1 1 C O N F I D E N T I A L 2 3 District Court of Johnson County, Texas 4 18th Judicial District 5 --------------------------------------: 6 Shanna Shipman A/N/F of : Shannon Moore, a Minor, : 7 Plaintiffs : : vs. : Cause 8 : No. 26294 Philip Morris Companies, Inc., : 9 Philip Morris Incorporated, : Philip Morris USA, and : 10 Shelly Moore, : Defendants : 11 --------------------------------------: 555 12th Street, N.W. 12 Washington, D. C. 13 Wednesday, February 26, 1997 14 15 Video Deposition of 16 Allen Kassman, Ph.D., 17 a witness herein, called for examination by counsel for 18 Plaintiff, pursuant to notice, at the law offices of 19 Arnold & Porter in Washington, D. C., beginning at 9:04 20 a.m., before Patricia M. Dowd, a Notary Public in and for 21 the District of Columbia, when the parties were 22 represented by the following counsel: Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 2 1 On Behalf of the Plaintiff: 2 Waltman & Grisham By: Lynn Grisham, Esq. 3 Steve Discher, Esq. 3833 S. Texas Avenue, #150 4 Bryan, Texas 77802 5 On Behalf of Defendant Philip Morris Companies, et al. 6 Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LL.P. By: William Crampton,, Esq. 7 John R. Fraser, Esq. Lee E. Stanford, Esq. 8 One Kansas City Place 1200 Main Street 9 Kansas City, Missouri 64105-2118 (816) 474-6550 10 . Carrington, Coleman, Sloman. 11 & Blumenthal, LLP . By: Michael Braden, Esq. 12 200 Crescent Court, Suite 1500. Dallas, Texas 75201. 13 (214) 855-3000 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 3 1 C o n t e n t s E x a m i n a t i o n by: 2 Witness Mr. Grisham Mr. Crampton 3 Allen Kassman, Ph.D. 4 156 157 4 5 Exhibits For Identification 6 No. 1 Interoffice 30 Oct 1984, 110 7 from Greene to Goodman 2 Interoffice Oct 19 1984 from Kassman 117 8 3 Interoffice Nov 12, 1985 from Kassman to Hausermann 119 9 4 Interoffice 12 March 1986 124 from Greene to Kassman 10 5 Interoffice June 9, 1987 134 from Smith to Goodman 11 6 "Mathematical Modelling of DELTA 136 Article" 18 pages 12 7 Interoffice 25 Oct 1984 137 from Goodman to Gauvin 13 8 Bates #s 1002801176-1212 140 9 Interoffice July 23, 1981 149 14 from Kallianos to Meyer 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 4 1 Whereupon, 2 Allen Kassman, 3 a witness herein, was called for examination by counsel 4 for Plaintiff, and, having been first duly sworn by the 5 Notary, was examined and testified as follows: 6 Examination by Counsel for Plaintiff: 7 By Mr. Grisham: 8 Q. State your full name for the record, please? 9 A. Allen Julius Kassman. 10 Q. Dr. Kassman, what is your personal address? 11 A. Present address? 12 Q. Yes, your personal address? 13 A. Lausanne, Switzerland. 14 Q. What is your address at that location? 15 A. The exact address is Chemin des 16 Oisillons 15, zip code 1009 City of Pully. 17 Q. Where are you currently employed? 18 A. I am employed in Neuchatel, Switzerland. 19 Q. For whom? 20 A. For Philip Morris Europe. 21 Q. How long have you been so employed? 22 A. I have been working in Switzerland since Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 5 1 August of 1990. 2 Q. What is your age? 3 A. My age is fifty-six. 4 Q. Is the official name of your employer Philip 5 Morris Europe, or is there some other technical corporate 6 name that you are aware of? 7 A. The name of the entity located in Neuchatel, 8 Switzerland is Fabriques de Tabac Reunies. 9 Q. What is the relationship, if any, of that 10 company with Philip Morris USA or Philip Morris 11 Companies, Incorporated? 12 A. Fabriques de Tabac Reunies is a subsidiary 13 of Philip Morris Europe. 14 Q. Does Philip Morris Companies, Incorporated 15 own that company completely? 16 Mr. Crampton: He said that this entity with 17 the French name is a subsidiary of Philip Morris Europe. 18 By Mr. Grisham: 19 Q. Oh, okay. Is Philip Morris Europe connected 20 in any way to Philip Morris Companies, Incorporated? 21 A. Philip Morris Europe is an operating company 22 of Philip Morris International. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 6 1 Q. If you would, explain to me the connection 2 or family tree from or between Philip Morris Europe and 3 any domestic Philip Morris company? 4 A. The Philip Morris International is a part of 5 Philip Morris Companies, along with Philip Morris USA, 6 they are separate companies, as is Kraft and Miller Beer. 7 Q. If we were to look at the various companies 8 that you described in a family tree format, would Philip 9 Morris Europe be on an equivalent level to Philip Morris 10 USA? 11 A. I would say that Philip Morris International 12 is on an equivalent level as Philip Morris USA. 13 Q. And is Philip Morris Europe is subsumed 14 under Philip Morris International? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. I think I've got the picture now. I 17 appreciate that. 18 Describe for the jury, if you will, a 19 synopsis of your educational history and background, 20 bringing us up through today? 21 A. I attended school in New York City, 22 graduating from the Bronx High School of Science in Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 7 1 1957. I then attended the City College of the City 2 University of New York, receiving a Bachelor's Degree in 3 Chemistry in 1962. And I then attended Iowa State 4 University, receiving a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry in 5 1968. 6 Q. Did you place your studies in chemistry in 7 any specific area? 8 A. In physical chemistry, I did work both in 9 solid state chemistry and in high temperature gas phase 10 reaction chemistry. 11 Q. On what subject did you write your thesis? 12 A. The thesis was on what is called a chemical 13 exchange reaction at high temperatures. 14 Q. In the course of your educational endeavors 15 and perhaps after that in your professional life, have 16 you published any papers or books or parts thereof? 17 A. Yes, I have published between twenty and 18 twenty-five technical papers. 19 Q. I would like for you to recount the names 20 and places of publication of as many of those as you 21 can. 22 A. The names of the publications or of the Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 8 1 papers themselves? 2 Q. Both, if you can do so, or, if you can't 3 remember the technical name, perhaps the subject? 4 A. It would be difficult. The names are a 5 little cumbersome. 6 I published in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN 7 CHEMICAL SOCIETY. The Journal of -- several physics 8 journals. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS. PHYSICAL REVIEW. 9 THE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION. And they were on a 10 variety of subjects, beginning with the two subjects that 11 I worked on during the Ph.D. thesis period. There were 12 different subjects afterwards. 13 I was working in the area of catalysis and 14 solid state chemistry industrially, and I published 15 several papers in that area. I also published several 16 theoretical papers relating to solid state chemistry. I 17 published papers in the high temperature, the simulation, 18 if you will, of combustion systems, pyrolysis and 19 combustion systems. 20 Q. Have you published any textbooks or parts 21 thereof? 22 A. Textbooks, no. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 9 1 Q. Or treatises? 2 A. I have published some industrial articles in 3 industrial magazines, trade magazines. 4 Q. What trade magazines do you recall having 5 published in? 6 A. The most recent one was the -- was on 7 partnerships, strategic partnerships in purchasing and 8 quality assurance. 9 Q. What publication was that in? 10 A. The name of the -- at the moment I don't 11 recall the exact title. It was just published a few 12 months ago. 13 Q. Have you published in any venues other than 14 the domestic United States? 15 A. No, I don't believe so. Oh, the latest 16 publication that I mentioned was, I believe, published in 17 the U.K. 18 Q. Have you talked or lectured at any secondary 19 schools? 20 A. I have -- secondary schools? No. 21 Q. Colleges? 22 A. Yes. I taught for a full year at St. Joseph Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 10 1 College in Hartford, Connecticut. 2 Q. What did you teach there? 3 A. Chemistry, physical chemistry, and inorganic 4 chemistry. 5 Q. What year did you teach there? 6 A. It was the year 1971. 7 Q. Were you employed elsewhere at the time and 8 doing that part time? 9 A. No. I also taught as adjunct professor in 10 both the chemistry and physics departments at Virginia 11 Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, from 12 approximately the years 1976 or '77 to 1980. 13 Q. Is that while you were working for a Philip 14 Morris entity? 15 A. For Philip Morris in Richmond, yes. 16 Q. If you would, share with us your employment 17 history, beginning after you received your Ph.D., and 18 bring us up to date through today? 19 A. After receiving my Ph.D., I worked at Pratt 20 & Whitney Aircraft Division of United Technologies, in 21 Middletown, Connecticut. I worked there until 1971. At 22 which time I taught at St. Joseph College. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 11 1 I joined Philip Morris USA in Richmond in 2 1972. And I worked there until 1987. 3 At which time I left Philip Morris as an 4 independent consultant, until 1989, when I rejoined 5 Philip Morris in Richmond, Virginia, and in 1990, I moved 6 to Switzerland to the European Laboratory. 7 Q. In breaking those periods of time down a 8 little bit, between 1972 and 1987, can you give me an 9 idea of what divisions or what different departments of 10 the company you worked in? 11 A. Predominantly, I worked in a department from 12 the time I was hired called the Physical Research 13 Division, which was a part of the Research Department, 14 which was particularly devoted to physics and chemistry. 15 Q. From the time of your hire until what time? 16 A. Until roughly 1983. 17 Q. What did you do then? 18 A. I was then working in the Product 19 Development Department until approximately 1986. And 20 then, during the last year I was there, I was working 21 back in the Physical Research area. 22 Q. During the time period 1972, roughly, to Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 12 1 1987, who were your immediate supervisors or people that 2 you felt obligated to report to on your projects? 3 A. I was first hired by and working for a 4 gentleman named Norman Rainer. I was then reporting 5 directly to a gentleman named David Lowitz. Following 6 that, I was working for Bill Farone. Following that I 7 was working for Leo Meyer. And finally, in 1987, I was 8 reporting to Jim Charles. 9 Q. What prompted your decision in 1987 to work 10 on an independent consulting basis as opposed to staying 11 with the company as an employee? 12 A. My wife and I had a commuting marriage for 13 quite sometime, and she had received a job opportunity in 14 California, which was a once in a lifetime for her, and 15 we weren't going to have a commuting marriage between 16 Richmond, Virginia and Los Angeles, California. So I 17 made the decision to go. 18 Q. During that roughly two year period, did you 19 work as a consultant for other companies besides any of 20 the Philip Morris entities? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. What are some of the other companies that Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 13 1 you provided consulting services to? 2 A. There was a California company called 3 Applied Power Systems. There was a windmill electrical 4 generating company that I don't recall the name of. I'm 5 not sure it's in business anymore under that name. I 6 also did some consulting work for universities, Northrup 7 University. 8 Q. I take it that all of your consulting was in 9 the areas of chemistry? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. How is it, then, that that relationship 12 ended and you began to be an employee again in 1989? 13 A. Well, I had no real desire to leave the 14 company, the company had no real desire to see me go. 15 And when my wife's employer decided to move out of 16 California to another part of the country, we decided 17 that it would probably be best to return to Richmond, 18 rather than to watch that company fold, be sold off, or 19 whatever would ultimately happen. 20 Q. When you came back in 1989, were you again 21 in Product Development, or were you in some other 22 department? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 14 1 A. I was back in the Applied and Physical 2 Research. 3 Q. Under whose supervision? 4 A. At that time, it was Jerry Whidby. 5 Q. And if I have made accurate notes, you 6 stayed in that position for that a year when you switched 7 divisions of the company and moved to Switzerland? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. What prompted that move? 10 A. There was the -- I was asked if I would go 11 with the potential of having a leadership position in 12 that Laboratory. The average age of the members of that 13 Laboratory is -- it's a rather young organization, and 14 there was the feeling that no one locally was yet ready 15 to assume leadership position. So I was asked if I would 16 entertain the notion of working over there with the 17 potential of eventually having a leadership position, or, 18 if not, returning to the USA. 19 Q. When you moved to Switzerland, what was your 20 exact title or position with the company? 21 A. I was a Product Development Specialist. 22 Q. What were your job responsibilities? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 15 1 A. I was working with the Product Development 2 people and learning a little bit that the European 3 business and the product mix on the European side, and 4 assisting them with technology help that they might need 5 from Richmond. 6 Q. Was the position of Product Development 7 Specialist somewhat akin to what you had done here in the 8 States in 1989? 9 A. It was akin to what I had been doing in the 10 States during the period 1984-1986. 11 Q. Is the company that you are working for in 12 Switzerland, does it have an acronym that it goes by? 13 A. FTR. 14 Q. Because I don't think I could ever say the 15 name the way you said it. I could give it a good shot. 16 But I think I can say FTR. 17 Did you remain in the position of Product 18 Development Specialist or did you progress in the 19 employment there? 20 A. After one year, I became the head of the 21 Research Department. 22 Q. And are you now the head of the Research Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 16 1 Department? 2 A. No. One year later I became head of the 3 Laboratory. 4 Q. And that's where you are today? 5 A. That is the position I am still in, yes. 6 Q. When did the FTR Laboratory become 7 operational as a Philip Morris Europe unit? 8 A. It's hard to say exactly when it was 9 established. It was -- at one time, that was the only 10 Philip Morris installation in Europe. And essentially 11 the Quality Assurance Department of that factory evolved 12 into a Laboratory for the other Philip Morris affiliates 13 that came into being in Europe. So it was a kind of a 14 slow growth phemonenon. But the company was, I believe, 15 purchased by Philip Morris in 1962. I could be off by 16 two years. 17 Q. Yes, that's fine, I was just trying to 18 figure out if it was a lab that Philip Morris had started 19 up or if it had acquired from someone else, and you 20 answered that it had been purchased in the early 60's, 21 correct? 22 A. Yes. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 17 1 Q. During the course of your work in 2 Switzerland since approximately 1990, have you done any 3 projects that involved Philip Morris USA, such as joint 4 research projects or shared science, so to speak? 5 A. There have been relatively few. The 6 Laboratory in Switzerland is considerably smaller than 7 the one in Richmond. There have been some areas where, 8 because of local needs, we have some specialties that are 9 not available in Richmond or have not been developed, but 10 by and large it's the other way around. So there have 11 been a few areas where we have either done service for 12 each other or tried to take a joint approach, or a 13 parallel approach, to a single problem. 14 Q. What are those areas? 15 A. The areas are predominantly in the recent 16 area of biotechnology, and in some analytical sciences 17 related to pesticide residues. 18 Q. What other areas has there been parallel 19 work in? 20 A. Since I have been there, there's been joint 21 development of a kind of common low tar product. 22 Q. Was there any specific name or acronym that Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 18 1 that project went by? 2 A. No. 3 Q. How is it referred to in the lab? 4 A. Ultra Low Tar Program. 5 Q. Can you think of any other parallel or joint 6 projects? 7 A. Offhand, those are the major ones. 8 Q. Do you know of any that have been undertaken 9 even before you were working in Switzerland? 10 A. The only one I recall, there was some 11 tobacco processing, development of tobacco processing 12 sheet formation that was done in common -- or it wasn't 13 done in common, it was parallel. Europe had developed 14 one approach and USA another approach. 15 Q. Prior to Philip Morris Europe acquiring the 16 Laboratory that you work in, do you know what sort of 17 research was done there? 18 A. There was no research done there. It was 19 the quality assurance department of the Laboratory, so it 20 was standard -- it was maintenance of specifications and 21 checking that the final product met specifications, but 22 there was no research lab. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 19 1 Q. What sort of product was addressed? 2 A. Cigarettes. Strictly cigarettes. 3 Q. To your knowledge, has the lab in 4 Switzerland or Philip Morris Europe undertaken any 5 research or study of ignition propensities? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Do you know if ignition propensities have 8 been studied by Philip Morris in any European countries 9 such as Germany, France or any of the countries where 10 Philip Morris may have a presence? 11 A. I'm not aware -- no, there has been no 12 development of products or test methods or anything like 13 that. 14 Q. Do you know of any testing that's been done 15 in Europe? 16 Mr. Crampton: What kind of testing? 17 By Mr. Grisham: 18 Q. Ignition testing? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Have you, in the course of your work or on a 21 private basis studied any fire statistics in Europe or 22 the United States or compared the two? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 20 1 A. When I was in the United States I did. 2 Q. Okay. Let me back up then and go back to the 3 1972 time period, and I will try to stay in chronological 4 order now. 5 When you first went to work for Philip 6 Morris in Richmond, what were your specific projects or 7 job duties? 8 A. In 1972, I was primarily working in the area 9 of filtration, cigarette filter development. 10 Q. Was that on a broad scope or was it directed 11 towards any particular goal or project? 12 A. It was on a broad scope of developing 13 filters that would do different things. Reduce gas 14 phase, influence flavor. 15 Q. Can filter design or materials use be a 16 method to, in fact, change or enhance flavors of 17 cigarettes even today? 18 A. To alter flavors. It's a judgment whether 19 they can be enhanced, but one could modify the taste 20 through different filter materials and such. 21 Q. Is that an area of study or research that 22 Philip Morris USA, to your knowledge, is engaged in even Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 21 1 today? 2 A. In filter research? Yes. 3 Q. Approximately how long did you focus your 4 work on filter studies or research? 5 A. At least five years. 6 Q. During the course of that time, did you work 7 on other issues intermittently or were you fairly well 8 focused on filter work? 9 A. There were other issues addressed. During 10 that time period, my position changed, even though I was 11 in the same department, so that I had additional 12 responsibilities, supervising other activities. 13 Q. At any time in the course of your 14 professional career, have you worked on any aspect of 15 cigarette design or testing or test methodology dealing 16 with ignition propensities? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. When did you first do that? 19 A. It was around the period I moved into 20 Product Development in 1983. And it was either later 21 during that year or early in 1984 that I had 22 responsibilities for the Ignition Propensity Program. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 22 1 Q. Who did you report to with regard to that 2 particular program? 3 A. I was working in the Product Development 4 Department for Leo Meyer. 5 Q. Before you were assigned to work on that 6 particular project, did you know that there was any 7 research ongoing, or if there was any research ongoing, 8 with regard to ignition propensities? 9 A. Yes, I knew there was work ongoing. 10 Q. How did you know that? 11 A. Occasionally -- how did I know that? It was 12 just part of the general knowledge of what was going on 13 in the Laboratory. 14 Q. To your recollection, who else in the 1983 15 time period was working on ignition propensities within 16 the company? 17 A. The people that I knew who were working on 18 it at the time were Andy Kallianos, Barbro Goodman and 19 Randy Greene, primarily. 20 Q. In 1983, did you take charge of that 21 particular project? 22 Mr. Crampton: That's assuming -- I am a Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 23 1 little concerned that take charge, but if you can answer 2 using that term, that's fine. 3 The Witness: Well, I was given the charge 4 of formulating what would be a reasonable -- to review 5 the current activities and to decide what was a 6 reasonable approach to going forward. 7 By Mr. Grisham: 8 Q. And in that regard, I assume you would 9 review what work had been done, what was ongoing, or 10 report to Mr. Meyer your recommendation? 11 A. As best I could, yes. 12 Q. And then Leo Meyer would, in fact, tell you 13 what he wanted done? 14 A. Well, Leo Meyer -- my reporting relationship 15 was with Leo Meyer, but I also had the approval of the 16 Vice President of R&D who actually anointed me, if you 17 will, to be the coordinator, because, if it were 18 necessary, to make the program more across departmental 19 lines. So he didn't particularly pick someone who was in 20 Product Development. 21 Q. Who was the person who was in charge of R&D 22 at that time? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 24 1 A. Max Hausermann. 2 Q. So it sounds like what you are telling me is 3 that you would report your findings not only to Mr. Meyer 4 but also to the head of R&D because there may have been a 5 need for some interdepartmental work on the project? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And your title at that time was Coordinator? 8 A. My technical title was Associate Principal 9 Scientist. 10 Q. But, in effect, you were coordinating the 11 efforts of that project? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Did the project have a particular name? 14 A. At the time, I believe -- to this day I'm 15 not into project names and it's difficult for me to 16 remember -- but I believe it was Hamlet. 17 Q. Was that a name that had been given to the 18 project before you began working on it? Or was it 19 something that came that when you took over? 20 A. I believe so. I don't, as a habit, give 21 project names. I know it's a good practice but I have a 22 hard time remembering them so --. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 25 1 Q. Okay. What was your understanding of the 2 specific job that you would be undertaking? I know 3 generally you would review what had been done and make 4 some recommendations that what to do in the future. But 5 did you have an idea at the time of what the goals of 6 Project Hamlet were? 7 A. Well, I think it was my responsibility to 8 add to or review the goals and to set the directions. 9 And to make my recommendations about how it should go. 10 And I was given pretty much a free hand to make a 11 recommendation as to what kinds of technologies you 12 should explore and develop, what resources might be 13 needed to bring in new ideas, how the effort should be 14 structured. And what particular -- the particular goals 15 that we might have for individual efforts. 16 It was really a cross-disciplinary effort 17 that started to -- and my idea was to expand into more 18 directions. 19 Q. And essentially to let different areas of 20 the company develop potential products in a parallel 21 fashion? 22 A. Well, it was -- it was a variety of things, Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 26 1 from doing research, fundamental research to understand 2 some of the basic physics and chemistry better that might 3 help focus our effort, to exploring a wide variety of 4 different ideas and technologies. So that it was 5 possible that at any one time there might be a variety of 6 parallel things that might be going on. 7 Q. When you set out to perform these tasks and 8 you reviewed the current status of the studies that had 9 been ongoing, what did you find was the position or 10 status of the work on ignition propensities in 1983? 11 A. Well, I found a wide diversity of things 12 that had been tested, from internal ideas to commercially 13 available materials and ideas, and not a very good kind 14 of glue that sort of linked learning together. So it 15 seemed to be a little bit -- a very wide approach but not 16 one that, you know, built up the learning experience as 17 much as I felt could be done. 18 Q. Specifically, do you know what design 19 parameters or ideas were being studied in 1983 when you 20 began to look at what had been ongoing for some period of 21 time? 22 A. I think there were a number of -- I mean Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 27 1 basically the cigarette has a few construction 2 considerations, and many of them had been explored. 3 Q. Do you remember which ones had been? 4 A. Circumference, cigarette paper permeability, 5 weight density of the tobacco rod. Basically, if you 6 start with the basic construction, there are only a few 7 things that -- additives to the paper. 8 Q. Do you know if in 1983 there had been any 9 research done into ignition propensity effects of the 10 different cut widths of the tobacco? 11 A. I think that may have been done. 12 Q. Back in 1983, and it may be the same today, 13 I don't know, but specifically back in 1983, do you 14 recall what the typical cut width was for a Philip Morris 15 cigarette? 16 A. It would have been approximately thirty cuts 17 perfect inch. Point eight five or point nine 18 millimeters, something like that. 19 Q. Was that a uniform cut width across the 20 board for Philip Morris products at that time? 21 A. Pretty -- yes. 22 Q. Is, to the best of your knowledge, that Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 28 1 still true today? 2 A. Roughly the same, yes. I don't know whether 3 it's exactly thirty cuts or twenty-eight cuts, but it's 4 in the same ballpark. 5 Q. At the time you were looking at these 6 different areas of research that had been at least 7 considered, did you have any particular ideas or 8 predisposition as to what might be one of the better 9 avenues of research to advance the project of ignition 10 propensity studies in general? 11 A. I mean not a particular avenue that I 12 thought was most promising. I thought that we should 13 explore the mechanisms involved in transfer of heat from 14 cigarette to its surroundings and have a better 15 understanding. I thought we should bring in or we should 16 explore as many novel ideas, or, I mean, simply working 17 with the cigarette parameters as they were was very 18 constraining, and that we should try to get as many 19 independent ideas as possible and explore anything that 20 might seem reasonable. 21 Q. Did that include looking at outside patents, 22 for instance? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 29 1 A. Oh, yes. 2 Q. Do you recall at any time looking at or 3 considering the Cohn patent or patents -- I think there 4 may have been more than one -- for a sodium silicate 5 treatment process? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you recall that when that was considered? 8 A. Well, it had been reviewed before I joined 9 the effort. 10 Q. Did you or any of your colleagues undertake 11 additional review in or after 1983? 12 A. Not of exactly that approach, no. 13 Q. Well, did you consider undertaking research 14 for any similar approach? 15 A. Additives to paper, yes. 16 Q. What other additives were looked at or 17 considered or studied? 18 A. There were intermessent-? coatings, the idea 19 of putting some kind of heat barrier, and related 20 coatings like that that built up a kind of foamy 21 structure. 22 Q. Were banded wrappers looked at? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 30 1 A. The only banded wrappers that were looked at 2 at that time were something that one of our -- material 3 provided by one of our vendors. 4 Q. A slice of paper of some sort? 5 A. I can't remember which vendor, but it was a 6 vendor that made papers for electrical capacitors. 7 Q. Did any of those areas of research or 8 consideration bear fruit, if you will? 9 A. No. 10 Q. What drawbacks or deficits did you find with 11 the Kohn process? That's C-o-h-n. 12 A. Well, some of these materials did not show 13 any, you know, sufficient change in properties in their 14 behavior, and they were also materials that were likely 15 not to be considered reasonable additions to cigarette 16 smoke. 17 Q. And were those decisions that, as 18 Coordinator, you made? Or were they things that were 19 made by Leo Meyer or the head of the R&D? 20 A. They would be -- the evaluation of materials 21 and materials that we could use would have been made by 22 an independent -- another group that evaluated the Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 31 1 flavors and made sure that anything that was to be used 2 had not already been indicated in the literature as a 3 potential --. 4 Q. Was there any particular design or parameter 5 change during that initial time period that you became 6 Coordinator that appeared to be promising in all respects 7 except in the flavor area? 8 A. That's a broad question. I think there were 9 times when -- no, I could not say that that was the case 10 because I really can't say that there was something that, 11 based on the kind of testing that we did with the 12 mock-up, that we could say this is something really 13 special. 14 And mostly the mock-up testing, the testing 15 that was done, the methodology was designed to be a kind 16 of high speed -- enable us to do a lot of testing, and to 17 discriminate in the best way possible. If we could see 18 some discrimination, then we would go on and do flavor 19 testing and other development and see whether that could 20 be pushed any further. 21 Q. Do you recall any flavor testing having been 22 done during that initial time period, say 1983 or 1984, Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 32 1 with regard to reduced ignition propensity cigarettes? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. What prototypes or design types were tested, 4 flavor tested? 5 A. I can't -- it's over ten years ago. I just 6 can't list which ones were or weren't. 7 Q. Would it be fair to say that the prototypes 8 or design types that were flavor tested were ones that 9 had showed some promise in other properties of reduced 10 ignition propensities? 11 A. They would have been prototypes that would 12 have shown some differences on the mock-up test. 13 Q. If they had been tested on the mock-up and 14 been a total flop, for whatever reason, you wouldn't go 15 ahead, typically, and flavor test them, I would assume, 16 is that correct? 17 A. Right. 18 Q. After you had an opportunity to see what had 19 been ongoing in 1983 and before, and evaluate where you 20 were, so to speak, did you set forth any goals or 21 criteria for project handling, prospectively? 22 A. Well, as I say, we set up -- the goals were Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 33 1 to have a test method which would be reliable, or 2 reproducible, let's say. 3 Q. Number one was a test methodology that would 4 be reliable, reproducible? 5 A. Reproducible, and would discriminate to the 6 extent possible. 7 Q. And in 1983, was the test methodology still 8 that of the furniture mock-up? 9 A. It was a furniture mock-up, yes. 10 Q. Was it -- were the tests conducted under a 11 hood? 12 A. I believe so, yes. 13 Q. Was draft controlled, humidity controlled, 14 any elements, natural elements like that? 15 A. I think the laboratory in which the test was 16 run was one of the better laboratories in terms of 17 control. 18 Q. Temperature, humidity control? 19 A. Yes. I don't remember the exact state but 20 it had better control, certainly, than other 21 laboratories. 22 Q. So if I'm under understanding correctly, one Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 34 1 of the goals that you sought to implement for Project 2 Hamlet was to move to a test methodology that would be 3 reproducible, and am I assuming correctly that meant to 4 move away from the furniture mock-up test methodology? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Or was that moving to that methodology? 7 A. No, it really meant selecting a system on 8 which you could come back with the same cigarettes day 9 after day and keep getting the same result. 10 Q. A grading system, is that correct? 11 A. Whatever, yes, whatever the measurement 12 happened to be, that it would be a reproducible 13 measurement. 14 Q. Was it as a result of that decision to seek 15 a test methodology that would be measurable, 16 reproducible, that the ignition propensity index was 17 developed? 18 A. That was developed before I was involved in 19 that. 20 Q. And I am referring to what Randy Greene, I 21 believe, developed? 22 A. Yes. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 35 1 Q. So that was already in existence and you 2 were seeking some -- you sought a goal that would use 3 some other measure? 4 A. I think that it may have already been 5 initiated before I joined. I'm not claiming that I 6 pushed it or initiated it, but that I was a supporter of 7 moving away from the IPI. 8 Q. You were making a list of the goals in 1983 9 that you attempted to set down for Project Hamlet. I 10 have got number one as the test methodology. Were there 11 other aspects, or other goals? 12 A. Yes, one was to have a clear -- another was 13 to have a clearer understanding of how a cigarette 14 interacts or transfers heat to its surroundings. 15 Q. Heat conduction, essentially? 16 A. As one mechanism. 17 Q. Had there been any research done in that 18 area prior to you establishing or suggesting that as one 19 aspect of the project goals? 20 A. I don't believe so. 21 Q. Were there any other aspects of the project 22 that you set goals for? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 36 1 A. We also established synectics, ideation 2 sessions, where people who were not part of the program 3 were brought into a room such as this and given the 4 opportunity to generate ideas. 5 Q. I saw that word in some of the 6 documentation. I have to admit I didn't know what it 7 was. Is that basically an exchange of ideas, the concept 8 of synectics? 9 A. The concept is to, through the use of a 10 facilitator, to eliminate the possibility or to reduce 11 the possibility that someone would give, immediately 12 give, a negative response to someone else's idea in the 13 sense that, oh, you can't do that or you can't do this. 14 So the idea was to make it totally constructive. And 15 people received information beforehand that any comments 16 they were to make were to either constructively build on 17 what was already there or not to contribute. 18 Q. Was that a process that you developed or is 19 that -- 20 A. No, it was already -- it had begun to be in 21 use in other areas, and we decided, or I decided, that we 22 should build on -- build on that. And we went do that in Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 37 1 a number of different ways to try to get it going because 2 it's very difficult. 3 Q. Was that an attempt to get creative juices 4 flowing in an unencumbered fashion among the people who 5 were researching the issue of ignition propensity? 6 A. Actually, well, it started off that way, but 7 then we decided that the people who were involved already 8 had a lot of their ideas. The idea was to bring in other 9 people, people who had no direct involvement but who had 10 artistic or other strengths, who might just throw things 11 out that, and in an environment where there would be no 12 engineer to say you can't possibly make that. 13 Q. Was the hope to bring in persons from other 14 departments within the company or people from outside the 15 company or both? 16 A. No, it was all people from R&D. R&D was a 17 very large organization, so there were plenty of people 18 to draw from. 19 Q. I have written down three broad objectives 20 that you told me that that you thought would be 21 appropriate for Hamlet in 1983. Were there any others? 22 A. I mean offhand that was -- and to explore Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 38 1 whatever technologies and ideas that came out. 2 Q. Anything else? 3 A. I don't know that I had it in 1983, but I 4 had an idea of trying to essentially put out a kind of 5 concept which could perhaps be reverse engineered to do 6 something that would be a kind of creation. 7 Q. Can you explain what you mean by that? 8 A. It was an idea of a cigarette that might, 9 for example, that might have all kinds of electrical 10 sensors and timers and things in it, so that, for 11 example, if the cigarette were not to be moved for some 12 period of time, it would know that it would shut off or 13 could be extinguished. So it was just a kind of 14 conceptual idea. And to say if this were something we 15 would be interested in, how would we make it, kind of. 16 So I tried to come at it from all different -- all 17 different sides. 18 Q. It sounds like -- and certainly correct me 19 if I misunderstood -- that what you were hoping to do in 20 the 1983 time period was continue with work that had been 21 ongoing but also look at some different ideas to achieve 22 the goals that Hamlet hoped to achieve, is that right? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 39 1 A. That we -- yes. And nothing was, you know, 2 cut out. We would look at anything that vendors might 3 have or -- in the way of new materials or new 4 developments. 5 Q. At the outset of your beginning to approach 6 this problem, as you described, in 1983, was the idea to 7 -- was one idea that had been bounced around to reduce 8 the mass burn rate of a cigarette, in hopes of achieving 9 a reduced ignition propensity? 10 A. At the time, it was unknown what influence 11 that would have. 12 Q. I think earlier we had talked that some 13 consideration having been given to the different cut 14 widths and how that might affect ignition propensity. 15 Had that occurred by 1983, that thought? 16 A. I believe it had been measured, had been 17 looked at. 18 Q. Do you recall what the theory was with 19 respect to that? 20 A. I'm not sure there was much theory that was 21 involved. 22 Q. It was more of just -- was it more of we Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 40 1 have identified another parameter that we might want to 2 study, like circumference or paper porosity? 3 A. I don't recall whether there had already 4 been something in the literature to suggest that a 5 cigarette performed or burned differently with this cut 6 width. I don't recall what the origins were. 7 Q. Having set forth your initial analysis of 8 what needed to be done in 1983 to advance the project, am 9 I understanding right that the overall goal continued to 10 be to create a cigarette that would be less susceptible 11 than commercial brands to ignite substrate of a furniture 12 mock-up? 13 A. I think one could say in general the idea 14 and the reason for putting in the effort was to see 15 whether a cigarette could be made that would have a 16 different potential impact. 17 Q. I promised I would go chronologically, but I 18 am going to fudge a little bit here. Was it at this time 19 or sometime earlier that you began to look at fire loss 20 statistics in conjunction with your work at Philip 21 Morris? 22 A. It would have been at that same time. It Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 41 1 would have been at about the same time. My involvement 2 prior to that was negligible. 3 Q. Do you recall what you did or how you 4 undertook to study the statistics of fire losses and 5 perhaps to do comparisons? 6 A. The statistics were available in the 7 literature. I can't -- there were probably Government 8 publications, in fact, that had those statistics. 9 Q. Do you remember with any specificity which 10 ones you may have looked at or perhaps relied upon at the 11 time? 12 A. I don't recall whether it was the -- gosh, I 13 have been away for so long, I'm forgetting the names of 14 U.S. Agencies. It may have been the Consumer Product 15 Safety Commission, or one of the -- the fire -- I forget 16 who had responsibility for collection of fire statistics. 17 But they were from the Government. 18 Q. Okay. Moving to the number one thing that 19 we talked that, and that was developing a test 20 methodology and moving away from the IPI as an index, 21 what was done under your watch, so to speak, following 22 1983 to effect that goal? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 42 1 A. The work was done and the shift in the 2 efforts -- which may, probably had already started -- was 3 to look at a test which was more continuous, if you will, 4 time-to-ignition, rather than the IPI which had not only 5 the incremental removal of cigarettes from the substrate 6 but it had also had -- I mean it was basically 7 interfering with an ongoing experiment. 8 So the idea was to come up with something 9 that was continuous that would give, let's say, more 10 meaningful or, in terms of being able to discriminate, 11 and, you know, would be more hands off. 12 Q. To focus then more on time-to-ignition, did 13 the test methodology shift more to a measure of the mass 14 burn rate? 15 A. No. 16 Q. At sometime after 1983, did the focus turn 17 to mass burn rate as a measure of ignition propensity? 18 A. Well, there was an effort to see what, and 19 throughout, what are the significant parameters that 20 might be related to the results on the mock-up test. And 21 mass burn rate was one. 22 Q. It was basically one of the many parameters Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 43 1 that were considered? 2 A. Right. 3 Q. And studying the time-to-ignition aspect 4 rather than the IPI, was there a maximal length of time 5 that was allowed for a cigarette to burn until it 6 self-extinguished or ignited or nothing happened? 7 A. It may have been ten or twelve minutes, 8 basically. 9 Q. Was the thought that it took that ten 10 minutes for a cigarette that was not being puffed to burn 11 the length of the rod? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Why was ten or twelve minutes the measure, 14 the outside limit of the measurement? 15 A. On that particular -- on the fabric and 16 painting material that had been chosen and may have been 17 finally selected after a lot of search to find a system 18 which would give some discrimination, I would assume that 19 after ten or twelve minutes there were rarely events that 20 occurred after that period of time. And rather than 21 spending the time waiting to see, we could do more tests 22 by cutting it off. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 44 1 Q. How long does it take a cigarette that is 2 self-sustaining a burn but is not being puffed to burn 3 the length of the rod? 4 A. In air? 5 Q. Yes? 6 A. Eight to twelve minutes, I would say. 7 Q. I assume we are talking about on the 8 furniture mock-up? 9 A. No, we are talking about in air. 10 Q. Talking about just laying -- for instance 11 just laying in an ashtray here? 12 A. Just holding it in your hand in air. 13 Q. How would it perform in the mock-up? 14 A. If placed on -- if placed in contact with 15 something, it would burn longer, typically. 16 Q. I'm sorry? 17 A. Typically it would burn longer. 18 Q. Did it depend on the material that it was 19 placed upon, in construction or content or shape perhaps? 20 A. Certainly. 21 Q. Would a cigarette in a mock-up in a crevice 22 tend to burn longer? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 45 1 A. I don't know. I never did any crevice 2 studies. 3 Mr. Crampton: Was the question longer than 4 in air or longer than --? 5 By Mr. Grisham: 6 Q. Longer than if it were not in a crevice but 7 it were still in the mock-up. And your answer is you 8 never did those tests? 9 A. Right. 10 Q. A second part to your goal -- when I say 11 your, I'm not talking about necessarily about you 12 personally, but your team's goal -- was to create a 13 greater understanding of heat transfer and how that works 14 in relation to cigarettes, is that correct? 15 A. Right. 16 Q. Was there a particular person or group of 17 people who were assigned the duties and responsibilities 18 to study that phenomenon? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Who were those people? 21 A. Those were people located in the Physical 22 Research Department where I had previously worked. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 46 1 Q. Can you give me some names? 2 A. People who were involved at that time. 3 Bruce Waymack. 4 Q. Bruce Waymeyer? 5 A. Waymack -- m-a-c-k. 6 Q. Anyone else? 7 A. Calvin Tiller. Bruce Losee. 8 Q. Generally -- and then we'll talk more 9 specifically in a moment -- but generally, what were the 10 findings with regard to heat transfer as a phenomenon 11 concerning cigarettes in a mock-up? 12 A. In summary of many man years of work -- 13 Q. Certainly. 14 A. -- the cigarette transfers heat by basically 15 three different methods. One is through heat convection 16 and one is through radiation. 17 Q. I was a liberal arts major so you will have 18 to go real slow from here on out. But essentially, as I 19 understand it, the concept of conduction is -- is that a 20 transfer of heat away from the tip of the burning rod? 21 A. Conduction would be putting a hot object and 22 a cold object together and, by contact, having heat move Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 47 1 from the hot to the cold. 2 Q. In the studies that were undertaken, and you 3 mentioned there were many man hours of study in this 4 area, did you generally find that a cigarette starting on 5 a mock-up, on a furniture mock-up -- let me start over or 6 rephrase the question. 7 In the studies that your team conducted, did 8 you generally find that a cigarette burning on the 9 mock-up would conduct or convect heat away from the 10 cigarette in a fanlike design from the tip? 11 A. I'm not sure I know what you mean. 12 Q. I'm not being very articulate, I apologize. 13 What I am trying to get at is, I understand that what you 14 are saying is that a cigarette burning on a mock-up is 15 going to heat up the material, the substrate that the 16 cigarette is lying upon. What is the manner in which 17 that occurs? Does it occur in a circular manner at the 18 tip? Does it occur along the rod? Or does it emanate 19 directly tangential to the tip? If there is a 20 predictable way. I am assuming there is some predictable 21 things that occur -- that there are some things that 22 occur that are predictable. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 48 1 A. It's hard to give a single answer to that 2 because it depends on the exact contact of the cigarette, 3 or the position with respect to the mock-up. And if you 4 just have a perfectly flat mock-up, then you would have 5 -- the mock-up does not know exactly, there is a hot 6 object here, it is in contact, it is radiating and there 7 is heat transfer around the tip. I can't say exactly. 8 We made some attempts to chart that pattern but it is 9 very difficult. 10 Q. That's what I was trying to say and you said 11 it more artfully. Was there, through charting, was there 12 an identifiable pattern, heat pattern of a cigarette 13 lying on a furniture mock-up in a flat manner? 14 A. There was -- offhand I can't say that there 15 was a typical, typical pattern. It might depend on the 16 shape of the cigarette, of the cone. But typically the 17 heat would be transferred in all directions. 18 Q. Generally, about how far did the heat 19 transfer away from the coal? 20 A. The heat of the coal, the temperatures 21 associated in the vicinity of the coal, dropped off very 22 rapidly. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 49 1 Q. At the coal, were the temperatures about 2 what, 640 degrees? 3 A. Well, that is the temperature -- that's 4 roughly the temperature of the coal when it's burning and 5 when the cigarette is burning in air. It's very 6 difficult to measure on a mock-up and describe what a 7 coal temperature is. 8 Q. And what you are telling me is that the 9 temperature, as one moved away from the lit coal, dropped 10 off dramatically and quickly? 11 A. Yeah, as measured, and that instrumentation 12 would have been -- that would not have been done on the 13 mock-up where the kind of work that Randy Greene was 14 doing, it was not possible to make such a measurement on 15 such a system. So it was done in a completely different 16 laboratory with a different arrangement so that the 17 measurements could be made. 18 Q. Were any crevice tests done in regard to the 19 heat transfer studies that were undertaken? 20 A. No. From the time that I was involved, 21 there were no crevice tests done. 22 Q. Generally, other than identifying the three Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 50 1 methods of heat conductivity through the cigarette 2 burning, what else was found or accomplished by virtue of 3 the heat conduction studies or heat transfer studies? 4 A. We were attempting to put a relative number, 5 if you will, on the contribution or the potential 6 contribution of each one of those things on the 7 cigarette. And the reason for that is one can imagine 8 that the cigarette might be in different configurations 9 or one could take an approach of separating, trying to 10 keep the cigarette physically separated from the surface, 11 and then to get an idea of what difference that would 12 make. 13 The measurements were very difficult to do 14 and we were trying to get an idea of how much could we 15 reasonably expect some approach such as separation of the 16 cigarette to have a positive influence. And we tried to 17 get a breakdown of what the different contributions were 18 to the heat that is being transferred to the 19 surroundings. Which was very difficult. 20 But all of those, I mean one could not put a 21 firm number on it, but one could imagine that all of them 22 play a role and you couldn't say that one was Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 51 1 insignificant and that heat was only transferred by one 2 other mechanism. 3 Q. Was there ever a method developed to measure 4 or grade or differentiate between different cigarette 5 designs in terms of heat transfer qualities? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Were there any attempts to gradiate or 8 differentiate between different designs in regard to heat 9 transfer qualities? 10 A. No, not directly. I mean the experimental 11 part was so difficult to even design a measurement, that 12 it just hadn't been done. And the effort was to -- a lot 13 of work went into getting very few numbers, and to try to 14 do comparisons would not have been meaningful. 15 Q. How long did the heat conduction studies go 16 on? 17 Mr. Crampton: You mean heat transfer 18 studies? 19 By Mr. Grisham: 20 Q. Yes, heat transfer studies? 21 A. I would say probably at least two years. 22 Q. What, if anything, from your perspective, Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 52 1 was gained by virtue of the synectic sessions that were 2 held? 3 A. The synectic sessions? Basically there was 4 -- there was not much that was added to what was already 5 in the general knowledge. But we thought it was worth 6 going through the effort of seeing if anything could come 7 out. 8 Q. Likewise, was anything substantially gained 9 from the efforts at exploring outside ideas and looking 10 to outside sources for a solution? 11 A. No. 12 Q. How long did you remain in a position 13 whereby you were advancing Project Hamlet or attempting 14 to advance Project Hamlet? 15 A. Until the spring of 1987. 16 Q. What happened then? 17 A. I gave notice that I was leaving the 18 company. 19 Q. At the time you gave notice that you were 20 leaving, was your sole responsibility Project Hamlet or 21 did you have various other projects going on? 22 A. At the time, I believe I was -- let's see, Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 53 1 this is 1987 -- for about the last year I was managing -- 2 I moved back from Product Development to the research, to 3 the Physical Research Department. And I was managing 4 that department. So I had direct control over the 5 resources that were involved. 6 Q. And you were also continuing with Project 7 Hamlet, though, correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. During the 1983 to 1987 time period, did 10 your group develop a furniture mock-up test vehicle? 11 A. The only thing that was developed, which was 12 essentially accepted for further refinements that were 13 made, already existed, which was the time-to-ignition 14 test. 15 Q. Okay. Were there any changes in the fabric 16 that was used for the mock-up during the time that you 17 were involved with the project from 1983 to 1987? 18 A. Somewhere before the end of '87, we ran out 19 of the original fabric. Originally it had been purchased 20 in a very large amount so we would always have the same 21 material available and we could always compare the 22 results. And we ran out. Or we were running out. We Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 54 1 didn't wait until we ran out. But we knew that, at the 2 pace we were going, we had grossly underestimated the 3 amount that would be needed. So we sought to replace 4 it. And that was very difficult. 5 Q. During the course of the work, was there one 6 type of fabric that you or your group considered to be 7 the best alternative for doing the tests you wanted to 8 conduct? 9 A. Well, there was one that had been selected 10 that gave differentiation, as opposed to either giving, 11 you know, no differentiation or no smoldering ignition or 12 everything at the same time. It was very hard to find 13 one in which you started to -- we had looked at doing 14 things with fabrics, for example washing them or adding 15 salts to them so that you could adjust. It's much easier 16 to change the fabric than to change anything else. And 17 just the properties of an individual fabric. 18 But we decided not to try to treat fabric 19 because that would be an extra step. So we looked for 20 fabric that we could purchase in large quantities that 21 would give that differentiation. 22 Q. And what you are saying is that, when that Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 55 1 began to run out, you knew you were going to have to get 2 a different fabric? 3 A. Well, we -- the obvious thing was to try to 4 get more of the same. 5 Q. Right. If it existed? 6 A. If it existed. And we could not. And we 7 tried to get as close as we can so that the results of 8 using that fabric could be -- would be a continuation of 9 the history that had already been built up. And that we 10 weren't off in some new sphere. 11 Q. Typically, or generally, is it true that the 12 ignition propensity of a particular fabric is affected by 13 the content of the salts within the fabric? 14 A. Fabric performance will differ, yes, quite a 15 bit. 16 Q. And the higher the salt content, the more 17 likely or prone to ignition the fabric will be? 18 A. Well, I mean, we only measured 19 time-to-ignition. So I would say that perhaps the 20 time-to-ignition would be altered. The higher the salts, 21 it might be a shorter time-to-ignition and -- 22 Q. I thought what I heard you saying was that Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 56 1 you, as an individual at least, were aware that washing 2 the fabrics, thus removing some salts, could alter the 3 test performance or test results? 4 A. If there were a high salt content to begin 5 with, yes. 6 Q. In 1987, by virtue of this shortage of 7 material, of like material, when the change was made to 8 another material for testing, were there any parameter 9 changes made to compensate for the changes in fabric? 10 A. No. 11 Q. During the 1983 to 1987 time period, was 12 there anything going on from a regulatory perspective by 13 the Government that impacted the studies that you were 14 conducting? 15 A. That impacted the studies? No. There was 16 -- the Technical Study Group was there from 1984 to 17 1987. 18 Q. Were you in hopes of being able to develop a 19 standard that could be used as a comparison to work that 20 the Government was going to conduct or eventually did 21 conduct? 22 A. No. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 57 1 Q. I guess what I am getting at, were the 2 ignition propensity studies that you were doing, your 3 group was doing, done irrespective of what the Government 4 was doing? 5 A. Yes. The test that we were using, 6 time-to-ignition test, was designed for us as a learning 7 tool and as a differentiation tool, not as a mass 8 comparison tool. 9 Q. And that work wasn't driven by what the 10 Government was doing? 11 A. No, it was independent. 12 Mr. Grisham: Is this a good time for a 13 break? We've been going for about an hour. 14 (Short recess at 10:23 a.m.) 15 (Back on the record at 10:34 a.m.) 16 By Mr. Grisham: 17 Q. Dr. Kassman, when we last talked a few 18 moments ago, I think you had brought me up to about 1987 19 when you resigned your position to do independent 20 consulting, and you had been kind enough to explain to me 21 how that worked for a couple of years, and then you came 22 back to Richmond to work for Philip Morris, correct? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 58 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. When you came back, did you undertake any 3 more research efforts with regard to Project Hamlet or 4 any ignition propensity studies? 5 A. No, I did not. 6 Q. What did you do in 1987 when you returned? 7 A. It was in 1989. 8 Q. I'm sorry, '89. 9 A. And I was a staff scientist and, not long 10 after I had returned, I was asked if I would go to 11 Switzerland and it was agreed that I would go and it was 12 a question of arranging the timing. So I did not get 13 involved in a, let's say, take charge position in 14 anything in Richmond at that time. But I involved, I was 15 involved in a number of different technology projects. 16 Q. Nothing you did after 1987 related or 17 touched upon ignition propensity studies, did it? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Okay. Back when you were deciding to leave 20 in 1987, you and I have been talking that this occurrence 21 of running out of test fabric and someone hadn't really 22 estimated real well how much would be needed, and you Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 59 1 said that there was a change to fabric that most closely 2 resembled what you had been using, correct? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Following that change, was there any 5 discernible difference in the test results that were 6 being achieved in the ignition propensity study? 7 A. They were in the same range as what we had 8 previously observed but not exactly the same. 9 Q. When you resigned and left in 1987, did 10 Project Hamlet continue? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Who undertook to coordinate the project 13 after you left? 14 A. Jerry Whidby took responsibility. 15 Q. At any time did you work on Project 16 Tomorrow? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. When did you work on Project Tomorrow? 19 A. It probably began close to the time that I 20 finished. I would guess '86 or '87. 21 Q. Did you continue to work on that project 22 while you were a consultant? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 60 1 A. No. 2 Q. Did you work on Project Tomorrow after you 3 returned to the company in 1989? 4 A. No. 5 Q. What sort of research or work did you do on 6 Project Tomorrow? 7 A. The project as it was initiated was to look 8 into the effects of changes in the mass burn rate and to 9 see what effects that would have. 10 Q. Do you know how long that project continued, 11 if it, in fact, ceased? 12 A. No, I don't know. I believe it continued 13 for awhile but I couldn't -- 14 Q. I'm sorry? 15 A. I believe it continued for some time, but I 16 couldn't say exactly. 17 Q. You don't know if it's ongoing today? 18 A. In that form, I don't know. 19 Q. And so the focus of Project Tomorrow 20 essentially was to study mass burn rate and its effects 21 on ignition propensity? 22 A. To see if there were -- it was in some of Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 61 1 the work that we were trying to do to look at 2 correlations, there was a kind of rough correlation, it 3 was very rough and it wasn't systematic, and there were 4 differences of opinion in interpreting the data. 5 Q. Did Project Tomorrow proceed in tandem with 6 Hamlet? It seems to me in the time period you have 7 described there was some overlap in the two projects, is 8 that right? 9 A. Yes, I would guess so. 10 Q. Was Bill Geiszler head of Project Tomorrow 11 or was there someone else? 12 A. Bill Geiszler was involved. I don't 13 remember who was heading the project. 14 Q. What specifically did you contribute to that 15 project? 16 A. I really can't remember. It was so close to 17 the end of my tenure, that my relationship with it I 18 think was relatively short. 19 Q. Do you know why Project Tomorrow was brought 20 about in a separate format from Project Hamlet? 21 A. There's -- it's difficult to answer that. 22 As I say, there was a tradition of attaching a name to Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 62 1 various projects even though they are very similar, just 2 to keep them separated in terms of being able to put the 3 hands -- put hands on particular information. 4 Q. Do you know whether or not, within the 5 auspices of Project Tomorrow, studies were done on the 6 effect of reducing the width cut of the tobacco leaf in 7 hopes of impacting the mass burn rate and perhaps the 8 ignition propensity? 9 A. I have no recollection of that as a specific 10 part of the project during the time that I was there. 11 Q. Do you know of any research in conjunction 12 with Project Tomorrow or Hamlet whereby ignition 13 propensity was studied in terms of commercial cigarettes 14 or, in other words, testing of commercial cigarettes or 15 ignition propensity? 16 A. Yes. There had been testing of commercial 17 cigarettes on that time-to-ignition -- in the 18 time-to-ignition study. I think that is the only, that 19 had occasionally been done. I don't know whether it had 20 been done once or twice just to get a general idea of 21 were we missing something. 22 Q. In those studies of commercial cigarettes, Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 63 1 I'm assuming that they were studies of machine-made 2 commercial blends, as opposed to literally taking a 3 cigarette pack off the shelf or out of the factory floor 4 and testing it. Is my assumption correct? 5 A. Well, I'm not sure. Competitive brands, we 6 have no choice but to simply go and buy them. 7 Q. Well, or to replicate the blend and have 8 them machine made? 9 A. A competitive product? No, we can't 10 replicate a competitive product. 11 Q. Okay. In Project Tomorrow, what particular 12 fabrics were used to test ignition propensity, if you 13 know? 14 A. While I was there, there was no other test 15 but that time-to-ignition test. There was one test, one 16 fabric. 17 Q. Using the same bolt of fabric that we have 18 been talking about earlier? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. As I understand the progression, sometime 21 after 1983, when you began to work on Project Hamlet, the 22 ignition propensity index really was not used anymore and Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 64 1 time-to-ignition was the test to measure ignition 2 propensity? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. During your work on the two projects, Hamlet 5 and Tomorrow, and any other time to your knowledge, did 6 Philip Morris test Marlboros for ignition? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. How many times? 9 A. Twice or -- well, in comparison with other 10 cigarettes, I would say it was tested perhaps twice or 11 three times. I don't recall the number. But the 12 cigarette -- we had cigarettes in order to calibrate, 13 because you have a test and you need to make sure that 14 something about the test isn't changing. So you need 15 something which is a constant marker that you can come 16 back and use and make sure the test is giving the same 17 results. 18 Q. And did Philip Morris use Marlboros for that 19 purpose? 20 A. Well, we used the cigarette that was made to 21 those specifications and stored. 22 Q. So what you would do is have the Marlboro Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 65 1 blend made up in a test cigarette, correct? 2 A. Yes. Well, I wouldn't specifically call it 3 a test, it was a reference cigarette. And it was made 4 with -- because typically the cigarette might be made -- 5 we don't have one supplier for each of the materials. So 6 the idea is to make the cigarette with minimum variation 7 as possible. 8 Q. And use that as the standard? 9 A. And the standard would be made at one time 10 with one filter, with one paper, everything the same to 11 minimize -- and on one machine -- to minimize any 12 possible variations. And then to store that cigarette 13 just as we stored the fabric, so we could always come 14 back and do the test and make sure everything was working 15 properly. 16 Q. Were the standard made-up Marlboros stored 17 in cold storage? 18 A. Probably in cans. 19 Q. So you controlled the humidity and 20 temperature? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Were there any other variables that were Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 66 1 important to control to maintain the standard cigarette? 2 A. No. Well, once they were made, I mean there 3 would be some tests made after they were produced to make 4 sure that they had been made to the tight standards. 5 Once that was done, they were canned and they were 6 stored. 7 Q. Were they vacuum canned? I am trying to get 8 an idea of how they were preserved. 9 A. No, I don't believe so. 10 Q. How were they canned? Just placed in some 11 sort of device with room air -- in a can with room air? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And then placed in cold storage? 14 A. Yes. I mean pulling a vacuum on the 15 cigarettes would not exactly be having them in a normal 16 condition. You would pull off flavors or whatever. 17 Q. Following that storage method, how long 18 would the cigarettes keep, so to speak, so that they 19 could be used again for a test standard? 20 A. For a few years. 21 Q. Was there a time after which you would not 22 want to use such a cigarette as a test standard? I mean Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 67 1 three years, five years, eight years? 2 A. Somewhere in there. Usually -- I mean they 3 wouldn't be made for 100 years, you know, because there's 4 always a chance that some of the materials that we might 5 use in our commercial production might change and we 6 would -- and the standard would be reproduced every two 7 years or three years. 8 Q. But if they were kept in a controlled cool 9 temperature in a can, they would be preserved adequately, 10 in your opinion? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And when you told me earlier that Marlboros 13 had been tested twice or maybe three times, it was in 14 conjunction with this standard cigarette to compare 15 others against, is that right? Or were there two or 16 three other times in addition to that? 17 A. It would be used periodically to calibrate, 18 in other words if a measurement had been made -- 19 Q. Right? 20 A. -- it would be periodically tested again and 21 again to make sure, as a calibration, to make sure that 22 the same time-to-ignition was measured or that there Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 68 1 hadn't been some change in laboratory humidity or 2 whatever. 3 Q. But other than maintaining them as a 4 standard, Marlboros were not tested, is that right? 5 A. I'm not sure -- 6 Q. Let me-- I will try to get more to the 7 point. I don't mean to mislead you, I really don't, but 8 I think what I hear you saying is you had some Marlboro 9 specifications made up in a cigarette form to use as a 10 standard against which to test, right? 11 A. Against which to make sure that the test had 12 not changed in any way. So it would be used as a 13 calibration tool. But then it would also be a comparison 14 if other cigarettes were measured. I mean there would be 15 a number time-to-ignition and that was the number that 16 had to be reproduced when that referenced cigarette was 17 put on there. 18 Q. Okay. That answered my question. 19 Next what I need to know is, were there ever 20 any modifications done to the Marlboro specifications to 21 attempt to create a result, a test result, or to alter 22 expected test results? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 69 1 A. You know, I can't -- there were so many 2 experimental things that were done, I can't say we would 3 pick one brand or construction in which to see whether 4 there was an effect of a parameter change. We might pick 5 any one of them, any one of our products or --. 6 Q. What time period were the standard 7 cigarettes you described used? 1983 through 1987? 8 A. At what time? At what time were they used? 9 Q. Yes. I thought you told me that two or 10 three times there were tests done on these Marlboro blend 11 cigarettes, and I am trying to establish a time 12 parameter. 13 A. I don't know. It was done before I was 14 involved and it was done perhaps once or twice while I 15 was involved. 16 Q. Were any ignition propensity tests done on 17 Virginia Slims? 18 A. I can't say specifically that I know that 19 Virginia Slims was used in a comparison test. 20 Q. At the time you left the company in 1987, 21 had you formed any opinion as to whether or not a 22 cigarette could be designed that would not ignite the Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 70 1 furniture mock-up that had been used, yet would be 2 acceptable to consumers? 3 A. No. 4 Q. You had not formed an opinion, or you formed 5 an opinion and it was no? 6 A. I'm sorry, if you could ask me the question 7 again, please. 8 Q. Sure. What I was trying to find out is if, 9 by the time you left in 1987, you had formed any opinion 10 as to whether or not a cigarette could be designed that 11 would not ignite furniture mock-up, yet would have 12 characteristics that would make it acceptable to persons 13 conducting flavor tests, perhaps the consumer? 14 A. Okay. At that time, I had certainly not 15 eliminated the possibility, and I had not given a 16 recommendation that, you know, the project should be 17 stopped as impossible. 18 Q. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear. 19 A. I had not made a recommendation that the 20 project should be stopped as impossible. It was still 21 open. 22 Q. Okay. So at the time you left, you thought Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 71 1 the project would continue most likely? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Based upon the work you did and the studies 4 that were conducted while you were with the company in 5 the 1980s, did you believe that there was a correlation 6 between the rod density and ignition propensity? 7 A. Not a direct correlation. 8 Mr. Crampton: In these tests, the testimony 9 is the time-to-ignition, and a lot of time when you see 10 ignition propensity there, they are talking about 11 time-to-ignition. In these questions, you might need to 12 make the distinction between whether there is an ignition 13 or time-to-ignition. 14 By Mr. Grisham: 15 Q. Okay. Let me ask it this way, because that 16 makes a good point. 17 In the 1980 time period, while you were 18 studying ignition propensity, both in terms of 19 time-to-ignition and whether or not there was an ultimate 20 ignition, did you find any direct or indirect correlation 21 between rod density and the ignition propensity as I have 22 defined it? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 72 1 A. Yes. There was not a simple direct 2 correlation between rod density and time-to-ignition. 3 Q. I take it by your answer that there may be 4 some indirect correlation, and, if there was, I would 5 like for you to explain what it might have been. 6 A. Well, density -- changes in density might 7 have -- might influence the time-to-ignition, but not in 8 a simple and consistent way. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. So that in one case you may find that rod 11 density, a lower rod density, might change time to 12 ignition, and in another case you might find that a 13 higher rod density might do the same thing. 14 Q. Likewise, did you notice any correlation 15 between rod circumference and ignition of the mock-ups? 16 And I say by ignition, ultimate ignition or 17 time-to-ignition, either one? 18 A. There were differences, small differences 19 noted with the circumference. 20 Mr. Crampton: Differences in 21 time-to-ignition. 22 The Witness: In time-to-ignition. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 73 1 By Mr. Grisham: 2 Q. What were those differences? 3 A. The differences in time-to-ignition, they 4 are very small. They were smaller, let's say, than the 5 differences in the range of commercial cigarettes, the 6 differences among commercial cigarettes. 7 Q. What you are telling me, though, is there 8 was, although small, a longer time-to-ignition with a 9 reduced circumference cigarette generally? 10 A. I believe that the testing that was done 11 would show a longer time-to-ignition with a reduced 12 circumference. 13 Q. Why was time-to-ignition a good measure of 14 ignition propensity from your point of view? 15 A. Well, it wasn't a measure of ignition 16 propensity. Our purpose was to see what we could develop 17 or influence, and we needed a system by which we could 18 measure differences. And the time-to-ignition was one 19 where we could do high volume and get reproducible 20 numbers about differences. How it related to ignition 21 propensity is a separate issue. 22 Q. Did it relate in any way to ignition Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 74 1 propensity? In other words, was it generally considered 2 at Philip Morris that the longer the time-to-ignition, 3 potentially the safer the cigarette? 4 A. I think that the higher time-to-ignition 5 would be appreciated as the direction in which you would 6 want to move if you had a choice. But whether the times 7 that we were measuring -- because we knew, even the times 8 to ignition differences that we saw among commercial 9 cigarettes on testing done, for example, by the National 10 Bureau of Standards, which was what it was called at that 11 time, showed no differences among commercial cigarettes 12 on what they considered a test to be more relevant to 13 ignition propensity. 14 So what was important to us was to 15 appreciate, where we could, differences in trying to 16 develop different products. But not -- it's difficult to 17 make any relationship between those times and anything 18 outside the test. 19 Q. Likewise, did you notice any correlation 20 between paper porosity and either time-to-ignition or 21 ultimate ignition? 22 A. Time-to-ignition, yes. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 75 1 Q. How did -- how was that affected? 2 A. I believe the lower permeability papers, 3 very low permeability papers, showed an increase in time 4 to ignition. 5 Q. Did you note any correlation between paper 6 additives or treatments and time-to-ignition? 7 A. My recollection is that there was a 8 negligible or no distinction between those additives. 9 Q. Did you notice any difference in 10 time-to-ignition between wrappers treated with calcium 11 carbonate and those which were either untreated or 12 treated with other substances? 13 Mr. Crampton: Objection just to the word 14 treated, because I think calcium carbonate is normally in 15 the papers. The treatment would be to take it away. 16 By Mr. Grisham: 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. I don't specifically recall that, that 19 experiment, whether it was done at all. 20 Q. Do you recall any experiments being done 21 with sodium potassium citrate? 22 A. Yes. Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 76 1 Q. How did the presence or absence of that 2 substance affect time-to-ignition? 3 A. Well, if you are talking about the paper, 4 that -- I have already answered that question in terms of 5 the paper additives, because the citrate is a normal 6 paper additive. And there were some changes, there were 7 some different papers that are commercially available, 8 and I don't recall, I don't recall there being any 9 significant difference in time-to-ignition. 10 Q. Doesn't the citrate help the paper to burn 11 and burn evenly? 12 A. Yes, it's a burn -- it's there for a 13 control. 14 Q. Did you ever speak with anyone who worked 15 for Philip Morris that told you that they thought it was 16 feasible to manufacture a cigarette that, because its 17 time-to-ignition was longer, would be safer to the 18 consumer? 19 A. I don't see how anyone would know that, no. 20 Q. So nobody ever told you that? 21 A. That it would be safer to the consumer? 22 Q. Yes? Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 77 1 A. I don't recall anyone saying that to me. I 2 certainly would not have -- would have not had any way of 3 substantiating that. 4 Q. As you sit here today, do you believe that a 5 cigarette can be manufactured in such a fashion that it 6 will be less likely to cause fires in real world 7 settings? 8 A. I don't know. I can't say that it can't be 9 done. 10 Q. What testing, if any, did Philip Morris do 11 that you are aware of that tested the potential of 12 alternate designs to lessen the risk for fires in the 13 home, for instance? 14 A. I'm not sure I understand. 15 Q. Do you know of any tests that Philip Morris 16 performed, in the past before today, that would review or 17 test or evaluate the potential for a cigarette to be 18 safer, that is less likely to ignite substances in the 19 homes of consumers? 20 A. You mean directly to do a test such as 21 putting cigarettes directly on something? 22 Q. I will make it very broad. Any testing that Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 78 1 would evaluate the potential of a cigarette to be safer 2 in real world environments such as homes and automobiles 3 and commercial buildings? 4 A. Directly, no. 5 Q. No? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Was there any testing done or evaluations 8 performed, the conclusions of which could be used to 9 predict the relative safety of a cigarette in real world 10 settings? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Do you know if an attempt was made to 13 evaluate any Philip Morris or competitor brand for 14 safety, fire safety, in real world settings? 15 A. Done, performed by Philip Morris? Or by 16 me? 17 Q. Or someone on behalf of Philip Morris? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Taking it a step further now, do you know of 20 anyone that performed studies of fire safety of 21 cigarettes in a consumer setting, in a real world 22 setting, that may have been reviewed or considered by Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 79 1 Philip Morris? 2 A. There were studies that had been done by 3 the California Bureau of Home Furnishings, I believe, but 4 I don't recall whether they were -- I don't recall 5 whether they were comparing cigarettes or evaluating 6 commercial -- or simply evaluating commercial furniture. 7 And I think there was a study done -- this 8 was back during the time, somewhere in the time of the 9 technical study group -- that had been done in Canada, by 10 a Federal agency, it might have been the equivalent of 11 the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 12 Q. Do you know why Philip Morris never tested 13 cigarettes for their ignition propensity in real world 14 settings? Like in people's homes or automobiles or 15 commercial buildings? 16 A. The most prominent study that I remember was 17 the Canadian, I believe the Canadian study. And the 18 Canadian study that -- and I don't remember, it was 19 done, I believe, on different -- trying to do home 20 furniture or couches, if you will, and trying to look at 21 different positions. And it was rather confusing in the 22 sense that, depending on how the cigarette was tested, Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 80 1 from what they saw, that the ignition propensity or 2 whatever was different or the readings were different, 3 the rankings were different, from one position to 4 another. And there was nothing -- there was no 5 consistency. 6 Q. Is there a matter of testing that can be 7 done to, in your opinion, determine which commercial 8 cigarettes are less likely to start fires in the homes 9 and automobiles across this nation? 10 A. Commercial? 11 Q. Yes? 12 A. I think the studies have been done and have 13 shown that there are no significance differences on 14 mock-up testing, and also, as I mentioned on the 15 Government testing, trying to look at different 16 positions. It becomes very complex of what all the 17 possibility -- even with a chair, take that chair -- all 18 the difference places that you can place cigarettes. 19 Q. Sure. Well, I think what I was asking was a 20 little bit different. Do you believe that there is not a 21 way to create such a test that would accurately let 22 consumers judge between different brands of cigarettes as Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 81 1 to which one might be safer in and about their home or 2 car or workplace? 3 A. I find it difficult to conceive of a single 4 test that would give such a number. And from what I 5 presently know about commercial cigarettes or recall 6 about commercial cigarettes, there is no information that 7 can be given. 8 Q. Is there any single or group of components 9 of a Marlboro cigarette that you believe can be altered 10 that would lessen its likelihood to start fires in or 11 about the home, automobile or in our workplaces? 12 A. I don't know that any single -- or I don't 13 think I have seen any single parameter of change or -- 14 Q. Or how about groups of parameters? 15 A. -- or even combinations. Any changes, 16 typical changes that you make, you know, will always put 17 you in the range of commercial cigarettes, where they 18 presently are. 19 Q. In testing that was conducted by Philip 20 Morris during the time that you were working on Project 21 Hamlet, or before, to your knowledge, were there any 22 prototypical cigarettes that were less likely to ignite Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 82 1 the furniture mock-up? 2 A. Well, the only thing we measured was the 3 time-to-ignition. So I can't answer in terms of 4 likelihood. Everything ignited the mock-up and it was a 5 question of how much time it took so we could 6 differentiate. 7 Q. Were there any design types, prototypical 8 design types, that consistently showed a longer than 9 average time-to-ignition? 10 A. There were prototypes that showed longer 11 times-to-ignition. 12 Q. What were those design parameters? 13 A. They might have been either combinations 14 of -- I mean I can't recall specifically. It was over 15 ten years ago. 16 Q. I understand. I appreciate you are doing 17 your best. 18 A. But I believe we have discussed the kinds of 19 changes. There were also additives, different additive 20 experiments to the papers. There were different physical 21 constructs that we tried to implement. Or there were 22 even -- there were some new technologies for making Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 83 1 cigarettes that were also -- also looked at. 2 Q. Were any of those ever offered for sale to 3 the public? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Why not? 6 A. The only differences that were observed were 7 time-to-ignition. Some of the new technologies were, 8 again, the time-to-ignitions were of relatively small 9 differences. Those that looked of interest, some of them 10 were evaluated subjectively to see whether we could make 11 changes in current -- in at the time current construction 12 that would not have a big impact on appearance and 13 subjective character. There were also some that were -- 14 well, some of the new technologies either didn't show any 15 differences or they were technologies that we couldn't 16 implement. 17 Q. Of the prototypical test cigarettes that 18 showed a consistent longer time-to-ignition, were any of 19 those submitted for subjective testing to persons outside 20 of Philip Morris? 21 A. Some. Some were. 22 Q. Who were they submitted to and on what Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 84 1 occasions? 2 A. Well, typically in this -- and the protocol 3 would be the same for any product development, whether it 4 was the ignition propensity program or not -- there was 5 first blind testing within the organization. There were 6 a number of different panels who would smoke cigarettes 7 and compare cigarettes without identification of what the 8 models were. And there were also external consumer 9 panels. 10 Mr. Grisham: We need to take a break. We're 11 going to run out of tape. 12 (Short pause off the record at 11:11 a.m.) 13 (Back on the record at 11:13 a.m.) 14 By Mr. Grisham: 15 Q. When we took a break, we were talking about 16 subjective testing and some prototypes that you had 17 indicated showed consistent longer times to ignition? 18 A. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by 19 consistent, but something that would be of interest to us 20 because it showed differentiation in time-to-ignition, 21 longer time-to-ignition. 22 Q. I am assuming the prototypes you would Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 85 1 submit for subjective testing would be those that on more 2 than one or two occasions showed longer time-to-ignition? 3 A. Oh, I understand. Yes. 4 Q. And you mentioned that those that were of 5 interest because of the longer time-to-ignition would 6 initially be sent for subjective testing within the 7 company, right? 8 A. Some would, yes. 9 Q. And then on a few occasions, they were also 10 sent for outside testing to panelists? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What was the protocol or the deciding factor 13 on whether or not they would be sent only to the inside 14 panelists or also to the outside panelists? 15 A. Depending on the type of panel, some of the 16 panels, the internal panels, were statistical, large 17 numbers of people, nonexpert, normal smokers, average 18 smokers. And sometimes they were, you know, special 19 panels that were made up of people who had long 20 experience in the company. So it might go to different 21 places. And depending upon the types of questions that 22 were asked, if the, you know, models were considered Friedli, Wolff & Pastore, Inc. (202) 331-1981 86 1 reasonable, they would occasionally go outside. 2 Q. How was that decided? I guess that is the 3 ultimate question. 4 A. Well, if the panel came back and said they 5 clearly recognized a difference, that the products were 6 not the same. And then they would not have known which 7 product was what. 8 Q. Right, they were blind studies? 9 A. Right. So if they said they were not the 10 same, that would definitely be the end of it. 11 Q. But if the panelists showed a certain amount 12 of confusion about which was which, then there may be a 13 further analysis of outside panelists? 14 Mr. Crampton: Object to form on confusion 15 about which one is which. He said whether they could tell 16 differences between the two. I don't think they were 17 ever asked to identify which one was which. 18 By Mr. Grisham: 19 Q. Well, let me go back to the original 20 question. How was it dec