A laboratory technician at a synthetic butadiene rubber manufacturing plant alleged that his exposure to the probable carcinogen while collecting and analyzing product samples from reactors caused his blood disorder. Baker & O’Brien assessed his exposures based on his regular work activities by reviewing the reaction rate/product composition data and modeling near-air dispersion. Our expert report, which compared calculated exposures from empirical data to nationally recognized exposure studies, refuted the opposing expert’s opinions and facilitated the resolution of the dispute.

The synthetic rubber manufacturing business, a significant development in the early 20th Century, traces its roots to research at the Bayer Company (parent of trademarked Aspirin). The import blockade of natural rubber to Germany in 1914 led Bayer to explore alternatives, including synthetic rubber polymerized from butadiene. Standard Oil of New Jersey played a pivotal role with Bayer (I.G. Farben) facilitating the technology transfer to the U.S. in the 1930s, where butadiene was produced from petroleum. The Jersey Standard patents were essential to solving the rubber shortage when the U.S. was cut off from 90% of its natural rubber supply at the outset of the war in 1939.

A technician in the rubber laboratory at a synthetic rubber manufacturing plant alleged exposure to 1,3-butadiene, a probable carcinogen, between 1976 and 1981. The lab tech identified various activities during which he was exposed to butadiene, including acquiring samples from process equipment, testing samples in the laboratory, and vapor space testing in reactors. He also had background exposure from the work environment.

Baker & O’Brien assessed the manufacturer’s standard of care in following accepted industry practices for managing health and safety programs. We undertook a process to determine which activities the lab tech may have been exposed to butadiene in his everyday work activities and to calculate his exposure levels. Our consultants reviewed plant operating data, pilot plant reaction rate, and product composition data and performed near-air dispersion modeling to determine the potential work exposures for each work activity. We also performed Gaussian dispersion modeling to estimate the ambient concentrations compared to other limited plant surveys. We compared our calculated exposures from empirical data to nationally recognized butadiene exposure studies and evaluated the lab tech’s cumulative exposure to butadiene.

Our consultants’ opinions on the laboratory technician’s exposure to butadiene were presented in an expert report, in which we also rebutted an opposing expert's opinions. Baker & O’Brien’s opinions were grounded in our engineering expertise and actual plant data. In contrast, the opposing expert's report presented academically based opinions. Our expert report facilitated the resolution of the dispute before trial.