Document YraVGre6V6NY1dM1J9Dj80BNV

LESTER AND SHERRICE BARRETT VS. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, ET AL. NO. B-150,698 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 60TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEPOSITION OF OTTO WONG Sc.D., F.A.C.E. On October 8, 1997, the oral deposition of the Witness in the above-styled cause was taken at the instance of the Plaintiffs at the Airport Hilton Hotel in San Francisco, California, pursuant to Stipulations of Counsel contained herein. 1 Those persons present were as follows: 2 MR. J. KEITH HYDE 3 MR. JAMES E. WIMBERLEY Provost * Umphrey, L.L.P. 4 490 Park Street Beaumont, Texas 77704 5 Counsel for Plaintiffs, 6 LESTER AND SHERRICE BARRETT 7 MR. KEVIN L. COLBERT 8 Gardere Wynne Sewell & Riggs, L.L.P. 333 Clay Avenue, Suite 800 9 Houston, Texas 77002-4086 10 Counsel for Defendants, MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, ET AL. 11 12 MR. DAVID S. SMITH, CSR 13 Charlotte Smith Reporting, Inc. 3730 Kirby Drive, Suite 909 14 Houston, Texas 77098 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEAUMONT, TX HOUSTON. TX (409)839-1407 (713)5235400 3 1 E X A M I N A T I-O N I N D E X 2 DEPOSITION OF OTTO WONG, Sc.D., F.A.C.E. 3 October 8, 1997 4 5 Pacre 6 EXAMINATION BY MR. HYDE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24 25 BEAUMONT, TX HOUSTON. T% (1091 a394107 (713) 523-5100 1we0A0RT9o 4 1EXHIBITSINDEX 2 DEPOSITION OF OTTO WONG, Sc.D., F.A.C.E. 3 October 8, 1997 4 5 Exhibit No. Description Page 6 7 1 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF 7 ORAL DEPOSITION 8 2 Folder provided by Witness bearing 8 9 label "Barrett v. Mobil 655 Gardere Wynne Kevin Colbert" 10 3 July 14, 1997, letter to Marise Burger 9 11 from Gerhard K. Raabe along with paper entitled "An Updated Mortality Study of 12 Workers at a Petroleum Refinery in Beaumont, Texas" 13 3a Document entitled "An Updated Mortality 9 14 Study of Workers at the Beaumont, Texas Refinery, 1945-1987" 15 3b Document entitled "AN EPIDEMIOLOGIC 9 16 ANALYSIS OF THE MORTALITY EXPERIENCE OF MOBIL OIL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES AT THE 17 BEAUMONT, TEXAS, REFINERY" 18 4 Folder provided by the Witness labeled 8 "REFERENCES" containing reference 19 materials 20 5 September 12, 1997, letter to Otto 43 Wong from Betty Bourbon enclosing 21 materials for review 22 6 Articles from October 1, 1992, issue 47 of Cancer Research 23 7 Journal article entitled "NON-HODGKIN'S 76 24 LYMPHOMA: CASE CONTROL EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY IN YORKSHIRE" 25 BEAUMONT. TX HOUSTON, TX (408)839-4407 (713) 523-5400 5 1 8 Document entitled "STATEMENT SUBMITTED 77 TO THE OSHA BENZENE HEARING by Otto 2 Wong, Sc.D., F.A.C.E.'1 3 9 Document entitled "OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY 84 AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION INFORMAL 4 PUBLIC HEARING, OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO BENZENE, Wednesday, April 2, 1986" 5 10 June 4, 1979, letter to D.G. Servadi, 111 6 Manufacturing Chemists Association, from Paul R. Chaney; re: "BENZENE 7 EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDY," with attachment 8 11 Journal article from Journal of the 126 National Cancer Institute, July 16, 9. 1997, entitled "Benzene and the Dose-Related Incidence of Hematologic 10 Neoplasms in China" 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEAUMONT, TX HOUSTON, T% (409) 83i-1407 (713)5235400 1NC0Pv0a.7f0 6 1 MR. HYDE: Same stipulations as 2 yesterday? 3 MR. COLBERT: Yes. 4 5 OTTO WONG Sc.D., F.A.C.E. 6 having been duly sworn, testified as follows, to-wit: 7 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. HYDE: 9 Q Good morning. Would you please state your 10 name. 11 A Otto Wong. 12 Q What is your home address? 13 A 20 Santa Felicia Court. S-a-n-t-a 14 F-e-1-i-c-i-a, Court; Burlingame, 15 B-u-r-l-i-n-g-a-m-e, California 94010. 16 Q Your home telephone number? 17 A 650-572-1888. 18 Q And what is your business address? 19 A 181 Second Avenue, Suite 628 San Mateo, 20 S-a-n space M-a-t-e-o, California 94401 21 Q What is your business telephone number? 22 A 650-347-7898. 23 Q You are employed by Applied Health 24 Sciences, Inc.; is that correct? 25 A Yes. 7 1 Q What is your position with that company? 2 A Basically I own the company. 3 Q You are president and chief epidemiologist; 4 is that correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q How many employees work for Applied Health 7 Sciences, Inc.? 8 A I am the only full-time employee there. 9 Q Dr. Wong, what is your age? 10 A Do I have to answer that? 11 Q Yes. I'm just curious. 12 A Almost 50. Not quite. I cannot ask you 13 questions, right? 14 MR. HYDE: Mark that as No. 1. 15 (WHEREUPON, WONG EXHIBIT NO. 1 16 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION 17 PURPOSES. SAME WILL BE FOUND IN AN 18 EXHIBIT VOLUME ATTENDANT TO THIS 19 DEPOSITION.) 20 (By Mr. Hyde) 21 Q Dr. Wong, did you have an opportunity to 22 review your deposition Notice? 23 A Yes, I have. 24 Q I see that you have brought with you two 25 boxes of documents; is that correct? 8 1 A Yes. 2 Q In front of you there are two folders that 3 contain the principal documents upon which you will 4 base your opinions in this matter; is that true? 5 A Well, I think a better way to describe them 6 is the two folders in front of me consist of my 7 so-called project file as well as scientific 8 documents and reports that I relied on in this case. 9 The rest of the materials in the two boxes are 10 materials provided to me by the attorneys. 11 Q What we'll do is we are going to mark the 12 documents in those two folders right there not 13 individually but more in groups. The Court Reporter 14 will return the originals back to you; and we will 15 use the copies as exhibits, okay? 16 A That would be fine for me. 17 MR. HYDE: Why don't we take one 18 second and let the Court Reporter just 19 mark this folder as 1 and so forth and 20 so on. We'll mark those probably as 21 Exhibit 4 and then if we need to mark 22 A, B, and C, we'll do that later. 23 Let's go off the record. 24 (WHEREUPON, WONG EXHIBIT NOS. 2, 25 3, AND 4 WERE MARKED FOR 9 1 IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES. SAME WILL BE 2 FOUND IN AN EXHIBIT VOLUME ATTENDANT 3 TO THIS DEPOSITION.) 4 (By Mr. Hyde) 5 Q Dr. Wong, would you please identify the 6 documents contained in the folder which has been 7 marked as Wong Exhibit No. 2. 8 A Okay. That is my so-called project folder. 9 That would include correspondence, a copy of my CV, 10 and so on. 11 Q Would you identify the documents which have 12 been marked as Exhibit 3. 13 A In Exhibit 3 I have three reports, and they 14 are reports of the Mobil Beaumont refinery. 15 MR. HYDE: Why don't we re-mark 16 these individually as 3, 3A, and 3B. 17 (WHEREUPON, WONG EXHIBIT NOS. 3, 18 3A, AND 3B WERE MARKED FOR 19 IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES. SAME WILL BE 20 FOUND IN AN EXHIBIT VOLUME ATTENDANT 21 TO THIS DEPOSITION.) 22 (By Mr. Hyde) 23 Q We have modified our exhibit marking 24 technique so that now Exhibit 3 is the first document 25 in your pile of three documents. Would you identify 10 1 the document which has been marked as Exhibit 3. 2 A 3 is the final revised manuscript of our 3 paper on the Beaumont refinery that we have submitted 4 to the American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 5 Q What is the date of that document, 6 Dr. Wong? 7 A July 14, 1997. 8 Q Would you identify the document which has 9 been marked as Exhibit 3A. 10 A 3A is a report on the same study - a Mobil 11 internal report dated December 5th, 1994. 12 Q Would you identify the document which has 13 been marked as Exhibit 3B. 14 A 3B is the report for the same refinery," but 15 based on earlier data; and the date of the report is 16 April 10th, 1994. 17 Q The documents marked as 3, 3A, and 3B are 18 all documents that in part form the basis of your 19 opinions in this lawsuit; is that correct? 20 A Part of, yes. 21 Q Would you identify in a general nature the 22 documents which are contained in Exhibit 4, not 23 individually but just generally speaking. 24 A These are the scientific studies that I 25 have reviewed, and I'm going to rely on them for this 11 1 case. And basically they address the issue of the 2 relationship between exposure to benzene and 3 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as well as exposure to 4 butadiene and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. 5 Q Are there any other documents other than 6 the references in Exhibit 4 and the three studies 7 which have been marked 3, 3A, and 3B on which you 8 base your opinions in this lawsuit? Are there any 9 specific documents? 10 A These would be the specific documents; but 11 then if I'm asked in question, for example, on 12 general concepts of epidemiology, I may have to 13 answer you and, you know, refer to a textbook or 14 something. But as far as my opinions are concerned, 15 at this point, yes, these are the documents. 16 Q You have had an opportunity to look at your 17 Notice, Exhibit 1; and you have brought all the . 18 documents that are responsive to the Subpoena Duces 19 Tecum; is that correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Dr. Wong, if I ask you a question that you 22 don't understand, will you tell me that so I can 23 rephrase my question? 24 A I will. 25 Q If at any time you'd like to take a break 12 1 for whatever reason, we will take a break. Is that 2 agreeable to you? 3 A Sure. 4 Q Do you understand that for each question 5 that I ask you that the answer that you give you are 6 under oath to tell the truth? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Dr. Wong, what did you do to prepare 9 yourself for today's deposition? 10 A You mean within the last couple of days or -11 Q Yes, sir. 12 A --- do you mean the last couple of months? 13 Q Let's start with the last few days. 14 A Basically I organize all the papers that I 15 bring with me - the scientific documents. I went 16 back and review some of the case material, some of 17 the basic facts of the case; and also I went back and 18 refreshed my memory on some of my own studies. I'm 19 sure you will ask some questions on things that I 20 have done 10, 20 years ago; so, I don't want you 21 to -- Basically I just want to get myself, you know, 22 familiar with the documents. Well, also, I have a 23 meeting with Kevin this morning. 24 Q When were you first contacted to be an 25 expert witness in this lawsuit involving Mr. Barrett? 13 1 A Several months ago. Let me give you the 2 precise date. Is probably sometime either early 3 August 1997 or late July because the earliest 4 correspondence I have in my file is dated 5 August 13th. We have -- I think I have phone 6 conversation with Kevin before that, and subsequently 7 he send me some materials to read. 8 Q What did he tell you about the nature of 9 this lawsuit when he first contacted you? 10 A Basically he gave me some facts of the 11 case, you know, the disease or the chemicals of 12 interest and so on. 13 Q Did any other lawyers contact you other 14 than Mr. Colbert relative to this lawsuit? 15 A Subsequently Richard Faulk also talked to 16 me. 17 Q Did either Mr. Faulk or Mr. Colbert come 18 out to San Francisco concerning this case? 19 A No, but last week I had a meeting with them 20 in Houston. 21 Q Who else was present in that meeting other 22 than you, Mr. Colbert, and Mr. Faulk? 23 A No one. 24 Q The meeting occurred down at the law 25 offices where Mr. Colbert and Mr. Faulk work; is that 14 1 correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q How long did you-all meet? 4 A We started a little bit after 9:00 o'clock; 5 and-I think we finished our meeting a little bit 6 after noon - noontime. 7 Q Have you reviewed any of your prior 8 depositions or testimony in preparation for today's 9 deposition? 10 A No, I have not. 11 Q I think you indicated that you had some of 12 the medical records of Mr. Barrett. They were 13 provided to you; is that correct? 14 A Not provided by Barrett, but -- I think if 15 question is -16 Q Let me rephrase it. 17 You have had an opportunity to review 18 Mr. Barrett's medical records; is that correct? 19 A Yes, I have. 20 Q What is your understanding of the type of 21 cancer that Mr. Barrett has? 22 A The diagnosis is in a general category of 23 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but also more specifically is 24 a gastric lymphoma. 25 Q As we sit here today you have no quarrel 15 1 with that diagnosis, correct? 2 A That is not my area of expertise. I would 3 just have to accept that. 4 Q What did the lawyers for Mobil ask you to 5 do with respect to this lawsuit? 6 A When you say, "lawyers for Mobil," you mean 7 Mr. Colbert and Mr. Faulk? 8 Q Yes, sir. 9 A Basically they asked me to look at the 10 scientific literature to determine whether there is a 11 relationship - a causal relationship between exposure 12 to benzene and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or whether 13 there is a relationship between exposure to butadiene 14 and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. 15 Q Have you provided them with any type of 16 report in this lawsuit? 17 A Yes, I have. 18 Q May I see a copy of the report, please? 19 A (Tendering) 20 Q When did you complete the report in this 21 lawsuit? (Tendering) 22 A (Reviewing document) The date October 1st, 23 1997. 24 Q Prior to your completing your report, did 25 you have a draft of that report? 16 1 A Yes, I had. 2 Q And did you discuss your draft report with 3 either Mr. Colbert or Mr. Faulk? 4 A Yes, we did. 5 Q Did they suggest any changes to your draft 6 report? 7 A The only changes that we made was to fit 8 into what you call a legal format. The first couple 9 of paragraphs, you know, all this legal stuff - that 10 was based on their suggestions. 11 Q Any other changes to the body or the 12 conclusions in your report? 13 A No. 14 Q Dr. Wong, how many hours have you spent 15 working on this matter, this lawsuit, as an expert? 16 A In August I probably spend two or three 17 days reviewing the materials that they sent me. In 18 September, again I probably spent a couple of days 19 reviewing materials that they send me and also 20 reviewing some scientific papers and so on. Plus, 21 also, I went down to Houston in late September. 22 Q So, it would be another two days? 23 A Yeah, probably two days. 24 Q And then how about in October? How many 25 days did you spend in October? 17 1 A October I would say two or three days 2 again. 3 Q So, would it be fair to say - and I've kind 4 of added this up - that you have spent approximately 5 8 to 11 days working on this case? 6 A Probably in that range. 7 Q From a day standpoint, are you typically 8 talking 8 hours per day; or are you talking more than 9' that or less than that? 10 A The equivalent of 8 hours, yes. 11 Q As we sit here today, your time in this 12 lawsuit excluding today is somewhere between 64 and 13 88 hours. Does that sound about right? 14 A Probably so, yeah. 15 Q Now, when you are performing research he 16 investigating facts associated with a lawsuit, what 17 is your customary charge? 18 A I'm not sure I understand you. 19 Q What do you charge the lawyers who 20 represent Mobil for your time during the research 21 phase of your work in a lawsuit? 22 A "Research phase" meaning reading the 23 background materials, reading papers, and so on? 24 Q Yes? 25 A 380 an hour. 18 1 Q What do you charge for the time when you 2 are giving testimony either in deposition or at 3 trial? 4 A The same. 5 Q Have you had an opportunity to speak with 6 any of the other witnesses retained by Mobil's 7 lawyers in this lawsuit? 8 A You know that I have an ongoing working 9 relationship with Mobil and their Director of 10 Epidemiology is Dr. Gerry .Raabe; so, I talk to him 11 from time to time. 12 Q Have you had an opportunity to speak with 13 any of the expert witnesses retained by Mobil other 14 than Dr. Gerry Raabe? 15 A No. 16 MR. COLBERT: That's if, in fact, 17 Otto understands who Mobil has 18 retained in this case. 19 MR. HYDE: Right. 20 (By Mr. Hyde) 21 Q Now, my understanding is that you have had 22 an ongoing relationship with Mobil for 12, 15 years. 23 Is that about right? Or has it been longer? 24 A Ongoing working relationship with Mobil? 25 Q Yes. And let me rephrase it. I don't mean 19 1 to insinuate anything else. 2 It is my understanding that you, Dr. Wong, 3 have had an ongoing working relationship with Mobil 4 for 12 to 15 years or longer. Is that correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q I take it that you have had an opportunity 7 to review Dr. Raabe's deposition that we took a week 8 or so ago in Virginia; is that correct? 9 A Yes. I enjoyed reading that. 10 MR. COLBERT: I want to ask which 11 parts he liked the best. 12 MR. HYDE: No telling. 13 THE WITNESS: I'm sure we will 14 get to the details later on today 15 around 4:00 o'clock when you're trying 16 to get out of here and go back to the 17 airport. 18 (By Mr. Hyde) 19 Q Have you ever been a member of the American 20 Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists? 21 A No. 22 Q Have you ever had an opportunity to consult 23 with the American Conference of Governmental 24 Industrial Hygienists - the organization? 25 A Yeah, when you say, "consult," I'm not sure 20 1 I understand what you mean by that. 2 Q Work for them as an expert or as a 3 consultant. 4 A No. 5 Q Have you ever written any articles for the 6 publication published by the American Conference of 7 Governmental Industrial Hygienists? I believe it's 8 Applied Industrial Hygiene. Have you ever written 9 any articles in that journal? 10 A I don't even know that they have a journal. 11 Q Now, you have in one capacity or another 12 been working with the API off and on for 20 or so 13 years. Is that about right? 14 A I'm not that old. I think I started 15 working on some API projects in the early Eighties, 16 and the last work that I had with the API was back in 17 1993 or 1994. I haven't worked for them in a while. 18 Q When you were with Tabershaw, did you not 19 have some projects with -20 A Yes, that's why I -21 Q --- the API? 22 A Yes. That's why I refer to early Eighties. 23 Q Is it fair to say you have worked on 24 several epidemiological projects with the American 25 Petroleum Institute; is that correct? 21 1 A Yes. 2 Q The last one was the American Petroleum 3 Institute study involving transportation or 4 distribution work; is that correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q They retained you to conduct the study; is 7 that correct - the API? 8 A Yeah, actually the project had two 9 components. The epidemiology component - I was in 10 charge of that; and there was another component 11 called the industrial hygiene or exposure assessment 12 component. That component was headed by Professor 13 Tom Smith at Harvard University. 14 Q Approximately how much in round numbers did 15 you charge the API for your work on the last study 16 that you conducted? 17 A I don't recall the exact number. We 18 started that project -- We must have started that in 19 the mid-Eighties. We started a feasibility study 20 first to find out whether a study can be done at all, 21 whether the study is feasible at all. That went on 22 for about a year. Then after that we submit a 23 proposal to do the cohort study, which took must be 24 five or six years. Then after that was concluded we 25 did a nested case control study for another couple of 22 1 years. I just don't recall all the numbers. 2 Q We are talking in the general range of 2 3 to 300,000 at least, aren't we, for that study - your 4 part? 5 A Oh, I think more than that. 6 Q You also have worked through the years for 7 the Chemical Manufacturers Association as a 8 consultant or a researcher? 9 A Yes. 10 Q One of the studies that you conducted was a 11 benzene epidemiological study of certain Chemical 12 Manufacturers Association member companies' plants; 13 is that correct? 14 A Right. That was probably in the early. 15 1980's. 16 Q At that time I think you were working for a 17 different company - is that correct - when you 18 performed the work for the Chemical Manufacturers 19 Association? 20 A The project started when I was working for 21 Dr. Tabershaw back in Washington, D.C.; and 22 subsequently I move out to California and worked for 23 a company called in Environmental Health Associates 24 and the benzene project follow me to California. So, 25 in essence the project started at Tabershaw, but I 23 1 finished the project at Environmental Health 2 Associates. 3 Q For the CMA benzene project, you were the 4 chief researcher, correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q The CMA paid Environmental Health 7 Associates, again, several hundred thousand dollars, 8 correct? 9' A It may not be that much. 10 Q If you had to give a range, what are you 11 talking about? 150- to 300-? Would that be a fair 12 estimate? 13 A Probably around 100-, because we had 14 already done some work before the project came to 15 Environmental Health Associates. 16 Q Now, I know that you have had this ongoing 17 relationship with Mobil and I think Dr. Raabe . 18 testified that on an annual basis he typically, 19 through Mobil, compensates you approximately $30,000 20 a year. Does that sound about right? 21 A Maybe less. I think he exaggerate things a 22 little bit. 23 Q That makes two of us. 24 MR. COLBERT: I object to 25 sidebar. 24 1 (By Mr. Hyde) 2 Q Would 20- to 30,000 be an appropriate range 3 as it relates to your work with Mobil over the last 4 number of years? 5 A I think it goes up and down a little bit, 6 but within the last five or six years I really did 7 not have any major project with Mobil. So, most of 8 the time I would be just doing some consulting work 9 or review a paper for them, make some suggestions for 10 the analysis and so on. So, that kind of activities 11 did not add up to a lot of hours; so, I would say no 12 more than 30 percent and much lower than that number. 13 Q Have you consulted with Exxon in your 14 career as an epidemiologist? I'm not talking about 15 you working for Environmental Health Associates or 16 you working for Tabershaw. In your work with Applied 17 Health Sciences have you consulted with Exxon? 18 A Not that I know of. When I say that, 19 certainly I don't have any projects with them. 20 Q That's what I'm -21 A Research projects. 22 Q I'm either referring to a specific research 23 project or some relationship with a company such that 24 they call you and say, "Dr. Wong, we'd like for you 25 to look at this or look at that." 25 1 This is what I'm talking about in this line 2 of questions, okay? 3 A Okay. 4 Q Have you had any business relationship with 5 Texaco over the last ten years? 6 A No. 7 Q Have you had any business relationship with 8 Shell Oil? 9 A I think around ten years ago we might have 10 looked at some data or some old study that Shell had 11 or -12 Q Do you recall if it involved either the 13 Wood River Refinery or the Shell Deer Park refinery? 14 A No. I think it's some kind of agricultural 15 chemical plant. We simply looked at whether the 16 study can be done or not at that time. We didn't do 17 any studies per se. 18 Q Have you had any kind of consulting 19 relationship with Chevron? 20 A Yes, I have. 21 Q Has that been an ongoing relationship over 22 the years? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Typically around how much compensation do 25 you receive on an annual basis from Chevron? 26 1 A Over the last few years one of the larger 2 projects that I did for them was to participate in 3 their Port Arthur refinery update. I think for that 4 year the compensation probably is around - was around 5 10,000 or maybe less; and for the other years, 6 probably less than that. 7 Q I take it that the Chevron employee that 8 you have most contact with would be Will Bailey. 9 A I would say both Will Bailey as well as 10 Ken Satin, S-a-t-i-n. 11 Q Have you had any business relationships as 12 a consultant with Unocal, Union Oil of California? 13 A I can remember one occasion. 14 Q What was the nature of that project? 15 A It's either a year ago or two years ago I 16 was contacted to look at a study on Unocal employees, 17 and the study was done by Dr. Phil Cole's group at 18 University of Alabama. I reviewed the report 19 submitted to Unocal by Dr. Cole's group and also a 20 subsequent publication of the same study; and I think 21 in that publication as well as in the report there 22 was a recommendation to some additional - to do some 23 additional studies and so on. Basically I was asked 24 to look at some of the data and see whether indeed 25 they can do a study. 27 1 Q Approximately what level of compensation 2 did you have or did you receive from Unocal? 3 A oh, maybe two or three thousand dollars. 4 Q Have you had any business relationships 5 with Phillips Petroleum? 6 A No. 7 Q Have you had any business relationships 8 with Atlantic Richfield, or Arco? 9 A No. 10 Q Have you had any business relationships 11 with Monsanto? 12 A No. 13 Q Have you had any business relationships 14 with Dow? 15 A No. 16 - Q Have you had any business relationships 17 with Upjohn? 18 A No. 19 Q Have you had any business relationships 20 with Lyondell Petrochemical? 21 A No. 22 Q Are there any other oil or chemical 23 companies with which you have a consulting 24 relationship at this time as we speak other than 25 Mobil? 28 1 A No. Let me clarify on the Upjohn the 2 issue. Several years ago I did a study on ethylene 3 oxide for an industrial association - the Health 4 Industry Manufacturers Association. I believe Upjohn 5 is a member of that association; so, that may be an 6 indirect kind of working relationship. 7 Q Thank you. 8 Back to my last question. As we sit here 9 today, do you have any continuing, current business 10 , relationships with any oil and chemical companies 11 other than the ones we have already spoken about? 12 A I think basically you named all the 13 companies. 14 Q I asked the Witness yesterday if he had a 15 list of appearances that he's made by way of 16 deposition or trial testimony. He informed me that 17 it was Federal Rule 26. Do you have such a document 18 prepared whereby you have on a list your appearances 19 in lawsuits either by way of deposition testimony or 20 trial testimony? 21 A No, I don't. 22 Q Now, I know that you were deposed in a case 23 that I worked on involving five City Service 24 employees who had non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and I took 25 your deposition originally in San Francisco in 29 1 approximately 1991. Do you recall that in a general 2 sense? 3 A I remember seeing you someplace. I don't 4 remember 1991 or the specific case. 5 Q Approximately how many times have you given 6 your deposition? 7 A I don't keep track of that. I would say on 8 the average it's probably about anywhere between five 91 to eight or ten a year. It depends. It fluctuates 10 from year to year. 11 Q You have been testifying as an expert 12 witness since sometime in the late 1980's, 13 approximately 1988 or '89 or somewhere around then; 14 is that correct? 15 A I probably started around mid-1980's, and 16 in those early years I think the average was probably 17 lower. . 18 Q Two to three times? 19 A Probably two or three times, yes. 20 Q Per year. It would probably be fair to say 21 that you have been deposed somewhere in the range of 22 60 times; is that a fair estimate? 23 A Yeah. 24 Q How many times have you given trial 25 testimony? 30 1 A You mean testify in court? 2 Q In court, yes, sir. 3 A Again, I don't keep track of the number; 4 but sometimes, for a year, sometimes is once or twice 5 a year. That's the best estimate I can give to you. 6 Q Would it be fair to say that you have given 7 trial testimony somewhere between 10 and 20 times? 8 A reasonable estimate. 9 Q How many times have you been retained by 10 Mr. Colbert or Mr. Faulk with respect to a lawsuit 11 either when they worked for Gardere & Wynne or part 12 of Gardere & Wynne or part of the Akin, Gump, law 13 firm or in any other capacity as lawyers? 14 A I would think maybe two or three times. 15 Actually I can only recall one other occasion; but it 16 seems that I have known those two guys for a long, 17 long time. So, I would say maybe two or three times. 18 Q What was. the last case in which you gave 19 testimony in a matter in which Mr. Faulk or 20 Mr. Colbert represented a defendant in a lawsuit? 21 A I don't think I did. I just don't recall 22 any. 23 Q I believe you have testified as an expert 24 on behalf of lawyers who represented most, if not 25 all, of the oil companies, correct, who are 31 1 defendants in lawsuits. Is that a fair statement? 2 A Can I have that question back again? 3 Q Yes, sir. In your work as an expert 4 witness you, over the years, have testified or been 5 called to testify for lawyers who represent most of 6 the oil companies and chemical companies that are 7 major oil and chemical companies. That's a fair 8 statement, isn't it? 9 A I would think it's a fair statement because 10 most of my work is in occupational epidemiology, and 11 I have done a lot of studies on petroleum workers. 12 Q In other words, though you may not know all 13 the defendants in a lawsuit, you have worked on cases 14 where Shell, Chevron, Unocal, and others were 15 defendants; but yet you might be just being paid by 16 the lawyers who represent those oil and chemical 17 company defendants? That's true, isn't it, from what 18 you know? 19 A I'm not sure I understand the question. 20 Q Okay. 21 A I don't know all the defendants most of the 22 time, and I don't know all the people who retained 23 me. I usually work with one group or at least a 24 couple of people. 25 Q Typically you understand that those lawyers 32 1 represent various oil companies who are defendants in 2 a lawsuit; is that correct? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Now, have you ever testified on behalf of 5 attorneys who represent injured workers? 6 A I work for plaintiff attorneys on a number 7 of occasions. I guess one case you can call -- I 8 don't know whether you call it injured worker or not, 9 but the plaintiff was exposed to some cleaning 10 solvents and got some reaction and I work on that 11 case. 12 Q Would it be fair to say that probably 95 13 percent of your work as an expert witness is on 14 behalf of defendants? 15 A Yeah. I think it's a fair statement. I'm 16 still waiting for you to call me. 17 MR. HYDE: I've got to object to 18 that last part of that. 19 (By Mr. Hyde) 20 Q From a revenue standpoint for your 21 business, is the greater percentage of your revenue 22 generated from being an expert witness as compared to 23 consulting on studies? 24 A No. Absolutely not because when you are 25 talking about working for attorneys, you are talking 33 1 about a very small amount of-time, you know - a few 2 hours here and there. Maybe if you have meetings and 3 depositions, that may go up to a couple of days. But 4 on major projects you are talking about doing a 5 project over several years; so, the budget for 6 research projects is much bigger. 7 Q Let's take 1996, for example. Did a 8 majority of your income come from consulting and 9 epidemiological projects, or did a majority of your 10 income come from consulting with lawyers? 11 A I think I understand your question; but I 12 would prefer you doing epidemiological projects 13 rather than consulting on epidemiological projects 14 because, you know, in those projects -15 Q I can rephrase it that way. Okay. 16 For 1996 did a majority of your revenue 17 come from doing epidemiological projects, or did a 18 majority of your revenue come from consulting with 19 lawyers? 20 A From doing studies. 21 Q In what studies are you currently involved? 22 A I have a major project, both a cohort as 23 well as a nested case control study of workers 24 exposed to man-made mineral fibers. I have a -25 Q Do you have another project? 34 1 A I hope so. I have more than one or two 2 projects 3 Q Do you have another project that's 4 currently being conducted other than the one project 5 dealing with man-made fibers? 6 A Yes. 7 Q What is the other project? 8 A I'm also doing a project for National Stone 9 Association on workers exposed to rock dust silica. 10 That's a huge project. I'm doing a study for the. 11 International Lead and Zinc Research Organization on 12 a project of workers exposed to lead. I'm doing a 13 large cohort study of pulp and paper mill workers. 14 There's still a couple. I can't think of 15 them. I'm doing quite a few studies at this point. 16 Q Okay. Both the cohort study and the nested 17 case control study concerning man-made fibers - who 18 has retained you to perform that study? 19 A I'm doing that for USG. 20 Q United States Gypsum? 21 A Their official name is USG, and I have, 22 known them all the time as 11USG.11 I don't know 23 whether that was their previous name or what. 24 Q So, the manufacturer of the man-made fiber 25 material has retained you to conduct this study; is 35 1 that correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Then the trade association known as the 4 National Stone Association has retained you to do a 5 study on rock dust? 6 A Yes. 7 Q The International Lead and Zinc Research 8 Association, another trade association, has retained 91 you to conduct a study concerning workers' exposure 10 to lead; is that correct? 11 A Yes. 12 .Q Who has retained you to conduct a study on 13 pulp and paper mill workers? 14 A Mead, M-e-a-d. 15 Q The company called Mead? 16 A Yeah, paper product company. 17 Q I think they are a large paper mill and 18 paper products company. Is that right? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Dr. Wong, have you been retained in the 21 last ten years by any union to conduct an 22 epidemiological study of its members? 23 A I don't know whether it falls in the last 24 ten years or not. We did the study over a number of 25 years. It may overlap the ten years you talk about. 36 1 I did a study for -- I don't know exactly how you 2 call it. I guess it's a trust, and it consists of 3 both the management as well as the union. We did a 4 study on heavy equipment operators, and we did a 5 study on the union members. 6 Q Was that at General Motors or Ford or 7 somebody like that? Do you recall? 8 A No. The cohort consisted of members 9 belonging to this heavy equipment operators union. 10 Q Was it the union-that retained you as the 11 consultant on the epidemiological study, or was it 12 management and the union? 13 A I think it's some kind of joint activity 14 between the management and the union. 15 Q Have you ever been retained by a union 16 itself to conduct an epidemiologic study? 17 A No. 18 Q Dr. Wong, do you consider yourself to be a 19 toxicologist? 20 A No, but I took a graduate class on 21 toxicology I think -- Let me see how many years ago. 22 I make a mistake of going back to school and compete 23 with the 20-year-olds in 1992. I took a 24 environmental toxicology course from University of 25 California. 37 1 Q The bottom line is, though, you don't 2 consider yourself to be a toxicologist by profession, 3 do you? 4 A No. 5 Q Do you consider yourself to be an 6 industrial hygienist by profession? 7 A No, but again, I took a lot of industrial 8 hygiene classes when .I was in graduate school; so, we 9 do have something in common you and I. 10 Q Well, we're both good-looking, right? 11 Well, we're the only two who thought so, I guess. 12 MR. COLBERT: I'm not going to 13 get involved in that discussion. 14 (By Mr. Hyde) 15 Q Dr. Wong, do you consider yourself to be a 16 medical doctor? 17 A No. 18 Q Do you have any specific training in the 19 fields of oncology or hematology? 20 A No. 21 Q Over the years have you consulted with 22 hematologists and oncologists concerning your work as 23 an epidemiologist? 24 A Oh, I'm sure from time to time we have 25 talked about diagnosis and classification, you know, 38 1 in a very general sense. 2 Q Can you identify any of the hematologists 3 or oncologists who over the years you have worked 4 with as it concerns classification of hematological 5 disorders or malignancies? 6 A There is someone in town that I talk to 7 once in a while. His name is Ralph Wallenstein. 8 Q Any others? 9 A That's a name that I can recall. 10 Q Dr. Wong, from a practical standpoint you 11 have no expertise in maintenance or operations in 12 refinery and chemical plants; is that correct? 13 A No. 14 Q Well, let me ask it this way, because we 15 have a double-negative working there. 16 Do you have any expertise in refinery and 17 chemical plant operations and maintenance? 18 A I don't think so. 19 Q Are you an engineer? 20 A No. 21 Q Are you a chemist? 22 A No. 23 Q Would it be fair to say that a majority of 24 the cases in which you've been retained as an expert 25 witness have involved exposure to benzene and 39 1 allegations of illness from exposure to benzene? 2 A I don't know whether it would qualify as a 3 majority or what; but I would say, because of my 4 previous work, it's very natural for people to 5 contact me regarding benzene exposure. 6 MR. HYDE: I probably need to 7 object to some portion of that answer. 8 .(By Mr. Hyde) 9 Q Have you been retained as an expert witness 10 in any cases involving asbestos exposure and diseases 11 associated with asbestos? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Have you been retained as an expert in any 14 cases involving exposure to pesticides and diseases 15 or conditions alleged to have been caused by 16 pesticides? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Now, when you testify in cases involving 19 asbestos I, again, believe that you have testified on 20 behalf of asbestos manufacturers; is that correct? 21 A Most of the cases that I testify in 22 relation to asbestos exposure were what we call 23 friction product cases; so, the defendants that I 24 worked for are not asbestos manufacturers per se, but 25 basically they make friction products. 40 1 Q In other words, in the type of asbestos 2 cases that you testify in, those involve 3 manufacturers who manufacture a product that 4 contained asbestos? 5 A That's true. 6 Q That's a majority of those types of 7 asbestos cases, correct? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Now, for cases involving exposure to 10 , pesticides, you have testified on behalf of the 11 manufacturers of the pesticides; is that correct? 12 A Actually the case that I can think of now I 13 worked for a railroad company. I assume they use 14 pesticide, but they don't make pesticide. 15 Q The application of a pesticide? 16 A Exactly. 17 Q Have you ever testified on behalf of the 18 manufacturers of pesticides? 19 A Yes, I have. I'm thinking of working for 20 Dow Chemical and Shell in connection with DBCP down 21 in Fresno County. 22 Q Was that not the chemical that was alleged 23 to cause sterility in men? Is that one? 24 A Yeah, the reproductive effect is pretty 25 clear; but the study down in Fresno was on cancer and 41 1 not on reproductive effect. 2 Q That was for Shell and Dow, correct? 3 A The study that I did in Fresno, the 4 epidemiologic study itself was sponsored by Shell. 5 After that I had testified, I guess, for both of 6 them. They must jointly retain me. Sometimes they 7 do, sometimes they don't. I don't keep track of 8 that. 9 Q Does exposure to sufficient quantities of 10 benzene cause cancer in workers exposed to the 11 benzene? 12 A This is the first question you asked this 13 morning that I have to think a little bit because you 14 use the term "cancer" instead of specifying what kind 15 of cancer. To some extent the answer to your general 16 broad question is yes; but at the same time, I think 17 we need to specify what kind of cancer we are talking 18 about. 19 Q To the general question of does benzene 20 cause cancer with sufficient levels of exposure, you 21 answered "yes." But you would like for me to then 22 break the phrase "cancer" into subcategories; is that 23 correct? 24 A Be more specific because, you know, 25 certainly if you make a statement or you ask me or I 42 1 make the statement saying that chemicals cause 2 cancer, we are right. Nobody can fault that. But 3 that's not very informative. 4 Q You, Dr. Wong, consider benzene to be a 5 human carcinogen, correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q You, Dr. Wong, consider benzene to be a 8 leukemogen? 9 A Yes. I, Dr. Wong, consider benzene as a 10 human leukemogen. . 11 Q Now, specifically with sufficient benzene 12 exposure, benzene causes acute myelogenous leukemia, 13 correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Have you ever testified on behalf of a 16 plaintiff that benzene causes acute myelogenous 17 leukemia? 18 A I'm still waiting for you to call me. 19 MR. HYDE: Off the record. 20 (AT THIS TIME A LUNCH RECESS WAS 21 TAKEN. THEREFORE, AT 12:00 P.M. THE 22 DEPOSITION WAS RECESSED AND AT 12:50 23 RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:) 24 MR. HYDE: Mark this as the next 25 exhibit please 43 1 (WHEREUPON, WONG EXHIBIT N0. 5 2 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION 3 PURPOSES. SAME WILL BE FOUND IN AN 4 EXHIBIT VOLUME ATTENDANT TO THIS 5 DEPOSITION.) 6 (By Mr. Hyde) 7 Q Dr. Wong, in going through your boxes we 8 have identified a group of documents and we've had 9 them marked as Exhibit 5. Would you identify 10 generally what those documents are? 11 A These are scientific articles sent to me by 12 the attorneys. 13 Q What do they deal with? 14 A They deal mostly with gastric lymphoma and 15 its relationship to bacteria. 16 Q Prior to this lawsuit had you ever studied 17 whether or not bacteria is a cause of non-Hodgkin's 18 lymphoma, specifically gastric lymphoma? 19 A I wasn't aware of the specific papers; but 20 in some general reviews of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 21 there is usually some discussion on the viruses and 22 bacteria and so on. 23 Q Also included in Exhibit 5 is 24 Dr. Natelson's report relative to this lawsuit, 25 correct? 44 1 A Yes. 2 Q Have you had an opportunity to speak with 3 Dr. Natelson? 4 A No. 5 Q - Have you had a specific conversation with 6 Dr. Douglas Fowler concerning this lawsuit? 7 A No. 8 Q Before we took the break we were discussing 9 benzene and the carcinogenicity of benzene. Do you 10 recall those questions? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Do you believe a worker has a right to know 13 that benzene is a human carcinogen? 14 A You are asking my personal opinion? 15 Q As a health professional, yes, sir. 16 A I would think so, yes. 17 Q You yourself would want to know if you were 18 exposed to a material that was potentially harmful to 19 you, be it in your water or your food or in the air 20 you breathe, correct? 21 A Well, I mean, as a scientist certainly I 22 would like to know. I like to know the specifics, 23 you know, of what level of exposure, how firm is the 24 conclusion and so on, yes. 25 Q You recognize that benzene causes aplastic 45 1 anemia, correct? 2 A At a very high level, yes. 3 Q You recognize that benzene causes certain 4 blood dyscrasias, correct? 5 A You have to tell me what are you thinking 6 about. 7 Q Well, blood dyscrasias in general. Does 8 benzene cause blood dyscrasias? 9 A Again, if the exposure is high, we can see 10 some, for example, depressed white blood cell counts 11 certainly. 12 Q You recognize that benzene is harmful to 13 the blood and the blood-forming organs, true? 14 A Again, we are referring to the same disease 15 again? 16 Q Yes. 17 A Yes. 18 - Q What is non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 19 A Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is part of the broad 20 category known as hemopoietic cancer. I don't know 21 what else I can tell you. 22 Q It is a malignancy, correct? 23 A Oh, yes. A cancer, yes. 24 Q Does cigarette smoking cause non-Hodgkin's 25 lymphoma? 46 1 A There are some studies reporting an 2 increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among 3 smokers, but I haven't done a comprehensive search on 4 that; so, I cannot give you a definitive answer. 5 Q As we sit here today, do we have any 6 evidence that cigarette smoking is a cause of 7 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 8 A Yes. I said there are some studies 9 reporting an increased risk. 10 Q Well, are you equating increased risk with 11 causation as it relates to cigarette smoking and 12 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 13 A Not completely. In order to say there is a 14 causal relationship, one of the basic requirements is 15 you do have to have an increased risk. But that is 16 just one piece of the whole causation analysis. What 17 I'm trying to say is I know bits and pieces in the 18 overall picture regarding smoking and non-Hodgkin's 19 lymphoma. I have not done a comprehensive analysis. 20 Q As we sit here today; do you have an 21 opinion that Mr. Barrett's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was 22 or was not caused by cigarette smoking? 23 A I cannot say for sure because I have not 24 Nobody has asked me to do any research on that. 25 Based on my general knowledge, I've come across some 47 1 studies reporting an increased risk of non-Hodgkin's 2 lymphoma among smokers; so, certainly there is a 3 possibility, but I cannot say that for sure. 4 Q Okay. So, you recognize that there is a 5 possibility that cigarette smoking may have caused or 6 played a part in causing Mr. Barrett's non-Hodgkin's 7 lymphoma. Is that a fair statement? 8 A I would think so, yes. 91 MR. HYDE: Mark that, please. 10 (WHEREUPON, WONG EXHIBIT NO. 6 11 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION 12 PURPOSES. SAME WILL BE FOUND IN AN 13 EXHIBIT VOLUME ATTENDANT TO THIS 14 DEPOSITION.) 15 (By Mr. Hyde) 16 Q From your documents that you have brought 17 with you here today to the deposition we've taken one 18 stapled group of documents and we've marked them as 19 Exhibit 6. Do you see that? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Contained within Exhibit 6 is an article 22 entitled "Increasing Incidence of Nori-Hodgkin's 23 Lymphoma: Occupational and Environmental Factors," 24 by Neil Pearce and Peter Bethwaite. 25 You are familiar with that study, aren't 48 1 you, Dr. Wong? 2 A I'm actually not. I mean, they sent me 3 this article. 4 Q Who sent you the article? 5 A The attorneys. 6 Q Okay. Let me show you -7 A This is from my box, right? 8 MR. WIMBERLEY: Yes. 9 A So, it's part of my package that they sent 10 me. 11 Q Did you have an opportunity to review these -12 A Not every one of them because I think I 13 should do my own research and not rely on the studies 14 they send me. 15 Q Well, did you do any research in your work 16 in this lawsuit concerning cigarette smoking being a 17 cause of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 18 A No. 19 Q I'll draw your attention to this article 20 "Increasing Incidence of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: 21 Occupational and Environmental Factors;" by Pearce 22 and Bethwaite. The date of that is October 1st, 23 1992. On Page 54995 under "Other Lifestyle Factors" 24 what does it state concerning cigarette smoking? 25 A Give me a couple of minutes to read it. 49 1 Q Yes, sir. 2 A (Reviewing document) Okay. Basically the 3 authors said that they found one study which reported 4 a nonsignificant association, meaning nonsignificant 5 increase, between tobacco use and lymphomas. The 6 reference that they gave here is No. 75 and I was 7 going to look up what that reference is, but the page 8 of reference is not there. I don't know exactly what 9 reference it is. 10 Q The lawyers didn't provide you with the 11 entire article with all the references; but they did 12 provide you with the entire text of the article, 13 correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Now, does it go on to say: "but there was 16 no evidence of a dose-response relationship and most 17 other studies of tobacco and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 18 have found no associationt1? 19 That's a correct reading, isn't it? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Do you have any reason to disagree with 22 that summary based on your own personal knowledge? 23 A Just based on -- As I told you, I did not 24 do a specific analysis or review on the relationship 25 as between non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and smoking for thl5 50 1 case; but over the years, I'm aware of a number of 2 studies which reported an increase and certainly more 3 than one study. So, what I'm trying to say is I 4 don't know how complete that review is. 5 Q It may be complete as far as you know, 6 correct? 7 A No, no, no. It cannot be complete because 8 I'm aware of more than one study. They only 9 reference one study; and I'm aware of more than one 10 already, even though I have not done a systematic 11 search. 12 Q In all of the articles that you have in 13 front of you or in your boxes, can you point me to 14 one study that shows a statistically significant 15 increase in individuals who smoke as it concerns 16 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and specifically indicating 17 that cigarette smoking causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 18 A (Reviewing documents) Okay. Here's one 19 study. 20 Q Would you read me the title of that study. 21 A "Smoking and Risk of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma 22 and Multiple Myeloma.11 23 I can point you to the table. 24 Q Show me the table. 25 A Okay. We are talking -- We are looking at 51 1 Table 1 in the article, and we are looking at a 2 column under "ALL LYMPHOMA." 3 Q Would "ALL LYMPHOMA" not also include 4 Hodgkin's lymphoma? 5 A Not in this paper because in this paper 6 they are specifically talking about non-Hodgkin's 7 lymphoma and multiple myeloma. I agree with you 8 there is some confusion. Sometimes when people say, 9 ))lymphoma)) they mean the overall broad category 10 including Hodgkin's disease as well. I don't think 11 in this case in this paper -12 Q Show me -13 A Anyway I'm trying to point out to you that 14 the relative risk for tobacco user in this study was 15 1.4 and confidence interval is from 1.1 to 1.8; so, 16 statistically speaking it's significant. 17 Q Okay. But the odds ratio of the relative 18 risk was 1.4; is that correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Do you know of any study that states or 21 stands for the proposition that smoking causes 22 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma where the odds ratio or the 23 relative risk or the SMR is greater than 2 and the 24 lower boundary of the confidence interval is greater 25 than 1? 52 1 A I just want to point out this is a 2 different*question than the one you asked before. 3 The one that you asked me before was do I know of any 4 study reporting a specific increase of non-Hodgkin's 5 lymphoma in smokers; and that study we just looked at 6 did exactly that, okay? 7 The question you are asking me now is you 8 put another restriction on the magnitude of the ratio 9 of relative risk. It's a better question. 10 . Q Answer my last question. Do you know of 11 any study that has an odds ratio, a relative risk, or 12 an SMR of greater than 2.0 with a lower level of the 13 confidence interval being greater than 1 that would 14 support any opinion you have concerning cigarette 15 smoking causing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 16 A Whoever is teaching you epidemiology, he or 17 she is doing a pretty good job. 18 Q Thank you. 19 MR. COLBERT: And the Supreme 20 Court of Texas thanks you, also. 21 A (Reviewing documents) There is another 22 study that I have in the pile, but the odds ratio is 23 below 2. 24 Q In the article that you've referred me to 25 concerning smoking and risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 53 1 and multiple myeloma, in the conclusion on Page 54 it 2 states: "In conclusion this case-controlled study of 3 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma revealed small increases in 4 risk associated with cigarette smoking for all 5 lymphoma and larger increases for the subtypes of 6 high-grade and unclassified lymphoma." 7 That's a correct reading, isn't it? 8 A Yes. 9' Q It furthers states:. "Risk for all 10 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma subtypes were elevated for 11 users of cigars or pipes and smokeless tobacco only." 12 Do you know whether or not Mr. Barrett used 13 cigars, pipes, or smokeless tobacco? 14 A I don't know one way or the other. 15 Q Okay, sir. 16 It goes on to say: Thus the findings from 17 this study can be interpreted as confirming the .lack 18 of an association between smoking and multiple 19 myeloma and providing some support for an association 20 between tobacco use and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. That 21 is a correct reading, isn't it? 22 A Yes. 23 Q It does not say smoking causes 24 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, does it? 25 A It -- The authors did not make a firm 54 1 conclusion. What they are saying is there is some 2 indication for that, but based on their study they 3 would not be able to make a very definitive 4 statement. 5 Q Would a relative risk of 1.4 in your mind 6 at least indicate the possibility that smoking may 7 cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 8 A I guess it depends on what your definition 9 of "may" -10 Q Possibly cause. 11 A Possibly? 12 Q Yes. 13 A Again, I mean, I don't understand the 14 definition of "possibly." Let me say this. 15 Q Let's look at it this way. Some things are 16 never possible. Some things are possible. Some 17 things are probable. And some things are definite in 18 life, correct? 19 A You are being philosophical now. 20 Q I am being philosophical, but do you agree 21 with that? 22 A Okay. I agree with you. 23 Q I'm not asking you whether or not a 1.4 24 odds ratio stands for the proposition that cigarette 25 smoking causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma because we have 55 1 already established that what that means to you is 2 that it is a risk factor or an association, correct? 3 A Yes. 4 Q When something is a risk factor or an 5 association, in your mind does that then conclude 6 that there is a possibility that a chemical or a 7 cigarette or an activity may cause an end result such 8 as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 9 A I think your statement is almost 10 100 percent correct. If I were you, I would put it 11 this way. I would say if somebody has that risk 12 factor, that person would have a higher probability 13 of developing the disease compared to people who do 14 not have that risk factor. That is the most proper 15 interpretation of an odds ratio or relative risk. 16 Q That was well put. 17 At sufficient exposures benzene may pose a 18 substantial risk of harm to a worker. Do you agree 19 with that? 20 A Well, I think we already talked about that 21 this morning. If exposure is high enough and you 22 have a sufficient duration of exposure, then benzene 23 exposure can cause acute myeloid leukemia. 24 Q And therefore that would be a significant 25 risk to workers who are exposed to a sufficient dose 56 1 of benzene, correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q You recognize that exposure to benzene 4 causes life-threatening diseases, specifically acute 5 myeloid leukemia? 6 A I mean, again, I guess I assume that you 7 are still talking about -- Although in your last 8 statement you do not have sufficient dose and so on, 9 but I assume we are still going on on that basis. 10 Q With sufficient dose of benzene exposure, 11 you recognize that the diseases caused from benzene 12 exposure are life-threatening? 13 A Yes. Can be, yes. 14 Q Now, have you performed any literature 15 search of historical information available to oil and 16 chemical companies about the health hazards of 17 benzene, specifically when the oil and chemical 18 companies did know that benzene was harmful to 19 workers blood and blood-forming organs? 20 A You are asking me whether I know -21 Q Have you done such a literature search? 22 A To find out when the industry knew? 23 Q Yes, sir. 24 A No. 25 Q Have you ever been provided with any 57 1 historical documents from either the Chemical 2 Manufacturers Association or its predecessor 3 organization or the American Petroleum Institute or 4 any of the oil companies who you have consulted with 5 including Shell and Mobil? 6 A Sometimes I have been provided with 7 research reports. I don't know whether that would 8 fall into your category or not. 9 Q The first instances of benzene poisoning 10 were reported in approximately 1897. Do you know 11 that? 12 A From the historical point of view you are 13 talking about case report of workers exposed to 14 hundreds of thousands PPM of benzene. 15 Q You are aware that in 1897 there was a case 16 report of benzene poisoning that resulted in damage 17 to the blood and blood-forming organs, correct? 18 A At extremely high level, yes. 19 Q And you are familiar with the articles 20 published by Hunter and others in the 1930's 21 concerning health hazards of benzene, correct? 22 A Yes, certainly. 23 Q And you have read the 1948 American 24 Petroleum Institute toxicological review for benzene; 25 is that correct? 58 1 A Actually I have not. 2 Q You have never seen a copy of it? 3 A I don't know whether I have seen a copy or 4 not, but I don't recall seeing it. 5 Q Now, from your work with Mobil and Shell, 6 generally speaking the oil companies have the same 7 general knowledge of epidemiology and toxicology as 8 it relates to benzene from what you have observed, 9 true? 10 A I cannot speak for them. I don't know. 11 Q Well, from what you have observed. Can't 12 you speak to what you observed? 13 A No, because my relationship with Mobil or 14 Shell is strictly on project work. 15 Q Well, with respect to the personnel from 16 Mobil versus the personnel from Shell, have you seen 17 them roughly to be the same or similar; or is one oil 18 company a whole lot smarter than another from what 19 you have seen? 20 A I'm not so sure I want to answer that 21 question. You're going to get me in trouble. One 22 group is smarter than the other? 23 Q Yes. 24 A You expect me to answer the question? 25 Q If you can answer it. 59 1 A I don't know who's smarter. 2 Q Have you had occasion where you're much 3 more impressed with this company as compared to this 4 company with respect to the epidemiological programs 5 between Shell and Mobil, or are they about the same? 6 A I think both Shell and Mobil - they have 7 conducted studies, they have sponsored studies. At 8 least I can talk about refineries. They have 9' conducted studies on all their refinery employees. 10 Q So, for all you know, they are essentially 11 the same technology used at the same two companies, 12 correct? Shell and Mobil? 13 A When you say, "technology," what do you 14 mean? 15 Q Epidemiological technology practices. 16 A I think most people use the same type of 17 data bases and the same kind of follow-up and the 18 same kind of computer program. 19 Q Doctor, were you told how many contract 20 maintenance people typically worked at the Mobil 21 Beaumont refinery on a routine basis during the 22 1980's and 1970's? 23 A No. 24 Q Were you told typically how many contract 25 maintenance workers worked at the Mobil Chemical 60 1 plant, specifically the Olefins & Aromatics plant in 2 Beaumont? 3 A No. 4 Q Do you know what percentage of maintenance 5 workers who worked at either the refinery or the 6 chemical plant at Mobil were contractors versus Mobil 7 employees? Do you know that percentage? 8 A No. 9 Q Doctor, would you recommend that a worker 10 wash their hands with benzene as a health 11 professional? 12 A No. 13 Q Would you recommend that a worker wash 14 their tools and their clothes with benzene? 15 A No. 16 Q As a health professional you believe that 17 those would be unsafe practices in which to engage, 18 correct? 19 A I don't know whether it would be unsafe or 20 not, but I certainly think it's unnecessary. 21 Q It poses a risk that you don't suggest 22 anyone expose themself to, correct? 23 A If there is no need for you to be exposed 24 to something,. why do it? 25 Q You wouldn't recommend that a laboratory 61 1 worker expose him or herself to benzene by cleaning 2 glassware or running tests, correct? 3 A No, I would not recommend it. 4 Q I mean, again, that poses a risk of harm 5 that you would recommend workers not expose 6 themselves to, correct? 7 A It's a slightly different question when you 8 say whether I recommend something or not. Even 9 though I may not think that this is a risk as a 10 result of that, I may not recommend it because it's 11 totally unnecessary. But on the other hand if you 12 ask the question whether I think that there would be 13 a risk as a result of that - health risk - then I 14 have to look at the situation more closely, how often 15 the exposure was, what kind of concentration and so 16 on. It may or may not result in some kind of 17 observable health effect. 18 Q Dr. Wong, have you estimated, projected, 19 calculated Mr. Lester Barrett's exposure to benzene 20 while at Mobil? 21 A No, I have not. 22 Q Do you know that anyone has who is working 23 on behalf of the defendants as experts - the 24 defendant being Mobil? 25 A Dr. Fowler is the industrial hygienist 62 1 working on this case. I suspect that would be his 2 area of expertise. I don't know whether he has done 3 it or not. As I said earlier today, I have not 4 talked to him about this case; so, I don't know where 5 he-is in terms of his work. 6 Q The risk of injury to the hemopoietic 7 system from benzene increases with the level and 8 duration of exposure. Do you agree with that? 9 A I think you are a little bit general now. 10 Q Do you agree with that statement the way I 11 phrased it? 12 A I would almost say no, I would not agree 13 with that statement. I have not seen any 14 dose-response relationship on the general issue, you 15 know - the whole broad category. Now, if you are 16 talking about acute myeloid leukemia, then I would 17 say yes, there is some analysis on that. Even for 18 the leukemia overall there is some analysis on that. 19 Q Leukemia and lymphoma are part of the broad 20 category of hematopoietic malignancies, correct? Is 21 that your understanding? 22 A Yes. I think, you know, if we started on 23 this area, we might as well talk about the 24 International Classification of Disease Code. What 25 you are talking about - the broad category - is from 63 1 200 to 209. That's the 8th-Revision of the ICD Code; 2 and, sure, you know, lymphoma - non-Hodgkin's 3 lymphoma as well as leukemia would be in that broad 4 category. 5 Q Are you a nosologist? 6 A No, I'm not. 7 Q Did you review any of the Death 8 Certificates from the Mobil Refinery as it pertains 9 to Exhibit 3, the epidemiological study of the Mobil 10 Refinery dated July of 1997? 11 A Okay. Now, the question is a little bit -12 Q (Indicating) 13 A Well, the question -- You just pointed to 14 one of the reports, okay? I still have to say the 15 question is a little bit ambiguous and for a very 16 good reason, okay? The whole Beaumont study started 17 in the 1980's. The very first study analysis was 18 done by Dr. Morgan and myself at Environmental Health 19 Associates; so, at that time we were the primary 20 investigator of that project. So, we actually wrote 21 to different state Health Departments to get the 22 Death Certificates. We looked at the Death 23 Certificates and so on. So, to answer your question, 24 yes, we have looked at Death Certificates in that 25 study. 64 1 Q Okay. Have you looked at all Death 2 Certificates that are included in the revised or the 3 updated study concerning the Mobil Refinery, 4 specifically for all deaths referenced in Exhibit 3? 5 A No, I don't think so. 6 Q Did I ask you if you are a nosologist? 7 A Yes, you did; and I said I am not. 8 Q What did you do as it concerns Exhibit 3? 9 What was your role in that study? 10 A You are talking about 3 and not 3A or 3B? 11 3? 12 Q 3. 13 A 3, as you know, is the revised manuscript 14 submitted to the American Journal of Industrial 15 Medicine. The manuscript was derived from an earlier 16 report, which is Exhibit 3A, okay? My role in both 3 17 and 3A - I hate to go beyond your question because I 18 have to because it is the same study - I was 19 basically a consultant to them - and let me be more 20 specific - making suggestions to them what kind of 21 things to look at, what kind of analysis. And also I 22 think I might have written part of the report. 23 Q What part of the report did you write, 24 generally speaking? 25 A They sent me a draft, I looked at it and 65 1 made some corrections, that kind of thing. I don't 2 think I can pin down to a specific. 3 Q Did you keep any of the drafts that 4 Dr. Raabe sent you? 5 A No. 6 Q Were you instructed to throw those drafts 7 away? 8 A No. Q You just throw them away and don't keep 10 them in the file; is that it? 11 A That's right. 12 Q Is it just a practice of most 13 epidemiologists who work for corporations that they 14 destroy drafts? 15 MR. COLBERT: I'm going to object 16 to the form of the question and the 17 mischaracterization in the question 18 and the argumentative nature of the 19 question. 20 Q You may answer the question 21 A Well, No. 1, I have a small office. I just 22 don't have space to keep all the different drafts. 23 No. 2, it would be confusing. 24 Q I mean, they're marked "Draft," aren't 25 they? What would be confusing about a document 66 1 that's marked "Draft" as compared to the final copy? 2 A I don't know whether it would be marked 3 "Draft" or not. Sometimes we don't look at the 4 entire report. Sometimes we, you know, make 5 revisions on a number of pages. 6 Q Now, Exhibit 3A, the update for the 7 Beaumont refinery for Mobil dated December of 1994 8 that study was submitted for peer review and 9 publication, correct? 10 A Technically that-is not correct because 11 that - the document that you referred to, 3A, is an 12 internal Mobil report. We did not submit the entire 13 report word-for-word for publication. 14 Q You submitted some significant portion of 15 Exhibit 3A, the Mobil study concerning the Beaumont 16 refinery dated 1994, for peer review and publication, 17 correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And a rejection letter was received, 20 correct? 21 A It's debatable whether you call that a 22 rejection letter or not. 23 Q Let's clear this up. Did you receive an 24 approval letter saying, "Yes, we are going to publish 25 the paper as you submit it"? 67 1 A It very seldom happens that way. You 2 usually have to go through some revisions. 3 Q There was a letter sent by the editor that 4 said, "We are not going to publish it as submitted." 5 That's correct, isn't it? 6 A Well, that's not all he said. He also 7 said, "You should consider some of the comments of 8 the reviewers if you wish to revise your manuscript." 9 I mean, that is quite usual practice. Very 10 few people get their paper accepted word-for-word the 11 first time. I mean, you were a technical guy before. 12 I don't know whether you have published papers 13 before. If all your papers were accepted the very 14 first time, good for you if that's your experience. 15 Q A letter was received concerning Exhibit 3A 16 by an editor saying, "We're not going to accept your 17 paper as written." 18 Did you keep that letter? 19 A I don't have a copy of the letter. I was 20 not a first author. I think all the communications 21 between the journal and the authors of this paper is 22 through Gerry Raabe. 23 Q You read his deposition and you know that 24 he doesn't have that letter that he received from the 25 publisher basically where they stated that they were 68 1 not going to publish the paper as written, correct? 2 A I read his deposition. I don't remember 3 whether he said that or not. I didn't pay attention. 4 Q Exhibit 3 as we sit here today October 8th, 5 1997, has not been published, correct? 6 A Probably not. 7 Q Do you know when, if ever, Exhibit 3 will 8 be published in a peer-reviewed journal? Do you know 9 a specific date? 10 A I think it's a matter of when and not 11 whether you will publish or not because, as far as I 12 know, the journal has accepted the final version for 13 publication. Different journals have different 14 backlogs and so on. I have no idea when it would get 15 published. I would say in 1998. 16 Q But you are speculating on that, correct? 17 A Pretty highly-educated speculation. 18 Q How do you know what the letter said from 19 the editor of the journal that refused to publish 20 Exhibit 3A if you did not get a copy of that 21 document? 22 A I talked to Dr. Raabe on the phone and -23 Q Did you ask Dr. Raabe for a copy of the 24 letter? 25 A I don't remember. I don't think so. but 69 1 basically he told me what the comments are and 2 naturally I remember some of the comments and certain 3 comments I disagreed with the reviewer and certain 4 comments I say, "Well, yeah, it's a good idea; but 5 it's going to take a lot of time to do the work." 6 I think the major -- I mean, regardless of 7 what the comments are, if you see the accepted 8 version of the manuscript, which is Exhibit 3, and 9 compared that to the earlier report, the 1994 report 10 which is Exhibit 3A, the major difference you see 11 there is there are more what we call subcohort 12 analysis in the later manuscript. And that was 13 really the main issue that the reviewers brought up. 14 Q Do you have any opinions as it concerns 15 Mr. Lester Barrett as to whether any bacteria caused 16 Mr. Barrett's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? Do you have an 17 opinion? 18 A There are a couple of papers linking 19 bacteria and the specific form of non-Hodgkin's 20 lymphoma that is gastric lymphoma; so, there is some 21 evidence on that. And, again, I have not done a 22 comprehensive search. So, to be fair, I don't have 23 an opinion on that. But certainly there is some 24 suggestion for that. 25 Q As we sit here today, you don't have an 70 1 opinion, correct? 2 A No, I don't. 3 Q Do you know of any genetic risk factors 4 associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 5 A Again, when I read papers on non-Hodgkin's 6 lymphoma, I come across some papers on the 7 association between a family history of cancer and 8 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; so, there is some studies at 9 least suggesting that. But that was not my 10 assignment in this case; so, I haven't done work on 11 that. 12 Q I appreciate that, Dr. Wong. You 13 understand that I don't have all of the full insight 14 of every aspect of what the attorneys may or may not 15 ask you so that I have to go through and ask you 16 these series of questions, okay? 17 A I understand. I'm very happy to answer 18 your questions. 19 Q Now, do you have any evidence to indicate 20 that Mr. Barrett has a family history of leukemia or 21 lymphoma? 22 A I remember reading in some medical records 23 or something else that both his painters had a 24 history of cancer. But I don't remember exactly 25 what. 71 1 MR. HYDE: Let me object to the 2 responsiveness. . 3 (By Mr. Hyde) 4 Q Mine was a very specific question. 5 Do you have any evidence that Mr. Barrett 6 has family history of leukemia or non-Hodgkin's 7 lymphoma specifically? 8 A I think my answer to you would still be the 9 same. I said I don't know for sure because -10 Q Okay. I appreciate that; but forms of 11 cancer, from what you know, do not establish a risk 12 factor for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. For instance, 13 liver cancer or pancreatic cancer or lung cancer . 14 would not then be risk factors for Mr. Barrett as it 15 concerns non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, correct? 16 A I don't know. Let me take a look at the 17 papers (Reviewing documents). 18 Q I'm asking my questions based on 19 scientifically valid studies, okay? 20 A (Tendering) 21 Q Okay. We are looking at a 1988 publication 22 from Leukemia Research printed in Great Britain 23 entitled "Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Case Control 24 Epidemiological Study in Yorkshire," correct? 25 A Yes. 72 1 Q Now, do you yourself rely on case control 2 studies to establish causation in cancers, 3 specifically non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 4 A Yes. If they are well-done, case control 5 studies are good studies. 6 Q Do you have any studies other than the one 7 that I am holding that stand for the proposition that 8 family members with leukemia or lymphoma or cancer 9 establishes a risk factor for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 10 A I think that's the one that I can think of 11 now. 12 Q Okay. First of all, in Yorkshire, England, 13 are there any chemical plants and refineries? 14 A I don't know whether there are refineries 15 or not, but certainly they did look at occupational 16 history as well. In fact, the previous page they 17 talk about the things that they have looked at - past 18 med=-al history, what kind of medication or drugs 19 they use, family history of not just cancer but 20 different illnesses, what they call social 21 characteristics where they include smoking and 22 drinking and all kind of things and also occupation 23 as well. So, they do a pretty intensive 24 investigation. 25 Q In looking at the chart, Table 6 --- 73 1 A Yes. 2 Q --- where does Mr. Barrett fit in from a 3 risk factor standpoint from family cancers? 4 A Well, as I said; at this point I don't know 5 what kind of cancer his painters have; so, if he's -6 Q Or are you certain as we sit here today 7 that they had cancer? 8 A I read it someplace and -9 Q I'm asking you: Are you reasonably certain 10 that both painters of Mr. Barrett had cancer? 11 A I have to accept at face value the document 12 that I've read. I mean, did I investigate whether 13 they really have cancer? No, I did not. 14 Q But I'm asking you: Do you believe that 15 they may have had cancer or are you certain that you 16 read that both of his painters had cancer? I'm 17 talking about Mr. Barrett. 18 MR. COLBERT: I'm going to 19 object. We can solve this if the 20 medical records are here with 21 Dr. Wong. 22 MR. HYDE: We're not going to 23 take that much time. I want to know 24 if he knows or doesn't know based on 25 his research to date. 74 1 (By Mr. Hyde) 2 Q Are you just recollecting that they might 3 have; or is there an absolute, no-question 4 recollection that both Mr. Barrett's painters had 5 cancer? 6 A I'm pretty sure I read that someplace in 7 the documents that I received. 8 Q If the evidence later proves that one or 9 both did not have cancer, I'm sure that would affect 10 your opinions; is that correct? 11 A Well, one, it still holds because it would 12 still fit into the category here; but if later on you 13 convince me that neither one of them had a history of 14 cancer, then of course, you know, this would not 15 apply. 16 Q What type of cancers did Mr. Barrett's 17 painters have? 18 A I said I don't know. 19 Q Okay. 20 A So, what I'm trying to do is if one of them 21 had leukemia or lymphoma, then he would fit into the 22 first category. If not, he would fit into either the 23 category called "Other Cancers" or --24 Q What is the risk factor for "Other 25 Cancers"? 75 1 A The risk factor is 1.3. 2 Q What is the lower confidence interval on 3 that? 4 A It's being, I guess, what I would call 5 borderline significant because it is right at 1.0. 6 Q Does Table 6 stand for the proposition that 7 if Mr. Barrett's painters had some other type of 8 cancer, not being leukemia or a lymphatic cancer, 9 that the relative risk would most likely be 1.3, 10 therefore, a 30 percent excess? 11 A That's the interpretation. 12 Q And that's the extent of what that study 13 stands for, should the evidence be that Mr. Barrett's 14 painters did not have leukemia or a lymphatic cancer, 15 correct? 16 A You mean his painters? 17 Q Yes. 18 A That is correct. But there is also another 19 category called "Confirmed Other Cancers." And in 20 that category the risk goes up a little bit to 1.5. 21 Q So, if Mr. Barrett's painters have some 22 other cancer, then the relative risk would be 1.5, 23 therefore, a 50 percent increased risk; is that 24 correct? 25 A Let me go back to this study first. In 76 1 this study the information was based on an interview 2 in a case control study. And subsequently they tried 3 to verify or confirm that information provided by 4 interview. And for all the cases, they get an 5 increased risk of 1.3.; but among the cases that they 6 can actually confirm - I assume confirmed using 7 medical records and so on - that indeed there was a 8 family history of cancer, then the risk goes up to 9 1.5. 10 Q Is there any other study that stands for 11 the proposition that if you have a family history of 12 cancer you are at increased risk of non-Hodgkin's 13 lymphoma other than the study that you have in front 14 of us? 15 A. I don't know whether they did other studies 16 or not. 17 MR. HYDE: Let's mark that as the 18 next exhibit number. 19 (WHEREUPON, WONG EXHIBIT NO. 7 20 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION 21 PURPOSES. SAME WILL BE FOUND IN AN 22 EXHIBIT VOLUME ATTENDANT TO THIS 23 DEPOSITION.) 24 (By Mr. Hyde) 25 Q The study we have been talking about, the 75 1 case control study from Yorkshire, has now been 2 marked Exhibit 7, correct? . 3 A Yes. 4 MR. HYDE: Go ahead and mark 5 that. 6 (WHEREUPON, WONG EXHIBIT NO. 8 7 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION 8 PURPOSES. SAME WILL BE FOUND IN AN 9 EXHIBIT VOLUME ATTENDANT TO THIS 10 DEPOSITION.) 11 (By Mr. Hyde) 12 Q Doctor, I've had marked as exhibit 8 a 13 statement submitted to the OSHA benzene hearing by 14 Otto Wong, Environmental Health Associates, dated 15 March 4th, 1986. That would be your statement that 16 you provided to OSHA, correct? 17 A Yes, I was a consultant to OSHA at the. 18 benzene hearing in 1986; and this is the written 19 statement that I provided to OSHA -- Well, I don't 20 know whether I provided it to OSHA or just provided 21 it to the judge at a hearing to basically talk about 22 my study, the study that we talk about earlier. 23 Q The statement that you provided to the 24 hearing officer at the OSHA hearings for benzene back 25 in 1986 - you meant those to accurately reflect your 78 1 opinions at the time, correct? 2 A Yes, at that time. 3 Q That was after you had completed your work 4 on the Chemical Manufacturers Association 5 epidemiological study - the benzene project, correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Now, in your statement to OSHA, on Page 2 8 you state "The major findings of this study were as 9 follows. When compared to the U.S. population, SMRs 10 from all lymphatic and hemopoietic (lymphopoietic 11 cancer) combined, leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 12 (lymphosarcoma, reticulosarcoma and other lymphoma 13 and non-Hodgkin's lymphopoietic cancer, non-Hodgkin's 14 lymphopoietic and leukemia) for the exposed group 15 were slightly, but not significantly elevated above 16 the national norm. These SMRs were considerably 17 higher than those in the comparison group. When the 18 group with no occupational exposure was used for 19 comparison, the exposed group (continuous and 20 intermittent) experienced a lymphopoietic cancer 21 relative risk of 2.99 borderline significance." 22 That is a correct reading, isn't it? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Going down that same page, Page 2, you 25 state: "The relative risk for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 79 1 among white males in the continuously exposed group 2 was 5.02, but not significant." 3 Is that a correct reading? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Now, in that study, you found that white 6 males exposed to benzene had an SMR of 5.02 for 7 non-Hodgkin's lymphopoietic cancer, correct? 8 A Well, there are a number of things we need 9 to talk about. 10 Q Is that correct, first of all? 11 A Well, you read the statement. 12 Q Is that what you wrote? 13 A That's what I wrote, but that's not all I 14 wrote. 15 Q Let's keep looking, then. 16 You further state on Page 3: "The 17 dose-response relationship between cumulative 18 exposure and 'non-Hodgkin's lymphopoietic cancer was 19 of borderline statistical significance (p = 0.057; 20 that is, we are 94.3 percent confident that the 21 relationship was not due to chance)." 22 The relative risk for non-Hodgkin's 23 lymphopoietic cancer was 3.93; is that correct? 24 A Yes, but what you have been doing, okay, 25 and with all due respect, you read a couple of 80 1 sentences and say -- For example, you read about 2 three sentences in one paragraph and then say, 3 "Further down" and you skip one very important 4 sentence that explains the elevation for the overall 5 broad category and that sentence reads on the same 6 page: "This excess was primarily due to seven 7 leukemia deaths in the exposed group and none in the 8 comparison group." 9 Now, I mean -10 Q Well, that's for the leukemia relative 11 risk. 12 A No. I am saying the excess in the broad 13 category was due to the leukemia elevation. I mean, 14 fair is fair. If you just want to win a question or 15 two, then you can do that, but -16 Q Okay. Let's talk about this. You had a 17 study that you -18 A Can I finish? 19 Q Well, yes -20 A Can I finish? I just want to have a chance 21 to explain the statements, okay? I don't want you to 22 take one or two statements out here and there and 23 make me read the statement and ask me a question 24 "yes" or "no," because that is not what I said. 25 Q The attorneys for Mobil will get to ask all 81 1 the questions they want to in front of the judge and 2 jury and they are welcome to do that; so, whatever 3 you and I want to talk about, that's the choice that 4 I get to make today. They can make their own choice 5 at the time of trial. You are here as an expert 6 witness to testify however you testify. So, we have 7 our roles straight, correct? 8 A Well -9 Q Do you know what I'm talking about? 10 A I'm here to answer your questions 11 truthfully. 12 Q Well, good. 13 A And to me that means giving you a complete 14 answer. 15 Q I'm sure that if you weren't going to 16 answer them truthfully, he wouldn't want to know 17 about that; and I'm not thinking that you would 18 answer them anything less than truthfully on purpose, 19 okay? So, what I'm doing is asking questions about 20 your study and about the findings of your study, 21 okay? 22 A I just want to give you a complete answer. 23 MR. COLBERT: I think Dr. Wong is 24 trying to be as accommodating as he can 25 to give complete answers. 82 1 Q Let me ask you: Dr. Rothman - do you know 2 Dr. Rothman? 3 A I know of him. 4 Q At that time he was representing Texaco in 5 asking you questions at the OSHA hearing, correct? 6 A No, he was not at the OSHA hearing. 7 Q Okay. He somehow asked questions of you in 8 some way, correct? You had a response to 9 Dr. Rothman's comments? 10 A I remember that when I finish the study for 11 CMA -- Of course we submit a report to CMA, and I 12 think either CMA or some other member companies gave 13 a copy of the report to different people to review. 14 Q Okay. 15 A And I assume that Dr. Rothman was a 16 consultant to Texaco, and he must have provided some 17 comments on my report to Texaco. 18 Q In the CMA study, wasn't Dr. Rothman also 19 an expert for Arco and didn't Arco remove its plants 20 from the CMA study? 21 A I'm not sure whether Dr. Rothman was a 22 consultant to Arco or not. But the second part of 23 your statement is correct to the extent that we 24 started with Arco and later on they told us that the 25 records were not there or were insufficient to do the 83 1 study. 2 Q The last page before you get to the 3 reference it states: "As concluded in our report, 4 the study has demonstrated that chemical workers 5 occupationally exposed to benzene experienced 6 significant mortality excess for leukemia as well as 7 the broader category of all lymphatic and 8 hematopoietic cancer when compared to chemical 9' workers who were not occupationally exposed to 10 benzene." 11 That is a correct reading, isn't it? 12 A That is correct, but again I have to point 13 out to you the increase in the broad category was due 14 to seven leukemia deaths in the exposed group and 15 none in a nonexposed group. That is my earlier 16 statement. 17 Q "The result of the leukemia excess was. 18 consistent with some of the findings of previous 19 epidemiological reports, but the cell types were not 20 typical of those reported in many earlier studies." 21 That's a correct reading, isn't it? 22 A Yes. And I think I said somewhere either. 23 here or in the report that we don't have enough cases 24 to do a cell-type-specific analysis. 25 Q The data further shows 84 1 significant dose-response relationships between 2 cumulative benzene exposure and excess mortality from 3 leukemia and the broader category of all lymphatic 4 and hematopoietic cancer"; is that correct? 5 A That's correct. Again, I want to point out 6 that that was driven by the increase in leukemia. 7 Q "Although significant dose-response 8 relationships were established, the shape of the 9 dose-response curves were less definite due to the 10 variability of the available data., 11 Is that a correct statement? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Did you also testify at the OSHA hearings? 14 A Was that your question? 15 Q Yes, sir. 16 A That was my testimony. 17 Q That was your statement, wasn't it? 18 A Yes. 19 MR. HYDE: Mark document this, 20 please. 21 (WHEREUPON, WONG EXHIBIT NO. 9 22 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION 23 PURPOSES. SAME WILL BE FOUND IN AN 24 EXHIBIT VOLUME ATTENDANT TO THIS 25 DEPOSITION.) 85 1 (By Mr. Hyde) 2 Q I have marked for identification Exhibit 9 3 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 4 "Informal Public Hearing, Occupational Exposure to 5 Benzene," dated April 2nd, 1986, in Los Angeles, 6 California, before Stuart Levin, Administrative Law 7 Judge. This document has been marked as Exhibit 9. .8 Do you recall testifying in front of 9 Judge Levin on April 2nd, 1986. 10 A I don't remember his name, but I remember 11 testifying in Los Angeles. 12 Q On Page 74 of the transcript, it says: 13 "STATEMENT OF OTTO WONG, CONSULTANT - EPIDEMIOLOGY," 14 correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Would you read your first statement between 17 Lines 20 and 25 on Page 74 of Exhibit 9, please. 18 A 11My name is Otto Wong and I am senior 19 epidemiologist at Environmental Health Associates, 20 located in Oakland, California. I'm a 21 board-certified epidemiologist and a fellow of the 22 American College of Epidemiology. A copy of my CV 23 has been submitted together with my statement to the 24 OSHA hearing." 25 Q Okay. That certainly reflects you 86 1 testifying on that day in Los Angeles, correct? 2 That's you who we are talking about? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Would you read your conclusions on Page 79 5 and 80 that you rendered to OSHA at the hearings in 6 front of Judge Levin in Los Angeles. 7 A What do you want me to do? 8 Q Read it for the record. 9 A "In conclusion, the study has demonstrated 10 that chemical workers occupationally exposed to 11 benzene experience significant mortality excess from 12 leukemia as well as the broader category of all 13 lymphatic and hematopoietic cancer combined when 14 compared to chemical workers who were not 15 occupationally exposed to benzene." 16 Q Now, let me ask you: One of the cancers 17 included in the broader category of all lymphatic and 18 hematopoietic cancer is non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 19 correct? 20 A Yes. But again I want to point out that in 21 my statement and probably in my testimony early on I 22 talk about the increase in this broader category was 23 driven by the increase of leukemia, the fact that we 24 saw seven leukemia deaths in the group of exposed 25 workers and none at all - no leukemia in the 87 1 nonexposed group. I mean, I hate to go back to that 2 statement over and over again; but you've been asking 3 me questions out of content, you know, taking 4 statements out. So, I have to repeat that. 5 Q In the CMA study for the exposed population 6 there were seven leukemia deaths. For the people who 7 worked at chemical plants where no benzene was 8 present, there were no leukemia deaths. That's 9 correct, isn't it? 10 A Yes. 11 Q You recognize benzene is a risk factor for 12 leukemia? 13 A For acute myeloid leukemia, yes. 14 Q In the CMA there were no acute myelbid 15 leukemias, were there? 16 A That's true. 17 Q On Page 79 starting at Lines 1 through 6 18 what did you say as to the industrial hygiene data 19 that was available to you? 20 A Basically I had said that as in any other 21 industries; there were very little industrial hygiene 22 data before 1970. 23 Q In fact on Page 79 starting at line 1 you 24 said: "There was very little or no industrial 25 hygiene data prior to 1970, and exposure data were 88 1 mostly educated guesses"; is that correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q So, even as it pertains even to the Mobil 4 study in Beaumont at the Beaumont refinery, as it 5 pertains to benzene exposures prior to 1970, they 6 would only be guesses as to the level of benzene 7 exposure at the refinery, huh? 8 A Yes. Now, let me talk about that sentence 9 a little bit. 10 . Q Let me ask you a question first before we 11 move on to that. You were provided with no 12 industrial hygiene monitoring data from the 1940's, 13 the 1950's, and the 1960's and for the most part the 14 1970's as it relates to benzene exposure data for 15 workers at the Mobil Beaumont refinery; is that 16 correct? 17 A In the Beaumont study? 18 Q Yes, sir. 19 A You mean when I was doing the original 20 study? 21 Q When you were doing Exhibit 3A and 3. 22 Those studies. 23 A I did not look at the industrial hygiene 24 data. 25 Q Do Exhibit 3 and 3A stand for the 89 1 proposition that benzene does not cause acute 2 myelogenous leukemia? . 3 A Will you please repeat that. 4 Q Yes, sir. 5 Do the Mobil studies on the Beaumont 6 refinery, specifically the studies which have been 7 marked Exhibits 3 and 3A, stand for the proposition 8 that benzene does not cause acute myelogenous 9 leukemia? 10 A I don't think we can make a blanket 11 statement based on that study. In the earlier part 12 of the study we did see some increase; but later on 13 when we looked at the people who were hired 14 subsequent to I believe around 1950 or so, we don't 15 see an increase of leukemia after that. So, it 16 depends on which group you look at. 17 Q But you were not looking at benzene . 18 exposure in the work force because you did not try to 19 put "This group of employees were exposed to this 20 much benzene versus this level of benzene exposure to 21 this group of employees" - you didn't do that, did 22 you? 23 A I think I understand your question now. 24 The study is on the general environment of the 25 refinery and not specifically on benzene. I agree 90 1 with you on that. 2 Q So, therefore, when trying to determine 3 whether or not benzene causes acute myelogenous 4 leukemia, you don't necessarily look at Exhibits 3 or 5 3A because it doesn't stand for that proposition 6 correct - because you didn't specifically look at 7 benzene exposures? 8 A If you ask me to look at the general issue 9 whether benzene causes AML or not, of course we would 10 not just look at one study. I don't care which study 11 that is. We would look at all the studies. Now, 12 Exhibit 3A and 3, being a refinery study, I think it 13 would be part of the total picture; but it's not the 14 only picture. 15 Q Okay. 16 A Are you going to let me go back to that 17 statement where you said, "Later on"? I'm older than 18 you, but I have a better memory than you. You said I 19 can go back to that statement, and I hold you to 20 that. 21 Q Well -22 A Don't make promises, then. 23 Q Well, what statement do you want to talk 24 about? 25 A Well, the statement that there were very 91 1 little or no industrial hygiene data prior to 1970 2 and exposure data were mostly educated guesses. Will 3 you let me talk about that? 4 Q Was that statement true? 5 A It's true, okay? When you say, "educated 6 guesses," it's a kind of relative term, okay? Now, 7 when I was at hearing, I was a little bit concerned 8 that people would use my study to do a very detailed 9 quantitative risk assessment meaning that how many 10 excess leukemia we can predict if the exposure is 11 down to 1 PPM or 0.1 PPM and so on. And what I am 12 trying to say is that based on the industrial hygiene 13 data I have in my study, I don't think my study can 14 tell you down to 0.1 PPM or 0.5 PPM. But that 15 doesn't mean that the exposure data in my study are 16 not good at all. I just want to make that 17 distinction. That's why I said in my statement -- My 18 very last statement in my last sentence in my 19 statement submitted to OSHA is: "The shape of the 20 dose-response curve was less definite." 21 Now everything ties together. You see the 22 big picture now? 23 MR. HYDE: Let me object to the 24 non responsiveness of that last 25 answer. 92 1 (By Mr. Hyde) 2 Q Okay. Here we go. We have to look here 3 now at Page 79 starting at Line 22. Would you read 4 starting at Line 22 on Page 79 through Line 5 on 5 Page 80. 6 A "The data further show statistically 7 significant dose-response relationships between 8 cumulative exposure and excess mortality from 9 leukemia and the broader category of all lymphatic 10 and hemopoietic cancer combined. That is to say, as 11 the cumulative exposure of benzene goes up, so does 12 the risk of leukemia and" -13 Q I think that should be "lymphatic"? 14 A Yeah, that should be "lymphatic." 15 "and lymphatic and hematopoietic cancer. 16 This provides further evidence that these diseases 17 are associated with benzene exposure in the workplace 18 in the past." 19 Q When you testified in front of OSHA, you 20 believed your testimony to be true, did you not, 21 Dr. Wong? 22 A Yeah. It's true; but again, the statements 23 regarding the broader category - I said that many, 24 many times this afternoon; and I point you to where I 25 said that in my statement submitted to OSHA as well 93 1 as in my study - that the increase in the broader 2 category was driven by the increase in leukemia. 3 MR. HYDE: I object to the 4 responsiveness. 5 (By Mr. Hyde) 6 Q And you believe that the CMA study that you 7 conducted used good epidemiological practices, 8 correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Did you use any kind of statistical 11 analysis to look at trends between exposure and the 12 incidence of lymphohematopoietic cancer? 13 A No. I don't want to be nitpicking, but we 14 did not study incidence. We studied mortality. 15 Q Excuse me. Okay. 16 Did you do any tests for trends concerning 17 mortality from lymphohematopoietic cancers? 18 A I did; and that's published in - I'm sure 19 you know this paper - in 1987. 20 Q What did the trends indicate as it relates 21 to exposure to benzene and the mortality from 22 lymphohematopoietic cancer? 23 A (Reviewing document) Well, in Table 12 in 24 my 1987 paper I talk about trend analysis. There was 25 a significant trend for leukemia in terms of 94 1 cumulative exposure. There was no trend for 2 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Actually it's more than just 3 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The ICD code for that 4 category at that time that I used includes 200, 202 5 and 203. It's just the way that the statistics 6 worked out at that time. 7 Q That was a whole different way of 8 classifying lymphoma between the ICD 8 and the ICD 9, 9 right? 10 A I don't know whether it's a whole lot of 11 difference or not; but one of the problems in doing 12 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as well as multiple myeloma 13 analysis is that the vital statistics provided by the 14 National Center for Health Statistics is not broken 15 down as such. 16 Q What is typically the latency period 17 between exposure to benzene and the onset of a 18 lymphohematopoietic kind of cancer? 19 A I can't answer that question because I 20 don't think benzene causes all kinds of lymphopoietic 21 cancer. 22 Q For the forms of lymphohematopoietic cancer 23 you believe are caused by benzene exposure, what is 24 the latency period? 25 A I think we can be more forthcoming than 95 1 that. We can say what is the latency between benzene 2 exposure and AML. Why don't we do it that way? It's 3 clearer. 4 Q What's the latency period, Doctor? 5 A Of what? 6 Q From exposure to onset? 7 A Of what? 8 Q You know the question. 9 A Of AML? 10 Q If you want to call it ')AML,11 that's fine. 11 A I just want you to say, "AML." 12 Q I have no problem saying, "AML." 13 A It depends on the level of exposure 14 certainly. I think if the exposure is very high, the 15 latency may be a little shorter. But over all, when 16 you look at -- Maybe the best study on the issue is 17 to look at the so-called NIOSH study. I think we are 18 talking about close to 20 years. 19 Q That 20 years is just kind of a midpoint; 20 and the range may vary a few years - ten years one 21 way or ten years the other. Is that a fair 22 statement? Or is it more? 23 A It becomes a little bit of a problem 24 technically if you look at it that way. It's true 25 that -- Let's say that 20 years is the average. Of 96 1 course, you know, there would be some less than 20 2 years and some longer than 20 years. But when you 3 look at the range, certainly not all the AML's in any 4 study, even if in that study there was a lot of 5 benzene exposure, the average single AML was related 6 to benzene exposure, there would be some cases - what 7 we call background cases. So, I'm not so sure it's 8 okay to look at the shortest latency - the cases with 9 the shortest latency: 10 Q So, what is the range of latency that you 11 agree with as it concerns exposure to benzene and the 12 onset of acute myeloid leukemia? 13 A I guess my answer to that would be given 14 exposure is very high - I'm talking about in the 15 range of that NIOSH study - the latency would be 16 around 20 years, give or take a few years. 17 Q Well, that's the mean. 18 A Yeah. 19 Q What is the range? From what to what? 20 A I don't know what the range is, because not 21 every AML in that study is related to benzene 22 exposure; so, therefore it would not be technically 23 correct to use the range of latencies based on all 24 the cases. 25 Q So, it would be 20 years plus or minus some 97 1 time period based on the circumstances of exposure? 2 That would be the latency period concerning benzene 3 and the onset of acute myeloid leukemia, correct? 4 A Yeah. 5 Q Turn to Exhibit 3, please. That's the 6 Mobil Refinery Beaumont Study. 7 A Yes. .8 Q Would Mr. Barrett's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 9 be somehow counted in this study? 10 A He worked as a contractor, right? 11 Q Right. 12 A He would not be in this study. 13 Q No contractors were included in the Mobil 14 Refinery study which is Exhibit 3, correct? 15 A Yes. Well, do you ask a double-negative 16 question? 17 THE COURT REPORTER: Question by 18 Mr. Hyde: "No contractors were 19 included in the Mobil Refinery study 20 which is Exhibit 3, correct?" 21 A Correct. 22 MR. COLBERT: Do you want to take 23 a break? 24 THE WITNESS: Anytime it's 25 convenient we can take a five-minute 98 1 break. 2 MR. HYDE: Let's take a 3 five-minute break, and start back at 4 2:30. 5 (AT THIS TIME A BRIEF RECESS WAS 6 TAKEN, AND THE PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER 7 RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:) 8 (By Mr. Hyde) 9 Q Did you ever recommend to Mobil that they 10 try to include long-term contractors who worked at 11 the Mobil Refinery in the mortality study which has 12 been marked as Exhibits 3 and 3A? 13 A I don't know whether I have actually made 14 the recommendation or not; but I think way back when 15 we did the very first study, which is not 3 or 3A, 16 but 3B, we tried to find out whether it is possible 17 to include contractors in the cohorts; but it was 18 just not possible. Mobil did not have records on 19 contractors. 20 Q Did you do anything to examine whether or 21 not contractors could be included in the Mobil study 22 of the Beaumont refinery? 23 A We discussed it a little bit; I just don't 24 think we have any way to identify the contractors. 25 Q Did you attempt to contact any of the local 99 1 unions, specifically the Pipe Fitters Union 195 to 2 see if they had information about who worked in 3 maintenance at the Mobil Refinery? 4 A We did not contact the locals. One of the 5 reasons is that some of the contractors - they don't 6 work at just one or two places, but they work all 7 over the region. So, that means they would have 8 exposure not only at Beaumont, but from other 9 refineries or even other industrial complexes. The 10 exposure can be quite different. 11 Q Would you turn with me, please, to Table II 12 of Exhibit 3, the Mobil study of the Beaumont 13 refinery? Are you there? 14 A Yes. I was distracted by your partner. 15 MR. COLBERT: He can be rather 16 distracting. 17 Q On Table II, which is entitled "Observed 18 and Expected Deaths by Cause for the Beaumont 19 Refinery Cohort," under the broad category of 20 "Lymphatic & Hematopoietic Cancer," isn't it correct 21 that there is a 33 percent increase of observed 22 deaths from lymphatic and hematopoietic cancer as 23 compared to what was expected amongst the Mobil 24 employees? 25 A Yes. 100 Q That is a statistically significant 2 increase, correct? 3 A The lower limit was 103; so, it was very 4 significant. 5 Q For the purposes of coding, when a Death 6 Certificate says, "non-Hodgkin's lymphoma," it is my 7 understanding that that death will be coded in the 8 category entitled "Other Lymphatic Tissue Cancer" and 9 those would be ICD codes 202, 203, 208 in 10 parentheses. Is that your general understanding? 11 A I think somewhere in your question you got 12 a couple of things mixed up. You said when the cause 13 of death is non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, it would be coded 14 as what? 15 Q It would be coded for epidemiological 16 purposes in the broad category "Other Lymphatic 17 Tissue Cancer," ICD codes 202, 203, 208 in 18 parentheses, correct? 19 A No. It would be coded as 202. 20 Q Okay. 21 A But in an analysis -- I think the right way 22 to say is in an analysis because we use this program 23 called OCMAP. The way that the program is set up, we 24 put 202, 203 and 208 together. That is the analysis, 25 but the coding itself is very unique, specific. 202. 101 1 Q It's 202? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Okay. I want to make sure that my question 4 is precise and your answer is precise as well. 5 A You have been doing a very good job today. 6 Q When a person dies of non-Hodgkin's 7 lymphoma, for analysis, that death is coded under ICD 8 Code 202; is that correct? 9 * A No. 10 Q How is that incorrect? 11 A Because when you say -- When someone dies 12 from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, that would include 200 13 as well, lymphosarcoma, because lymphosarcoma is part 14 of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. But if you say -- To save 15 you time, if you say if someone dies from lymphoma or 16 malignant lymphoma, not otherwise specified, then it 17 would be in 202. . 18 Q When the Death Certificate states 19 "non-Hodgkin's lymphoma," for analysis, where is that 20 death coded? Under what codes? 21 A It may go into 202; or you may go into 200, 22 depending on the specific type if there is 23 information on that. 24 Q But what I'm not giving you is any other 25 information other than the cause of death states 102 1 "non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." Isn't it correct that that 2 death would then be coded under ICD Code 202? 3 A Most likely it would go into 202, 4 especially in the recent years because people try to 5 change the terminology to "non-Hodgkin's lymphoma," 6 overall as opposed to break it down by lymphosarcoma 7 and other lymphomas. 8 Q Look with me on Table II, the subcategory 9 "Other Lymphatic Tissue Cancer." Do you see that, 10 sir? . 11 A Yes. 12 Q What is the SMR for that category of deaths 13 amongst Mobil workers? 14 A 158. 15 Q Does that mean there was 58 percent more 16 deaths from other lymphatic tissue cancers that were 17 observed over what was expected? 18 A Okay. What it says is that there was 58 19 percent more deaths due to this category called 20 "Other Lymphatic Tissue Cancer" which, based on the 21 table that we looked at, include 202, 203, and 208. 22 Q 202 is non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 23 A 202 is non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 203 is 24 multiple myeloma. 25 Q What chemical is present at a refinery that 103 1 is either known or suspected of causing cancer of the 2 lymphatic and hematopoietic system? 3 A Well, we know that benzene is present at a 4 refinery and we know that-benzene can cause AML, but 5 that doesn't quite answer your question because you 6 didn't ask me AML. 7 Q Do you recognize that benzene is present 8 throughout most of the refinery at Mobil's refinery 9 in Beaumont? 10 A Yeah, at different concentrations at 11 different times, yes. 12 Q And you recognize that benzene is present 13 at the Mobil Chemical 0 & A plant, correct? 14 A The what? 15 Q You are aware that benzene is present 16 throughout the various parts of the Mobil Chemical 17 0 & A plant, correct? 18 A I have nothing to do with that plant, I 19 don't think. 20 Q What do you know about the operations of 21 the Mobil Chemical plant in Beaumont, specifically 22 the 0 & A unit? 23 A Not much. I mean, I did a study on the 24 refinery a few years ago. That's the extent of my 25 knowledge. 104 1 Q Do you know if benzene is manufactured at 2 the Mobil Chemical O & A plant? 3 A I'm not sure. 4 Q Now, when I asked you about cigarette 5 smoking and the SMR was 140, you indicated to me that 6 an SMR of 140 would indicate that a cigarette smoker 7 would have a higher probability of getting 8 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as compared to someone who did 9 not have cigarette smoking as a risk factor, correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Is it also true, then, that a person who 12 works at the Mobil Refinery has a higher probability 13 of acquiring cancers of other lymphatic tissue as a 14 result of their employment at the refinery? 15 A No, because you put down as one of the 16 requirements as a result of the employment; and if we 17 want to look at -- I mean, overall we see an increase 18 of 58 percent, okay? That, we agree to. 19 The next thing is where does that come 20 from, okay? And you are trying to link that with 21 employment at the refinery, right? I guess if we 22 want to ask the question, then we have to look at 23 another criteria. In that case it would be: Is 24 there any trend - a positive trend - of a higher risk 25 associated with a longer exposure? That would answer 105 1 that question. 2 Q But you didn't need that analysis 3 concerning cigarette smoking. In other words, you 4 didn't look at whether someone smoked 10 years, 20 5 years, or whether they smoked one pack or two packs 6 when you answered my questions concerning cigarette 7 smoking, did you? 8 A No. In fact, when we talk about cigarette 9 smoking and some other risk factors that we talk 10 about today, I never said that I have made a 11 definitive statement on those risk factors All I 12 told you was: As a result of my knowledge of the 13 other studies, I have come across some studies 14 suggesting or reporting that there may be an 15 increase. I have not done a thorough research on the 16 same issue. You are comparing my knowledge of 17 cigarette smoking and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma to the 18 knowledge I have on the Beaumont study. The Beaumont 19 study I was quite involved. I did the very first 20 study some time ago, and I directed some of the 21 analysis. That is not the same as reading somebody 22 else paper. 23 Q one plausible explanation for the 58 24 percent increase, which is statistically significant, 25 for other lymphatic tissue cancer deaths amongst the 106 1 Mobil Refinery workers is their work at the refinery? 2 That is a plausible explanation, correct? 3 A No, because in order for that to be true, 4 then we would expect a positive dose-response 5 analysis. If we look at employment -- Let's -- You 6 been using employment at the refinery as, quote, 7 unquote, exposure, okay? Let's use that. 8 Q Well, no. First of all, I'm not doing 9 that. 10 I would like to see somewhere in Exhibit 3 11 some analysis of benzene exposure. Can you point 12 that to me amongst the pages in this study where 13 there is an analysis of deaths by benzene exposure? 14 Does that exist in Exhibit 3? 15 A No. We did not do it. 16 Q As a matter of fact, there was no attempt 17 to correlate workers' exposure to benzene and the 18 incidence of lymphohematopoietic cancer specifically, 19 correct? 20 A There was -- I don't know whether we have 21 sufficient or adequate benzene exposure data that . 22 would allow us to do a full-scale study based on 23 benzene exposure. 24 Q One thing that you do have contained in 25 Exhibit 3 of the Mobil study of the Mobil Refinery in 107 1 Beaumont is you have 3- to 400 administrative 2 personnel included in the study results,. correct? 3 That's what Dr. Raabe testified to. 4 A In the overall study. But we also did 5 job-specific analysis. 6 MR. HYDE: Let me object to the 7 responsiveness. 8 (By Mr. Hyde) 9 Q Just answer the question I'm asking. 10 There are approximately 3- to 400 11 administrative personnel who are included in the 12 study of the Mobil Refinery in Beaumont, correct? 13 A I don't recall the exact number; but we do 14 have administrative people in the study, yes. 15 Q As far as you know, that sounds about 16 right? 17 A I trust you. 18 Q Okay. Is there in Exhibit 3 a table or a 19 paragraph or something that discusses the inclusion 20 of 3- to 400 administrative personnel in the study 21 and what effect that has on the study? 22 A I think we take care of that by presenting 23 Table XI and Table XII. 24 Q Tables XI and XII, you think, assist in the 25 analysis by excluding the administrative personnel, 108 1 correct? 2 A Yes. I assume when you bring up the issue 3 of administrative employees, the rationale is they 4 would have less exposure than operators or people in 5 the Maintenance Department; so, we take care of 6 take care of that by looking at operators by 7 themselves and also the people in the Maintenance 8 Department themselves. 9 Q Okay. Let's talk about administrative 10 personnel. You, Dr. Wong, recognize that a secretary 11 an accountant at a refinery most likely would have 12 little or no benzene exposure, correct, specifically 13 at the refinery? 14 A Yeah. They would have little or no 15 exposure compared to operators and maintenance. 16 That's why we didn't include them in Table XI or XII. 17 Q The effect of including 3- to 400 18 administrative personnel in an epidemiological study 19 of refinery workers is to affect that ratio between 20 observed and expected because with the addition of 21 these people who are not exposed, you have the 22 potential for dilution. Do you agree with that 23 statement? 24 A That statement is applicable if we do not 25 do any specific analysis on operators or maintenance 109 1 people. If we just present you with one paper and 2 say, "Look. This is the entire study. That's it," 3 that statement is true. 4 But we also provide you with specific 5 analysis on operators and maintenance people; so, if 6 indeed that statement you make is true, then by 7 looking at the operators and maintenance people, then 8 there is no dilution effect. 9 MR. HYDE: There are portions of 10 that answer which are not responsive 11 that I need to object to. 12 A Does that mean you don't like my answer? 13 (By Mr. Hyde) 14 Q No, it means part of your answer was not 15 responsive to my question. 16 A I have to give you a complete answer. When 17 you read a report you don't just look at Table I or 18 Table II. You look at Tables XI, XII, XIII, and XIV. 19 MR. COLBERT: Well, I don't get a 20 chance to object in this objection, 21 because Dr. Wong is doing it all for 22 me. 23 MR. HYDE: I'm glad you noted 24 that for the record. 25 MR. COLBERT: Sure. 110 1 (By Mr. Hyde) 2 Q Okay, Dr. Wong. How many total tables are 3 there in this Exhibit 3, the Mobil study of the 4 refinery in Beaumont? 5 A 15. 6 Q 13 of the tables, then, contain 7 administration persons with little or no opportunity 8 for exposure to benzene, correct? 9 A Are we counting the number of tables as an 10 indication of how important they are? 11 Q No, sir, we are not. If you will, just 12 answer my question. 13 13 of the tables in Exhibit 3, the Mobil 14 study of the Beaumont refinery, contain 15 administrative workers with little or no opportunity 16 for benzene exposure. That's correct, isn't it? 17 A I don't know. I have to look at the 18 tables. It's a funny way of looking how important 19 they are. 20 (Reviewing document) No. Look at 21 Table XIII. 22 Q I want you to tell me: How many tables -23 A It's based on maintenance people. 24 Q I want you to tell me how many tables 25 included in Exhibit 3 would include administrative 111 1 personnel with little or no opportunity for benzene 2 exposure at the refinery. 3 A By my count, at least four tables do not 4 include them at all. 5 Q Does that mean that the -6 A Wait. No, more than that. Wait, wait, 7 wait. Hold on. Five. 8 Q Ten of the tables do contain administration 9 personnel who have little or no opportunity for 10 benzene exposure. That's true, isn't it? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And you know that Mr. Barrett was a pipe 13 fitter in Maintenance, correct? 14 A According to his testimony, yeah. 15 MR. HYDE: Mark this, please. 16 (WHEREUPON, WONG EXHIBIT NO. 10 17 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION 18 PURPOSES. SAME WILL BE FOUND IN AN 19 EXHIBIT VOLUME ATTENDANT TO THIS 20 DEPOSITION.) 21 (By Mr. Hyde) 22 Q Dr. Wong, you have seen Exhibit 10 before? 23 It is a group of job categories and projected 24 exposure rates that was used in the Chemical 25 Manufacturers Association epidemiological study, 112 1 specifically the benzene project. Generally speaking 2 you are familiar with it, correct? 3 A I think I have seen this when I was doing 4 the CMA benzene study. It may not be the exact copy, 5 but some form of it, yes. 6 Q Within Exhibit 10, on Bates-stamped 7 Page 013068, there is a job exposure potential 8 classification for a pipe fitter, correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q It states: "daily assignments in benzene 11 areas"; is that correct? 12 A Yes. 13 Q "work directly on equipment containing 14 benzene; peaks greater than 25 parts per million"? 15 A Yes. 16 Q "Time weighted average less than 10 parts 17 per million"? 18 A Yes. 19 Q You have been aware, have you not, that 20 pipe fitters have potential exposure to benzene in 21 refineries and chemical plants where benzene is . 22 present, true? 23 A They have the potential? 24 Q Yes. 25 A Yes. Of course. 113 1 Q You yourself know through monitoring 2 records that you have seen that pipe fitters have 3 actual benzene exposure at refineries such as the 4 Mobil Refinery in Beaumont? 5 A Sometimes they do. 6 Q Have you been provided any of the 7 industrial hygiene monitoring at the Mobil Refinery 8 for pipe fitters? 9' A I think in my two boxes here I have some 10 industrial hygiene data and I don't remember whether 11 they are or they are not specific measurements on 12 pipe fitters themselves. I remember when I went 13 through the industrial hygiene data the measurements 14 are very low. 15 MR. HYDE: Let me object to the 16 responsiveness. 17 (By Mr. Hyde) . 18 Q You are not here today to testify that 19 there was sufficient industrial hygiene monitoring to 20 be representative of pipe fitter's exposure at the 21 refinery during the 1970's and 1980's, are you? 22 A No, I'm not. 23 Q You are not here to testify that there was 24 sufficient industrial hygiene monitoring for benzene 25 exposures for pipe fitters working at Mobil Chemical? 114 1 You are not here to testify to that, are you? 2 A No. 3 Q Have you been provided with any documents 4 from any of the industrial hygienists who worked at 5 the Mobil Chemical plant or Mobil Refinery where 6 those industrial hygienists have stated that there is 7 inadequate industrial hygiene monitoring for benzene 8 to be reflective of worker exposures to benzene, 9 specifically at the Mobil Refinery? Have you been 10 provided with any documents such as that? 11 A I don't remember seeing that. 12 Q Let's just right to the bottom line here. 13 I think let's look at Table XIII. 14 A See? You knew Table XIII all along. 15 You're just trying to trick me. 16 MR. HYDE: I object to the 17 responsiveness. 18 (By Mr. Hyde) 19 Q Let me ask you: Have you seen any 20 documents to indicate that pipe fitters' exposure to 21 benzene on a peak basis at the refinery may be as 22 high as 200 parts per million? Have you been 23 provided with that information? 24 A Let me try to understand. Any analysis 25 based on, quote, unquote, peak exposure? 115 1 Q Yes. And I think you and I are going off 2 here in different directions. Let me see if I can 3 try to phrase the question a little bit more 4 precisely for you. 5 Have you seen any correspondence or 6 documentation indicating that pipe fitters' exposure 7 to benzene on a peak basis may be as high as 200 8 parts per million? 9 A I have not seen that. 10 Q Would you turn with me - and I think you 11 are already there - to Table XIII, correct? 12 A Yes. 13 Q The title of this table is "Selective 14 cause-specific mortality among Beaumont males 15 employed greater than six months in maintenance craft 16 jobs by hire period." 17 That's a correct reading, isn't it? 18 A Can I look at your table? 19 Q (Tendering) 20 A Yeah, that's greater. I think that's some 21 symbol screw-up. A little different. That's what 22 the title is, yes. 23 Q The healthy worker effect was demonstrated 24 in Exhibit 3, the updated mortality of workers at the 25 Mobil. 116 1 A When you say, "The healthy worker effect," 2 you are referring to -3 Q The overall mortality. 4 A --- a deficit in the overall mortality? 5 Q Yes. 6 A I'm looking at Table II. The overall SMR 7 is 82; so, that statement is correct. 8 Q Keeping in mind the overall deficit of 9 mortality amongst the workers at the refinery, was 10 there any attempt to make an adjustment to the 11 various causes of death such that you would have an 12 adjusted SMR, taking into account the healthy worker 13 effect for specific causes of death? If you don't 14 understand, let me ask it again. 15 A I understand it. I think I understand your 16 question. I'm trying to give you a simple, 17 straightforward answer. 18 Q Were there any calculations made to adjust 19 any of the specific causes of death - those SMR's 20 taking into account the healthy worker effect that 21 was demonstrated in the study? "Yes" or "no"? 22 A No, because when you say, "the healthy 23 worker effect," you are really referring to a deficit 24 of mortality from cardiovascular diseases. When we 25 use the standardized mortality ratio approach, we 117 1 don't need to adjust for that in terms of cancer. I 2 think you are really referring to another method that 3 sometimes people use called proportional mortality 4 ratio. If you use PMR, because of the deficit in 5 cardiovascular disease, then you need to adjust the 6 cancer PMR. 7 Q Well, I'm looking at Table II here. 8 A Okay. Table II. 9 Q We'll come back to Table XIII again. But 10 looking at Table II, look under "Accidents, 11 Poisoning, and Violence." 12 A Yes. 13 Q It appears to me that the SMR's ranged from 14 55 to 68, correct? 15 A Right. 16 Q Now, is there any reason that if you work 17 at Mobil refinery you would have less motor vehicle 18 accidents? Is there something prophylactic about 19 working at Mobil that prevents you from having car 20 accidents? 21 A In a direct sense, yes, because people who 22 have a stable employment, a stable lifestyle - I 23 think they avoid, you know, excessive drinking and so 24 on. That may have some result on that. That is 25 Really, part of the healthy worker effect is a stable 118 1 lifestyle. 2 Q But even with that stable lifestyle, under 3 "Lymphatic and Hematopoietic Cancers," the Mobil 4 workers had a 33 percent increase in observed deaths 5 over expected, correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Now, let's go to Table XIII. "Other 8 Lymphatic Tissue" is a category that would contain 9 individuals who died from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 10 correct? 11 A And Hodgkin's disease and something else. 12 Q What is the SMR under "Other Lymphatic 13 Tissue" for maintenance workers who worked more than 14 six months in a maintenance craft and who were hired 15 before 1950? 16 A "205." 17 Q And that is statistically significant, 18 correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Now, if you are a maintenance worker who 21 worked at the Mobil Refinery more than six months in 22 a maintenance craft at the Mobil Refinery in Beaumont 23 and you were hired after 1950, what is the SMR for 24 other lymphatic tissue cancers? 25 A For other lymphatic tissue cancers? 119 1 Q Yes, sir. 2 A That's 11443." 3 Q That again is statistically significant, 4 correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Looking at Table XIV, for "Observed and 7 Expected Deaths," for hematopoietic cancers among 8 male maintenance craft workers by duration of 9 employment, when looking at non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 10 were there more observed deaths from non-Hodgkin's 11 lymphoma as compared to the number of expected deaths 12 from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in each of the three 13 categories of years? 14 A well, when you look at the number - the 15 absolute number, yes, it is. But, for example, 16 people who work for 30 years or longer, you observe 4 17 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma deaths; and the expected is 18 3.1. So, sure, 4 is greater than 3.1; but certainly 19 it's not statistically significant and I'm not so 20 sure how much interpretation you can attach to that 21 kind of a finding. 22 MR. HYDE: Let me object to the 23 nonresponsive portion of the last 24 answer. 25 A I knew you would say that. 120 1 (By Mr. Hyde) 2 Q Let me ask you: This study, Exhibit 3, is 3 is not a morbidity study that deals with the 4 incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or leukemia 5 amongst the workers who worked at the refinery; isn't 6 that right? 7 A It's a mortality study. 8 Q But I'm right, correct? 9 A You are right. 10 Q I recently had a client who was a pipe 11 fitter who worked at the Mobil Refinery for more than 12 30 years, and he just died of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. 13 I take it he would fall in that category of greater 14 than 30 years and at some point in time if this study 15 is ever updated, he would be in that category more 16 than likely, correct? 17 A He worked at Mobil more than 30 years? 18 Q Yes. 19 A I mean, this is a hypothetical or what? 20 Q No. This is real. I can tell me you his 21 name. Mr. Fontenot. 22 A You are not talking about a plaintiff in 23 this case? I'm getting very confused. 24 Q I don't want to confuse you, now. I'm just 25 saying that my client, Mr. Fontenot --- 121 1 A He is not part of this case? 2 Q He is not part of this case. 3 A Okay. 4 Q He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's 5 lymphoma four or so years ago. 6 A Yeah. 7 Q He just died. Now, he would not be counted 8 as a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma death, would he, in this 9 study? 10 A Was he a Mobil employee? 11 Q Yes. 12 A Well, at this point he would not be counted 13 as that because -14 Q The cut-off date -15 A --- the cut-off date is 1987. 16 Q But his 30 or more years that he worked at 17 the refinery are counted in this study, correct? 18 A Yes. Yes. 19 Q You don't know how many other individuals 20 who worked in maintenance have died from 21 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma since 1994, correct, and are 22 not counted in this study? 23 A Since 1994? 24 Q Yes, sir. 25 A well, you know, I can't help you in that 122 1 area actually. We don't know since 1987. I mean, 2 you know, the cut-off date is 1987. 3 Q Okay. 4 A But by the same token, we did not include 5 any-person years of observation after 1987. So, 6 after 1987, essentially we don't put anything in the 7 numerator; and rightly so, we did not put anything in 8 that denominator. That is the correct way of doing 9 the epidemiology, and you would not want me to do 10 anything otherwise. 11 Q Let's do this. Observed over expected 12 equals an SMR - correct - generally speaking? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What I'm trying to get to is that with 15 Mr. Fontenot his years of employment are calculated 16 into the expected, correct? If he retired in 1987, 17 his 30 years are included in the calculation of the 18 number of expected deaths from non-Hodgkin's 19 lymphoma, correct? 20 A Hold on. The two -- We are coming to a 21 very important concept, and I'm very serious about 22 this. 23 One is called length of employment, okay? 24 That essentially is what we call a classifying 25 variable, okay? His would be put into that category; 123 1 but in terms of the calculation of SMR itself, okay, 2 the length of employment has nothing to do with the 3 expected, okay? Let me finish, okay? We count the 4 person years of observation in order to find out how 5 many person years we have and multiply that by the 6 rate from the general population, okay? We stop his 7 person years of observation for this person or any 8 other cohort members in 1987. 9 Q I agree with you 100 percent. 10 A Okay. 11 Q That's the point. Mr. Fontenot contributed 12 30 person years to this study, given that he retired 13 prior to 1987? 14 A Yes. 15 Q He died after 1987? 16 A Yes. 17 Q His person years will be included in the 18 study as it pertains to the expected rate of 19 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q But since he died after 1987, his death 22 will not be included as an observed death? 23 A At this point, no. 24 Q You are familiar with Death Certificates 25 from the State of Texas, correct? 124 1 A I have seen them, yes. 2 Q Have you ever compared the accuracy of 3 Death Certificates from Texas as compared to Death 4 Certificates from other states? 5 A I'm not sure I have done that. I am not 6 sure -- When you say, "accuracy," what do you mean? 7 In terms of causes of death? 8 Q Yes, sir, as it relates to cause of death. 9 A I'm not aware of any particular concern 10 that the Death Certificates from Texas are any worse 11 than from any other state. 12 Q Did you know that Death Certificates in the 13 state of Texas can be filled out or completed by a 14 justice of the peace who has no medical training? 15 A I don't know what percentage of that is. 16 Q But did you know that? 17 A No. 18 Q You recognize that when someone who does 19 not have medical training completes a Death 20 Certificate that that is a potential source of error 21 for epidemiological studies that use these Death 22 Certificates, correct? A potential source? 23 A I think you are talking about a general 24 concern that we epidemiologists would have from time 25 to time in relying on Death Certificates for 125 1 diagnostic information and I certainly would agree 2 with you; but I think the concern is more for 3 cardiovascular diseases, you know, different 4 subcategories of cardiovascular diseases. I think 5 for cancer, by and large, it's pretty accurate. 6 Q Well, let me give you an example. I 7 represent a man who worked at Chevron. He was a 8 long-term worker and worked at the aromatics and 9' amines units. He had kidney cancer and, I think, 10 approximately a 3-pound tumor removed off of his 11 kidney. He survived approximately two to three 12 years. His tumor came back in his kidneys. He then 13 was taken to his home where he passed away from 14 kidney cancer. On his Death Certificate it said, 15 "Natural causes." 16 A How old was he? 17 Q He was about 67. . 18 Now, under that set of circumstances, that 19 would be an error if one were to rely upon that Death 20 Certificate in using that Death Certificate in a 21 mortality study - correct - given that a justice of 22 the peace completed the Death Certificate? 23 A I certainly would agree with you in this 24 specific example and that is the reason why we cannot 25 just rely on any single study or a small study and we 126 1 should really look at all the studies that's 2 pertinent to the issue and not just one study. 3 Q Well, I agree with you. Let's now look at 4 the China study where Richard Hayes is a principal 5 investigator. 6 MR. HYDE: Let's mark that as the 7 next exhibit. 8 (WHEREUPON, WONG EXHIBIT NO. 11 9 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION 10 PURPOSES. SAME WILL BE FOUND IN AN 11 EXHIBIT VOLUME ATTENDANT TO THIS 12 DEPOSITION.) 13 (By Mr. Hyde) 14 Q Dr. Wong, are you familiar with the study 15 that was published in the Journal of the National 16 Cancer Institute on July 16th, 1997, entitled: 17 "Benzene and the Dose-Related Incidence of 18 Hematologic Neoplasms in China," the principal 19 investigator being Richard B. Hayes? Are you 20 familiar with this study? 21 A Yes. 22 Q I know at one time that the CMA was 23 considering doing certain epidemiological studies in 24 China. Do you recall any of those discussions? 25 A The CMA was interested? 127 1 Q The Chemical Manufacturers Association. 2 A Not that I know of. 3 Q Have you had an opportunity to speak with 4 Mr. Hayes or any of the other investigators who 5 conducted this study which has been marked as 6 Exhibit 11 concerning this -7 A This Dr. Hayes - I know him and I think the 8 last time I saw him was at the Benzene '95 9 Conference. 10 Q That's Dr. Bernie Goldstein's seminar up in 11 New Jersey? 12 A It was Benzene '95. I don't know whether 13 we can say that's his seminar. 14 Q By the way, speaking of the Benzene '95 15 seminar - you know Dr. Goldstein, correct? 16 A I know of him. I published -- I've said, 17 "Hi" to him; but I don't know him personally. 18 Q Dr. Goldstein is recognized as an expert in 19 hematology and oncology. Do you agree? 20 A I don't know his area at all. All I know 21 is he is not an epidemiologist. 22 Q I have retained Dr. Goldstein in a case 23 along with another law firm in New Jersey. 24 Dr. Goldstein has opined that benzene exposure causes 25 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Are you aware of that? 128 1 A I'm not surprised. 2 Q This is the same Dr. Goldstein that teaches 3 at the medical school in New Jersey, correct? 4 A Yes. 5 Q That's the same place where the Benzene '95 6 conference took place, correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q It's fair to say Dr. Goldstein is a 9 recognized expert as it relates to benzene, to your 10 knowledge? 11 A I don't know about that. 12 Q My question to you is: Have you ever had a 13 discussion with Dr. Richard Hayes concerning his 14 study which has been marked as Exhibit 11? 15 A As I was going to say, until you 16 interrupted with -17 Q I don't mean to interrupt you. 18 A --- your story about Goldstein -19 MR. HYDE: Let me object to the 20 nonresponsiveness. 21 (By Mr. Hyde) 22 Q Go ahead. 23 A I saw Dr. Hayes at Benzene '95 back in, I 24 guess, the summer of '95 and basically he was at a 25 conference and I was at a conference and he was 129 1 presenting some numbers, findings from the so-called 2 Chinese benzene study, and I asked him what results 3 are and so on. And he said, "Oh, I'm going to make a 4 presentation. You will see it." 5 That was the extent of our conversation. 6 Q Have you ever worked with Dr. Hayes? 7 A In what sense you mean? 8 Q I mean: Have you conducted a study with 9 him? 10 A No. 11 Q Have you ever-peer-reviewed one of 12 Dr. Hayes' studies, to your knowledge? 13 A I don't recall; and I don't think I'm at 14 liberty of telling you because if I work for a 15 journal, I'm not supposed to tell people whose 16 manuscript I review. I hope you can respect that. 17 Q I can. 18 Did you consider Exhibit 11 and the 19 findings associated with that study relative to your 20 opinions here today? 21 A Well, as part of the overall picture. I 22 mean, it's part of the articles that I reviewed. I 23 have some comments on that; and to some extent, they 24 found a suggestion of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, an 25 increase of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in their group. 130 1 But I question whether that finding is really that 2 conclusive, No. 1. 3 And No. 2, I'm not so sure for the study 4 overall whether we are talking about benzene exposure 5 and nothing else, because in that study - in the 6 so-called Chinese benzene study, the majority of the 7 workers were painters. 8 MR. HYDE: Let me object to the 9 nonresponsive portion of your answer. 10 (By Mr. Hyde) 11 Q Certainly you recognize that solvents 12 specifically aromatic solvents - typically contain 13 some level of benzene in the solvents used by 14 painters, correct? 15 A Yeah. I mean, if you are talking about 16 2 percent content of benzene, that means 98 percent 17 of the solvent is not benzene. It's something else; 18 so, how do we know what we are observing? 19 Q Well, have you seen any studies to support 20 a causal connection between non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 21 and solvents such as toluene, xylene, hexane, hexene, 22 and those types of materials? 23 A I don't know whether I have seen them or 24 not. 25 Q Well, as we sit here today, do you have any 131 1 specific recollection? 2 A In the study done by the group at Chapel 3 Hill, University of North Carolina, I think there was 4 an increase -- I remember some increase of lymphatic 5 leukemia. There may be some increase of 6 lymphosarcoma, and certainly the exposure was not 7 benzene. It was -- I forgot whether it was xylene or 8 toluene. I have to go back and take a look if you 9' want to ask me. 10 Q As we sit here today, is it your position 11 that you suspect toluene, xylene, or other aromatics 12 as a potential risk factor for the development of 13 lymphohematopoietic cancers in general? 14 A No, I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is 15 that in the so-called Chinese benzene study, most of 16 the workers were painters and painters are exposed to 17 all type of chemicals with or without benzene 18 exposure; so, to that extent, we are not talking 19 about specific benzene exposure. 20 Q To what chemicals are painters exposed that 21 are capable of causing lymphohematopoietic cancers? 22 A I don't know. 23 Q The author and the other researchers who 24 assisted Dr. Hayes in Exhibit 11 attribute the excess 25 risk of lymphohematopoietic disease to benzene 132 1 exposure, don't they? Is that correct? 2 A I want to be sure I understand your 3 question. You are talking about overall 4 lymphopoietic and not non-Hodgkins lymphoma? 5 Q I'm talking about the overall category 6 first. 7 A I hate to disappoint you, but they don't 8 look at the overall category. 9 Q Do you mind if I come over here one second? 10 It says: "For workers historically exposed to 11 benzene in average levels of 10 parts per million, 12 the relative risk for all hematologic neoplasms 13 combined was 2.2.'1 14 Does that not indicate to you that they 15 looked at the broad classification of hematologic 16 malignancies? 17 A They did, but they also looked at 18 specifically NHL. 19 Q So, I shouldn't be as disappointed as you 20 thought I was, huh? 21 A Well, if you include leukemia and 22 everything else, yeah. 23 Q Okay. Now, Dr. Wong, don't the authors 24 conclude that. exposure to benzene for periods greater 25 than 10 years results in a 4.1 relative risk for 133 1 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 2 A No. The table that you point me to, the 3 4.1 relative risk refers to the people who were hired 4 before 1972. 5 Q And who have ten years of exposure to 6 benzene? 7 A You must spend more time on this than I do. 8 I don't see the "10 years." Where do you find the 9 "10 years"? You were pointing at 4.1. 10 Q No, wait. Hold on. For this one, it just 11 says: "Hire date." You're correct. If you were 12 hired before 1972, you had a 4.1 relative risk for 13 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Now, if you turn over to the next table, 16 which is Table II, if you worked greater than 10 17 years in a benzene-exposed group, the relative risk 18 for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was 4.2; is that correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q That is statistically significant, correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q You pointed that out to the lawyers for 23 Mobil, didn't you - that there was this Chinese study 24 that concerned benzene and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as 25 part of your consulting work? 134 1 A This study? 2 Q Yes. 3 A Yes. The overall Chinese study, yes. 4 Q I'm just wondering, because they filed this 5 Motion for Summary Judgment saying there is nothing 6 in this world that would suggest benzene causes 7 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; and at least you and I can 8 agree that this study does suggest that benzene 9 exposure causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 10 A No, I don't agree with you because you i1 Up till now you've been pointing my attention to 12 specific numbers and asking very specific questions. 13 I have no choice but to answer "yes" or "no" to your 14 question. 15 But when you say whether I interpret this 16 study as a supportive evidence for the association, 17 the answer is no, because there are other numbers 18 that I look at which you did not point to. In fact, 19 the statement - the very last sentence made by the 20 authors themself -- Allow me the luxury of reading 21 you this. "The possible links with NHL are all 22 provocative new observations." 23 Even the authors themselves did not make a 24 definitive conclusion. 25 MR. HYDE: Let me object as 135 1 nonresponsive. 2 Q Let me see that, please. 3 A (Tendering) 4 Q Does it not say on the first page: 5 "Workers with 10 or more years of benzene exposure 6 had a relative risk of developing non-Hodgkin's 7 lymphoma of 4.2 (95t confidence interval = 1.1-15.9), 8 and the development of this neoplasm was linked most 9 strongly to exposure that had occurred at least 10 10 years before diagnosis (i.e., distant exposure)." 11 Is that a correct reading? 12 A That's a correct reading. Again I need to 13 point out that that is one of the many, many analyses 14 that they have done. You cannot interpret that 15 entire study based on one or two numbers. 16 Q Have you ever seen any other documents or 17 studies that at least suggest that there are 18 environmental exposures such as benzene or solvent 19 exposures that are a risk factor for non-Hodgkin's 20 lymphoma? 21 A No. I have done a very complete analysis 22 of the scientific literature including some of the 23 studies I have done, and my conclusion is no. 24 MR. HYDE: That's not what I 25 asked you. Let me object to the 136 1 responsiveness. 2 Would you read that question 3 back, please. 4 THE COURT REPORTER: Question by 5 Mr. Hyde: "Have you ever seen any 6 other documents or studies that at 7 least suggest that there are 8 environmental exposures such as 9 benzene or solvent exposures that are 10 a risk factor for non-Hodgkin's 11 lymphoma?" 12 A I have looked at quite a few studies. 13 (By Mr. Hyde) 14 Q And some of those studies suggest that. 15 benzene exposure is a risk factor for non-Hodgkin's 16 lymphoma, correct? I'm not asking whether you agree 17 with them. I'm asking whether the studies at least 18 stand for that limited proposition. 19 A I guess I don't understand what you mean by 20 "suggest." If the relative risk is 1.1, is that a 21 suggestion? 22 MR. HYDE: That's not my 23 question. I object. 24 A But that gets -- I have to understand what 25 you mean by "suggest." 137 1 (By Mr. Hyde) 2 Q I appreciate that, Dr. Wong. . 3 Dr. Wong, Exhibit 6 is a group of studies 4 that were sent to you by Mr. Colbert or somebody at 5 his law firm, correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q My question to you was: You are aware, are 8 you not, that there are certain publications or 9 studies that suggest that environmental exposures, 10 specifically exposure to benzene, is a risk of 11 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? I'm not asking whether you 12 agree with those studies. I'm asking you: You are 13 aware that that association or that risk has been 14 asserted in a publication? 15 A I understand your question completely. 16 What you are asking me is: Regardless of whether I 17 agree with the author or not, did the author make a 18 statement or by any other means indicate that they 19 believe there is some kind of suggestion for such an 20 association. 21 Again, I have to ask you: What do you mean 22 by "suggest"? Sometimes they simply*listed the risk 23 ratio - the relative risk - as 1.1. They didn't 24 really say what they feel about 1.1. Is that a 25 suggestion or not? I don't know what your criteria 138 1 is. I'm not trying to give you a tough time. 2 Q I'm not asking you anything about the 3 validity of the author's work such as his relative 4 risk that he found or his SMR or whatever. 5 What I'm asking is very simple; and it is 6 this: You are aware that certain researchers have 7 suggested that there are environmental risk factors 8 such as exposure to benzene and that those are risk 9 factors for the development of non-Hodgkin's 10 lymphoma? That is true, isn't it? 11 A Some people hypothesize that, but I don't 12 know whether they -- Well, that's not the same as 13 suggest based on data. That's two different stories. 14 You can hypothesize without data. 15 Q I'm going to show you one of the articles 16 that was sent to you by Mobil's lawyers entitled 17 "Increasing Incidence of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: 18 Occupational and Environmental Factors," by Pearce 19 and Bethwaite. 20 A Right. 21 Q In that document on Page 5498, it states: 22 "In particular, benzene exposure increases the risk 23 of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and is suggested it may be 24 due to its effect on the immune system, but it also 25 appears that the number of clonal chromosomal 139 1 aberrations is especially large in non-Hodgkin's 2 patients with a history of occupational exposure to 3 organic solvents," correct? 4 A Yeah, you're talking about two things. The 5 first part is on benzene, and the second part is on 6 organic solvents in general. 7 Q Yeah. And organic solvents have the 8 potential to have benzene as either a component or a 9 contaminant, correct? 10 A Some may; some may not. 11 Q But my simple question to you earlier today 12 was: You are aware, whether you agree or not, that 13 there have been some researchers who have indicated 14 exposure to benzene is a risk for the development of 15 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 16 A We are back to the same situation again. 17 If you equate a real statement made - actually made 18 by the author saying, "Based on this study we suggest 19 the following association," I don't remember seeing 20 that kind of statement. But if I answer "no" to your 21 question, I don't know what your criteria for 22 suggestion is. You may say, "Wait a minute, 23 Dr. Wong. Included in your pile of studies there is 24 one reporting a relative risk of 1.2. Isn't that a 25 suggestion to you?" 140 1 Q Isn't it? 2 A I mean, I don't know whether it is. 3 Q Well, again, I'm not asking you to discuss 4 the validity based on your opinions as to whether 5 that's an appropriate statement or not. 6 I'm just asking you: You are aware that 7 researchers have suggested the association, whether 8 it is valid or not? 9 A Okay. Let's go back to the example. If I 10 see a study reporting a relative risk of 1.2 and a 95 11 percent confidence interval, then I would really say 12 it's really not that suggestion at all, even based on 13 that study alone. Even if we accept the number at 14 face value, I'm saying that's not a suggestion. 15 Q But now we have a study, in China anyway, 16 as it relates to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma where the 17 authors stated greater than 10 years exposure yields 18 a relative risk of 4.2 for the development of 19 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Are you familiar with the Notice of 22 Intended Change for benzene published in Applied 23 Occupational Environmental Hygiene in July of 1990? 24 This is the ACGIH Notice of Intended Change for 25 Be nzene.1) Are you familiar with this document? 141 1 A I don't -- They have revised that a couple 2 of times. I'm sure you are aware of that. I have 3 looked at the latest version, I think. 4 Q Do you have that with you? 5 A I don't have that with me. 6 Q The 1990 version on Page 459 states: 7 "Prolonged cumulative exposures were judged more 8 important for human benzene carcinogenicity than 9 maximum peak exposures." 10 And the authors concluded that there was a 11 significant association between occupational benzene 12 exposure and the occurrence of leukemia, all 13 lymphopoietic cancers, and non-Hodgkin's 14 lymphopoietic cancers. 15 Are you aware that that was in -16 A Certainly I would disagree with that 17 statement. 18 Q Are you aware that it was in the document 19 that I've shown to you? 20 A Oh, I have looked at that document: It's 21 not that I remember that specific that statement, but 22 certainly I have looked at that document. 23 Q That was published in 1990, correct? 24 A As I said, I don't know whether we are 25 looking at the same version; but I have looked at the 142 1 proposed notice. 2 Q .That's the 1990. 3 A The one that you are holding in your hand 4 is 1990? 5 Q Don't you agree with me that there can be 6 differences amongst scientists as to certain 7 scientific matters? 8 A I'm sure scientists disagree, lawyers 9 disagree; husband and wife disagree. Don't tell me 10 I'm hitting home with the last one. You're smiling. 11 Q In your mind, Doctor, there is the 12 possibility that benzene may cause non-Hodgkin's 13 lymphoma, but yet in your mind it hasn't been proven; 14 is that true? 15 A No. As a scientist I rely on scientific 16 evidence; and when -- I hate to go back to the same 17 issue again and again. When I look at all the 18 studies on this subject, I just don't see the 19 evidence. 20 Q Well, I'm looking here at Table XIII of the 21 Mobil study and looking at cancers of other lymphatic 22 tissue for maintenance workers employed greater than 23 six months in a maintenance craft at the Beaumont 24 refinery. And the SMR's are 205 and 443, both of 25 which are statistically significant. If there was an 143 1 environmental cause for these excesses of other 2 lymphatic tissue amongst the Beaumont refinery 3 maintenance workers who worked more than six months, 4 wouldn't you agree with me that the most likely cause 5 is either their employment at the refinery or their 6 exposure to benzene? 7 A Well, I think I agree with you and your 8 earlier statement that this study is not specifically 9* on benzene. So, all we can talk about is employment 10 And if we are talking about employment and 11 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, you should really look at 12 Table XIV and not Table XIII, because Table XIV 13 analyzed duration of employment specific to 14 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; and certainly you don't see 15 any trend at all. In fact we did a trend test, and 16 it was not even close to being significant. 17 Q But the fact is that for each of the 18 duration of employment categories, there were more 19 observed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma deaths amongst the 20 maintenance craft workers at the Mobil Refinery as 21 compared to what was expected. Mathematically that 22 is true, isn't it? 23 A Mathematically it's true, and we went 24 through how the numbers are and all that. Again, if 25 indeed employment is the cause of non-Hodgkin's 144 1 lymphoma, then as we have a longer employment, the 2 risk should go up. But that's not the case here. 3 Q Well, that's not what your data has shown 4 to date. You are not sitting here saying that there 5 are not other Mobil workers who have died of 6 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma since 1987 that could change 7 that trend, correct? 8 A Well, I mean, if we update the same study 9 in another ten years, I don't know what the results 10 are. I can only tell you.-- I can only form my 11 opinion based on what I have now. 12 Q Doesn't it in any way alarm you that for 13 cancers of other lymphatic tissue for those 14 maintenance workers that there are statistically 15 significant excess deaths amongst those groups of 16 workers? 17 A I would be concerned if we see an upward 18 trend in terms of length of employment. That tells 19 me that it may not be benzene, but certainly it may 20 be related to employment in general or some other 21 exposure. But that's not the case here. 22 Q Let's talk about that. For maintenance 23 workers who worked greater than six months in a 24 maintenance craft at the Mobil Refinery, did you look 25 and perform a trend analysis concerning cancers of 145 1 other lymphatic tissue? Specifically that category? 2 A It's a long question. 3 Q Okay. Let me ask it again. 4 Dr. Wong, did you or Dr. Raabe conduct a 5 trend analysis for male workers who worked more than 6 six months in a maintenance craft job at the Mobil 7 refinery specifically looking for trends in 8 employment for cancers of other lymphatic tissue? 9 That category. 10 A No, because it's not a meaningful category. 11 The table that we have, Table XIV, is more meaningful 12 because we break it down by non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 13 and multiple myeloma. 14 MR. HYDE: Let me object to the 15 nonresponsive portion of the last 16 answer. 17 (By Mr. Hyde) 18 Q Does this study, Exhibit 3 or 3A, 19 specifically concern Mr. Barrett's risk of a 20 benzene-related illness? 21 A As I said earlier, in forming my opinion I 22 rely on a lot of studies including this one; so, it's 23 part of it. It's not the only study that I rely on. 24 MR. HYDE: I object to the 25 answer. 146 1 (By Mr. Hyde) 2 Q Do Exhibits 3 or 3A stand for the 3 proposition that Mr. Barrett wasn't exposed to 4 benzene? 5 A - Not exposed to benzene? 6 Q Yeah. 7 A I don't know whether he was exposed to 8 benzene or not. 9 Q That is not what I'm asking. 10 A I'm getting confused. 11 Q Does Exhibit 3 or 3A, the Mobil 12 epidemiological study, stand for the proposition that 13 Mr. Barrett wasn't exposed to benzene? 14 A I don't think the report -- If I understand 15 your question correctly, I don't think the report 16 addressed the issue of whether the plaintiff in this 17 particular case was not exposed to benzene. 18 Q Exhibits 3 and 3A do not concern specific 19 benzene exposures at the Mobil Refinery, correct? 20 A We did not do any analysis specific to 21 benzene exposure; but to the extent that workers in 22 this study were exposed to benzene, then we have 23 studied the effects of benzene exposure at the 24 refinery. 25 MR. HYDE: Let me object to the 147 1 nonresponsive-section. 2 (By Mr. Hyde) 3 Q Are all employees who were included in 4 Exhibits 3 and 3A, the epidemiologic study at Mobil 5 Refinery in Beaumont, exposed to benzene? 6 A Not in the entire study. 7 Q Would you agree with me that there were 8 different groups of workers who were exposed to 9 different levels of benzene as it pertains to the 10 workers included in the Mobil study in Beaumont?, 11 A Certainly. 12 Q Would you agree with me that workers within 13 maintenance had different levels of benzene exposure 14 between maintenance crafts, such as electricians may 15 not be exposed to the same amount of benzene as 16 compared to pipe fitters, correct? 17 A I would agree with that. 18 Q I assume that you, Dr'. Wong, if you would 19 have wanted to, could have analyzed how many pipe 20 fitters died of a lymphohematopoietic cancer. If you 21 would have so desired to look for that information, 22 you could have done that, correct? . 23 A I don't remember the details of the 24 employment history. 25 Q It's possible? 148 1 A If the employment history actually record 2 the specific craft, then theoretically it's possible, 3 provided all the records are there - all the old 4 employment records are there. 5 Q If some entity knows that a chemical or a 6 process poses a risk of harm to a worker but does not 7 inform that worker of the risk of harm, does that 8 represent to you knowing indifference to the safety 9 of that worker? 10 MR. COLBERT: I object to the 11 form of the question. 12 A I think we have to be a little bit specific 13 because certainly with your background you know that 14 we are exposed to all kind of chemicals in most 15 situations. So, whether something poses a harm or 16 not depends on the level of exposure. And certainly 17 if we know that at a certain level that substance 18 would produce some health effect, then - and at the 19 same time the workers are exposed to the same level, 20 then we should inform the workers. If the levels are 21 different, then is a different story. 22 Q You recognize that the pipe fitter 23 occupation is one of the more highly-exposed 24 occupations as it relates to benzene in a refinery, 25 correct? 149 1 A Yes and no. 2 Q Well, based on what you have seen over the 3 years, is that correct? You have seen, for instance, 4 the Mobil analysis. The pipe fitting job was one of 5 the higher-exposed job classifications? 6 A (Reviewing document) Yes, the PWA, 7 according to the document that you showed me, was 8 less than 10 PPM. 9 MR. HYDE: .That's not what I 10 asked you, Doctor. 11 I object to the responsiveness. 12 (By Mr. Hyde) 13 Q My question to you was: Do you recognize 14 that pipe fitters who work in the refinery typically 15 have one of the higher levels of benzene exposures in 16 a refinery? That's correct, isn't it? 17 A I'm not sure about it. It depends on their 18 work practice, it depends on where they work and so 19 on. I mean, I -20 Q okay. Let's ask it this way: What 21 maintenance craft or job title are you aware of for 22 workers who work in a refinery that have higher 23 potential exposure to benzene than a pipe fitter? 24 A I don't have specific numbers, but one job 25 title that I remember - and I was quite surprised 150 1 when I learned it for the first time - actually was 2 the job title called analyst, someone who actually go 3 out to collect sample. In the old days I guess they 4 just get some sample from the main stream and they 5 turn the valve off and then there's some spill and so 6 on and they carry, I guess, a bottle of that product 7 back to the lab and do analysis, you know. 8 Q That was one of the most highly-exposed 9 occupations, correct? 10 A I don't know whether that's the most 11 highly-exposed, but I was surprised in the old days 12 that was their work practice. So, it's really -13 Q Do you know the allegation here is that 14 Mr. Barrett had benzene-containing streams go onto 15 his clothing while he was breaking open pipes? Do 16 you know that? 17 MR. COLBERT: Objection. Assumes l8 facts not in evidence. 19 A I don't know that; and as I said, they have 20 Dr. Fowler to handle the exposure assessment. I'm 21 not the one. 22 MR. HYDE: I object to the 23 responsiveness. 24 (By Mr. Hyde) 25 Q Dr. Wong, what else do you plan on doing as 151 1 it relates to your work in this case? 2 A I don't know at this point. I guess if I 3 am not asked to do anything else, then the next thing 4 I would do is, I guess, to testify at trial. I don't 5 know what the lawyers have planned for me. 6 Q As we sit here today, you have no other 7 plans relative to your work in this case; is that 8 correct? 9 A No. But I would like to -10 Q Let me ask you this. We had a 11 double-negative going here. 12 Do you plan on doing any additional work as 13 it relates to this lawsuit? 14 A Well, one thing for sure. I would like to 15 read my deposition transcript if nothing else. 16 That's something I would like to do. 17 Q Any other work -18 A No, I'm not planning to do anything else. 19 Q Do you plan on making any exhibits or 20 demonstrative aids relative to your testimony in this . 21 case? 22 A I'm sure if we do go to trial I would like 23 to have some made. 24 Q Have you made, as we sit here today, any 25 demonstrative aids as it concerns your testimony in 152 1 this lawsuit? 2 A You overestimate me. I'm not that well 3 planned ahead. No, I have not done anything. 4 MR. HYDE: That's all the 5 questions I have. 6 MR. COLBERT: We reserve our 7 questions until the time of trial. g MR. HYDE: Thank you, Dr. Wong. g THE WITNESS: You're welcome. 10 11 (WHEREUPON, THE DEPOSITION WAS CONCLUDED AT 4:05 P.M.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEAUMONT, rx HOUSTON. TX (109)B3i-1107 (713)523-500 1NC0A~0Al!D 153 1 THE STATE OF TEXAS 2 COUNTY OF HARRIS 3 I, DAVID S. SMITH, a Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter for the State of Texas, hereby certify 5 pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure-and/or 6 agreement of the parties present to the following: 7 8 That this deposition transcript is a true 9 record of the testimony given by OTTO WO NG, Sc.D., 10 F.A.C.E., the Witness named herein, on October 8, 11 1997, after said Witness was duly sworn by me; 12 13 SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED by me in Houston, 14 Texas, on this the 1997. 15 16 17 Certification No.: 4166 18 Expiration Date: 12-31-98 Business Address: Charlotte Smith Reporting, Inc. 19 3730 Kirby Drive, Suite 909 Houston, Texas 77098 20 Telephone: (713) 523-5400 21 22 23 24 25 BEAUMONT.TX NOUSTON.TX (108) 8V-1107 (713) 523-5400 c01r00Ario