Videotaped Deposition of Clifford L. Sheckler (1982)

The videotaped deposition of Clifford L. Sheckler, taken on January 7 and 8, 1982, before a referee appointed by Judge Christian Markey in the asbestos cases in California. Sheckler worked for Johns-Manville from 1936 to 1977: in the engineering department and as supervisor of construction at the Manville, New Jersey, plant, then as its safety engineer, and from 1960 as manager of J-M's industrial health program for some fifty plants, reporting to the medical director, Dr. Kenneth Smith; he was director of occupational health from 1967. Lively Wilson examines him for J-M about the plant, the dust limit, the literature and the warning label he wrote in 1964; counsel for Raybestos-Manhattan and Owens-Corning Fiberglas question him briefly; and the plaintiffs' counsel cross-examines him at length on his qualifications, the workers' compensation claims at Manville, a local doctor's list of mesothelioma patients, J-M letters from 1948 to 1957 he says he never saw before the lawsuits, the Asbestos Textile Institute's minutes, the Lanza and Dreessen studies and the wording and placement of the label.

What Sheckler testified about asbestos and health

Sheckler says that before 1952 his knowledge "was that asbestos fiber was a toxic material", and that "Mixing cements was a dusty job". He testifies that "I became aware of insulation workers being at risk of an occupational disease as a group in 1964", and that before then "I had no responsibility or reason to think about the users of those products". Asked whether, from 1946 to 1952, he knew that buyers of J-M's insulation would be ripping out old asbestos insulation as his own masons did, he answers, "I don't think in that time period... that I really gave the purchasers of Johns-Manville materials any thought." He recalls a Bound Brook doctor who "had a list of patients who he assumed had mesothelioma" in 1958–59, which led to no research. He reads the label he wrote in 1964, which said that breathing "asbestos in excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmful", and agrees J-M "remained with the five million particle per cubic foot of air standard until approximately 1967". He is read the Asbestos Textile Institute's 1963 minutes on Dr. Selikoff's insulation workers study, which "will be damaging to the industry".

About this copy

Our copy is Johns-Manville's own set of the videotapes (box 15-90017): six tapes, 10:14:40 in all, shown in full except blank tape. The first tape was recorded over an older television program, which is cut from the end of it; the end of the sixth was recorded over with part of the fourth, and is cut too. The witness's home address is silenced.

Transcript

A machine transcript of the soundtrack, not yet checked against the recording; names and technical words may be wrong.

Tape 1 of 6

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony about the menace requisition will be retrieved by all the people that have invested in this case at all times? I do. Sheckler, my name is Lively Wilson, and I represent Johns-Manville. Will you give us your name, please, for the court and the jury? Clifford L. Sheckler, S-H-E-C-K-L-E-R.

Can you tell us how old you are? Yes, sir. I'm 60, uh, 64. All right. Mr. Sheckler, what is your profession?

I'm an occupational health consultant. What does an occupational health consultant do? I'm administering medical research. Was there an objection, counsel? Yes, sir. I'm Judge Arthur K.

Marshall, referee in this matter by order of Judge Christian Markey, M-A-R-K-E-Y. It is my duty to perform whatever function was ordered by Judge Margolis on pages 5 and 6, I believe, of his order. Amongst those duties will be that of seeing to it that the meeting and the examination is not unduly prolonged, that the witness is not harassed, and that material which has been gone over once will not be gone over twice. And whatever other duties are set forth in the order of Judge Margolis are now off the record. Did you wish to make records? The tape is rolling.

Mr. Sheckler, will you give us your name, please, sir? My name is Clifford L. Sheckler. That's H-E-C-K-L-E-R. And where do you live, sir?

What is your age, sir? I am 64. And what is your profession? I am an occupational health consultant. How long have you been an occupational health consultant? Since 1972.

And as an occupational health consultant, what do you do? I am administering a medical research program on man-made vitreous fibers for the Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association. I'm also gathering data for an epidemiological study of people with potential exposure to asbestos. MR. Mr. Sheckler, can you give us some of the projects that you have worked on in the past as an occupational health consultant?

Yes, I have, of course, done work for Johns-Manville Corporation in evaluating environmental conditions at the Manville plant. I'm gathering data of employees at the Manville, New Jersey, plant for an epidemiological study study that will involve approximately 30,000 to 40,000 asbestos workers, and I began about four years ago to administer the medical research program on man-made vitreous fibers for the Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association, which is a six million dollar research program being done at our two national laboratories, Los Alamos and Brookhaven, plus several of our universities, University of California, University of Pittsburgh, Tulane University. since 1972 have you served as a consultant in this particular area to any labor unions I have done some work for the in conjunction with the thermal insulation manufacturers research program I've done some work with the glass bottle blowers and I have done some work with the sheet metal metal workers. I have had contact occasionally with heat frost and asbestos workers. Mr. Sheckler, prior to 1972, by whom were you employed? At Johns- Manville Corporation.

And in what capacity? I was employed with Johns-Manville Corporation. The latter part of my employment, my title was Occupational Health Consultant. And prior to your serving as a consultant, did you have a regular position with them? Yes, sir. What was that?

From 1936 to 1942, I served in their engineering department at Manville, New Jersey plant. Mr. Sheckler, I want to get into your work history with JM, but for the moment, if you would please, what was your title at the time you left JM? My title at the time I left J-M was occupational health consultant. All right, sir. Now, when did you go to work for JM? 1936.

And in what capacity at that time? As a member of the Manville, New Jersey Engineering Department. All right. And with what responsibility? I was responsible for doing survey work on new construction and also doing liaison between the Johns-Manville Corporation and the contractors engaged in the new construction at Manville plant. Did you work for Johns-Manville continuously from 1936 until your retirement?

Except between 1942 and 1946 when I served in the armed forces. Would you go back now and just trace your work experience with Johns-Manville, please? Yes, sir. From 1936 to 1942, I surveyed where a liaison between the Johns-Manville Corporation and the contractors engaged in new construction projects at that location. In 1942 to 1946, I served in the Corps of Engineers attached to the 20th Bomber Command and General Chennault's Flying Tigers, the 14th Air Force. From 1946 to 1952, I returned to Johns-Manville as supervisor of construction at the Manville, New Jersey complex.

From 1952 to 1957, I became the safety engineer for the Manville complex. In 1957 to a transition period, late 59 to 1960, I became supervisor of safety at the Manville, New Jersey complex. Late 59, early 60, I became manager of the industrial health program for the corporation. Served in that capacity in 1967 when I became director of occupational health for the corporation to 1972 when I became an occupational health consultant to 1977 when I formally retired from Johns-Manville. With respect to your employment in the 1952-1957 time period, what were your responsibilities for Johns-Manville at that time? My responsibilities were administration of the accident prevention programs, initiation of new accident prevention programs, and some responsibility for handling workman's compensation cases assigned to me by my immediate supervisor for the Manville, New Jersey complex.

Could you describe the Manville, New Jersey complex for us, please? Yes, sir. Manville, New Jersey complex includes a manufacturing plant, plant, a research center, and a data processing center. It covers a large, with approximately 15 to 18 buildings that are 150 feet wide by 1,000 feet long each, has approximately approximately 15 miles of railroad. Years from 1952 to 1960, there was employment of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 people. Description of the Manville complex as it was, 1952 to 1959, or as it is now?

Would you answer that question, Mr. Sheckler? That was a description of the Manville complex from 1952 to 1960. I'm sorry, I thought I made that clear. All right. In 1957, when you became supervisor of safety at the Manville plant, how did your duties and responsibilities change?

My immediate supervisor retired, and I assumed his position with the responsibility for the accident prevention programs, the industrial hygiene engineering programs, the self-insured workman's compensation programs. You were describing the Manville complex. What kind of products were made at the Manville plant? Numerous products manufactured at the Manville plant. It was a multi-product plant, and most all of the products manufactured within the corporation were manufactured in Manville, New Jersey, in addition to being manufactured at other locations. Did the company make asbestos-containing insulation materials there?

Yes, sir, they did. Did it make asbestos-containing cements? Yes, sir, they did. Did the company only make asbestos-containing materials there? No, sir. There were other operations that did not contain...

There were products manufactured in other operations that did not contain asbestos. Now, in 1960, when you moved to New York, can you tell us what your duties and responsibilities were at that time? My responsibilities when I moved into New York in 1960, in 1960, administration of the accident prevention programs for the corporation, administration for industrial hygiene engineering programs for the administration, administration of self-insured workman's compensation for the corporation. What do you mean when you refer to the industrial hygiene programs at the corporation? Industrial hygiene programs mean the evaluation of environment by the industrial hygiene engineering laboratories. Mr.

Sheckler, you then became the director of occupational health, I think. 1967 yes sir and what were your responsibilities at that time they were primarily the same thing that that was merely a change in title mr sheckler uh first as director and or first as supervisor of industrial hygiene and industrial health and later as director of occupational was it important for you to become familiar with medical and scientific literature that related to that field? Yes, sir. I did become familiar with selected literature. I did not have the time, of course, to read all literature. During that period of time, did you become familiar with the medical and scientific literature relating to asbestos? and its uses? Some of the literature, yes, sir.

Did you rely on that literature in making decisions about the conduct of your job? I did, yes, sir. Mr. Sheckler, when in your work at J-M did you first become involved with asbestos and its potential health effect? I first became involved I was involved with asbestos and its potential health effects, I would say, in 19... I was aware of asbestos being used in the location from the time I was employed.

I really more knowledgeable about the health effects of asbestos beginning in 1952. And what was your role in Johns-Manville at that time? I then was the safety engineer for the Manville complex. Mr. Sheckler, you have described the Manville complex. Can you tell the court and jury, please, something of the nature of the exposure to asbestos to those employees who were engaged in work there?

MR. Jackson and Pratt Foundation. THE PRESIDENT. You're ruling on it at this time, sir? MR. No, sir.

THE PRESIDENT. MR. No, sir. THE PRESIDENT. All right. Would you go ahead and answer the question?

Production people at the Manville, New Jersey, location utilized raw materials to manufacture finished products. And, of course, the materials were processed through from stage of the raw materials going into the various mixes that constituted a finished product to the final finishing, machining, and packing of that finished product. The asbestos-containing materials, of course, they worked with the asbestos as it was received from the mills in Canada or elsewhere, and that material was then introduced into the the patching or whatever other type of mixes were being made and the product was worked through to its completion. Can you describe that material, the asbestos material, as it was received? Asbestos was received at the Manville, New Jersey location in the early years in burlap bags which were shipped, received in box cars. The asbestos bags were stocked in warehouses and as they were required to be put into the mixes were taken from the warehouse into the process.

In the later years the asbestos was packaged in in what we call pressure packed packages, which was in a more solid rectangular cake-like form in paper bags, and they of course were received in the same manner by railroad, by boxcar into the plant and unloaded from there into the warehouse, then taken from the warehouse house and put into the process did you observe this in the course of your employment there i did yes sir can you describe the asbestos fiber or the raw asbestos fiber as it was received well the raw asbestos fiber as it was received was a loose fibrous material material that fiber lengths varied depending on the type of fiber and the process in which it was going to be used, and primarily three types of asbestos used in that plant, chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite. Mr. Sheckler, what is the process of willowing the asbestos fiber? When the fiber was received at the Manville, New Jersey plant, before the fiber could be used in the process, it had to be what we refer to as, or what I refer to as, opened. And the willowing process opened the fiber. it separated the fibers one from the other before it went into the process again this is called willowing again did you observe this process I did yes sir now in the in the course of handling the asbestos fiber in making asbestos containing products was dust created yes sir there was dust created and what What was the nature of the exposure, as you observed it, to the employees in that plant? Same objection.

Well, there was exposure to employees using the fiber in the processes. There was exhaust equipment on many of the machines and equipment that was used. during the process during the period of time that you were safety engineer what did the company do or what did you observe being done to control the exposure of the employees to dust controlled the dust and attempted to control the dust within the maximum allowable concentration by several means. One, either to remove the dust from the worker via mechanical ventilation on the machines and dust collection equipment, or two, by removing the worker from the process by isolating the worker and putting them into a separate room with air filters feeding fresh air into the room. In some instances, we fed air-conditioned air into the room. And the third method we used was to, if neither of those were to attempt to change the process in order to diminish the potential dust exposures. During your time at the Manville plant, did you observe changes in the processes?

Yes, sir. Mr. Sheckler, can you tell the court and jury, please, what an epidemiological study is? Objection. Yes, sir. An epidemiological study is a study of a number of people, a group of people called a cohort of people, who are all similarly exposed to a given potential material.

Can you tell the court, please, what the first epidemiological study in this country was, of which you are aware? that undertook to determine whether breathing asbestos dust was a health hazard same objection a proper foundation i'm calling for a conclusion the first epidemiological study in conjunction with asbestos that i am aware of that took place in this country was the Lanza study, L-A-N-Z-A, the Lanza study which was published by the Public Health Service. Mr. Sheckler, I'm going to show you what we will mark for identification as the deposition exhibit number one and ask you if that is a copy of the Lanza study to which you refer. a copy of the Lanza study to which you refer yes sir and I ask you if you were familiar with that study yes sir this is a study effects of inhalation of asbestos dust on the lungs of asbestos workers and who made the study AJ ones of William J McConnell J William fennel and it's It's a public health report, volume 50, number 1, January 4th, 1935. Can you tell the court who Dr. Lanza was? Objection to the proper foundation.

Dr. Lanza was an assistant medical director for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Mr. Sheckler, what population did Dr. Lanza study, as he reported on it there? Dr.

Lanza studied the asbestos textile workers. Is that study an authoritative study in the field of industrial hygiene and occupational health? Objection. A proper foundation calls for a conclusion. Yes, sir. uh and is that the kind of study that was relied on by you in the performance of your duties yes sir uh can you tell us a little bit about the study and what his conclusions were objection and proper foundation calls for a conclusion and hearsay Dr. Lanza has studied text the textile workers in the asbestos textile industry he in the course of of his conclusions he He suggested and recommended a level of asbestos dust, a level of asbestos dust that would be a safe working level for asbestos-exposed people working in the manufacturing process.

Mr. Sheckler, does the article contain his conclusions and recommendations? It does, yes, sir. Would you return to that, please? Yes, sir. First, I'll ask you to read to the court and the jury, please, the conclusions from that study.

Objection. A improper foundation calls for hearsay. Conclusions of this study are shown on page 10. Inclusions 1. Prolonged exposure to asbestos dust caused a pulmonary fibrosis of a type different from silicosis and demonstrable on x-ray films. New sentence.

Clinically, from this study, it appears to be a type milder than silicosis, period. Cases of definite cardiac enlargement were frequently found to be associated with asbestosis. A predisposition to tuberculosis due to asbestos dust was not indicated in this study. Asbestosis, as observed in this series of cases, had not resulted in marked disability in any case. Five, it is not known how much asbestosis may add to the mortality of pneumonia and acute non-tuberculosis pulmonary infections. Six, it is not practicable as yet to establish standards for the asbestos dust content of air.

And seven, the amount of dust in the air in the asbestos plants studied can be substantially reduced. Mr. Sheckler, are you aware of any epidemiological studies in this country prior to the Lanza study which suggested that asbestos textile mill workers were at risk to asbestosis? Objection, improper foundation. I know of no epidemiological study prior to the Lanza study. No, sir.

Did Dr. Lanza, in his report, make certain recommendations? He did. Will you read those, please, sir? Same objection by the Foundation, hearsay. Yes, he said it is recommended, one, that the industry seriously face the problem of dust control in the asbestos plants.

Two, that new employees be examined physically, including x-ray examination of the chest, and rejected for employment if they show tuberculosis or pneumoconiosis. Three, that employees be examined physically, preferably every year, but at least every two years, this examination to include an x-ray examination of the chest. And four, that the industry sponsor studies on known cases of asbestosis, as well as studies on effects of asbestosis on the heart and circulation. Now, Mr. Sheckler, when you were employed by Johns-Manville, were new employees being examined prior to their employment and chest X-rays given? An objection to a proper foundation.

Ambiguity. Are we talking now about the Manville facility or J-M Plant? No. I asked Mr. Sheckler when he was employed if J-M employees were being examined physically and chest x-rays given. Objection is on the grounds of ambiguity and a proper foundation.

I still don't know. You mean the location of this particular area, Counsel? All right. Where you were employed. When I was employed at the Manville, New Jersey plant, I was given a pre-employment physical examination that included chest x-rays. And subsequent to your employment there, in connection with the company's operations generally, were there employees who were working with asbestos given periodic physical examinations, including x-rays?

Objection. A proper foundation. Yes, sir. If you know. Yes, sir. I do know.

And what? Chest x-rays and physical examinations with chest x-rays were provided periodically for employees on a two-year basis except for selected employees, which were examined annually. And subsequent to 1935, did JM, among others, sponsor studies with respect to the health effects of asbestos? Objection, improper foundation. Yes, sir. If you know.

Yes, sir. Same objection. Now, Mr. Sheckler, are you familiar with a study by Dr. Dreesen that was also published by the United States Public Health Service? Yes, sir.

Dr. Dreesen's Public Health Service was published in 1938. How do you spell that, sir? D-R-E-E- S-E-N, I believe. Dr. Sheckler, I believe I asked you if you were familiar with the study by Dr.

Dreesen that appeared in 1938. Yes, sir. Where was that study published? This, again, was a study published by the Public Health Service in 1938. Is that an authoritative study in the field of occupational health and industrial hygiene? Objection, improper foundation.

It is, yes sir. Can you tell the court and the jury please the population that Dr. Dreesen studied and the results of his efforts? Objection, improper foundation, here's saying. Dr. Dreesen again studied the asbestos textile workers in the United States and his findings were related to that group of workers and what were his conclusions and in order to perhaps take less time why don't you just turn in the report and read the conclusion that he made as a result of his study objection Jackson Improper Foundation, your say.

His conclusions are stated on page 117 of the United States Public Health Bulletin No. 241, dated August 1938, as follows. Only three cases of asbestosis, all of them diagnosed as doubtful or borderline cases, were found to be exposed to dust concentrations of less than 5 million particles per cubic foot in brackets. These three individuals had dust exposures of about 4 million particles per cubic foot in the bracket. Above 5 million particles per cubic foot, numerous cases of well-marked asbestosis were found. It would seem that if the dust concentration in asbestos factories could be kept below 5 million particles in brackets. The engineering section of this report has shown how this may be accomplished in the bracket.

New cases of asbestosis probably would not appear. Now, Mr. Sheckler, following that report, are you familiar with whether or not a threshold limit value for asbestos was established? Mr. On the basis of this report, an organization called the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists recommended a threshold limit value of 5 million particles per cubic foot of air of asbestos dust on a time weighted average basis all right sir first I want to ask you what the American Conference of governmental industrial hygiene assists objection a proper foundation the American Conference of governmental industrial hygiene is known as ACGI H is a group of of professional hygienists, physicians, researchers who make recommendations and review recommendations for materials utilized in industry. This group is primarily a group of governmental and university people.

There are no industrial people on it. Now, you said they recommended 5 million particles per cubic foot of air as a threshold limit value. Would you define that for us also, please? Mr. Jason, you're probably fine with this. A threshold limit value is the maximum level at which, according to the ACGIH recommendation, a worker can be exposed to a given material for a 40-hour week, 52-week-a-year lifetime working exposure without adverse health effects.

In this instance of asbestos, the 5 million particles per cubic foot of air was recommended as a time-weighted average. Some TLVs have a fixed maximum, MAC, maximum allowable concentration. Others have a time-weighted average, maximum allowable concentration. Time-weighted average means means that the exposure may exceed the MAC, or the five million particles per cubic foot. And if you can visualize a line, the exposure may exceed that line of five million, providing it diminishes below that line and averages out to 5 million particles per cubic foot of air over the period of eight hours. Mr.

Sheckler, do you know whether or not that standard as established by the ACGIH was ever reviewed by them following 1938? Objection, Dr. Foundation. That standard was was reviewed on a two-year basis. The standard for all materials were reviewed on a two-year basis, including the asbestos standard. And in 1964, I recall there was an extensive review of the asbestos standard.

At that time, the standard remained five million particles per cubic foot of air. Are you aware of whether or not there was any other standard during the period 1938 to 1964 that was accepted in the industrial community? I don't understand by what you mean, other standard, Mr. Wilson. Did any other agency other than the ACGIH undertake to establish a standard? I'm Jackson and Brocker Foundation.

If you know. I know of no other standard that was established by any agency other than the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, which is the accepted agency for the recommendation of this type of health standard. Their recommendations for the asbestos standard were incorporated in many of the various state laws under the labor laws. Move to strike everything after the first sentence is not responsive. MR. Mr.

Sheckler, do you know whether or not the 5 million particle standard was ever adopted by any state labor laws or incorporated into any state labor laws? MR. Yes, sir, I do. MR. Can you tell us about that, please? MR.

Well, I'll use New Jersey as an example. For example, New Jersey adopted ACGIH standards for asbestos under their labor law code rules and regulations. MR. Now, how long did five million particles remain the TLV? MR. Five million particles per cubic foot of air for asbestos dust remained the recommendation of the ACGIH up to 1968.

In 1968 it was changed to 12 fibers per cubic centimeter of air or 2 million particles per cubic foot of air. And were changes made subsequent to that if you know? Yes sir they were. And go Go ahead and tell us about that. In 1970, the recommendation was made to discontinue the particulate count entirely and convert all counting to fiber count. Now this constituted, of course, a different method of evaluation.

And in 1972, the Federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration adopted the 12 fibers per cubic centimeter of air count for asbestos fiber along with the ACGIH recommendation. 1974, the count was reduced by recommendation both of the ACGIH and the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration to, I beg your pardon, by recommendation of ACGIH and by federal law of the Occupational Health Administration, to five fibers per cubic centimeter of air and in 1977 again the asbestos standard was reduced both by ACGIH recommendation and Occupational Safety and Health Administration law to two fibers per cubic centimeter of air and that's where the standard remains as of today. Mr. Sheckler I want you to turn your attention if you would please now from the manufacturing process that you have described to those people who use asbestos containing insulation products. During the course of your employment at at the Manville plant. Did you have working under your supervision, or did you ever observe insulation contractors installing asbestos-containing insulation material? I observed insulation contractors, workers, installing insulation materials at the Manville, New Jersey a plant between 1936 and 1942 and I had working for me directly people who installed insulation materials between 1946 and 1952.

Have there ever been any scientific studies of the environment in which insulation workers work yes sir and did you become familiar with those in the course of your work for J-M yes sir I did mr. Sheckler from your knowledge and experience is there a difference in the exposure of insulation workers and factory workers yes sir There is a vast difference between the exposure of insulation workers and production workers in the factory. Would you tell the court and jury, please, about that? Same objection. Production workers working in the factory normally use materials that contain 100% of asbestos or use the raw asbestos fiber itself as an introduction into the product. And as the product's being manufactured, they of course are also subject to being in the areas where the 100% of asbestos materials are being used and introduced into the processes.

And they do this consistently, eight hours a day and 40 hours a week or whatever, 48 hours a week, whatever their job time is, they're exposed to this material continuously. This is completely different from the insulation worker's potential exposure by virtue of the fact the insulation worker works on many different types of jobs today he may be working in a confined space in a powerhouse tomorrow he may be working outside on an extended pipeline or tank which is out out of doors tomorrow he He may be working indoors in a wide open space area. Also, the insulation worker works with, unlike the production worker, works with a number of materials that are non-asbestos containing, contain no asbestos fiber, such as fibrous glass, rock wool. he may use cork he may use hair felt there are a number of insulation materials used in the trade that do not contain asbestos so he may be working indoors one day outdoors the next day he may be working with an asbestos containing material one day and not the next day so to summarize an An insulation worker's exposure is intermittent. A production worker's exposure, whatever it may be, is continuous. Mr. Sheckler, in the course of your employment, did you become familiar with any studies that tried to find out if insulation workers were at risk to asbestos disease?

Objection. Bapper Foundation calls for a conclusion. Yes, sir. there there there are several there are several studies yes sir let me show you what we'll mark for identification as deposition exhibit C which purports to be a study by doctors Fleischer and drinker and I'll ask you sir if you are familiar with that study yes sir can you tell the court and jury please what population was being studied by doctors Fleischer and Drinker this study by Fleischer and Drinker was a study that was conducted in four Navy shipyards two of those shipyards were Navy shipyards two of them were under contract to the Navy and And Fleischer and Drinker studied insulation workers, that is, insulation contract-type workers, who were installing materials on board ship. When was that study published? I believe it was 1938. There's no indication on this photostat copy, but I'm quite sure this study was published in 1948. 46 or 48 all right are you aware of any studies of insulation workers prior to that study no sir I I know of no studies of insulation workers prior to this Fleischer drinker study mr.

Sheckler if If you will, describe the study for us and tell the court and jury what the conclusions of the study were. And you may read them, if you would. He may read them. Objection of the proper foundation. The conclusions of the... As I said, this was a study of insulation workers on board ship... in shipyards either under contract to or directly under the United States Navy.

And the conclusions of this study, as written on page 16, are as follows. One, the character of asbestos pipe covering industry on board naval vessels is such that conclusions drawn from other asbestos industries, such as textiles, cannot be applied. Two, the operations of bandsaw cutting, grinding, cement mixing, and installation on board ship should be equipped with exhaust ventilation to keep the total dust concentration low. 3. The incidence of asbestosis among pipe coverers in the shipyards studied was low, 0.29 percent, or three cases out of 1,074. In view of the nature of shipyard pipe covering work, this low incidence is not surprising. For, since each of the three cases of asbestosis had worked at asbestos pipe covering in shipyards for more than 20 years, it may be concluded that such pipe covering is not a dangerous occupation.

How many workers were included in the study? Jackson and Pratt Foundation, yes sir. 1,074 workers. workers. And did doctors Fleischer and Drinker report on the dust exposure to which those insulation workers were exposed? They did, yes sir. Can you just tell us briefly what the level of dust was? The environment was evaluated in two categories, total dust and asbestos dust the asbestos dust which were taken during this study for asbestos dust were all as compared to the five million particles per cubic foot of air standard in fact most of them were below 50% of that figure except for one count at the band saw cutting operation which was slightly above the MAC.

The total dust counts of nuisance type dust other than asbestos were as compared to the total dust recommendation by ACGIH of 15 milligrams per cubic meter. Of 15 milligrams per cubic meter. Mr. Sheckler, you referred to the MAC. What is that? Jackson Project Foundation.

MAC is Maximum Allowable Concentration. Is that the same as the TLV? Yes, sir. Okay. Same thing. All right.

Mr. Sheckler, tell the court, please, and the jury, when you first became aware that insulation workers were at risk to asbestos-related disease. Them personally? I became aware of insulation workers being at risk of an occupational disease as a group in 1964. What was the occasion? The occasion was the receipt of a preliminary epidemiological study which was being conducted by the Environmental Sciences Laboratory of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City.

And at that time, had you been aware that such a study was in progress? Yes, sir. Had there been some discussion of it at Johns-Manville? There had been both a discussion at Johns-Manville and it was general knowledge that Dr. Selikoff was doing such a study. Let me hand you what we'll mark for identification as the deposition exhibit D and ask you if that is a copy of the study that you received in 1964.

This is a copy of the final version of the study which was presented in 1964. 1964. This is not a copy of the preliminary study that I received in April of 1964. All right, sir. When was the completed study presented and published? The completed study was presented in the fall of 1964 at the New York Academy Academy of Sciences meeting I believe it was held in December of 64 or November of 64 I don't recall I want you to turn your attention please to that study and tell tell us please whether or not Dr selikoff reported on the level of dust to which insulation workers were exposed yes sir he did report on the level of dust can you find that in the study and read it to us please just briefly the asbestos exposure to which insulation workers are subject is limited and intermittent some of the materials used contain no asbestos 75 years ago the magnesia pipe coverings had shredded rope as a binder with no asbestos later much work was undertaken with hair felt wool felt cork rock wool in the past three decades fibrous glass products have come into increasing use and these have been supplemented recently with with foamed and expanded plastics for certain applications of the asbestos containing products which are widely used by these read you a paragraph from page 141 of Selikoff et al asbestosis among insulation workers the asbestos exposure to which insulation workers are subject is limited and intermittent some of the materials used used contained no asbestos. Seventy-five years ago, the magnesia pipe coverings had shredded rope as a binder with no asbestos.

Later, much work was undertaken with hair felt, wool felt, cork, rock wool. In the past three decades, fibrous glass products have come into increasing and these have been supplemented recently with foamed and expanded plastics for certain applications. Of the asbestos-containing products which are widely used by these men, magnesia block insulation was and remains perhaps the most important. This usually contains approximately 15% asbestos. asbestos. While asbestos cement has a varying asbestos content depending upon its manufacturer, it also generally has 15 to 20 percent or less of asbestos. Asbestos paper products such as air cell have a higher asbestos content but are used in much smaller quantities. all right sir if you like she's moved to strike everything the entire answer is being now responsive and moved to strike everything prior to the asbestos containing products magnesia black is the most important etc is being now responsible for the question turn to page 142 if you would mr sheckler and refer there to his findings with respect to the exposure of insulation workers and read that brief paragraph yes sir I'm now reading from page 142 same document measurements of dust exposures of insulation workers have been but infrequently reported and have been hampered by the varied nature of the work as another asbestos work peak counts are met which are excessively high, but generally counts for asbestos fibers have been within the five million particles per cubic foot.

Maximum permissible concentration is abbreviated MPC of the ACGIH, which is American Conference of Governmental Industrial hygiene such counts as have been available made during work engaged in by the men studied by us have shown a range similar to that of published counts mr. Sheckler when you received a copy of first let me ask you this what did dr. Selikoff conclude with respect to the risk of insulation workers Jackson In Dr. Selikoff's 1964 conclusions, he concluded at that time that there was extensive occupational pulmonary disease among the cohort of workers, and I believe that cohort was approximately 1,500 workers from the Newark and New York locals of the heat frost and asbestos workers union that there was considerable disease among these people as a result of their employment. Are you aware of any studies prior to Dr. Selikoff that indicated that insulation workers were at risk?

Jackson and Prepper Foundation? I know of no, I know of no studies prior to Dr. Selikoff's epidemiological study that so indicated. When you received the preliminary copy of Dr. Selikoff's paper, tell us what you did. Yes, sir.

I immediately calls for a narrative i immediately brought it to the attention of my immediate supervisor our immediate supervisor the division manager of the installation divisions and the president of our corporation he did call for a narrative but apparently I don't gather that the answer is a narrative. I think that's within the domain of the referee. The judge will be able to rule that you are the answer. No problem. Mr. Sheckler, are you...

Tell the court, please, whether or not a decision was made to label asbestos- containing insulation products. Objection of Graber Foundation. Objection of term insulation is vague and ambiguous. Is what, sir? A decision was made in April of 1964 to place a voluntary health label on thermal insulation materials containing asbestos. What part did you play personally in connection with that label?

I was requested to design a label to be placed the packages of those materials. Mr. Sheckler, let me show you what purports to be just a typed copy of the various labels that began to appear on thermal insulation products and ask you if those are the labels which you designed. I designed the label designated on this printed copy as 1964 to 1970. Would you read it for us, please? Yes, sir.

I don't know what you can ever say. The label reads, caution. This product contains asbestos fiber. New paragraph. Inhalation of asbestos in excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmful. Period.

New paragraph. If dust is created when this product is handled, avoid breathing the dust. Period. New paragraph. If adequate Liquid ventilation control is not possible where respirators approved by the U.S. Bureau of Mines for pneumoconiosis-producing dusts, period.

Mr. Sheckler, what guidelines were used by you in preparing that label? Inasmuch as this was a voluntary health label, there were no guidelines for that specific type of label. Therefore, I used the guidelines provided by the Manufacturing Chemists Association. At that time it was Manual L-1, which was a recommended guideline for labeling. for labeling. All right, sir.

Capital L-1. Capital L-1. Yes, sir. Now, was the label subsequently changed? Yes, sir. The label was changed.

When was it changed? The label was changed in 1970. Would you read that label for us, please? Yes, sir. the 1970 voluntary label read as follows caution this product contains asbestos fiber period avoid breathing the dust period inhalation of asbestos in excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmful period if dust is created when this product is handled use proper protection period if proper dust control cannot be provided respirators approved by the US Bureau of Mines for protection against pneumoconiosis producing dust should be worn how long did that label remain on the cartons if you know that label remained on the thermal insulation packages up until 1972 when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act was passed by the federal government are you familiar with the procedure followed in writing that label by that label the occupational safety and health label yes sir I am I was active at that time in the Goldberg hearings first hearings first will you read the label for us yes sir occupational safety and health administration required label under federal law reads as follows caution contains asbestos fiber avoid creating dust breathing asbestos dust may cause serious bodily harm now you refer to the Goldberg hearings what were the Goldberg hearings. The Goldberg hearings were hearings by the United States Department of Labor in conjunction with asbestos regulations which were to be be put into effect. And Judge Goldberg heard testimony from all parties, and this was a public hearing on the OSHA Act.

Judge Goldberg? Yes. Is that right, Supreme Court? No, sir. No, sir. No.

No, Judge Goldberg. This is a different Goldberg. Keep your voice up. I'll try. right all right uh do you know whether the uh asbestos installation worker union was represented in those hearings they were yes sir mr sheckler let me hand you what we will mark for identification as uh deposition exhibit f and i'll ask you to tell the court and jury please what that exhibit is? This exhibit is a group of purchase specifications for packaging material for thermal insulation products. The purchase specifications indicate along with other information that the required imprint of labels on the packages.

I assume you had packages on hand without labels at the time those specifications were adopted. Yes, sir, and in all of the locations manufacturing thermal insulation products by Johns- Manville, there were bags and cartons in stock at the time in April of 1964 when it was decided to put this label on the packages. It was an attempt made to label those unlabeled packages and cartons. Objection. Our proper foundation initiated the label that is now in evidence noted as 64-70 label on a stick-on back type of material that could be applied to the cartons and bags that had had already been in stock. I then took that stick-on label to the Manville production location to determine if it could be applied without problems.

And it was not a practical thing to use. By virtue of the fact that the workers didn't like to use it, they felt that it slowed down their operation, and most of those workers were on an incentive type of basis for being paid, which is like a piecework basis. I then immediately discontinued the idea of the stick-on labels, and I had ink stamps made with the language and the size of the label, and provided black stamp pads. I took that back out to Manville, and I determined whether or not the stamps could be used on the packages. They were very successful, and so I immediately notified all locations manufacturing thermal insulation products to initiate stamping the label on the cartons and the bags that were in stock until such a time as the stock was diminished and news new cartons and bags were ordered and they of course were ordered in accord with the purchase specifications with the label imprinted on the on the carton and bag in contrasting colors mr. Sheckler I'll hand you a series of five photographs which which we will mark for identification as Exhibit G, and I'll ask you to describe those for the court and jury, please.

There is a number, if you would refer to the number in the corner on the back so we can know which one you're talking about. Photograph number one that I have just been handed is a photograph of a Thermobestos pipe insulation carton laid out flat so that four sides of the carton can be viewed, and the front of the carton and the back of the carton carry the Johns- Manville logo and the name of the product, and each side of the carton carries a printed version, and in this instance is a printed printed version of the 1970 Voluntary Health Caution Label. Would you hold the picture please so we can get it? Certainly. And perhaps point to the caution? This is the front and the rear of the carton and these are both sides of the carton showing the health label.

All right. Now what about photograph number two? Photograph number two is an enlarged photograph of a Thermobestos pipe insulation carton showing just one side of the carton and one side of the end of the carton, again again showing the health caution label, and this is the 1970 Voluntary Health Caution Label. This is the front of the carton, and this would be one side of the carton. This is the label. Mr.

The caution label? Mr. Caution label, yes. Photograph number three is a photograph of the caution label itself showing the contrast, and this is the health caution label, the voluntary health caution label, showing the contrasting colors and the imprint of the label language. Photograph number four is a photograph of a J-M Johns-Manville Thermobestos pipe insulation carton showing the front and side view of that carton with the mandatory Occupational Safety and Health Administration caution label required by federal law. And that's shown on one side of the carton.

And this is the label required under the OSHA Act. I did not mean to imply that this label did not show on the other side of the carton. The photograph merely shows one side of the front and one side of the side. I don't think we have to have this drive with this finger wherever we start. The video will pick it up. Yeah, I think it will, Your Honor, yes.

Photograph number five is a photograph of the mandatory label required under the Occupational Safety and Health Act on a carton of Thermobestos material. Now, Mr. Sheckler, in addition to labeling the products, what efforts, if any, were made by Johns-Manville if you know to further disseminate this information objection improper foundation we made I was involved in a I'm sorry I beg your pardon is there an objection what is it he's joining i'm here i'm joining you join it thank you i suggest we start with his name and uh how old he is that's not necessary i would draw the objection if he's having any problems would you reread the question i got a question that's still still pending is that right do you have the question in mind mr whitman no i don't i'd I became involved in a number of efforts which began immediately subsequent to April 1964 1964 in conjunction with asbestos-containing thermal insulation products. One of the first efforts begun was to diminish, was a research product development effort effort to diminish the amount of asbestos fiber which was being put into thermal insulation blocks and pipe covering. Another of the efforts was a research production project to remove insulation entire, I'm sorry, to remove asbestos entirely from thermal insulation products. Why didn't you just take it out?

It was impossible to just take it out. Asbestos fiber and thermal insulation is like steel reinforcing rods in concrete. concrete. It binds the insulation together in addition to furnishing the thermal insulation high temperature qualities for the purpose the material is to be used. Without the fiber in it, it would crumble and without the fiber in it, it would no longer insulate either for heat or cold as required. There are certain specifications by purchasers of this material that would not permit removing the asbestos from the material, especially those and specifications by the federal government, the Navy, the Air Force. All right, sir.

You were telling us about the research program to find substitute materials. Yes, sir. Another program that I was involved in undertaking was an educational presentation presentation to make aware the outside contractors and the outside insulators of the potential hazards involved with the use of asbestos-containing thermal insulation products. Who sponsored that program? Well, that program was sponsored by a number of companies who were manufacturing thermal insulation products through the then National Insulation Manufacturers Association. And who are these contractors to which you refer?

The contractors to which I refer are primarily the major contractors who apply thermal insulation materials throughout the United States and they are members of an association called the National Insulation Contractors Association or for short referred to as NICA. All right tell the court and jury please what information you gave to them and how it was done. With a committee within the National Insulation Manufacturers Association and produced an educational program that was then taken out to the National Insulation Contractors Association membership membership throughout the United States. The committee included the president of NICA at that time, who arranged for regional meetings throughout the United States of the NICA groups. The program was a program of approximately four to six hours duration. It was an oral presentation of the what asbestos fiber is, what an asbestos fiber being a generic term, the types of asbestos fiber involved in insulations, the the way dust is created on job sites, how dust is measured, and how dust might be controlled controlled by mechanical ventilation, types of respiratory equipment that could be used to prevent exposure, a demonstration of how that respiratory equipment should be maintained maintained and cleaned, a discussion of the necessity of physical examination programs for the contractors, insulation workers, a demonstration of what constituted threshold threshold limit values and of course an explanation of what threshold limit values were, and also a demonstration of what constituted threshold limit values for materials other than asbestos which might be encountered on construction sites.

Mr. Sheckler, how many times did you make this presentation? I made this presentation the first round of meetings in 1966 and 67. The presentation was given at approximately 12 or 14 different groups throughout the country and that involved about 1,000 contractors, or give or take. The program was very well received, and we were requested to amend the program with additional information and repeat a presentation the following year. And there was specifically a request for written information concerning the program that could be passed down from the contractors to their supervisors and the workmen on the job.

And that was done. We went back in 67, 68, made another round of these various regional groups, and again again talk to 1,000 plus or minus contractors in conjunction with the same subject, providing additional information. Mr. Sheckler, let me show you what we'll mark for identification as the deposition exhibit letter H, and I'll ask you if that is a copy of the booklet that was prepared and distributed at that time. This is a booklet entitled Recommended Health Safety Practices for Handling and Applying Thermal Insulation Products Containing Asbestos by the National Insulation Manufacturers Association. And this is a booklet that I prepared in conjunction with other members of the Health Safety Committee of the National Insulation Manufacturers Association. and this is the booklet that, along with that committee, I distributed to the National Insulation Contractors membership plus a number of other people and organizations.

What kind of distribution did you have with it? We printed 10,000 of these booklets to begin with, and then we reprinted 10,000 more and utilized a thousand of both printings. Mr. Sheckler, was any attempt made by you to take this program to the United States Navy in conjunction with their shipyards? Yes, sir. I was requested...

I'm judging the question of the Brownsville improper foundation, since he's going to answer more than he asked. I was requested in, I'm not certain the date, but sometime in late 67 or early 1968 to carry this program that we were presenting to the contractors to the various shipyards of the United States Navy. Navy. I contacted Captain Rosenwinkel of the United States Navy, who was a health officer who I had known from prior scientific organizational meetings, to determine if Captain Rosenwinkel would be interested in such a presentation being given at these shipyards. I remember I remember there were 12 shipyards which were earmarked for such a program. I spoke to Captain Rosenwinkel and Commander Barbo, who was his associate at that time, about the program, and I also communicated with him in writing.

After a period of time, I was advised by Captain Rosenwinkel that the United States Navy would present their own program within the shipyards, and they rejected the offer of NIMA to present the program. Mr. Sheckler, this report of Dr. Selikoff's was from Mount Sinai. Did J-M undertake any additional research with Mount Sinai following the receipt of that report? The Jackson and Propper Foundation.

Yes, sir. There was, I was requested to prepare for Dr. Selikoff. Dr. Selikoff had been aware of the NIMA program, and I was requested to prepare for Dr. Selikoff a list of people within the government, industry, labor, and universities who would be interested in participating in an educational program that would be taken directly to the worker level of the thermal insulation application group.

Did you prepare such a list? I did, yes, sir. I prepared such a list and presented it to Dr. Selikoff. And tell us what happened after that with respect to that group of people. Yes, sir.

Dr. Selikoff prepared and sent out invitations to these people to attend a meeting at the New York Academy of Sciences in New York City, and such a meeting was held, I believe, in July of 1968. Mr. Sheckler, I'll show you what's been marked for identification as Deposition Exhibit I, and ask you if that is a copy of that agenda. Yes, sir. This is a copy of the agenda and the date of the meeting was May 14, 1968.

Did you attend that meeting? I did, yes, sir. Can you tell the court and the jury, please, what the IIHRP is? I-I-H-R-P is a title that we initiated for this program. It was the Insulation Industry Hygiene Research Program. And what did that program undertake to do?

Objection, improper foundation. This program undertook to evaluate the working environment of the thermal insulation workers on construction sites who were applying materials. It also was designed to evaluate methods of application, materials for application, removing materials already installed. It was designed to evaluate respiratory equipment, housekeeping practices. It was designed to evaluate a medical surveillance program or a physical examination program for these people, their cigarette-smoking habits. and generally to develop educational material that could be directed to the insulation worker himself. Do you know who the sponsors of that program were?

I have no objection. Yes, sir. Who were they? The sponsors of the program were the Environmental Sciences Laboratory of Mount Sinai, Hospital, the Heat Frost and Asbestos Workers International Union, the United States Public Health Service, and Johns-Manville Corporation. Did Johns-Manville support the program financially? They did, yes, sir.

I'm sorry. Yes, sir, they did. What What other efforts did Johns-Manville make in connection with the program? Same objection. In addition to supporting the program financially, they provided equipment by virtue of transportation equipment, automobiles. They provided an electron microscope for Mount Sinai Environmental Laboratory, and they provided the services on a detached service basis of a professional industrial hygienist for full-time work with Mount Sinai Hospital.

And who was that? That was Mr. William Reitze. Reitze, R-E-I-T-Z-E. Mr. Sheckler, did the IIHRP program produce any publications for distribution to the Union membership?

Yes, sir. Let me show you what has been marked as Deposition Exhibit J. Installation activities. activities. These were papers that were produced four times a year, published four times a year and distributed. How were they distributed, if you know? They were distributed to the Heat, Frost and Asbestos Workers Union and in turn placed into their house organ, which was distributed to each member of that union.

They were distributed to other trade associations by me and Dr. Selikoff also had additional distribution. You say in the Asbestos Worker Union house organ, you mean the magazine of the union? Yes sir. The membership? Yes sir, the magazine of the union.

Was there a reason why they were called the green sheets or why they were printed on green paper? They were printed on green paper in order to contrast from the black and white printing of the remainder of the Union house organ or the Union magazine. Are you familiar with whether or not there is in the green sheet any articles with respect to smoking and asbestos? There are, yes sir. I wonder if you would turn to number four that appeared in I think early 1969, see if such a story is in there. I believe it's volume one, issue number four, Mr.

Sheckler.

Tape 2 of 6

Did we proceed without counsel? Oh, yes. I'm counsel. Without that counsel. Sure. Mr.

Sheckler, did you find the reference to smoking and asbestos? I did, yes, sir. What is the lead on the article in the journal, please? Objection, hearsay. This is volume number one, issue number four, and the heading is Cigarettes, Asbestos, Don't Mix, by Irving J. Selikoff, Director, IIHRP.

All right, now Mr. Sheckler, let me go back on one other question. In addition to the booklet prepared by the Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association, Did Johns-Manville also prepare informational booklets for distribution to purchasers of its products? Objection, Foundation. Yes, sir. I worked on a number of other booklets that were produced.

Let me show you what has been marked for identification as exhibits J, K, and L. We got a J. We got a J. I'm sorry, K, L, and M. Can you describe those exhibits for us, please? Yes, sir.

This was a booklet which I assisted in preparing with the Sprayed Insulation Manufacturers Association entitled Spraying of Thermal Insulation. Are you referring to what? Okay. I'm sorry, sir. This is Exhibit K. What about Exhibit L?

Exhibit L is a booklet entitled, What You Should Know About Asbestos and Health. Exhibit number M is a booklet entitled, Recommended Safety Practices for Handling Asbestos Fiber. And what distribution was made of those booklets? Objection, Foundation. The distribution of these booklets was made to trade organizations and to Mount Sinai Hospital and a number of contractors. Mr.

Sheckler, let's go back now just a minute to the IIHRP. Has that program been described in the scientific literature? The IIHRP program has been described in the literature, yes, sir. Let me show you what we will mark for identification as Exhibit N, and I'll ask you to tell the court and the jury what that exhibit is. Jackson Improper Foundation. Exhibit N is a paper entitled Partnership for Prevention, the Insulation Industry Hygiene Research Program by Irving J.

Selikoff, M.D. Where did it appear? This paper appeared in the journal Industrial Medicine, volume 39, number 4, April of 1970. Would you read just the first paragraph? Objection improper. Yes, sir.

You're safe. It says, the nation's first cooperative effort by an international labor union, industry, medical science, and government to conduct a preventative hygiene research program for insulation workers has been in productive operation for a year and a half. Create a new sentence. in the development of specific techniques and equipment to control and prevent exposure to dusts, as well as in the experience of cooperative support, the program will have application far beyond the insulation industry period. We go off, sir. Mr. Sheckler, before the break, we were discussing the Insulation Industry Hygiene Research Program.

Did any of that program deal with research on respirators for use by insulation workers? Objection, improper foundation. And if it did, will you tell us what? I'm sorry, I thought you were through. Objection, improper foundation. Yes, sir.

That program did include a respiratory equipment evaluation, an evaluation of filter media and fitting. DR. Were improved respirators developed as a result of that program? DR. Same objection. DR.

Improved respirators were developed as a result of two research programs, one specifically sponsored by Johns-Manville and the other through the IIHRP. The result of both programs was several disposable single-use type respirators that were suitable for filtering out asbestos fiber. Mr. Sheckler, I neglected to ask you initially if you were a member of any professional organizations or societies. Are you? MR.

Yes, sir. Will you tell us what they are? I'm a professional member of the American Society of Safety Engineers. I have just completed serving two three-year terms as a director of the Industrial Health Foundation. MR. What is the...

Excuse me. I'm sorry. Sorry, go ahead. And I was formerly a member of the American Industrial Hygiene Association. What is the Industrial Health Foundation? Just the proper foundation.

Industrial Health Foundation is an organization formulated to review, improve, and research work in the occupational health fields. Do you know whether or not the Industrial Health Foundation conducted any research in connection with asbestos-related diseases? Objection, Appropriate Foundation. Yes, sir, they did. Can you tell us about it? Same objection.

Yes, sir. The Industrial Health Foundation conducted work, epidemiological study of miners and millers in the province of Quebec, Canada in conjunction with the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association. And did the results of that study appear in a recognized scientific journal? Yes, sir. You have in front of you what has been marked for identification as Exhibit O. Is that a copy of that report yes sir now again will you tell us the population that was studied proper foundation this study was made of of workers in the mining operations and workers in the milling operations of the asbestos mines in the province of Quebec, Canada.

When was it published? I believe it was published in 1958. And what were the conclusions of the study, if you know? Objection. Objection by the Foundation. Calls for your signature.

The conclusions of the study, evidence of an increased, an increase of lung cancer sir, among the miners and millers in the asbestos mines above or beyond that of the general population. Mr. Sheckler, that's all. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Take a break for a minute.

Do you want this marked? Yes, it's marked. Name is Fred Luckey. Mr. Sheckler, my name is Fred Luckey, and I represent in Raybestos, Manhattan, and I have a very few questions for you. Did you personally participate in Johns-Manville's decision as to what asbestos-containing thermal insulation products would be labeled in 1964?

Yes, sir. Was asbestos-containing cloth labeled by Johns-Manville in 1964 when Johns-Manville labeled its asbestos-containing thermal insulation products? What do you mean by asbestos-containing cloth? I don't understand that terminology. Yes, I'm referring to asbestos-containing cloth, which is commonly referred to as a textile product. All right, I understand.

You're referring to asbestos textile cloth. Correct. That material was not labeled in 1964. Did you consider asbestos-containing cloth to be a thermal insulation product when the decision was made to label certain asbestos- containing thermal insulation products at Johns-Manville in 1964? Objection, Amy. Do you mean the witness personally?

Yes. Okay. I did not consider asbestos textile cloth to be a thermal insulation material. material. You personally participated in the decision concerning whether or not to label asbestos containing cloth in 1964, did you not? Yes, sir. Did those participating in the decision at a corporate level at Johns-Manville in 1964 consider cloth to be a thermal insulation product?

Objection. The proper foundation. Hearsay. I will object that the cloth is speculated. was I must wait on that answer and assume they did not at any rate you did not first I did not consider asbestos textile cloth to be in a thermal insulation material was one of the criteria the Johns- Manville used in 1964 to decide which asbestos containing products to label whether those products readily gave off loose asbestos fibers in the use of those products objection Objection, in improper foundation. Was one of the reasons that asbestos-containing cloth was not labeled because asbestos- containing cloth did not readily give off loose asbestos in the use of that cloth? Objection, in improper foundation.

Not at that time. Was one of the reasons for not labeling asbestos-containing cloth in 1964 the belief that asbestos-containing cloth did not readily give off loose asbestos fibers in its use same objection no that was not the primary reason for not labeling asbestos cloth in 1964 have you testified in two trials in the Los Angeles litigation yes I did were those trials a Rosalino directo trial and the lewis arsenal truck i wouldn't know the names of them but you have testified in two trials in los angeles i did yes sir i would like to give to john's manville's council two transcripts from those trials there are certain pages or lines from those transcripts that i wish to show the witness to refresh his memory director in directo it is page 4603 lines 1 through 16 and an arsino it is page 4468 lines 5 through 10 and for the record that is the case of rosalino directo versus johns manville products corporation case number c259023 and the case of louis joseph arsinoe Johns-Manville corporation versus Johns-Manville corporation case number c260808 the testimony from the directo matter was on july 21st 1981 and in the arsinoe case on july 22nd 1981. You could read it to them. Ask him if it refreshes his recollection. That means you'll have it in the record. From the Arsenault trial page 4468 beginning with the question on line 5 through the completion through the answer on line 10.

Question, and what was the analysis of that group as far as cloth was concerned? Answer, cloth. We did not consider cloth an insulating material. Cloth was primarily used for brake linings and clutch facings and cloth was not a material that readily gave off loose asbestos in the use of the material. Do you want to finish the answer? We did however exercise process changes in the manufacture of cloth to abate dust.

I didn't hear you. To abate dust. Does that refresh your your memory, Mr. Sheckler, as to whether one of the criteria that J-M Johnsman will use not to worn cloth in 1964 was the fact that it did not freely give off asbestos fibers in its use? That does not refresh my memory. I've explained to you that the date you gave me and the situation you gave me remains as my testimony a few moments ago.

Subsequent to 1964 when the decision was made to label insulation materials, we went to process changes that changed the consistency of the cloth entirely, which we felt then did not require labeling because it did not give off free asbestos uh dust or fibers in the quantity which would require labeling to strike everything after the statement that it is not refreshing recollection is not responsive was one of the reasons that john's mamble did not place a warning on its asbestos containing cloth cloth in 1964, that Johns-Manville did not feel that the use of asbestos cloth created dust emissions in excess of the existing threshold limit value of 5 millimeters per cubic foot at that time. Well, Fred, I think you misspoke yourself. You said 5 millimeters. Oh, excuse me. 5 million particles per cubic foot, I'm sorry. Objection. Brownsville and Piper Foundation.

If you're talking about Johns- Manville as opposed to this witness personally. Yes, sir, I do. No, sir. At that time, and I presume you're speaking now of April 1964, my was to change the process to wet weaving, which then would not require labeling. Was one of the reasons that Johns-Manville did not place a warning label on asbestos containing cloth in 1964 because Johns-Manville did not believe that the use of asbestos containing cloth at that time produced dust in excess of the existing TLV. Existing?

I didn't hear you. TLV. Threshold Limit Value. I'd object, Your Honor, to ask an answer that's precisely the same question that was just asked. Objection at proper foundation. To the court, they concede to the referee that it is a repetitive objection to sustain.

Your Honor, I would like to read into the record a portion of the Rosalina Directo transcript on page 4603, line 1 through line 16, through line 18, excuse me. I think you said you didn't label asbestos cloth because you didn't consider it an insulation material answer no i said we didn't label asbestos cloth because we didn't consider the material that would give off free raw asbestos in two dashes but i did testify at some length to the steps we took to change the processes in order to abate the dust from a cloth question in 68 answer well for mid 60s on question well correct me if i'm wrong Is it your testimony, essentially, that in 64 you didn't take any steps to label asbestos cloth because you felt that the use of it could not create the emission of asbestos fibers in excess of 5 million particles per cubic foot? Answer, that is correct. Question, that's correct. Answer, yes, sir. Continuing through line 21.

Question. Was there any reason, any other reason, that you didn't label asbestos cloth at that time? Answer. At that time, no. Does that refresh your memory, Mr. Sheckler?

Yes. I think that testimony is very accurate. In 1964 is one of the reasons why Johns-Manville did not place a label on asbestos cloth cloth because Johns-Manville felt that the use of that cloth would not create emissions of asbestos fiber in excess of the existing threshold limit value of 5 million particles per cubic foot. Jackson and Brown's Foundation. Yes, I would agree to that statement. When Johns-Manville instituted its labeling program of asbestos containing thermal insulation products in 1964, did it direct its attention initially to those products that contained loose fiber or that could create loose fiber when they were worked.

Objection. Grabbed the foundations. Assumes facts, not evidence. Understand, I cannot testify for, quote, John's manville, but that was certainly my position. Your Honor, I would like to read into the record an excerpt from Mr. Sheckler's testimony in the case of Dolores M.

Moran. versus Johns-Manville sales corporation you indicated there is an inconsistency with respect not only to this question but to prior questions that i have asked concerning these asbestos fibers prior to my reading into the record witnesses testimony from the moran trial videotape was apparently turned off and was not again turned on until after some testimony was elicited that testimony was taken by the court reporter and will now be be read into the record right onto the tape it is onto the tape excuse me tape is started mr mr lucky loris m moran versus johns manville sales corporation case number c793-345 district court of the united states from the northern district of ohio Ohio of the Eastern District. It was testimony given by Mr. Sheckler on April 28, 1981, which distinguishes this transcript from any I have ever seen. There are no page numbers, so I cannot tell you, Mr. Aaron, the questions and answers are numbered. Mr.

Luckey, the question has answers, but no page numbers. Mr. Aaron, no, it's Mr. Simon. Or Mr. Fred.

The questions are numbered, Mr. Otteson. No, just roll along. Mr. Lucky. Mr.

Sheckler, did you give testimony in a case in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, on or about April of 1981? The witness, I gave testimony in Ohio. I am not familiar with the case number. Or, Mr. Lucky, I will start on whatever page at line 9, continue until the next page, line 9. question mr. Sheckler you started this labeling program beginning in 1964 answer yes sir question what products did you start with what kind of sense and priority did you have did you have for it answer we started with the ant insulation products because we felt that was the most important at the moment the program was to expand to all products that contained loose fiber or that you that could create fiber when they were worked question what about asbestos cloth answer asbestos cloth was handled differently one asbestos cloth had a much dash first of all asbestos cloth or textiles we did not consider it to be insulation product to asbestos cloth had a lower priority because it doesn't give off the loose asbestos as does as the insulation materials we handled that via another method in about 1970 and that was that we went to an oil spray and the manufacturing process of the textile cloth which abated the dust and then we went to a wet weaving process which gave the cloth an entirely different texture a question have you listened to that rendition of your testimony Mr.

Sheckler answer yes i have question do you agree with it answer no there is a the process changes of going to oil and wet weaving were done between 1964 and sometime in the later 1960s they were begun in 64 as part of the research program I discussed before and as a result of the process changes we did not feel it or I did not feel it necessary to label asbestos cloth that was my opinion it was the opinion of of others. Marge and Mr. O'Reilly moved to strike the answer for purpose of objecting to the question on the grounds of improper foundation in light of the answer given. Mr. Luckey, in the answer that I read to you, you indicated, and I quote, we handled that via another method in about 1970. My question is, would that mean that the process was completed in approximately 1970 that you are referring to?

Answer, yes. Marge and Mr. O'Reilly, same same objection question other than the one comment that you made do you agree with the remainder of the statement that you made in the testimony that i read to you answer yes sir question and sometime john mansfield did in fact at some time john mansfield did in fact place a warning on asbestos containing cloth did it not answer yes sir question the warning label that was first placed on john mansfield asbestos containing cloth that was the osha label that was developed in 1972, was it not? Answer, yes, sir. Marjorie, Mr. Luckey, thank you.

Marjorie, Mr. Otteson, you weren't running a tape, were you? Do you want to go on? Mr. Sheckler, you know the attorney that took your deposition, is that correct, Mr. Lively Wilson?

Yes, sir. And you know Mr. Lively Wilson to be an attorney that represents Johns-Manville in states other than the state of california yes sir in the asbestos litigation yes sir can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury approximately how many times mr wilson on behalf of johns manville has taken your testimony with videotape no sir i can't i i don't uh i don't recall uh are we talking about more than five different occasions where mr wilson on behalf of johns manville took your testimony via videotape no sir I don't think so somewhere between one and five I recall two videotape depositions and I don't recall any additional two videotape depositions were mr. Wilson on behalf of Johns-Manville asked you the questions yes sir and when were those two other videotape depositions. What year? Well, they were the Louisville deposition.

He took an Ohio videotape deposition. Now, in addition to the two other videotape depositions where Mr. Wilson, on behalf of Johns-Manville, asked you the questions, Mr. Wilson also took your depositions where there there was no videotape equipment. Is that true? In asbestos litigation.

I'll withdraw that question, Mr. Sheckler. I'll withdraw that question. Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury approximately how many times you have been placed under oath and given sworn testimony in a deposition in the United States in asbestos litigation? No, sir. I have no idea.

Yeah. Are we talking approximately 30 different occasions where you've been placed under oath and given your testimony in the asbestos litigation? Mr. O'Reilly, I wouldn't venture a guesstimate at that. I just don't know. Are we talking about more than 20 times?

Mr. O'Reilly, I don't know. Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury approximately how many times you have been placed under oath and given deposition testimony on the asbestos litigation litigation wherein Mr. Lively Wilson was present as an attorney on behalf of Johns-Manville at the deposition? MR. No, sir.

I can't answer the question. I don't know. And you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury in approximately how many different states in the United States you have given testimony under oath in the asbestos litigation? MR. No, sir. I don't.

MR. Are we talking about more than 12 states, 12 different states? I can't answer that question. I don't know. You have given testimony in the state of Texas on a asbestos litigation, have you not, sir? I have, yes, sir.

You've given testimony in the state of Kentucky on a asbestos litigation, have you not, sir? Yes, sir. Approximately how many different occasions did you testify in Kentucky on a asbestos litigation? I recall testimony in Kentucky at least on one occasion. litigation. I don't know. I keep no records of this sort of thing, Mr.

O'Reilly. I have never given any consideration to that sort of thing. You have testified, been placed under oath and testified in the asbestos litigation in the state of Minnesota, have you not, sir? Yes, sir. You have been placed under oath and given testimony in the asbestos litigation in the state of Ohio, is that true? Yes, sir.

You have been placed under oath and given testimony in the asbestos litigation in the state of Tennessee. True? Yes, sir. State of South Carolina? Yes, sir. State of Virginia?

Yes, sir. State of California? Yes, sir. State of Pennsylvania? Yes, sir. State of Colorado?

I don't recall any testimony in Colorado, no, sir. Approximately September 15th, 1981, with attorneys Trine and Novak, did you you testify in a special litigation in the state of Colorado? I don't recall any testimony in Colorado. Oklahoma? Yes, sir. No, sir.

Approximately September 1981, did you give testimony in the special litigation in the state of Maryland where there were attorneys Enoch, E-N-O-C-H, on behalf of the plaintiff, and Scott, on behalf of Johns- Manville? No, sir. Oklahoma? You asked that. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

North Carolina? I don't recall North Carolina. Georgia? Yes, sir. Wyoming? Yes, sir.

Now, in approximately how many of the states that we've mentioned did you testify on more than one occasion? I don't recall I can't recall that either. I can't answer that question. In a number of those states that we've just gone through, did you testify on more than one occasion? Yes, in at least one I can recall. Approximately how many times have you been placed under oath and testified from the witness stand in a court of law in a special litigation?

I cannot answer that question. I don't know. I don't keep a record of it, Mr. O'Reilly. You are here today at the request of Johns-Manville. Is that true?

Well, my understanding, I'm here today at the request of Johns-Manville and here this week at your request and Johns- Manville's request. And in all, let me ask you, I'm sorry, can you tell us if the number of times that you have testified in a court of law from the witness stand in a asbestos litigation approximates between 20 and 30 times? i cannot answer the question i don't keep records of it mr o'reilly in all those situations where you testified from the witness stand in a court of law did you appear as a witness in all of those situations at the request of johns manville or attorneys for john's manville i i'm sorry would you read that question back please i don't think i understood it that's in all those situations where you have testified from the witness stand in a court of law, did you appear as a witness in all of those situations at the request of Johns-Manville or attorneys for Johns-Manville? Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what your financial arrangement is with Johns-Manville for your testimony here today? Yes, sir. For time consumed in testimony and inconvenience of traveling, I am paid at the rate of $400 a day, plus expenses. Is that the rate that you charged Johns-Manville for all of those occasions wherein you testified from the witness stand in a court of law on the asbestos litigation?

No, sir. Was the rate different in any of those other occasions? Yes, sir, the rate was different. Okay, can you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how the rate was different, what your charges were in those occasions as opposed to today? Yes, sir. The charges were $350 a day and found it necessary to increase them to $400 a day.

Approximately when did you change your rate from $350 a day to $400 a day, if you can approximate it for us? I don't recall. Within the past year. did you have a conference with mr. lively Wilson prior to the beginning of your deposition today I did yes sir when did you have that conference or conferences this morning and did mr. Wilson go over the testimony that you would be given today we went over we went over the exhibits yes sir he showed you the exhibits and advised you what questions he would be asking you about those exhibits well he we discussed the exhibits and which exhibits would be forthcoming. Who was present during the conference besides you and Mr. Wilson?

Ms. Smith. And who was Ms. Smith? Mr. Wilson's paralegal.

I was just curious. You also are performing other services for Johns-Manville in addition to making yourself available as a witness in the asbestos litigation. Isn't that true? Yes, sir, I do. And is it true that in approximately 1972 you began a project for Johns-Manville wherein you began to collect and collate data on employees at the Manville facility? Yes, sir, sometime in approximately that time, yes.

Yes. From 1936 until 1942, you were employed full-time by Johns-Manville at the Manville facility, correct? Yes, sir. 1946 to 1952, you were employed full-time by Johns-Manville at the Manville facility, correct? That's correct. From 1952 to 1959, you were employed full-time by Johns-Manville at the Manville facility, correct? Yes, sir.

From 1959 or 1960 until 1972, you were employed by Johns- Manville full-time at corporate headquarters in New York City, correct? That's correct, yes, sir. From 1972 until 1977, you were employed by Johns-Manville at approximately half-time. On a part-time basis, yes, sir. And you received half-salary from Johns-Manville from 1972 until 1977 for your part-time employment for them, is that correct? That's approximately correct, yes, sir.

And in addition to being a part-time employee of Johns-Manville from 1972 until 1977, you also were performing services for them with respect to this project of collecting and collating data. True? As part of the part-time employment, yes, sir. From 1972 until 1977, you officed out of your residence in New Jersey? Yes, sir. You did not office at any Johns-Manville facility.

True? Time at the Manville, New Jersey plant, periodically. From 1972 until 77? Yes, sir. Looking for and collecting the data? Yes, sir.

For this project? Yes, sir. Your office during those years, was that your residence? That's correct. This project that you've been working on for Johns-Manville since 1972, you are still working on today, is that true? Yes, sir.

And this project, let me rephrase that, Johns-Manville sometime in 1971 or 1972 1972 advised you that they would like you to work on a project Wherein you would collect and collate data on employees of the Manville facility true That's correct, and you have been doing that on a part-time basis for Johns-Manville from 1972 up until today's date true Yes, sir from 1972 up until today's date Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what your financial arrangement is with Johns-Manville for? the collecting and collating of this data Yes, sir. On the collating of this data with Johns-Manville, on a agreement with them, basically the same today as it was in 1972, my time that is charged to them is charged on on a basis of the time I spend on the project and that time can vary from one day to the next or one week to the next that it all depends what is the approximate daily rate that you charge Johns-Manville for the services that you've been performing for them on this project from 1972 until today well the The way this project is charged out, the daily rate or the daily agreed rate back in 1972, of course, can't possibly exist today because of the inflation. So we have never made any additional agreements. And what I do is charge them on approximately the basis of $350 to $400 a day, however, over a period of several days in order to make up the daily rate. It depends on how much time I spend on it. How often do you bill Johns-Manville for the work that you're doing on his project?

I'm not talking about the work you're doing in the litigation for them. I'm talking about the work you're doing on this project. I understand. Normally about once a month. And from 1972 until today, when you submit bills to Johns-Manville for the work you're doing for it on this project, to whom do you submit the bills? Dr.

Jerry Chase. And at what facility is he located? He's at the World Headquarters in Denver. Denver. And when you submit bills to Johns-Manville for the work you're doing for Johns-Manville in the asbestos litigation, to whom do you submit the bills? To Mr.

Dennis Markeson. And Mr. Markeson is corporate legal at World Headquarters? Yes, sir. And how often do you submit bills to Johns-Manville for the work that you're doing for them in the asbestos litigation? Well, I submit a bill to Mr.

Markeson whenever I'm active in testimony. I don't normally charge any time for reading depositions or doing any work in the office. My only charges to Mr. Markison are those for being out of the office. When approximately was the first time that you testified for Johns-Manville in an asbestos-related manner? Approximately what year? don't recall the year but it was a it was a Beaumont Texas case was this while you were still a full-time employee with Johns- Manville yes sir it was sometime in approximately 1971 or 72 that would be approximately the time and that was essentially the first time that you were placed in the Roth and gave testimony on the especialist litigation on behalf of Johns-Manville yes sir and you've been doing that since from 1971 or up until today?

Yes, sir. You've testified that you, in 1972, became an occupational health consultant. Do you recall the testimony that I'm talking about? That was my title in John's memo, yes, sir. And you've testified that today that is the title that you go by, an occupational health consultant. Yes, sir.

Now, have you ever been licensed by any state or governmental bureau as an occupational health consultant? No, sir. Have you ever been licensed by any state or governmental bureau as any form of an occupational health specialist? No, sir. I know of no such licensing. Have you ever received any kind of certificate from any institution as any form of an occupational health specialist?

Yes, sir. I am a registered professional safety engineer with the American Society of Safety Engineers. How did you go about becoming a member of that particular society, Mr. Sheckler? I applied for membership in that society back in the early 1950s. So in the early 1950s, you applied for membership in this organization and they sent you back something indicating that you were accepted as a member i was accepted as a junior member in the organization and you remained in an organization until this date i have yes sir now have you received any kind of a certificate from any educational institution in the united states indicating that you have any specialty in the area of occupational health no sir did did you receive any college courses or classes in the area of occupational health no college courses or classes i don't perhaps understand what you mean by college you have testified in the past under oath on at least three or more occasions that you received a bachelor of science degree from rutgers university did you not did you not so testify in the past I testified to that fact at least on one occasion, but I certainly don't agree with your testimony of three occasions.

Well, for the sake of brevity, you have testified under oath in the past that you received a Bachelor of Science degree from Rutgers University, true? I did that and corrected that testimony, yes, sir. And you testified that you received a Bachelor of Science degree from Rutgers University. University, you so testified at least on one occasion, August 24, 1978, in Kentucky, did you not? I did, yes, sir. And you had testified on at least two prior occasions under oath.

I testified at least in one prior occasion to that fact that I recall, and the occasion The occasion in Kentucky that you refer to is the occasion in which I corrected the testimony. Mr. Sheckler, on August 24, 1978, at a videotaped deposition in Louisville, Kentucky, you testified under oath in response to a question by an attorney on behalf of the plaintiff in that a special litigation that you received a bachelor of science degree in engineering from Rutgers University. Is that true? I don't know. August 24th, I testified one day that I received a degree on videotape deposition, and on the following day on the videotape deposition, I corrected that testimony.

I don't know what the specific dates were. This was in Louisville, Kentucky, yes, sir. Is it also true that prior to that time, you had testified on at least two prior occasions that you had received a master's degree from Rutgers University? I remember that. I remember testimony being given in Ohio, because after I realized the import of the error, I went back and attempted to correct it by writing to the various attorneys correcting it. Well, I'll read from the deposition of Mr.

Sheckler taken this past Monday under the Dorothy St. Jacques v. Johns-Manville caption, case number C137465, deposition of Clifford Sheckler taken on behalf of plaintiffs at this office on Monday, January 4th, 1982. I'd like to read from page 56, page 24 through 57, line 10. Question. And I believe you testified that prior to that time you recalled testifying under oath on at least two occasions that you had received a bachelor's degree from Rutgers University.

Is that true? And Mr. Otteson, that is what he said. I will stipulate that is what the record will reflect. Question to Mr. Sheckler.

Is that correct? Answer. Yes, sir. Question. And I believe you testified that you noticed your mistake after the first day of a videotape deposition when you read the deposition that night and then corrected it the next day on the second day of the videotape deposition. Is that correct?

Answer. I viewed the videotape that night. Yes, sir. Question. Who showed the videotape to you? Answer.

I don't think anyone was with me, but I viewed the videotape. I think I asked to have it set up and viewed it myself if I recall. That's the end, line 14, page 57. Is it true, Mr. Sheckler, that on the first day of this videotape deposition in Kentucky in 1978 that you testified that you received a bachelor's degree from Rutgers University and then the following day you stated in response to a questioning by another plaintiff's attorney that you did not receive a bachelor's degree that is correct yes okay and on the two prior occasions that you recall you testified also that you received a bachelor's degree from Rutgers University is that true yes sir I did and I then attempted to go back and correct that but never had any response from those attorneys you did not move the strike the last sentence is non-responsive. You did not change either of those prior deposition transcripts to reflect that you did not receive a degree from Rutgers University, did you?

I had no opportunity to do that, Mr. O'Reilly. You did not do it? I did not do it, no. And isn't it true that you did not receive any kind of a written document, whether it be a certificate, diploma, or anything else from Rutgers University indicating that they had conferred upon you any kind of a degree? That's correct.

Right. Okay. And from 1936 to 1942, let me withdraw that. Just one more, maybe two more questions on this point. With respect to your testimony in Louisville, Kentucky, wherein this is in 1978, wherein one day, the first day you testified in response to a question by a plaintiff's attorney that you had obtained a bachelor's degree from Rutgers University University in 1940. You advised Mr.

Wilson, Lively Wilson, on behalf of Johns-Manville, the following morning that that was incorrect, that you did not receive such a degree. Is that true? I did, and I told him I was going to correct it. Right. And then shortly after you told that to Mr. Wilson, Mr.

Wilson began asking asking you questions for the videotape deposition that he was doing of you on that second day in Louisville, correct? Mr. Wilson handled the direct examination. And he started asking you the questions on direct shortly after you told him that you had testified erroneously the day before that you had received a bachelor's degree, true? Well, no, I don't think it was shortly after. I can't assess.

I told Mr. Wilson what I intended to do early in that morning, and it was probably two hours later that the direct examination began. Okay. Well, then, sometime on the morning of the second day of this videotape deposition, before the deposition began, you told Mr. Lively Wilson from Johns-Manville that you did not receive a bachelor's degree from Rutgers University. True?

Yes, sir. And sometime thereafter, the second day's deposition began, true? Yes, sir. And Mr. Wilson then began asking you questions on direct examination on behalf of Johns-Manville, true? Yes, sir.

That's correct. And when Mr. Wilson got to the point of asking you what your educational background was at that deposition, you did not disclose that you did not receive a bachelor's degree, did you? I will object, Your Honor. The record will speak for itself. I'll read the record.

Deposition Eastern United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee Southern Division of Tennessee cases under the caption of Claude Ray Damewood, D-A-M-E-W-O-O-D et al. v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, the Damund case number, number 1-78-170, deposition of Clifford L. Sheckler taken by defendant Johns-Manville Sales Corporation Louisville Kentucky August 25th 1978 direct examination starts on page six by Mr. Wilson what's the first three pages are colloquy between counsel and the questioning begins on page eight I will read page 10 where on page on lines 9 through 17 Mr. Wilson inquires about Mr. Sheckler's educational background question first mr.

Sheckler what was your what is your educational background answer I attended Rutgers University construction engineering I was in the Bachelor of Science program I finished school in 1940 question all right sir and did you go to work for Johns-Manville at that time answer I went to work for Johns-Manville before finishing school in 1936 yes question all right give us the benefit of your work experience at Johns-Manville please answer. From 1936 to 1942, I was employed in the engineering department of Johns-Manville. From 1942 to 1946, I served in the armed services. I returned to Johns-Manville in 1946 as construction supervisor at the Manville complex to 1952. I became safety engineer for the Manville complex from 1952 to 1957, supervisor of safety and health for the Manville complex from 1957 to 1959, and and manager of safety and health for the corporation from 1959 to 1968 and director of safety and health for the corporation from 1968 to 72. That ends at page 11, line 5.

From 1936 until 1942, you served as a surveyor for construction, new construction for Johns-Manville at the Manville facility? Yes, sir. Right. at the Manville facility I did survey work and acted as a liaison between the Johns-Manville engineering department and the contractors who were constructing the new facilities at that location so the new construction that you were working with or in conjunction with was construction that was being performed by outside contractors at the manville facility true from 1936 to 1942 that is true the people that were actually doing the construction work were not employees of john's manville from 1936 to 1942. that is correct and then from 1946 to 1952 you were supervisor of construction for Johns-Manville. True. At the Manville, New Jersey, complex. And the people that were doing the construction work during that period of time from 1946 to 1952, they were Johns-Manville employees.

True. Yes, sir. And in 1952, you became safety engineer for the Manville complex. True. That is correct. Yes, sir.

You served in that capacity until 1957. Yes, sir. 1957 you became supervisor of safety for the Manville complex true yes sir served in that capacity until approximately 1959 well 59 early 60 there was a transition period there of several months back and forth from 1936 until 1942 you knew that asbestos fiber was being used at the Manville complex in manufacturing products did you not I did yes sir and the total of your knowledge of the disease- causing propensities of asbestos fibers during those six years was that asbestos fibers could cause lung disease upon inhalation is that true my knowledge of asbestos fiber in those days as I recall was that asbestos fiber was a toxic material is that essentially what your knowledge of the disease causing propensities of asbestos fibers was during those six years 1936 to 1942 that asbestos fiber was a toxic substance I think essentially that's that's the answer from 1946 until 1952 when you became safety engineer you essentially had the same knowledge of the disease causing propensities of asbestos fibers isn't that true yes sir you still knew basically that asbestos fiber was a toxic substance yes sir okay and that essentially comprised your knowledge of the disease processes that could be induced by asbestos fiber and the circumstances and so on is that true i'm sorry would you repeat yes sir i'm sorry and that essentially constituted the knowledge that you had of the disease- causing propensities of asbestos fibers from 1946 until 1952. That is, that asbestos fibers were toxic. Yes, sir. I think that's a fair statement. In 1952, you became safety engineer for the Manville Complex.

Would you please, well, let me withdraw that because that was more a statement than a question. Would you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what the Manville Complex consisted of in terms of plants, buildings, and personnel when you became safety engineer in 1952. Yes, sir. Manville Complex consisted of a production plant on one side of a river and a research center and data processing center on the other side of the river. the river divided the two installations. The production plant covered a substantial amount of ground. I don't know how many acres, roughly, but it was a big plant.

Consisted of approximately approximately 12 to 15 buildings, and the building dimensions each was 150 feet wide by some 1,000 feet long, some 1,200 feet long. There was about 13 to 15 miles of railroad railroad within the plant location. There was approximately 10 miles of road surface within the plant, and the plant and the research center, data processing center, totally employed in in the years from 1951 through 1960 employed approximately five six thousand people more or less divert a can you give us a description of the kind of of buildings that were on this Manville complex from 1952 to 1960. That is, you had a power plant. I'll go through them if you wish, sir. Please.

The first building, they were identified as ABCD. Building A was, building A1 was was a brake lining and clutch facing plant. Where, when I say plant, I mean the manufacturing of these products. Building A was a manufacturing plant for asbestos textile materials. Building B housed the plant engineering department and also the manufacturing processes for packings and friction materials. Building C was a manufacturing facility for low-temperature asbestos paper pipe covering.

Asbestos D was a paper mill where papers were manufactured. You said asbestos D, and I think you meant building D. I'm sorry. Building D was a manufacturing process for paper. It was a paper mill that manufactured the paper for the roofing manufacturing operation. That used asbestos?

It was an asbestos base felt material. material. Building E was the manufacturing process for thermal insulation materials. Building F was the manufacture of saturated roofing and roof shingle materials. Building Building F1 was a warehouse for saturated roofing and roofing materials. Building G was a manufacturing facility for black line, that is asphalt-based cements, bridge planking, which was an asphalt-based material used for the flooring of bridges, and expansion joints. Building H was a manufacturing facility for the manufacture of rigid shingles, material corrugated asbestos and flat asbestos sheets, asbestos cement sheets.

That entire building was an asbestos cement operation. Building I was a manufacturing facility for asbestos cement pipe. T was a manufacturing facility for flooring materials, floor tile and other flooring materials. Asbestos- containing floor tiling? Asbestos-containing floor tile, yes, sir. RW was initially a building for the manufacture of rock wool and later a warehouse. house.

Building EP was an experimental building used for experimental rock-wool production and later experimental production of ceramic fiber. It was a full-size powerhouse that that furnished both electric and steam for the entire complex. And then on the other side of the river, the research center was housed in one U-shaped building. The data processing center was separated from that in a separate building. Did the approximately 12 miles of railroad connect all these facilities in both the Manville complex and across the river in Finderne, the research center? No, no.

The railroad connected to the Lehigh Valley Railroad, connected to the Lehigh Valley Main Line Railroad, and ran spurs into either side of each building for loading and unloading boxcars. This would be on the Manville complex? In the Manville complex, and then of course there was also a spur into the powerhouse for unloading coal. Would you tell, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what your responsibilities were as safety engineer in 1952 when you went into that position? My responsibilities as safety engineer when I went into that position was to, one, One, revise and initiate new safety programs for that location. Two, to administer the safety program for that location.

And three, to assist my immediate supervisor in the handling of workman's compensation as designated by him. Now, when you became safety engineer for that complex in 1952, there was one other person, a Mr. Stanton, who was the supervisor of safety. Is that true? Mr. Stanton was supervisor of safety at that time, yes.

And from 1952 until 1957, you and Mr. Stanton constituted the safety department at the Manville complex. Is that true? Along with two girls, two secretaries. And then when Mr. Stanton left in 1957, you took his job as supervisor of safety until 1959 or 60?

I did, yes, sir. Now, would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what classroom education you had received up until 1952 in the area of medicine? I received no classroom education in the area of medicine up to 1952. Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what classroom education you had received in the area of safety when you became safety engineer in 1952? As a supervisor of construction, I was exposed to courses provided by Johns- Manville, well, and those courses included some courses in occupational safety. You had no educational, I mean, I'm sorry, you had no academic or college-type training or education in the area of safety, did you, in 1952?

No, sir. That type of college training in those days was unavailable. unavailable moved to strike everything after no sir is not responsive did you have any classroom training or education in any of the health sciences or health services field when you were appointed safety engineer at the Manville complex in 1952 no sir and this in-house training that you're talking about that you received from Johns-Manville from 1946 to 1952. Did that consist of sessions wherein you discussed, along with other Manville employees, certain aspects of traumatic injuries like slipping and falling on the job site, having your head hit because you weren't wearing a helmet, that kind of thing? The sessions were presented by, were presented formally by a director of training, and they did, at that time, now we're talking up to 1952, is that your time period, sir? Yes, sir. Up to 1952, the sessions that I was exposed to were primarily concerned with traumatic injuries.

And by traumatic injuries, you mean injuries that a person suffers as a result of receiving a blow to some part of the body? Or falling, or, yes, sir. Now, at any time up until 1952 when you became safety engineer, did you receive any kind of courses or training at Johns- Manville, from anyone at Johns-Manville, that dealt with occupationally related lung diseases? Not up to 1952, no, sir. Had you received any kind of courses or training in the area of the pneumoconiosis? Not up to 1952, no, sir.

You became a safety engineer in 1952. You were responsible for ensuring that a safety program that covered all employees at that complex was administered properly. Is that true? that's correct yes sir and you had responsibility for ensuring let me withdraw that question it was also your responsibility to recommend changes in the safety program as you saw necessary is that true that is true yes sir and you were aware in 1952 that many of the J-M let me rephrase that you were aware in 1952 and you became safety engineer that many of the employees that worked at the Manville complex were exposed to asbestos fibers in their work is that true I don't understand your terminology exposed would you clarify that you knew in 1952 when you became safety engineer at the Manville complex that asbestos fibers were being used in a number of the manufacturing processes that is correct yes sir and you knew that the manufacturing processes were such that there was constant airborne asbestos fiber is that true that's not true necessarily no sir well were you aware in 1952 when you became safety engineer that many of the employees at the Manville facility were inhaling asbestos fibers in their work i was not aware of that no sir did you find that out sometime between 1952 and 1957 no sir well did you were they is it your testimony that the employees at the manville facility between 1952 and 1957 were not inhaling asbestos fibers at their work i mean i would object as big i would try the question i would try the question when you became safety engineer in 1952 was it your understanding that the safety program was such that it had to be designed to protect all the Manville employees from occupationally induced lung disease well the safety program of the manual complex was designed to employees from any types of injuries that might occur one aspect of the safety program that was in effect in 1952 was designed to protect all employees from the inhalation of asbestos fibers is that true no sir that's not true that's uh is it correct mr sheckler that you have been named as an individual defendant along with johns manville in asbestos litigation by certain plaintiffs in the state of new jersey and a couple other states yes sir that That is correct. And is it true that Johns-Manville has provided you with counsel to represent you in those proceedings? Yes, sir. And is it true that the counsel, the law firm that represents you in those proceedings also represents Johns-Manville, and particularly Mr.

Gross in New Jersey? Mr. Gross's law firm represents Johns-Manville as well, yes, sir. As well as you? Yes, sir. And is it true that Johns-Manville provided you with an indemnity agreement whereby they promised you that they would indemnify you for any legal fees or judgments rendered against you in that litigation?

As an employee, that is true, yes, sir. When you became safety engineer in 1952, did the Manville facility have any part of the safety program directed towards protecting the employees against diseases that occurred from the inhalation of asbestos fibers? Yes, sir. It was one of your responsibilities to recommend changes in that safety program that dealt with protecting people from diseases caused by the inhalation of asbestos fibers if you thought the program was not effective. Is that true? It was one of my responsibilities to make recommendations in the safety program for any reason that I thought that it wasn't effective in conjunction with prevention of it was in conjunction with injury prevention it was it part of your responsibility then to ensure that the safety program in so far as it dealt with the prevention of disease caused by the inhalation of asbestos fibers was effective in protecting the employees it was my part of it was my responsibility to administer the safety program that's but we left the tape for a moment sir was a part of your responsibility then to ensure that the safety program insofar as it dealt with the prevention of disease caused by the inhalation of asbestos fibers was effective in protecting the employees objection on vague and ambiguous with regard to the word insurer favorite words and has some problems i would phrase it yes sir was it part of your responsibility to determine that the safety program insofar as it dealt with protecting employees from disease against asbestos inhalation was effective it was part of my responsibility to evaluate the effectiveness of that program right and your responsibility in the area of recommending changes in the safety program extended to that part of the safety program that was designed to protect employees from disease through inhalation of asbestos fiber is that true that was part of the yes that's true is it true that when you became safety engineer in 1952 you knew that asbestos fibers were toxic yes sir that's true and is it true when you became safety engineer in 1952 that the safety program in so far as it dealt with protecting employees from disease through the inhalation of asbestos fibers extended to all the employees at the manville facility and is it true that in 1952 the manville facility had a medical program for employees yes sir and is it true that this medical program for employees at the manville facility a chest x-ray as a routine every two years for all employees a couple exceptions that i'll get into in the next line of questioning yes sir the the chest x-ray program was part of a physical examination program yes sir and the chest x-ray program was such at that time 1952 that as a general matter all employees received a chest x-ray every two years that's correct and the employees that were included in this chest x-ray program, wherein they received a chest x-ray every two years, were production line employees that worked with asbestos fibers eight hours a day, directly.

Is that true? That was one group of employees included? That was one group, yes, sir. Another group of employees included in this chest x-ray program, wherein they received a chest x-ray as a routine every two years, consisted of office personnel, clerks, secretaries, so forth, correct? Yes, sir. They were part of the physical examination program.

And they received as a routine, as part of the medical program, a chest x-ray every two years, along with the production workers? That's correct. In addition, the employees that were to receive a chest x-ray as a routine every two years also included the security forces, the guards, and so on. Is that true yes sir they were part of the employee population included maintenance personnel yes sir did it include the pipe covers and insulators that worked in the construction department at the manville facility yeah i'm gonna check this thing he said it included everybody i want to be sure You're a very repetitive guy. I gather you're objective. I am, Your Honor.

Did the construction department that you supervised from 1946 to 1952 still exist at the Manville complex from 1952 to 1959? Yes, sir. And did the construction department that worked at the Manville facility facility from 1952 to 1959 include pipe covers and insulators that were called masons by Johns-Manville. Yes, sir. And these masons that were Johns- Manville employees from 1952 to 1959, their work consisted of preparing, applying, and removing insulating materials at the Manville complex, true? True.

As a part of their function, yes, sir. So these masons, in essence, spent much of their working time performing the services of a pipe coverer or an insulator at the Manville complex. True? Yes, sir. Masons, did they receive, as a routine, chest x-rays every two years while you were their supervisor from 1946 until 1952? Yes, sir. they received the same physical examination as all other employees.

And did that chest X-ray program remain unchanged from 1952 until 1959? Your Honor, I'm going to object. I've sat so far, but the witness continues to state that it was a physical examination which included a chest X-ray. Mr. O'Reilly continues to characterize it as a chest x-ray program, which it is not, and I will object on grounds that it mischaracterizes the witness's testimony. Thank you, sir.

I believe the witness said in the beginning that there was a chest x-ray program that was part of the physical examination, and that's the part of the physical examination that I'm concerned about in my questioning. He also has made it rather clear, counsel, that it is a part of another program, a general examination. but not solely, apparently, an x-ray program. Insofar as the chest x-ray program part of this physical examination is concerned, did it remain unchanged from 1952 to 1959 at the Manville facility? The physical examination program remained the same. In its entirety? In its entirety.

Now, is it true that when you became safety engineer in 1952 and up until you went to corporate headquarters in 1959 and 1960, key staff received a physical examination and a chest x-ray once a year instead of once every two years, like all other employees? plant managers key staff personnel received a physical examination once a year this included a chest x-ray which included a chest x-ray yes sir and the key staff that received a physical examination and a chest x-ray every year instead of every two years consisted of three plant managers and approximately 18 superintendents that worked beneath them from 52 to 59. Included three plant managers and I as I testified to the other day I'm not certain of the number of staff people each had but approximately six six staff members on each plant manager staff. When you were describing the buildings before at the Manville complex I don't believe you mentioned the office building maybe you did and i missed it but did the manville complex also contain a multi-story office building no sir i i think you're right i don't think i did mention the office building there was a what was known as the main office building and that housed nothing but offices and office personnel is that true one of the plant managers was permanently officed in that office building wasn't he yes sir and which plant manager was that that was mr o'brien and And what was he the plant manager of? The Industrial Division. In 1946, when you became supervisor of construction for Johns-Manville at the Manville facility, you had a number of people that worked under your supervision in what was known as the construction department. True?

Yes, sir. And in addition to, well, let me withdraw that. that. The construction department, while you were supervised from 1946 to 1952, had responsibilities for new construction at the Manville facility, is that true? New construction and construction repairs, yes, sir. And by construction repairs, do you mean that the construction department that you supervised from 1946 to 1952 had responsibility for doing repair and overhaul work on piping and systems systems at the Manville complex? The department which I supervised did not have responsibility for repairing the piping.

That was done by steamfitters. Did your construction department, between 1946 and 1942, have responsibility for removing ? Pardon? I'm sorry. I'll take your word for it. I won't even ask you how or where.

I will draw the question. Did the construction department that you supervised from 1946 to 1952 have responsibility for ripping out or removing any particular kind of insulation that was covering piping that had to be repaired by the steamfitters? Yes, sir. They did. They did tear out. And when the steamfitters finished whatever repair work they had to perform on the piping systems in 1946 to 1952, did your construction department have the responsibility for insulating insulating the piping after the work was performed by the steamfitters?

That's correct, yes, sir. And was it the masons that performed the rip-out or tear-out so that the steamfitters could get access to the piping systems between 46 and 52? Masons and mason helpers, yes, sir. And was it also the mason and mason helpers that insulated the piping systems after they were repaired by the steamfitters, 46 to 52? Yes, sir. And when you became supervisor of construction at the Manville complex in 1946, isn't it correct that respirators were issued, as a matter of course, to a number of the personnel in the construction department?

Respirators were provided to all of the employees in the construction department regardless of their function. Is it true that when the masons and mason helpers that worked in the construction department under your supervision from 1946 until 1952 performed any work that had them removing old insulation that you recommended they wet the old insulation down before they remove it? Yes, sir. and is it true that much of the old insulation that was in use at the manville complex from 42 i'm sorry much of the let me rephrase what's on the question is it true that much of the insulation that was in use at the manville complex when you became supervisor of construction in 1946 contained asbestos and is it true that much of the insulation the new insulation that was prepared and applied by the masons and mason helpers that worked for you contained asbestos. Yes, sir, that is true. And is it true that the insulating materials, the asbestos-containing insulating materials used by your construction department from 1946 to 1952 were manufactured by Johns-Manville? Yes, sir.

And is it true that the reason that you recommended that the J-M employees who worked out of your construction department 1946 to 1952 when they performed let me rephrase the question withdraw the question is it true that the reason that you recommended that the masons and mason helpers wet the old insulation down before removing it was because you recognize that that would reduce the dust created during the rip out or tear out procedure is it true that from 1936 to 1942 you as liaison between Johns-Manville at the Manville complex and the outside contractors you observe the pipe covers and insulators that work for the outside contractors removing and applying insulating materials no sir you did not well let me let me ask you this two questions you asked me two questions sir you want to break them down yeah i'll break them down i'll break them down did you from 1936 until 1942 observe the pipe covers and insulators who work for these outside contractors prepare and apply new insulation at the manville complex yes sir and was many of it especially containing insulation yes sir and was it john's manville especially containing insulation Yes, sir. And from 1936 until 1942, did you observe the pipe covers and insulators that worked for the outside contractors mixing asbestos cement with water? Yes, sir. And was that a dusty process, the way they were doing it? Depended on who and how it was done. Yes, sir, I'm listening.

Oh, you finished your answer? Well, there was some dust created depending on how it was dumped into the hogs by one operator. Another operator could dump it into the hogs and not create dust. H-O-G-S. Yes, sir. From what you observed from 1936 to 1942, when you saw these pipe covers and insulators for the outside contractors mixing the asbestos containing cement, was it your opinion that it was a dusty operation generally speaking very difficult for me to answer that question i i reluctant to to say yes or no to that question i i don't recall well when you would from 1936 to 1942 while you were the liaison between the manville complex and the outside contractors observe the pipe covers and insulators cutting and sawing especially containing pipe covering and block is that true yes sir that's true and you saw them I'm gonna phrase that you would observe them sawing it by hand is that true yes sir they saw that and you saw dust being created when they would saw or cut especially containing pipe covering or block 36 to 42 correct there was some dust created yes sir that you could see with your eyes yes sir during the period of time that you were construction uh supervisor or supervisor of construction from 1946 until 1952 you observed the masons that worked for you or for johns manville under your supervision mixing especially containing cement true yes sir and did you observe dust being created when the cement would be mixed yes I think there was some dust created I can't say it was void of all dust however we wet down as fast as possible well during the period of time 1946 until 1952 did the Masons and Mason and helpers that mixed this asbestos-containing cement under your supervision do it in a way that was different than the way it was done by the pipe covers and insulators that you observed from 1936 to 1942?

I think that's a fair statement, yes. Was it done differently or was it done the same? No, I think it was done somewhat differently. How was it done differently from 1946 to 1952 while you were supervisor of construction? How did the employees working under your supervision do it differently than what you observed from 1936 to 1942 the the emptying of bags in from from the bag into the hog which is the trough where the cement is mixed if the bag is placed in the hog and cut open and raised up there is minimal dust created if on the other hand the bag is thrown on the side of the hog and torn open and shaken then there will be dust created so it depends on the individual putting the material into the hog as to whether he creates creates minimal dust or creates a dustier condition. We encouraged our people to put the bags in the hog, cut them open, raise the bag, let the material go out, and put water into it immediately.

And that's the way you recommended that the J-M employees working under your supervision from 46 to 52 perform that operation? I did. and you did that to keep the dust down I did that to create minimal dust and is it true that no matter how cement was mixed especially containing cement was mixed it was dusty some operations more dusty than others but no matter how it was done at that time it was dusty well I I don't know what you mean by dusty so if you can clarify how much dust is dusty then I can answer your question can Can you do it in terms of maximum allowable concentrations? You tell me, then I'll attempt to answer your question. You could see it with your eye. Whenever you'd mix cement, you could see the dust. Well, yes, you can see dust when you mix cement.

And it was a dusty job, mixing the cements. I think I just answered your question, sir. I don't know what you mean by a dusty job. I'd like to read from the deposition of Mr. Sheckler, dated August 25, 1978. This again is under the Damewood caption on Tennessee cases taken in the state of Louisville, Kentucky.

August 25, 1978, page 121, line 15 to 122, line 11. Do you mind if I take a look at that? No. This is the one we gave you a copy of, though. You don't have it with you today? Well, we'll bring you another copy.

I would sustain that objection. You would sustain it? Yeah, I was reading the question that was objected to. We don't have a ruling. Right. We could go off tape.

No, we'll stay on tape. I'll stop before that. I want to ask the question. That question. Go ahead. Page 121 of that August 25, 1978 deposition, line 15, question of Mr.

Sheckler. and you were familiar with the fact that the asbestos cements and other asbestos related products that these construction insulators or pipe coverers used in the process of the construction work that they did became easily airborne isn't that true answer depending on the material some of it was dusty question and that's particularly true with respect to the mixing procedure that attends the asbestos cement that is a pretty dusty dirty job isn't it Mixing cements was a dusty job. I'm stopping there. Line 1, page 122. Now, Mr. Sheckler, you mentioned something also about wetting it down as quickly as one could. Were you talking about the process of...

Let me retry the question. Did you also recommend to the pipe covers and insulators that worked under your supervision in the construction department, I mean the masons and the mason helpers, that when they mix cement, they wet it down immediately to prevent dust or to reduce the dust that would be airborne? Yes, I recommend that the material be wet down as soon as possible. So you advise the people working for you that were mixing the special containing cement from 46 to 52 to dissolve the special containing cement with water as soon as they could? well that was the yes sir that was the objective of mixing cement was to get it wet and get it on the pipe covering and did you also recognize during that time 46 to 52 that the sooner the cement was wet the less dust would be created well i think that yes sir I think that's a reasonable line. What about five minutes? How about that?

Can we take five minutes?

Tape 3 of 6

When you observed the pipe covers and insulators that were working for the outside contractors at the Manville facility from 1936 until 1942, did you see any of them with respirators? No, sir, I don't recall seeing any of them with respirators. Did you observe any of those pipe covers and insulators from 1936 until 1942 mixing the cement in such a way as to make it less dusty? No, sir. okay so the pipe covers and insulators that you observed from 1936 to 1942 were not mixing the asbestos containing cement in the way that you recommended that the masons under your supervision do it from 1946 to 52. is that true that's that's correct yes sir at that time 1946 until 1952 who are aware that the asbestos containing insulation products manufactured manufactured and sold by Johns- Manville were used aboard ship in shipyards. Is that true? We're aware from 1946 until 1952 that many of these insulating products containing asbestos that were manufactured and sold by Johns- Manville were used in ship spaces below deck aboard ship.

Mr. O'Reilly, you're now talking about Johns-Manville products. Do you mean insulation products or any product? I thought I said insulation products containing asbestos in the question, but I'll rephrase the question. Were you also aware from 1946 to 1952 that the asbestos-containing insulating products manufactured and sold by Johns- Manville that were being used in shipyards were on many occasions being used in ship spaces below deck aboard ship? Yes, sir.

Is it true that shipyard workers using asbestos-containing insulating products would have a higher exposure than normal construction workers? I'll object on foundational grounds. Are you asking me, sir, do I know that as of this date, or did I know it as of a date before this? I don't understand. Well, first now. I think so, sir.

The question is, at the present time, do you have some awareness in that respect? Yes. I think that's a reasonable statement. Were you aware of that 1946 until 1952? During that period? During that period of time.

No, sir. were you aware at any time from 1946 until 1952 that stickers outside of Johns-Manville let me rephrase the question were you aware at any time from 1946 until 1952 that asbestos containing insulating materials in particular thermal insulating products manufactured and sold by Johns-Manville would have to to be ripped out or torn out at some point in time by consumers or members of the consuming public. I'll object as vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term consumer. I will try the question. I will try the question. You've testified that from 1946 to 1952, the masons and mason helpers working in your construction department occasionally performed tear-out or rip-out work. Yes, sir. where they tore out or ripped out old, especially containing insulation materials in order to make piping systems or machinery accessible to steam fitters, pipe fitters, that kind of thing.

True? Yes, sir. And were you aware at any time from 1946 to 1952 that purchasers of Johns-Manville, especially containing insulating products, thermal insulating products, would at some point in time be performing the same kind of tear-out or rip-out procedures? I ain't sure anymore. Let me go back and do the question over. I would say no.

All right. Were you aware at any time from 1946 until 1952 that purchasers of Johns-Manville Manville asbestos-containing thermal insulation products would, at some point in time, be performing the same kind of tear-out or rip-out operation. That is, where they would be removing old asbestos-containing insulating products in order to make piping systems or machinery accessible to other crafts. Was there any reason that you were aware of at any time from 1946 to 1952 that indicated to you that purchasers of Johns-Manville thermal insulating asbestos-containing products would would not be engaging in rip-out or tear-out operations. I don't think in that time period, Mr. O'Reilly, that I really gave the purchasers of Johns-Manville materials any thought.

Okay. Now, going back to this project that you were on for Johns-Manville from 1972 until today where you're collecting and collating this material on the Manville employees. Do you know the project I'm talking about? Yes, sir. From 1972 until today, have you submitted any kind of a written documentation or writing to anyone at Johns-Manville about any aspect of that project other than your bills? I'll rephrase the question.

Have you, since you began this project in 1972, submitted any any writing or written document to Johns-Manville that dealt with this project that you were performing for them, other than when you would send them a statement, other than a statement for your bill for a particular month or two months or three months? I'm going to object on the grounds of the term writing or written materials. Go ahead. I just did, since in view of my knowledge, it's vague and ambiguous. Thank you. Did you prepare any kind of a written document for forwarding to Johns-Manville about any aspect of this project from 1972 when you began it until today, other than your statement of your bill?

Same objection. No, sir. Has Johns-Manville, Johns- Manville, sent you any form of a written document pertaining to this project or your project? Let me rephrase the question. Since you began this project in 1972, has Johns-Manville or anyone at Johns- Manville sent any written document to you that was prepared by them with respect to your progress on the project? No, sir, I don't think so.

I want to mislead you, Mr. O'Reilly. I would like you to define to me what you mean by written. I don't quite understand that all of the data back and forth has been on computer tape, and I'm not sure that you consider that written material or not, and I don't want to mislead the jury or yourself. Well, from 1972 until today, you've submitted approximately two computer tapes to Johns-Manville on this project. Is that true?

No, sir. That's not true. Okay. How many computer tapes have you submitted to Johns-Manville? I haven't the slightest idea. Usually four a month to five a month, full tapes.

It varies depending on the amount of work we do per month. And these tapes contain, essentially, the data that you are collecting and collating for Johns-Manville, is that true? That is correct, yes, sir. So you take all the data on these Manville employees and put them on computer tape and send them to Johns-Manville? That's correct. And from 1972 until today, that's the only thing you've sent Johns-Manville on this project other than your bill, that is these computer tapes containing this data?

Yes, sir. Okay. Now, has Johns-Manville sent anything in writing to you about this project from 1972 until today? No, sir. And have you seen any document of any kind that purports to be any kind of a summary of the data you've submitted to Johns-Manville on this project? No, sir.

Have you seen any kind of a publication that, any kind of a written publication that, in your mind, relates to this project? No, sir. You also mentioned at the beginning of your direct testimony this morning that you have served as they can Tima Tima Yes, sir. Originally NIMA now team same organization Tima is short for the thermal insulation Manufacturers Association. That's correct. And it is a industry organization It's a an industry position yes, that is Tima is composed of a number of companies in the thermal insulation manufacturers industry?

That's correct, yes, sir. And Johns-Manville is a member of TIMA? Johns- Manville is a member of TIMA. Is it true that all of the income that you've earned from 1972 until today has come either from Johns-Manville for the project you're doing for them, your work and litigation for Johns-Manville in the asbestos litigation, or from TIMA with the exception of a two- month project you did for the Asbestos Information Association? Yes, sir. And sometime two, three years ago, you did a two-month project for the Asbestos Information Association?

Yes, sir. And that is an industry organization? That is an industry organization also? That is, yes, sir. Before you retired from Johns-Manville in 1977, you went to a number of team of meetings, did you not? I did, yes, sir.

And you were chairman of a committee of TIMA? Yes, sir. Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury when you started going to TIMA meetings, that is, meetings of the Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association? I became active in the NIMA organization in about 1962 or early 63. I don't know the exact date. In what capacity did you start going to the NIMA meetings?

I was a member of the NIMA Health Safety Committee. And did you go to NIMA? Can we use NIMA and TIMA interchangeably? Yes, sir. The change in name, I believe, came about 1964-65. Okay.

Now, did you attend TIMA meetings regularly from 1961 or 62 approximately until 1981? Mr. O'Reilly, there are many, many different committees in TIMA, and I attended only the Health Safety Committee, the Health Safety Group, and in recent years, the board meetings. Okay. So from 1961 or 1962 until the present, did you regularly attend the meetings of the Health and Safety Committee of TIMA? Yes, sir.

And when you were on the Health and Safety Committee from approximately 1961 or 62 until the present, let me rephrase that. we'll draw that question. Did the Health and Safety Committee of TIMA consist of a number of other people who were employees of companies that were members of TIMA? Yes, sir. Would it be fair to state that from approximately 1961 or 1962 up until the present, from your knowledge of the Health and Safety Committee meetings, that companies that belonged to TIMA, that is thermal insulation manufacturers sent representatives to TIMA, some of whom served on the Health and Safety Committee. You understand the question? Oh, it's rather complex.

I'm sorry I wasn't... The dates of my initiative... Question again? I would like to have the question over. Maybe I can make it less cumbersome. Let me take a shot.

The Health and Safety Committee of the Thermal Insulation Manufacturers Association from say 1961 or 62 up until you resigned from Johns-Manville in 1977 consisted of employees of companies who were members of TIMA? Yes, sir. Okay. At some point in time you became chairman of the Health and Safety Committee of TIMA, is that correct? Yes, sir. When did that occur, Mr.

Sheckler? About 1965. And you served as chairman of the health and safety committee of the thermal insulation manufacturers association until when until that the committee was dissolved in 1979 and replaced by the team of health safety group are you a member of the health safety group NIMA i'm chairman of the health safety group yes sir at the present time yes sir and you became did you become chairman of the Health Safety Group of TIMA at the time the Health and Safety Committee was abolished in 1979? Yes, sir, at the time of the change of the name. You also testified that you've served two three-year terms as director of the Industrial Health Foundation? As a director, yes, sir.

And when did that that occur? From about 1974 or 5 through 1980, yes. And the Industrial Health Foundation is also referred to many times as the Industrial Hygiene Foundation? Yes, sir. And IHF? Yes, sir.

And that is also an industry organization, that is, that is an organization that is funded by industry it's it yes sir and Johns-Manville is a member of that organization yes sir you mentioned some other organization the Industrial Hygiene Engineering Association or something like that that to recall what I'm talking about I don't know that I phrased it correctly but when you were talking about your directorship at the Industrial Health Foundation he then mentioned some participation you had in another organization that began with industrial hygiene or industrial health or engineering or something like that the american industrial hygiene association the american industrial hygiene association and what is that that's an association of government industry labor people all have a common uh interest in occupational health in fact, in health in general, primarily occupational health. When did you become involved or affiliated with that organization? In the early 1960s. And what has your status been in that organization from when you first joined it up until approximately today? I'm no longer a member. When I retired from Johns- Manville, I discontinued membership in that organization. so from the early 1960s until 1977 you were a member of that organization yes and when you left that organization that somebody else from Johns-Manville become a member yes sir do you know that was no sir I don't testify that the Lanza study exhibit a is one of the studies that you read and relied upon in performing your duties for Johns-Manville at some point in time?

Is that true? Yes, sir. Okay. And approximately when did you read the Lanza study for the first time? I did the study for the first time sometime after I went into New York in 1960. Okay.

For the sake of the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you became supervisor supervisor of safety at the Manville Complex in 1957 and worked in that capacity until approximately 1959 or 60, recognizing there were a few months' overlap. True? Yes, sir. And then in 1959 or 19- well, let me rephrase that. Then in 1960, you went to corporate headquarters in New York City to begin serving as the manager of the industrial health program for Johns-Manville. True?

That's correct. At that point in time, that is 1960, when you became the manager of the industrial health program for Johns-Manville, did your responsibility extend to all of Johns-Manville's mines and factories in Canada and the United States? I had responsibilities, yes, sir, for Canadian locations and U.S. locations, production locations. between 1952 and 1960 when you became manager of the industrial health program did you take any college courses or any courses at a university i took a course at NYU in legal and medical terminology and i took a course at Rutgers University in psychology Okay. When did you take the course at NYU in legal and medical terminology? I don't recall. Sometime between 1960 and 1965 or 6.

And how long a course was that? Oh, that was a short duration course. It was an evening thing. Oh, you're talking about like two nights a week for six weeks or something like that? For several months, yes. And the course you took at Rutgers was approximately when?

That was before I went into New York. That was in the late 50s. And what duration was that course? How long a course was that? Well, that, too, was an evening course, and I don't know the duration of it. but I just don't recall. It was three to six months, one or two evenings a week.

In 1960, when you became manager of the industrial health program for Johns- Manville's facilities in the United States and Canada, did you have responsibility for administering the safety 50 program in all of Johns-Manville's plants and factories in the United States and Canada? Yes, sir. And can you tell us approximately, let me rephrase that, is the number 50 an approximately accurate, let me rephrase that, is the number 50 a reasonably accurate approximation of the number of plants that Johns-Manville had in the United States and Canada in 1960? I think it would be a fair statement. And it was 50-plus plant locations. And did those 50-plus plants and factories encompass Canada in approximately 25 or 30 states in the United States?

Yes. Okay. Approximately how many employees were employed by Johns-Manville in the United States and Canada at that time? Approximately 20,000, give or take. did you read let me rephrase that is it correct that when you became manager of the industrial health program in 1960 you had a lot of reading to do in the area of asbestos related diseases no that's no that is not a factual statement when the proxy did you read the Lanza study I don't know sometime after I went into New York and did you read the Lanza study in order to familiarize yourself with asbestos related lung disease well I was provided information to that would help me to become knowledgeable by Dr. Kenneth Smith and he chose selected literature for me to review as I had time. You might imagine with 50 plus plant locations on the new job I was a pretty busy young man at that time.

And Dr. Kenneth Smith at that time was the medical director for Johns-Manville Corporation? And my superior, yes sir. And his offices were also located at corporate headquarters in New York City? They were, yes, sir. And your predecessor, Mr.

Hugh Jackson. Let me rephrase that. The predecessor in your job, that is the person that you replaced as manager of the Industrial Health Program for Johns-Manville, was Mr. Hugh Jackson. Is that true? Yes, sir.

That's correct. And when you took over Mr. Jackson's job in 1960, did Mr. Jackson spend much time with you, familiarizing you with the developments that had occurred heard while he was manager of the industrial health program for Johns-Manville? Not a great deal, no, sir, because he, too, was earning a new job. Now, did anyone turn over to you the files that Mr.

Jackson collected on correspondence that he had with Saranac Labs while he was working at corporate headquarters from 1947 until 1960? No, sir. Did anyone turn over to you the files that Mr. Jackson had accumulated on pneumoconiosis while he was serving at corporate headquarters from 1947 to 1960? I'm going to object as assuming a fact, not an evidence. I'll retry the question.

Did anyone turn over to you at any time the files on correspondence correspondence that Mr. Jackson maintained while he was at corporate headquarters from 1947 until 1960. Say that again. And you became manager of the Industrial Health Program in 1960. The only files that were turned over to you were files that Dr. Smith provided to you.

Is that true? That's correct, yes, sir. And these files that Dr. Smith provided to you consisted of formats for you to follow in preparing various kinds of reports that you would have to prepare while you were manager of the Industrial Health Program. Is that true? Primarily format information.

That's true, yes, sir. Dr. Kenneth Smith did not turn over to you any correspondence that had been maintained by Mr. Jackson while he was at corporate headquarters from 1947 to 1960, did he? No, sir. And Dr.

Smith did not turn over to you any correspondence that Mr. Jackson had received while he was manager of the Industrial Health Program. Let me rephrase that. Dr. Kenneth Smith did not turn over to you any correspondence that had been received by either him or Mr. Jackson while Mr.

Jackson was in corporate headquarters from 1947 to 1960. Is that true? I can't say any correspondence there. Generally, that's a true statement. Is it true that Dr. Kenneth Smith nor no one else at Johns-Manville turned over to you in 1960 or any time thereafter after any correspondence that had been maintained at corporate headquarters from 1947 to 1960 that dealt with as specials related lung disease again i i can't uh answer that question yes or no uh there may be have been selected uh correspondence that dr smith had had referred referred to me but generally the statement is correct can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury any correspondence that dr.

Smith or anyone else turned over to you when you became manager industrial health program that dealt with especially lung disease no I don't I don't recall specifically Mr. Sheckler, from 1952 until 1957 when you were safety engineer at the Manville facility, you did have some responsibilities for administration of the workman's compensation program at the Manville facility. Is that true? No, sir. Did you attend workman's comp hearings, informal hearings as part of your duties as safety engineer from 1952 until 1957 occasionally as requested by mr stanton and mr stanton was your superior from 52 to 57. he was yes sir 1957 until 1959 when you were supervisor of safety you did have responsibility for workman's compensation claims filed by employees at the manville facility true for the administration of workman's compensation yes sir now uh workman's compensation the workman's compensation claims that you had responsibility for from 1957 to 1959 or in essence claims made by employees at the manville facility that they had received some injury in the course of their employment at the manville facility true yes sir okay and is it true that as supervisor of safety from 1957 to 1959 you from time to time made estimates as to what the company's exposure was on particular workman's compensation claims filed by Manfield employees? Yes, sir.

And you would advise your superiors as to what you evaluated a particular workman's compensation claim as being worth. That is what the company should set aside or pay in order to resolve the matter with the approval of the state of New Jersey. Yes, sir. And is it true that as part of your evaluating these workman's compensation claims from 1957 1957 until 1959, you reviewed the doctor's report, that is, the physician or physicians retained by Johns-Manville to examine the employee. Yes, sir. Okay.

And is it true that in your evaluation of these workman's compensation claims from 1957 to 1959, you noticed that a number of these claims were claims filed by Manville employees wherein they allege that they received or were suffering from some form of asbestos-related lung disease. There were occupational disease cases among the claims, yes, sir. And some of the occupational disease cases were asbestos-related. Yes, sir. And is it true that some of the Manville employees who were making the asbestos-related disease claims were production people? That is, people who worked in production at the Manville facility.

That's true. Yes, sir. And is it true that some of the claimants, that is, the Manville employees who made workman's comp claims between 57 and 59, wherein they alleged asbestos-related disease, were non-production employees? You mean at the time they filed the claim, Mr. O'Reilly? Yes, sir.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. You had some claims filed by people who worked in maintenance at the time they filed the claim. True? Yes, sir. Some were carpenters?

Well, carpenters would be maintenance people. Okay. Some were security guards? I don't recall any claim by a security guard. Steam fitters? Or pipe fitters?

Well, that would be included in maintenance. Okay. Is it also true that sometime between 1957 and 1960, when you went to corporate headquarters, that there was an increase in the incidence of asbestos related lung cancer claims filed by manville employees no i i don't agree with that let me rephrase that is it your testimony let me rephrase that to your knowledge and recollection were there any asbestosis or asbestos related lung cancer claims filed by manville employees between 1957 and 1959. i'm going to object to that on two grounds one it's compound two Two, I will object on grounds that I think it requires a medical conclusion with regard to what constitutes asbestosis. I would try to question on the basis of the compound objection. Between 1957 and 1960, did you see any workman's compensation claims filed by Manville employees wherein the employee was claiming that he or she was suffering from some form of asbestos-related lung cancer. I don't recall claims in that time frame where lung cancer as an occupational disease was alleged.

No, sir. Were there any, between 1950s, let me rephrase that, Were there any claims filed by Manville employees before you went to headquarters in 1960 wherein the employee alleged that he or she was suffering from some form of asbestosis and cancer? I don't recall any claims where the petitioner alleged that type of disease, no. Is it true? Well, let me rephrase that. Were there some workman's compensation claims filed by Manville employees between 1957 and 1960 wherein Saranac Labs made a diagnosis on behalf of Johns-Manville of a specialist related to cancer?

To the best of my knowledge, no. When you went... Not at Manville location. Okay. And so far, as you recall, there were no claims filed by any Manville employees prior to you going to headquarters in 1960, wherein there was an allegation of asbestos-related cancer. None that I recall, no, sir.

And no claims filed prior to the time you went to headquarters in 1960 wherein there was an allegation that the Manville employee was suffering from occupationally induced cancer occupationally induced yes do you understand the question mr sheckler i i'm afraid i i i just got the impression it was the same question asked over again but would you clarify sure i meant it to be a little bit broader uh were there any claims filed by any manville employees between 1957 and 1960 before you went to corporate headquarters quarters, wherein the employee alleged that he or she was suffering from some form of cancer that they alleged was occupationally caused, like that they developed as a consequence of their employment at the Manville facility. I don't recall any such claim in that time. No, sir. From 1960 until 1967, while you were the manager of the Industrial Health Program, you did have responsibility for administering the workman's compensation program at all of john's manville's self-insured facilities that is self-insured for workman's comp is that true yes sir that's true and so your responsibilities for administering the workman's compensation program from 1960 to 1967 included the manville facility true it did yes sir it included the waukegan facility true yes sir it included the nassau facility true the nashville yes yes sir now is it true that sometime between 1960 and 1967 there was an increase in the incidence of asbestos-related cancer claims filed by Manville employees, to your knowledge. Again, I'm going to object. Do you mean that the allegation was that there was cancer caused in some form or fashion?

I'll rephrase the question. At any time from 1960 to 1967, while you were the manager of the industrial health program for Johns-Manville, were there any workman's compensation? Let me rephrase that. Let me withdraw the entire question. Question. Between 1960 and 1967, did you notice any increase in the incidence of asbestos-related cancer claims filed by Manville employees?

Cases of alleged pulmonary cancer between 1960 and 1967. Have you finished your answer, sir? I think so, yes, sir. Filed by Manville employees? Yes, there, there, I remember at least one case that was filed by a Manville employee. Okay.

When do you recall, when do you recall the first occasion wherein you saw an asbestos-related pulmonary cancer case alleged in a work comp claim by a Manville employee, approximately? I can't answer that question. I don't recall, Mr. O'Reilly. Are we talking about some time prior to 1964? I don't believe so.

No, sir. I think we're talking sometime in the 66 time frame. 1966? Yeah. Yes, sir. Between 1960 and 1967, can you tell us how many claims you recall filed by Manville employees wherein there was an allegation or a claim of asbestos-related pulmonary cancer? Well, I'm going to object on the basis of the task and answer it, but...

What did I ask him then? We just gave you the answer. I'm not sure that's exactly the question you asked, but he did give you the answer. That's a previous question and answer. Perhaps that'll help us figure it out. Three questions back, I think.

Oh, three? Yeah. Let me do it this way. When do you recall? Let me try it this way. He said he remembered one.

Yeah, I'll just ask him if he remembers any more than one claim. Okay, fine. Can you draw the previous question? Yes, sir. Do you recall there being more than one claim filed by a Manville employee between 1960 and 1967 1967, wherein the employee claimed that he or she was suffering from some form of asbestos-related pulmonary cancer. In that time frame, Mr.

O'Reilly, I remember just one claim. I don't recall whether there were more than one or whether there was more than one or not. At any time between 1952 and 1964, when you read Dr. Selikoff's preliminary study, by the way, Mr. Sheckler, when approximately in 1964 did you first see or glance at or read Dr. Sheckler's preliminary, Dr.

Selikoff's preliminary study? April. April 1964? April of 1964. 1964. And when did you personally first hear, or when were you first surprised, that Dr. Selikoff had arrived at some preliminary findings or opinions with respect to a study he was doing?

Well, that was my first knowledge of Dr. Selikoff having arrived at conclusions. I knew he had been doing, it was general knowledge he had been doing this epidemiological study, and in fact there was conversation, discussion about it, but April of 1964 is the first knowledge I had of the preliminary reports or analysis of what he was doing. Oh. Prior to April 1964, you were aware that Dr. Selikoff was performing a study of insulation workers in New Jersey.

Is that true? New Jersey, New York areas. The two locals were involved, yes, sir. But prior to April 1964, you were not aware and had not heard of any preliminary findings or conclusions of Dr. Selikoff. Is that true?

I had not heard of any conclusions, no, sir. had you heard of any findings of dr selikoff prior to seeing the preliminary report in april 1964. not not not as such no sir okay so would it be fair to say that the only information you had about dr selikoff's study was that he was conducting a survey of installation workers at certain locals in new jersey in new york prior to april 64. yes sir at any time prior to april of 1964 did you personally have any opinion or knowledge as to how much asbestos fibers were required to induce or increase the risk of pulmonary cancer no sir did you have any knowledge at any time prior to april of 64 as to how little or how much exposure was required before a person's chances of contacting pulmonary cancer were affected by asbestos inhalation? I would like to have that question read back, please. I'll rephrase it because it was rather cumbersome. Were you aware at any time prior to reading Dr. Selikoff's report of how much or how little exposure to asbestos was required before a person could develop pulmonary cancer or have his or her chances of contacting it increased? I'll rephrase it.

I'll rephrase it. At any time prior to reading Dr. Selikoff's pulmonary study in April of 1964, did you have any opinion as to how little or how much asbestos exposure was required before the asbestos fiber inhalation could induce pulmonary cancer? No, sir. Okay. Go ahead.

Sorry. No, sir. At any time prior to April of 64, when you read Dr. Selikoff's preliminary study, did you have any knowledge or information as to how much or how little asbestos fiber exposure was required before asbestos fiber inhalation would increase a person's chances of contracting pulmonary cancer? I will object to assuming a fact, not an evidence. In approximately 1958 or 1959, while you were still Supervisor of Safety at the Manville Complex, your superiors at headquarters in New York advised you to contact a Dr.

Burroughs. Is that true? Yes, sir. And your superiors in New York advised you at some time in 1958 or 1959 1959 that a dr. Burroughs in New Jersey had a list. I'm sorry.

Is that b-o-r-r-o-w burrow? Or burrows you recall I think it's Dr. Borow b-o-r-r-o-w I don't believe there's an S on thank you at some time in 1958 or 1959 your superiors in New York advised you that Dr. Borow in New Jersey had a list of mesothelioma patients that he was treating. Is that true? He had a list of patients who he assumed had mesothelioma.

I draw this distinction because himself indicated that this was a very, very difficult disease to diagnose except on autopsy. Did your superiors in New York in 1958 or 1959 advise you or inform you that this Dr. Borow that you were to contact had a number of patients in which he had diagnosed mesothelioma? Meaning Dr. Borow? Yes.

No. Did your superiors in New York advise you in 1958 or 1959 that Dr. Borow had a list of patients in which he felt the patients were suffering from mesothelioma? Yes, sir. and did your superiors in New York advise you to contact Dr. Borow because Dr. Borow wanted to ask some questions about the employment history of these people?

That's correct. And at that time, that is 1958 or 1959, when your superiors at corporate headquarters in New York City advised you to contact Dr. Borow in New Jersey, were you aware of what mesothelioma was? Vaguely. Were you aware at that time, that is 1958 or 1959, when you contacted Dr. Borow, that mesothelioma was a form of cancer of the mesothelium surrounding the lung?

Yes, I think so. And were you aware in 1958 or 1959 that mesothelioma was a highly virulent form of cancer that was always fatal? Mr. O'Reilly, I find it difficult to answer that question. I don't know precisely a date when I learned these facts. Okay.

Did you, at some time, 1958 or 1959, contact Dr. Borow? Yes, sir. And was Dr. Borow a general physician that had an office where he practiced medicine in the state of New Jersey? To the best of my knowledge, Dr.

Borow was a general practitioner who might I say was was partially specializing or much interested in pulmonary diseases and where was his practice located Bound Brook New Jersey and approximately how far away from the Manville complex was dr. burrows office where he practiced medicine 10 or 12 miles give or take when you contacted to Dr. Borow in 1958 or 1959, did he provide you with this list of people that he was treating for this disease? He did, yes, sir. And did he ask you if you would determine to what extent the people on the list were employed at the Manville complex at some point in time in the past? So his question was, were they employed, and if so, would I provide him with some background information of their employment? And were there approximately 18 to 20 names on the list that Dr.

Borow provided you? I don't recall the precise number, but I would, I assume that that was approximately the size of the list, yes, sir. And when you took the list back to Manville Complex, did you review some of the Manville records to determine to what extent, if any, these people may have been employed at the Manville Complex at some time? I searched all of the available employment records and requested the medical department to search the medical records to make a determination as to whether or not they were employed. And did you personally discover that approximately eight to ten of the people on the list were employed at the Manville complex according to Manville records? Yes, sir, that's correct.

And did you advise Dr. Borow of this fact? Yes, sir, I did. And were some of these people that were on the list, wherein you determined they were employed at the Manville complex at some point in time, were some of them production people, according to the Manville records? I don't recall, Mr. O'Reilly, what their function was.

These people were employed in the very early years of the Manville plan, and I'm talking about between 1912 and the 1920s, and the records merely indicated their employment. There were no job descriptions or indications on where, how, or what jobs they worked on. There may have been one or two where we might have been able to designate job description, but most of them were old records do you recall that you were able to discern that some of the people were production people and some were maintenance people on this list of names that you verified were employed at the Manville facility at some time well I I don't recall recall being able to do that, and one of the reasons that would be very difficult would be that 95 plus or minus percent of the maintenance people were production people before they went into maintenance. It all ran together. The maintenance jobs were usually given to those employees who had worked in production are you talking now about during your tenure at the Manville complex from 1952 to 1959 yes sir during that period of time 1952 to 1959 you observed some production people transferred to maintenance most of the maintenance people had been transferred out of some form of production job and the company's procedure or policy if you will was to to train them in house very few maintenance people were hired from outside was that was that because were they transferred because of the condition of their lungs from working with the fibers no sir they were transferred because maintenance was a choice a choice job as far as as pay was concerned when you provided the information to Dr. Borow as to what you had found out from your search of the Manville records.

Did Dr. Borow at some point in time subsequent to that advise you that he would like to do a research study on employees of the Manville facility on the mesothelioma question? No, sir. Dr. Borow never advised me of that. In approximately 1960, 1961, when you were at corporate headquarters as manager of the industrial health program did you become familiar with dr wagner's study that was performed in africa sometime after i went to general headquarters and i can't pinpoint the time i was made aware of dr wagner's studies and i i make that plural because there were two studies done was one of that let me rephrase that did one of dr wagner's studies at least according to your understanding of the study when you read it did one of them disclose that he found incidences of mesothelioma among people that lived and worked in the vicinity of an asbestos fiber crocidolite asbestos fiber mine in africa i'd like to interpose an objection and i'd like a discussion so I'd like to go off the tape if I can no no discussion well I don't care of course at that time that you read first read or glanced at dr.

Wagner study when you were the manager of the industrial health program a corporate headquarters between 1960 1967 did you get the impression that dr. Wagner in one of the the studies had discovered cases of mesothelioma in people that lived in the vicinity of a crocidolite asbestos mine in Africa my impression of dr. Wagner study dr. Wagner's first study was was that he found mesothelioma in the natives who lived in the Cape area of South Africa and worked in the crocidolite asbestos mines. And these people lived under the conditions whereas their huts and their streets and what have you were all paved with the tailings of the crocidolite. When I read Dr.

Wagner's or glanced at Dr. Wagner's second study, I got the impression that he went to the Transvaal area of South Africa, with which are whereas the conditions were quite the same as they were in the Cape area however in the Transvaal area he could find no mesothelioma so of course this left a tremendous void in the in the scientific knowledge move to strike the latter part of the answer is not responsive I don't remember at what point in time the witness went into another study that was done in another other place thank you sir now with respect these studies they both came out at the same time do they not no sir I think dr. Wagner second study came out sometime after the first study approximately when I don't recall didn't you learn about them both at the same time I may have learned about them at the same time but that doesn't mean they were published at the same time when you first learned of these two studies isn't it true that dr wagner's first study about the natives or the people that lived in the area of the crocidolite asbestos mine isn't it true that he found incidents of mesothelioma among people who had never worked at the mine i'll object on best evidence let me rephrase that wasn't your impression of the first study of dr wagner that he that is dr wagner had found some cases of mesothelioma in people who had never worked at the asbestos mine but had just lived in the area my impression of chris wagner's first study was that these people worked at the mines so the entire families worked at the mines If you will, they lived there and worked there. I'd like to read from the deposition testimony of Mr. Sheckler, taken on Tuesday, January 5, 1982, in the caption of Dorothy St. Jacques et al. v.

Johns-Manville Corporation et al., volume 2, page 213. Starting on line 20, going over to line 18 on page 214. Would you mind if I come back? I don't have it over here. No, I'm good. Okay, this is questioning of Mr.

Sheckler on page 213, line 20. Question, was it your impression from this study, that is the first Wagner study that you referred to, that all of the people in which he found Mesothelioma were employees at this mine? I don't hear you. Were employees at this mine? Answer, people that he studied, and I think, I'll answer your question, I think the study speaks for itself question well it probably does I am asking about your impressions from the study though the study can't tell me what you gathered from the study that's why I'm asking you did you gather from your reading or glancing at dr. Wagner's first study that is where he found cases of mesothelioma and people that lived in the vicinity of the crocidolite mind did you gather all the cases of mesothelioma that dr.

Wagner found or employees who who worked in the mine or worked with crocidolite asbestos? Answer. I don't know. I can't really answer that question. Dr. Wagner's first study included a group of people who lived at the mine whose huts were paved with tailings from the mine, roads paved from tailings from the mine.

Whether they were all employees or partial... I'm sorry. Roads paved from tailings from the mine. Whether they were all employees or partially employees, I really don't know. I have to go back and review the literature. that ends on line 18 page 214 is it true that you did gather from dr. Wagner's first study that he had found a number of cases of mesothelioma in the group of people that he studied well now we're talking two studies the first one around the first study yes sir that is true now at that time did you let me rephrase that subsequent to your reading these studies of dr.

Wagner did you contact Dr. Borow in New Jersey and advise him or inform him of the Wagner studies? I did not. Dr. Borow receives the medical literature, I'm sure. Okay, move the strike.

Everything after Dr. Borow receives the medical literature is now responsive. That's correct. Did you advise or inform anyone at corporate headquarters that maybe Dr. Borow should be notified about the Wagner studies? no I did not I would have no reason for doing did you at the time you read the dr. Wagner studies have any opinion or knowledge as to how little or how much asbestos exposure was required to induce mesothelioma dr.

Wagner studies no no conclusion, in my opinion, as to how much or how little or if any asbestos was associated with the mesothelioma at that time. As I mentioned a moment ago, these studies left a very questioned medical literature at that time, medical knowledge at that time. move the strike the answer is not responsive what I was asking about I'm sorry sir I was asking about his what he personally felt and he referred me to dr. Wagner's study and conclusions and I was not asking most of the strike okay did you that is a you personally mr. Sheckler have any opinion or knowledge when you read dr. Wagner studies after you read them as to to how much or how little asbestos exposure was required to induce or cause a mesothelioma? I've, well, that question could be answered yes or no, I suppose.

I did not know, sir. At any time after you read Dr. Wagner's studies, did you advise or suggest to anyone at Johns-Manville that perhaps studies or research be undertaken to determine to what extent if any asbestos fibers were involved in the causation of mesothelioma no sir okay after you talked with Dr. Borow for the first time and verified that a number of the names on his list were manville employees did you recommend or suggest to anyone at john's manville that perhaps research or studies be undertaken to determine to what extent if any asbestos fibers were involved in a causation of mesothelioma no sir let me take about three minutes okay so i can make a quick run of the washroom and then we'll come back and go to 11 45. is that right mr sheckler is it true that between 1957 and 1959 while you were supervisor of safety at the manville complex that there were a couple of hundred work miscompensation claims filed by manville employees alleging asbestos related lung disease a couple hundred means 200 or approximately yes sir that's very difficult for me to answer i'm i'm not i can say this mr o'reilly there probably was that many occupational disease claims filed but i can't say there was that many asbestos related occupational disease claims filed i really don't know i'd like to read from the deposition of mr sheckler taken in louisville kentucky on august 25 1978 under the damewood d-a-m-e-w-o-o-d at all versus john's manville sales corporation at all case number for damewood 1-78-170 and this deposition has been referred to previously I'd like to read from page 93, beginning with line 14, through page 95, line 12. This is the questioning of Mr. Sheckler at that deposition.

That's two full pages, and to expedite, I will reserve objection to the reading of the transcript or internal objection to the questions and answers at the time the transcript was prepared until a later time, and let you just read it. Okay. Okay. This is page 93, line 14. Question. This is a questioning of Mr.

Sheckler. Now, Mr. Sheckler, with reference to your work at Manville, New Jersey, how many occupational workman's compensation claims did you process while you were down there that dealt with employees in the plant making a claim that they suffered pulmonary disease as a result of occupational inhalation of asbestos fibers? answer i really can't answer that question there were a number of claims question well let's try numbers a couple hundred a couple thousand answer no there were not a couple thousand i question would a couple hundred be a fair answer answer i think then there is colloquy by counsel i better read the colloquy of the record mr wilson mr lively wilson speaking on line four of page 94 four of the dame wood transcript mr wilson i think if you will please let the witness finish before you start again i appreciate your willingness to proceed quickly and get through but and then mr sweeney i have a tendency to pursue the witness i apologize and then the witness mr sheckler answering the question couple several hundred would be reasonable question a couple hundred over what period of time answer from the time i answered the workman's compensation for occupational disease claims from 1957 through 1959 when i went to new york question and these several hundred what would they deal with in terms of typical type asbestos related claims can you tell us the types of claims they would be answer normally they were they were diagnosed as pneumoconiosis question would there be a typical fibrosis pleural thickening calcification noted it on the radiographic examination answer there would normally be fibrotic changes not necessarily pleural thickening and then line 13 page 141 mr sheckler is it also true wait a minute so you didn't indicate that one first i would like the same agreement i'll just reserve objection go ahead and read it evident your objections yes i'm going to reserve objection at this point in time go ahead and read it what's that well you just jumped you didn't tell me you're going to read that before no i'm saying i'm stopping at 141 line 13. oh okay i've just read in what i was going to read in thank you now is it also true mr sheckler that the incidents of workman's compensation disease claims filed by manville employees alleging some form of a special salated lung disease increased between 1952 and 1959 while you were safety engineer and then supervisor of safety object on foundational grounds yes i i think the incidence of claims alleging occupational disease claims reopening permanent partial disability for for occupational disease together, the two types of claims did increase between 1952 and 1959. Again, as I explained on my deposition on Monday and Tuesday, New Jersey is unique in that it permits payments payment of permanent partial disabilities for occupational disease starting at one percent of total with a statute of limitations for reopening every two years testimony of mr sheckler in the trial of rosalina director versus john manville products corporation at all. Case number C-259023. This is a reporter's daily transcript, Wednesday, July 22nd, 1981, volume 29, from page 4634, line 3.

I'll ask this preliminary question. Mr. Sheckler, is it true that when you were in charge of safety, that is, as a safety engineer or supervisor of safety at the Manville plant from 52 through 59, that the incidence of asbestos- related disease increased at that facility yes sir yes sir I'm sorry I thought he was reading from the transfer well I would ask 4634, line 3 to line 9, I ask this preliminary question, Mr. Sheckler, is it true that when you were in charge of safety, that is, as a safety engineer or supervisor of safety at the Manville plant in 52 through 59, that the incidence of asbestos-related disease increased at that facility? Two objections, both foundational. One, firsthand knowledge.

Two, medical expertise. he's now no longer talking about claims he's talking about the incidence of disease unreported and I don't think there's any way this witness could know that are you asking for unreported as well no sir no sir just the incidence of a specials related disease increasing at that facility from 1952 to 1959 that he knows yes sir I can't answer that question mr. O'Reilly I'll read the transcript that i just referred to previously volume 29 of the directo trial transcript page 4634 line three through nine this is the testimony of mr sheckler question now is it true that when you were in charge of safety that is as a safety engineer or supervisor of safety at the manville plant from 52 through 59 that the incidence of asbestos-related disease increased at that facility answer. I think that's a fair statement. Yes, sir. Is it true, Mr. Sheckler, that at the Manville facility from 1952 to 1959, there were some Manville employees who worked directly with asbestos fibers eight hours a day, five days a week?

Yes, sir. And is it true that during that same time frame, 1952 through 1959, that there were other employees at the manville complex that had intermittent or occasional contact with asbestos fibers in their job yes sir and is it true that in the workman's compensation claims you evaluated between 1957 and 1959 some of the claims alleging asbestos-related lung disease were filed by non-production personnel at the Manville facility you're referring are you referring to as of the time they filed the claim sir yes yes sir and is it true that when you are processing these workman's compensation claims between 1957 and 1959 for claimed asbestos related disease by Manville employees that you you recognized that there were varying degrees of exposure to the claimants. Some had much more exposure to asbestos fibers than others. Yes, sir. You testified that one of the things that you relied on in performing your, well, let me strike the beginning of that. Is it true that one of the studies or reports that you relied on in performing your duties for Johns-Manville as manager of the industrial health program was the Lanza study, Exhibit A? that you testified about yesterday yes sir okay and can you approximate for us when it was that you first read or glanced at the study by Dr.

Lanza the wanza study as i recall was brought to my attention sometime after i went into new york which would have been 59 late 59 early 60. Is it your testimony that you personally were not aware of any risk of injury to the consumer or users of Johns-Manville, especially containing insulating products, until you read the Dr. Selikoff preliminary study in April of 1964? Yes, sir. Prior to your reading of the Dr. Selikoff preliminary study in April of 1964, in 1964, nobody had advised you, informed you, or provided any information to you that indicated that there was any risk of injury to the consuming public who utilized the asbestos-containing insulating products.

Is that true? There may have been an isolated case study or a case that I was aware of, I don't recall, but there were no studies that indicated any potential injury to users of insulation materials that I'm aware of before, that I was aware of before 1964. Prior to the time that you read Dr. Selikoff's preliminary report in April of 1964, Had anyone advised you, informed you, or had you received any information that indicated to you that there was any risk of injury to the consuming public that utilized the asbestos-containing insulating products? No, sir. I would like, if you would, sir, to refer to Exhibit 1A, which should be before you up there.

And I would like, if you would, take a moment to read that exhibit. Do you have it before you, Mr. Sheckler? Yes, sir. Not yet, Counselor. After we discuss the exhibit he has before him, then you can exhibit this as well.

Exhibit 1A is an 8 1⁄2 by 11 copy of a letter from Mr. Hugh Jackson of Johns-Manville to Arthur J. Vorwald at Saranac Labs, dated approximately August 13, 1948. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And it states in the right-hand corner next to Dr.

Vorwald's name that it regards Dominic Bertogliat, B-E-R-T-O-G-L-I-A-T. True? Correct. P-48-415. That's correct. Do you recognize Mr.

Jackson's signature there? No, sir. If you would, Mr. Sheckler, can you read the letter into the record? Well, I will object to that, Your Honor. The letter itself is the best evidence of what it says, and if there is a foundation through some other witness for its admissibility, that's fine.

Otherwise, his reading it into the record, that's not a question. It's just a request. I would object to it in its present form and object to any further interrogation of this witness with reference to this letter because he can't identify it and can't lay a foundation for it. Well, I will try that question. I will try that question. In that particular exhibit, that is Plaintiff's 1, Mr.

Jackson is expressing his, let me rephrase Were you ever advised or informed at any time prior to April 1964 that Mr. Jackson, as safety engineer at corporate headquarters in 1948, had written a letter to Dr. Vorwald at Saranac labs expressing his concern that the relatively slight exposure that a former employee Mr. Bertogliat had suffered could cause asbestos related lung disease in Mr. Bertogliat. Were you ever aware or informed of that at any time prior to April 1964?

No, sir. Were you aware or informed at any time prior to April 1964, that Mr. Hugh Jackson, as a safety engineer working out of corporate headquarters in August of 1948, had requested Saranac Laboratories to advise him as to whether or not slight exposures could produce asbestos-related lung disease. No, sir. Okay. When you took over Mr.

Jackson's job at corporate headquarters in 1960, at any time subsequent to that date that you took over his job did you ever see the original or a copy of plaintiffs one that is the August 13th 1948 letter from mr. Jackson to dr. Vorwald you may have the question scope of his employment at any time before you at any time prior to 1980 no sir did mr. Jackson and any of the conversations that you had with mr jackson from 1952 until the beginning of 1980 ever advise you or inform you that he had written such a letter to dr vorwald at Saranac labs at any time no sir okay yeah i'd like to now go into this time do you want to exhibit it for the tape Yes, sir. Why don't you put it on the table here in front of them? Pardon?

For the record, we have Exhibit 1, a blow-up of Exhibit 1A, the document that Mr. Sheckler was being just questioned about, and we have that viewed now on a pedestal for the videotape. I have, for the record, previously objected to this procedure. My objection is noted. that I will reiterate it at this point, and then, because I think there are eight more or something like that, I'll just be quiet, but we'll give you a running objection. Thank you. Mr.

Sheckler, would you refer to Exhibit 2C and 2D before you, which is a two-page letter Two-page letter dated August 19, 1948, from Dr. Vorwald at Saranac Labs to Mr. Hugh Jackson, safety engineer, Johns-Manville Corporation, 22 East 40th Street, New York 16, New York. Ray Dominick Bertogliat. Two C and two D? Yes.

Do we have that before you, Mr. Sheckler? One moment, please. Please. Yes, sir. Okay.

Now, at any time prior to the time you became manager of the Industrial Health Program in 1960, did anyone ever advise you or inform you that Dr. Vorwald of Saranac labs had responded to Mr. Jackson's letter of August 13, 1948, which has been marked as Plaintiff's 1A? No, sir. Okay. At any time after you became the manager of the industrial health program in 1960, did anyone advise you or inform you that Dr.

Vorwald at Saranac Labs had responded to Mr. Jackson's letter dated August 13, 1948, here and marked as Exhibit 1A? No, sir. When you took over your job as Mr. Jackson's successor in 1960, Did Mr. Jackson advise you or inform you that on approximately August 19, 1948, Dr.

Vorwald responded to his letter of August 13, 1948, and concluded his letter by stating, in consequence of the above, I can see no other alternative than to anticipate others with similar exposures to be similarly affected, but I expect also that individual susceptibility will affect some selection. Your Honor, I'm going to object to the form of the question as including what I would characterize as hearsay material within it. The counsel is bootstrapping at this point. So stay. Pre-phrase it, counsel. When you took over Mr.

Jackson's job in 1960 as manager of the industrial health program for Johns-Manville, Did Mr. Jackson advise you or inform you that sometime in late 1940s or early 1950s, Dr. Vorwald had advised him by letter that people with relatively slight exposure to asbestos fibers could develop asbestos- related lung disease? No, sir. Did Mr. Jackson, let me rephrase that, did anyone at Johns-Manville or outside Johns-Manville at any time from the time he became manager of the industrial health program in 1960 until 1980 advise you or inform you that in the later part of the 1940s, Dr.

Vorwald had advised Mr. Jackson that people with slight exposure could develop a special slated lung disease? No, sir. When you took over Mr. Jackson's job as manager of the Industrial Health Program in 1960, did you at any time see an original or a copy of Plaintiffs 2C and 2D which you have before you? No, sir.

Did anyone at Johns-Manville or outside Johns-Manville ever advise you in any way that Dr. Vorwald had written a letter such as Plaintiffs 2A and 2B to Mr. Jackson? No, sir. Can we put up the blow-up now, Your Honor? You just said 2A and 2B.

I'm sorry. I meant 2B and 2C. 2C and D. Thank you, sir. At this time, we're going to identify. We're going to put up Exhibit 2A and 2B, which are blow-ups of the 2C and 2D letters that Mr. Sheckler was just testifying about.

Well, this is 2A now. This is 2A and 2B, the blow-ups of 2C and 2D. I'm not clear as to that. It's correct. It is correct. It's interesting, but it's correct.

About how many frames do you get by this procedure? Six. About six? I have no idea. I don't even know what I'm talking about. I want to go ahead and do this.

Next page. Are you the director, Mr. Seidel? Yeah. Are we on record? No, I'm on your record.

Okay. There's a question pending. How many frames? It's not the only frame. The videotape isn't framed. The videotape is not framed.

Oh, that's a continuous. May we take the recess of this? Yes, sir. Zoom again at 2.15. May we proceed? Yes, sir.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Tape off. Mr. Sheckler, would you get, please, Exhibit 1A and 2C and D. Those were the two letters, the first from Mr.

Jackson to Dr. Vorwald on August 13, 1948, and the second from Dr. Vorwald to Mr. Jackson, August 19, 1948. Do you have those before you, sir? Yes, sir.

Now, in addition to discussing whether or not slight exposure can cause asbestos-related lung disease, Mr. Jackson also questions about individual susceptibility, which is also responded to by Dr. Vorwald in his August 19, 1948 letter. At the time that you became manager of the industrial health program for Johns-Manville, did you believe that some individuals were more susceptible to contacting a specialist-related lung disease than other individuals, regardless of exposure? Your Honor, I'm an object to the form of the question. It starts with a preamble statement by a counsel, and I think that's an improper form.

When you became manager of the Industrial Health Program in 1960, In 1960, did you believe that there was something known as individual susceptibility of a person with respect to contacting or contracting asbestos-related lung disease? It was my impression from the knowledge that I had at that time that there is such a thing as susceptibility by individuals. And did you understand in 1960 that individual susceptibility to mean that some individuals were more susceptible to contracting asbestos-related lung disease than other individuals, given the same amount of asbestos exposure? Yes, sir. Approximately when did you find out, Mr. Sheckler, that there was such a thing known known as individual susceptibility with regard to the individual's chance or risk of contracting asbestos- related lung disease?

Sometime after 1957, I would say. Did someone tell you that? I learned that in the course of my work, yes, sir. And were you aware at any time prior to 1964 how individual susceptibility affected the incidents of asbestos related disease in people who were exposed to airborne asbestos fibers i think i'll object to that as vague ambiguous uncertain and unintelligible were you aware at any time prior to 1964 just how individual susceptibility affected a person's chances of contracting asbestos related lung disease same objection yeah i had the question again trial context i'd request an offer proof runner because i don't understand the premise let me get the question again what's that well were you aware at any time prior to 1964 just how individuals susceptibility affected a person's chances of contracting asbestos-related lung disease i'm afraid mr o'reilly that i don't understand what you're asking me uh rephrase it yes sir Well, you testified that you were aware of a factor known as individual susceptibility. My question is, to what extent did individual susceptibility affect a person's risk or chance of contracting a specialist-related lung disease? Did you have any specifics about that?

No, sir, I'm not clear on what information you're looking for. Would it be fair to state that from 1960 to 1967, you were aware that there was a factor known as individual susceptibility, but did not know any specifics as to how that affected a person's chance of contracting asbestos-related lung disease? By that I mean, did you have any specifics as to what made one individual more susceptible to contracting asbestos-related lung disease from the inhalation of asbestos fibers than another individual? Are you asking me do I know what causes individual susceptibility? I don't know what your question is. Fair enough.

I'm sorry. Fair enough. Fair enough. Did you at any time between 1960 and 1967 know or have any knowledge as to why one individual was more susceptible to contracting a specials-related lung disease than another individual with the same exposure? There would be many reasons, Mr. Riley.

Well, you could answer yes or no. Did you know why? I can't answer that question. I'm sorry. It's really a medical question I can answer, but it would take a lengthy explanation, and I just can't answer it, yes or no. The questioner is asking your state of knowledge, if you have any information on this as to the cause.

You don't say so. Well, yes, I have information as to the cause, but I didn't understand that to be the question. I think that's a great point of it. Yes, sir. Is that the question? Yes, sir.

If you had any knowledge or information between 1960 and 1967 as to why, given the same amount of exposure, one individual was more susceptible to contracting asbestos-related lung disease than another individual? Yes. What is that, sir? What information did you have or were you aware of between 1960 and 1967 there are a number of reasons why one person may be more susceptible than the other the way they breathe that's where we're now assuming that they're in exposure to some deleterious dust or what have fumes vapors the way they breathe we all have a to give you a way explanation we all have a building garbage collection system some people's garbage collection system works much more efficiently than other people so whatever they breathe is extracted from the lungs other people retain more in the lung that's the best answer i can give you mr i'm sorry i didn't understand what you were asking that's fine so that's fine would it be fair to state that sometime between 1960 and 1967 you believed that individual susceptibility was due to difference in breathing from one individual to another correct so far yes a difference in one person's ability wasn't quite what he said counsel talking about the efficiency of the breathing apparatus well I think that's another factor is it anything other than efficiency of the breathing apparatus no sir that's what I meant mr. O'Reilly all right so in essence then the reason that you believed there was such a factor known as individual susceptibility with regard to contracting a special a to lung disease was that one person's breathing system, its efficiency, differed from another's. That's right.

And is that basically, would it be fair to state that that was your understanding of why there was individual susceptibility between 1960 and 1967? Yes, sir. Would you please refer to Exhibit 3 and 4A before you. Mr. Sheckler, is Exhibit 3 a copy of a letter from Dr. Walmer to Mr.

Jackson, or is that Exhibit 4 in front of you? 3A is a letter from Mr. Kane, John W. Kane. K-A-N-E. K-A-N-E. Okay, I got it now.

I got it now, Mr. Sheckler. Thank you. Now, Exhibit 4 is a letter from Dr. Walmer to Mr. Jackson, dated sometime in August 1955.

And Exhibit 3 before you is a letter from Mr. Cain, corresponding secretary, dated August 13, 1955. Is that correct? That's correct, yes, sir. Now, when you became manager of the Industrial Health Program for Johns-Manville in 1960, 1960, did Mr. Jackson advise you that he had received correspondence in 1955 from a corresponding secretary of a union indicating that 7 out of 9 of that union's pipe coverers had died from lung disease?

No, sir. Did Mr. Jackson advise you or inform you at any time from 1952 up until you retired from johns manville in 1977 that he had seen correspondence from a corresponding secretary of the international association of heat and frost insulators and asbestos workers wherein the correspondence was inquiring for someone's help in determining why seven out of nine pipe covers died from lung disease i'm going to check this thing did mr jackson advise advise you at any time from 1952, let me rephrase that, did Mr. Jackson advise you at any time from August 1955 until the day you retired from Johns-Manville in 1977 that he had seen correspondence from a secretary of a pipe coverers union wherein the secretary was inquiring as to some help in determining why seven out of nine pipe coverers died from lung disease? Object to the form of the question. No, I think that's an objectionable rule.

No, sir. When you took over Mr. Jackson's position in 1960, did you see an original or a copy of either Exhibit No. 4, the letter from Dr. Walmer to Mr. Jackson, or the enclosure that came with that letter, which is Exhibit No. 3A, before you? No, sir.

Did anyone at Johns-Manville advise you at any time from 1955 up until the date of your retirement that Mr. Jackson had received a letter such as Exhibit No. 3A? No, sir. Did anyone at Johns-Manville ever advise you from 1955 up until the date of your retirement that anyone at Johns-Manville had received correspondence, correspondence, the correspondence that's identified as 3-A before you, the letter from Mr. Cain dated August 13, 1955? No, sir.

Okay. And up until 1980 and the asbestos litigation, had you ever seen an original or a copy of either 3-A or 4-A before you? No, sir. Let me take a minute now, Your Honor, and just put the two exhibits up. First put, Mr. Simon, would you put 4-A up first?

I'm sorry, exhibit number 4. 4-A. 4 first. Four? Yes, four is the blow-up. Why do we have four after we haven't had any discussion of four? It's 4A that we've been discussing. Well, yes, and four is the blow-up of 4A.

See, so we're just going to put the blow-up now up on the screen so the camera can pick up the blow-up. I believe exhibit number four is the... Identify it for me. Is the tape on now? Yes. Yes, sir.

Exhibit number four is the August 1955 letter from Dr. Walmer to Mr. Hugh Jackson of the Industrial Health Program, Johns-Manville Corporation, that encloses exhibit number 3A. And exhibit number four is a blow-up of 4A. We're now putting up exhibit number three, which is a blow-up of exhibit 3A, And this is the August 13th, 1955 letter from Mr. Kane, the corresponding secretary, which was enclosed with Exhibit 4 when it was sent to Mr.

Jackson. I have difficulty having difficulty focusing it seems like the type is too small to pick up

Tape 4 of 6

You have before you there, Mr. Sheckler, Exhibit 5C and 5D. For the record, I'll identify 5C and 5D as a copy of a two-page letter dated December 6, 1956, from Daniel C. Braun, M.D., Medical Director, to Mr. Hugh Jackson, Manager of the Industrial Health Program, Johns-Manville Corporation. Would you look that over, please, Mr.

Sheckler? Yes, sir. When you became manager of the Industrial Health Program in 1960, did Mr. Jackson advise you or inform you that he had received correspondence from Dr. Braun in 1956, which summarized or commented on some medical articles that Dr. Braun had researched?

No, sir. Who is Dr. Braun? You're aware of Dr. Braun, are you not, Mr. Chairman? dr brown dr braun is currently the director of the industrial health foundation the industrial health foundation is another name for the industrial hygiene foundation the industrial hygiene foundation name was changed sometime back to industrial health foundation and dr braun let me rephrase that and the industrial health foundation is and was an organization of companies in the industry?

The Industrial Health Foundation is sponsored by industry. And Johns-Manville was and is a member of that organization? Yes, sir. Did Mr. Jackson advise you when you became manager of the Industrial Health Program in 1960 that Hinshaw and Garland had published a book, Diseases of the Chest, in which they stated that exposure occurs in industrial plants where asbestos products are fabricated and among those who install insulating materials. Were you advised of that by Mr.

Jackson? No, sir. Did Mr. Jackson advise you when you became manager of the industrial health program in 1960 that he had received literature from any doctor that indicated that pipe coverers, insulators or laggers had contacted asbestosis lung cancer according to dr. Braun's certain let me rephrase it let me withdraw the entire question please did mr. Jackson advise you when you became manager of the industrial health program in 1960 that dr.

Braun or any other doctor had referred him to medical articles in the 50s that indicated pipe coverers and laggers as suffering from asbestosis lung cancer. No sir. Did anyone at Johns-Manville advise you from the summer 6 1956 up until the date of your retirement in 1977 that Dr. Braun had written a letter to Mr. Jackson that summarized Dr. Braun's research of a a number of medical articles dealing with asbestosis and lung cancer?

No, sir. And when you became manager of the Industrial Health Program in 1960, were you provided with copies or the original of exhibit 5C and 5D that you had before you? No, sir. Did you ever see the original or a copy of 5C and D at any time prior to the date of your retirement from Johns-Manville in 1977 no sir at any time prior to 1964 were you aware that doctors hinshaw and garland in their book diseases of the chest stated that asbestos i'm sorry let me withdraw the question may i sir it's the long lunch were you aware any time prior to april of 1964 the doctors hinshaw and garland in their book, Diseases of the Chest, had stated that exposure occurs in industrial plants where asbestos products are fabricated and among those who install insulating materials. No, sir. And at any time prior to April of 1964, were you aware that Drs.

Isselbacher, Kloss, that's K-L-A-U-S, and Hardy, H-A-R-D-Y, published an article in 1953 wherein they recounted a review of asbestosis lung cancer cases that had occurred in a number of occupations including pipe coverers, weavers, carters. I'm sorry, Mr. O'Reilly. I'm sorry. I'm having a little problem with this. Mr.

O'Reilly first gives the witness a letter and asks him to look at it and asks him if he's seen it before and he testifies about that. Then he leaves a letter in front of him and he asks him what amount to general questions about medical literature with the obvious inference that that's what's in the letter. He is in effect getting what he wants without going through through proper evidentiary procedures. And if he wants to ask questions about medical articles that this witness is familiar with or not familiar with, I don't have any quarrel with that. Let him ask them. But I am beginning to be a little troubled by the process that's being used.

Mr. Porter, will you go back to that question, repeat it for our benefit? I'll rephrase the question, Your Honor. I think I can rephrase it and make it a little bit more articulate. Mr. Sheckler, were you aware any time prior to April of 1964 that in November 1953 doctors Isselbacher, Klaus, and Hardy published an article entitled Asbestosis and Bronchogenic Carcinoma in which they reported their findings of cases of asbestosis lung cancer among occupations such as weavers, pipe insulators, pipe coverers, mill workers, sorters?

Your Honor, I'm going to object to the question because it raises hearsay on what that article says. The witness is either informed of the article and aware of it or he is not. After that, we can go into the article if he's read it and relied upon it. Oh, I'll break it down. I'll withdraw. We're only going to have until 5.30, so I'll do it a step at a time.

Prior to April 1964, were you aware that Drs. Isselbacher, Klaus, and Hardy in the American Journal of Medicine published an article entitled Asbestosis and Bronchogenic Carcinoma in approximately 1953? No, sir, I was not aware of that. Prior to April of 1964, were you aware that there were any medical articles published in the 50s that disclosed that asbestosis lung cancer was found among insulators and pipe coverers, as well as weavers, spinners, carters? No, sir. Did you ever see the original, let me rephrase that.

We want record from that. Sure. You asked them, not only did you ask them today, but you asked them Tuesday. Okay. Tuesday ain't part of today's transcript. I understand that.

Or today's videotape. This is fine. We can go back on now. How do you spell that? B-A-C-H-E-R. E-L.

B-A-C-H-E-R. You can trust him. Were you aware at any time prior to April 1964 that Dr. Doll published an article entitled titled Mortality from Lung Cancer in Asbestos Workers Sometime in the Fifties. No, sir, I don't believe so. Were you aware at any time prior to April of 1964 that there were any medical studies published in the fifties that disclosed asbestosis lung cancer among occupations other than minors of asbestos? yeah i'm using asbestosis lung cancer to refer to a condition a disease of the lungs that consist of asbestosis and lung cancer in combination yes somebody knew back here in december 6 1956 did he might be a woman you remember the question mr sheckler i think i do yes my response to that is I may have known of isolated cases or an isolated case I can't say yes or no okay well were you aware at any time prior to April of 1964 that now we'll try the question are you aware at any time prior to April of 1964 that there was a Journal of the American Medical Association editorial that stated that available evidence disclosed that the occurrence of cancer of the lung was related to pulmonary asbestosis and the best evidence of what that editorial states is the editorial itself more concerned about the witnesses knowledge than I am about what the what the articles may say directly I'm concerned about what he knew at a certain point in time no sir i i was not aware of that specific article were you aware that sometime in the 50s the journal of the american medical association published an editorial that stated that claims for compensation will become of increasing frequency due to the general increase of carcinoma of the lung no sir at this time uh iran i'd like to put up exhibit 5a and 5b B, which are the blow-ups of 5C and 5D, respectively, the two pages we've just been referring to. 5A is the first page of the December 6, 1956 letter from Dr.

Braun to Hugh Jackson. We're now putting up 5B, which is a blow-up of 5D, the second page of Dr. Braun's December 6th, 1956 letter to Mr. Jackson. Mr. Sheckler, would you please refer to exhibit 6A and B before you? 6A and B, for the record, is a two-page letter from Mr., I'm sorry, from Dr.

Braun to Mr. Hugh Jackson, dated August 23rd, 1957. Do you have those two before you there, sir? No, sir, I have 6C and D. All right, I'm sorry, 6C and D. No, he's right.

It's six C and D. Six A and B are the blow-ups. But I did not give you seven D. Would you look at six C and D, Mr. Sheckler? When you became manager of the Industrial Health Program in 1960, did Mr.

Jackson advise you that he had received correspondence from Dr. Braun in 1957 that again summarized some of the medical literature on asbestosis lung cancer did mr. Jackson ever advise you prior to the date of your retirement in 1977 that he had received a letter from dr. Braun or any other doctor in the 50s that summarized some of the medical articles dealing with asbestosis lung cancer no sir did you see an original or a copy let Let me rephrase that. When you took over Mr. Jackson's job as manager of the industrial health program in 1960, did he provide or make available to you an original or a copy of Plaintiffs 6C and D, the August 23, 1957 letter?

I'll object that calls for speculation and conclusion. Explain that for the record, sir. I'll rephrase it. Sure. You know, it may have been sitting in a drawer somewhere, and whether that would be making it available to this witness or not, I don't know. if he didn't know it was there it's the term available yes sir i'll refresh the question when you became manager when you took over mr jackson's job as manager of the industrial health program in 1960 did mr jackson personally hand you or give to you an original or copy of plaintiffs 6c and d the august 23rd 1957 letter from dr braun to mr jackson no sir okay and when dr smith made those files available to you that he made available to you when you became manager of the industrial health program in 1960 did those files that you reviewed include an original or a copy of plaintiff 6c and 6d the files I reviewed and did you ever see an original or a copy of 6c and 6d prior to your retirement from Johns-Manville in 1977? No, sir.

Were you aware at any time prior to April of 1964 that of 99 asbestosis lung cancer cases that were reported in the literature up to 1955, 80 appeared to have occurred in asbestos workers other than miners? Can I have the question back please. I'll rephrase the question. Were you aware Mr. Sheckler any time prior to April of 1964 that of a number of, let me rephrase that, no I'm gonna stick with my original question. There's no way that I can phrase it accurately without sticking with it.

Were you aware at any time prior to April of 1964 that that of 99 asbestosis lung cancer cases that were reported in the literature up to 1955, 80 appeared... I'll rephrase it. Were you aware at any time prior to April of 1964 that at some time in the 50s, it was Dr. Brown's opinion, that of the 99 cases of asbestosis lung cancer reported in the literature up to 1955, at least 80 appeared to have occurred in asbestos workers other than miners? Were you aware at any time up to April 1964 that the medical literature in the 1950s disclosed that lung cancer, asbestosis occurred in a number of women and in occupations such as weaver, carter, mattress maker, lagger, bagger, pipe coverer, spinner. I will object, Your Honor, because it assumes a fact not in evidence through this witness or, for that matter, in evidence at all.

Mr. O'Reilly apparently refuses to use the term it had been reported. He wants to state these things as facts. Okay, no problem, no problem, no problem. I'll use the term. He knows these facts.

I'll use the term it had been reported sure I will absolutely every time I'm wrong I always admit it I've been wrong a lot today again embarrassing you're at any time prior to April of 1964 that 99 cases of asbestosis lung cancer which have been reported up to 1955 that a number occurred in women and in occupations such as weaving carding mattress making lagging bagging pipe covering spinning no sir women women women you guys were you aware at any time prior to 1964 of any medical articles that disclosed the incidence of asbestosis and lung cancer in England in the 40s or 50s again I may have been aware of isolated case histories I I don't recall well you were at any time prior to April of 1964 that in the 1950s dr. Braun Daniel Braun felt that there were cases reported in the literature of asbestosis, lung cancer in England, and wherein he felt there was no mining of asbestos in England. No, sir. Can we do that, Your Honor, the blow-ups now? Surely. OK, we're now going to put up Plaintiff's 6A, which is a blow-up of 6C, the first page of Dr.

Braun's August 23rd, 1957 letter to Mr. Jackson. Now putting up exhibit 6B, which is a blow-up of 6D, the second page of Dr. Braun's August 23, 1957 letter to Mr. Jackson. Mr.

Sheckler, when you got to New York in 1959 or 1960, did you begin receiving monthly copies of the Industrial Hygiene Digest? Sometime shortly after I got into New York, I received monthly copies of the Industrial Hygiene Digest, yes, sir. And would you look over the digest to see if there were any matters or articles of particular concern to your job? Dr. Smith examined the digest and would bring to my attention any articles in the digest that he felt were pertinent to my specific function. Did you ever talk to Mr.

Jackson or Dr. Smith about whether or not that was the way it was done while Mr. Jackson was manager of the Industrial Health Program prior to you? I did not, no sir. And the Industrial Hygiene Digest was a monthly publication of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation which is now called the Industrial Health Foundation. Is that true?

No sir, I was not under the impression it was a monthly publication. what was your understanding of how often the Industrial Hygiene Digest was published well as my memory serves me it it was published quarterly I may be wrong mr. O'Reilly it's been a long while ago let me show you a copy of your testimony in the bum Gardner case November 16 1977 page 24 down at the the bottom the first couple lines in the next page see if it refreshes recollection whether or not it was a monthly I'll show it to the witness I would object to its use if it was my testimony it wouldn't refresh my record all right Mr. Motley stated I don't know well I I am going to object to the use of it because it may refresh his recollection the colloquy well the The question and answer doesn't really say it's monthly. But it is. It may be. He just said it might be.

Right. Well, I just want to establish it. Is it a big point? Quickest way I can. Pardon? Does that assist you in any way?

It does not. No, sir. Would you like to read it? Thank you. Does referring to Exhibit 7A, the blow-up over there, there's a face sheet of the Industrial Hygiene Digest. Would you look at that exhibit, Mr.

Sheckler, or Exhibit 7A and see if that refreshes your recollection as to whether or not it's a monthly publication. No, sir, it does not. Okay. If it will help and assist counsel, I would infer that in 1957 it was a monthly publication based on a volume 27, volume 21, number 6, and it being June, I would suspect that's the sixth month. It's probably the sixth issue that year. Well, I would assume. i would assume that's my logic not mr sheckler i know it doesn't help me very much uh mr sheckler looking again at plaintiff 7-8 does that appear to you to be a blow-up of the typical format of the face sheet of the industrial hygiene digest as it appeared when you began receiving it shortly after you went to corporate headquarters in 1960 60 yes sir that's uh that's basically the uh the format of the digest okay i'd like to pan that if i could run it because we don't have a small copy of this face sheet fine thank you sir mr sheckler would you please look at seven e and seven f before you there for the record i'll identify 7e and 7f as 7e being the index page of the june 1957 edition of the industrial hygiene digest no you can uh excuse me you can take that down we won't go into that now not to blow up yet and seven F you have a small copy of that for me I think we have another happy around or somewhere around I just can't find it right now like I think I'm good you know where that is Yeah, why don't we put the blow-up up.

For the record, I think I've identified 7E as the index page from the 1967 767 June edition of the industrial hygiene digest and 7f as the page containing Extract 761 at the bottom on the left hand side Mr. Sheckler when you took over mr. Jackson's job as the Manager. Well, let me ask you this first. Let me withdraw. Let me ask you this from what you see there of 7e and 7f Does those look like the typical formats that were utilized by the Industrial Hygiene Foundation for their index and actual page sheets?

Yes, sir. Okay. And when you took over Mr. Jackson's job in 1960 as manager of the Industrial Health Program, did Mr. Jackson advise you or inform you that the 1957 edition of the Industrial Hygiene Digest contained a summary of a danish study of shipyard workers when you took over mr jackson's job in 1960 did mr jackson advise you or inform you that there were any studies done in the 1950s that purported to be studies of shipyard workers or insulation workers in denmark no sir when you When you took over Mr. Jackson's job in 1960, did he hand you or provide to you the original or copy of the June 1957 edition of the Industrial Hygiene Digest?

He did not, no sir. At any time from 1952, let me rephrase that, at any time from 1957, June of 1957 up until the date of your retirement from Johns-Manville, did Mr. Jackson or anyone else at Johns-Manville advise you that Mr. Jackson had received, in June of 1957, an edition of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation Digest that disclosed the Danish shipyard study. Perhaps I'm missing something, Mr. O'Reilly, but I don't see any reference to a shipyard study in this digest.

I hope you are missing something, or else I am. Item 7617E? You might be correct, Mr. Sheckler. I see no indication in this that refers to shipyards. You're correct.

That's correct. You're correct. That's why I call it the Frost-George article. When you took over Mr. Jackson's job in 1960 as manager of the industrial health program, Did Mr. Jackson advise you or inform you that he was aware of a study done in Denmark on insulators in the 1950s?

No, sir. When you took over Mr. Jackson's job in 1960 as manager of the Industrial Health Program, did Mr. Jackson advise you or inform you that he had received a copy of the Industrial Hygiene Digest in the 1950s that disclosed a Danish study on insulators. No, sir. At any time, let me rephrase that, when you took over Mr.

Jackson's job in 1960, did Mr. Jackson advise you or inform you that there was a study published in the 1950s that disclosed an incident, the incidence of asbestosis among insulators no sir when you took over mr. Jackson's job in 1960 did he hand you or make available to you a copy of the June 1957 edition of the Industrial Hygiene Digest but I think I had shipyard thing in there that's why I'm changing it I think I said that disclosed a shipyard study and that's what he corrected me so I'll rephrase it I'll be asked the question when you became manager of the industrial health program in 1960 did mr. Jackson hand you or provide personally to you a copy of the June 1957 edition of the Industrial Hygiene Digest no did you at any time from June of 1957 up until the date of your retirement in 1977 ever see the original or a copy of those pages of the industrial hygiene digest that are before you no sir at any time prior to april 1964 were you aware that there was a danish study published in 1957 that disclosed the incidence of asbestosis among insulators no sir at any time prior to april of 1964 were you aware that there was a an article in the medical literature known as the Frost-George article dating with asbestosis and insulators? No, sir. Had you read any medical article or any medical literature purportedly published or authored by Frost, George, and Moeller at any time prior to April 1964?

No, sir. Thank you, Mr. Sheckler. Yeah. Yeah, let's put that. Like at this time, Ron, if you just take a minute and put up 7B, no, 7C.

That's it right there, isn't it? 7C? That's D? It should be C. Yeah, put up 7C, which is a blow-up of the extract number 761 from the June 1957 edition of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation, and it is a blow-up of exhibit 7. You got it. As with others, I would object to this.

It would be 7B, which is the index page, and all you have to do is just get one quick shot of that. Okay, so would you put up 7B, the index page, the blow-up of the index page of the 1957 June edition of the Industrial Hygiene Digest, and this is a blow-up of 7E. He's pointing out item number 761 on the index, entitled asbestosis with plural calcification. Next question. Mr. Sheckler, would you look at exhibits 8C and 8D?

C and 8D, is it? Two-page letter from Dr. Kenneth Smith, medical director of Johns-Manville, to Ivan Sabourin, St. John's, Quebec, Beck, dated December 30th, 1957, Ray, the IHF survey. It's going to take about two minutes while she's marking this, because we've been going about an hour and 20 minutes. I don't mind some of these people leaving, but I don't like the reporter leaving like that.

Have you had an opportunity, Mr. Sheckler, to look at Exhibits 8, C, and 8D? I did not. Would you please look at those, sir? For the record, 8C and 8D, a two-page letter from Dr. Smith and Mr.

Sabourin, dated December 30, 1957. Dr. Smith, Medical Director of Johns- Manville. Yes, sir. Okay. Were you aware, prior to April of 1964, that sometime in the 1950s, Dr.

Braun did a study at the request of Quebec Asbestos Mining Association? At what point? Sometime in the 50s. Was he aware in the 50s? Prior to April 1964. Oh, I'm sorry.

I missed that. Yes, sir. Okay. And were you aware prior to April of 1964 that the study that Dr. Braun did at the request of the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association in the 50s was made available to member companies of the Asbestos Textile Institute when it was published? No, sir.

Were you aware at any time prior to April of 1964 that the study being done by Dr. Braun for the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association in the 50s became known as the Braun-Truan study when it was published? Yes, sir. Braun-Truan, T-R-U-A-N. And is the Braun-Truan study that Dr. Braun did for the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association in the 50s, the same Braun-Truan study that you relied on in doing your job as manager of the industrial health program for Johns-Manville.

Yes, sir. And I believe it was your interpretation of the Braun-Truan study that the Braun-Truan study disclosed that there was no increased risk of asbestosis, lung cancer among, in miners, any more than in the general population. Is that true? general population of the province yes sir okay and that was the way you interpreted the Braun-Truan study when you read it while you were manager of the industrial health program that is that it disclosed that the asbestos miners in quebec did not show an incidence of asbestos of lung cancer higher than the general population of quebec is that true yes sir were you aware Were you aware at any time prior to April of 1964 that Mr. Jackson and your superior, Dr. Smith, the medical director of Johns-Manville, had reviewed a condensation of the Braun-Truan study before it was published? No, sir. were you aware at any time prior to april of 1964 that after their review of a condensation of the Braun-Truan study dr smith wrote to mr Sabourin of the quebec asbestos mining association suggesting certain changes be made before the study was published again i will reject your Your Honor, on one of the questions, Mr.

O'Reilly is stating these things as if they were facts. I'll rephrase it. I'll rephrase it. Well, I think that is a fact, but I'll rephrase it. I'm concerned about your use of the term condensation. That's okay.

I understand. I understand. That's what he said. Were you aware at any time prior to April of 1964 that Dr. Kenneth Smith, as medical director for Johns-Manville in 1957, wrote a letter to Mr. Sabourin of the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association suggesting certain changes or modifications in the Braun-Truan study before it was published.

No, sir. Were you aware at any time prior to April 1964 that on December 30, 1957, Dr. Kenneth Smith, the medical director of Johns- Manville, believed that the Braun-Truan study would be subjected to criticism when it was published because all other authors at that time correlated lung cancer with cases of asbestosis. I will object on two grounds this time. One, that it appears to incorporate hearsay reference within the question, and two, it calls for speculation and conclusion within the hearsay as to what was believed. I'll rephrase the question in light of the last objection, because even though he wrote it, he may not have believed it.

Were you aware at any time prior to April 1964 that on December 30, 1957, the medical director of Johns-Manville, Dr. Kenneth Smith, Smith wrote that the Braun-Truan report would be subjected to criticism when it was published because all other authors at that time correlated lung cancer with cases of asbestosis. Are you aware at any time prior to April of 1964 that Dr. Braun had written letters to Mr. Jackson in the 50s indicating that minors might not be the control group for an accurate study on asbestosis lung cancer. Let me rephrase the question.

Were you aware at any time prior to April of 1964 that Dr. Braun had written letters to Mr. Jackson in the 50s suggesting that asbestos miners was not an appropriate group for a study to determine the connection between asbestosis and lung cancer? I know of no such letters. Were you aware at any time prior to April of 1964, then on December 30th, 1957, after his review of the Braun-Truan study, Dr. Smith wrote a letter suggesting that the study language be changed to contain a statement stating, however, having found just 12 cases, we are not above this level and therefore the hypotheses that asbestos miners do not have a higher mortality from lung cancer than does the general population cannot be rejected, close quotes.

I was not aware of this letter. At any time from December 30, 1957 until the date of your retirement in 1977, were you aware, let me rephrase that, had you ever seen the original or a copy of Exhibits 8C and 8D before you? The Dr. Smith letter to Mr. Sabourin. No, sir.

Did Dr. Smith at any time from December 30, 1957 up until 1966 or 67 when he left the company ever advise you or state in your presence that he had made suggestions to change certain statements in the Braun-Truan study before it was published? No, sir. Did anyone at Johns-Manville ever advise you or inform you at any time prior to the date of your retirement in 1977 that Dr. Smith had written a letter recommending that changes be made in the Braun-Truan study before it was published? No, sir.

At this time, do you know? Let me rephrase. I will draw that question. Can we put folks to do that at the end, right? At this point in time, we're not going to put up the blobs because I think we're going to do it at the end, and then they're just going to splice it in. No problem if you do it that way.

Well, I have an objection to splicing it in, but no, the procedure's fine. Your objection won't be that it spliced in. That's correct. Okay. But asbestos fibers were toxic, true? Yes, sir.

Were you aware when you became manager of the industrial health program in 1960 that Johns-Manville had facilities in Canada where asbestos fibers were mined? Yes, sir. Were you, did you believe at any time prior to April 1964 that there was some asbestos-related lung disease that occurred in employees at the J. Johns-Manville mine in Asbestos, Quebec, in miners? Segregating miners from millers? Yes, sir.

I can't answer that question. I don't remember. Okay. Were you aware in in 1960 that asbestos-related lung disease, let me rephrase that, in 1960 when you became manager of the Industrial Health Program, Johns-Manville also had mills in Canada where asbestos fibers were separated from rock. Is that true? Yes, sir.

And did you believe in 1960 when you became manager of the Industrial Health Program that employees who worked as millers had contacted asbestos-related lung disease J-M employees I'm gonna object to the form of that I'll rephrase it sounds all- inclusive I'll rephrase it were you aware in 1960 when you became manager of the industrial health program that J-M employees who worked as millers in the mills in Canada were at risk of contracting asbestos-related lung disease from their occupation no sir not Not necessarily in 1960. Did you at some point in time come to the opinion that J-M employees who worked at the mills in Canada separating asbestos fiber from rock were at risk of contracting asbestos-related lung disease? Yes, sir. When did you first come to that opinion or conclusion, Mr. Sheckler? Sometime subsequent to 1960.

Is it sometime subsequent to 1964, or was it prior to 1964? Or don't you remember? i'm sorry would you read the question back perhaps i'm i'm which question the last the last question i think you need the last two without a difference the last one wasn't very significant when did you first become when did you first come to that opinion or conclusion mr sheffield answer sometimes subsequent to 1960. question was it sometimes subsequent to 1964 or was it prior prior to 1964, or don't you remember? Let's go back to the one on four. Let's go back to three. I forgot one. Did you at some point in time come to the opinion that J-M employees who worked at the mills in Canada separating asbestos fiber from rock were at risk of contracting asbestos-related lung disease?

Answer, yes, sir. When did you first come to opinion or conclusion, Mr. Sheckler? Answer, sometimes subsequent to 1960. question, was it sometime subsequent to 1964, or was it prior to 1964, or don't you remember? I would say sometime 65, 66 period. And when you became manager of the Industrial Health Program for Johns-Manville in 1960, were you aware that the asbestos fibers posed a risk of contracting asbestos-related lung disease to those people who worked at, let me rephrase that with another question, in addition to J-M owning mines where asbestos fibers were mined and mills where the fiber was separated from a rock, did J-M also own plants in the United States in 1960 where asbestos fibers were used to make thermal insulating products?

Yes, sir. That is where the asbestos fibers were components along with other components utilized specialized to make asbestos-containing pipe covering and block? Yes, sir. And were you aware in 1960, when you became manager of the Industrial Health Program, that employees who worked for J-M in manufacturing plants wherein asbestos fibers were used to make thermal insulation products were at risk of contracting asbestos- related lung disease? Yes, sir. And were you aware in 1960, when you became manager of the Industrial Health Program, that when these asbestos containing thermal insulating products such as pipe covering block that when these asbestos containing thermal insulating products such as pipe covering block cement no pipe covering and block were cut and sawed by the end-users that airborne asbestos fibers were created yes sir and were you aware in 1960 when you became manager of the industrial health program that when asbestos containing cement was used by consumers or users in the field airborne asbestos fibers were created no sir in 1906 you became manager of the industrial health program you did not believe that the use of asbestos containing cement in the field created airborne asbestos fibers I I think you injected the word consumers in your last question, sir.

Now you're asking me another question. Do you want to rephrase the question? I'll try. I'm sorry. No problem. By consumer, I meant user.

Were you aware in 1960 that when purchasers of JM, especially containing cement, used or mixed that with water in the field, that airborne asbestos fibers were created that would be an assumption on my part mr riley was it your opinion let me rephrase it was it your knowledge in 1960 when you became manager of the industrial health program that it was airborne asbestos fibers that were creating creating, or could create, pulmonary disease, asbestos- related lung disease, in JAM employees who worked in manufacturing plants where asbestos-containing thermal insulating products were manufactured? Yes, sir. Okay. And in 1960, when you became manager of the industrial health program, you did not believe that the users who used this asbestos- containing pipe covering block and cement were at risk of contracting asbestos related lung disease from the inhalation of airborne asbestos fibers no sir did you believe that they were not at risk or didn't you think about it one way or the other in at that particular time i had no responsibility or reason to think about the users of those those products. By users, sir, you mean consumers? Yes, sir.

I want to go back to the Dr. Lanza study. I believe that's Exhibit 1 before you, Mr. Sheckler. It's the one at the bottom. Yes, sir.

You've already testified that this exhibit, Exhibit 1, the Lanza, I'm sorry, is it Exhibit A? Exhibit A, the Lanza study. exhibit a yes sir that was one of the reports that you read and relied on as part of your performance of your duties as manager of the industrial health program from 1960 to 1967. yes sir and the lanza study on page one in the introduction states does it not that in 1929 the metropolitan life insurance company was approached by officials representing the asbestos industry in the united states who were desirous of ascertaining whether asbestos dust was an occupational hazard in their establishments and if so what was the nature of this hazard and what should be done to prevent or control it is that true you've read the first paragraph and you read that when you read and relied on this report true yes sir and the first sentence of the The last paragraph on page one states as follows, quotes, the name asbestosis has been applied to the pneumoconiosis caused by asbestos dust and it will be so used in this report. You read that when you read this report? Yes, sir. I'm going to page two of Dr. Lanza's report.

The first full paragraph beginning with, it should. Do you see that? Yes, sir, I do. And it states, quotes, it should be borne in mind that silicosis, parentheses, and presumably asbestosis, close parentheses, develops fairly slowly, fairly very slowly, taking from 5 to 15 and even 20 or 25 years to become established, close quotes. You read that when you read and relied on this report as part of your duties as manager of the industrial health program? I assume so yes and it further states quotes this rate of progress is influenced mainly by the dosage of silica which the lungs receive and this dosage in turn depends upon three variables dash the amount of silica in the dust comment the quantity of dust in the air and the length of exposure exposure, period.

Individual idiosyncrasy might be included as a fourth variable. However, little is known of the variations in susceptibility in those exposed to dust. It might well be assumed that similar variables would influence the occurrence of asbestosis, close quotes. You read that when you read and relied on this report as part of your duties as manager of the Industrial Health Program. True? I assume.

Okay. What do you mean when you say say i assume i assume i read it this is a 1935 publication sir and i read it in 1960 which is 22 years ago and it also states in the third full paragraph page two quotes the industrial health service of the metropolitan life insurance company undertook the following investigation during the period from October 1929 to January 1931 which included one a study of dust conditions and asbestos mines and mills in Canada and in fabricating plants along the Atlantic seaboard in the United States to physical examinations of asbestos workers including x-ray films three a study of dust exhaust systems designed to eliminate asbestos dust now you read that when you read of a line on this study back in 1960 yes sir I assume I did right and it also states quotes data on the fabricating plants only are included in this study and are designated in the report as plants a b c d and d close quotes you read that when you uh read and relied on this study back in 1960. i assume so so you were aware were you aware back in 1960 after you read the lanza report that the lanza study covered fabricating plants Yes, sir, I think I so testified that it covered textile plants. Well, is it your testimony that your understanding of the Lanza study is such that he covered textile plants in his study and only textile plants? It was my impression he covered textile plants and basically textile plants. Can you tell us where you got that impression from? page if you look at the table on page four you will see preparation card room ring frame spinning room mule spinning twisting weaving felt department sheet insulation molded brake band and clutch those are all part of the textile type of operations so it is your reading of the lines study, and it was in 1960, that the Lanza study covered only textile plants. Is that true?

It's my reading that it basically covered textile plants, yes. I have no way of knowing what Dr. Lanza did or had in mind. Okay. Now, on that same page that you've just referred to, page 4, it states right under the table, quotes, whereas the dust in the preparation room is practically all due to asbestos, the contrary is the case in the other departments. In the carding, spinning, and weaving rooms, asbestos comprises about 25% of the material used.

On special jobs, the percentage of asbestos may be higher, but in general the figure quoted is approximately correct. The other material consisting principally of cotton. In the insulating departments of Plant A, asbestos is but but 5% of the total material used. In the molded, brake lining, and clutch division of Plant D, asbestos comprises about 25% of the total material. The actual exposure to asbestos dust, therefore, is considerably less than is indicated in the dust counts in Table 1. Close quotes.

Now, you read and relied on that in 1960 as part of your duties of manager of the Industrial Health Program corporate-wide for Johns-Manville? I assume so, yes, sir. And did you also look at the table? Table 1, entitled Maximum and Minimum Dust Counts in Million Particles per Cubic Foot of Air by Plant and Department, on page 4, when you read of a light on this study. I assume I did, yes, sir. Okay.

And did you notice that the chart showed that in Plant A, in the preparation room, the dust counts varied from a minimum of one-half million particles per cubic foot to a maximum of one-and-a-half million particles per cubic foot? Those are particles under 10 microns per cubic foot of air, is that what you're reading, sir? Yes. I can't make out, I have a rather bad photostatic copy here, and I can't make out the fractions. Do you have another? I'll have it, I'll...

Yeah, I have mine. Why don't you exhibit that to him, the system with the figures, he'll read it to you. Sure. Well, I'm sure of that. I just got all my little notes on it. No problem.

I don't have anything worth prodding on page four. We can go off camera, so I ain't spotted in my Rutgers University jersey. I'm in the wrong chair, Charlie. I'm still working on a paper. Mr. Sheckler, do you have a more legible copy of the table there?

I do, yes, sir. Yes, sir. Now, just prior to Table 1, beginning at the bottom of page 3, Dr. Lanza's report states, quotes, Table 1 shows by plants and by departments the maximum and minimum dust counts in million particles per cubic foot of air. Although the counts in Plan D are of particles 10 microns and under, particles 10 microns and under, and in the other plants are for all particles, direct comparison is possible as in no sample taken where the number of particles 10 microns and under less than 94% of the whole. Is that what it states there?

It does, yes, sir. And when you were reading this report back in 1960, you read and relied on that also, did you not? Yes, sir. Okay. And Table 1, Plant A. Table 1 entitled Maximum and Minimum Dust Counts in Million Particles per Cubic Foot of Air by Plant and Department. what was the dust count for plant a preparation room one half to one are you asking me the question sir one half to one and a half million particles per cubic foot of air under 10 microns and that is the only dust count they have listed there for plant a true that is under 10 microns in length well their their evaluation of airborne particles in plant a were measured via that means and the lines a study table one indicates that they took five different samples of dust counts in the preparation room correct yes sir Okay.

And Plant A, the dust count, million particles per cubic foot of air, 10 microns and under, for the card room, was what range? One-half to, it appears to me to be one and two-thirds. Pardon? It looks like one and two-thirds, yes, sir. And in the ring-frame spinning room, the dust count for Plant A was one-half to three-quarter million particles under 10 microns per cubic foot of air? Yes, sir.

And now in Plant B, they took a total dust count. Did they not? A million particles per cubic foot of air, regardless of size? That's my impression. I presume that's what they did. And what did they find to be the dust count in the preparation room of plant B with nine different samples taken?

One half to eight million particles per cubic foot of air. What did they find the dust count to be in the card room in plant B? Three quarter to four and, very difficult, four and three quarters it appears. Million particles? Yeah, is that correct, three quarters? Yeah, well I'm reading from your legible, yours is a little bit lighter, but it looks like it's three quarters to four and three quarters million particles per cubic foot of air was the range that Dr.

Lanza found in the five samples on plant B in the card room. Is that what it appears like to you? That's what it appears like. And what dust counts did they obtain with the five samples done in plant B in the mule spinning room? One third to one. Million particles per cubic foot of air? million particles per cubic foot of air what do they find in plant b the weaving room one-eighth to four-fifths could be uh i i just can't i can't decipher that one it appears to be a four as part of the fraction four fifths i would guess in any event the low and the uh high dust counts obtained at plant b and the weaving departments were both below a million particles per cubic foot of air true I'm sorry sir yes the low and the high dust counts taken in Plan B in the weaving department were below 1 million particles per cubic foot of air true they're both fractions of yes or both fractions okie-dokie and you read and relied on that when you read this report back in 1960 is that true I assume so yes sir yes sir sure there you go yeah three and four fine now going to page six of the Lanza study mr.

Sheckler right at the bottom of the first full paragraph it states quotes asbestosis appears to be pathologically different from silicosis and the experience so far does not warrant an attempt to define a standard of dustiness for especially excuse me sir i'm i'm not with you okay page six i have page six first full paragraph the last sentence i see it states aspas quotes asbestosis appears to be pathologically different from silicosis and the experience so far does not warrant an attempt to define a standard of dustiness for asbestos dust close quotes yes sir you read and relied on that when you read this in 1960. 60 I read it yes and the bottom of page 6 under physical examinations dr. Lanza recounts what the group of people he x-rayed and examined and what the findings were correct for example dr. Lanza states quotes x-ray films were made of 126 persons parentheses 108 men 18 women closed parentheses working in asbestos plants in the united states close quotes true yes sir okay and he states quotes the cases were selected more or less at random from among those having more than three years of employment in the asbestos industry close quotes true yes sir and then the last sentence on the bottom of that page quotes the interpretations of these films are based on the readings of one competent ready rent to genealogist. I don't know how to pronounce it. Thank you. Quotes, the interpretations of these films are based on the readings of one competent roentgenologist, but they have been reviewed by several others experienced in this field.

The differences of opinion were of a minor nature, and there was general agreement as to interpretation. The films were read conservatively, taking into account the physical examination and the age of the individual, and were classed as positive only when there was no major disagreement close quotes that what it says there it does yes and you read that back in 1960 when you first read this report as part of your duties manager of the industrial health program true I assume I did yes sir okay and then he further states quotes the films classed as negative for asbestosis were further subdivided into doubtful and negative only time can tell whether the individuals classed as doubtful are progressing towards a definite asbestosis close quotes states that there yes sir you missed one sentence yes all examiner all examiners were guided by their experience in silicosis and other types of pneumoconiosis right okay now all these statements that i'm reading to you from this report were statements that you read when you read this report back in 1960. i assume i did yes sir okay and the beginning of the next paragraph quotes the cases of asbestosis were divided into two classes first stage and second stage the first stage embraces those who show by x-ray examination definite lung pathology sufficient an extent to warrant a diagnosis of pneumoconiosis but who have no definite symptoms the second stage cases exhibit more extensive lung pathology and also definite symptoms true that's what it says there that's correct yes sir okay and then And starting with the second paragraph on the bottom of the total, you see that, of the total of 126? Yes, sir. Of the total of 126 X-ray examinations, four were diagnosed as second-degree asbestosis, 63 as first-degree, 39 as doubtful, and 20 as negative. You read that back in 1960. I assume so, yes, sir.

Now, excuse me, you're taking these paragraphs out of context. you you're doing that intentionally I think you you skip a paragraph as all in all these individuals were actively engaged in factory work did you mean to skip that or well I'll read it I I don't think I'm taking anything out well I just moved to strike the response as now responsive to a question thank you yeah there's a paragraph that states all these individuals were actively engaged in factory work and it was not practical to make any distinction on the basis of working ability or disability had any individuals been found who exhibited extensive pulmonary involvement and marked physical disability or total disability they would have been classified as third stage but no such cases were found that is stated in there true and you read that yes sir and he also states in the last paragraph quotes there is a definite increase in the percentage diagnosed as positive in relation to the years of exposure as shown in table two small numbers make it impossible to determine how far the factor of age enters into this increase close quotes correct that's correct that's right and then Dr. Lanza's table two discloses that people with over 15 years of exposure there was 13 positive which was 87 percent of the people with over 15 years exposure true yes sir and people with 10 to 15 years exposure there were seven positive which was a 58 percent positive finding people with 10 to 15 years exposure true yes sir people with five to ten years exposure fifty percent of those were positive which was 30 in number true yes sir and then under five years exposure 43 percent were positive which meant 17 in number true yes sir okay now going Going to page 8 at the bottom, the last paragraph, each roentgenologist, do you see that? Each roentgenologist, yes, sir. Each roentgenologist who reviewed the X-ray films called attention to the fact that these films indicated a very unusual incidence of enlargement of the heart. It is probable that this is a compensatory enlargement due to the additional work put upon the heart in efforts to pump blood through the fibrosed lungs. It is possible that not sufficient attention has been paid to the effects of the pneumoconiosis upon the heart.

True? That's what it states there? That's what it says written, yes, sir. And you relied on that as well, or you read and relied on that as well when you read this report in 1960, true? I assume so, yes, sir. Going to Dr.

Lanza's conclusions on page 10, under his first conclusion he states, prolonged exposure do you have a term Mr. Sheckler I do yes sir prolonged exposure to asbestos dust caused a pulmonary fibrosis of a type different from silicosis and demonstrable and x-ray films clinically from this study it appears to be of a type marvin and silicosis you read of a light on that in 1960 yes sir did anybody at any time before the date of your retirement in 1977 advise you or inform you that an attorney employed by jm in 1934 wrote a letter to dr lanza suggesting that dr lanza used that language quotes clinically from this study it appears to be of a type milder than silicosis close quotes no sir okay there we go on the record by Mr. O'Reilly, then I'd like, I would move at this point, Your Honor, for The document still isn't identified, Counsel. Make the motion after that. Yes. Do you know what the document is, Mr.

O'Reilly? Do you want me to look at it? Yeah. I'm just not sure the address is here. after december there's a december 18 1934 letter addressed to apparently mr mf judd Raybestos-Manhattan inc and signed or at least purportedly signed by Vandiver Brown attorney reportedly there is that's 9a there is a 9b letter under date of december 21 1934 34, address Dr. A.J. Lanza, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 1 Madison Avenue, New York City.

There is no signature on this one, but it shows a typewritten name of Vandiver Brown, attorney. That's 9B. So it's 9A and 9B, is that it? Yes, sir. 9A and 9B, both December 1934 letters, your honor. What's your motion? My motion is that the witness be asked the very simple question of whether he has ever seen them before, or certainly before he left his employment at Johns-Manville in 1977.

If not, I would suggest that a motion to preclude further inquiry would be in order. I would join in that. Well, that's all I plan on asking him. Now, you have 9A and 9B before you, Mr. Sheckler. I have, yes, sir. 9A is a letter from, purportedly, from a Mr.

Brown to a Mr. Judd, dated December 19, 1934. Yes, sir. And 9B dated December 23, 1934, purportedly from a Mr. Brown to Dr. Lanza.

December 21, I suppose. Thank you. Now, at any time prior to the date of your retirement, did you see a copy of the original of either one of those two documents, plaintiffs 9A and 9B? No, sir. At any time prior to the date of your retirement, did anyone at Johns-Manville ever advise you or inform you that Vandiver Brown or any Johns-Manville employee had written to Dr. Lanza in the 30s making certain suggestions as to terminology Dr.

Lanza should use in his report? No, sir. Did anyone at Johns-Manville advise you at any time prior to the date of your retirement that Dr. Lanza had adopted almost all of the recommendations or suggestions for changes in his report that were made by Johns-Manville employees? No, sir. Okay.

Did anyone advise you at any time prior to the date of your retirement that any changes have been made in dr. Lanza study as a result of suggestions or proposals for changes by J-M employees oh sure beginning mr. Sheckler in the same context have you ever seen what purports to be the original or a copy of a letter from an attorney by the name of Hobart to mr. Brown that was dated sometime in the 30s that dealt with the Lanza study I have seen Alonzo letters and possibly the Hobart letter in various occasions conjunction with the asbestos litigation not before that time not before that time now have you at any time from the date of your first employment with Johns-Manville in 1936 up until the date of your retirement in 1977 seen any Johns-Manville documents that contained a signature of a Vandiver Brown? Not unless I saw it during asbestos litigation prior to retirement. Correct.

Prior to retirement. Can you tell us approximately when the first time was that you saw any of the Van Diver, any corporate documents purportedly containing a signature of Vandiver Brown? I'm going to object to this whole line of questioning. That's not a discovery deposition. I will try the question. I will try the question.

Well, is it true that the only time you've seen any documents that purport to contain a signature of a Vandiver Brown is when they've been shown to you by attorneys representing plaintiffs in a asbestos litigation? Yes, sir. You mentioned another report that you read and relied on as part of the performance of your duties as the manager of the industrial health program for johns manville was a report by a dr dreesen published in approximately 1938 yes sir can you tell us approximately when you read the dreesen report sometime subsequent to 1960 sometimes subsequent to going into general headquarters which would have been 59 60. Probably the same time I read the other report. Referring to the Lanza study? Possibly, yes.

Do you have the recent study there before you, Mr. Sheckler? The recent study? Yes. It's the big thick one there. The big one with the rubber band around it?

Yeah. It stands out. Sometime during your employment of Johns-Manville, that there was a concept known as a latency period with respect to asbestos-related disease. True? Yes, sir. Can you tell us when you first became aware of the concept known as the latency period with respect to asbestos-related disease?

Sometime in the 1950s. And is it true that the latency period refers to the period of time between the date of first exposure and the onset of disease? And is it true that you recognized back in the 50s that a latency period was characteristic of asbestos-caused diseases? I think that's a reasonable statement. And is it true that you recognize that the latency period for the onset of asbestos disease, as you know it, usually requires a minimum of 10 years? that you recognize that the latency period for the onset of asbestos disease as you know it usually requires a minimum of 10 years just a second i'm going to object because as framed i think it calls for his opinion this time wasn't it your understanding of reading the literature in the 30s and 40s that is literature published in the 30s and 40s that a latency period of 10 years years applied to asbestos-related disease, a minimum of 10-year period. I think you said usually.

Let me rephrase the question. I'll rephrase each one. Is it true that you gathered from your reading of the literature in the 30s and 40s that asbestos disease required a minimum of 10 years for its latency period, that is, from onset of exposure to manifestation of disease? All right. Just a second. I'm going to object as framed that it's vague and ambiguous as to when he read what literature.

The way you framed it, it sounded like he read literature in the 30s and 40s. Is it true, Mr. Sheckler, that from your reading of medical literature published in the 30s and 40s, you came to the understanding that there was a minimum period of 10-year latency period that applied with respect to a asbestos-related disease that is from the date of first exposure to the date of onset of disease object on grounds that it's vague and ambiguous as to time when the witness allegedly read the literature that you came to that understanding in the 50s that I rephrase the whole the whole question because I forget what I'm asking now let me rephrase the entire question there's no foundation at this point that he read any literature in the 50s well they may have but there's no foundation he did well is it true that the place where you derived this knowledge in the 50s that there was a latency period that was characteristic of a specialist related disease was from your reading of the literature that was published in the 30s and 40s no sir okay where did you get that knowledge uh primarily that knowledge was derived from my association with the medical director and the two plant physicians dr. Kenneth Smith dr. Kenneth Smith dr. David DuBois dr.

Edwin Merrill and they Merrill they told you this information in the 1950s while you were still at the Manville complex all right now I will object on grounds that one it It is hearsay, and two, it is opinion hearsay. Did Dr. Smith advise you in the 1950s, that is the medical director of Johns-Manville at that time, that there was a latency period that was characteristic of a asbestos-related disease? Yes, sir. And did Dr. Kenneth Smith also advise you that by latency period, he meant the period of time from onset of first exposure to manifestation of disease? that's my understanding yes sir and the dr.

Smith at that time advise you that the minimum latency period that usually applied with respect to asbestos disease was 10 years that would be an approximation of a minimum latency period there's no fixed number right and dr. Smith advised you in the 1950s that the minimum latency period associated with asbestos disease was 10 years and it could go up beyond that to 15 to 20 years true yes sir that's a first and is it also true that you recognized in the the 50s that the medical literature from the 30s to the early 40s essentially stated the same thing a minimum latency period of 10 years and up for asbestos-related disease I will object it there's no foundation in fact that he was aware of any medical literature in the 50s and on that ground I would I'll just interpose the objections there's no foundation he's never made that's argumentative on the record as it stands now I'll rephrase the question I'll rephrase the question is it true that from time to time during your employment from Johns-Manville you have reviewed medical literature some of it published in the 30s and early 40s yes sir that is true and is it true that from your reading of this medical literature published in the 30s and 40s that you arrived at the understanding that there was a latency period associated with asbestos disease that had a minimum of 10 years no sir that's not true i'm sorry okay objection i had before which was it's very ambiguous and uncertain as to time when he allegedly read it now urging the objection to this inquiry council as to time when he read the literature allegedly read written in the 30s and 40s yes that's it's vague and ambiguous i'll rephrase the question i'll rephrase the question from your review of the medical literature is it your understanding that the medical literature in the 30s and early 40s discussed a latency period of 10 years minimum with respect to asbestos related disease are you asking me as of today yes sir that's my understanding as to what the 30s and 40 medical literature suggested okay is it also true is it when you read the Dreesen study that you testified about on direct exhibit B study as part of your employment with Johns-Manville did you note that the author remarked that about a 15 months before the study was begun approximately 150 workers in the asbestos textile factories that were to undergo the study were replaced by workers with little or no previous asbestos exposure and I'll refer you Mr. Sheckler to page 46 of the Dreesen study. See that comparison with other industrial workers? I'm reading it sir. Yes sir.

Dr. Dreesen noted in his report on page 46 that 150 workers in the asbestos textile factories that were being studied by Dr. Dreesen were replaced by workers with little or no previous asbestos exposure about 15 months before the study was to begin where are you at now sir page 46 under the caption comparison with other industrial workers the last paragraph on that page the beginning of the last paragraph he's saying that a hundred and fifty workers in the asbestos textile factories were replaced by workers with little or no previous asbestos exposure he's talking about those in the factories Right. Yeah. About 15 months before the study was to begin. Yes, sir.

And he further states that partly as a result of these personnel changes, the group of employees examined in this study had an unusually low average age. True. And he also states that there was, quotes, there was an abnormally large percentage of workers with less than five years employment in the asbestos textile industry. True? I'm going to. I will.

All right. Does he state that in his report? As part of that sentence, yes, sir. Right. He states, quotes, there was an abnormally large percentage of workers with less than five years' employment in the asbestos textile industry and an abnormally small percentage of persons who had worked ten years or more in this industry. True?

That's true, yes, sir. Now, when you read that in the Dreessen report, when you were manager of the industrial health program for Johns-Manville, did you think that those comments, well, did those comments cause you to be a little bit skeptical in your reading of this report? Mr. O'Reilly, I wouldn't be able to tell you yes or no at this point. That's 20-some years ago. Okay.

Okay. On page 47, Dr. Dreesen has three tables depicted. True? Yes, he has. And the first table is table number 21, age distribution in asbestos workers.

True? Yes, sir. And right below that, Dr. Dreesen states, the low average age of this group of asbestos textile workers must be kept in mind in making comparisons of health conditions in these factories with health conditions in American industry in general. True? Yes, sir.

And you read that and relied on that when you read this report back in between 1960 and 1967, whenever you first read it? I assume so, yes, sir. Table 23 at the bottom of page 47 is entitled Length of Employment in the Asbestos Textile Industry. Do you see that, Mr. Sheckler? Yes, sir. and then he has years employed in asbestos textile industry and on the left-hand column it has sex and race i believe sex and color sex and color okay and then the total number of people 511 and then how many are white males how many are white females and how many are black males correct yes sir and then then he has at the cross the top how many of those people have been employed less than one year in the asbestos industry how many from one to four point nine and how many from five to nine point nine correct yes sir now out of the 511 people that dr.

Dreessen was examining in his study these textile plants in 1938 how many of those people were employed less than 10 year period of time according to the chart according to his chart well so the chart speaks for itself no i i understand that mr Sheckler by wondering if you could just tabulate those figures in those three columns less than one one to four point nine and five to nine point nine the totals what is the question again how many dad yeah what is the question how many of the people the asbestos workers involved in Dr. Dreesen's study were employed less than 10 years in the asbestos industry. Approximately 400. I don't know. I don't have my calculator with me. So 400 out of the 511 were employed 10 years or less in the asbestos textile industry.

And does Dr. Dreesen state, top of page 48 quotes correspondingly the average length of employment in the asbestos textile industry is relatively short only 18.8 percent of the employees have been employed in the asbestos textile industry more than 10 years this close quotes does it state that there it does and you read that and relied on that when you reviewed this report i read it yes sir did you take that into consideration when you read this report that is that dr dreesen was saying that only 18.8 percent of these people had more than 10 years experience in the asbestos textile industry i'm i'm sorry i i lost the first part of your question yes when you read this report back in when you were manager of the industrial health program for johns manville at the time you read i believe you indicated maybe let me rephrase it when you read this report back at john's manva when you were manager of the industrial health program did you take that into consideration in your appraisal of this report that is that only 18.8 percent of the employees were employed more than 10 years i assume i did mr riley because i was reading a report published in 35 in 1960 when there was a lot of additional information available and when you

Tape 5 of 6

Very good at answering. I have a couple more questions on recent. A couple questions on ATI, probably about an ACGIH. About an hour. About an hour. How much do you have, sir?

Not very much. Yeah, five minutes, eight minutes. What about tomorrow morning? The witness looked askance at that. So did a lot of other people, I think. I'd like to take three minutes and talk to Mr.

Sheckler because he's got no problem tonight. Can I get the last question, please? May I, Your Honor, have that read? Sure. Thank you. When you read this report back, when you were manager of the Industrial Health Program for Johns-Manville, At the time you went, I believe you indicated, maybe, let me rephrase, when you read this report back at Johns-Manville, when you were manager of the industrial health program, did you take that into consideration in your appraisal of this report?

That is, that only 18.8% of the employees were employed more than 10 years. Thank you. No. Mr. Shuck, we're going to page 90 of the recent report. At right below the tables, Dr.

Lanza states that, quotes, the percentage of persons with asbestosis increases greatly with increasing length of employment, close quotes. Do you see that? And he states, Lanza... Excuse me. I think that there's some confusion. Would you please read the question back?

I think you said Dr. Lanza states. I may be wrong. Well, I'll rephrase it. You don't have to read it back. I'll take your word for that.

In page 90 of Dr. Dreessen's report, Dr. Dreessen's report right below the table, he states, quotes, the percentage of persons with asbestosis increases greatly with increasing length of employment, close quotes. You see that there? Yes, sir. He then states, quotes, quote, Alonzo McConnell and Fennell reported a similar trend.

Their percentage values are higher than these. There are two explanations. Wait, let me start again. He also states, quote, Alonzo McConnell and Fennell reported a similar trend. Their percentage values are higher than these, close quotes. Do you see that?

Yes, sir. Then he states, he was on to state, quote, there are two explanations for the small number of persons employed 15 years or more. This group of asbestos textile factories has been in operation from 6 to 16 years, and because of the relatively short life of the industry in this section of the country, comparatively few persons have been exposed to asbestos dust for a long time. Another explanation is suggested by the fact that almost three-fourths of the workers employed more than 15 years have the early stages, at least, of a disabling disease, asbestosis. Since there is no satisfactory way locating and examining persons who drop out of an industry because of disability incurred therein, the percentage values of the foregoing tables are necessarily minimal estimates of the prevalence of asbestosis, close quotes. Did I read that correctly?

Yes, you did, sir. And that was part of what you read when you read this report as part of your duties as manager of the industrial health program? I assume I read that, yes, sir. and he states at the top of page 91, quotes, the incidence of asbestosis increases with increasing dust concentration. Do you have that? Yes, sir. In their report of a similar study carried on in Pennsylvania, asbestos textile factories, Fulton, Dooley, Matthews, and Haught found that 8% of the workers exposed to an average dust concentration of 5 million particles per cubic foot had asbestosis. 22% of the 17 million particle group and 57% of the 44 million particle group had asbestosis.

True? That's what he states, sir? That's what he states, yes, sir. I know. He goes on to state that, quotes, from a practical standpoint, point one of the most important results of a medical and engineering study such as this is the definition of safe working conditions in the industry under study ideally a threshold concentration of dust should be the highest dust concentration that would not produce pneumoconiosis in originally healthy workmen during their entire working life the chief difficulty in this study as in most of the earlier studies of the public health service is is that very few workmen are exposed for a long period of time to low concentrations of asbestos dust. Because of the importance of the problem, it seems to be desirable to use such data as are at hand to define tentative, safe working conditions that may serve as standard for the guidance of factory managers and engineers until more complete data are available.

Do you see that there? I do. And you read that and relied on that when you read this report as part of your duties as manager of the Industrial Health Program for Johns-Manville? Yes, sir. Okay. And when you saw that, did you give any thought to what Dr.

Dreesen meant by the word tentative safe working conditions? I think so, yes. Yes, I must say this, that at the time I read Dreesen, I had to assume, and I do at this time when I read Dreesen, that he took all of these variations into consideration when he wrote his conclusions. That would be the most logical thing to do for any author. Two, Dreesen's recommendations of threshold limits for asbestos dust existed for 30 years after he published this paper. And not only I, but others certainly must have had the same opinions. moved to strike everything after yes i did as non-responsive to the question it's explanatory of his answer council i'll let it stand now did you also note further on in page 91 that dr dreesen again suggests that five minute particles per cubic foot may be regarded tentatively as the value for asbestos dust exposure i'm sorry sir i'm not with you now where are you reading second paragraph from the bottom in an analysis because clean-cut cases yes sir all right yes sir because clean-cut cases of asbestosis were found only in dust concentrations exceeding 5 million particles per cubic foot and because they were not found at lower dust concentrations 5 million particles per cubic foot may be regarded tentatively as the dust threshold value for asbestos dust exposure until better data are available close quotes do you see that yes sir now when you read the dreesen study as part of your duties as manager of the industrial health program for johns manville did you make any recommendations or suggestions to anyone at johns manville that further study be done in this particular area in light of dr dreesen's comments in his report no sir I did not when I read Dreesen study in 19 early 1960 the American Conference of governmental industrial hygienists had already accepted as recommendations and carried them through from 1938 to 1960 with continuous review well isn't it your opinion that the five million particle standard for asbestos dust was essentially a meaningless standard big and ambiguous as to time argumentative and without foundation I would try that question for the time being in April 1964 when you read dr.

Selikoff's preliminary study that indicated a prevalence of disease among insulators you had the understanding that dr. Selikoff's let me rephrase that you had the understanding that the dust counts that were involved were below the five million particles is that true not exactly dr. Selikoff study in 1964 to the to the best of my knowledge, had very little reference to dust counts. Dr. Selikoff had opinions of what the dust levels were in the insulating tray. And he indicated, well, let me rephrase that.

It was your understanding after reading Dr. Selikoff's preliminary study that in Dr. Selikoff's opinion, the dust counts that these insulators were working in were below the five-minute particle threshold limit value. Yes, sir. That's true. And so you were aware, after reading Dr.

Selikoff's preliminary study, that disease, that is asbestos-related lung disease, could occur in atmospheres where the dust count was below 5 million particles per cubic foot of air. I will object to that as being argumentative. You know, if you want to stick in that it was Dr. Selikoff's opinion that that was true, I want to see how he can make that jump. Did you believe when you left the symposium in November or December where these various papers were delivered, including Dr. Selikoff's, that asbestos-related lung disease could occur at dust counts below 5 million particles per cubic foot of air?

I became of that opinion as a result of the Solikov study. I don't know precisely when, you know, within, I can't say that I walked away from that symposium feeling that way. Sometime between April 1964, when you read his preliminary studies, let's say in one year later, you were of the opinion that asbestos disease occurred at dust counts below five million particles per cubic foot of air that became my opinion yes sir okay and did you govern your activities as manager of the industrial health program according to that opinion that is did you rely any longer on feeling safe with a five million particle per cubic foot of air dust count. Do you understand what I mean by the question? I understand the question perfectly, yes, sir. I then began to question the value of a five million particle per cubic foot of air dust count and in fact began to question the value of particle counts, period.

Okay, and was it then that at some time in 1964 1965 that you personally began to believe that fiber counts would be more accurate than dust counts or particle counts there was a transition period there mr o'reilly when we were working with the united states i was working with the united states public health service to try and develop some information in conjunction with fiber counts and we attempted to get some some correlation between particle counts and fiber counts okay at some time in 1964-1965 in light of Dr. Selikoff's study did you take any steps at Johns- Manville to see that the dust count were lower than five million particles per cubic foot of air we remained with the five million particle per cubic foot of air standard until approximately 1967 or 68 when we developed a an entirely different method of dust collection and analysis and when you say we do you mean Johns-Manville i i will say that That was my recommendation to the Industrial Hygiene Laboratory. Of Johns-Manville? Yes, sir. And that was so that even after you had read Selikoff's preliminary study and attended the symposium in November and December 1964, you still recommended the 5 million particle per cubic foot of air dust count as a safe working level. Well that, yes sir, that was my recommendation based on ACGIH and again based, ACGIH had reviewed that standard in 1964 and published that review and that and of course the state law in New Jersey and many other states at that time was five million particles per cubic cubic foot of air for asbestos dust.

Well, was it your understanding of the state of New Jersey law at the time you read Dr. Selikoff's preliminary study in 1964, April, that you could not institute a program that had dust counts below the five million particle per cubic foot of air standard? Mr. O'Reilly, I did exactly that. In fact, that had been a program over a number of years with us. Instead of counting just asbestos dust, we counted total dust within the 5 million particles per cubic foot of air range.

That gave us a building safety factor at all times. Are you saying that sometime prior to 1964, let me rephrase that, is it your testimony that sometime prior to 1964 you had recommended that dust counts be maintained at levels lower than the 5 million particles per cubic foot of air? No, but I did make the recommendation in 1960 that asbestos dust should not be separated from total dust when dust counts were taken and the analysis should show the total dust count. I'm speaking now where asbestos dust was involved. Well prior to 1964 did Johns-Manville interpret the five million particle per cubic foot of air dust count such that Johns-Manville attempted to maintain the working conditions or the atmospheric conditions at its plants at 5 million particles per cubic foot of air or below for total dust? That's where there was asbestos dust present, yes, sir.

Okay, and so the dust counts that Johns-Manville took was total dust, wherever asbestos was used in the process. That's the way we analyzed it, yes, sir. Okay. So the way Johns-Manville did it prior to 1964 1964, was that they would have a count of the total dust wherein there was some asbestos in the atmosphere, and if that total dust count was at or below 500 particles per cubic foot of air, it was okay. That's correct. Now, did Johns-Manville also use fiber counting prior to 1964?

The fiber counting was used on an experimental basis during the time Mr. Jackson was manager of the industrial health program for a period of time, and that fiber counting was not done in accordance with what we now understand as fiber counting it was strictly an experimental program it had been done for a period of time but again not in accord with what we know now as fiber counting well did did either mr. Jackson or dr. Smith at any time in the 50s or 60s advise you or state in your presence that fiber counting was a more accurate way of determining the risk of injury to people working in atmosphere that contained asbestos fibers that knowledge was was not available no it was November or December the symposium was December December 1964 dr. Dreessen but do you have 93 before you Mr. Sheckler i do yes sir in the first full paragraph beginning with in comparison do you see that yes sir dr dreesen states quotes in comparison with the three kinds of dust encountered in anthracite mines relatively low concentrations of asbestos dust and relatively short lengths of employment in the asbestos textile industry result in pneumoconiosis close quotes that's what states there that's what it states yes sir and you read that i relied on that when you read this report back in 60. well i assume so and then he states the next paragraph beginning with quotes according to table 43 do you see that yes you're skipping the next paragraph are you well that paragraph states quotes that is the paragraph you refer to quotes there was no free silica quartz in parentheses in the dust encountering the asbestos textile factories close quotes and then he states quotes according to table 43 16.3 percent of the 69 former asbestos workers and 378 men and women employed at the time of the study in three asbestos textile factories had asbestosis parentheses persons who are not exposed to appreciable quantities of asbestos dust have not been included, close parentheses.

Eight percent of the 378 workers employed at the time of the study had asbestosis, close quotes. That's what it states there? It does. And you read this page when you read the report back in 1960? Yes, sir. And then he states, quotes, this does not completely represent the incidence of asbestosis because about 150 employees were discharged from these factories 15 months before the present study was made, close quotes.

Do you see that there? I do. He then states, quotes, many of the discharged asbestos workers had asbestosis, as the reports of Schull, S-H-U-L-L, Donnelly, D-O-N-N-E-L-L-Y, and McPheeters, capital M-C, capital P-H-E-E-T-E-R-S, show. You see that? I do. and he further states quotes although an attempt was made to examine as many as possible of these discharge cases only 69 could be examined 43 persons of whom had asbestosis according to the diagnostic standards employed in this study close quotes you see that I do and you read that when you read this report back in 1960? I assume I did, yes sir.

On page 94, under the caption entitled incidents of asbestosis in different occupations. See that? I do, yes sir. Quotes, the percentage of persons affected by asbestosis varies in different occupations. The numbers of persons employed in many of the occupational groups are so small that caution must be exercised in making comparisons, but the data seemed to be of sufficient interest to warrant publication classified by departments the preparation department as the highest percentage percent the preparation department is the highest percentage of asbestosis asbestotic persons carding is the principal occupation in this department although only eight of the 72 Carter's had been employed more than ten years twenty nine point two percent had asbestosis eleven 11 carters had advanced asbestosis. No other occupational group had so large a proportion of advanced cases.

Close quotes. Did I read that correctly? Yes, sir. And you read and relied on that when you read this study back in 1960? Yes, sir. Would you go down to table 46, which is on page 94?

It's entitled, Number and Percentage of Workers Having Asbestosis, Classified According to Department and Occupation. You see that? I do, yes, sir. And it is on the left-hand side, Department and Occupation? Yes, sir. And then you go down to Superintendents and Utility.

Do you see that? I do. You go over to Number Employed, Number of Superintendents and Utility People Employed? Yes, sir. And what does it say there? How many were employed?

Twenty-nine. Twenty-nine that were included in the study? That's what it says, yes, sir. And how many had, what was the percent with asbestosis? three. Did you read that when you read this report back in 1960? I assume I did.

The tables. Okay. Now, he also states that the next paragraph quotes, in the spinning, twisting, and winding department, the mule and ring spinners have a higher proportion of asbestotic persons than the average, 24.6 percent. Twenty of the 65 male and ring spinners have been employed more than 10 years close close 70 65 mule that is mule and ring spinners what did i call them male oh i'm sorry okay thank you quotes 20 of the 65 mule and ring spinners have been employed more than 10 years close quotes true yes and he then states quotes a third occupation with an excess extensive or is that excessive excessive quotes a third occupation with an excessive prevalence rate for asbestosis is cloth weaving in which 25.6 percent of the workers are affected did i have the right percentage yes sir only three of the 43 workers have been employed more than 10 years close quotes you read and considered that back in 1960 when you read this report i assume i did yes sir now on page 95 at the top your honor i'm going to object at this point when i asked for a representation from mr. O'Reilly sometime back he said either and I could I'll say both so I don't miss quote over a question Andresa well earlier you said two and that was a half hour ago I got one more there aren't any questions the questions have been am i reading it accurately and did you read it attempting to show the store of knowledge that this witness has and the way he's showing it is by quotations from the work which reportedly this witness examined. I understand that, Your Honor, but if it's foundational and we're going somewhere, fine, it would have a purpose, but I don't... it's about a hundred, if I remember correctly, a hundred and twenty-six page report.

Well, I gather Now, the counsel says he has, what, one or two more questions? One more question, sir. One more question. Go ahead, counsel. Thank you. Now, on top of page 95, under caption, Asbestosis in Great Britain and in the United States.

Do you have that, Mr. Chairman? I do, yes, sir. He states, quote, Lanza has called attention to a point of interest, mainly that British investigators have found asbestosis more severe and menacing than it was in the United States. He adds that this difference is probably more apparent than real. Lynch and Smith have reported three fatal cases whose duration of employment in asbestos textile mills was 11 1⁄2, 17, and 21 years in occupations having dust exposures of the order of dry weaving.

Stock reported a fatal case in a man 27 years of age who worked eight years as a carter in an asbestos plant. Egbert has also given complete findings of similar case in a man 30 years of age who had worked 13 years as a carter and who died four years after onset of symptoms and three and a half years after discontinuing work." Next paragraph, quote, These examples of American fatalities, some in young individuals, suggest that the period of dust exposure before disability or death ensues is as short as in the case in silicosis, close quotes. Did I read that correctly? Is as short as in the case of silicosis, sir. Is as short as in the case of silicosis, close quotes. Yes, sir.

And you read and relied on that back in 1960 when you read this report. Yes, sir. Now, when you read the report back in 1960, did you read also or did you refer to the bibliography at the end of the report that summarized a number of medical articles on asbestosis that have been published to the date of this report? I do not think so. Do you have the bibliography attached to your copy of the report, Mr. Sheckler?

It begins on page about 118, annotated bibliography. First you have engineering reports, and then medical reports. Yes, sir. your answer stands yes sir you did not uh read or refer to the bibliography containing all the medical articles and the summaries to the best of my knowledge i did not necessarily read the bibliography in 1960. did you ever refer to or read the bibliography that was attached to the recent report i'm particularly talking about the medical bibliography the medical articles on asbestosis i don't think so no sir okay are are we finished with this now do you have before you exhibit number the Fleischer-Drinker report i believe it's exhibit number c c entitled the health survey of pipe covering operations and constructing naval vessels i have it yes sir can you tell us approximately what it was that you read the Fleischer- Drinker report as part and parcel of your duties as uh manager of the industrial health program for johns manville it would be in and about the same time that i read the other reports sir sometime after i went into new york city in 1959 60. and when you read the Dreessen report did you read the first paragraph that states well i'm sorry thank you when you read the Fleischer-Drinker report did you read the first paragraph which states an industrial health inspection of an important u.s navy contract yard indicated that dustiness from miscellaneous pipe covering operations was considerable and that a few of the employees had what appeared to be asbestosis this is a well-known industrial disease caused by only one thing dash prolonged breathing of asbestos dust the clinical manifestations are shortness of breath and an unusual chest picture by x-ray in industry the disease is often disabling but it is much less frequent than silicosis with which it is very properly with which it very properly is classed close quotes you read that yes sir i assume i wrote that and did you note when you read the The Fleischer-Drinker report that on page 10, the authors of the report classified the operations they saw at the shipyard that they considered part of pipe covering operations. It would be under caption number one, description of operations and working environment about right down near the bottom where he's got them numbered one through seven. I have it. Yes, sir.

And what the authors did is they stated, quotes, pipe covering may be divided into seven different operations as follows. One, laying out and cutting. Two, bandsaw cutting. Three, sewing and preparation of boots and jackets. Four, cement mixing. Five, molding.

Six, grinding. Seven, installation on board ship. Close quotes. Installation, sir. Yes, sir. Installation on board ship.

Close quotes. you read and saw that when you read this report back around 1960 yes sir and when you read this report back in 1960 did you recall that you saw dust being created when your construction people in 46 to 52 cut or saw pipe covering and block i was aware of that fact and the same thing with respect to cement mixing you were aware of that but you also observed that back in 46 i was aware I'm aware of that fact, yes, sir. And when you read the Fleischer Drinker report, did you note that the report did not refer to or address rip-out or tear-out operations aboard ship? I did notice that, yes, sir. And you recalled from your time supervising construction, 46 to 52, that visible dust was created during rip-out or tear-out operations, true? Yes, sir. I assume the report did not carry that particular phase of the work, because that's a very periodic type of thing and probably not being done at the time of the survey.

Okay. Move to strike is now in response to everything after no. It is. You don't have an answer then, Counsel? He actually started his answer with yes, sir. I think I'd say, yes, I did notice it.

Period. Well, may that stand. Yes, sir. thank you mr sheckler going to page 15 of the fleischer drinker report which to everybody's merriment is the last page did you notice in table four i'm sorry did you notice in table five that of the 1,074 people who were X-rayed, 51 had 10 or more years exposure. Yes, sir. And when you read this report back in 1960, did you note that the three cases of asbestosis that were found by the authors of this report all occurred in those workers who had ten or more years in the pipe covering industry. Well, that's not, no, sir, that's not what the conclusions read.

The conclusions read, sir, since each of the three cases of asbestosis had worked with asbestos pipe covering in the shipyards for more than 20 years, it may be concluded that such pipe covering is not a dangerous occupation. It's on page number 16, item 4, under conclusions. I know what's there, Mr. Sheckler. Going back to page 15, table 5. Excuse me, sir, but wasn't that not your question?

Well, I don't think so. I was talking about table 5, but that's all right. Going back to table 5. table five breaks down the employee the number of employees in each of the four shipyards into their years and pipe covering industry correct it does yes sir and the first column is zero to two years yes sir second column two to five years that's correct third column five to ten years correct fourth column ten or more years that's correct and the three cases of asbestosis occurred occurred in the column ten or more years. True? That is correct. Yes, sir.

And they found no disease manifesting itself in any of the pipe coverers that had not spent ten or more years in the pipe covering industry. True? I'm sorry. I'll rephrase the question. The table discloses that the authors found no incidence of a specialist-related lung disease in any of the people who were not employed ten or more years in the pipe covering industry true that is correct yes sir now when you read that particular table back in 1960 did you think that you would not expect to find any because of the latency period of 10 years I would I would have relied on the report because the latency period is there's a number of people of 10 plus years on this report who were found not to have disease. This is in the table itself.

He found three three people who had exposure over 20 years. There were 3, 25, 35, 42, 48 people, 51 people, not 48. No, three out of fifty-one. There were three out of fifty-one people who had over ten years of exposure, and three out of that fifty-one had disease, so that left forty-eight people who had no disease but had over ten years of exposure, according to his table. Right. Well, are you saying, Mr.

Sheckler, that an incidence of disease of 3 out of 51, or approximately 6%, indicates to you that there's no hazard in that particular group of people? Well, just a second. I'll object on grounds that it's argumentative. I'll also object on grounds that there's no foundation. Okay. I'll rephrase the question. as an occupational health consultant is an incidence of disease of three out of 51 an acceptable level of disease three out of 51 in my opinion are you speaking now of this table sir or are you speaking of generalities I'm speaking of generalities and as an occupational health consultant would you consider an incidence of disease that had a disease occurring in three out of every 51 people in a particular occupation as an acceptable level of disease indicating it's a safe occupation mr.

O'Reilly I wait a minute wait a minute can I have the question back it had a little phrase at the end of it changed my objection it's a safe occupation I understand that that's why i wanted to hear it i'm speaking in generalities as an occupational health consultant would you consider an incidence of disease that had a disease occurring in three out of every 51 people in a particular occupation as an acceptable level of disease indicating it's a safe occupation i'm going to object on foundational grounds i don't know at this point and it's vague and ambiguous and uncertain we've had no definition that or understanding in this record that there is any any level of acceptable disease constituting quote safe occupation unquote i don't know what all that means and the witness hasn't testified that he knows what all that means if there is some acceptability and safety uh not necessarily two terms which uh synonymous counsel you interpreted the fleischer drinker report as the authors stating that the incidence of disease of three cases of asbestosis out of 1057 indicated that it was a relatively safe occupation true I accepted that conclusion of the author yes sir I'm sorry let me ask the question again I use the wrong number thousand seventy fifty seven okay three cases out of 1074 yes sir yes sir oh so you interpreted of the fleischer drinker report as the authors stating that three cases of asbestosis out of 1074 people indicated that pipe covering was a relatively safe occupation true i accepted his conclusion yes sir now as an occupational health consultant if the group of pipe covers was 51 and there were three cases of asbestosis out of 51 people with 10 or more years exposure exposure, would you consider, as an occupational health consultant, that to be a relatively safe occupation? MR. Are you assuming, you know, asking him to assume that hypothetical posed to him today? MR. Yes. MR. 1981?

MR. Yes. MR. Strike that, 1982. MR. Do you understand my question, Mr.

Secretary? Yes, I do. Am I to answer? MR. Yes. I would be reluctant to provide you an answer, Mr.

O'Reilly. I'm not an epidemiologist, nor am I a biostatistician, and I think this is an area of very specific expertise, especially in conjunction with what is an acceptable level of disease. And I would be very reluctant to answer that. But I think that's completely out of my line. As an occupational health consultant, are you concerned with the incidence of disease in occupational groups? Yes, sir.

And are you concerned, let me rephrase that, in your view, does the percentage of diseased people in a given occupational group have anything to do with your opinion as to whether or not it's a safe occupation? patient. Can I have that back? Yes, sir. And are you concerned, let me rephrase that, in your view, does the percentage of deceased people in a given occupational group have anything to do with your opinion as to whether or not it's a safe occupation? I apologize. I didn't get it any better the second time than I did the first.

One again, please. Yes, sir. In your view, does the percentage of deceased people in a given occupational group have anything to do with your opinion and whether or not it's a safe application? Your Honor, I would object on grounds that it calls for an opinion without foundation. There's actually two opinions of the witness framed within the question. One is characterized as a view, the other is an opinion, and I will object on foundation, particularly in view of his preceding answer about his area of expertise. teased i i think he's already disqualified himself from having he can have a view but i don't think it's a relevant view based upon his own testimony he testified as an occupational health consultant well yeah and you've given that some characterization that the witness hasn't maybe if you would define how you want him to think of himself in that regard I mean, counsel seems to think that that makes him a biostatistician or something else that he's already said he's not.

I gather, counsel, you wish to inquire whether he believes he has to make a conclusion or come to a conclusion as to safety as part of or within the parameter of his duties as a consultant. Right. Is that what you're trying to say? Some conclusion as to occupational health in his capacity as an occupational health consultant. Yeah. Well, yeah.

Is that, uh, do you understand that, Counsel? I, sort of, and sort of not. I, I don't see, you know, if, if, if I, I did hear what Mr. Sheckler does when he testified testified on direct, and to some extent what he testified to on cross, and particularly in terms of what he does today as an occupational health consultant, it doesn't strike me that he had to make any conclusions about what is or is not safe. Okay. I'll ask that question.

No, it is not his job. Okay. I'm trying to shorten it. I'll just rephrase the question. See if I can go to it this way. perhaps counsel what you're trying to find out as and i asking mr do you believe that part of your duties as a consultant one of your duties as a consultant is to make it to secure or render or reach an opinion as to the the safety whether an occupation is safe that's really yes sir yes sir from exactly exposure to occupational disease otherwise it becomes a question i'll ask the question go ahead mr sheckler as an occupational health consultant is one of your concerns determining the incidence or prevalence of a given disease in a given occupation that is a function of an epidemiologist Not an occupational health consultant. An occupational health consultant, Mr.

O'Reilly, accepts the findings of an epidemiologist or a biostatistician who makes the analysis and makes a determination as to whether 100 A hundred cases of lung cancer from smoking is excessive or nonexcessive in a population of a half million people. That's not an occupational health consultant's job. An occupational health consultant's job is to administer programs set down by specialists such as a biostatistician or an epidemiologist. Well, part of your duties with Johns-Manville from 1952 through 1957 involved also recommending changes in a safety program if you did not deem it effective. Is that true? Yes, sir, that is true.

Now, are you saying that if you found an incidence or prevalence of disease of 1% of the occupational group that you were responsible for and found an incidence or prevalence of disease in another occupation group you were responsible for of 40%, that you would not do anything about that data unless some biostatistician said, hey, that's significant? I would argue that I'm going to object on grounds that it's argumentative. I don't think it's argumentative. I just can object. I don't get the rule. Answer the question. i would take that dated to the united states public health service as i have done in the past or or the university of pittsburgh or to the proper people who i felt could give me those answers and ask them whether or not there's any reason for concern i would ask them what their opinions are yes sir i would get their their assistance now is it your testimony that that regardless of the incidence or prevalence of a disease in a given population of occupational workers that you were responsible for, you would go to the public health service with the data to find out whether or not it was significant?

Well, I think I just answered that question. Okay. The answer would be yes? No, the answer's not yes. You singled out the public health service, and I pointed out that you can go there or to an epidemiologist, to a university, to some research group, and ask them to look at the problem. You would go somewhere to see somebody.

That's right. Okay. Now, when you read the Fleischer-Drinker report back in 1960, did you yourself think that the minimum 10-year latency period that Dr. Smith told you about in the 50s rendered this report somewhat questionable. No, sir. Okay.

Going to exhibit number D. Exhibit number D. Thank you, Your Honor. Dr. Selikoff's report entitled The Occurrence of Asbestosis Among Insulation Workers in the United States. I.J.

Selikoff, Churg, Hammond, etc. you read a preliminary report of this in april of 1964 yes sir and is it fair to state that prior to april of 1964 you had not seen or heard of any findings by dr selikov on any of the studies that he was doing with respect to asbestos or asbestos asbestos related lung disease to the best of my I know that he was doing only one study which he started in 1963 and I knew of no analysis that was made of that up to 1964. So the first indication that you had of any findings or conclusions by Dr. Selikoff on the prevalence or incidence of disease and what kind of disease was your reading of the preliminary report in April of 1964? That's true. Is that true? Yes sir.

And immediately Immediately thereafter, you got involved in devising a warning label to warn insulators of the dangers of asbestos-related lung disease. Is that true? Yes, sir. And was your participation in response to your recognition of the danger as disclosed in Dr. Selikoff's preliminary study that you read in April 1964? Yes, sir. right now you were a member of the let me rephrase that you went to meetings of the asbestos textile institute in the 1960s true starting in the sometime in the 1960s let me rephrase that you went to meetings of the asbestos textile institute in the 1960s true starting in the sometime in the 1960s yes okay and the asbestos textile institute was an organization of asbestos textile companies true yes sir and john manville was a member yes sir and did you start to go let me rephrase that did you attend the asbestos textile institute meetings as a representative of john's manville as one of their representatives yes sir when did you begin to to attend asbestos textile institute meetings i don't know approximately don't know the exact date probably sometime in the early 60s 1961 or 62 somewhere between 60 and then and did you serve on any committees yes attending the asbestos textile institute as a representative of Johns-Manville?

Yes, sir. What committees? I recall what the Safety and Health Committee, I think it was entitled. Did you ever serve on the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee? I'm sorry, sir. Did you ever serve on the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee of the Asbestos Textile Institute?

No, sir. I don't think that was the name of the committee I served on. I think the name of the committee I served on was the Safety and Health Committee. Did you ever serve on a committee that was chaired by J.L. Mitchell? Jerry Mitchell or J.L.

Mitchell? I recall Mr. Mitchell, but I can't answer that question. I don't recall. Did you ever attend any meetings of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee of the Asbestos Textile Institute in the early 60s? I don't know, Mr.

O'Reilly. I can't answer the question. I'm not trying to be evasive, but I just don't recall. No problem. I just know that yesterday one of us got a little bit confused about the Asbestos Information Association and the Asbestos Textile Institute, and I know you served on the Health and Safety Committee of one industry organization up until about 19, I think it was changed in 1980 or something like that. But let me do this.

Let me strike that, because there's not a question pending there. Is it true that when you served on a committee of the Asbestos Textile Institute in the early 60s that someone would take notes of the meeting and prepare minutes that would be circulated to all the members of that committee? Mr. Sunbury, who was secretary of the organization, would write his version of what transpired at the meeting subsequent to the meeting and distribute them. And you would receive the notes or copies of his notes or minutes within a week or two of the meeting at your office in corporate headquarters? I would say so, yes, sir.

Let me... Are you about to start on a series of ATI minutes? Three, four. Judy has requested a brief break. How long do you think you'll be now? Uh, let me see here, John.

Depending how quickly this goes up, this should take more than about 15 or 20 minutes. I think probably a half hour. Five minute recess. Mr. Sheckler, I've provided you with a copy of the minutes of the the Asbestos Textile Institute's Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee meeting minutes of, I believe, September 1961? Yes, sir.

And they've been marked as plaintiffs 10A and 10B. Would you take a look at those, please? I have, yes, sir. Would you be able to tell us whether or not they are copies of the minutes or notes of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee meeting? Yes, sir. They're copies of the notes of the meeting, yes, sir.

And does that refresh your recollection that you were a member of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee of the Asbestos Textile Institute? Let me rephrase the question. Let me withdraw that question. Does that refresh your recollection that you were one of John Manville's representatives on the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee of the Asbestos Textile Institute in 1961? Yes, sir. That refreshes my recollection that that was the name of the committee, yes, sir.

And you were a representative of Johns-Manville on that committee? Yes, sir. Approximately how many years were you on that committee? I don't really know, Mr. O'Reilly. Are we talking about like two, three years or more than five years?

Probably more than five years. Now, you received a copy of those minutes that you have before you sometime within two or three weeks after the meeting of September 1961. Is that a fair statement? Yes, sir, that's a fair statement. And did you file them somewhere in your offices at corporate headquarters in New York? Yes, sir.

Okay. I'd like to show you plaintiffs without markers, plaintiffs 11, A, B, and C, three pages of Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee meeting minutes dated March 8, 1962. Thank you, sir. And I ask you if you'd look at those, please, Mr. Sheckler, sufficiently to be able to tell us whether or not they are copies of the minutes of the March 8, 1962 meeting of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee which you attended. Yes, sir.

Okay. They are? They are. Okay. And you attended that meeting also, did you not? The one of March 8, 1962 that's reflected in those minutes?

As reflected in the minutes, yes, sir. I'd like to show you another set of minutes of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee that shows you an attendance dated June 6, 1963, marked these two pages of minutes as 12A and 12B. And, Mr. Sheckler, if you look at 12A and B sufficiently to tell us if they are also copies of minutes of the June 6, 1963, Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee meeting which you attended. These are minutes of the Air Hygiene Committee, and they show me in attendance. That's June 6, 1963?

June 6, 1963. And I believe you said Air Hygiene Committee. Did you mean Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee? Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee. and the normal custom at that time was such that after the meeting was over, the minutes would be prepared and sent to all members of the committee, correct? After the meeting of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee was over, let me rephrase that, after the meeting of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee was over, the minutes would be prepared and a copy sent to every one of the members of the committee. They weren't minutes per se, they were notes of the meeting.

I'll rephrase the question. I'll rephrase the question. The format was such at that time that after the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee meeting was over, these minutes or notes were prepared and a copy sent to you as a representative of Johnson Manville on that committee. True? Yes, sir. Okay.

Now, if you'll note on the first page, 12A, At the bottom of the June 6, 1963 meeting of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee, the paragraph captioned, Asbestos-Related Lung Cancer Study. Do you see that? Yes, sir, I do. And that states that, quote, the committee was advised that a Dr. Selikoff will read at the next meeting of the American Medical Association in about 30 days a paper on a study he has made of about 1,500 workers, largely in asbestos insulation applications, showing a very large incidence of lung cancer over normal expectancy. How scientific this study has been in selecting the group and the full depth of the study remains to be determined, but admittedly it will be damaging to the industry." Did I read that correctly?

You read it correctly. Now, after this meeting, did you advise anybody at Johns-Manville that Dr. Salikoff was going to be presenting a paper in about 30 days that was going to show a very large incidence of lung cancer in insulation workers. In the opinion of the person who wrote this paper, any correspondence that I would receive like this would be distributed. Any correspondence that Dr. Smith received would come to me.

Correspondence that I would receive would go to Dr. Smith. So Dr. Smith, who was my immediate superior, would have been sent a copy of such a paper? Yes, sir. Are you saying that when you received these minutes or notes of the June 6, 1963 meeting of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee, that Dr.

Smith would also receive a copy? He would receive my copy. Okay, after you read it. He would have an opportunity to see my copy after I read it. After you read it? Okay.

Well, during the time between the June 6, 1963, and the date that you received your copy of these minutes, did you make any recommendations or suggestions to Johns- Manville that indicated, let me rephrase that, between the time of this meeting of June 6, 1963, and the time you received your copy of these minutes minutes in the normal course of events, did you advise or inform anyone at Johns-Manville that Mr. Mitchell of H.K. Porter Company, the chairman of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee, had advised that, let me rephrase that, I gotta withdraw that, between the time of this meeting on June 6, 1963 and the time you received your copy of these minutes in normal course of events did you advise anyone at johns manville that someone at the committee meeting advised that a dr selikoff would be reading a paper before the american medical association on a study he had made of approximately 1500 workers largely in asbestos insulation applications which studies showed a very large incidence of lung cancer over normal expectancy I advise dr. Smith yes I advise dr. Smith did you advise anyone else no sir okay now did you make any suggestions or recommendations to anyone at Johns-Manville following this meeting of June 6 1963 that perhaps warning labels should be placed on Johns-Manville's asbestos containing insulation products advising of the dangers I did not make that recommendation at that particular time no sir after you received your copy of these minutes in the normal course of events did you advise or inform anyone at Johns-Manville of what transpired at this meeting with respect to dr. Salik off study other than passing the minutes on to dr.

Smith I don't recall mr. O'Reilly I don't really know when you received your copy of the minutes of this June 6 1963 meeting did you advise or recommend or suggest to anyone at Johns-Manville that perhaps a warning label be devised to place on asbestos-containing insulation products to advise of the dangers? Not, uh, I made no such recommendation on the basis of the notes by Mr. Mitchell because Dr. Solikov's study only started in 1963, and to the best of my knowledge, there was no analysis. I move the strike is now responsive.

Yes, it is striking. Fire answers. thank you sir but the question again when you received a copy of these minutes in a normal course of events would you advise or recommend or suggest to anyone at Johns-Manville that a warning label should be devised to place on a special containing insulation products to one of the dangers not at this time though sir next two-page document titled air hygiene and manufacturing committee october 3rd 1963 they've been marked as 13a and 13b i just happened to see mrs addison out there i got carried away it's understandable are we still on yes move to strike my old cabin is that a word a whistle are you aware of the fact that he does not show as an attendee of this man yes this one october 3rd 1963 can you look at 13a and 13b sufficiently to tell us whether or not they are copies of minutes or notes of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee meeting of October 3rd, 1963. Rejection. Michael Foundation calls for a speculation in his name, doesn't he? Sustained. Another country heard from.

He's about to foul. It was sustained. Oh, Mr. Sheckler, you received copies of the minutes of Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee meetings even when you did not attend during those years that you were jm's representative to that committee did you not i can't answer that question i don't know whether that distribution was made when i was not at a meeting and not shown on the attendance or not i i believe not okay you're keeping me Well, that's what I call pressure, I'll tell you that. Next six documents, Mark Planes 14A through 14F, entitled Minutes, Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee, October 7, 1965, at Buck Hill Falls, Pennsylvania. Excuse me, Mr.

O'Reilly, are we finished with these so I can keep them from getting... Yeah. Okay. October 7, 1965. The mark is 14A through 14F. This is everything on air height.

Maybe I should have put them the other way so that we do it this way, I guess. I could use... All right, fine. No. Not so far. Yes, 10A, B.

Well, why don't I clip these together? That'll separate those. That's Dr. Selikoff's study out of there, which I'm instructed we're not through with yet. That's an arm core. I guess we can cut the tape.

There's one. May we proceed, sir? Yes. Can you tell us, Mr. Sheckler, if those are copies of minutes of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee meeting of October 7, 1965, that you attended. These are the notes of October 7, 1965, and I am shown in attendance.

On page four of those notes, caption two, entitled Review Current Publicity on the Effect of Asbestos on Public Health. then it states the following articles were reviewed and discussed one dangerous dust Scientific American December 1964 volume 211 you recall any of the conversation that took place at that meeting about that article entitled dangerous dust I do not did you when you returned to Johns-Manville following this meeting advise dr. Smith of the publication of that article dangerous dust I did dr. Smith would have received copy of these notes in the normal a course of events yes sir when you received yours you passed them out to him just like with the other ones i did yes sir and with respect to caption number two cancer experts eye asbestos and alarm cancer experts eye asbestos perils by josephine robertson the plane dealer january 12 1965 cleveland ohio did you verbally advise miss dr smith of that particular article when you returned again i passed these notes on to dr smith okay on page four at the top under caption entitled uh two biological effects of asbestos you see that october 19th 20th 21st 1964 nyc yes sir and it states the committee suggested the board of directors of ati send a public relations man to this conference since Dr. Selikoff is using the news media for publications close quotes do you recall that conversation that the meeting the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee held about sending a PR man to Dr. Selikoff's conference I recall I recall the subject being discussed it was never carried out. The PR man was never sent?

No, sir. Asbestos Textile Institute general meeting February 4th, 1971, 15A, 15B, 15C, 15D. Get 15A through 15D, Mr. Sheckler, to be able to tell us if those are the minutes or the notes of that particular meeting of the Asbestos Textile Institute. These are, these notes differ a bit from the others. These are notes of the general meeting of the Asbestos Textile Institute on February 4th, 1971.

And you were present, were you not, at the general meeting of the Asbestos Textile Institute on February 4th, 1971? Yes, sir. And at that particular meeting did you address the general membership and advise them that in your opinion Dr. Selikoff was going to be around indefinitely and that the members might as well resign themselves to that fact page three I think sir that's taken completely out of context well did you make statements to that effect to the general membership at that time I made a statement to that effect in reply to other statements made about dr. Selikoff yes sir favorable statements or unfavorable statements that he made that statement in response to are you saying that there were other representatives of companies at that meeting that were making statements about dr Selikoff and that your statement was in response to that objections caused for speculation lack of foundation this witness lacks a foundation and testifies to the qualifications of a member company and who is authorized to speak on behalf of a member company and further relax the foundation to testify as to whether any particular member who is present was an employee of any particular... I will try the question.

Were there statements made by people present at this meeting that were derogatory of Dr. Selikoff that you were responding to with that statement that Dr. Selikoff was going to be around indefinitely and that they might as well resign themselves to that fact? I think, sir, the best answer to your question that I can give is to read the report itself. I don't mean to be short, but I'm not going to suggest that anybody's statement is derogatory. Each person has his own reason for making it.

There was a statement made, and what you read was my response to that statement. Who made the statement that you were responding to? I responded to a statement that was made by Dr. Goodman. And what did Dr. Goodman say?

Do you want me to... Well, is this part of the report? Yes, sir. Objectional rule. What did Dr. Goodman say, Mr.

Sheckler? do you want me to read it out of the report sir yes sir objection vague and ambiguous in the sense that at this point we don't know whether he's testifying based upon personal recollection or based upon a refreshed memory of what he's reading in the report and if he's testifying based upon a refreshed memory when he's reading that report in effect it's testifying based upon opinion hearsay in the sense that he's based upon it's based upon reading what someone else has interpreted Dr. Goodman as having said. What you have there is a report containing statements by a physician or a doctor named Goodman? What I have here, sir, is... Is that yes or no, sir? Do you have that there?

It is... A statement made by Dr. Goodman? It is a report, yes, sir, of statements made by Dr. Goodman. And when you are responding to the question by Mr.

O'Reilly, it is by means of recourse to this document, and you're reading from this document. Is that right, sir? That is correct, yes, sir. Okay, Mr. Sheckler, proceed. Dr.

Goodman feels that Dr. Selikoff is a dangerous man, and the asbestos industry is going to have to learn how to combat his tactics. We cannot and should not take Dr. Selikoff lightly, as he has the facilities for getting his version of the facts widely distributed, and the only way we can be rebutted is by being faced with the overwhelming weight of objective scientific and factual data. When asked if something could be done through the American Medical Association to control Dr. Selikoff, Dr.

Goodman expressed doubt. There is a grievance committee of the AMA, but it was very difficult to get it to act. Thought that perhaps pressure on the Mount Sinai School of Medicine might be effective. In regard to mesothelioma, Mr. William J.W. Smith asked if Dr.

Selikoff differentiated between chrysotile and chrysotile fiber. fiber. Dr. Goodman said that Dr. Selikoff inferred that chrysotile was suspect as well as crocidolite. Following Dr. Goodman's report, Mr.

C.L. Sheckler, chairman of the ATI's Environmental Health Committee, commented that Dr. Selikoff was going to be around indefinitely and we we might as well resign ourselves to that fact, and even though Dr. Selikoff might be prone to deal with half-truths. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Now, is what you read, as you recall it, accurate as to what transpired at that meeting in this regard on this point? That is your first recollection? Yes. This is his personal recollection? Yes. And I'm not requested to ask?

As requested. It reflects my recollection as to the events that transpired. I don't know if this description by Mr. Sunberry is accurate. It's Mr. Sunberry's opinion of what occurred.

The recollection of the events, now that your recollection has been refreshed, indicate to you the truth of those statements, sir? I can't testify to the fact that these statements are the absolute truth. I don't know if he called them a dangerous... That is what you're being requested to say. I'm sorry? The statements that were made there were made in your presence, were they not?

I was at the meeting, yes, sir. Is your recollection, now that you've had an opportunity to refresh your recollection, that those statements were made at that meeting? No, I won't say that these statements were made as they're written in this document. is that an accurate what you have read is that an accurate transcription of what occurred at that meeting insofar as the conversation by dr goodman about dr salikoff is concerned i don't know mr o'reilly i i can't say yes or no to that as mr sunbury there was a controversy It's Mr. Sunbury's opinion of what happened, but whether it was word-for-word accurate, I couldn't possibly testify to that. Well, you do recall Dr. Goodman making remarks at that particular meeting that were derogatory of Dr.

Selikoff. Is that true? Dr. Goodman did criticize Dr. Selikoff. And is it true that the ATI minutes were received, copies of these ATI minutes were received by you within a few weeks of this meeting?

That's correct, yes, sir. And you noted in there that, with respect to Dr. Goodman's comment that Selikoff is a dangerous man, that the dangerous is in quotes in the minutes before you? I noted that on the statement, yes, sir. After you received these minutes at Johns-Manville, did you refer them or direct them to anyone else at Johns-Manville? I'm now talking about 15A through 15F, the minutes of the February 4, 1971 meeting of the Asbestos Textile Institute.

Yes, sir. I would have sent my copy to Dr. Smith, And as you'll note on the attendance list, there were three other people from Johns Manor who were present. Now, you did not advise or inform anyone at the ATI, including Mr. Sunbury, that there was any mistake in any of the notes that you received of this February 4, 1971 meeting, did you? I did not, no, sir.

Now, with respect to the warning labels, what part did you play in the warning labels in April or May 19th? Let me rephrase that. Did you have anything to do with warning labels at Johns-Manville prior to the time you read the preliminary report of Dr. Salikoff in 1964, April of 64? No, sir. And after you read that report in April of 64, your responsibility, insofar as warning labels were a concern, was to devise the wording and the design for the warning label?

Was to design the label with the wording, yes, sir. And were you aware, after reading Dr. Selikoff's preliminary report in April of 1964, that in addition to finding extensive asbestosis among insulation workers at locals in New York and New Jersey, Dr. Selikoff also found incidences of lung cancer, mesothelioma, and cancer of the colon. I was aware of that, yes, sir. Okay.

And when you devised these warning labels, what products did you, let me rephrase that, when you devised these warning labels in April or May of 1964, 1964, was it your desire to alert the people that were at risk from the use of these especially containing insulation products of the dangers associated with their use? The objective was to alert the users of the products of the potential dangers or hazards, as you will, of the product. And did you note in Dr. Selikoff's study that he referred to the fact that associated crafts that worked with the insulators were also at risk of contracting a specialist-related lung disease? I can't say that I did or did not. You're now talking in 1964.

Yes, I am. I can't answer the question. I don't recall. call who decided where on the box the warning label was going to go with respect to the warning that was to be used on Thermobestos pipe covering and Thermobestos block my recommendation was that the warning label be placed in a conspicuous place on the carton bag or package that decision as to what was the The conspicuous place was one made by the insulation division. I can't tell you who. In your opinion, was the location of the warning label on the side of the carton consistent with your recommendation of a conspicuous place for that warning label? Yes, sir.

Okay. Did you, any place in the warnings that you designed or devised, mention anything about any risk of any form of cancer? I'll object. The warning speaks for itself. I have a testimony about it. That's the warning that came out.

I want to know if you ever recommend it. I'll rephrase your question. In your work at devising warning labels for Johns-Manville especially containing insulation products that began in April or May of 64, did you ever make any recommendation or suggestion to anyone at Johns-Manville that cancer, the risk of cancer, be referred to in any of the warning labels? I did not, no, sir. Did anyone at Johns-Manville advise you not to mention cancer in any of the warning labels? They did not, no, sir. who decided on the size of the warning labels that you were designing in april or may of 1964. i did and what was the size that went on the original cartons of Thermobestos pipe covering and block i can't tell you precisely in inches i don't i don't recall in terms of inches but the size of the warning label is i believe in evidence was the warning label originally placed on just one side of the cartons of Thermobestos pipe covering and block.

I have seen a carton of pipe covering with a warning label on one side. The warning labels in accord with my recommendation were to go on both sides of the box and I have only ever seen one with it printed on one side and I think it was a misprint. Well your recommendation in April and May of 1964 when you designed the warning labels for the Thermobestos pipe covering and block was to place the warning label in a conspicuous location on both sides of the box? Yes, sir. So you originally suggested that the warning label be placed on the side of the box as opposed to the front of the box? I suggested it be placed on both sides of the cartons of thermovestus or pipe-covering material In a conspicuous place, meaning location on the sides.

And you also suggested the wording and size of the warning labels. Is that true? I did. Now, had you had any prior experience in the area of devising warnings? I had worked with warning labels in relation to combustible materials. materials. When was this?

Sometime in the 60s. Had you ever designed or devised a warning label prior to this effort that you made in April or May of 1964? No, sir. And had you ever made any decisions as to where a warning label should be located prior to your work in april or may of 1964 i may have with regard to what sir combustible materials are you talking about a warning indicating that something is flammable yes sir any other work that you ever did in the area of devising warning labels other than the work you did with respect to combustibility no sir did anyone assist you in drafting the wording of the warning label i don't believe so So I don't remember completely. My recollection is that I wrote the language myself. Do you have a copy of the warning label that you designed in April or May of 64 to go on the cartons of thermobusiness pipe insulation before you, Mr.

Sheckler? Excuse me, are you talking about the format that you've got in front of you? I don't think, well, okay. I think he's looking in. it's in the specs yeah it's not photographs no no sir i do not i have a copy of the language sir but not the label fine and does that have an exhibit number mr sheckler the copy of the language in the lower right hand corner exhibit e e now exhibit e contains the exact size of the warning label that's to go that was to go on the cartons of Thermobestos pipe installation it does not does it state cautionary printing details exact size shown no it's not the same you're looking at a different document oh i'm sorry he has a document in front of him that has all three labels set forth and there's just the language it doesn't have anything to do with label as such I don't think that is. Why don't you... I'm not sure about that.

The photograph shows the signs. Give that to the council at last. Keep it open. Oh, okay, yeah. All right. Last page of F.

That book looked like the same thing that you had there. Okey-doke. Does that have, like, page 404 there? 9, 10, 64? It looks different to me. It is different. It's for magnesium, and it's Super-X, and it's issued date 11-14-66.

But I think it's the same. Well, why don't you let him have it, so that we can have the comparison made, instead of discussing it at long distance. There's the first one. That one. And, uh... That looks like it.

Yeah. Yeah, that is. This isn't. No, that's not right. It's all the same language. Is there anything different?

This is super-X and magnesium. No, this is part of that exhibit. Would you please call Jean and tell her that she and Rich should go ahead and have dinner, and I'll be there when I get there. that sounds like the instruction all of us have given we're still on tape aren't we yes hopefully this will be cut Now, Mr. Sheckler, when you designed the warning label in April or May 1964, for what specific products did you design the label to go on? What products? The product was designed to go on asbestos-containing products that contained or would give off loose asbestos.

What particular products? Thermobestos pipe covering? That was one of the products. Thermobestos black? That was one of the products. Cement? one of the objectives was to label all of the insulation products perhaps what what products did the warning label go on in 64 thermo best as pipe covering thermo best as black what else some cements it went it it went on all of the insulation products in 1964 I can't to name all of the insulation products i don't recall them did you design the labels so that the same language would go on each different kind of especially containing insulation product that was to carry a label yes sir so the thermobest is pipe covering and black the magnesia the super x all contained the same wording in the caution label same wording in the same caution label same size yes sir okay and do you have a copy of the caution label before you i do and the caution label states caution this product contains asbestos fiber inhalation of asbestos and excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmful is that part of what it states that's correct if dust is created when this product is handled avoid breeding the dust if adequate ventilation control is not possible where respirators approved by the US Bureau of Mines for pneumoconiosis producing dust that read that correctly You did.

Now, what did you mean when you stated inhalation of asbestos in excessive quantities over long periods of time may be harmful? Let me rephrase your question. What did you expect the user or consumer to interpret excessive quantities to mean? I expected the user to interpret excessive quantities in terms of excessive amounts of dust that he could see uh there was no possible way to tell him or explain to him excessive amounts in terms of five million particles per cubic foot of air he wouldn't understand that so in order to try and make it as clear as possible to the guy who is going to put this stuff up i attempted to describe for him what i thought he could see one of the rules of of or one of the recommendations of the manufacturing chemist was to keep a label as short as possible and also keep it as simple as possible did you believe that that your use of the phrase excessive quantities might lead users to believe that they could inhale asbestos fibers without risk of harm but uh... i i i can answer that question mister riley is certainly not i i don't my opinion mister riley o'reilly was was to advise the user by some language that he would understand that the threshold limit value of asbestos dust should be kept at a minimum. That's the best I can answer your question. Again, we're dealing with all types of workmen on all types of jobs.

Well, did you believe at that time that your use of the phrase excessive quantities may lead some users to believe that it was safe to inhale asbestos fibers as long as it wasn't excessive over a period of time? Right. I'll rephrase the question. Did you believe at the time you designed this warning label that your use of the word excessive quantities may give a false sense of security to users of these asbestos-containing insulating products your use of the word long periods of time how did you expect users to interpret that phrase long periods of time the reason long periods of time was introduced into this label was the fact that asbestos dust was not a a poison which again described in the manufacturing chemist recommendations would have been to kill laboratory animals within 48 hours this was a material that this was a material that would not necessarily cause harm by one exposure well or two exposures or three exposures for that matter how did you expect the user to interpret long periods of time in terms of decades years months weeks days my own interpretation would have been long periods of time meaning extensive extensive periods of time at one time or over days into weeks, yes, sir. Okay. And that's how you thought people wouldn't...

That's what you meant by long periods of time? Yes, sir. Again, Mr. O'Reilly, this was the first voluntary health label that I know was ever placed on any materials. And I tried to make the language just as precise as I could. But I move to strike the comments about the first voluntary label that's not responsive and not necessary to explain the witness's answer.

I'll join in that motion. It is good. I'll join in that. It's good. When you were designing this caution label in April and May of 1964, could you have placed a warning on there that stated, avoid breathing any dust created from the use of asbestos-containing products? No, sir.

You could not have stated that? No, sir. Why not, sir? There's dust in this room, Mr. O'Reilly, as I told you Monday and Tuesday, and we're breathing it. Where is it?

It's here. Oh, can't you change tables? Get out of here.

Tape 6 of 6

Did you believe in April or May of 1964 that terminology that would have advised the user to avoid inhaling any dust created in the use of asbestos-containing products would have given the user more safety? No, sir. Did you also believe in April or May of 1964 that this warning label would advise associated crafts such as welders, steamfitters, pipefitters, machinists, carpenters, and so on, of the dangers of breathing asbestos fibers? Yes, sir. If they were working in the area where the material was used, they would read the label on the box just as the user would read it. Hold it for a moment, counsel.

So go ahead and have your take a sit. It doesn't do any good if it's just sitting there. She wasn't for a tadpole. It's collecting dust. It is collecting dust. You're right.

Who did you expect to read the warning label that you designed for use on these especially containing insulation products in April and May 1964? Who did you expect to see that warning label? i would expect anyone who was working the material or adjacent to where the material was being used in the warehouse where the material was being stored or in route by some carrier where the material might be carried or transported before you designed the wording and the location for this warning label had you ever been in any warehouses where where Thermobestos, pipe covering, and block was stored to see what end or what sides showed. The front, the sides, the top, the bottom. Your Honor, I would submit that that would depend on how they stacked it. What's the point? Jesus.

That's the purport of the question. The answer is yes, sir. Any place outside Johns-Manville? Yes, sir. I was in another warehouse. Where, sir?

I don't recall specifically. Some company, like a company of a user or consumer of especially containing insulating products? You were in a warehouse of a company like that? I recall being in a warehouse in Houston, for instance. Prior to April or May 64? I think so, yes, sir.

And did you see cartons of Thermobestos pipe covering or black there? Seen all types of materials stored there, yes, sir. And did you see how they had the thermobusiness pipe covering in black stored? Like what sides you could see if they had them so that the front was facing you? Well, I think material is stored in all monitors, depending on who's storing it and where they're storing it. At the time you designed the caution labels in April and May 1964, was it your understanding that Johns-Manville placed their large logo on the front of the box so that people could see it?

Well, I presume they, I must assume they placed it on the front of the box so people could see it. Yes, sir. Now, did anybody at Johns-Manville advise you or tell you that they did not want this warning label placed on the front of the box where people could see it? No one told me such a thing, no, sir. Was there any reason that you did not suggest or recommend the front of the box as a place for this warning label? No, sir. uh this was a voluntary health warning label and there would not have been any necessity to put any label on the boxes therefore there was no resistance of putting this label on the sides of the boxes did you feel in april and may 1964 when you just designed the location for this warning label that people had a better chance of seeing this warning label if it was on the side of the backs instead of the front of the backs i did because the boxes are normally stored with the fronts and backs together and the sides open and where did you see that in the warehouse and i used well that's the way they're stacked on pallets where and usually in in any of the warehouses that we maintain and usually those pallets are stored they're not taken off the pallets They were stored on the pallets.

Did you believe in April and May 1964 that the size warning label you designed would reach more people than a larger warning label? I felt the size of the warning label was adequate in accord with the recommendations of the Manufacturing Chemists Association. Move to Strike is now responsive. Yes, sir. Did you believe in April and May 1964, when you designed the size of this warning label, that this warning label would warn people better than a larger warning label? Your Honor, my objection sustains the form of the question.

It contains in it, you might say, almost a double negative. Repraise it, Constable. Did you believe in 1964, when you designed the size of the warning label, that the size you selected was the best size to warn people of the dangers as opposed to some larger size? No, sir. I felt the size was adequate. Is it true that with respect to the...

May we interrupt for a moment, sir? Do you have some estimate? I got a couple more questions on the... I just asked for an interruption, Your Honor, so I could find out if we have some estimate of time. Oh. How many more do you have?

How much more do you have, sir? You know, we've had two estimates of time given here and... We've exceeded both of them. By substantial margin. It's pushing 8 o'clock at this point. Ten minutes.

Ten minutes. Can you approximate for us how many asbestos-containing insulation products this warning label went on? No, sir, I cannot. not can you approximate for us how many asbestos containing insulation products did not contain a warning label that were manufactured by Johns-Manville in 1964 I'll rephrase the question can you tell us approximately how many different asbestos containing products were not earmarked for a warning label that you designed in April and May 64 no sir I cannot the I think I testified a moment ago that those products which the loose asbestos or would get up and give off loose asbestos were labeled those products where the asbestos fiber was locked in were not labeled okay is it your testimony that all of the especially containing insulating products that were not earmarked for warning label by Johns-Manville in 1964 could not give off loose asbestos fibers in use. Can I have a question back, please? I'll rephrase the question. I'll rephrase the question.

Is it your testimony that none of the asbestos-containing products, now let me rephrase it, double negative again, is it your testimony that the asbestos-containing products that were not earmarked for a caution label by Johns-Manville in 1964 could not give off airborne asbestos fibers in use. Well the labeling the labeling program began in 1964 and continued on thereafter and the asbestos insulation products were the first priority for labeling. Now it's possible possible, but that labeling may have gone over to January 1, 1965. I can't, I can't say. Okay. Let's go to product lines then, Mr.

Sheckler. Thermobestos, pipe covering, and Thermobestos block were earmarked for labeling sometime in 1964, correct? I don't recall the sequence of the labeling, Mr. O'Reilly. I'm sorry, I just don't. Well, the thermovest's pipe covering in black at any time in 1964 contained any warning label that was designed by you?

Yes, sir. Okay. And was 85 percent magnesia pipe covering in black earmarked for a warning label in 1964? Yes, sir. As I recall, it was. So it is your testimony that cartons of Johns-Manville's 85 percent magnesia pipe covering and block at some time in 1964 contained a warning label on the carton itself well I'll object on foundational grounds I don't think that he has testified that he sat and watched the cartons go out of the yard I don't think he has to well he was in New York the cartons weren't in New York I mean what I'm trying to I'll rephrase the question what I'm trying to figure out Mr.

Mr. Sheckler, is how many different products or what different products that contained asbestos manufactured by Johns-Manville contained a warning label or were earmarked for a warning label in 1964, other than Thermobestos, pipe covering, and Thermobestos block, I mean product categories. Cements. Which cements? I can't, there must be at least 30 different types of cements, Mr. O'Reilly, and I'm just not in a position to sit here, I'm not a production man, and tell you what each type of cement is.

I can't do it. I don't know. Do you have before you there all of the specifications pertaining to what products were labeled with a warning and when? I have here the specifications, but the specifications do not indicate when the materials were labeled. The specifications indicate when the cartons were reordered with a label imprinted and as I testified before on direct examination the warning label was put on these cartons with a black rubber ink stamp well that's that's what I would like to know mr. Sheckler what different products of Johns-Manville had a warning label wherein the warning label was actually part of the carton itself where it was printed on there by the people that made the carton all of the insulation materials sometime in 1964 1965 yes sir okay other than Thermobestos pipe covering and block can you identify any other product that according to your recollection of events named a carton with a warning label that was printed on the carton by the carton manufacturer sometime in 1964 cartons for magnesium super x pipe insulation okay what What else?

Cardins for Thermobestos block. All right. What else? Paper sacks for insulating cements. Which cements? 301, 302, 302, 0352, 0352, 304, 400. Eighty-five percent magnesia cement.

Now, these products that you're identifying for us here, Mr. Sheckler, these are products wherein sometime in 1964, the cartons contained a printed label by the carton manufacturer. Is that correct? 64 or 65 were the dates I think we agreed to. Okay. paper bags for 500 cement for bags for 450 cement paper bags for 319 and 678 cements paper bags for super x cement no it may be repetitive uh cartons for Thermobestos pipe insulation insulation, cartons for magnesium super-X blocks. Now, I have recited those purchase specifications for cartons that I have in front of me. That does not necessarily indicate that that's the total group of products.

Well, are you aware of any other products that were earmarked for a warning label to be printed on the carton? I know a carton manufacturer in 1964, 1965, other than what you've identified from those spec sheets you have before you you mean does he presently recall yeah is that your question yeah no sir i don't recall any additional uh is it your testimony that there are additional spec sheets covering other products that are not before you there i wouldn't know i have no idea now would it be fair to state that there were there are in 1964 1965 there were were approximately a hundred other asbestos-containing products manufactured by Johns-Manville that did not, were not earmarked for a warning label to be printed on the carton by the carton manufacturer. Asbestos-containing products? Yes. Not insulation products? No.

Asbestos-containing products first. You're talking about products such as floor tile and brake linings and clutch facings? Sure. I wouldn't. No, I can't say it's fair to say there was any number. I wouldn't know.

There's no way I would know. You mean you would not know if in 1964, 1965, Johns-Manville made 50 other asbestos- containing products or 100 other asbestos-containing products that were not earmarked for a printed warning label by the carton manufacturer? You just don't know? I don't know. They didn't label asbestos cloth or textile cloth, did they, 64, 65? Asbestos textile cloth was not labeled, no, sir.

Now, with respect to the Insulation Industry Health Research Program that you testified about and directed, IIHRP? Yes, sir. You were not part of that program, were you? Yes, sir. Did you work under the auspices of the IIHRP? I was.

I work for Johns-Manville with instructions to do certain things for Dr. Selikoff under the IIHRP. Okay, from 1969, let me rephrase that, the IIHRP was created in approximately the latter part of 68, the beginning of 69? I think 60, mid-year, June of, May of 1968, I think, was the date of the initial meeting. And did you visit any of the shipyards with Dr. Selikoff or any of his staff under the auspices of the IIHRP?

No, sir. Okay. Can you tell us what you did under the auspices of the IIHRP? I initiated the list of attendees to organize the IIHRP at the direction of our President Mr. Burnett and presented that data to Dr. Selikoff and then followed up by assisting in the organization of a program or an agenda for that meeting.

Okay, any... I'm sorry. Anything beyond that? I worked on a respirator improvement program with Dr. Solikov, which was being done under the auspices of IIHRP, and served on that committee. And for a brief time, I served on a committee in conjunction with insulation on board ships.

What committee was that? I don't recall the specific name of it. It was headed by Dr. Duncan. What did you do as part of that committee? Did you visit any shipyards?

No, I did not visit any shipyards. I attended several meetings, but I did not visit any shipyards. Did you visit any job sites under the auspices of the IIHRP? No, no, sir. Whether they be shipyards, construction sites, whatever? Whether they be shipyards, construction sites, construction project, refineries, did you visit any job sites under the auspices of the IIHRP?

I did not, no, sir. Mr. Reitze did that. And was it Mr. Reitze who was the person that J-M provided to the IIHRP for their program? It was, yes, sir. they did not provide you to the irhrp definitely not okay now dr selikoff's study that you have before you it's exhibit d yes sir on page 140 of the study dr selikoff let me rephrase it this is a study that you read and relied upon as part of your duties as a manager of the industrial health program for john manville isn't it mr sheckler yes sir all right on page 140 he states quotes an important area of industrial asbestos exposure has been asbestos and so i'm sorry my fault only have about five more minutes quotes 10 20 minutes ago we'll be out of here in about two hours well council if you're not through in another 10 minutes we'll just have to cut it right I'll be done quotes page 140 from dr.

Selikoff's report exhibit D entitled the occurrence of asbestosis among insulation workers in the United States page 140 first full paragraph he states quotes an important area of industrial asbestos exposure has been asbestos insulation work the first asbestos factory opened in Great Britain in 1871 with the expansion of the asbestos textile industry beginning 10 years later, consequent upon the availability of high-grade spinning asbestos from Canada. Yet asbestos was used for heat insulation in 1866. Asbestos cement was introduced as a boiler covering about 1870, and other asbestos insulation products were produced in the next three decades. Commercial production of asbestos insulation materials was recorded at least in 1874. Paragraph. Just as in Great Britain, early studies concerning asbestosis in the United States did not mention asbestos insulation workers.

Neither Pancoast, P-A-N-C-O-A-S-T, nor Hoffman, H-O-F-F-M-A-N, characterized the asbestos trade in which the workmen referred to by them or engaged. The first official claim for compensation associated with asbestos in the U.S. was in 1927, and again the nature of the work was not stated. Paragraph. Ellman in 1934 mentioned a case of asbestosis in an insulation worker other cases were subsequently reported and in the annual report of the chief inspector of factories for the year 1956 lagging or insulation work was recognized as hazardous close quotes you read that when you read this back in the time that you read this as manager of the Industrial Health Program for Johns manville yes sir he also states quotes similarly Hervieux h-e-r-v-i-e-u-x in france drew attention in 1962 to the dangers of such end product use as insulation work the only large-scale survey of asbestos insulation workers was undertaken in the u.s by fleischer et al in 1945. they found only three cases of asbestosis and concluded that quotes asbestos pipe covering of naval vessels is a relatively safe operation close quotes unfortunately 95 percent of those examined by them had worked for less than 10 years at the trade and as we shall see evaluation of the risk of insulation workers limited to study of men with relatively short durations of exposures may be misleading close quotes you're ready to rely on that when you read this report court for the first time? Yes, sir. On page 141, halfway down that first paragraph, Mr.

Sheckler, beginning with the word, among the 1,117 men. Do you see that? Your Honor, again, we've now wasted about six of the ten minutes that the court just mentioned, and all counsel has done is read certain sections of this report and ask him if he read it and relied upon it in 1964. You know, he relied on the whole report. And he's just taking certain sections he wants to highlight, because he doesn't know whether that report is or is not going to get into evidence in any given set of circumstances, and reading it into the record. And I submit that that's improper cross-examination.

Well, I should be one thing if he was suggesting that the witness somehow had relied on a section of the report and not relied on another and cross-examined him on that or something like that. But that's not what we're doing. We're just reading. I submit that it's proper cross-examination, but I'll be, in the interest of time, agreeable to picking out certain sections and having you stipulate that I read them in, and he would stipulate that he read that, and he relied on that when he read the report, when he first read it. I would submit that it doesn't matter whether I stipulate it's in the report or isn't in the report, it's still improper. There's a cross-examination during the air traffic exam.

Well, Counsel, it is now 8.05 p.m. the cross-examination has continued for a considerable period of time. The witness, the reporter, everyone has been going continuously for a considerable period. In the interest of expedition, the court is of the opinion that it should, the court, the referee is of the opinion that we should limit the cross-examination, but only to this extent. The witness has said that he has relied on everything in this report. Is that correct, Mr. Witness?

Yes, sir. And that includes whatever language it is that you wish to have him refer to specifically so that, counsel, I think you have what you want and that he has whatever language you wish to elicit or to highlight. mark I like he has relied upon and therefore the court is going to under the interests of time the interests of all parties concerned and invoked section 352 of the evidence code and ask you to pass on to some other line of inquiry if you have any other counsel I always do what the court or referee suggests any Any redirect, counsel? Just about two minutes. I don't want to lose some of the friends I've made in this group right here. I've got a cross-examination, Your Honor. And what is your name, sir?

I'd use a false name. Michael O'Connor, representing Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation. Mr. Sheckler, you mentioned... How much of a cross-examination do you have? I hope about two minutes, Your Honor.

Oh, I see. You mentioned earlier in the deposition, Mr. Sheckler, presentations that NIMA, N-I-M-A, gave to various NICA, N-I-C-A members. Do you recall that testimony? I do, yes, sir. Do you recall the other members of NIMA, N-I-M-A, who assisted in these presentations in the years 1967, 1968?

I do, yes, sir. And who were those other members? Objection in front of the foundation, for the record. I don't know this. Mr. John Barnhart, executive director of NIMA.

Mr. Harry Messler, of Royd Company, subsequently Anilin and Filum. I don't know the first name. I can't think of the first name? General Anilin and Phil Incorporation. All right, let's start over.

Mr. Harry Messler, safety engineer for Ruberoid Company, and then subsequently General Anilin and Phil. Ruberoid was an acquisition of Ruberoid by General Anno and Phil. Mr. John Viverberg, Vice President of Industry Relations for Owens-Corning Corporation. Mr.

Leon Horowitz, H-O-R-O-W-I-T-Z, of CertainTeed Products Corporation. The President of the National Insulation Contractors Association, Mr. Brody, B-R-O-D-Y, and myself. That's all my questions. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.

Mr. Sheckler, just a couple of questions, if I may. You were asked a good bit about your job during the 52-57 time period as a safety engineer at Johns-Manville. What was the primary focus of your job at that period of time? Primary? What was that time, frankly? 52 to 57.

Primary focus of my job at that time was to administer the accident prevention or injury prevention program at the Mando, New Jersey location, primarily in the area of traumatic injuries. Were you concerned at that time with the sales of the company's products or the uses of the products? Injection compound. No, sir. It is compound. Were you concerned at that time with the sales of the company's products?

No, sir. I had no responsibility in that area. Or the uses of the company's products by its consumers? No, sir. I had no responsibility in that area. What about the time period, 57 to 60?

What was the principal focus of your job at that time? To administer the injury prevention program, the industrial hygiene engineering program, the self- insured workman's compensation program for the Manville, New Jersey complex. And were you at that time concerned with the sale of the company's products? I was not. I had no responsibility for that. Or the use of the company's products?

I had no responsibility. Now you were asked if during that period of time you observed asbestos-containing insulation material cut and sawed. Do you recall that cross-examination by Mr. O'Reilly? I don't recall him asking that question in that time frame, no, sir. In either of the two time frames?

No, sir, I don't recall that question. Did you, during that period of time, observe the material being cut and sawn? Oh, I beg your pardon, Mr. Wilson. Yes, he was referring to the production operation of trimming and sawing. Was there any indication at that time that the workmen who were doing the trimming and the sewing were exposed to concentrations above the threshold limit value?

There was not. What was the threshold limit value at that time? At that time, the threshold limit value was 5 million particles per cubic foot of air for asbestos dust. Asbestos dust or total dust? Asbestos dust. When did you first become involved with the sale of the company's products or the use of those products by its customers?

Injection compound. When did you first become involved with the use of the company's products by its customers? 1964. And is that the time period when you were involved in the labeling? That was the beginning of it, yes, sir. Thank you, sir. That's all.

Any further inquiries that have been made of this witness? Just one question, sir. Mr. Sheckler, between 1952 and 1960, who at Johns-Manville did have the responsibility or the concern about the users of Johns-Manville, especially containing insulation products? Hold on a second. I'll object on grounds of foundation.

Also that it's compound. I'll rephrase it. Between 1952 and 1964, before you had any responsibility with respect to the user or consumer of JM's products, whose responsibility was it at Johns-Manville? It was the Johns-Manville Sales Corporation responsibility. Any particular person or title that had a responsibility with respect to the health or safety of the users of the products? Well, I don't recall handled installations within the framework of the Johns-Manville Sales Corporation at that time.

Is it your testimony that up until you got involved with labeling in 1964, that nobody at the Johns-Manville... That's argumentative already, Your Honor, and I'm aware of that, but there has been no such testimony, and he knows it. Well, is it your testimony that you are not aware of anyone at Johns-Manville Corporation that had any responsibility with respect to the users of J.M.'s products until you got involved with labeling in April or May of 1964? Absolutely not. That's not my testimony. Who then had the responsibility at J-M Corporation?

Aston answered, Your Honor. He told me J-M Sales Corporation. That's a different corporation than Johns-Manville Corporation, isn't it? Johns-Manville Corporation is a parent corporation. and this subsidiary had the responsibility for the user of the product yes sir did anybody at the parent corporation where you worked at corporate headquarters in 1960 anybody there had that responsibility mr. Quinton Burnett president of the corporation okie-doke Well, this isn't a deposition, as such.