Document gaLroVyY5eenn24gZ5J3JXYQ9

Business Confidential UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION t Texas City Brain Tumor Turmoil New Orleans February 8, 1983 UCC 097690 f CONTENTS Background Fact Sheet ...................................... Basic Differences In NIOSH* and UCC Studies ................................ Brain Tumor Types and Numbers . . . . Brain Timor Cases............................................ Areas of Disagreement: UCC - NIOSH . . I Questions and Answers......................... . Page 1 3 4 5 7 8 1 VCC 097691 BACKGROUND FACT SHEET r Union Carbide's Texas City facility has been in operation since 1941. During this period, approximately 9000 people have worked at the facility for periods ranging from a few weeks to 39 years. During the first half of \978, the company's Gulf Coast medical director proposed to plant management that an epidemiological study be conducted at Texas City. Similar studies were being conducted at other Union Carbde chemical facilities, and It was felt that since Texas City was then 37 years old and had employed thousands of workers, such a study would provide valuable information for Union Carbide's total occu pational health program. ** Initial discussions were held with a prominent medical consult ing group with a view toward designing an epidemiological study. Dur ing this period, an employee at Texas City wh'o was diagnosed by his physician as having a brain tumor reported that he suspected an excess in their Incidence to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA requested from Union Carbide work history information on any employees known to have died of a primary brain tumor. After review ing these files, OSHA asked for assistance from NIOSH, the agency respon sible for scientific evaluation of any possibly work-related health risks. In February, 1979, Union Carbide and NIOSH agreed that an epidem iology study at Texas City would be undertaken by NIOSH. Union Carbide agreed to cqoperate in the study, and to provide all available health Information"on past and present employees at Texas City. A total of 8,851 employee work histories were provided to NIOSH for epidemiological study by the end of the year 1979. Subsequent Chronology: 2-26-80 OSHA-NIOSH-UCC meeting, Washington, D.C. Epi study status report. 1980 Discussions relative to concurrent study by Pat 8uffler versus In-house UC study. 1980 1980 Dr. Leffingwell's preliminary report in morbidity and mortality weekly SMR 143 17 observed, 11.2 expected. * Dr. Alexander et al American Journal of Industrial Medicine "excess brain cancer risk twice expected". -1- UCC 097692 Oct 1980 'r New York Academy of Sciences Drs. Alexander and Leffingwell - separate presentations. Dec 1980 * 0SHA-NI0SH-UCC meeting, Texas City Estimated completion of both NIOSH studies - the end of January. 10- 21-1981 John Whittlesey meeting, Chicago Discuss lawsuit strategy. 11- 11-1981 Press Conference, Texas City Release of Dr. Susan Austin's in-house Cohart and Case Control Study results. 11-18-1981 0SHA-NI0SH-UCC meeting. New York "You stole our study". 1982 No activity. Maintained telephorfe comnunication with NIOSrf. Efforts directed towards getting NIOSH to release Case Control Study. 1983 (?) Publication of WaxweiTier's Cohart Study, January issue. Journal of National Cancer Institute. (?) Publication of Austin's Cohart and Case Control studies In Journal of Occupational Medicine, (May"or (?) Publication of Leffingwell's Case Control Study, Fall of 1983. . -2- UCC 097693 f Basic Differences in NIOSH and UCC Studies Dr. Austin used original protocol to use as a ' cohart white males through December 31, 1977. NIOSH extended study to include blacks and Hispanics through December 31, 1979. -3- UCC 097694 Brain Tumor T> 4 7"' Glenn 02-01-1983 All t TlVi*' * rf "--y-r ci-^- vi living) Alexander 12-31-1977 AH "Two-fold increase" 14 Glioblastomas 1 Astrocytoma 1 Meningiosardbma 1 Meningioma 1 Negative 18 Cases Austin 12-31-1977 White males (12 observed 7.42 expected) 10 Glioblastomas 1 Astrocytoma 1 Meningiosarcoma 12 Cases Waxweiller 12-31-1979 Draft (Breakdown of types not available) All 19 observed 9.6 expected Hourly males ^ 22 observed 10.7 expected 15 yrs since hire 19 observed 7.2 expected / 3 -- ^ 2 -- X nt'f ' /?77 -4- UCC 097695 r Initial 1. HL Brain Tumor Cases `f Date of Race/Sex Hire Date of Death Age Diagnosis WM 12-16-40 05-15-64 51 G1ioblastoma mu1tiforme c*'3>c' Job Tile 1 1/ / vC' */ >' Operator (^1'^ 5*^- 2. SP WM 08-17-53 04-05-62 30 G1ioblastoma Weighmaster multi forme ^ 3. VE WM 05-18-41 02-19-66 55 Meningiosarcoma Operator Ch. Operator 5LS 4. LRB 5. ERP 6. CM WM 01-25-50 01-13-68 66 Glioblastoma Heavy Equipment multi forme Operator i? WM 08-21-53 05-05-71 44 Malignant Operator i Glioma n WM 03-02-49 06-05-71 61 Pat'll - Neg. Operator 7. WRW 8. LST WM WM 09-26-46 09-19-51 03-22-73 63 Glioblastoma Operator multi forme Ch. Operator 01-08-74 52 Glioblastoma Machinist multiforme &1 ^3 9. KR WM 10-19-50 05-14-74 59 G1ioblastoma Operator multiforme 10. JL WM 07-29-41 05-18-76 66 G1ioblastoma Instruments multiforme Foreman 3 s" 11. BJH WM 10-30-53 12-21-78 49 Glioblastoma Weighmaster 23 12. LM BM 09-18-46 03-07-79 55 Glioblastoma Laborer multi forme Oiler 35 13. JRC WM 09-21-48 07-20-75 49 Astrocytoma Pipefitter Grade I ^7 14. PJDeG WM 09-18-44 05-21-74 55 Glioma Type Operator IV 3d 15. LRK ` WM 01-12-48 01-26-71 53 Cerebellar Painter tumor (mestas tatic lesion) 16. MCG 17. LGO WM WM 04-27-53* 10-03-56 33 Glioblastoma Machinist multiforme 10-23-50 02-18-80 57 Astrocytoma Operator Grade IV 30 -5- UCC 097696 Brain Tumor Cases - continued: Initial 18. RJB MCC (2b,) Jl 21. RDT @)WRS 23. WER Date of Race/Sex Hire %WM 07-09-44 WM 11-30-41 Date of Death Age Diagnosis Job Title 10-28-79 59 Glioblastoma Boilermaker multi forme Leadman a 12-13-65 55 Brain Tumor- Chief Operator Meningioma BM WM < BM -- 03-00-47 06-28-74 61 Meningioma Laborer 10-08-45 10-00-4)} 70 Glioblastoma Painter multi forme Leadman 07-09-44 12-17-63 63 Menlngnona Laborer 10-24-45 i04-15-55 49 Negative autopsy Laborer -- '-L. . X7 p-S n /o 24. DB BM 05/27/55 51 Glioblastoma Laborer multi forme Maint. Supv. z7 - 25. RG WM 02-25-53 09-27-81 50 Glioblastoma Clerk C? u y/T: -6- UCC 097697 Areas of Disagreement: UCC - NIOSH Occupational Or Non-Occupational 1. "We have not been able to associate these brain cancer cases with any particular chemical exposure." NIOSH agrees but argues that the etiological factor may be a combi nation of different chemical exposures which may be almost impossible to trace or identify. Alexander and Waxweiller are firm in their belief that the cases are occupationally related. 2. "The types of brain cancer are present in the same percentages as that seen in the general population. Ordinarily, chemically caused cancer Is a specific and often unusual type, different than those seen in the general population." NIOSH says that although this is true in some occupationally-related cancers, it does not hold true for all cancers. 3. "Excessive brain cancer has not been confirmed in chemical plants similar to ours in other parts of the country." NIOSH feels excesses have been shown to occur and may cite Dow, Monsanto, Exxon, etc., where results of studies have been controver sial. 4. Diagnostic Sensitivity Bias may be a factor in an apparent Increased incidence of brain tumor in our employees. We are close to an inter nationally known medical center in Houston, we have a practicing neurosurgeon In our area and we point out the Improved medical buy ing power of excellent insurance coverage and above average salaries of chemical plant employees. NIOSH believes If such a bias exists that Its effect would be mini mal and "certainly not sufficient to account for the excess risk of death due to brain tumor observed in this Investigation." Alexander (OSHA) and Waxweiller (NIOSH) feel that their studies show an excess of brain cancers which they strongly feel are occupationally related. Lefflngwell (NIOSH) feels that an excess number of brain cancers may be related geographically but are probably not occupationally related. -7- UCC 097698