerning when each refinery would stop using

19 asbestos, correct?

20 A. That is correct, as far as I remember.

21 Q. Now, are there basic principles of health

22 safety adhered to by corporate industrial hygienists

23 in terms of protecting worker health?

24 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

25 You can answer.

1 A. I don’t understand the question.

2 Q. As an industrial hygienist were there

3 basic principles you would adhere to in order to

4 protect worker health?

5 A. I would say yes, there were.

6 Q. Would you agree that corporate

7 responsibility means ensuring sound policies,

8 practices or programs that address environmental

9 health and safety?

10 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

11 That may call for a legal conclusion. You can

12 answer.

13 MR. PLACITELLA: I took it right off

14 the Chevron website.

15 MR. LaSALA: I have a right to

16 object.

17 A. If that’s what Chevron says, I would have

18 to agree with that.

19 Q. And would you agree Chevron has the

20 responsibility to transmit what it knew about the

21 dangers produced by the Chevron working environment

22 to its employees?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Would you agree that Chevron employees

25 working with or near asbestos should have been told

1 whatever Chevron knew about the dangers of asbestos?

2 A. I wouldn’t say everything because that can

3 get into very complicated medical and scientific

4 data. I don’t think that’s an effective way to

5 communicate with employees.

6 Q. What kind of information do you think

7 Chevron or Standard Oil was entitled to withhold

8 from workers and not tell them?

9 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

10 A. I think they were entitled to basic

11 information on what kind of health effects could

12 happen, but not necessarily detailed information and

13 medical terminology or highly scientific terminology

14 which would confuse them.

15 Q. So it was Chevron’s determination then as

16 to what would be confusing not confusing to workers

17 in terms of protecting their health and safety?

18 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

19 A. In terms of effectively communicating the

20 hazards, yes. If there were other inquiries for

21 deeper information, that would have been provided.

22 Q. Would you agree Chevron had a

23 responsibility to ensure the health of family

24 members of Chevron employees to make sure they were

25 not placed at risk as a result of the Chevron

1 employee working environment?

2 MR. LaSALA: Same objection as before

3 as to legal conclusion, but you can answer.

4 A. Repeat the question.

5 Q. Would you agree Chevron had a

6 responsibility to ensure the health of family

7 members of Chevron employees were not placed at risk

8 as a result of the Chevron’s employee work

9 environment?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Would you agree a company should never

12 withhold information about environmental dangers

13 from its employees and potentially affect family

14 members?

15 A. I need you to read that one back, too.

16 Q. Would you agree a company should never

17 withhold information about environmental dangers

18 from its employees and potentially affected family

19 members inside its refineries?

20 A. I don’t think I would agree Chevron had a

21 responsibility to communicate directly with family

22 members.

23 Q. You think Chevron had no responsibility to

24 ensure that toxic substances were not transported

25 home by employees to their family members?

1 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

2 A. I don’t think that’s what I said.

3 Q. Do you believe Chevron had a

4 responsibility to make sure that toxic substances

5 were not transported home to family members of

6 Chevron employees?

7 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

8 A. When you say make sure, that’s awfully

9 difficult. That requires a level of control over

10 employees that Chevron didn’t have.

11 Q. We will get into that. Would you agree

12 that a company should never put profits before

13 worker health safety?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Would you agree the greater the danger

16 inherent in the employee work environment the

17 stronger the warning necessary to protect the

18 employee?

19 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Would you agree a Chevron employee working

22 with or around asbestos-containing products had the

23 right to know about the potential hazards of

24 asbestos as soon as Chevron knew it?

25 A. Yes. If there were actual hazards.

1 Q. If Chevron learned knew information about

2 the hazards of asbestos would you agree it was

3 Chevron’s duty to pass that information on to its

4 employees so the employees could protect themselves

5 and others who might be exposed as a result of the

6 employee working with or near asbestos?

7 A. Seems like I’m being asked a lot of

8 questions that are legal in nature.

9 Q. I’m asking you as an industrial hygienist

10 who was charged with protecting the health safety of

11 the people working in the refineries.

12 A. When you use the term duty, that implies

13 to me there’s a legal requirement.

14 Q. Does the word responsibilities make you

15 more comfortable?

16 MR. LaSALA: You can phrase the

17 questions in whatever way you determine appropriate

18 and I’ll object or he will answer.

19 A. That’s fine.

20 Q. As Chevron learned new asbestos

21 information about the hazards of asbestos, would you

22 agree it was Chevron’s responsibility to pass that

23 information on to its employees so the employee

24 could protect himself or others who might be exposed

25 as a result of the employee working with or near

1 asbestos?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Would you agree it was appropriate for

4 Chevron’s employees to rely upon Chevron for the

5 whole truth about the hazards of the products

6 Chevron used in its operations?

7 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

8 That clearly calls for a legal conclusion. You can

9 try to answer it, if you can.

10 A. I’ll have to have you read the question

11 begin.

12 Q. Would you agree that it was appropriate

13 for Chevron’s employees to rely upon Chevron for the

14 whole truth about the hazards of the products

15 Chevron’s used in its operations?

16 MR. LaSALA: Objection.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Would you agree that it was Chevron’s

19 responsibility to inform employees about a potential

20 exposure to poisons without regard to the

21 concentration of the poison?

22 MR. LaSALA: Objection. That may

23 call for a legal conclusion depending on whether or

24 not there were standards — I don’t want to make

25 speeches. That would call for a legal conclusion.

1 You can answer.

2 A. I think I would answer no to that

3 question.

4 MR. PLACITELLA: Why don’t we stop here

5 and we will take a break and set up the video.

6 (Recess taken)

8 BY MR. PLACITELLA:

10 Q. Before we took a break I asked you a

11 question about Chevron’s responsibilities to inform

12 employees about potential exposure without regard to

13 concentration. You said you didn’t agree with that.

14 Do you recall that?

15 A. I don’t remember that is the wording of

16 your question. Something like that.

17 Q. I put up on the screen an excerpt from

18 Mr. Spence’s deposition that you reviewed in

19 preparation for today’s deposition, correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And it starts on page 291 and the question

22 was — if you want to show him the deposition that’s

23 fine. Was it Chevron’s policy to tell its own

24 employees about the potential for exposure to

25 poisons in its plant without regard to the

1 concentration of that toxic material?

2 Mr. Spence’s says, “We certainly — if there was a

3 potential for danger, yes. That becomes a point

4 when there’s insufficient anything or anything to be

5 “hazardous”, so obviously when there was a hazard or

6 a potential hazard certainly we wanted people to

7 know it. After all, we were trying to protect their

8 health.

9 Do you agree with that statement by your

10 former boss?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Were the outside contractors hired by

13 Chevron required to follow the Chevron safety rules?

14 A. I don’t recall to what extent they were.

15 Q. I’m going to show you another excerpt from

16 Mr. Spence’s deposition. The question is, I see

17 that the distinction — I’m sorry I didn’t follow it

18 originally. Your recollection is that during all of

19 these years that the rule was that contractors were

20 required to follow the Chevron safety rules and

21 safety plant program when the contractor worked in a

22 Chevron plant?

23 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form

24 You put plant before –

25 MR. PLACITELLA: I can’t read it.

1 Q. Answer yes. That was the case I’m thinking

2 that the safety engineers did at least inspect for

3 compliance with the Chevron safety rules. Answer

4 um-hum, yes.

5 Does that refreshes your recollection as

6 to what the Chevron policy was as it related to

7 outside contractors?

8 A. There were different kinds of outside

9 contractors. There were independent contractors and

10 there were contractors who worked in the plant

11 regularly. I think they were treated differently,

12 but I don’t know. I didn’t work in the plants. I

13 think that’s a generally true statement, but not

14 necessarily all the time.

15 Q. What is the difference between an outside

16 contractor and a contractor that worked regularly?

17 A. Maybe I should have used independent

18 contractor. Independent contractor was somebody

19 given a job to do, came in and did the whole job

20 versus the other contractors I was referring to were

21 what I would call workforce contractors. These were

22 people who were supplied, not Chevron employees, but

23 working in Chevron plants working on behalf of

24 Chevron.

25 Independent contractors would be given a

1 job, maybe a shutdown, for example. The whole plant

2 is shut down. Essentially turned over to that

3 contractor and that contractor has its own safety

4 rules and regulations and there was some — I don’t

5 recall exactly or I never knew exactly what the

6 relationship was between those rules and Chevron’s

7 rules.

8 Q. Would there be any reason why the rules

9 for an independent contractor should be less

10 stringent than the rules that Chevron enforced?

11 A. No, and I don’t believe they were.

12 Q. These workforce contractors, they would be

13 somebody that would come in and insulate a whole

14 section of steam lines, that kind of thing?

15 A. No. They would work basically as

16 Chevron’s maintenance staff.

17 Q. They would be governed by Chevron’s safety

18 rules?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Would you agree that the industrial

21 hygiene department had a responsibility to keep

22 current on occupational health literature?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And would you agree that part of assessing

25 a potential hazard in a plant was to consult with

1 the experience of other companies?

2 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

3 A. Not necessarily.

4 Q. What do you mean not necessarily?

5 A. It may not be necessary to consult with

6 other people if you have enough information in hand.

7 Q. But it was something that was done?

8 A. Oh, it was done. I think the question was

9 whether it was a requirement of the job. No, it

10 wasn’t.

11 Q. You wouldn’t take issue with Mr. Spence’s

12 testimony where he says I think the medical director

13 got some viewpoints from the American Petroleum

14 Institute?

15 MR. LaSALA: Do we have a page?

16 MR. PLACITELLA: Thirty-five.

17 Q. The association with other companies

18 already had programs under way?

19 A. What is your question?

20 Q. You would agree with this testimony?

21 That’s all I’m asking.

22 A. Oh, yes.

23 Q. Now, Chevron, in addition to manufacturing

24 petroleum products, was also an asbestos products

25 manufacturer. True?

1 A. I wouldn’t call them an asbestos products

2 manufacturer.

3 Q. You manufactured products with asbestos in

4 them?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And Manville, for instance, manufactured

7 products with asbestos in it, right?

8 A. They are not comparable.

9 Q. Did Manville manufacture products with

10 asbestos?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. You manufactured products with asbestos?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So in the sense of being an

15 asbestos-containing product manufacturer, you are no

16 different than Manville?

17 MR. LaSALA: I direct him not to

18 answer. Argumentative. That’s argumentative.

19 Q. What is the difference between you and

20 Manville in terms of being a manufacturer of

21 asbestos-containing products?

22 A. The nature of the products was totally

23 different.

24 Q. And the nature of your products was what?

25 A. The asbestos was totally encapsulated

1 within the product that we sold.

2 Q. Those products when –

3 A. It was a liquid product basically.

4 Q. Some of the products were products known

5 as Walk Top?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. What was that used for?

8 A. As the name suggests, it was used, I

9 believe, for walking surfaces.

10 Q. Lakehold, was that an asbestos-containing

11 product?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. What was that used for?

14 A. I believe it was mainly used for tennis

15 courts and sports courts.

16 Q. How was that used?

17 A. It was taken in drums, I believe, to the

18 site and spread on the — it was a thick liquid

19 material spread on the surface cold and I never saw

20 the application. It was squeegeed out.

21 Q. You are aware tennis courts, for example,

22 are resurfaced, right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. In your common experience. when they are

25 resurfaced, the top layer is often removed?

1 A. I don’t know.

2 Q. You are aware that tennis courts and

3 walking surfaces are often upset or jack hammered

4 when they are removed, correct?

5 A. That would be my assumption.

6 Q. When that procedure would occur there

7 would be the potential for the asbestos that was

8 used in the Chevron product to be released into the

9 atmosphere?

10 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

11 Q. True?

12 A. In some amount, could be possible.

13 Q. Now, did you, Chevron, ever tell any of

14 your employees that they were working in an asbestos

15 products manufacturing plant?

16 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

17 A. I don’t know if we ever used that

18 language.

19 Q. What steps did you take, Chevron, to

20 prevent the inhalation of asbestos for the people

21 who were manufacturing your asbestos-containing

22 products?

23 A. We took a close look at that operation and

24 recommended several controls that were installed to

25 minimize exposure and keep it below the recommended

1 standards.

2 Q. When was the first time you did that?

3 A. I don’t recall.

4 Q. Was it done before 1972?

5 A. I don’t recall. I don’t think so.

6 Q. So up until 1972 there were no controls in

7 the plants operated by Chevron that manufactured

8 asbestos-containing products to control the

9 inhalation of asbestos fiber?

10 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

11 A. I don’t know if that’s correct.

12 Q. Who would know that? You are the guy with

13 the most knowledge.

14 A. I don’t know who would know that. I’m not

15 even sure those products were made before 1972. I

16 don’t know.

17 Q. You are not aware that Chevron made

18 asbestos-containing products going back to the

19 1940s?

20 A. I don’t know that they made Lakehold. I

21 don’t know when they started making Walk Top and

22 Lakehold. I don’t know what controls were in place

23 before we got involved with that.

24 Q. When is the first time to your knowledge

25 that Chevron going into the business of

1 manufacturing asbestos-containing products?

2 A. I don’t know.

3 Q. Was it before you got there?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. When you got there what controls were in

6 place to prevent the people who were working with

7 asbestos in the asbestos-containing product

8 manufacturing plants from enhaling the asbestos?

9 MR. LaSALA: Objections to the form.

10 A. I didn’t see those particular operations.

11 Q. You toured asbestos-containing asphalt

12 plants, did you not?

13 A. I looked at the ones where they were

14 making Lakehold and Walk Top. I didn’t . . .

15 I don’t recall ever going to the one where they made

16 other products, which were started earlier.

17 Q. When you looked at the Lakehold and Walk

18 Top asbestos-containing product plants, when you

19 first went in there were no controls in place to

20 protect the workers from exposure to asbestos, true?

21 A. I don’t know if that’s true or not. I

22 don’t remember.

23 Q. You had no controls in place before 1972,

24 true?

25 A. I don’t know.

1 Q. I guess no one in the company knows since

2 you are the guy with the most knowledge.

3 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

4 Argumentative.

5 Q. Now, when you were at Harvard as part of

6 your training, did you obtain any information

7 concerning the potential dangers of asbestos?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. What information did you obtain?

10 A. I don’t know in detail, but I remember

11 hearing about asbestosis. It was talked about. I

12 recall in the general area of pneumoconiosis.

13 Q. Was that part of a course?

14 A. I’m sure it was.

15 Q. In the context of preventing

16 pneumoconiosis, did you discuss principles of

17 industrial hygiene to prevent pneumoconiosis related

18 injuries when you were at Harvard?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Were those principles of industrial

21 hygiene around for many, many years?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Those principles of industrial hygiene

24 included respiratory protection, correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. They included ventilation?

2 A. They could.

3 Q. For pneumoconiosis producing dust, true?

4 A. You are lumping all those producing dust

5 in one category and they were all different. They

6 were all handled different. The manufacturer’s

7 process was different about them. I wouldn’t

8 generalize, they always indicated that.

9 Q. Was it a recognized principle of

10 industrial hygiene that you were taught when you

11 went to school that one of the ways of preventing

12 asbestos-related disease was through the use of

13 respirators?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. When you were at Harvard one of the ways

16 you were taught to prevent asbestos-related disease

17 would be through adequate ventilation, true?

18 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. These were principles that were known for

21 decades, true?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. The substitution of less hazardous

24 materials, was that a principle of industrial

25 hygiene that you were taught while you were at

1 Harvard studying to become an industrial hygienist?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You were aware before you ever started at

4 Chevron that one of the ways to prevent asbestosis

5 was to use non-asbestos related materials, true?

6 A. No. I don’t believe I was.

7 Q. When did you figure that out?

8 A. Well, what I was taught at Harvard had to

9 do with asbestos mining, asbestos milling,

10 insulation with pure asbestos materials and things

11 like that. That didn’t really relate to what I

12 found when I went to Chevron.

14 (Video record begins.)

16 Q. You are the person designated as a person

17 with the most knowledge about Chevron and Standard

18 Oil of California’s historical knowledge about the

19 dangers of asbestos and what Chevron did with that

20 information in terms of protecting its employees,

21 correct?

22 A. Among the people who are still alive and

23 able to travel, yes.

24 Q. In reviewing all the material you told us

25 you reviewed, did Chevron make any mistakes in

1 protecting their workers and their families from

2 asbestos exposure?

3 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

4 Any mistakes.

5 MR. PLACITELLA: Yes.

6 A. I can’t think of any.

7 Q. Did Chevron make any mistakes in relaying

8 what it knew about the dangers of asbestos to those

9 foreseeably exposed to asbestos in its plants?

10 MR. LaSALA: Same objection.

11 A. There’s nothing I would consider that I

12 can recall that I would consider a mistake.

13 Q. So if no mistakes were made, then the way

14 asbestos was handled in the Chevron plants was

15 intentional. Would you agree with that?

16 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

17 Argumentative.

18 A. I don’t know how to answer that question.

19 Q. Everything you did was deliberate.

20 There were no mistakes made. What you did is what

21 you did and there’s no apologies for it, correct?

22 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

23 argumentative. Can we take the argumentative

24 portion out of that, please –

25 MR. PLACITELLA: Sure.

1 Q. Everything that was done with asbestos was

2 done consciously and deliberately?

3 A. I wouldn’t necessarily say that. When you

4 say there was no mistakes made, I’m not aware of

5 mistakes. Individuals could have made mistakes.

6 Q. Because you are not even aware of what

7 went on at the Chevron Perth Amboy facility as you

8 sit here today despite all the information that you

9 reviewed, correct?

10 A. I’m not aware of what went on on a day-to-day

11 basis at any facility.

12 Q. And you don’t really have any

13 understanding about what Chevron did or didn’t do to

14 protect the employees and their families at the

15 Chevron Perth Amboy facility from asbestos exposure,

16 true?

17 A. I have a general sense of what they did,

18 but I don’t know details of what they did.

19 Q. Now, you would agree that Chevron had the

20 money and the resources to protect employees in

21 their plants from unsafe working conditions?

22 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

23 Q. True?

24 A. They had the resources insofar as

25 information that was currently available, but as you

1 know, that information at times got updated with new

2 information.

3 Q. Sure, and Chevron was really up to date on

4 all the information concerning the dangers of the

5 products that were used in its operations. Would

6 you agree with that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And Chevron had the money and the

9 resources to ensure that any toxic or unsafe

10 material used or generated in its plants would not

11 be carried home to the workers’ families, true?

12 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

13 A. Certainly had the resources and money,

14 yes.

15 Q. And you are familiar with Standard Oil of

16 New Jersey?

17 A. I know who that was, yes.

18 Q. They were not anymore capable of

19 protecting employees than Standard Oil of

20 California, were they?

21 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

22 A. I believe that’s true.

23 Q. Chevron had basically the same resources

24 for protecting employee health and safety that would

25 have been available to Standard oil of New Jersey,

1 right?

2 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

3 A. Standard Oil of New Jersey got into the

4 industrial hygiene field before Chevron did.

5 Q. Well, you both had the same parent, didn’t

6 you, Standard Oil of California and Standard Oil of

7 New Jersey?

8 A. Going back many, many years, yes.

9 Q. In fact, would this accurately reflect the

10 lineage, this slide accurately reflects the lineage

11 of –

12 A. No.

13 Q. It would not?

14 A. I don’t believe so. You have Chevron at

15 the top. We are not — Chevron is not the father of

16 all these companies.

17 Q. It was Standard Oil that broke up to be –

18 Standard oil of California and Standard Oil of New

19 Jersey. It was broken up into two different –

20 A. No. I believe it was broken up into more

21 companies. Standard Oil of New York.

22 Q. Exactly.

23 A. And other companies.

24 Q. And one became BP and one became Exxon and

25 one become AMOCO, correct?

1 A. Not exactly, but BP bought one of the

2 companies.

3 Q. When I ask you whether you had the same

4 parent, that is Chevron and Exxon, the answer is

5 what?

6 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

7 Are you asking him if they had the same parent?

8 Q. You had the same parent?

9 A. Well, yes. In a very general, general

10 sense we had the same parent.

11 Q. I put a slide up here. Have you ever seen

12 a picture or an overhead of the Chevron refinery in

13 Perth Amboy?

14 A. I don’t recall I have.

15 Q. Do you know how far away it was located

16 from the Bayway or Exxon Bayway refinery?

17 A. No, I don’t.

18 Q. Did you know it was less than a few miles

19 away?

20 A. I don’t know what you mean by a few miles,

21 but I knew they were in the same general area.

22 Q. Do you recognize this as a picture of the

23 Chevron Perth Amboy plant?

24 A. By the caption on it, yes.

25 Q. You recall the plant was near a large body

1 of water, do you recall that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you recall there were prevailing winds

4 that would come off that body of water?

5 A. No.

6 Q. If there were prevailing winds that would

7 come off a body of water, would that have a

8 significance to you in terms of your profession as

9 an industrial hygienist in assessing health and

10 safety in a plant?

11 A. I don’t think I would pay much attention

12 to that.

13 Q. Did you conduct research to determine when

14 is the first time that Standard Oil of California

15 was aware of the potential dangers of asbestos

16 exposure?

17 A. No, I didn’t.

18 Q. Wasn’t that part of your charge for this

19 deposition?

20 A. Not that I understand.

21 Q. Do you know when Chevron first became

22 aware of the potential dangers of asbestos exposure?

23 A. No, I don’t.

24 Q. Do you know when Chevron first became

25 aware that asbestos was potentially related to

1 contracting cancers?

2 A. I have a pretty good sense of that.

3 Q. When was that?

4 A. Sometime shortly before the asbestos

5 standard came out.

6 Q. You are not aware of information in the

7 possession of Chevron going back to the 1940′s and

8 ’50s indicating an association between asbestos and

9 cancer?

10 A. I’m not aware of that.

11 Q. And you had not been provided that

12 information by Chevron in preparations for today’s

13 deposition?

14 A. No, I haven’t.

15 Q. Knowledge of dangers of products used in

16 Chevron plants would come from multiple sources.

17 Would you agree with that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Some would include academic training?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Medical, open medical literature?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Would Chevron have available to it the

24 means to research medical literature historically?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Would another means be professional

2 organizations?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Consultation with other oil companies?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. In fact, you, yourself corresponded with

7 the industrial hygienist at Exxon Jim Hammond, to

8 discuss asbestos health issues, correct?

9 A. I don’t recall that.

10 Q. You don’t recall testifying to that?

11 A. No, I don’t.

12 Q. You corresponded with Jim Hammond? You

13 never did that?

14 A. I wouldn’t say I didn’t do it. I don’t

15 remember doing it.

16 Q. Would you say that another source would be

17 through mergers and acquisitions, that is if a

18 company took over another company, you would absorb

19 the information that that company had as well?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Another source of information on the

22 dangers of products used in the plants would be

23 symposiums, true?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. National Safety Counsel?

1 A. To some extent, yes.

2 Q. The American Petroleum Institute?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Am I correct that Chevron did nothing to

5 protect the workers in its plants from exposure to

6 asbestos until the federal government made them do

7 it?

8 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

9 A. No.

10 Q. What did you do before 1972 to protect

11 workers from exposure to asbestos in the Chevron

12 plants?

13 A. My understanding is that there were

14 respirators required for asbestos removal work or

15 insulation removal work where that involved

16 asbestos.

17 Q. When was that first required, sir?

18 A. I don’t know when it was first required.

19 it was well before my time.

20 Q. Well before you start in 1968?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And what is the source of that

23 information?

24 A. Dan Barber’s deposition.

25 Q. Is Mr. Barber still alive?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Did you have an opportunity to discuss

3 that with him?

4 A. No, I didn’t.

5 Q. Do you know whether those respirators were

6 supplied — did you say respirators were required

7 for asbestos removal?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And what plant was Mr. Barber responsible

10 for?

11 A. He was responsible for El Segundo refinery

12 and for the a short period of time Richmond

13 refinery.

14 Q. And would that have been going back to the

15 1950s?

16 A. I believe so, yes.

17 Q. What other methods was Chevron doing to

18 protect the health of people exposed to asbestos in

19 in plants, other than requiring respirators?

20 A. According to Mr. Barber’s testimony, they

21 were also wetting down the insulation before

22 removing it.

23 Q. And what was the purpose of that?

24 A. To reduce the release of dry dust.

25 Q. And when would that have started?

1 A. I don’t know when. Probably also early.

2 In the ’50s or maybe before.

3 Q. The ’50′s or before?

4 A. Or before.

5 Q. Do you have any evidence that those

6 practices were used to protect the people who worked

7 in the Chevron refinery in Perth Amboy?

8 A. Do I personally have evidence, no, I

9 don’t.

10 Q. Have you reviewed anything, any

11 information that you can point to as evidence that

12 the procedures of wet down and use of respirators

13 were used in the Chevron Perth Amboy refinery before

14 1972?

15 A. I don’t personally have that evidence.

16 Q. Have you seen any evidence whatsoever to

17 indicate that, whether you had it personally or not?

18 A. I have not seen it, no.

19 Q. In that information existed would you have

20 hoped it was provided to you?

21 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

22 You can answer.

23 A. I didn’t have any particular conception of

24 what I would be provided.

25 Q. When is there first time, and these

1 procedures you are discussing to protect people from

2 exposure to asbestos, I take it one of the reasons

3 they did wet down was to protect not only the person

4 removing the asbestos, but people in the vicinity?

5 A. I don’t know what the rationale for that

6 was.

7 Q. As an industrial hygienist is it your

8 understanding that the reason that you wet down

9 asbestos-containing insulation before removing it is

10 to protect both the person removing it plus people

11 in the vicinity?

12 A. It would accomplish that goal, yes.

13 Q. You understood that as a general principle

14 of industrial hygiene, correct?

15 A. I wouldn’t call it that, but I guess — I

16 wouldn’t argue with the practice either.

17 Q. Would it have been good practice to

18 protect the people in the vicinity of the removal of

19 asbestos?

20 A. Yes. If they were potentially exposed.

21 Q. And when you say potentially exposed, what

22 do you mean by that?

23 A. If they were potentially exposed to

24 hazardous concentrations of asbestos fibers over a

25 period of time.

1 Q. Would you agree that a general principle

2 of industrial hygiene is that if you can see

3 variable asbestos-containing dust, that protection

4 should be afforded the worker or the people in the

5 vicinity?

6 A. Repeat that, please.

7 Q. Would you agree that as an accepted

8 principle of industrial hygiene that if you can

9 see visible dust that the people working in the

10 vicinity should get protection?

11 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

12 A. It depends on whether that dust is in the

13 form that can be inhaled.

14 Q. What do you mean by that?

15 A. If you saw insulation that contains

16 asbestos, the type of insulation that contains

17 asbestos, there will be dust produced which drops

18 directly to the ground. It is not becoming

19 airborne. It is not getting into the — as long as

20 it is falling it is not respirable. It is not

21 something people can breathe.

22 Q. Well, in your training as an industrial

23 hygienist were you ever trained in the principle of

24 reentrainment?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. What is that?

2 A. Reentrainment means things that land on

3 the ground and gets stirred and back up into the

4 air.

5 Q. And that’s something that happened with

6 asbestos-containing dust, correct?

7 A. It could happen, yes.

8 Q. So the mere fact that asbestos may fall to

9 the ground is no solace to the people working in the

10 area that they won’t be exposed, true?

11 A. True.

12 Q. When was the first time that Chevron took

13 any steps to make sure that asbestos-containing dust

14 or debris was not transported home by workers to

15 their families?

16 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

17 A. I can’t answer that question. I don’t

18 know.

19 Q. Did it ever happen during the time you

20 worked for Chevron?

21 A. It could have.

22 Q. You were aware at some point in time that

23 there were procedures that the federal government

24 required to make sure that asbestos-containing dust

25 was not transported home to families, correct?

1 A. Yes. I believe as part of the asbestos

2 standard, it was required.

3 Q. And before the federal government made

4 Chevron follow those procedures, there were no

5 procedures in place at Chevron refineries to protect

6 the health and safety of family members, true?

7 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

8 A. That I don’t know. I know many refineries

9 had issued coveralls for people to work and those

10 coveralls were laundered on site. I don’t know a

11 lot of detail about that procedure.

12 Q. Let’s talk about that a little bit. Some

13 of the refineries you are aware of actually had

14 coveralls given to the employees?

15 A. Coveralls or some sort of protective

16 clothing.

17 Q. Those coveralls were then laundered

18 on-site?

19 A. I don’t believe they were laundered

20 on-site. They could have been on-site or sent to an

21 outside laundry.

22 Q. Okay. Fair enough. But the employee did

23 not take those coveralls home to their family to

24 wash?

25 A. That’s my understanding.

1 Q. Did some of the refineries have showers to

2 make sure any toxic substances were not transported

3 home on the workers’ person to the family?

4 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

5 You can answer.

6 A. I believe they did.

7 Q. Do you know what refineries had that

8 practice?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Why was it important that in your opinion

11 as an industrial hygienist to give the workers

12 coveralls that would be laundered by Chevron and not

13 by the workers’ families?

14 A. I’m sorry. Give me that question again.

15
(Record read)
16

17 A. Some workers could take toxic substances

18 home and spread them around within their home.

19 Q. Did the practice of giving coveralls to

20 workers in some of these refineries predate your

21 come to go Chevron?

22 A. I believe so.

23 Q. Did the practice of supplying showering

24 facilities in some of these refineries predate your

25 coming to Chevron?

1 A. I believe so.

2 Q. Did these practices actually in fact date

3 back to the 1950s and possibly before?

4 A. I believe so.

5 Q. Do you know why these practices weren’t in

6 place in the Perth Amboy Chevron facility?

7 A. No.

8 Q. As an industrial hygienist would these be

9 practices that you would have recommended be in the

10 Perth Amboy facility had you had some influence over

11 that?

12 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

13 A. I don’t know — without having seen the

14 operations, no.

15 Q. Well, it was a refinery just like

16 El Segundo?

17 A. Um hum?

18 Q. What was different about the Perth Amboy

19 refinery from El Segundo that meant that those

20 people required less protection than the El Segundo

21 people?

22 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

23 A. I’m not suggesting that they did require

24 less protection.

25 Q. A human being working in El Segundo was no

1 different than a human being working in Perth Amboy.

2 MR. LaSALA: Objection. Argumentative.

3 A. Absolutely.

4 Q. And a human being working in El Segundo

5 had the same right to be protected, the same way –

6 strike that.

7 A human being in Perth Amboy had the right

8 to be protected the same way an employee had the

9 right to be protected in El Segundo, true?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So if coveralls were given to employees in

12 El Segundo, they should have been given to employees

13 in Perth Amboy. Would you agree with that?

14 A. If there was a hazard.

15 Q. Were the hazards different in Perth Amboy

16 than from El Segundo to your knowledge?

17 A. I don’t know.

18 MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this P-3.

19 (The above document is marked as

20 P-3 for Identification.)

21 Q. Mr. Dryden, we are making good progress.

22 I want to show you what’s been marked P-3 for

23 Identification and ask you if you have ever seen

24 this document before?

25 A. I do recognize it. I saw it.

1 MR. LaSALA: Wait for a question.

2 Q. When have you seen it?

3 A. As far as I can recall the first time I

4 saw it was in the last two days.

5 Q. What were the circumstances under which

6 you saw this document?

7 A. Preparing for this deposition. It was one

8 of the — it was attached to one of the depositions.

9 It was an exhibit of one of the depositions.

10 Q. Did you have a chance to review the

11 document?

12 A. I reviewed it briefly.

13 Q. I’m just going to ask you some things.

14 The first time you saw it is when it was shown to

15 you by counsel for Chevron?

16 A. They sent it to me. I think I read it,

17 looked at it on the airplane.

18 MR. PLACITELLA: There is some reason

19 why it wasn’t produced as part of the materials?

20 MR. LaSALA: Only reason is

21 inadvertence on our part. I apologize.

22 Q. What, if any, significance did you attach

23 to this document when you reviewed it?

24 A. None, really.

25 Q. This is a document entitled, Dust Producing

1 Operations in the Petroleum Products and

2 Associated Activities by a Roy Bonsib?

3 A. You left a couple of words out, but, yes.

4 Q. I’m trying to get you on your plane. He

5 was the chief safety inspector for Standard Oil

6 Company of New Jersey, correct?

7 A. That’s what it says.

8 Q. Right down the street from the Perth Amboy

9 refinery, remember?

10 A. Not necessarily. I don’t know if their

11 headquarters was at that refinery or not.

12 Q. This survey was done of the Bayway

13 refinery in New Jersey, correct?

14 A. I don’t recall. I don’t know. I didn’t

15 look at it that carefully.

16 Q. The first paragraph says in the forward

17 says, Because it is the duty of industry to protect

18 its employees and because no comprehensive survey

19 of the hazards incident to occupational dust

20 problems has yet been made, it was felt that here

21 was an opportunity to render a service to the

22 petroleum industry and its employees by making such

23 a survey.

24 Did I read that correctly?

25 A. Yes, except they misspelled service.

1 Q. Was this document ever shared with you by

2 anyone at Chevron while you were there?

3 A. To the best of my recollection we had this

4 document in our files, but whether it was shared

5 with me personally, no, I don’t think so.

6 Q. Okay. Now –

7 A. When I say I saw it for the first time, I

8 may have seen it at Chevron, but I just don’t

9 recall.

10 Q. Go to page 3, please.

11 A. Okay.

12 Q. See under the second full paragraph there

13 are five distinct types of reaction.

14 A. You are looking at a different page

15 three.

16 Q. Past the index into the body of the

17 report.

18 A. Here we go.

19 Q. It says there are five distinct types of

20 reaction produced in a man as the result of in

21 inhalation, inhaling dust. Do you see that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What is the date of this document?

24 A. 1937.

25 Q. These reactions may be broadly classified,

1 but based on the primary cause as follows: A, those

2 which result in lung fibrosis, commonly referred to

3 as pneumoconiosis. These dusts contain free silica,

4 asbestos, etc. However, it is not necessary for

5 fibrous tissue to be formed in order for the

6 disease to be classified as pneumoconiosis. Do you

7 see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Is this information that was also known to

10 Chevron historically?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Could you go to page 7, please.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. If I’m going through this and you think

15 there’s something you want to point out or if you

16 take a break and you want to come back and say

17 something about it, it is okay. I’m trying to move

18 through it.

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. There is a section that says asbestosis.

21 Do you see that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. According to authorities cited by Drinker

24 and Hatch in their book, Industrial Dusts, the

25 pathology produced by asbestos is not like that of

1 silicosis.

2 It has a whole paragraph on asbestosis,

3 correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Go to page 9, please. Do you see the

6 second paragraph from the bottom, it says, as pointed

7 out by Drinker and Hatch, Industrial Dust 1936, it

8 is unfortunately impossible to evaluate dust

9 exposures with the arithmetical nicety that we would

10 have liked, yet it is commonly claimed by laymen

11 that prolonged exposure to low concentrations is

12 just as serious as short exposures to heavy

13 concentrations. Did I read that correctly?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. This claim is contrary to a fundamental

16 law of physiology. When you were being trained as

17 an industrial hygienist, did you have courses in

18 physiology?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. In discussing the subject, Clark and

21 Drinker, Industrial Medicine 1935, remarked that a

22 sub-threshold stimulus, (dust inhalation) for a

23 long time produces no reaction whereas a relatively

24 brief super threshold stimulus may cause a reaction.

25 Did I read that correctly?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Is that something you understood to be

3 true?

4 A. For some substances, yes.

5 Q. If workers are exposed to sudden heavy

6 concentrations, the threshold value suggested

7 previously would be correspondingly lowered. Did

8 you understand that as a principle of industrial

9 hygiene when you were studying it at Harvard?

10 A. Yes, but I don’t think this paragraph was

11 specifically related to asbestos, so I wouldn’t have

12 necessarily understood that as relating to asbestos.

13 Q. We are going to move on. See if we can

14 tie it up later. Go to page 27.

15 A. All right.

16 Q. Do you see where it says, this is entitled,

17 Insulating Operations, correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Do you see where it says what

20 physiological reactions are provoked by insulating

21 materials?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. According to Dr. Leroy Gardner, there’s a

24 citation to an article, asbestos dust with its

25 fibrous particles does not seem to be readily

1 handled by the protective mechanism of the lung,

2 correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Then a little further down under section B

5 there’s a question. What are the principal

6 insulating operations and how much dust is produced

7 during such operations. Do you see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And the first thing it says is insulating

10 steam lines, correct?

11 A. 12 inch steam lines, yes.

12 Q. Is that something that happened at Chevron

13 facilities?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And when they did dust counts they found

16 considerable dust as high as 18 million particles of

17 less than ten microns per cubic foot?

18 A. That’s what this says.

19 Q. That happens just from tapping insulation

20 blocks into place, true?

21 A. That’s what it says.

22 Q. It also says that samples taken while

23 applying asbestos sponge felt to a 12 inch steam line

24 had a dust concentration as high as 23,788,800

25 hundred particles of 10 microns or less, correct,

1 and that the average was 12,000 plus?

2 A. Yes. I’m not familiar with the term

3 asbestos sponge felt.

4 Q. The next section talks about insulating

5 cracking coil accumulators. Did that happen at the

6 the Chevron facilities?

7 A. I don’t know what that device is.

8 Q. The next section talks about insulating

9 treating plant acid suction lines. Do you know what

10 they are?

11 A. No, I don’t know specifically what

12 that is.

13 Q. The next talks about insulating a cracking

14 coil. Do you know what a cracking coil is?

15 A. I don’t know what a cracking coil is,

16 no.

17 Q. Isn’t the cracking coil kind of the

18 essence of how petroleum gets refined?

19 A. When I was working there was

20 something called the fluid Catalytic cracker. I

21 don’t know if it is a coil. It had a big reactor.

22 Q. Do you see where it says a carpenter’s

23 handsaw for insulating hot oil lines produced dust

24 in excess of 7 million particles?

25 A. Where are you? Under the cracking coil?

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Underneath it says dismantling or removing

4 old insulation. That is something that happened in

5 every Chevron refinery, correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And it says as a general rule the

8 dismantling or removal of old insulation is a more

9 dusty operation than the application of new

10 insulation. The old insulation is chopped or cut

11 with a hatchet or a small hand axe and pried loose

12 and pulled off with the hands.

13 Do you see that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Is that a practice you understood to

16 happen in Chevron facilities?

17 A. No. I don’t remember that.

18 Q. Would you agree that Chevron was aware

19 that as a general rule the dismantling or removal of

20 old insulation is a more dusty operation than the

21 application of new insulation?

22 A. That was my understanding, although it is

23 interesting the numbers they show are lower than the

24 numbers they showed for the installation.

25 Q. I’m sorry?

1 A. The numbers he showed for the exposures

2 were lower in this paragraph than they were when he

3 was describing installation.

4 Q. How did they compare to the numbers you

5 found when did you your hygiene surveys?

6 A. I never used this technique for measuring

7 asbestos.

8 Q. Now, if we can go to page 73, it says part

9 three, measures for reductions of the dust hazard.

10 Do you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. The question is how can the dust hazard be

13 reduced? Do you see that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Suppression of dust near its origin by the

16 use of exhaust, dust traps or water. It goes on to

17 explain that. Do you see that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. These were principles of industrial

20 hygiene known to Chevron going back to the 1930s,

21 correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And it says proper ventilation?

24 A. Excuse me. I don’t know when Chevron

25 received this document.

1 Q. Was it known as a principle of industrial

2 hygiene as part of your study going back to before

3 the ’50s that one of the ways you protect from

4 exposure to dust is to suppress the dust?

5 A. Yes. Whether it was known to Chevron, I

6 cannot tell you.

7 Q. And it says proper ventilation in

8 connection. Is that something that was known as a

9 principle of industrial hygiene to protect against

10 dust hazards?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And it says masks should be an ideal

13 preventive measure, but unfortunately most of the

14 masks stopping the dust also stop the respiration,

15 thus necessitating their frequent removal.

16 Did you understand that to be the case?

17 A. By the time I got involved with the field

18 I don’t recall that being a problem anymore.

19 Technology improved by then.

20 Q. Did you understand that to be a problem

21 historically?

22 A. I never remember hearing that particular

23 thing.

24 Q. A little further down it talks about dust

25 respirators and air masks. Respirators and masks

1 of various types have been used since the days of

2 the alchemists and are mentioned by Agricola, Ramazzini

3 and others. You know who Ramazzini is, correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. How long ago did Ramazzini live?

6 A. Long, long time ago centuries ago.

7 Q. He was one of the fathers of industrial

8 hygiene, correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. That is something you learned about in

11 your training at Harvard, correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And as far as back as Ramazzini, if you

14 wanted to prevent people from getting dust related

15 disease, one of the things that was known was to

16 give them respiratory protection, correct?

17 A. That was one of the things that was done,

18 yes.

19 Q. Now, can you go to 74, please?

20 A. All right.

21 Q. It says under the section A, design plant

22 for dust control. It says much can be accomplished

23 through design of new built — I can’t read that

24 word.

25 A. I can’t either.

1 Q. Or when old buildings are to be remodeled.

2 For instance, structural projections and ledges may

3 be minimized to prevent the accumulation of dust

4 that might later be released into the atmosphere or

5 by air currents or building vibration caused by

6 traveling cranes, vibrating machinery and

7 equipment that have large reciprocating parts.

8 Did you understand that to be a general

9 principle of industrial hygiene when you were at

10 Harvard?

11 A. No, I never remember hearing about that.

12 Q. Is the prevention of stirring up dust into

13 the atmosphere from machinery something that Chevron

14 was concerned about while you worked there?

15 A. I would say yes.

16 Q. And how far back had they been concerned

17 about that?

18 A. Good housekeeping was a concern probably

19 as long they had operating plants.

20 Q. That would include dust created when huge

21 cranes would go over areas where insulation dropped

22 off?

23 A. I don’t have any knowledge of that.

24 Q. Do you know in this case that Mr. Horvath

25 was a crane operator?

1 A. I was told he was a crane operator.

2 Q. Do you know what Chevron did to protect

3 Mr. Horvath from stirring up asbestos dust that he

4 drove his crane over?

5 A. No, I don’t.

6 Q. A little further down it says, store dusty

7 materials in dust tight bins. Do you remember see

8 that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Was that an understood principle of

11 industrial hygiene by Chevron?

12 A. Depending on the materials, yes.

13 Q. Does thin include asbestos-containing

14 materials?

15 A. Not as insulation-containing asbestos, no.

16 Q. I don’t understand.

17 A. Not insulation that contained small

18 amounts of asbestos. It was not stored in dust

19 tight bins as far as I know.

20 Q. What about insulation that was knocked off

21 and in pieces?

22 A. I don’t know what the practice of that

23 was. I believe they bagged it.

24 Q. How far back were they bagging it?

25 A. I have no idea.

1 Q. Why would you bag it?

2 A. So you wouldn’t stir the dust around as

3 you were moving this disposed material to whatever.

4 Q. Do you know whether that was done in the

5 Perth Amboy facility?

6 A. I don’t know.

7 Q. Should it have been done in your opinion?

8 A. I don’t have an opinion on that.

9 Q. It says isolate dusty processes. Where

10 possible several or all dusty processes may be

11 isolated from the rest of the plant.

12 Did you understand that to be a principle

13 of industrial hygiene going back to the 1930s?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can you tell me did Chevron isolate dusty

16 processes inside its refineries to protect employees

17 who may be exposed to asbestos-containing dust?

18 A. I don’t know to what extent they did that.

19 Q. When would you use an air purifying

20 respirator versus a regular respirator?

21 A. When exposures were more likely to be

22 hazardous.

23 Q. Did you ever recommend air purifying

24 respirators to protect people from exposure to

25 asbestos?

1 A. Personally?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. Air purifying respirators?

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. I believe I did.

6 Q. And when did you first start doing that?

7 A. I don’t recall.

8 Q. Was it before or after 1972?

9 A. Personally I don’t recall dealing with

10 asbestos much before 1972.

11 Q. And do you know when air purifying type

12 respirators were first available to workers to

13 protect them from asbestos in Chevron refineries?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Can you go to page 81, please.

16 A. All right.

17 Q. Jumping to the conclusion. Last paragraph

18 says, one common sense answer is that any atmosphere

19 in which dust is visible to the naked eye is

20 certainly too dusty to be breathed with safety by

21 human beings and the wise, farsighted, human employer

22 will immediately start to decrease the dust

23 content in any atmosphere where dust is

24 visible.

25 Did you understand that to be a principle

1 of industrial hygiene going back to the 1930s?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Do you agree with this?

4 A. No, I don’t think I do.

5 Q. Will you agree with me that dust may be

6 invisible and still be harmful? Asbestos-containing

7 dust may be invisible and still be harmful?

8 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

9 A. It may be.

10 Q. Now, just flip to the last page, 82,

11 please. Do you see all these people at the bottom?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. One is Mr. Yant, director of research and

14 development for Mine Safety Appliances Company. Do

15 you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Mine Safety Appliances supplied respirators

18 to Chevron, didn’t they?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Chevron had access to this individual if

21 they wanted to, didn’t they?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Then there’s a Dr. R.R. Sayers, senior

24 surgeon of the U.S. Public Health Service. Do you

25 know who he is?

1 A. Other than his title printed here, no, I

2 don’t remember the name.

3 Q. Would there have been anything to preclude

4 Chevron from consulting with the U.S. Public Health

5 Service about how to protect employees and their

6 families?

7 A. No.

8 Q. The next is Mr. Daniel Harrington, Chief,

9 Health and Safety Division, U.S. Bureau of Mines.

10 Anything that would prevent Chevron from consulting

11 with this man in 1937 if they wanted to know more

12 about protecting worker health and safety?

13 A. Probably not.

14 Q. The last man is H.N. Blakeslee, Department

15 of Accident Prevention, American Petroleum

16 Institute. Do you see that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. At some point in time Chevron actually

19 became a member of that institute, correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you know when it first became a member?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Do you know what I mean when I say maximum

24 allowable concentration?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. What does that mean?

2 A. That is the term that was used by the

3 American Conference of Environmental Hygienists

4 before they adopted the term threshold limit value.

5 Q. Maximum allowable doesn’t mean a weighted

6 average, it means the maximum you could go to,

7 correct?

8 A. No, I don’t believe it does. I believe it

9 was — it meant the time weighted average. As far

10 as — my recollection is that. When they changed

11 the name to threshold limit value, it was only a

12 name change.

13 Q. Maximum meaning you shouldn’t go above

14 that?

15 A. That was the terminology used.

16 Q. And Chevron used the term maximum

17 allowable concentrations as acceptable level of

18 contaminants in their refineries, including

19 asbestos, true?

20 A. It used that term as a commonly used term.

21 Q. Going back to the 1950s, correct?

22 A. Probably.

23 Q. The maximum allowable concentration for

24 asbestos dust in the ’50s was 5 million particles

25 per cubic foot, right?

1 A. That’s my understanding.

2 Q. Meaning that you shouldn’t go above that?

3 A. Shouldn’t have time weighted average

4 exposure above that.

5 Q. But it was not an assurances that

6 exposures below that were going to absolutely

7 protect you, right?

8 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

9 A. That’s true. That is one of the

10 principles of the threshold limit values.

11 Q. One of the things you learned as being

12 trained in industrial hygiene is there may be

13 people — that should protect most people, but there

14 may be people exposed under the threshold limit

15 that could still be injured, true?

16 A. That’s in the preamble of the threshold

17 limit values, yes.

18 Q. I put up on the screen a photograph of a

19 book by Dr. Hueper. Do you know who Dr. Hueper was?

20 A. No, I don’t. I guess it has his title

21 there, but I don’t know who he was.

22 Q. Are you aware or have you been shown by

23 Chevron any of the writings of Dr. Hueper as it

24 relates to asbestos and cancer?

25 A. I remember hearing his name before. I

1 don’t remember ever using his materials while I was

2 working for Chevron.

3 Q. Are you aware that as early as 1942

4 Dr. Hueper wrote in his textbook about asbestos and

5 cancer?

6 A. I believe I heard that before.

7 Q. You are aware that your boss, along with

8 the Chevron medical director, attended meetings of

9 the American Petroleum Institute and Medical

10 Advisory Committee, correct?

11 A. Some organization called that or something

12 else, yes.

13 Q. In fact, that was in his deposition,

14 correct?

15 A. I believe so, yes.

16 MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark these P-4,

17 P-5 and P-6.

18 (The above documents are marked as P-4,

19 P-5 and P-6 for Identification.)

20 Q. I put before you what’s been marked P-4,

21 which is a July 2, 1945 report entitled Carcinogenic

22 Hydrocarbons and Related Compounds, a Literature

23 Review. On the top, for information only, not for

24 publication. A contribution of information to the

25 members of the API Medical Advisory Committee.

1 Have you ever seen this document before?

2 A. I don’t recall ever seeing this document.

3 Q. Can you turn to the first page, second

4 full paragraph says, “while carcinogenic properties

5 are generally associated with certain polynuclear

6 aromatics and their derivatives, there are many

7 substance entirely unrelated to these compounds

8 which have been reported as having similar

9 cancer-producing ability ”

10 Do you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. It says, “among these may be mentioned

13 asbestos.” Do you see that?

14 A. Yes. I see that.

15 Q. Was this information ever related to you

16 by anyone at Chevron, that as far back as 1945 there

17 were reports given to the American Petroleum

18 Institute about asbestos and cancer from another

19 manufacturer?

20 A. I don’t recall that, no.

21 Q. Was this information ever provided to you

22 by Chevron as part of your research in preparation

23 for today’s deposition?

24 A. No.

25 Q. I’m going to move through this quickly.

1 If you don’t know about it, fine.

2 I put up an excerpt from Hueper, the same

3 Hueper in 1948 entitled Environmental and

4 Occupational Cancer.

5 There’s a section on asbestos.

6 Do you see that?

7 A. I see it is up there, yes.

8 Q. Were you ever shown this information by

9 Chevron during the time that you worked for them?

10 A. Not that I recall.

11 Q. Were you ever shown this information in

12 preparation for your deposition today?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Do you know what the American Public

15 Health Association is?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Were you ever a member?

18 A. No.

19 Q. I’ll move to the next one.

20 Did you know that Chevron was a member of

21 the API Safety Committee board of directors as far

22 back as 1948?

23 A. That doesn’t surprise me.

24 Q. Have you seen this document before?

25 A. I don’t recall ever seeing this document,

1 no.

2 Q. Was this document ever shared with you

3 while you were employed by Chevron?

4 A. Not that I recall.

5 Q. This is a document Entitled Occupational

6 Cancer, a Challenge to the Physician, sponsored by

7 the Medical Society of the State of New York.

8 A. I see that.

9 Q. Could you turn to page five of the

10 document?

11 A. Okay.

12 Q. Do you see where it says the New York

13 State Occupational Cancer Committee, an unofficial

14 agency with the following membership. Do you see

15 that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And do you see that the American Petroleum

18 Institute was a member of that committee?

19 A. I see that, yes.

20 Q. And at this point in time Standard Oil of

21 California was already a member of the American

22 Petroleum Institute, wasn’t it?

23 A. I don’t know what the date of this

24 document is.

25 Q. 1949.

1 A. Okay. I believe so, yes.

2 Q. And do you see that Dr. Hueper, the person

3 who wrote the book, is also sitting on the same

4 committee?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Could you flip to page 14. Do you see

7 where it lists asbestos as a potential cancer agent

8 for the respiratory system?

9 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

10 A. I see asbestos is listed on here. It is

11 hard to read the title.

12 Q. In fact, one of the things that was being

13 monitored by this committee way back in 1949 was

14 mesothelioma, true?

15 A. I don’t see that on here.

16 Q. Look at this page here. Flip a few pages.

17 A. I see it is listed here.

18 Q. Terms and pathological diagnoses included

19 under cancer and other malignant tumors and

20 mesothelioma is listed, correct?

21 A. I see that, yes.

22 Q. Now, this particular document, were you

23 aware, it was circulated widely within the American

24 Petroleum Institute?

25 A. No, I’m not aware of that.

1 MR. PLACITELLA: We have to change the

2 tape.

3 (Recess taken)

5 Q. You have in front of you an April 12, 1949

6 report entitled Summary of the Plant Industrial

7 Hygiene Problems by Berry, Hammonda, Bonsib and

8 Hendricks. The medical Department Research Section

9 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. Do you see

10 that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Have you ever seen this document before?

13 A. I don’t recall seeing this document.

14 Q. This was never shared with you by Exxon –

15 I mean by Chevron?

16 A. I don’t recall.

17 Q. This man Hammond, you knew him, correct?

18 A. I knew him a little bit, yes.

19 Q. You saw him at API meetings?

20 A. I saw him occasionally at API meetings.

21 He was kind of going out about the time I was coming

22 in.

23 Q. And this is also authored by the same

24 Mr. Bonsib who authored the 1937 report 12 years

25 earlier, correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. By this time the knowledge concerning the

3 dangers of asbestos had progressed. Would you

4 agree?

5 A. According to the things you showed me

6 earlier. There’s some more information, yes.

7 Q. Now, I tried to put little stickers to

8 make it easy. If you go to the first sticker, you

9 see a page 4?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Just to be clear, there’s multiple phases

12 to this report and the section of this report is by

13 Hammond, the same man. If you go back a few pages

14 so we are on the same page, page 1?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. It is industrial hygiene problems observed

17 in the Bayway refinery, right?

18 A. Baytown refinery.

19 Q. Do you know where that is?

20 A. Texas, I believe.

21 Q. And if you go back to page 4 — let me

22 shortcut to the section. Go to the last tab here.

23 A. Last tab?

24 Q. Last tobacco. We will stay with cancer

25 for a second.

1 Do you see where it says this is part of

2 an appendix summary of preliminary industrial

3 hygiene survey at Baytown?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And under the section says material or

6 condition, silica and asbestos?

7 A. Okay.

8 Q. Do you see that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. It says potential diseases, silicosis,

11 fibrosis, erythema and cancer of the lung?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And what occupations does it say are at

14 risk for cancer of the lung?

15 A. Brick masons and helpers, insulators,

16 laborers and pipe benders.

17 Q. These aren’t people who just applied

18 insulation, correct?

19 A. Some of them are not.

20 Q. Can you tell me at what point in time

21 Chevron or Standard Oil of California warned brick

22 mason’s, helpers, laborers or pipe benders that they

23 might be able to get cancer from working with or

24 around asbestos?

25 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

1 A. I don’t think all of these people were

2 necessarily exposed or at risk due to asbestos.

3 Some of them may have been at risk due to silica,

4 according to the authors.

5 Q. But it is clear that at least Exxon

6 recognized there was a risk for getting lung cancer

7 from asbestos by 1949, correct?

8 A. According to this, yes.

9 Q. Is there any reason to believe that

10 Chevron would have less knowledge?

11 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

12 A. I can’t say that they had less or more

13 knowledge.

14 Q. That’s fair. Now, would you agree with me

15 that a company such as Standard Oil Company of

16 California or Chevron had a morale responsibility to

17 prevent workers from getting cancer?

18 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

19 That calls for a legal conclusion and I think it is

20 very hypothetical.

21 If you are able to handle that, you

22 can answer it.

23 MR. LaSALA: I don’t want it to be

24 hypothetical.

25 MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this

1 P-7.

2 (The above document is marked as

3 P-7 for Identification.)

4 Q. Have you ever seen this document before?

5 A. What is the date of the document?

6 Q. 1951. April 12, 1951.

7 A. I don’t recall seeing this document.

8 Q. This document refers to the moral

9 responsibility of preventing occupational disease,

10 including cancers, correct?

11 A. You are referring to the bottom of the

12 page.

13 Q. Yes, sir.

14 A. It is kind of a double negative in here.

15 I think it speaks for itself.

16 Q. And this was something that was recognized

17 from at least the early 1950s by the organization

18 that your company was a part of?

19 A. Without carefully reading the whole

20 document, I couldn’t come to that conclusion.

21 Q. Are you aware of the 1955 monograph by

22 Mr. Hueper or Dr. Hueper concerning environmental

23 causes of cancer of the lung?

24 A. I’m not specifically.

25 Q. You are aware, I assume, that your boss

1 started at Chevron in the early 1950s?

2 A. 1955.

3 Q. And the very year that he started working

4 at Chevron he was aware of the relationship between

5 asbestos and cancer. You are aware of that,

6 correct?

7 A. I don’t know that that’s true.

8 Q. He never told you during the entire time

9 you worked there that he knew about the dangers of

10 asbestos and cancer from the very first day he

11 walked on the job?

12 A. No, he never did.

13 Q. I want to show you — see if this helps

14 refresh your memory, Mr. Spencer’s testimony –

15 A. Spencer?

16 Q. Spence. Sorry, I did this late at night.

17 Page 131, do you have it, counsel?

18 MR. LaSALA: I do, thank you.

19 Q. And he is asked, “And by 1955 you had

20 learned that asbestos or asbestosis were suspected

21 of being causally connected with certain forms of

22 cancer. Isn’t that true? Yes, I think Hueper was

23 one of the people who put that on his list.”

24 Did I read that correctly?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Does that refresh your memory as to when

2 your boss first had information concerning the

3 association between asbestos and cancer?

4 A. I think someplace in this transcript it

5 refers to the fact he may not have learned it at

6 that point, but learned it much later when he was

7 preparing for a deposition of his own, but I’m not

8 sure.

9 Q. You think he recanted this testimony

10 somewhere?

11 A. He may have. It is a recollection that

12 I have.

13 Q. The problem is he never told you about

14 what he knew about asbestos and cancer, did he?

15 A. He never told me what knew. He never said

16 there was a relationship to me. Never told me that

17 specifically.

18 Q. As somebody who dedicated their life to

19 protecting the health and safety of workers, isn’t

20 that something you would have liked to know if your

21 boss knew it?

22 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. He also said he went to the API Medical

25 Committee meeting with the Chevron Medical Director,

1 or Standard Oil Medical Director. Do you remember

2 that testimony?

3 A. Yes.

4 MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this P-8.

5 (The above document is marked as

6 P-8 for Identification.)

7 Q. P-8 is a 1955 Medical Advisory Committee

8 Report and Publications listing. Do you see that?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10 Q. Were you ever shown this document during

11 the course of your work at Chevron or Standard Oil?

12 A. I don’t remember seeing it.

13 Q. Were you ever shown this by Chevron in

14 preparation for your deposition?

15 A. I don’t recall that I did.

16 Q. Turn to the page Bates marked 07814. Do

17 you see that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Do you see number 7, the carcinogencity of

20 bituminous compounds?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Is that the document we looked at before?

23 A. I don’t think it is.

24 Q. We will go back during the break. The

25 next one says some selected chemicals employed in

100

1 the petroleum industry, their uses and necessary

2 precautionary safeguards by Bonsib, 1946. Was that

3 ever shared with you?

4 A. I don’t remember seeing that document.

5 Q. Number 9 is Environmental and Occupational

6 Cancer, W.C. Hueper, Public Health Reports. Do you

7 see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. That is the one I put up there before

10 that. You were never shown, right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. The next one is 10, Industrial Work

13 Clothes, Their Provision and Laundering by Roy S.

14 Bonsib. Do you see that?

15 A. I see that.

16 Q. Were you ever given that?

17 A. I don’t remember ever seeing anything like

18 that.

19 Q. And number 12 is Occupational Cancer, a

20 Challenge to the Physician, New York State

21 Occupational Cancer Committee.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Do you recall seeing that?

24 A. Saw that.

25 Q. That is a document we went over before,

101

1 correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. So all these publications were available

4 to Chevron from the first day your boss set foot on

5 on Standard Oil property, correct?

6 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

7 A. I don’t know it was available on the first

8 day.

9 Q. In the first year?

10 A. I don’t know when this was published, so I

11 can’t say that.

12 Q. It is a listing up to 1955, sir.

13 A. Right.

14 MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this P-9.

15 (The above document is marked as

16 P-9 for Identification.)

17 Q. Now, Mr. Dryden, this is an article

18 published from Diseases of the Chest in 1956. Are

19 you aware of that publication? Of the publication

20 generally, not the article.

21 A. I have a vague recollection of that as a

22 journal, I guess.

23 Q. And the title of this article is Malignant

24 Mesothelioma of the Pleura, H.B. Eisenstadt, M.D.,

25 Port Arthur, Texas. Do you see that?

102

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Have you ever seen this document before?

3 A. I don’t have a recollection of seeing it.

4 Q. This is not something that was given to

5 you by Chevron to familiarize you of the potential

6 hazards of people working in a refinery, correct?

7 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

8 A. In this case?

9 Q. No. At any time.

10 A. At any time. I don’t recall ever seeing

11 it.

12 Q. Now, this was in the open medical

13 literature and therefore available to Chevron with

14 all its resources as we discussed, correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And could you go to page 3, please.

17 Do you see where it talks about who is being

18 reported on?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. This is not somebody who applied

21 insulation, this is a refinery foreman, correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. It is a refinery foreman who developed

24 mesothelioma, correct?

25 A. Yes.

103

1 Q. And this was known by virtue of this

2 document that people who did not work –

3 A. Excuse me. I’m not picking up this was

4 about mesothelioma specifically. It was a refinery

5 foreman.

6 Q. The whole article is about mesothelioma

7 and what they found in this foreman.

8 A. Okay.

9 Q. If during lunch you want to take a look at

10 it and you think I’m mischaracterizing, we will go

11 back to it.

12 A. I’m not suggesting you are.

13 Q. And Chevron never told you, or Standard

14 Oil never told you that as early as 1956 there were

15 people, just foremen that coming down with

16 mesothelioma who worked in refineries?

17 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

18 Q. Did they?

19 A. I’m sorry. I need to have the question

20 refreshed.

21 Q. I’ll withdraw the question.

22 MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this P-10.

23 (The above document is marked as

24 P-10 for Identification.)

25 Q. I’ve given you an article from

104

1 November 1960 entitled Primary Malignant

2 Mesothelioma of the Pleura by the same Eisenstadt

3 and now an additional Dr. Wilson. Do you see that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Also out of Port Arthur, Texas.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you understand they had refineries in

8 Port Arthur, Texas?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And is this the first time you have ever

11 seen this document?

12 A. I can’t say for sure.

13 Q. If you look under where it says case

14 reports on the first page, do you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And it talks about case number 1?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. A 57 year old refinery foreman noticed a

19 diffuse pain in his upper chest and upper abdomen

20 which gradually increased in intensity. The onset

21 very insidious and his initial discomfort was at

22 first not clearly separated from a previously

23 present angina pectoris in spite of the fact that

24 the chest pain had changed in character and

25 persistence and no longer responded to vasodilating

105

1 remedies. Do you see that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. This is the same foreman from the earlier

4 article, isn’t it?

5 A. It appears to be.

6 Q. Go to the next page, please. The second

7 page talks now about an additional oil refinery

8 foreman with mesothelioma, doesn’t it?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Please go to page 514, the last paragraph.

11 Do you see where it says our second case is

12 particularly interesting because of the history –

13 A. Okay, now I got it.

14 Q. Of long-time exposure to asbestos and the

15 discovery of asbestos bodies in the lung biopsy

16 specimen. The etiologic association of asbestos and

17 malignant mesothelioma has been repeatedly discussed

18 in the literature. Not all investigators agree

19 that exposure to asbestos predisposes to malignancy

20 of the pleura. However, such history alerted the

21 suspicions of the authors in the second case, and

22 they talk about his autopsy. Do you see that?

23 A. I see that.

24 Q. Was this information ever transmitted to

25 you by Standard Oil Company of California or Chevron

106

1 in apprising you of the potential risks of people

2 who work in refineries?

3 A. Not that I recall.

4 Q. Typically refinery foremen, sir, aren’t

5 people who physically handle asbestos, correct?

6 A. I’m not sure.

7 Q. Their job is usually to walk around and

8 see what people do. Would you agree with that?

9 A. Some foremen may be actually working

10 foremen.

11 Q. Now, you are aware that by 1960 the state

12 of medical knowledge had changed again and that

13 people who never worked with asbestos were being

14 found to have mesothelioma? Are you aware of that?

15 A. I can’t draw that conclusion from these

16 papers.

17 Q. So up to this point in time that’s not

18 something that you are aware of from anything

19 you reviewed?

20 A. What is not?

21 Q. That people non-occupationally exposed to

22 asbestos were getting mesothelioma as early as 1960.

23 A. I didn’t have any knowledge of that.

24 Q. Sir, were you ever made aware of the study

25 by Wagner in 1960 that related to household and

107

1 environmental exposures?

2 A. I don’t recall this either.

3 Q. You were aware of Dr. Selikoff as an

4 expert in asbestos-related disease, correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. In fact, you personally attended symposium

7 by Dr. Selikoff on asbestos?

8 A. I don’t recall that, but if I testified to

9 that before, I would not recant that testimony.

10 Q. That’s fine. And as part of your research

11 were you ever given materials from the 1964

12 conference on the biological effects of asbestos

13 hosted by Dr. Selikoff?

14 A. I don’t recall. I don’t know whether I

15 did or not.

16 Q. You just don’t recall as you sit here

17 today?

18 A. I don’t recall. I didn’t in preparation

19 for this, but I don’t recall whether I did before

20 this.

21 Q. Are you aware of a conference in New York

22 where many companies attended that was hosted by Dr.

23 Selikoff where he published extensively in a book

24 about the dangers of asbestos?

25 A. I have a recollection, faint recollection

108

1 of that.

2 Q. And are you familiar with the fact that

3 Dr. Hueper, the same Dr. Hueper who was an advisor

4 to the API, presented at that conference?

5 A. Am I aware of what?

6 Q. That Dr. Hueper presented at that

7 conference?

8 A. No.

9 MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this P-11.

10 (The above document is marked as

11 P-11 for Identification.)

12 Q. I put up in front of you P-11, which is

13 entitled Occupational and Non-Occupational Exposure

14 to Asbestos, W.C. Hueper of the National Cancer

15 Institute. Have you ever seen this document before?

16 A. I don’t recall seeing it.

17 Q. Do you recall whether this information in

18 this document was ever shared by Chevron or Standard

19 Oil Company of California with you?

20 A. I haven’t seen the document and I don’t

21 recall anyone sharing the information.

22 Q. It says on the first page that since 1935

23 an increasing amount of epidemiologic, clinical and

24 pathologic evidence moreover incriminates this

25 health hazard as one of the environmental sources of

109

1 cancer of the lung and more recently also of

2 mesothelioma of the pleura and peritoneum, although

3 some commercially interested parties and their

4 medical guardians and protectors still prefer for

5 their own reasons and motives to deny the existence

6 of the dangerous and usually fatal sequelae of a

7 respiratory contact with asbestos dust. Did I read

8 that correctly.

9 A. Well done.

10 Q. Was that something that Chevron was still

11 denying in 1964?

12 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

13 A. I don’t know that Chevron was denying it.

14 I don’t know what Chevron’s knowledge was.

15 Q. When you started there and got trained in

16 1968, did they ever tell you that non-occupationally

17 exposed people could get mesothelioma?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Could you flip over to page 188. Do you

20 see down where it says population groups with

21 occupational and environment exposure to asbestos?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Do you see on the right hand side where it

24 says non-occupational groups?

25 A. Yes.

110

1 Q. It says residents in vicinity of asbestos

2 processing and textile mills inhaling plant

3 effluents polluted with asbestos dust and

4 individuals living and working along roads on which

5 asbestos is trucked; and inhabitants of houses with

6 asbestos insulation. Did I read that correctly?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. At this point in time can you tell me what

9 Chevron was doing in its facilities where it was

10 making asbestos-containing products to prevent the

11 asbestos from being released into the atmosphere?

12 A. Tell me again the date of this?

13 Q. 1964.

14 A. No, I can’t. I wasn’t there.

15 Q. Do you see on that same page, sir, where

16 it talks about occupational groups at risk?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And it includes carpenters?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And construction workers, right?

21 A. Okay.

22 Q. That is different from people who are

23 installing the asbestos, that’s listed separately,

24 correct?

25 A. Yes.

111

1 Q. Were you made aware when you started with

2 Chevron or Standard Oil in 1968 that there was

3 respected public literature that carpenters and

4 construction workers were at risk of getting

5 mesothelioma?

6 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

7 A. No, I was not aware of that.

8 Q. Go to the top of 189, please. It says,

9 therefore, air polluted with asbestos dust

10 (repairmen, maintenance men, engineers, mechanics,

11 laboratory technicians, office workers, medical

12 personnel, truckers, railroad workers, yardmen,

13 construction workers, shipyard workers, automobile

14 plant and garage employees.)

15 Do you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. All people that this author from the

18 National Cancer Institute and advisor to the API say

19 were at risk for getting asbestos disease, correct?

20 A. Yes, I believe these are the same. I

21 didn’t looked at it carefully. Basically the same

22 professions.

23 Q. Now, that even included homes that were

24 insulated with asbestos, right?

25 A. Yes.

112

1 Q. Sir, I’m not going to go through this one

2 in detail. Were you ever shown this document by

3 Newhouse and Thompson on the Epidemiology of

4 Mesothelioma Tumors in the London area published in

5 1965?

6 A. I don’t recall this article.

7 Q. So you have no knowledge about what that

8 article talks about when it talks about domestic

9 exposure?

10 A. Other than what is highlighted here no.

11 Q. You are aware my client, Mrs. Horvath,

12 died of mesothelioma and her exposure was domestic,

13 correct?

14 A. That’s my understanding.

15 Q. And based on this information that I have

16 shown you, Chevron had the opportunity to tell

17 Mr. Horvath how to protect his wife, correct?

18 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

19 A. Chevron had the opportunity to tell

20 Mr. Horvath –

21 Q. About mesothelioma and asbestos and how to

22 how to protect his wife.

23 MR. LaSALA: Same objection.

24 A. I think that is a stretch from what I’ve

25 seen.

113

1 Q. Okay. You are entitled to your opinion.

2 Now, can you tell me why a company would

3 do a cancer study of its own workers and then agree

4 to keep that information confidential and silent and

5 not tell anybody?

6 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

7 A. No.

8 Q. Is that something that you would condone

9 as somone who has dedicated their life to protecting

10 the public health?

11 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

12 A. If it showed there were hazards, I would,

13 yes, I would object to that.

14 MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this P-12.

15 (The above document is marked as

16 P-12 for Identification.)

17 Q. Have you had time to look at it?

18 A. I looked at the first paragraph.

19 Q. Have you ever seen this document before?

20 A. I don’t recall seeing this document, at

21 least not the cover letter.

22 Q. And it is a November 22, 1965 document on

23 Shell Oil Company letterhead?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. The first paragraph says, there has

114

1 been considerable discussion in medical circles in

2 recent years concerning the possibility of harmful

3 effects to insulators from long term exposure to

4 asbestos. This matter has been a recent subject of

5 an investigation by the API Central Committee on

6 Medicine and Health. Attached is a report which

7 summarizes the current status of the study which was

8 presented at the mid-year API meeting of the Central

9 Committee.

10 Your boss was on that committee at this

11 point in time, wasn’t he?

12 A. I’m not familiar with the term Central

13 Committee, but I think so.

14 Q. It includes a summary of the finding from

15 a recent survey of workers in the petroleum industry

16 to determine if there was any potential problems

17 from exposure to asbestos. Do you see that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And then the next page talks about the

20 health of refinerymen applying asbestos insulation?

21 Do you see that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. It starts out by saying recent reports

24 describing a high incidence of pulmonary

25 neoplasms — that’s cancer, right?

115

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. — among asbestos workers has focused

3 attention on the health of refinery craftsmen

4 engaged in insulation activities. To obtain

5 information relative to the experience of petroleum

6 companies with the help of their insulators, members

7 of the medical and health committee were polled

8 inviting them to contribute personnel

9 information on this subject to a common pool. I

10 read that correctly?

11 A. Personal information.

12 Q. Personal. Assurances were offered that

13 the identity of the donor and the source of the

14 information would not be revealed to preserve their

15 confidentiality. Do you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Before presenting an analysis of the

18 available information on petroleum company

19 experience, a brief history of asbestos as an

20 industrial hazard is appropriate. Do you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Now, why, as someone involved in public

23 health, would a condition for doing a study be not

24 to tell anybody what the results were?

25 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

116

1 Q. Or who contributed them?

2 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

3 A. Mainly, I think, this was to avoid other

4 oil companies to know what was contributed by the oil

5 companies that had done the study.

6 Q. Well, the problem is at this point in time

7 Chevron really had nothing to contribute to this study

8 because they weren’t following the health of their

9 employees, true?

10 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

11 A. I don’t agree they weren’t following the

12 health of their employees.

13 Q. They weren’t taking x-rays of the

14 employees at this point who were exposed to

15 asbestos, right? That didn’t happen until 1972.

16 A. They were doing periodic physicals of all

17 employees regardless of their occupation.

18 Q. So, to your knowledge did Chevron

19 contribute to this study?

20 A. I don’t know.

21 Q. You’re eventually in charge of industrial

22 hygiene. Was the results of this study ever made

23 known to you?

24 A. I don’t know because this is a preliminary

25 audit. I don’t know what the final results would

117

1 look like.

2 Q. Was any internal study made of the

3 American Petroleum Industry results made known to

4 you?

5 A. I don’t recall.

6 Q. Do you think that was something –

7 A. You are talking about when I was — early

8 stages of my career?

9 Q. At any point in time.

10 A. Any point in time. Yes. I remember

11 hearing about some epidemiology study. This is an

12 exposure study.

13 Q. And if you just go to the last page, page

14 4, the author says that based upon personal

15 observations, it is his opinion that the inhalation

16 exposure to asbestos among refinery insulators is

17 neither minimal nor insignificant and I urge the

18 medical and health committee to continue studying

19 this potential health problem. Did I read that

20 correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you know whether the medical and health

23 committee continued to study this problem?

24 A. I don’t.

25 Q. Were you ever given the results of any

118

1 study conducted by the medical and health committee

2 of the American Petroleum Institute of insulation

3 exposure inside refineries?

4 A. I don’t recall whether I was.

6 (LUNCHEON RECESS)

8 MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this P-13.

9 (The above document is marked

10 as P-13 for Identification.)

11 Q. Mr. Dryden, over lunch did you have the

12 opportunity to look at any of the documents you went

13 through to see if there were any corrections you

14 wanted to make?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Am I correct, that as hard as you tried

17 to make the refinery safe, even after OSHA was

18 passed, the Chevron refineries had a terrible safety

19 record?

20 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

21 A. I wouldn’t say that.

22 Q. Just so we want to be clear, when you say

23 you wouldn’t say that, you are saying that you don’t

24 believe they had a terrible safety record, not that

25 you didn’t try hard?

119

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. I want the record to be clear.

3 A. I will not say I wasn’t trying hard.

4 Q. Can you tell me who J.D. Moore is?

5 A. Jim Moore was the manager of the Oak Point

6 plant, I believe, at that time.

7 Q. You have in front of you a memo from J.D.

8 Moore to all supervisors, correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. You have seen this before, correct?

11 A. I don’t recall seeing this memo.

12 Q. You weren’t shown this? You didn’t see

13 this in your 1997 deposition?

14 A. Oh, I may have. I don’t remember.

15 Q. It says to all supervisors. “As you know,

16 our safety record at Oak Point is terrible.”

17 Correct?

18 A. Yes. that’s what it says.

19 Q. Now, can you tell me. In the upper

20 right hand corner, do you know whose handwriting that

21 is?

22 A. I see TTH on there, but I don’t know. I

23 think that meant he wrote it. That would be Tim

24 Hubbard.

25 Q. Who was he?

120

1 A. At the time he would have been the safety

2 supervisor or engineer for Chevron Chemical’s home

3 office.

4 Q. Can you tell me why they would keep track

5 of who returned this memo after it was distributed?

6 Was that normal practice?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Somebody distributes a memo on safety and

9 somebody in the corporate office tries to get them

10 all back? Was that normal practice?

11 A. No, I don’t think it was normal practice,

12 but I think it was probably because of the first

13 sentence.

14 Q. Because they didn’t want it to get out

15 their the plant manager felt there was a terrible

16 safety record so they tried to collect them all

17 back?

18 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

19 Q. Isn’t that what that says?

20 A. I think it is probably because they didn’t

21 want it to show up in 2007.

22 Q. Unfortunately it has.

23 A. It has.

24 Q. Okay. Now, Chevron never developed a

25 program to follow workers potentially exposed to

121

1 asbestos and their health, correct?

2 A. No, I don’t think that’s correct. I have.

3 Q. I put up on the screen an excerpt from

4 Mr. Spence’s deposition. He is asked, did your

5 company, Chevron, ever develop such a program to

6 follow workers potentially exposed to asbestos or

7 the development of occupational disease. Answer,

8 not to my knowledge. As I say, I never heard

9 anything about it from them.

10 Do you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. He would be in a position to know,

13 wouldn’t he?

14 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

15 A. No, I don’t think he would. He had some

16 job changes that kind of took him into other areas

17 and particularly in 1993 I wouldn’t necessarily know

18 that he would remember it that well.

19 Q. When is it your recollection that Chevron

20 first started following people exposed to asbestos

21 to see if they got sick?

22 A. To see if they got sick?

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. That is a different subject, but I don’t

25 know if they did specifically do morbidity studies

122

1 on asbestos workers or insulation workers.

2 Q. You don’t remember?

3 A. I don’t remember.

4 Q. Would you agree that the appropriate

5 response of an industrial hygienist witnessing

6 asbestos-containing visible dust would be to make a

7 study of it and ensure adequate controls for

8 employee safety?

9 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

10 A. I need you to repeat that.

11 Q. Would you agree that the appropriate

12 response of an industrial hygienist witnessing

13 asbestos-containing visible dust in the plant would

14 be to make a study and ensure adequate controls for

15 employee safety, if necessary?

16 A. I think that would be a reasonable

17 approach.

18 Q. Chevron had the capability of doing

19 airborne dust sampling by the mid ’50s. Do you

20 agree?

21 A. They had very primitive means of doing it

22 at that time.

23 Q. But they did have it?

24 A. Yes, they were able to do something.

25 Q. But Chevron, until sometime in the ’70′s,

123

1 never monitored for asbestos dust in the air, true?

2 A. I don’t know. Actually, I think that is

3 not true.

4 Q. Do you know what a turnaround is?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. What is a turnaround?

7 A. A turnaround is basically a complete

8 shutdown of a processing unit to rebuild it,

9 reconstruct it, whatever.

10 Q. One of the things they do as part of the

11 furnace around is strip the insulation off the unit

12 and put it back on, correct?

13 A. They don’t necessarily do a complete

14 insulation removal and replacement, but certainly

15 any parts they have to work on or remove or change.

16 Q. There’s a lot taken on and off?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And that would require the removal of a

19 lot of asbestos-containing products. Would you

20 agree?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Knowing that, Chevron never did any

23 testing or dust monitoring during that process?

24 A. Chevron probably wouldn’t do it then

25 because at that point that part of the facility is

124

1 turned over to the outside contractor and they would

2 be responsible for that themselves.

3 Q. At that point Chevron’s position was we

4 don’t have to worry about it, it is the outside

5 contractor?

6 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

7 A. Chevron had little or no personnel in the

8 area during a turnaround.

9 Q. How did you stop, for instance, when there

10 was a refinery near the water and the wind was

11 blowing, how did you stop the insulation, the dust

12 from blowing to other parts of the plant during the

13 turnaround?

14 A. I don’t know.

15 Q. Chevron really never had any idea about

16 how much asbestos was released during the

17 turnaround, true?

18 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

19 You can answer.

20 A. May have had a general idea, no

21 specifics.

22 Q. When you say general, what do you mean?

23 A. There would be some released during that

24 kind of work.

25 Q. But since no test was done, no one knows

125

1 how much?

2 A. I don’t know for sure no tests were done.

3 I’m not aware of any.

4 Q. This is Mr. Spence. He says, the question

5 is, and the reason for that is that you know of no

6 measurements of dust done in Chevron plants during a

7 shutdown or turnaround, and he interrupts and says I

8 don’t know whether measurements were made, and he

9 says he was no longer involved.

10 How about you? Do you know if they were

11 done?

12 A. I don’t know if they were done, except

13 after the OSHA standard was put in place. Then it

14 would have been up to the outside contractor to take

15 care of that.

16 Q. Up until the federal government made it

17 happen, it didn’t happen?

18 A. As far as I know, that’s true. But I

19 don’t know for sure.

20 Q. Now, the first surveys that were done for

21 release of asbestos in any Chevron plant were not

22 until 1972, correct?

23 A. I don’t know.

24 Q. I put up on an interrogatory answer from

25 Chevron in another litigation and listed on than the

126

1 right side, it is not that clear, but I don’t see

2 anything before 1972. You don’t know one way or

3 the other?

4 A. I don’t know one way or the other.

5 Q. The first precautions for asbestos in

6 Chevron refineries really didn’t happen until the

7 late 1970s, true?

8 A. First precautions for –

9 Q. Asbestos in Chevron didn’t happen until

10 the late 1970s.

11 To be fair to you, do you know this man

12 Vandivort?

13 A. No.

14 Q. He was a safety inspector in the Chevron

15 facility. You don’t know who he is?

16 A. In Perth Amboy?

17 Q. No. I don’t think he was — El Segundo

18 maybe.

19 A. I don’t know the name.

20 Q. I’ll move past that.

21 In 1973, there was a safety audit. The

22 first ever safety audit was conducted in a Chevron

23 facility, correct?

24 A. I don’t have that knowledge.

25 MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this P-14.

127

1 (The above document is marked as

2 P-14 for Identification.)

3 Q. For the record, you have in front of a

4 November 13, 1973 memo to Mr. J.D. Moore entitled

5 Safety Audit Oak Point Plant?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Correct. It was from a Mr. Blair?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. That’s the Mr. Blair whose deposition you

10 said you read or a different person? Different

11 person?

12 A. Blair? It could be.

13 Q. I’m sorry. Do you know who Mr. Blair

14 was?

15 A. Yes. Human resources personnel manager for

16 Chevron Chemical Company.

17 Q. The whole company?

18 A. Chevron Chemical Company.

19 Q. And did that include refineries?

20 A. No.

21 Q. What did it include?

22 A. The chemical facilities in 1973 were

23 pesticide plants, fertilizer plants, Oak Point

24 additives plant.

25 Q. Wasn’t there a refinery at Oak Point as

128

1 well?

2 A. No. That may have been somebody else’s

3 refinery. Not a Chevron refinery.

4 Q. It says safety auditor, Oak Point, first

5 ever in SOCAL. Does that refresh your recollection as

6 to whether this was first — SOCAL stands for what?

7 A. Standard Oil Company of California. I don’t

8 know who wrote that on there, so I don’t know.

9 Q. And can we go to appendix A?

10 A. Okay.

11 MR. LaSALA: Now that you are

12 getting specific, I’m not going to direct him

13 not to answer, but I’m objecting to any questions

14 concerning any studies or dust counts that pertain

15 to any plant other than Perth Amboy as directed –

16 as recommended by the Special Master.

17 MR. PLACITELLA: I don’t think I was

18 precluded from asking questions. You may not have

19 to give me anything, which is pretty clear I didn’t

20 get it all.

21 So I had to do some of my own homework.

22 MR. LaSALA: There’s been no

23 direction not to answer.

24 MR. PLACITELLA: I understand.

25 Q. Now, there’s a form to fill out called

129

1 loss prevention program. Do you see that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And go to page 3 for work area protection.

4 Rating was poor to fair, correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And for personal protective equipment the

7 rating was fair which meant partial, but

8 inadequate or ineffective provision, distribution

9 and use of personal protective equipment?

10 A. Specifically described along the right hand

11 border there.

12 Q. Talks about respirators and safety

13 showers, correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And the next page, when it talks about

16 environmental health, it is fair again. It says aware

17 of environmental hazards, but little evaluation of

18 the work environment to determine extent and degree

19 of possible employee exposure. Right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Over to the right it talks about asbestos

22 and dust sampling not being done, right, way too

23 slow?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. We are in the early 1970s and Chevron is

130

1 struggling with dealing with the new OSHA standards.

2 Is that a fair statement?

3 A. Yes, I think that would be a fair

4 statement.

5 Q. Now, if we dial back to the 1940s Chevron

6 was told specifically how to protect people like

7 Mrs. Horvath, true?

8 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

9 A. Chevron was told specifically, no, I don’t

10 believe so.

11 Q. You agree with me that way back in the

12 1940s Chevron was told they needed to make sure the

13 workers didn’t carry carcinogenic materials home on

14 their clothing?

15 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

16 A. I can’t attest to what Chevron was told

17 back in the ’40s.

18 MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this P-15, please.

19 (The above document is marked as

20 P-15 for Identification.)

21 Q. You have before you a January 28, 1948

22 report for information to members of the API Medical

23 Advisory Committee, not for publication. Do you see

24 that?

25 A. I see that.

131

1 Q. We established before that at this point

2 in time Chevron was a member of the API Medical

3 Advisory Committee, correct?

4 A. I think we did. I don’t remember for

5 sure.

6 Q. And you recall I put it up there on a

7 screen to refresh your memory, that one of the

8 reports that was distributed throughout the API as

9 listed here was in fact this very report, correct?

10 Do you see it by title number 10?

11 A. I can barely make it out.

12 Q. Industrial work clothing, their provision

13 and laundering. We went over that before.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And this was authored by the same

16 Mr. Bonsib who authored the other reports we went

17 over this morning, correct?

18 A. Yes. As far as I know.

19 Q. The report starts out by saying modern

20 petroleum technology in the production of synthetic

21 hydrocarbon materials have introduced a number of

22 compounds and processes which may adversely affect

23 the health of workers unless certain precautionary

24 measures are practiced. Among these precautionary

25 measures which are receiving ever increasing

132

1 consideration at the present time is the issuance of

2 industrial work clothing to employees and the

3 installation of plant laundry facilities to ensure

4 that such clothing is properly cleaned and

5 maintained.

6 Did I read that correctly?

7 A. Looks right to me.

8 Q. Appropriate work clothes properly fitted

9 and maintained play a prominent part in an

10 industrial worker’s health and safety. This is

11 especially true when persons are working with more

12 or less toxic or carcinogenic materials or where

13 cleanliness is a factor in the maintenance of

14 product quality? Do you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Remember we went through the articles by

17 Hueper at this point in time that were also included

18 on that first sheet about asbestos and cancer. Do

19 you remember that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. We can skip over to, I think it is page 6.

22 A. I don’t — I guess it is that six.

23 Q. I was having a hard time.

24 A. Same as what you are showing on the

25 screen.

133

1 Q. It talks about what the laundry procedures

2 should be. Do you see that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. It says according to — on the bottom,

5 total cost of laundering work close. According to

6 Mr. A.C. Pease, general superintendent of the

7 Bound Brook plant laundry, the total cost, including

8 labor, materials, rent, light, steam, water,

9 interest and amortization of laundry work clothes

10 is. 03 per pound of dry clothes. Do you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. The cost of labor and materials alone is

13 only .016 per pound of dry clothes. Do you see

14 that?

15 A. In dollars, yes.

16 Q. The best price that could be obtained from

17 an outside local laundry was .08 per pound of dry

18 clothes, correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. So back in the 1940s Mrs. Horvath could

21 have been protected for less than a nickel a day,

22 according to this particular document?

23 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

24 Q. True?

25 A. I don’t know how much a pound of dry

134

1 clothes is.

2 Q. Well, it is certainly more than what one

3 man wears, isn’t it? Let’s say a dime. Cost a dime

4 a day to protect her?

5 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

6 A. You could draw that conclusion from this

7 article.

8 Q. Because it was known that –

9 Now, sir, you recall we went through the

10 articles this morning about what was published in

11 the medal literature some 20 plus years later about

12 people, non occupationally exposed to asbestos

13 getting mesothelioma. Do you remember that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Including housewives and residents, right?

16 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

17 A. Whatever it says on that report.

18 Q. In fact, there was information that

19 actually made it to the popular press in the early

20 ’70s, correct?

21 MR. LaSALA: Can I have that

22 question read back?

23 Q. I’ll restate it. There was information

24 that actually made it into the popular press in the

25 early 1970 about housewives washing workers clothing

135

1 that could get cancer, right?

2 A. Well, it is hard to read that, but I’ll

3 take your word.

4 Q. I don’t want you to take my word.

5 While I’m getting the document, one of your

6 jobs was to respond to this kind of information on

7 behalf of Chevron, right?

8 A. If asked, yes.

9 MR. PLACITELLA: Please mark this P-16.

10 (The above document is marked as

11 P-16 for Identification.)

12 Q. Do you see the paragraph that says

13 Relatives and Neighbors?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can you read that for the record, sir?

16 A. Relative and neighbors may be exposed to

17 airborne fibers carried home on the workers clothing,

18 he said, and people living in the vicinity of

19 asbestos factories are exposed.

20 Q. One of your jobs was to respond to this

21 article, right?

22 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

23 A. What do you mean respond? Write a

24 rebuttal?

25 Q. To respond to employee questions about

136

1 what was appearing in the newspapers.

2 A. My responsibility would be to help the

3 local facilities deal with questions they may get

4 from an article like this.

5 Q. That’s fair, but the problem was that when

6 you had to do that job, you had to do it with one

7 arm tied behind your back?

8 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

9 Argumentative.

10 Q. Right?

11 A. Why are you saying that?

12 Q. I’m saying that because no one ever told

13 you about mesothelioma and low level exposures that

14 we went over this morning, no one ever told about

15 asbestos and cancer. Your boss never even told you

16 what he knew. So you had to respond to questions

17 about cancer without full information.

18 A. In 1973?

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. No. Asbestos standards came out in 1972.

21 The literature that supported it.

22 MR. PLACITELLA: Mark this P-17, please.

23 (The above document is marked as

24 P-17 for Identification.)

25 Q. You have in front of you, sir, a February

137

1 13, 1973 memo. Do you see that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Who is that person requested by?

4 A. John Dotter. He was the president of

5 Chevron Asphalt Company.

6 Q. Who is SLD?

7 A. That’s me.

8 Q. Have you ever seen this document before?

9 A. I wrote it.

10 Q. You wrote it?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Do you have any idea why this document

13 wasn’t turned over to me as part of the production

14 from Chevron on its historical knowledge of the

15 dangers of asbestos?

16 A. No, I have no idea.

17 Q. It was certainly something you were asked

18 about in the prior deposition in 1997, correct?

19 A. This document?

20 Q. Right.

21 A. I don’t remember.

22 Q. Certainly Chevron must have had its in its

23 possession if I got a copy of it.

24 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

25 Q. Now, there were serious concerns by some

138

1 employees about what was being published, right, and

2 in fact, who, whose handwriting in this comment on

3 asbestos in newspapers?

4 A. I wrote this whole top sheet.

5 Q. Your job was to comment on articles on

6 asbestos in newspapers?

7 A. I was requested. In the shorthand of this

8 note, I was requested to comment on the articles on

9 asbestos. Probably that article you just showed me.

10 Q. And one of the things you wrote was an

11 article called, Is Asbestos a Killer? right?

12 A. I don’t know, did I?

13 Q. Flip three pages.

14 A. I don’t think I wrote this article.

15 Q. This article is attached to your memo.

16 It says the information in the newspaper was

17 misleading and alarmist.

18 Can you tell me what was misleading and

19 alarmist about that paragraph up there on the screen

20 for people who needed to be protected?

21 A. I think what it meant was that it painted

22 a very broad brush that anybody exposed to the

23 slightest amount of asbestos could be subject to a

24 killer time bomb. I consider that language

25 misleading and alarmist.

139

1 Q. So it was alarmist for somebody to be

2 informed that if they washed their husband’s work

3 clothing they could get mesothelioma?

4 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

5 A. I think the language of the newspaper

6 article was intended to be alarmist.

7 Q. What information did you provide to

8 workers in order to tell them that their families

9 were at risk of getting cancer if they washed their

10 clothing that was warn in the Chevron facility that

11 would not be an alarmist language?

12 A. I don’t know what I wrote or would have

13 written at the time.

14 Q. What did Chevron tell its employees about

15 how to protect their family members from getting

16 cancer if they washed the employees asbestos laden

17 clothing?

18 A. I don’t remember what these things you say

19 are attached to my memo. I just don’t remember

20 which of these things actually went to employees, if

21 any, or which ones were drafts, which ones were

22 replaced.

23 Q. What was –

24 A. It is not clear to me.

25 Q. Let’s skip down. You see under, Is

140

1 Asbestos a Killer? there’s a question. I presume

2 this is supposed to somehow anticipate what an

3 employee might ask.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. It says I’ve heard that exposure to

6 asbestos fibers, even for a short time, can cause

7 lung cancer. Is that true? Sir, without reading

8 what the response was, what was the truth in 1973?

9 A. To that question?

10 Q. Yes. I am asking you not to read.

11 A. I’m not reading. I am reading the

12 question again.

13 I would probably answer that that is not

14 true.

15 Q. It is not true?

16 A. Not true.

17 Q. That you that can’t get mesothelioma from

18 short term exposure?

19 A. You are asking me to testify in an area

20 that I’m really not qualified to testify in. My

21 understanding of the information was, I’m not an

22 expert witness in this case, that my understanding

23 is that probably not.

24 Q. The response, however, itself is very

25 misleading, is it not?

141

1 A. I haven’t read the response.

2 Q. The response says, I put it up on the

3 screen, one scientist noted that asbestos fibers can

4 cause lung cancer, but that it may not be detected

5 until 20 or 40 years. The disease is called

6 asbestosis. That’s not cancer, is it?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Caused by the accumulation of asbestos

9 fibers in the lung which results in scarring.

10 Effects may be more severe for people who smoke,

11 have respiratory disease or are in generally poor

12 physical condition. Do you see that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Does that answer the question as to

15 whether short term exposure can cause cancer?

16 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

17 A. I don’t think it answers the question, but

18 I don’t know what this document was ever used for.

19 Q. If this document was given to employees,

20 that would be misleading, wouldn’t it?

21 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

22 A. It would be incorrect.

23 Q. Can you read for me your handwriting on

24 the front page, please?

25 A. Comment on articles re: asbestos in

142

1 newspapers. That was the request from Mr. Dotter.

2 RWA, first draft. Give to Bill Jones for

3 professional writing. Dave Atchison drafted

4 bituminal progress insert. Vetoed by JHD, that would

5 John Dotter. Wants bulletin board release. D.A.

6 re-drafted. SLD rewrote part and returned to D.A.

7 Q. Is this the draft –

8 A. I can’t tell.

9 Q. What does it say on the last page?

10 A. I can’t read it.

11 Q. Do you know whose handwriting that is?

12 A. No. It says key points.

13 Q. When the articles were appearing in the

14 press about –

15 A. Actually, to the best of my ability that

16 looks like my handwriting, but I don’t know what it

17 says.

18 Q. When the articles were appearing in the

19 press about housewives getting cancer from washing

20 their husbands’ clothing, as you sit here today can

21 you tell us what steps you took to confirm or deny

22 that information to the workers and their families?

23 A. I don’t recall what steps I took to

24 confirm or deny that information.

25 Q. As a man who dedicated his career to

143

1 protecting the public health, what information, like

2 you saw this morning about people non-occupationally

3 exposed to asbestos getting cancer, was made known

4 to Chevron, what should Chevron have done with that

5 information in terms of communicating it to their

6 employees and their families?

7 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

8 A. You are presuming that information was

9 made known to Chevron. I don’t think I’ve agreed

10 that took place. There’s always in the literature,

11 there’s anecdotal evidence of things happening that

12 does not constitute scientific studies.

13 Q. But it certainly constitutes reason for

14 looking further, true?

15 A. It can.

16 Q. And when Chevron found out, for instance,

17 that there were refinery foremen in the ’50s getting

18 mesothelioma, can you tell me as you sit here today

19 what Chevron did to follow up on that information?

20 A. I don’t know when Chevron got that

21 information.

22 Q. It was published in the open medical

23 literature, correct?

24 A. It was published.

25 Q. It was available to Chevron because, as

144

1 you told me in the beginning of this deposition,

2 they have the money and the resources to know what

3 was in the open medical literature?

4 MR. LaSALA: Objection to the form.

5 Q. Correct?

6 A. I still don’t know when Chevron actually

7 got that information.

8 Q. When we started here this morning you

9 didn’t know that Chevron knew about asbestos and

10 cancer and today is there first day you ever found

11 that out before 1972, correct?

12 A. State that again?

13 Q. I’ll withdraw the question.

14
(SHORT RECESS)
15

16 Q. As you sit here today having reviewed all

17 the information that Chevron has provided you, plus

18 your own recollection, do you have any evidence that

19 you can point to to show that Chevron warned the

20 employees at the Perth Amboy refinery that bringing

21 home asbestos on their clothing could cause members

22 of their family to get cancer and die?

23 A. I do not have any evidence.

24 Q. You have been extremely cooperative and

25 I’m going to hold to my word, although I have about

145

1 four other pages worth of stuff.

2 A. Thank you.

3 Q. I’ll try to get you to your plane.

4 A. Thank you.

5 Q. I left three minutes for any other

6 lawyers who had any questions, as I promised I would

7 get done by 2 o’clock.

8 MR. LaSALA: Anyone else? Is that

9 it?

10 Just one housekeeping item. The

11 exhibits you showed him and he answered questions

12 about that you didn’t mark, can we have copies.

13 MR. PLACITELLA: I’ll make copies of

14 the slides.

15 (The deposition is adjourned at 1:35 p.m.)

146

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

3 I, MARC BRODY, Notary Public and

4 Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State

5 of New Jersey, do hereby certify that prior

6 to the commencement of the examination

7 STANLEY DRYDEN

8 was duly sworn by me to testify the truth,

9 the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

10 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the

11 foregoing is a true and accurate transcript

12 of the testimony as taken stenographically

13 by and before me at the time, place and on

14 the date hereinbefore set forth.

15 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither

16 a relative of nor employee nor attorney nor

17 counsel for any of the parties to this

18 action, and that I am neither a relative

19 nor employee of such attorney or counsel,

20 and that I am not financially interested in

21 the action.

23 Notary Public of the State of New Jersey

First Name (required)
Last Name (required)
Email Address: (required)
Phone Number:
State: (required)
What is the victim's relationship to you?
Have you or your loved one been diagnosed with mesothelioma?

Enter the verification code above:
Before submitting your information, please agree to our disclosure:

Speak Your Mind Cancel reply

Request A Free Legal Case Evaluation

Search