Document gDd6yRy1YE618ManZmzwGv65a

INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION old ridgeblwy road, anbury, ct osb 17 TToog(Nsajvmrwe)i otvmion lock**, William C. Kuryla, Ph.D. Corporate Toxicology Location 511 South Charleston Copy eo S.G. Austin, Sc.D. Qmzm December 6, 1982 Epidemiology, P2 Diethylene Glycol and Tetraethylene Glycol Dear Bill, Concerning your request, I am enclosing two memos relating to the reasons for our concern over the toxicologic and epidemiologic status of two chemicals, diethylene glycol and tetraethylene glycol. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, ARS:gac Enclosure A. Robert Schnatter Biostatistician UCC 053164 ( INTERNAL r CORRESPONDENCE b<t&: /?5 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION old riogebury road, danbury. ct obbi7 To (Noma) ivoon LOCOdCn Dr. David L* Glenn Copytn Batty Lynn White - law Dept. Dr. T. A. Lincoln Mr. J. B. Browning Omtom November 1, 1982 Onematmg Dope. HS&EA AraO P-2 Subjotft Status Report of NIOSB Brain Tumor Investigations * tear Dave: Based on a racant convarsation with Dr. Leffingwell (Octobar 29, 1982) I hava learned that Rick Naxweiller has submitted tha NIOSH Cohort Study of tha Texas City Brain Tumors for publication in tha Journal of tha National Cancar Instituta. Tha articla has baan accaptad and final ravisions ara baing mada by Dr. Naxweiller. 1 asked Dr. Leffingwell whan NIOSB would be going to tha Texas City Plant to present tha results of their investigation. Be informed me that ha "hoped" final ravisions to the ease-control paper would be made within the next few weeks. Since this paper has been responsible for tha delay; ha expects that the NIOSB visit would occur shortly thereafter. Dr. Leffingwell was not too knowledgeable about who had baan selected to go to tha plant. Bis guess is that the team would consist of himself. Dr. Naxweiller or Ms. Marie Barring, and possible Dr. Balperin. Dr. Alexander is no longer with OSHA and is not likely to be included. Dr. Leffingwell also informed me that ha expects to be reassigned shortly to the "Epidemiology I" section of M10SB. This section is headed by Dr. Jay Beaumont, Dr. Naxweiller's successor. Nith respect to the Brain Tumor Case-Control Study, Sandy did Inform me that in the latest analysis, the two chemicals, dlethvlene--glycol and fcatraathvlena alvcol. emerged with extremely high odds-ratios. That is, four of the brain tumor cases were exposed to both of these chemicals and none of thair controls wars similarly exposed. In the currant version of the case-control paper soma comments will be made regarding the possibility that these and other exposures with extremely high odds-ratios, may be implicated in tha etiology of the brain cancer eases. Dr. Leffingwell continues to believe that "chance" is the most likely explanation for this finding. Sincerely, SGA/cas Susan G. Austin, 8c*D* Corporate Direct r of Epid mi logy ucc 053165 I INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION old riogebury road, oanbury. ct obbi7 to<Namai Or. Susan G. Austin Owon HS & EA t-ocwr, Epidemiology Aroo P2 Copy so November 9, 1982 Originating Dapc. HS & EA Epidemiology, P2 Diethylene Glycol and Tetraethylene Glycol" Dear Susan: I've looked Into the Information we have on chemicals (diethylene glycol (DEG) and tetraethylene glycol (TEG)) which NIOSH recently reported as having high odds ratios In their new case control draft. First, NIOSH did not mention either chemical In their previous case-control draft; the two chemicals were not on the list of chemicals to which at least four cases were exposed. In our study, very similar exposure rates are found among cases and controls In overall analyses using all controls or hourly controls. When a 15 year latent period Is built In higher exposure rates among cases are evident, yet the prob ability of a real difference Is rather low. The two chemicals have exactly the same exposure rates. This Is due to the fact that they were present In the same department. The following tables summar- ** Ize our Information: Exposure Rates Among UCC Cases and Controls analysis All Cases Gliomas All Ctl 1 Hourly Ctl 1 All Ctl 2 Hourly Ctl 2 iveral 1 4/11 (36.4) 5-yr lat- 3/10 (30.0) ency 4/10 (40.0) 12/33 (36.4) 3/9 (33.3) 8/31 (25.8) 11/30 (36.7) 7/27 (25.9) 12/31 (38.7) 6/26 (23.1) 11/29 (37.9; 6/25 (24.0; Department Groups Associated With DEG And TEG DEG: 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 29 TEG: 12, 13, 14, 16, 29 (see addendun for list of departments within each department group) UpC 053166 2 Odds Ratios for DEG, TEG Contrast All Cases 15 year latency Case vs. Ctl 1 Glioma vs. Ctl 1 Case vs. Ctl 2 Glioma vs. Ctl 2 Case vs. H. Ctl 1 Glioma vs. H. Ctl 1 Case vs. H. Ctl 2 Glioma vs. H. Ctl 2 1.00 1.16 0.90 1.06 0.99 1.15 0.94 1.09 1.23 1.44 1.43 1.67 1.22 1.43 1.36 1.58 Probability of Similar Underlying Exposure Rates 1.0, 0.80 0.84, 0.66 0.89, 0.67 0.94, 0.55 0.99, 0.81 0.85, 0.67 0.92, 0.72 0.91, 0.59 The four cases exposed to these chemicals are: Name Date of First Length of Length of DOD Exposure Exposure Employment Perkins Malone Wurzlow Hinson 4/62 3/79 3/73 12/78 11/58 9/57 9/46 10/59 3.4 years approx 6 mo 6.7 years 5.8 years 8 years 32 years 26 years 24 years Diagnosis Glioblastoma * Astrocytoma IV Glioblastoma Anaplastic Astrocytoma Please let me know If you have any questions. Sincerely, ARS:gac A. Robert Schnatter UCC 053167 ADDENDUM Departments Encountered In Case Control Study Which Were Associated With DEG and TEG__________ DG Name DG ETO derivatives 013 Ethylene Oxide/ Glycol 014 Distribution 016 Chem. Lab 019 Marine Terminal 029 Polyglycols Departments 12800 12700, MX000, 20600, 21500, 12500, MY300, M2800, M2X00. 99100, VP000, VSOOO, 28100, MC000, 22000, 22001, 22300, 23100, 29700, 20000, 38500, VS100, VS200, V8P00, 09600, 26100, 29000 92200, 35501, BL000, 90000, 35500 None None ARSrgac 11/15/82 UCC 053168