Document bBmYoY9GNYVo63jbmxErQEJd1

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 3 WESTERN DIVISION A 5 MARY A. DENDINCER, et al.. 6 Plaintiffs, 7 -vs- 8 THE B.F. GOODRICH COMPANY, FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER 9 COMPANY, CONOCO, INC., UNIROYAL, INC., UNION 10 CARBIDE CORPORATION, TENNECO, INC., TENNECO 11 POLYMERS, INC., TENNECO RESINS, INC., OCCIDENTAL 12 CHEMICAL CORPORATION, and MAXUS ENERGY, 13 Defendants. 14 Case No. C87-7117 15 16 Examination of CARL ZENZ, taken at the 17 instance of the Plaintiffs, pursuant to the provisions of 18 Section 804.05 of the Wisconsin Statutes, pursuant to 19 stipulation by respective counsel, before TERESE M. 20 SCHIEBENES, a Notary Public in and for the State of 21 Wisconsin, at the offices of Dorothy M. Wagner and Assoc 22 iates, Court Reporters and Notaries Public, Suite 400, 23 135 West Wells Street, Germania Building, Milwaukee, 24 Wisconsin, on the 13th day of October, 1988, beginning 25 at 10:00 a.m. lo c n w z OOROTMY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COURT *EPO"rtflS MILWAUKEE BFG13033 1 2 APPEARANCES : 3 4 5 6 MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A. Represented by KIRK J. DELLI BOVI, Attorney for the Plaintiffs. FULLER & HENRY, Represented by ROBERT A. BUNDA, Attorney for the Defendants. 7 8 THEREUPON, the following proceedings were held: 9 10 CARL ZENZ, having been first duly sworn, 11 was examined and testified as follows: 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. DELLI BOVI: 13 14 Q Dr. Zenz, would you state your full name, please? 15 A Carl Zenz, 16 Q Your home address? 17 A 2418 Root River Parkway, West Allis, 53227. 18 Q What is your current occupation? 19 A I'm a consultant in occupational medicine. 20 Q Who do you consult to? 21 A I would consult to industry, attorneys sometimes, 22 private individuals, .National Safety Council, and 23 others who have an interest in occupational health 24 matters. 25 `Z x i O T t t f Z DOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COUHT *EWTS MILWAUKEE 2 BFG13034 Q And you have been a private consultant in occupational i medicine since 1977? A Yes, sir. Q How many times have you testified in court? 5 A Excluding worker's comp.? 6 Q Yes, sir* 7 A In what span of time? 8 Q Since 1977? 9 A I would say no more than a dozen times. 10 Q Did any of the worker's compensation cases in which 11 you testified involve occupational cancers? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Did any of the worker's compensation cases in which 14 you testified involve exposure to vinyl chloride? 15 A I don't recall for certain, but I don't think so. 16 Q In the worker's compensation cases in which you testi 17 fied involving occupational cancers, what chemicals 18 were involved? 19 A I'll try to go back chronologically if memory serves 20 me well as far as I can go in this regard. Asbestos 21 fibers, a mixture of chemicals, of course, solvent 22 exposures such as trichloroethylene and similar solvents 23 methylene chloride perhaps, silica exposure. 24 Q Silica dust? 25 A Silica dust, right. Nickel, nickel compound. I can't OOftOTHY M. WAGNEfl * ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 3 BFG13035 1 2 Q 3 4 5 A 6 / Q 8 9 A 10 Q 11 12 A 13 Q 14 A 15 Q 16 A 17 18 Q 19 20 A 21 Q 22 A really recall any specific substances. In those worker's compensation cases in which you testified that involved occupational cancers, who did you testify on behalf of? It would be a mixture. In behalf of a worker or an organization, an industry. What about the asbestos case, who did you testify on behalf of in that case? That was a worker. The cases involving solvent exposure, the trichloro ethylene and methylene chloride? Also for workers. The silica dust case? Let me reflect a moment on this. Certainly. I think a few were for workers. The majority of silica cases would have been for industry. When you say a few were for workers, do you mean a few of the silica dust cases or a few of the workers? A few of the cases. And the case or cases involving nickel compounds? For the worker. 23 Q In those occupational cancer cases in which you 24 testified on behalf of the worker, was it your opinion 25 that the worker's occupational exposure to the chemical OOROTHV M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 4 BFG13036 1 in question was the cause of their cancer? 2 A Strongly correlated. 3 Q Did you render an opinion in those occupational cancer 4 cases in which you testified on behalf of the worker as 5 6 7 8 9 A to whether it was more probable than not to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that that worker's cancer was caused by the occupational exposure to the chemical in question? Yes, sir. 10 Q In order to reach that conclusion in each of those 11 12 A cases, what factors did you evaluate? The factors I evaluated for these situations would be 33 the, naturally, the medical history, the physical 14 examinations, other pertinent medical records, such as 15 hospital findings, X-rays, laboratory tests, the 16 pathologist's reports, and, of course, exceedingly 17 important would have been the work exposure history, 18 type of jobs, how long.exposed, the quantity of 19 exposure, the time of exposure, protection used, if 20 any. 21 And that, coupled with my experiences in 22 factories, of course, paints an entire picture. So 23 it would be the environmental aspects and the clinical 24 aspects with which I'd form an opinion. 25 Q Was your opinion based also on your review of the OOROTHY M, WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COUflT MPOBT5BS MILWAUKEE 5 BFG13037 medical and scientific literature? A Of course. Q Did you base your opinions in any of those worker's compensation cases involving occupational cancers in which you testified on behalf of the claimant solely on the epidemiologic literature, or did you take all of these factors into account in rendering your opinion? A All of these factors were the prime sources of my opinion. However, when I began testifying, say in the j early ' 60's -- this is going beyond the 10-year period you mentioned to me earlier -- epidemiology in occupational medicine was an unknown science. Q Is it your opinion that in order to render competent medical opinions on the link or possible link between an occupational exposure and a cancer is that all of these factors you have listed must be taken into account? A Yes. And probably factors I.haven't listed. 20 Q Are there any that you can recall for me that you 21 haven't listed that you feel should be taken into 22 account, and let me run through what you've testified 23 to already. 24 You talked about the medical history of 25 the individual, physical examinations, medical records, OOftOTHY M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE BFG13038 q n ftT & C T Z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A 8 9 10 11 12 including lab reports, pathology reports, work histories!, including length of exposure, quantity of exposure, type of exposure, any respiratory protection that was provided to the worker, your own experiences in the industries in which the workers were employed, and the relevant medical and scientific literature? Yes. I didn't mention genetic factors, which any one of us would want to consider, too. And I should also say that in my experiences during these past ten, twenty, thirty years or more with rare, rare exceptions,j i I've always visited the work site. j MR. BUNDA: For the record, he also mentioned i 13 an analysis of the medical records. 14 A I didn't mention biopsies, but I mentioned pathologic 15 al and insustrial hygiene findings, the analyses of 16 the contaminent in the work room. That's included in 17 the environmental component. 18 Q What about the personal or social history of the 19 individual? 20 A Always included as part of the medical history, of 21 course, and that could be broken down into great de 22 tail, if needed. 23 Q What about those workers compensation cases in which 24 you've testified on behalf of the industry wherein 25 occupational cancer was claimed? Did you in those 21341007 DOROTHY M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 7 BFG13039 cases render an opinion to a reasonable degree of professional certainty that the occupational exposure to the chemical in question did not cause the worker's j cancer? A Yes. Q And in rendering that opinion, did you consider the same list of factors that you've given to me that you testified -- I don't mean testified -- that you took ` into account in rendering your opinions on behalf of the claimant in the other cases? A Essentially yes. But I would have, of course, consid- j i erable body of data collected by other people, other professionals, either locally, nationally, or inter 14 nationally, which I would, of course, had a chance 15 to review and study. 16 Q Is it your opinion, therefore, that in order to 17 render competent medical testimony as to the absence 18 of a causal connection between an occupational 19 exposure and a cancer in the worker that you likewise 20 have to consider all of the factors that you've 21 enumerated and cannot rely exclusively on one or two 22 of those factors? 23 MR. BUNDA: I'll object to the question on the 24 basis that it's vague. 25 BY MR. DELLI BOVI: j t -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 DOROTHY M. WAGNER ft ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE gj I BFG13040 Q You can go ahead and answer. A I'll try. Let me collect my thoughts on this. It's I a real complicated question you've tossed at me. Q Certainly. A Well, in this respect, let me say that if I were aware of working conditions and.had available the environ mental monitoring data by certified_or noncertified industrial hygiene people or other scientific persons that made determinations of contaminents or exposure levels in the work area or off the work area, hobbies for example, and external causes away from work, and i these exposures were found to be far below any internationally accepted norms or limit, guidelines, I would base my opinion and judgment on these measurable microscopic values that there could not be sufficient quantity to cause a reaction in the body such as a cancer. Q Is it your opinion, therefore, that there is a no effects level of exposure to a carcinogen? A Yes. Otherwise we wouldn't be here, any of us. Q You believe that there is a level of exposure to a carcinogen at which no individual will develope a cancer? A Probably, but I can't be 100 percent certain on that. Q Have you ever expressed that opinion on any of your OOflOTHV M. WAONES * ASSOCIATES COURT RCPORTtftS MILWAUKEE 9 BFG13041 1 publications? 2 A I'd have to refresh myself to answer that question. 3 That's a difficult memory retrieval matter. 4 Q Have you reviewed, in connection with this case, the 5 correspondence of Mr. Peterson to Dr. Shindell? 6 A Yes. I have seen that. 7 Q Are you aware from Dr. Peterson's letter to Shindell 8 of the airborn levels of vinyl chloride reported in 9 the Chrysler plant as the result of testing conducted 10 11 A in and after April of 1974? I'm aware, but I would like to quickly refresh myself, i | 12 if I may, please? 13 Q Certainly. 14 A Thank you. 15 Q I'm going to hand you Peterson's April 7, 1987, letter 16 to Shindell. I would just like you to focus on, Dr. 17 Zenz as you're going through that, on the vinyl | j 18 chloride that's discussed about solvents. We'll get 19 into that later. 20 A I just found what I was trying to refresh myself on. 21 Thank you. I'm skipping the other solvents now. 22 Let me look at this graph presentation again. Thank 23 you. Appreciate the review again. 24 Q Certainly. You are familiar then with the findings 25 of Mr. Shindell that were reported of Mr. Peterson -- DOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE BFG13042 1 excuse me -- that were reported to Shindell in April 2 of 1987? 3 A Yes, sir. 4< 0 Have you been furnished with any other information 5 regarding the airborn levels of vinyl chloride at 6 the Chrysler facility other than this document? 7 A Yes. I recall seeing documents prepared by the 8 hygienist from the Ohio Occupational Health Group. 9 Q Do you mean the Ohio Group or the Chrysler Industrual 10 11 A Hygiene Group? Both, I think. 12 Q Do you know whether or not it was on the basis of his 13 analysis of that data that Mr. Peterson prepared his 14 April 7, 1987, letter to Shindell? 35 A Yes. I believe he did do just that. 16 Q You're aware then that in 1974, there was air monitoring 17 conducted at the Chrysler facility to determine the 18 airborn concentrations of vinyl chloride in atmospheres 19 that the Chrysler employees would be working in? 20 A 21 Q Yes. Have you seen prior to today what has been marked as 22 Exhibit Peterson 2? 23 A I don't recall seeing this. May I look at it, please? 24 Q Certainly. 25 A May I ask who derived this and prepared this? DOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE H BFG13043 1 Q 2 Certainly. This was derived by Mr. Peterson. He testified yesterday that he took the data that was 3 supplied to him by Mr. Bunda, determined arithmetic 4 and geometric means, and calculated standard deviations from those figures. Based on air sampling analyses by other people such as Chrysler Hygienists and Division of Health in Ohio? I know it was based on Chrysler IH air sampling. 10 11 12 13 14 A Whether it also included State of Ohio, I'm not sure, but Mr. Peterson did testify yesterday that it was from ! I j this data, that is, Peterson Exhibit 2, that was based j on the information supplied to him by Mr. Bunda that i he prepared April 7, 1987. I see, 15 Q 16 Looking at Exhibit 2, which summarizes the data collected from the Chrysler facility as a result of 17 air sampling in *74, is it your understanding that the 18 air sampling done in the blender/calender area 19 revealed airbom vinyl chloride monomer concentrations 20 as high as 29 parts per million? 21 MR. BUNDA: I'm going to object-to that. 22 What you're asking is his understanding, and then 23 you're pointing to a number on Exhibit 2 which is 24 derived from other materials. I think that if you're 25 asking him to read that, that has no relevance to this DOROTHY M. WAGNER ft ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 12 21QTW iZ BFG13044 I case. That could be an analytic error if you look at the whole picture. MR. BUNDA: To be accurate, we need to go back to look to the exposure levels. And figure how that figure came to be and what time of the day and who did the analysis and so forth. The sample could have been contaminated. It's a common problem in collecting samples in working areas is contamination. MR. BUNDA: Especially since none of the other s exposures approach that. That's right. BY MR. DELLI BOVI: Did you assume, Dr. Zenz, when you reviewed the air sampling that was done by Chrysler that the results were valid or invalid? I had to assume that they were reasonably scientifically valid, made by competent personnel. Let me hand you Page 2 of a data sheet from the Chrysler facility that refers to a sampling taken on May 9 and May 10, 1974, and refers to a Jim Broady loading/blender of 29 parts per million; do you see that, sir? Yes, sir, I do. OOROTHY M. WAGNER ft ASSOCIATES count ftEnofiTens MILWAUKEE BFG13045 1 Q And is that one of the documents that was provided to 2 you by Mr. Bunda? 3 A Yes, I think so. 4 0 All right. For purposes of your opinions that yoii will 5 express in this case, did you assume that that was a 6 valid sample or an invalid sample? 7 A Looking at all of the findings, X assumed it was valid. 8 Q Now, let's go next to the receiving/storage area. 9 A Excuse me. May I have that previous document back with 10 Mr. Broady's name on it. I just want to check and see 11 who long -- whether there was a one-hour sample or 12 four-hour or eight-hours. It doesn't give that data 13 here at all. 14 MR. BUNDA: That's an indication-- 15 A This is incomplete. I only have Page 2. 16 17 Q BY MR. DELLI. BOVI: If we move down to the receiving/storage category, 18 do you see levels reported there in May and November 19 of 1974 of 29, 27, 22, 17, and 50 parts per million? 20 MR. BUNDA: Same objection. I think that we 21 ought to look at the underlying documents to understand 22 those figures. 23 A Within that same month, there are exposure levels 24 reported of 0.60 parts per million. 25 Q Yes, sir. I understand that. DOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 14 BFG13046 1 A 9 Q 3 A 4 Q o_ il 6 A I'd have to look at all this in total. Fine. Here it is. May I? Sure. You were supplied with all those documents by Mr. Bunda, correct? Yes. j j j Q 8 9 A 10 j | n 12 13 14 15 16 17 Q 18 A 19 20 21 22 23 Would you look at the data that reports these levels, receiving/storage. May 10, 1974. (Witness complies.) Sampling rate was meteatnin (phon etic), which is typical, and for the most part, ten minutes duration. This is a report, a letter of February 11, 1974. j j I This is what I'm trying to determine, whether or not this is a peak instantaneous sample for a short duration of time or a sample for the entire day.j That's very important to me. I j Why would that be important to you? Well, any of us can be exposed to a spill, for j i example, of isotone in the bathroom and have a heavy exposure to 200 parts per million for minutes, and that could be tested for and reported as heavy exposure, but it would be just that one moment. A ten minute test period from my point 24 of view is not good industrial hygiene technique. 25 Q Is it your opinion that the sampling that was done at c t :\T h c ry DOROTHY M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES count hepoaters MILWAUKEE 15 BFG13047 Chrysler in 1974 and thereafter is or is not represent- | ative of the employee exposures to vinyl chloride at that plant? A Fairly representative from what you've given me, from what I've read. Considering the era, fifteen years ago, I'm surprised at the.good industrial workmanship performed by Ohio and Chrysler. I'm pleased. Q Are you aware of any sampling done by Chrysler or the State or the Federal Government at the Chrysler facil ity' prior to 1974 for vinyl chloride? A Yes. In the documents provided by Mr. Bunda. Q And where is that information? A You've just given me a copy. Of course, dated in 1968. Unfortunately, I can't read all of the copies, but I note that in December of 1968, vinyl chloride was reported as a trace at all calendering stations. Of course, I can't be aware of other studies made at earlier dates at Chrysler Corporation; that would be beyond the scope of my information. Q Well, I'd like you.to assume that Chrysler didn't operate or own the facility prior to 1968. Are you aware of any reported levels of workers exposure to vinyl chloride at the Chrysler plant prior to the data that was collected in and after 1974? MR. BUNDA: I'll object. I think that that DOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE . BFG13048 was asked and answered. He's indicated they found a trace in 1968. BY MR. DELLI BOVI: \ Q Are you aware of any other tracing between 1968 and t j i ! J 1974 of vinyl chloride levels in the Chrysler plant other than that reported in 1968 correspondence? A Well, the information given me has been directed for ! j this episode today antidates 1968. That's all I have. Q . Postdates 1968? A Postdates, excuse me. 11 Q And my question is are you aware of any other sampling 12 | other than that reported in the 1968 correspondence for 13 vinyl chloride at Chrysler between 1968 and 1974? 14 A I'd have to look at the Ohio documentation once again, i 15 please, if I may? 16 Q Certainly. 17 A They stated in a report in February of '74 -- that is 18 the Ohio personnel, State of Ohio -- they made 19 previous studies in the *60's at Chrysler's request. 20 Q Does it refer to vinyl chloride? 21 A I'm hoping to find that. They mention other solvents, 22 of course. All right. Here we come to the main 23 production lines. 24 I would have to refer to the American 25 Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists DOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 17 BFG13049 threshold limited values document of the ' 60's and ' 70's. They are published annually, and if I recall, i i j at that time vinyl chloride probably was in the range ; of 200 parts per million or above. Q There was an ACGIH TLV for vinyl chloride prior to '74 time frame of 500 parts per million. A Thank you for refreshing me. Q Certainly. A In reviewing the documentation and studies of the plant facility by the Ohio Health Personnel, State of Ohio i 11 Health Personnel, they may have been more concerned j 12 i jwith other solvants than vinyl chloride at that time, 13 and this is why I find that this scant information on 14 vinyl chloride at present, but I must pursue this a 15 bit further, please. 16 Q Sure. 17 A No. I have no further information regarding studies 18 performed prior to 1968. 19 Q Or between 1968 and 1974? 20 A Only what has been provided by you or Mr. Bunda at 21 this point. 22 Q Other than the reference to vinyl chloride in the 23 correspondence in 1968, you were not aware of any 24 testing done at Chrysler to determine airborn levels 25 of vinyl chloride prior to April of 1974? DOROTHY M. WAGNER . ASSOCIATES COURT PORT|BS MILWAUKEE < ! .i 1 BFG13050 A No. That's not so. I mentioned moments ago that one 2 of the division of health from Ohio reported trace 3 levels. 4 Q In 1968? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q And that was recorded in correspondence in 1968? 7 A Yes, included with the recent materials. 8 0 Certainly. My question, Dr. Zenz, is except for that 9 reference, are you aware of any testing done at 10 Chrysler for airborn levels of vinyl chloride prior to 11 April of 1974? 12 A No. 13 Q Now, you indicated earlier that you regarded the 14 testing that Chrysler initiated in April of 1974 and 15 thereafter for.airborn levels of vinyl chloride as 16 good industrial hygiene? 17 A Right. Yes, sir. 18 Q Was it good industrial hygiene not to test at all for 19 airborn levels of vinyl chloride at the plant between 20 21 A 1968 and April of 1974? It might have been, because they might have had good -- 22 Perhaps for other materials, if we control the solvent 23 emission, say, for methyl ethyl.ketone, by proper 24 industrial hygiene and engineering control, all other 25 solvents ought to be controlled simultaneously. DOROTHY M. WAONER A ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE ^9 BFG13051 1 Q 2 A Is vinyl chloride a solvent? Yes, sir. Well, vinyl chloride monomer is gas. 3 Q Are you aware or have you been furnished with any 4 documentation indicating excessive solvent levels %in 5 the Chrysler plant on the mezzanine level in the ink 6 room? 7 A I'd have to refresh myself, please. 8 Q Certainly. 9 A May I ask why you mentioned a mezzanine level? 10 Q Because that is an area of concern in thiscase. 11 A All right. Thank you. Icould understand ifyou 12 asked me about the basement levels. 13 0 What I would like to do to speed it along is ask you 14 whether you've been shown any documentation of 'i ii i ! | | I j j 15 citations to Chrysler in 1976 for excessive levels of 16 solvent exposure in the ink room or the mezzanine area 17 of the ink room? 18 A You say citations? 19 Q Yes, sir. 20 A By OSHA? 21 Q OSHA. 22 A In the `70's? 23 Q In 1976. 24 A I'm not aware of citations as such, sir. 25 Q All right. Are you aware of any testing for vinyl DOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 20 BFG13052 1 chloride at the Chrysler facility that was ever done I 2 on the mezzanine level of the ink room at any time? 3 A I don't recall that, no, sir. 4 Q You indicated earlier that one of the reasons that 5 there may not have been testing for vinyl chloride 6 prior to 1974 was because there were no reported 7 excursions of the TLV's for other materials, correct? 8 A Not entirely correct. What I meant was that other 9 solvents were of greater concern than vinyl chloride. 10 The main concern in those davs against vinyl chloride i I 11 as an exposure was its inflammability and explosivity. j 12 Q Is it your testimony here today that the only concern I 13 of the PVC industry prior to 1974 relating to vinyl 14 chloride was with its explosivity? 15 A 16 No. I didn't mean that. i MR. BUNDA: I'm going to obejct to the question.j 17 I think it's an unfair question. We've been discussing j 18 the conditions of the PVC fabriacting plant of Chrysler. 19 Now, if you're going to expand it to all the PVC 20 industry including the monomer of vinyl chloride and 21 the manufacturing of polyvinyl chloride, then I think 22 the witness is going to have to recognize that you're 23 changing the scope of your question. 24 BY MR. DELLI BOVI: 25 Q Let's talk about Chrysler then. Is it your testimony DOROTHY M. WACNER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 21 BFG13053 Coday chat one of the reasons Chrysler may not have performed testing for vinyl chloride monomer between 1968 and April of 1974 is because they had no reason J { to be concerned about health effects relating to ' vinyl chloride exposure other than explosivity? A No, sir. I didn't say that, nor did I intend to give that impression. ! Q Well, I'd like you to assume they didn't between 1968 and April of 1974. A If you wish me to, I can assume that, yes, sir. i ! Q You indicated that that may have been good industrial ; j hygiene practice not to have tested for vinyl chloride 13 during that six-year time frame? 14 A I might have been. 15 Q Why? 16 A In the processes of manufacturing these products, 17 many chemicals are used in great quantities far | 18 exceeding that of vinyl chloride, like materials and 19 solvents that cause acute and rapid effects. If 20 these are controlled or were controlled, and I assume 21 that they may well have been controlled, then the 22 judgment of the industrial hygienist or the physician 23 in charge of the program would feel comfortable with 24 that in controlling the .top-most irritative or toxic 25 materials would include the lesser and least dangerous 7 .Z V X W IZ OOROTHY M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES CQUftT Rt*0*TtRS MILWAUKEE 22 BFG13054 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q 8 9 10 11 A 12 13 14 15 Q 16 17 A 18 19 20 Q 21 A 22 materials as well. I can't very well go into a plant and say, "test for everything, 400 substances." "I know you s are using 50 in this process, let's check out the most troublesome areas first, and if these are under control, fine." What about chemcials that are used in a facility that contain known or suspected carcinogens; is it good S industrial hygiene practice to test for the levels of those known or suspected carcinogens? Yes. But I must back off to qualify my answer. j One would have to know the precise amount of the j j substance present in that particular compound or mixture first of all. And where would one get that information, if you were Chrysler? From the manufacturer of the product? If I were at that time with Chrysler, the first step is to get the material safety data sheet from the manufacturer, the provider of the product. And you, in fact, in 19-- But wait. I haven't finished. That material safety data sheet may not be as thorough as I would have 23 wished at the time, because a supplier may not have been 24 the manufacturer, so I would go further and ask for the 25 manufacturer to give me the material safety data sheets OOflOTHV M. WAGNER ft ASSOCIATES COURT RPORTRS MILWAUKEE 23 BFG13055 for all the ingredients putinto those products, and then X would have store analyses of the quantification of the materials present. This could involve one's own internal laboratory in the research department, the quality control laboratory, or to send a sample to an accredited lab at a hospital or at a private laboratory and so forth, and even ask the government people to use their own laboratory for these tests. These are the results I would then look at, not singly, but there may be half a dozen of such data sheets that I would be interested in. I would order my own analyses and decide what steps to take from there. Q X want to put you in the shoes now, if I may, of an occupational health physician or an industrial hygien ist at Chrysler between 1968 and the public announcement of the Goodrich angiosarcoma deaths in early 1974. Why during that '68 to r74 time frame would you be requesting material safety data sheets from your suppliers? A I have a privilege of amplifying my answer, and I'll do just that. I was the only physician present for the NIOSH Consulting and Review Committee, which formulated the material safety data sheets, so I was one of the *0 1341024 OOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 24 13056 1 founders of that particular systematic process. Q X understand that from your resume. A Thank you. So I have a keen interest in good material * safety data sheets, and I know what needs to be done to produce a good MSDS, I hope this helps in my forthcoming answer. Nevertheless, I do and would have relied on laboratory data of direct analyses quantification of a lab test, and I would request external verification as I always have in the past from one or more labora tories . Q What information does a material safety data sheet give the recipient with regard to the hazards, health : 14 hazards associated with the product that it refers to? 15 A Unfortunately, the worst scenario. We'd never 16 anticipated that. 17 Q What did you anticipate? 18 A I had anticipated an even-handed neutral report with 19 ample references and documentation to back up any 20 statements produced on these data sheets, good human 21 responses, good industrial hygiene responses to be 22 attached. 23 Unfortunately, and I must say this in 24 25 DOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 25- BFG13057 60 1 2 3 4 5 Q 6 7 A 8 Q 9 10 11 12 A 13 or for many years have had to state worst case observations, x^orst possibilities, and these are dictated by corporate lawyers rather than scientific and even- 1 J ! handed reports . You were involved in 1975 as a consultant reviewing i j the NIOSH criteria documents for the MSDS? Right. Was it the intended purpose of the MSDS to make the recipient of that document a full disclosure concerning the potential health ramifications of exposure to the product? Of course. Excuse me. It was before '74. That involved over 456 compounds listed by the ACGIK, ! i j iii i ] 14 and I probably reviewed one-third of those personally, 15 and I believe that period of time was in the early 16 '70's. I can't be precise as to the year, perhaps 17 '71, '72 through '74, *75. IB Q Do you recall whether you reviewed vinyl chloride? 19 A I can't recall the specific materials, no. 20 Q Have you been provided by Mr. Bunda with any MSDS 21 authored by any PVC manufacturer prior to the public 22 announcement of the Goodrich angiosarcoma deaths? 23 A I haveiot. 24 Q Have you ever seen any MSDS for any PVC resin published 25 prior to February of 1974? SfeoTig r g DOROTHY M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 26 BFG13058 1 A Widespread use of these data sheets didn't really take S o place until after those dates in the mid to later 3 *70's, if I recall correctly. No, I was not. 4 Q Is it the responsibility of a manufacturer of a 5 chemical to disclose any of the material safety data 6 sheets, any of the hazardous components of that mater 7 ial? 8 A' Yes, it is. 9 Q Do you regard vinyl chloride as a hazardous material? 10 MR. EUNDA: You're talking about today? 11 MR. DELLI BOVI: Yes, today. 12 MR. BUNDA: Or 1974? 13 MR. DELLI BOVI: Let's talk about 1974. 14 MR. BUNDA: Well, you've got two questions. 15 Which do you want to talk about? 16 BY MR. DELLI BOVI: 17 0 Let's talk about 1974. In 1974, did you regard vinyl 18 chloride as hazardous material? 19 A If you tell me the concentrations and durations of 20 exposure, I can answer that. 21 Q Did you regard vinyl chloride in 1974 as a carcinogen? 22 A Yes. But that was based on heavy work exposures for 23 a long period, many years of high concentrations in 24 the thousands of parts per million. 25 Q If a manufacturer*s product contains a known DOROTHY M. WAGNER 4 ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 27 BFG13059 in measurable quantity, is the manufacturer obligated in your opinion to disclose the existence of that carcinogenic component in its MSDS? A I'll try to answer that question based on the %% j | ii | present actions in the USA. I believe the concentra tion would have to be based on the suspect carcinogen and the concentration of that substance or the amount in that particular material, its component. You may know the law better than I do. It may be under one percent, if I recall, a mention j | may have to be made on that material. But if we take j i our children's plastic Lego toys or our grandchildren's j i i Lego toys, the components there individually would be considered extremely dangerous. Q What components? 16 A Butadiene, extirene (phonetic), to say nothing of the 17 lanolin dyes or other inorganic dyestuffs to color 18 these toys. And they are made by the billions each 19 year, and millions of children are playing with these 20 every day, every moment. 21 We couldn't very well say that these toys 22 contain such and such chemicals to produce these 23 beautiful colors and beautiful products. It would 24 scare the pants off everybody. No. You can't put 25 this down every substance, because it's no consequence SZOTW iZ DOROTHY M. WAGNER ft ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 28 BFG13060 1 2 3 4 5 Q 6 7 A 8 Q 9 10 11 A 12 Q The process of manufacturing may eliminate the potential for any exposure. Like this table top, for example, is a styrene compound. It*s harmless. \ Have you seen any MSDS for any PVC resin published after February of 1974? Probably, yes. And did those MSDS published after February of 1974 that you've seen disclose the existence of residual vinyl chloride monomer in the resin? Yes. They should have mentioned that. Are you aware today of any documents published by 13 Goodyear, Conoco, Tenneco, Firestone, Union Carbide, 14 Uniroyal, or Diamond Shamrock disclosing to any of 15 its PVC resin customers prior to 1974 that the resin 16 contained inreacted vinyl chloride monomer? 17 A The reason I hesitate to answer you immediately and 18 so positively is that in reviewing material safety 19 data sheets, and I see these frequently, I may only 20 make a cursory glance at its source, for example, 21 whether it's Union Carbide or Occidental or Shell, 22 whatever it may be. And this does not stick in one's 23 memory, so I can't answer that. I don't know. 24 Q Let me ask it another way then. Are you aware of any 25 MSDS published by any PVC resin manufacturer prior to l 620t e OOROTHY M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COUNT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 29 BFG13061 1 2 3 A 4 Q 5 6 i February of 1974 disclosing that its resin contained unreacted vinyl chloride monomer? j i ! I can't answer that. I don't recall that. When were you first aware, of any studies in animal-s reporting the development of cancers following exposure ! \ i i i to vinyl chloride? A I believe it would be when I heard of the forthcoming 8 publication by Johnson and Kretch (phonetic) on the 9 angiosarcoma cases which may have been in '74, '75, 10 something on that order. 11 I Q Kow did you find out about that before their work was 12 published? 13 A I was on the editorial board of the Journal and, of 14 course, we had periodic meetings of the editorial 15 Journal Board of Occupational Medicine, and I also knew 16 Dr. Johnson personally. 17 Q How long were you on the editorial board of the Journal 18 of Occupational Medicine? 19 A At least ten years. 20 Q Prior to 1974? 21 A Yes. At least until *78 or *79. 22 Q So you had been on that board since the mid to late 23 1960's? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q And at no time prior to your communication with DOROTHY M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 30 O S O W fff BFG13062 Johnson, which occurred shortly prior to the publica 4 tion of his article in JOH, were you aware of any t reports concerning the development of cancers in l animals exposed to vinyl chloride? V r A I was not at the time. ( Q So the first thing you knew as an editor of the Journal of Occupational Medicine about the potential carcino genicity of vinyl chloride was Johnson's communication 9 regarding his findings concerning angiosarcomas among 10 the Goodrich work- force? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q Do you know as you sit here today whether or not the 13 PVC resin industry, prior to Johnson's communication 14 to you was, in fact, aware of animal experimentation 15 revealing the generation of cancers in animals exposed 16 to vinyl chloride? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 (Pending question read.) 19 Q 20 A What do you know about that? Immediately his report generated extreme interest 21 and the literature searches were made and documents 22 were copied from journals and so forth. 23 Q And what did that reveal to you concerning the knowledge 24 that the PVC industry had prior to 1974 concerning !e25 animal studies and vinyl chloride carcinogenicity? DOROTHY M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COUAT AEROBTEAS MILWAUKEE 31 BFG13063 oo A The industry as such had periodic meetings about many matters, including this one I'm sure, for national 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Q 20 A 21 Q 22 A 23 Q 24 A 25 Q organizations. They probably had information available published in the literature and oral communication and so forth and the scientific meetings, which may or may not have been published in transactions later on, and of course, we all would have access to that. The interested industry representatives *N would probably have access to some of the documents perhaps a bit earlier than I would have had in some instances. For example, when Viola made a report on i | i his animal study in Tokyo, I attended a congress. I was the first to do human experimenta tion, and I presented that, but at that time I had no interest in listening to his dissertation in rat exposures. This would not a problem for six months to a year later for general scientific dissemination. So you were at the conference in Tokyo in '69? That was the National Congress of Occupational Health. Occupational Health Congress? Right. In 1969, July? September. Where Viola presented the results of his experimentatio DOROTHY M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTEHS MILWAUKEE -O 32 BFG13064 1 2 3 A 4 Q 5 A 6 Q 7 8 A 9 10 Q 11 A 12 Q with rats in which he demonstrated the development of cancer following exposure of vinyl chloride? Yes, sir. Did you attend his presentation? I did not. X don't recall that at all. Did you receive a copy of any written report of his presentation? Not directly. I purchased several copies of the complete transactions, including my own. Do you still have those? I do. Do you have a copy of that portion of. that document 13 you purchased that relates to Viola's presentation? 14 A I would think so, but I would have to check the book 15 and the reference index. 16 Q Have you furnished a copy of that Viola presentation 17 to Mr. Bunda? 18 A X have no t. 19 Q Would you kindly check for me either today or totnmorrow 20 and see if you can find that reference, and if you 21 would forward a copy to Mr. Bunda-22 MR. BUNDA: No, no. Wait a minute. You can 23 ask him questions here. We've gone through this whole 24 case and there have been question of witnesses to 25 present things. I've lost track of them quite frankly, Sgq-TECTZ OOHOTHY M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 33 BFG13065 4 r e 6 7 a g 10 li 12 13 14 15 Q 16 17 A 18 and I'd ask you to do a formal Request for them so that that way it's on the record, and we can establish what's record and what's not to be produced subsequent to the deposition. I don't want to be accused later of not producing something that I've simply forgotten or not determined that we have to make a presentation, because I haven't reviewed the deposition transcript. HR. DELLI BOVI: I'll be glad to do it by a formal Request. I just want to make sure Dr. Zenz is agreeable to do that. .,,I would be glad to pay you for your time and photocopying expenses in collecting that and transmitting it to Mr. Bunda. HR. BUNDA: I don't think we have a problem. BY HR. DELLI BOVI: I'm just asking you because I've not been able to get it from my other sources. I'm surprised, because of the beautiful Japanese publication, they did an extremely fine job compared 19 to other country's reporting proceedings. I can get 20 that. I can see it on the shelf. 21 Please understand that during a conference 22 of this sort, there may be hundreds of papers presented, 23 and there are many interesting things to do and people 24 to meet, and it's impossible to cover all topics. s25 Q When did you first see a copy of Dr. Viola's article DOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COU*T REPOHT*S MILWAUKEE BFG13066 1 2 3 4 A 5 6 7 Q 8 9 A 10 11 Q 12 A 13 Q 14 15 16 17 A that appeared in 1970 in March in Medicina De La Vora, i and 1*11 hand you a copy of that, a translation of that,! if you would like to take a look at that. I have a copy of this, and it was given to me by Mr. Bunda. However, I was aware of this publication long before I knew of Chrysler or you folks. Were you aware of that publication prior to Johnson's communication to you concerning the angiosarcoma deaths? You mean the Journal of Occupational Medicine form report? ! Yes, sir. j No, I was not. When were you first aware of the presentation that Dr. Viola made to the International Cancer Congress in Houston in May of 1970, and I'll hand you a document that relates to that presentation? I'd like to clarify my answer. Probably in '73 or '74, i IS because at that time I was preparing a chapter for the 19 textbooks of Occupational Medicine on vinyl chloride, 20 and I probably smbmitted that chapter to the publisher 21 in '74, so it's sometime in '74,.and I did have almost 22 all these references available to me. 23 | Q 24 Did you begin work on that publication prior to or following Johnson's communication to you? ^ 25 A That's a close one. Probably before, and of course, ^ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS Milwaukee 35 a BFG13067 when this was formally published in the literature, I I recall adding it to the chapter post haste. o What was your initial reason for preparing the chapter on vinyl chloride? A I was preparing the chapter on the occupational health aspects of toxics in rubber manufacturing, and this would have been one of the subjects included. 8 Q Was that study or that paper sponsored by anyone? 9 A Well, just a publisher, of course, medical text 10 publisher. 11 And were you aware when*you started -- Were you not 12 aware when you started that work of the reports of 13 carcinogenicity in either humans or animals exposed 14 to vinyl chloride? 15 That book contained thousands of references, and I 16 have copies of most of them, so I can't answer you. 17 I may have included some of these even 18 before the Johnson and Kretch report came out, as a 19 matter of complete necessity, for the sake of complete 20 necessity. 21 When were you first aware of the article published by 22 Viola in cancer research in 1971 entitled, "Oncogenic 23 Response of Rat Skin, Lungs, and Bones to Vinyl 24 Chloride"? 25 It might have been in 1973, because at that I was 9 0 fp T Z DOROTHY M. WAGNER ft ASSOCIATES COUAT fiEPOf'TEflS MIlWAUKtf 36 BFG13068 1 2 3 4 o 6 7 Q 3 9 A 11 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 A 18 19 Q 20 A 21 Q 22 23 24 25 actively engaged in producing this textbook. Because j of the lead time required by the publisher to put out a book at a certain date meant that I had to prepare things in advance. All of the contributors had to do that, so it was in *73. and no more than '74. Do you know whether it was before or after your communications with Johnson? j | i i ] I can't be sure of that. Did you regard Dr. Viola's presentation at the International Congress on occupational health in 1969 as an important presentation? i t i i MR. BUNDA: I'm going to object to that, because I think he's already testified he doesn't recall being there when the presentation was made. Nevertheless, you can answer. I was not present at the conference. BY MR. DELLI BOVI: Did you read his paper? Well, perhaps some years later. Do you have any recollection of reading Viola's paper that was given at the 1969 conference in Tokyo prior to 1973 or 1974 when you began work on that book chapter? I can say with some certainty that I probably read 21341037 DOROTHY M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 37 BFG13069 excerpts or abstracts. One would need to do that to make certain the reference was worthy of including in the chapter of a text. Q Do you recall whether or not following your review of Viola's presentation at the 1969 International Congress on Occupational Health you regarded that paper as an important one? A Probably not. Q What about his 1979 publication in Medicina De La Vora? A '79? Q *70. I'm sorry. MR. BUNDA: Well again. I'm not sure that 14 we've established that he read that publication, so I 15 think there's a lack of foundation. 16 BY MR. DELLI BOVI: 17 Q Well, have you read it? 18 A I glanced through it, of course. His studies, of 19 course, dealt with animals, rats, and so on, and 20 naturally we look at these things but they are not 21 high on my occupational health priority list. And 22 the animal experiments, these were done by the 23 thousands all over the world with thousands of 24 substances, and let me say this, that the smaller the 25 species of animal, the greater chance of finding JO i DOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COURT *P0*TR$ MILWAUKEE 38 O BFG13070 00 tumors without finding exposure to anything, just during their natural short lifetimes. Q Are you sware of the incidence of naturally occurring cancers in rats? A Not specifically, no. i Q What about Dr. Viola's presentation at the International I c A Cancer Congress in Houston in 1970, have you reviewed that paper prior to today? Yes. I^have reviewed that in the past months. 10 0 Do you recall reviewing either that presentation or 11 the Medicina De La Vora article in 1973 or 1974, 12 when you were working on that book chapter? 13 A I could better answer if I had the book in front of me. 14 I recall the Viola reference alphabetically, but I 15 can't say mroe than that. 16 Q Did you regard Viola's presentation in Houston after 17 you read it as an important presentation? 18 MR. BUNDA: You mean after he read it a 19 couple months ago? 20 BY MR. DELLI BOVI: 21 Q When you first read it? 22 A I can't answer that. 23 Q What about his publication in cancer research in 1971, 24 did you regard that as an important publication, an 25 important article? 21341039 DOROTHY M. WAGNER ft ASSOCIATES count reporters MILWAUKEE BFG13071 39 A I would have to say that nearly all articles published Ii in that esteemed journal should be regarded with some j i great value. Q Why? And X want to focus specifically on Viola's article. Why was that article, when it was published in 1971, important? MR. BUNDA: Well, I don't think that's what he | i; testified to. Let's back up fora second. j i A If you want me to give a review of a paper, I could do | I that, but this report is based to a large extent on his 1 n earlier reports as many papers are. It's still with 12 rats. Heavy exposures-- Heavy exposures again, j j 13 Pleaserephrase your question, sir. 14 BY MR. DELLI BOVI: 15 Q Do you know who sponsored Dr. Viola's work? j i ! 16 A No. I would assume his institute bore his salary 17 and so forth and expenses. j j j j 18 Q Do you know whether his research dealing with vinyl 19 chloride exposure to rats was sponsored by the 20 European PVC industry? 21 A I couldn't be sure of that. 22 Q Have you reviewed prior to today Dr. Dahl's testimony? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 (Short recess taken.) 25 BY MR. DELLI BOVI: 21341040 DOROTHY M. WAGNER ft ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 40 BFG13072 I Q Dr. Zenz, my question before the break was whether or not you regarded Dr. Viola's 1971 article in cancer research after you read it as an important article. MR. BUNDA: I'm going to object to the question. I don't think there's a foundation laid as to exactly 6 when he read it, and I guess my objection also goes to 8 9 I10 I n IA j 12 13 A 14 15 16 17 | Q 18 A 19 20 21 the point in time. Did he consider it important when he read it in view of everything else he knew, or did he consider it important when it first came out j.n 1971, looking for hindsight. Could we temporarily go off the record? (Discussion off the record.) i| i i Assuming that I did review a summary and abstract or excerpts of the Viola publication on animal.experimenta tion, I probably considered it of importance, yes. BY MR. DELLI BOVI: But -- But more so from the animal results that I could then extrapolate to man. That was my concern throughout my career as to the validity of animals transposed to a worker, a human. 22 Q Obviously you can't do the exposure studies on humans 23 in terms of what Viola did. You can't put humans in 24 a chemical chamber exposing them to 30 parts per 25 million of PVC and see whether or not humans get cancer. 21341041 DOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 41 BFG13073 A It's an animal statistic level naturally. O So one of the tools that researchers use to determine the potential carcinogenicity of chemicals in man is to do animal research, correct? A Certainly, with this admonision: I prefer to see studies for occupational purposes done with animals as large as possible, and that would include the primates, which would include then dogs, young and ' large adults, monkeys, all the way up and including 10 baboons, if available. 11 Q Are you aware of any study sponsored by any U.S. PVC 12 resin manufacturer or any trade association of U.S. 13 PVC manufacturers dealing with the exposure of any 14 animals to vinyl chloride? 15 A ' 1*11 have to clarify my response to your question in16 this manner: In reading a paper of any type, which 17 includes some of my publications, often an acknowledg 18 ment footnote is present either in the beginning of 19 the first page or at the end of the text matter for 20 the references. We would say this study was supported 21 in part by the St. Luke's Hospital Research Foundation, 22 this study was supported in part by the American 23 Cancer Society or the Red Cross. 24 But, again, when I read these reports and to 25 put them into my mental memory bank, we tend not to put DOROTHY M. WAGNER ASSOCIATES COUAT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 42 BFG13074 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A that portion of the report in one's mind, so I'm not aware of the sponsorship of many of the scientific reports published in the literature. It may have been a cursory glance where it was presented or sponsored in part or all of it, and this is my explanation to your question. Let me ask the question then. Doctor, in a broader context. Other than the studies done by Viola and Maltoni and prior to 1974, are you aware of any studies conducted anywhere in North America in which rats or other animals were exposed to vinyl chloride in an attempt to determine whether or not the material was carcinogenic? I've refreshed myself. Yes. I was aware of these 15 studies, and prominently among these would be one of 16 my friends who is probably still with Dow Chemical as 17 their chief toxicologist. 18 They did many animal, and listing refer 19 ences of these documents you've given me and others 20 that I've seen, his animal experimentations stand out 21 prominently. So yes, I was aware, but not in great 22 detail or for your purposes today. 23 Q I'd like to read you a question and answer from Dr. 24 Dahl's deposition, and ask you if you agree with his 25 answer to the question: 2/341043 DOROTHY M, WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 43 BFG13075 MR. BUNDA: I'm going to object to this on the grounds that it's irrelevant and improper. First of all, I'm also going to object on the basis that it's a vague question. Are you asking him whether he's* agreeing that you read the question correctly? MR. DELLI BOVI: No. I'm asking whether or not j he agrees with the answer Dr. Dahl gave to the question.! BY MR. DELLI BOVI: Q "Q Do you regard those documents, Dr. Dahl, and that refers to these three Viola papers that you have before you, as documents calling into serious question the ? i j it carcinogenicity of vinyl chloride? 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A 25 A I regard the one in 1971 in cancer research as so doing. The others I regard as preliminary reports, and I think one would be unwise to draw any conclusions, any important conclusions from them, but the paper in 1971 by Viola, Maltoni, and Kaputa is certainly an important paper to which attention should be made." Do you agree with Dr. Dahl's assessment of Dr. Viola's 1971 article? I can hardly disagree. He's the world's most prominent epidemiologist in the field, and I've listened to his m nw Tz DOROTHY M. WAGNER * ASSOCIATES COUNT REPORTERS MllWAU*EE ^ BFG13076 lectures, and X know of. him. He's the foremost epidemiologist in the broad sense. I'm not certain what experience he has in the occupational medical sense directly. He probably'has reviewed more papers than I have on tumors, cancers. I would have to go along with his assessment, of course. Q Is there any testimony that you recall reading in Dr. Dahl's deposition with which you disagree? MR. BUNDA: Again, I'm going to object. 11 12 13 14 15 Q 16 17 A 18 Dr. Dahl's deposition took over three hours. If you want to point him to a specific passage, I think that's perfectly reasonable, but to ask him to agree with the entire deposition, I think is unfiar. BY MR. DELLI BOVI: All right. Would you prefer that I do it that way. Dr. Zenz? If I have a choice, of course, I'd insist that you would, please. 19 Q Do you recall Dr. Dahl testifying -- and this is Page 20 107 of his deposition. I'll be glad to give you that 21 reference if you would like. 22 A I may have to refer to it because it took me over 23 three hours to go through it, and I can't recall all 24 the numerical sequences of the questions and answers. 25 ' If I may say so, this is a complete seminar on __________________________________________ : DOROTHY M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MltWAUKEE 45 BFG13077 Z1241045 epidemiology. HR. DELLI BOVI: I move to strike the answer as non-responsive. BY MR. DELLI BOVI: Q The testimony on Page 107 beginning at Line 7: i "A The working rule is to assume that there is an effect proportional to dose down to vanish l ingly low levels, given that the material is c 1( --S 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS a mutagen. If it is not a mutagen, then my working rule would be that is probably not the case and there would be a threshold below I ! l which it had no effect." Q Vinyl chloride is a mutagen? A Yes. Q Therefore, your working rule is what? A My working rule is that you would assume there was an effect proportional to dose down to vanishingly msall levels, a vanishingly small 19 effect, but an effect." 20 Do you agree with Dr. Dahl's testimony in that regard? 21 MR. BUNDA: I'm going to object to the question 22 because it unfairly characterizes Dr. Dahl's opinion 23 on this. If you were to show him on Page 106 where 24 the question was asked about whether he has an opinion, 25 I think you also have to read to Dr. Zenz the fact DOROTHY M. WAGNER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 46 BFG13078 chat Dr. Dahl indicated that he does not have an opinion, and he wished he could. Rather, he has a working rule that he goes on until he gets additional i information which permits him to form an opinion. ' ! i So Dr. Zenz, why don't you read 106 in conjunc- : i tion with 107. I think that will more fairly character-! j ire it. A On through the Question to Dr. Dahl was: | |i i MQ Is it your opinion that for any human carcinogen including vinyl chloride, there is i: a safe level of exposure at which no potential j 1: carcinogenic effects will occur? 12 A That is something that I wish I could answer. 14 I really have not got an opinion on that. 15 In cancer research, we work on the assumption 16 that unless there are strong reasons otherwise, 17 we postulate that an effect is produced 18 proportional to dose down to vanishingly 19 small levels. 20 Whether this is so or not is a matter of 21 great debate, and which we really have no firm 22 scientific evidence one way*or another. We 23 act on the assumption in the same way as we 24 are acting on the assumption now that other 25 people's tobacco smoke in a room will cause a 2134104V DOROTHY M. WAGNER A ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS Milwaukee 47 BFG13079 risk co all the people who are not smoking. But the scientific proof that this is so is I such that I really have not got an opinion. I have a working rule, but not an opinion''" BY MR. DELLI BOVI: j Q Is it your opinion that for any human carcinogen, including vinyl chloride, there is a save level of f exposure at which no potential carcinogenic effects { will occur? 1( A I certainly do. This is true for most substances 1] used known to man, including ionizing radiation, and 12 I can't argue with Professor Dahl. He's the most 13 eminent authority. 14 My only puzzlement with his expression is the 15 vanishingly small levels for man so precise that.it 16 struck me as rather odd, but to me, that would be 17 parts per billion I would assume he's discussing. 18 Q So it's your testimony today that at least at levels 19 above parts per billion-- 20 A I'm sorry. Parts per million, correct, parts per 21 million. Not for any specific material, however. 22 Q Let's talk about vinyl chloride. Is it your opinion 23 that there is a safe level of exposure to vinyl 24 chloride at which no potential carcinogenic effects 25 will occur? DOROTHY M. WAGNER h ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS MILWAUKEE 48 BFG13080