UM Grace Case

W.R. Grace used data sheets to warn of asbestos content in its industrial products before government regulations required them to do so, Grace defense attorney David Bernick said during his morning cross-examination of Steve Venuti, an industrial hygienist and former toxicology coordinator for Grace.

Bernick built up his cross-examination to show that Grace began using these data sheets in the ’70s, before government regulations required them to in 1983. Venuti confirmed that the sheets were used before ‘83, but did not know the exact date they began and would not agree that Grace was “ahead of the curve.” The “material safety data sheets” were used to notify industrial customers such as construction companies that tremolite material appeared in Grace products.

Bernick also said that Grace’s products fell below government requirements on exposure and other levels of asbestos, which led to a discussion within Grace in the late ‘70s over whether it was necessary to label the product as carcinogenic or disease causing. By presenting both this and the warning labels, Bernick sought to dismantle the government’s conspiracy charge against Grace.

“The issue was not whether there was secret or no information to be disclosed,” Bernick said. “The issue was regulatory disclosure requirements.”

Bernick illustrated his point through various Grace documents and a large chart propped up beside him, which he often referred to. The defense attorney responded gleefully to Venuti’s answers, many of which confirmed or at least failed to contradict his arguments.

However, Venuti said that while Grace met government Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, other issues such as community right-to-know regulations had to be considered. These issues led him to support labeling Grace’s products carcinogenic during the company discussions. Government standards measured how much asbestos fibers were released during a product’s intended industrial use, not how much tremolite or asbestos material the product was composed of.

Venuti said he worried that the products could still release fibers above regulations if they were used for other activities. His view conflicted with other members of the company.

“My different position was that you could not reasonably exclude other uses … that could release fibers,” Venuti said. “It was my belief that the product could release fibers in levels above exposure limits.”

Bernick argued that Grace would be “stigmatized” for applying a carcinogenic label to its products, and had a natural business interest to avoid the label if its products still met government standards. He mentioned a Grace product that had been forced to change in the past and was still attacked by corporate competitors.

“Even though Grace had made that change, Grace’s competitors still went out in the marketplace for  years … and said ‘Grace’s product has got asbestos, and it’s bad,’” Bernick said.

To this, Venuti replied that you cannot predict “product misuse” by customers, a statement which Bernick happily countered.

“I’m glad we went down this road,” Bernick said before mentioning several cases of misuse, apparently intending to show how ridiculous the claim could be. One instance involved feeding asbestos laden material to pigs and cattle.

“That’s a new one on me,” Venuti replied.

 –Ryan Thompson (12:26 p.m.)