Financial analyst testifies about Grace's concerns

The environmental case against W.R. Grace & Co. and five executives entered its fourth week on Monday.

Grace senior financial analyst James Becker testified that the company worried it would have to change the way ore from Libby was processed – an ordeal that would have made the business unprofitable, he said.

“W.R. Grace is a very financially run company,” Becker said. “Everything is done by the numbers. Every purchase must be justified, and it must show how it could help make money.”

A Grace employee from 1976-80, Becker was a member of the Zonolite Strategic Taskforce, a group that dealt with various problems the company was facing. At each meeting, Becker took notes on what was discussed.

Looking at a copy of his meeting notes, government attorney Kris A. McLean asked Becker to read the names of people it had been sent to. One name was Jack W. Wolter, a defendant in the case.

During his time as analyst, Becker was charged with looking into the viability of the Zonolite Co. – a division of Grace – given a variety of hypothetical situations.

According to Becker, one of the biggest problems facing the company was tighter asbestos regulations that would force the company to label their products as hazardous.

“This was one of the major problems facing Zonolite,” he said. “If the products were labeled as containing asbestos they were worried that nobody would buy them.”

Becker said that many of the hypothetical scenarios pointed to decreasing business for Zonolite. Under the heading of “unfortunate outside events,” Becker’s report cites bad publicity, increased regulation and possible worker lawsuits all leading to a decline in sales and possible criminal actions against Grace.

Such reports inspired testing conducted by Grace at the site of various large consumers of its vermiculite.

Lead attorney David M. Bernick objected several times during Becker’s testimony, making it clear that he wanted the jury to consider the exhibits strictly as business documents considering theoretical outcomes, not evidence of any asbestos releases.

Also on Monday, the defense arguing that federal toxicologist Dr. Aubrey Miller misled the jury and distorted evidence.

Bernick and Thomas Frongillo, a defense attorney for Robert Bettacchi, attempted to demonstrate to the jury that Miller had misconstrued reality by showing only the most contaminated air samples and excluding information based on his definition of asbestos.

In his re-cross examination of Miller, Bernick referred to a chart that showed the results of air tests done in Libby. The tests showed likely asbestos exposure risk of doing different activities, such as mowing the lawn or raking leaves. More than 90 percent of the samples had very low concentrations of asbestos, Bernick said.

But those were not the samples Miller had presented to the jury, Bernick said. In fact, Bernick said, Miller’s testimony focused on just one of nearly 100 samples, choosing one that showed high concentration levels.