January 2004

EXCERPTS FROM ORAL DEPOSITION OF GARY GARETANO

Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division - Hudson County Docket No. HUD-L-288-03

Stevens Institute of Technology, Plaintiff, vs. Ronald Hine, Aaron Lewit, Fund for a Better Waterfront, Inc., and John and Jane Does 1-10, Defendants.

Thursday, November 20, 2003

page 39

A. My concerns were that there was a project going on where purported asbestos-containing rock was being blasted where we had no knowledge that the project was taking place, where we had no knowledge of the precautions, if any, that were implemented, where we had no knowledge of what monitoring, if any, to ensure the safety of surrounding residents was in place or whether that program was adequate and, you know, to my knowledge the local officials in the town had no knowledge of that and that there was no strategy clearly developed ahead of time that, hey, this is an operation that's going to generate concern where there was an agreed upon game plan by the parties who had an interest in it because it is a relatively unique situation to this area. Those were my concerns.

page 45-46

Q. At the time of this [Jersey Journal] article, April 12th, did you believe that Stevens was doing everything that it needed to do to monitor the asbestos?

A. No, not necessarily, no.

Q. Can you explain that?

A. I'm not certain that the monitoring that was being done and where it was being done was an accurate representation of site-wide conditions. I'm not certain whether local officials were fully aware of the project and on the same page with what needed to be done out there and how closely it needed to be monitored. I'm not certain that adequate amounts of wetting alone would ever be sufficient for this type of blasting. Activities concerning wetting, you're wetting the surface, and when you're blasting you're blasting deeper materials. That's basically it.

Q. Well, are you aware of any requirement that air monitoring be done at a site like this?

A. No. As I said, though, I feel it was a loophole. That it's not required.

page 49-50

Q. What were your thoughts when you viewed the site regarding the activities taking place there?

A. It was a nightmare.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. It was a massive project involving the blasting of large amounts of suspected asbestos-containing material. It was basically a massive construction site with a lot of material being moved with -- I don't think the asbestos control efforts were a, you know, it's not like it was a trailer of health and safety people on-site when I was there and here's what we're doing and we're overseeing the water. You know, it was, I believe, the first day I went there they weren't actively blasting. I believe it had stopped at that point, but, you know, there was one hose on-site and, you know, all kinds of questions. Who's overseeing this? You know, this is a construction project with construction people doing it and it wasn't really -- I didn't have a sense that they were under the tight rein of anyone.

page 51

Q. Did you determine at any time whether you felt that the construction activities taking place were a health hazard?

A. I mean I consulted with the Health Department on it and I certainly expressed my concerns of the potential for inhalation of asbestos, that the potential for inhalation of asbestos existed and that that's not a good thing, put it that way.

Q. Well, did you have concerns for the public at large or are you talking about people at the construction site?

A. No, I had concerns for both the public at large and for the people at the construction site.

page 55

Q. Well, what was the concern that you did have?

A. That there was clearly asbestos in the rock that was being blasted. . . . And there clearly was the potential for release of asbestos from the rock. I mean -- and though we have to have some standards to go by, the standards are not an absolute that there's no hazard from exposure to asbestos. You know, there's -- I don't think there's anyone in the field other than people in the asbestos industry who would say that, well, you know, it's okay that you're exposed to asbestos. The standards are sort of a necessity and that we do work with asbestos in certain circumstances, but that's it. You know, so I was still concerned that there was the potential for asbestos emissions and asbestos in the dust.

Q. And that was based on sample 41806 which showed less than one percent trace asbestos in the dust?

A. As well as 41801 which showed 50 percent asbestos in layers of the rock and 41804 which found 65 percent. That was it, yeah.

Q. Well, why would you have a concern based on the presence of asbestos in the rock veins if it wasn't showing up in the dust?

A. Because it was being pulverized during blasting and that was by no means a comprehensive sampling of anything that ever came off the site or would potentially come off the site. It was a quick look to see what was going on.

page 57

Q. After reviewing this report did you determine that there was a health hazard?

A. I determined that the concern regarding asbestos, the presence of asbestos at the site, was valid and a concern regarding potential emissions of asbestos were valid.

p. 77 -- Examination of Mr. Garetano by Mr. Ira Karasick, Esq. representing the defendants

Q. Would you agree that a person who contacted the public health officials, and I refer either to your agency or to local public health agency for generally public health issues, and informed them of this Stevens construction project and blasting would be acting in the public interest?

A. Yes.