Document jgVxpKzmLz92pybDq7d8w93Qp

! UC 149- i INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE -SOLVENTS & INTERMEDIATES DIVISION % P. O. BOX 471, TEXAS CTY, TEXAS To: Mr. L. A. Wilkinson Mr. R. A. Mari ani DANBURY OFFICE Date: September 28, 1981 t cc: Dr. S. (a. Austin Mr. J. B. Browning Mr. D'. L. Engle Mr. W. E. Hoerger Mr. J. W. Whittlesey Mr. R. L. Yelton Mr. N. Gaines Subject: Epidemiology Study Draft of Employee Letter * * Damon and I reviewed Dr. Phil Enterline's comments and recommendations in his letter to Susan Austin dated 9/11/81 . We have revised the latest draft of the proposed letter to employees to replace several paragraphs by including his version (attached). Please inform us if you have any comments or further suggestions. DHGznm Attachment % UCC 097765 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION P. O BOX 47] TEXAS CITY, TEXAS 775'JO SOLVENTS & INTERMEDIATES DIVISION September 28, 1981 Dear farbider: As you know Union Carbide Corporation and the National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) have been conducting long, complicated studies to investigate whether there might be an excess of primary malignant brain tumors among employees and, if so, whether they are associated with an occupational exposure to chemicals in this plant. '. 11 y Union Carbide has now completed their Mortality Study and Case Control Study. We would like to tike this opportunity to share the results with you. These studies indicate that Union Carbide employees at Texas City have enjoyed better than average health. The overall incidence of death has been significantly less than the national average, as have been deaths due to all forms of malignant cancer and circulatory, respiratory and digestive diseases. Of 6588 employees who worked at Texas City since the start-up date in 1941, there are 4 or 5 cases of brain cancer that could not be explained by normal background brain cancer rates. We believe that this may represent a chance occurrence and that these cases are not due i^o chemical exposures at our plant. . There are three reasons why we believe"this. First, unlike other cases of occupational cancer, we ha\re not been able to associate these brain cancer cases with any particular chemical exposure. Second, unlike other cases of occupational cancer, the^type of brain cancer is no different than the type seen In the general population. Ordinarily chemically caused cancer is a specific and often unusual type, while the kinds of brain cancer seen at Texas City are no different than those seen in the general population. Finally, excessive brain cancer has not been observed In chemical plants similar to ours In other parts of the country. Brain tumors are a rare cause of death and while there must be concern over any elevation. In Incidence, there Is no cause for alarm based on the results of this study. ^ As everyone at Texas City knows, exposures to all kinds of chemicals have been greatly reduced In recent years. We firmly believe that our present standards and practices in the Texas City Plant provide more than adequate protection from known health hazards. We will continue to follow the health of our employees to learn when and if some unfavorable health experiences occur. UCC 097766 2- - i We expect that the result of the NIOSH studies, when released, wfll basically agree with our conclusions. We will keep you informed. We want to express our appreciation to Dr. Tom Lincoln, Corporate Medical uirector, and Dr. Susan Austin, Corporate Epidemiologist, who have given their total cooperation to make this study possible. We are also appreciative of the affirmative review of the detailed find ings by their consultants. Dr. Brian MacMahon of Harvard University and Dr. Philip Enterline of the University of Pittsburgh. " >* D. L. Engle Plant Manager ' /mm % D. H. .Glenn, M.D. Gulf Coast Medical Director /. ucc 097767