Document 0JaZ78jOZ84bQoyZGkxJzdd7J

* u O t/i OUtJ < a Ui it *u So 5S X 33 U* I<Stt Ss! z0 msi P2 0<I) o<0 bo a 5 r Industrial Hygiene Survey HILLSBORO A/C PIPE PLANT IHS Report No. 83-23 October 17-20, 1983 n J CTD020300 ,S<i i tc CTD020301 CertainTeed Date November 30, 1983 ect industrial Hygiene Survey Results Hillsboro A/C Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 To Jack Anderson From ?JPeter Norris Location and mail code Hillsboro, 257 Location and mail code 1125/4 cc: B. Haigh - Hillsboro, 257 D. Hall - 2125/2B J. McGinley - 2125/2B F. Timpe - 1125/2B Attached are the completed logs of personal and environmental sampling results for asbestos, silica and audiodosimetry performed on October 17-20, 1983. The results show that three employee positions. Small Coupling Tester Operator (0.52 f/cc). Large Coupling Saw Operator (1.3 f/cc), and the Rework Saw Operator (0.56 f/cc) were found to exceed the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) of 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc). Silica exposures were within permissible limits in the Finishing Department of Plant A, and audiodosimetry results show many employee positions of both plants are exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) noise level greater than 90 dBA. In general, asbestos fiber levels in Plants A and B have remained consistently lower than the "old" asbestos permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 2 f/cc as compared to the last annual survey. This indicates that housekeeping, work habits, and ventilation efficiencies have not significantly changed. Also, because of the lower standard, 44ve*other positions statistically may be overexposed. These conclusions are based on the 95% confidence limits for determining compliance or noncompliance with OSHA standards. (See Exposure Sampling Confidence Limits Unit Program in the CertainTeed Health Maintenance Manual.) These positions are the Press Operator (0.38 f/cc). Line 1 Hydrotester Operator (0.4 f/cc) and the faarge Lathe Operator (0.39 f/CL) of Plant A, and the Machine Tender (0.43 f/cc) *"4 0p"`tr (0-38 /6c> o Plant B- Ifi'llsWo Since the issuing of the ETS, indu^ry representatives filed a Petition for Review in the United States Fifth Cetcuit Court of Appeals and subsequently a Motion for Stay of the ETS was presented to OSHA. As of November 25, 1983, a Motion for Stay of the ETS was granted. Regardless of the outcome of this standard, OSHA is expected to issue a permanent asbestos rulemaking, and it would be prudent for us to improve the working conditions in the plant now, rather than wait until we are forced to do it. Immediate compliance with the ETS can be accomplished by the use of respiratory protection by the employees found to be overexposed to asbestos. The 3M 8710 respirators will provide adequate protection up to ten times the ETS (up to 5 f/cc). Warning signs need to be installed at these same job positions, and a training program needs to be instituted for these employees on the health effects of asbestos, work practices and engineering controls for minimizing exposures, and the purpose, use and fitting instructions on respiratory protection. Since you are already Investigating employee work practices and ventilation efficiencies, addition personal sampling is needed each time a change is made. Also, the employees which were identified as being possibly overexposed be resampled to determine if exposure levels are true and consistent. This department is available if sample analysis is needed. CTD020302 Industrial Hygiene Survey Results Hillsboro A/C Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 Page 2 I also recommend that each employee be informed of exposure results in this survey. Employees whose asbestos and noise exposures exceed the PEL and the action level respectively, must be informed by OSHA regulation. I suggest that a copy of the attached tables be posted on the employees' bulletin board for that purpose. Alternately, the employees, including those in similar positions to those measured, can be informed personally. A completed comprehensive survey report is forthcoming, detailing sample analysis and observations. PJN/car Attachments CTD020303 CertainTeed Date December 15, 1983 bject INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE SURVEY HILLSBORO A/C PIPE PLANT October 17-20, 1983 To D. Hall From P. Norris Location and mail code 2125/2B Location and mail code 1125/4 The attached Industrial Hygiene report on Hillsboro is provided for your review and comments before we distribute it. I would appreciate your comments as soon as possible. Thanks. PJN/ejs Attachment CTD020304 CertainTeed Date December 20, 19832 Subject industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro A/C Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 To Jack Anderson From !\ . '' ' vCVv''1 Peter Norris Location and mail code Hillsboro, 257 Location and mail code 1125/4 cc: D. Hall - 2125/2B J. McGinley - 2125/2B F. Timpe - 1125/2B B. Haigh - Hillsboro, 257 Attached is the report on the industrial hygiene survey conducted at the Hillsboro A/C Pipe Plant on October 17-20, 1983. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me. PJN/car Attachment ) ) CTD020305 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro Asbestos/Cement Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 Introduction An Industrial Hygiene Survey was conducted at the Hillsboro Asbestos/Cement Pipe Plant by Peter Norris of Corporate Health and Safety on October 17-20, 1983. This survey was conducted to supplement the on-going asbestos fiber exposure surveillance program. Additional monitoring for respirable dust, silica dust, and noise was also performed. This report is an employee exposure record as defined in Corporate Procedure GG003.02 and must be retained for 30 years. Upon request, this record must be made available to those Federal officials, employee designees or employees as provided for in Corporate Procedure AD011, paragraphs 7 and 8. Appendix I of the report documents the air sampling methodologies; the analysis techniques, and the current standards used in evaluating the data. The field and in-house laboratory notes on this survey are on file in Corporate Health and Safety. The Coupling Tester Operator, Large Coupling Saw Operator and the Rework Saw Operator were exposed to asbestos fibers above the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard of 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc). The Press Operator and line 1 Hydrotester of Plant A and the Machine Tender and Press Operator of Plant B possibly exceed the 0.5 f/cc limit of asbestos fibers based on the 95% confidence levels. All respirable silica dust exposures are less than the 5 mg/m3 OSHA PEL. The hearing conservation program, again this year, is up to date and has 100% employee participation. CTD020306 H lflsboro A/C Pipe Plant Production Schedule U th e Line #1 - 12" 150 Lethe Line 13 - U " 150 <S * </> U O O o o t) S- t s- -t 5 it S S H RR*I a" 21 9,, sSSSsIsSejT ^gg?8?R?7 Ot t0sait0tNthjNt Nt tk_ t <?n S* " " in 8? F fi t ft t Ia J? a 3 * jr\ t t* 1f N* F |t | ft *t I I c cS s 5? tn in 5 ui l) t3 o a r> - s*tt! _c niii ^ 5 vi l! o 83 tl si si H R ??$ , ?8Stfy @ 0 7! . : u. u. i a t * e * \o t --` . o o o JJ ] inn ?* * * = ? g> f _ ! i * j? i] ? =j s 5 o SR a St 8| S1 It CTD020307 sI fi R R v? nit * 88 Eb R ggR ~E l) o $j \T Z > fc t*> *>! > 5 > R R RRR R^n &. &-! -K s' e' i ~ 3 ii 'Issl^sIstS? *" * * t t : I I I I vo >f* \o ' l < '=s g.1 II ft"V :9 s iei8 8 85R a S8R8tt22s|gggggg8g S- 5R_ SStBBBEBEttS, 5s ss III p :l ls "'' ^8ESSBSEeS&"5> S>>s>&&<w V i; |i c a= = o EBB *I-77 ; f, K f. l. ; 3 8, firi o. I ^^i p == k if I II p * p p -e 3 A it i JE Jt HI I Isbcro K fc Pipe P lant Production Sctwdule Quarter T e tte r 6 - 700 FW 1/4- 18- FT 50 P/B 6 - 2D0 1/4 FM lathe Line - Lathe Line / l - b! sI II ; 8 Rs |t 5s R8| CTD020308 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro Asbestos/Cement Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 2. Asbestos Emergency Temporary Standard Effective November 4, 1983, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued an emergency temporary standard on asbestos exposure. The Permissible Exposure Level for an 8 hour time-weighted average airborne concentration of asbestos fibers shall not exceed 0.5 fiber, longer than 5 micrometers per cubic centimeter of air (f/cc). Other requirements imposed by the emergency temporary standard are as follows: 1. Compliance may be "achieved by any feasible combination of engineering controls, work practices, and personal protective equipment and devices". 2. An employee training program shall be instituted for all employees exposed above 0.5 f/cc. The major aspects of this training program shall be on the associated health effects of asbestos, the relationship between asbestos and smoking, the nature of operations in producing exposure and protective measures to minimize exposure, standard operating procedures governing respiratory protection, and all provisions of the OSHA asbestos standard. 3. The placement of warning signs in areas where asbestos concentrations have been determined to exceed 0.5 fibers/cc. 4. Respiratory protection be selected based on the information in Table I of Appendix II. Immediately after the ETS was issued, industry representatives filed with the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals a Motion for Review and subsequently a Motion for Stay of the ETS was presented to OSHA. On November 25, 1983, the Motion for Stay was granted. Regardless of the outcome of the ETS, OSHA is expected to issue a permanent asbestos rulemaking which will not be promulgated for at least 6 months. Until such time when a permanent standard is issued, it would be wise for us to work on improving conditions within the plant at this time rather than wait until we are forced to do it. A copy of the emergency temporary standard is in appendix II. ASBESTOS Table I shows the results of the personal and environmental samples performed on the pipe manufacturing and pipe finishing/fittings departments of both plants. A summary of the sampling results are found in Table II. In general, ejqposure to asbestos fibers did not significantly change since our last annual survey. All exposures are less than the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 2 f/cc. CTD020309 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro Asbestos/Cement Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 3 Three positions in the finishing department of Plant A exceeded the stayed ETS limit of 0.5 f/cc and four other positions in both plants statistically may have exceeded the 0.5 f/cc level. Overall, 95% of the samples were less than the stayed OSHA ETS of 0.5 f/cc and 43% were less than the recommended NIOSH standard of C.1 f/cc. Manufacturing Department - Plant A Environmental samples taken around the asbestos bag opener show airborne asbestos fibers to be very low. The results ranged between 0.013 to 0.04 f/cc supporting my observations of excellent exhaust ventilation at the bag entrance to the bag opener and at the access windows when windows are opened for internal adjustments. During the personal sampling of the Mixer Operator, he occasionally opened the access windows to unjam empty bags or reslit full bags. The airflow was always into the bag opener. The housekeeping in the immediate area around the bag opener was excellent. There were no torn bags or spillage of fibers on the warehouse or mixing area floors. Samples were taken on the Mixer Operator on three different working shifts. The exposures ranged from 0.14 to 0.37 f/cc with an average of 0.22 f/cc. These results also include various times when the operator would open the access windows to work inside the bag opener. 3M 8710 toxic dust respirators were available and worn by each of the operators, always when opening the access windows. The Machine Tender, Mandrel Handler, Tray Loader and Relief Person all had exposures less than 0.5 f/cc. The Press Operator had slightly higher levels (0.19 and 0.38 f/cc) than the other positions in the manufacturing area. The source of fibers is not known but the Press Operators exposure has been higher than the other positions for the last two surveys. Finishing/Fittings Department - Plant A The results of the personal exposure samples of employees in this department ranged from 0.04 to 1.3 f/cc. The highest levels were obtained on the Coupling Tester (0.52 f/cc). Large Coupling Saw Operator (1.3 f/cc) and the Rework Saw Operator (0.56 f/cc). These three operations are located next to each other which may explain the high level for the Coupling Tester. Normally, the Coupling Tester is not the type of operation which would generate dust. The dust might be drifting over from the other two operations located to the right of the Coupling Tester. Since the Rework Saw is located next to the CTD020310 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro Asbestos/Cement Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 4 plant opening which exits to the pipe storage yard, it is possible that air currents are carrying dust from this operation and the Coupling Saw over to the Coupling Tester. Dust is generated either by the radial saws cutting the pipe, or by the release of dust or tailings left by the saw when the small pipe or scrap pipe is thrown into the hoppers. Following our verbal reporting of the exposure results to the plant, additional samples were taken by plant personnel on November 28 and 30, 1983 on the Coupling Tester, Rework Saw Operator and Coupling Cutoff Saw Operators. These samples were analyzed by Corporate Health and Safety. The purpose of these samples was to evaluate the effect of placing a curtain between the plant opening and the Rework Saw and moving the pipe hoppers closer to the Saw Operators to reduce dust when dumping scrap. On November 28th, just the Rework Saw and Coupling Tester were operating. Time weighted average (TWA) exposures for these operations were 0.64 f/cc and 0.38 f/cc respectively. The November 30th samples were taken when these two operations plus the Coupling Cutoff Saw were in use. The TWA exposures were 0.5 f/cc (Rework Saw), 0.26 f/cc (Coupling Tester) and 0.81 f/cc (Coupling Cutoff ) Saw). The Coupling Tester exposure on an average (0.32 f/cc) was below the 0.5 f/cc limit but the two saw operations remain consistently above this limit when compared to the sample results obtained in the industrial hygiene survey of October 1983. These results indicate that other factors may be involved. In the past surveys, environmental levels and personal exposures at the Rework Saw have exceeded the 0.5 f/cc level. In order to further reduce the fiber levels below this level, refinements or changes in the existing local exhaust ventilation system may be needed. First, I recommend that the ductwork and plenum face of the exhaust ventilation systems on the Rework and Coupling Saws be inspected for free or unhampered air flow, to determine that large pipe tailings are not clogging the system, and the flexible hoses do not have leaks. If no problems exist, then a change in the existing enclosure and ductwork placement might be needed. Presently, there exists two separate exhaust ducts leading behind the radial saw at the bottom and top of the 6aws. By moving the top duct to the front of the radial saw (see appendix III), dust which is missed by the bottom duct can be captured by the replacement of this duct. ) CTD020311 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro Asbestos/Cement Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 5. A major redesigning of the Coupling Saw and Rework Saw may ultimately be needed if these improvements are not effective, e.g. wet cutting. Even though the 0.5 f/cc emergency temporary standard has been recently stayed, it is our opinion that any future permanent standard issued on asbestos will be at least 0.5 f/cc. We recommend that in the interim, the Coupling Saw and Rework Saw Operators be required to wear respirators. The line 1 Hydrotester Operator's exposure may be exceeding the 0.5 f/cc limit. We cannot say with a 95% confidence level that his exposure of 0.4 f/cc would not exceed 0.5 f/cc. The hydrotesting control panel is enclosed on two sides primarily for protection against the water. The pipes roll off the old line 2 lathes, are conveyored vertically over to the old line 1 Hydrotester, then roll down to be pressure tested. Dust and tailings from the lathes still remain in the ends of the pipe and become airborne during rolling. This procedure seems to be the only observable reason for the operators exposure. I In any case, I recommend resampling this position during different shifts and different size pipes to determine if this exposure is true and consistent. The use of respiratory protection should be encouraged by management in the mean time. Manufacturing Department - Plant B Environmental samples were also performed at the Plant B bag opener. The results confirm the excellent housekeeping observed in the immediate area, good exhaust ventilation within the bag opener and apparently no leakage from the unit. Asbestos levels ranged from 0.01 - 0.05 f/cc. The Mixers exposure also reflected the conditions attendant with this operation. Hereto, the Mixer had to occasionally open the access doors to unjam the bags or reslit the full bags. Excellent airflow into the bag opener was observed. The Machine Tender and Press Operator in pipe manufacturing area had exposures of 0.43 f/cc and 0.38 f/cc respectively. The housekeeping in the main manufacturing area is excellent and these comparitively higher levels cannot be readily explained. Exposures recorded 2 years ago were of the order of 0.2 f/cc. It was observed that during the sampling on the Machine Tender, maintenance work was being performed on the piping which transports the asbestos slurry from the mixer to the trough. This could be a source of fibers, even though the fibers are in a liquid state. Dry encrusted slurry was noticed on some of the piping being worked on. CTD020312 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro Asbestos/Cement Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 6. During this period, the Machine Tender wore a 3M 8710 respirator. I would recommend that these positions be monitored regularly to determine if the exposures measured during this survey are accurate. Further steps to minimize exposure need to be explored. All other positions in the manufacturing area had low asbestos fiber counts. Exposures to the Mandrel Handler, Tray Loader and Relief ranged from 0.01 to 0.24 f/cc which is well below the 0.5 f/cc limit. Finishing Department - Plant B Sampling results on the Lathe Operator, Hydrotester and one Finisher found exposures to be well below the 0.5 f/cc level. Results ranged from no fibers detected to 0.2 f/cc. The local exhaust ventilation at each pipe lathe controlled the dust very well as reflected in the 0.01 f/cc exposure level to the lathe operator. RESPIRABLE DUST - SILICA All measured respirable dust personal and environmental samples were below the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 5 mg/m3. These sample results are provided in Table I. Samples were performed on all three Boring Mills, FM Speciality Lathe, Multiple Cut Lathe, Large Single Cut Lathe and Large Coupling Saw. The results ranged from 0.1 to 0.39 mg/m3. All the samples were submitted for silica analysis and were found to contain less than 25 micrograms of quartz which essentially means "none detected". NOISE Audiodosimetry monitoring results sure found in Table III. The results are presented by department. Figures 1,2 and 3 depict the sound pressure level isocontours in the manufacturing and finishing departments of both plants. An updated noise exposure evaluation for all positions is provided in Figures 4-10. The hearing conservation program is well established in the plants. Audiometric testing is provided by Memorial Hospital, Garland, Texas. This program has been on-going for several years. The Hillsboro attending physician reviews each audiogram and counsels each employee on his evaluations. CTD020313 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro Asbestos/Cement Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 7. The wearing of hearing protection is widespread throughout the plants with almost 100% participation in both mandatory and non-mandatory protection areas. It was noted, however, that several employees exposed in excess of the 90 dBA PEL were not wearing hearing protection. These persons are noted in Table III. We recommend that the wearing of hearing protection be strongly enforced, with disciplinary action if necessary. We also recommend that the use of personal protective equipment be extended to all persons entering these areas, whether casual visitors, plant managers or company officers. Such strict compliance will positively promote the acceptance of the requirement by employees. The importance of a good hearing protection program was underscored by a recent, November 9, 1983 OSHA directive to its field staff. This directive instructs its field staff to allow employees to comply with the OSHA Noise Standard by the use of hearing protectors in lieu of engineering and administrative noise reduction for exposure levels up to 100 dBA. The directive provides this relief only if there is an effective hearing conservation program. A summary of the directive is provided in Appendix IV. It should be noted that this directive is only an interpretive directive and not a regulatory change in the standard. As such, it is not binding and is subject to the whim of the administration. Our previous survey reports contained a number of recommendations for reducing noise in this department. An outside consultant has also made recommendations. The most recent update on the status of these recommendations dated 10/7783 stated that many of these recommendations were still under study. A few had been completed. We recognize that noise control measures in this plant are complex and in many instances infeasible. Where this is the case, it is important that engineering studies be expedited and thoroughly documented as being ineffective and/or economically infeasible. We note that some of these recommendations are over 3 years old. You will note in the recent OSHA Directive (Appendix IV), that OSHA will not only be placing more emphasis on effective hearing conservation programs, but also on technological and economic feasibility of controls. Manufacturing Department - Plant A Two audiodosimeter measurements were obtained on almost all positions in the Manufacturing Department. The results were consistent and show good correlation with the sound pressure level measurements. 1 CTD020314 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro Asbestos/Cement Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 8. Average sound pressure levels (SPL's) in Figure 1 correlate quite well with the audiodosimeter results. Generally, the exposures measured with the audiodosimeters will be slightly higher than would be predicted by the average SPL's due to the impulse and peak noise variations inherent in the manufacturing process, e.g., mandrel movement. These variances are very clearly seen in the Time History Audiodosimeter Tapes. Typical for example is the Time History Tape on the Mandrel Handler (Sample No. 084), where the average background noise is about 90 dBA. The one-minute reading on this individual are generally on the order of 92-95 dBA as a result of mandrel movement impluse noises. The hour-by-hour equivalent OSHA exposure on this employee was overly consistent 93.5, 93.5, 93.9, 88.8, 92.8, 93.2, 93.5, 88.8 dBA. The lower 4th hour results are from lunch break relief. Likewise, the Tray Loader Audiodosimeter Results (Sample 087) of 83.2 dBA is higher than would be predicted by the 76-77 dBA average background noise level, again due mostly to mandrel movement noise, and the forklifts. His exposure tape measured peak levels to 110 dBA, 10% of the exposure exceeded 89 dBA and 50% exceeded 81 dBA. Exposures to all of the employees in the manufacturing department exceed the OSHA 85 dBA action level. The Press Operator, Mandrel Handlers and Press Operator exposures exceed 90 dBA. As noted in Table III, most of the employees are wearing hearing protection. We recommend that all employees in this department wear hearing protection. Finishing Department - Plant A The Noise Contour Map shows the SPL's in this department generally exceed 90 dBA. The personal audiodosimetry exposure measurements confirm these high levels. Employees in all positions in this department are exposed to noise levels in excess of the OSHA 8 Hour PEL of 90 dBA. The department is posted as a noise hazardous area with hearing protection required. With two exceptions (see samples 97 and 100), all employees in this department wore hearing protectors. We recommend that the mandatory wearing of hearing protection in this department be strongly enforced. Manufacturing Department - Plant B The SPL's in this plant (Figure 3) are about the same as in "A" plant with slightly higher levels at the end of the line resulting from the proximity of the Finishing Department. CTD020315 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro Asbestos/Cement Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 9 personal exposure measurements were also about the same as "A" plant with all of the positions exceeding the OSHA action level of 85 dBA. The Machine Tender, Mandrel Operator, Press Operator and Relief Person exceeded 90 dBA and with three exceptions (Samples 111, 115 and 116), all employees wore hearing protection. We recommend that all employees in this department wear hearing protection. ' Finishing Department - Plant B The SPL's in this department (Figure 3) generally exceed 90 dBA and are on the order of 94 to 98 dBA. Personal exposure measurements were all about 94-96 dBA on an 8 hour TWA. About half of the employees wore hearing protection. We recommend that the wearing of hearing protection be strongly enforced in this area and the area be posted as a mandatory protection area. MISCELLANEOUS It is our standard procedure in taking personal exposure samples, to inform each employee of the purpose of the sample and what they should and should not do to invalidate the results. Specific do's and don'ts are: To go about their work as normal, not to remove the sampler, disconnect the tubing or filter holder, or purposely contaminate the sampling tube or filter, not to shout into a dosimeter microphone or otherwise violate the sample by artificially exposing it to loud noises. We also request they inform us of any loss of integrity of the sample such as sampling tube or cassette accidentally coming off, dropping or otherwise subjecting the devices to unnecessary impacts. We strongly encourage plant management to similarily inform the employees when conducting their sampling programs. We also recommend that each employee be informed of exposure results in this survey. Employees whose noise exposures exceed the PEL and the action level respectively, must be informed according to OSHA regulation. We suggest that a copy of the attached audiodosimetry table be posted on the employees bulletin board for that purpose. Alternately, the employees, including those in similar positions to those measured, can be informed personally. All asbestos exposures whether exceeding the PEL or not must be reported in writing to the employees using the Fiber Exposure Notification (FEN) Form as outlined in the Asbestos Unit Program. CTD020316 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro Asbestos/Cement Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 10. Recommendations It is recommended that: 1. Inspection of the exhaust ventilation ductwork be made for clogs and leakage on the Coupling Saw and Rework Saw. 2. Redesigning of the local exhaust ventilation ductwork on the Coupling Saw and Rework Saw be accomplished. (See appendix III) 3. The Small Coupling Tester, Coupling Saw Operator and Rework Saw Operator wear respiratory protection. 4. The Press Operator and Line 1 Hydrotester of Plant A and the Machine Tender and Press Operator of Plant B be resampled for asbestos to determine if exposure results are true and consistent. 5. The wearing of hearing protectors be made mandatory for all employees in the Manufacturing and Finishing Departments in both Plants "A" and "B" including all visitors. 6. Employees be informed of the results of the measurements in this report. 7. A quarterly report be made to Corporate Health and Safety as to the status of these recommendations. CTD020317 Industrial Hygiene survey Hillsboro A/C Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1901 TABLE Area and Personal Exposure Sample Results for Asbestos Fih/M* * nr! Respirable Du St HO. 63 POSITION LOCATION (DATE) NAME/AREA PLANT A ' MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENT 001 Warehouse October 19, 1963 AREA 002 003 Bag Opener October 19, 1983 AREA 004 005 Bag Opener October 19, 1963 AREA 006 Bag Opener October 19, 1983 AREA ANALYSIS FOR Ashestos Asbestos Asbestos Asbestos 007 Mixer October 17, 1983 008 Mixer October 17, 1983 fir 009 Mixer October 18, 1983 010 Machine Tender IM October 17, 1983 011 Machine Tender October IB, 1963 012 Press Operator October 17, 1983 013 Press Operator October IB, 1983 014 Mandrel Handler 1A- October 17, 1983 015 Mandrel Randier October 17, 19B3 Bruce Ward Asbestos J. Ray Asbestos Bruce Ward Asbestos Bay Rodrigues Ray ftodrigues Milton Cook John Chambers Roy Black 8hanna Biber Asbeetos Asbestos Asbestos Asbestos Asbestos Asbestos TIME MIN w rV'/. RESULT f/cc or mg/m3 REMARKS 0:Sn,,1 2:30p 12:30p- 20S 3: 55p 8s55a- 205 U:30p 12:30|- 4:00f>11:02p )i.? VOID 0.013 f/cc 0.01S f/cc Vi>|D 0.04 f 'cc 4:00p 11 s 02p 3*2 1t42p4:00p no 0.14 f/cc 4:53p- 136 7; 1 1p 0.37 f/cc 8:45a- 419 3:44p 0.16 f/cc 1130p- 360 7 f 30p Bi49a- 416 3:45p 1 s 3 Ip- 35 7:30p 8:40a- 185 - 1:35p- 140 3:55p 4 s SOp- 170 7t30p 0.13 f/cc 0.06 f/cc 0.19 f/cc 0.36 f/cc 0.22 f/cc 0.08 f/cc Sample hanging next to bag conveyor. OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc Sample placed on bag opener ledge, next to plexiglass windows "SMA ETS - 0.5 f/cc Sample placed on top of desk. OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc On bag opener ledge next to plexiglass windows. OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc 3M 8710 Respirator worn OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc 3H 8710 Respirator worn OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc 3M 8710 Respirator worn OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/CC OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/ce OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc CTD020318 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro A/C Pipe Plant October 17-?0, n/u TAIM.I _ I Area and Personal Exposure Sample Results for Asbestos Fit- iv ,,tvi Hospitable Dust POSITION NO. LOCATION 93 (DATE) NAME/AREA PLANT A - MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENT 016 Mandrel Handler October 18, 1983 Roy Black Of 017 Tray Loader October 17, 1983 Larry Young ANALYSIS FOB Asbestos Asbestos uJ oie Relief October 17, 1483 Calvin Ttionpson PLANT A * FINISHING DEPARTMENT 019 Line 1 0 Lathe Operator October 17, 1983 Bill Sellers Asbestos Asbestos 020 Line 1 0 l^the Operator October 17, 1983 0. Nelson Asbestos 021 Line 1 n Lathe Operator October 17, 1983 Allen Huse Asbestos n 021 Line 1 Lathe Operator October 18, 1983 Charles Flaherty Asbestoe W 023 Line 1 Hydrotester October 17, 1983 Larry Humphrey Asbestos po 024 Line 1 Hydroteater October 17, 1963 Prank Kolar Asbestos 025 Line 1 9 Seller October 17, 1983 Leon Sonnenberg Asbestos 026 Line 1 0 Beller October 17, 1983 Jerry Morgan Asbestos 027 Multiple Coupling 0 Saw Operator October 16, 1963 Ronald Banik Asbestos 026 11 Boring Mill V Operator October 17, 1983 Peter Brewer Asbestos time 41N RFSIK.T f'o- or REMARKS 8:36a- l?7 1 :4 3p 1: 12p3: 5Dp 1 I'- 4: Artp7:M>,, ' n.oi f Vc 0.04 f.'cr 0.0 3 1 Vi- OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/CC OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc 1 : 12p3:4>p 1 r, 3 4: 3 3p7:47p 1 >1 VOID j OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc n. 16 f .'cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc 4 : 30p7 j 4 Rp 1`*5 0.16 f \'C OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc 8:20a- 441 3s40p 0.07 f /cc OSHA STS - 0.5 f/cc 1:14p3;4Sp IS 1 438p7:4Pp 190 1:20p- 147 3:47,, 4s43p7:50p 1P 7 0.76 1 1C 0.4 f/cc 0.12 f Vc n.07 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc osha rrs - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc 8:00a- 450 31 30p 0.19 f/cc OSHA ETS " 0.5 f/cc 12:42p3:37p 175 VOID / OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc CTD020319 Industrial Hyqiene Survey Hillsboro A/C Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 TABLE Area and Person,! 1 E<|hihre Sample R*'Slllt-i 1 i \ t ,.nd Respirable Dust 1 . 1 ,\: . POSITION NO. LOCATION 83 (PATE) o?n <p 1 t 11. .. 1 Mill Operator October 18, NAME/AREA ANALYSIS Mil TIME MIN !.! i' r Hr.-WMT Aib.-it ..-i :H (II.,.- 3 : 3 5p 1 li 030 n *1 Boring Mill Operator October 20, 1983 Peter Brewer Respirable Dust- Silica R :45a3: 3Rp 413 031 2 Boring Mill Charles Brown Asbestos V Operator October 17, 19R3 032 f/ 2 Bor inn Mill Operator October 18, 19B3 Charles Brown Asbest-o'; 033 12 Borinq Mill Operator October 20, 1983 Charles Brown Respirable Dust Silica 12 s40p3 s 36p 176 R :04a3s 3fip 4*2 8:40a3:37p 417 034 3 Boring Mill Autry Coaster Asbestos V Operator October 17, 1983 312:39p:34p 175 035 13 Boring Mill Autry Coaster Asbestos D Operator October 18, 1983 036 V #3 Boring Mill Operator October 20, 1983 Autry Coaster Respirable Dust Silica 8:01a3:32 451 8:36a3:36p 420 tif 037 Coupling Stacker October 17, 1983 Jerry Hooker Asbestos U:33p3i33p 180 038 PM cutter Tony Brown P Operator October 17, 1983 Asbestos 12:49p 3:35p 166 039 rw Cutter Simon 0 Operator Rodriquez October 18, 1983 Asbestos Bi10a3133p 44 3 040 FH Speciality Warner Poston Asbestos V Lathe Operator October 17, 1983 12:50p3:39p 169 & 041 PM Speciality Area Lathe October 20, 1983 Respirable Dust 9:10a2:36p 326 Silica .......... ` 0.2. 1VA 1 \ 11 -AMI *1 ri i. m -i i REMARKS IV.HA VTS o. * r OSHA PEL - 5 mg/ft3 -Vi 'Ml 1 . 1 ' No silica detected. OSHA Errs - 0.5 f/cc V OSIIA ETS - 0.5 f/cc n. 11 OSHA PEL 5 mg/m3 No silica detected. OSKA ETS - 0.5 f/CC OSHA ETS - 0.S f/cc 0. 1r ni/,,! - Vt 11' f0.25 /cc j OSHA PEL " 5 ag/m3 No silica detected. OSKA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 1/cc fo. in /t-C OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc n.t4 r rr OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/CC 0.1.' mg 'm3 - Sample to the left of lathing area, on top of eachine. OSHA PEL - S .9/.3 No silica detected. CTD020320 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro A/C Pipn Plant October 17-20, 1983 TABLE 1 Area and Personal Exposure Sample Results f'-r .tn-1 Rospirable rt*st Mbers POSITION NO. LOCATION 83 (DATE) NAME/AREA ANALYSIS KOR TIME MIN f 'cc n na'm * 042 D Multiple Cut Lathe Operator October 20, 19H3 Warner Poston Respirable Oust Silica 9:1 1a12:00p 169 M. V- 043 Large KM Lathe Warner Poston Asbestos Operator V October 18, 1983 8:12a3:34p 4 4.' 044 V Large Single Cut Lathe October 20, 19113 R. Jewett Respirable Dust Silica 9:17a12:00a 163 0, -- 045 0? Large Coupling Tester October 17, 1983 Rex May 046 ?/ Snail Coupling Tester October 17, 1983 Betty Starrett Asbestos Asbestos 12:58p3:4 Ip 163 Vi'tf 12s 5Sp3 :40p 165 f/cc twa ran SAMI' I.E PERIOD REMARKS OSHA PEL - 5 mg/m3 No silica detected. OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA PEL - 5 mg/m3 No silica detected OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc - Exceeds OSHA ETS 0.5 f/cc. Respirator not worn. 047 V Large Coupling Saw Operator October 17, 1983 Simon Rodriquez Asbestos 1:03p3:42p 159 I, f're Respirator now worn. Exceeds OSHA ETS 0.5 f/cc. 3M 8710 Respirator Protection Mandatory 048 Large Coupling Saw Operator James Russel p October 20, 1983 Respirable Dust Silica 049 11 Rework Saw October 17, 1983 Janes Russel Asbestos 050 V Rework Saw October 18, 1983 James Russel Asbestos 051 of> Forklift Operator October 17, 1983 Robert Wilson Asbestos 052 Crusher Operator Charles Harris Asbestos P October 17, 1983 PLANT B - MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENT 053 Bag Opener October 19, 1983 Area Asbestos 054 8:32a3:35p 423 1t05p3:42p 157 8:25a3t39p 434 4:35p7s 5 Ip 196 It10p4t02p 172 9t17a1 i07p 230 107p3t49p 162 0.14 mg/n^ __ I *>. M f 1 c<` 0.04 f/cc OSHA PEL - 5 mg/n3 Switched to Rework Saw at 12:30. Wore 3H 8710 respirator. No ilira detected. Wore 3M 8710 respirator Exceeds OSHA PEL 0.5 f/cc. Respirator Protection Mandatory OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc Wore 3M 8710 respirator. OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc 0. 15 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc 0.06 f/cc 0.02 f/cc 0.038 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc Sample on Bag Opener Ledge next to Plexiglas Windows. CTD020321 Industrial H yi (-n< mu viHillsboro A/e Pip" Plant October 17-20, Imh) TARt.F Area and Personal K l*>-urr Sample Rr S\> 1 1 and Respirabl e Dust POSITION NO. LOCATION S3 (DATE) NAME/AREA 055 Bag Opener October 19, 1903 Area 056 057 Bag Opener October 19, 1983 Area ANALYSIS FO R TIME MIN Asbestos Asbestos 9:17a1 :08p 231 1: 0 8p3:49p 161 3 s SOp1 1:12p 442 056 Bag Opener October 19, 1983 Area Asbestos 059 Mixer October 18, 1983 Ronald Hodecker Asbestos f I 060 Mixer October 19, 19H3 Donald Clay Asbestos 061 Machine Tender October 18, 19B3 Jerry Ovens Asbestos 062 Machine Tender October 19. 1983 Dennis Hawkins Asbestos io 063 Preaa Operator Cheve October 18, 1983 Salinas Asbestos MR 064 Press Operator October 19, 1983 Gary Sulak Asbestos Mr 065 Mandrel Handler Charles Cook Asbestos October 18, 1963 of 066 Tray Loader October 16, 1983 Mitchel Willenborg Asbestos 3: SOp1 1 s12p 442 8:58a3: S4p 416 5 :23p11:13p 350 9:06a11:47a 161 5:18p11:1 Op 352 9:04a3:40p 404 5:1Sp11i07p 352 9:02a3:50p 408 9:12a3:53p 401 i nr n . >> i ' TWA FOR SAMPLE V'FRliip REMARKS 0.016 f 'cr OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc Samples next to conveyor. Near Bag Opener entrance. ii. it a n.i' . f v,. n . 1 * f -rr OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc Sample next to Plexiglas Window on ledge. OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc Sample next to Bag Opener entrance. OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc n .4 1 f 'cQ..M f'cc 0- N f/cr 0 . 1 r 'rr o. .m r ^c0.ni4 f/ci OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA"ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc t> f 067 Tray Loader October 19, 1983 Charles Greer w 066 Relief Richard October 18, 1983 Made w 069 Relief Mike October 19, 1983 McParlin Asbestos Asbestos Asbestos 5:05p11:07p 362 9:15a3:56p 401 5 110p11:16p 366 No fibers detected. fl.m f 'rr 0.0 1 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS " 0.5 f/cc CTD020322 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro A/C Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 TABLE I Area and Personal Exposure Sample Results for Asbestos fibers end Respirable Dust POSITION NO. LOCATION 83 (OATF) NAME/AREA PLANT H - FINISHING DEPARTMENT <1 070 Lathe Operator October 20, 1983 Clyde Venable ANALYSIS FOK TIKE MIN Asbestos 9:35a3:50p 375 i;r-oi|.r n 071 Hydrotester Dave Miller October 20, 1903 Asbestos 9:15a1:12p 237 072 1:12p- 151 n.n < 3:43 0 073 Finisher Robert Baker Asbestos 9:10a- 242 1:12p ________________________ 1:12p3:43p 151 P..` f'cc No fibei s diverted 9 075 Crusher Operator Charles Harris _______ October 19, 1983 076 Asbestos 9:24a1:05p 221 1:05p3:4Sp 160 n. i i f / o.?7 f/cc TWA FOR sample remarks OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc 0.12 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc 0.18 f/cc OSHA ETS - 0.5 f/cc CTD020323 Table I I A sb e sto s Sam ples 7 sam ples were v o id e d due to problem s 0 .U A| U \ c 9) O u 9> cu oo oo o o tj- in O' r- oj ro O' A| 0 u M \ C 44 <D 0 tUO 0) 04 o oo oo o o co o CO GO ol r** O CO A) U u p \ C 44 0) o in Wt o <D 04 O vo in in ot o o r- o ^ vo I cn ol vo U cP \0 *> 44 O U<D *- 04 o A o P u cs 4) 44 O Vj in U Oj o c ot * u' VV S 44 OO cr> o in m r? ol r* oI m o ** o o o ol in m (N in in T" M f o oo o r- GO in - o oo Ea (0 04 r* in cn ro CO 04 vO zo. c cO' O' H H *4 3 O' H3 O' c c+J 4-) p f4C 0 V4 0 U Xc 4J 40 X 0) 6 (0 44 03 X A 44-4 03 .C P 3P 3 -H 0) 4 03 C 3 34J C C p d C 40 c c<0 <0 *r4 k4 fd -H MH a <0 x Cu o 4Q X Oj O 04 01 H r-4 Q 04 04 CTD020324 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro A/C Pipe Plant October 17-20, fun TABLE III Audi odos(metry faults POSITION NO. LOCATION 83 (DATE) NAME PLANT A - MANllKACTUKING DEPARTMENT 077 Mixer ^ Hille Ray October 18, 1983 TIME 6: 10p11:08p 078 Hixer Bruce Ward October 20, 1983 8:10a3 s 29p 079 Machine Tender Ray Rodriquez October 20, 1983 oeo Press Operator Milton Oook October 16, 1983 081 Press Operator Milton Cook October 19, 19B3 8:22a3:28p 5:05p IlilOp 5:0 0r11:0 Ip 082 Press Operator John Chambers October 20, 1983 8:15a3t29p 083 Mandrel Handler Calvin Thompson October 10, 1983 - 084 Mandrel Handler Calvin Thompson October 19, 1983 5i00plliOlp 08S Mandrel Handler Roy Black October 20, 1983 8:05a3:33p 086 Tray Loader Alvis Sonnenberg October IB, 1983 504p11:06p 087 /Tray Loader Larry Young f October 20, 19B3 088 |I Relief Shanna Biber l October 18, 1983 8:00a3:27p 5:00p11lOfip MIN p iifii: rxjsiMKi v i; -i i DOSF ( ' nn t ha )>-> RESULTS 358 6 439 71 426 365 361 115 434 98.4 -361 143 448 144. P 362 447 366 53 39 B6.6 _ \ J> ! .2 w* ~ 7| . | - V. ? fl?. 2 ftit.n Fxceedert OSKA Action Level (50% - 85 dBA) Nearing Protection not wrn. Hearing Protection recommended Exceeded OSHA Action Level (50% - 85 dBA) Hearing Protection not worn, itearinq Protection recommended Sample voided E'iul lament problems Sample voided Equipment problems N'-arinq Protection worn Fxc**ded OSHA PEL ( 100% - 90 dBA) Hearlnq Protection mandatory Hearing Protection worn Expected to exceed OSHA PEL 1 100% - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection sundatory ^.tmple voided &**ployee left plant. Hearing Protection vorn Exceeds OSHA PEL < 100% - 90 dBA) Hearing protection mandatory Hearlnq Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL ( 100% - 90 dBA) Hrarinq Protection mandatory Hearing Protection morn Exceeds OSHA Action Level (50% - 85 dBA) OSHA Action Level (60% - 86 dPA) Hearing Protection worn Exceed* OSHA Action Level (60% - 85 dBA) Hearing Protection rcommended CTD020325 Industrial Hy<jlon< survey Hillsboro K/C Plant October 17-20, run TABl.F 1 l I Audiodosimetry Results HO. 83 POSITION LOCATION (DATE) NAME PLANT A - MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENT 009 Relief James Yates October 20, 198 3 TIME 8:27a3 : 3 1 (' PLANT A - FINISHING DEPARTMENT 090 j Line 1 Lathe Operator October 19, 1963 Charles Flaherty 7:58a3:38p 091 Line 1 j Lathe Operator J' October 19, 1983 6111 Sellers 8:00a3:36p 092 Line 3 Lathe Operator October 18, 1983 Odell Nelson 4:47p1 1:02p 093 Line 3 Lethe Operator October 18, 1983 Allen Huse 4:49p1 1:03p 094 Line 1 Hydroteater October 19, 1903 Larry Humphrey 8:27a3:50p 095 Line 1 Seller October 19, 19*3 Frank Kolar 096 Line 3 Seller October 18, 1983 Jerry Morgan 097 Line 3 Seller October 19, 1983 Jerry Morgan 8:24a3:38p 4:50p11:05p 4:51p11:05p 096 Multiple Coupling Saw Operator October 19, 1983 Ronald Banik 7:56a3:27p MIN 8 HOUR nOSIMETFK Mi 'l'' - m ,*MA ncm i ' RESULTS 424 82 Hearing Protection not worn. Exceeds OSHA Action Level {50% - 85 dBA) H>*11 lng protection recommended 458 332 456 283 375 193.3 374 201.5 443 140 429 202.5 374 -- 374 71 451 175 9fi. ? 17 ~ vi. 7 >S . 1 17 `.4 95.1 Hearing Protection worn Exceed* OSHA PEL (100* - 90 dBA) Houinri Protection mandatory Hoarlnq Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL ( 1 f>0% - 90 dBA) li'M' ino Protection mandatory Hetri'tq Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL l100* - 90 d3A) Hearing Protection mandatory Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL ( 100% - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection mandatory Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL 1 100* - 90 dBA) Dearlnq Protection mandatory Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL ( 1(10% - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection mandatory Sample voided Equipment problems na.'i }.l Hearing Protection not worn Exceeds OSHA Action Level (50% - 85 dBA) Hearing Protection recommended Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL ( 100% - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection mandatory CTD020326 industrial Hygiene Survpy Hillsboro A/r Pipe Plant October 17-?n, 1'nj TAnijK 1 l t AiMl.ido-itin.-l i y I POSiTinN NO. LOCATION 83 (DATE) NAME PLANT A - TMNinillNn OEPARTMFNT 099 1 Borinq Mill Operator October 19, 1903 Peter Brewer TIME 8: Ifte3 :10] 100 12 Bo ri mi Mill Charles Brown Operator Octl*'T V, I'iiO R:Qfla3: 30p 101 3 Boring Mill Autry Coaster Operator October 19, 1981 8:06a3:30p 102 Couplinq Stacker Octolx-r 1, 19113 Jerry Hooker 8:02a3:27p 103 PM Saw Simon Hodriquez Operator October 19, 19U3 8:04.*3: 3 2p 104 FM Specialty Betty Starrett Lathe Operator Octoher 19, 19HJ 8:14a3: 31p 105 Large pm Lathe Boy Jewett Operator October 19, 19B3 8t15a313 3p 106 Coupling Teater Dwayne Bowland October 19, 1963 8:17a3t 34p 107 dework Saw James Russel > perator October 19, 1903 8:20a3:37p ion Lathe Ojw>rator Warner Poston (Manual) October 19, 1983 8:30a3:33p 109 Forklift Driver Robert Wilson October 18, 1983 4i42p11:01p 110 Forklift Driver James Clark October 19, 1983 8:36a3i 26p MIN 8 Horn , . DOSIMETER f'/V L - 89 rlHA DOnr { ) dUA RESULTS 440 231 44? ?4'. 444 IF.? . A 445 1R3 44K 24M.i. 437 459 436 192.9 437 141.7 437 209 423 114.5 379 115 410 142 a Hearinq Protection worn Exceeds OSKA PEL (100 - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection mandatory ........ Heating Protection not worn OSHA PEL (loot. - 9(1 dBA) ii. irlng Protection mandatory Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL 1100% - 90 dBA) netting Protection mandatory 94.4 Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL ( 108% - 90 dBA) lic.if imi Protection mandatory ' ?(, ^ H. ii mg Protection worn l x.-ci-ds OSHA PEL (100% - 90 dBA) Nearing Protection mandatory J')l Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL (1001 - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection mandatory '`I.? 92.5 Hearing Protection worn Dcceed* OSHA PEL (100% - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection mandatory Hearing protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL ( 100% - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection mandatory Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL (100% - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection mandatory M C) 1 - 91.1 Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL (100% - 90 dBA) Nearing Protection mandatory Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL (100% - 90 dBA) Hearing protection mandatory 9?.s Hrarinq Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL (100% - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection mandatory CTD020327 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro A/C Pipe Plant October 17-20, 195 TMM.F m Audiodosimetry besults NO. 83 POSITION LOCATION (DATE) NAME TIME PLANT 8 - KANUFACfimiNG DEPARTMENT_______ __________ Ml Mixer Donald Clay October 16. 19R3 5:20j>IIMQp- HIN _ _ _____ 35B a lUH'H 'IVA DOSIMETER M'W - RO dBA DOSE (M il`A . 61 :K,.1 112 Machine Tender Dennis Hawkins 5:15p- 360 142.7 October 18, 1983 11:15p -113 Press Operator Gary Sulak October 18, 1983 5:14p- 360 134.7 11:1Sp 114 Mandrel Handler Oon Shuffleld October 18, 1983 5 :25p11:1 ftp 353 153.7 115 Tray Loader Charles Greer October 18, 1983 5:26p11:14p 340 80 116 Relief Hike McFarlin October 18, 1983 5:27p11: Up PLANT B - FINISHING DEPARTMENT 117 Lathe Operator Clyde Veneble October 20, 1963 8:55a3i50p 347 415 113.4 216 118 Hydroteater Dave Killer October 20, 1963 6:53a3t50p 417 206 119 rlnlsher Robert Baker 8:52a- 415 179 October 20, 1983 3:47p 120 rorklift Orlver Philip Stevens October 20, 1983 0:49a3i47p 420 180 ni'.f. 92.1 93.1 0.4 no.11 95.6 95.2 94.2 M. ) RESULTS ___________ _________________________ Hearing Protection not worn Exceeds OSHA Action Level (SO* - 85 dBA) Hearing Protection recommended Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL ( 100% - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection mandatory Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL ( 100% - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection mandatory Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL < MO* - 90 dBA} 1 1V1 r:ote-tlon mandatory J Hearing Protection not worn Exceeds OSHA Action Level Hearing Protection recommended Hearing Protection not worn Exceeds OSHA PEL <100% - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection mandatory Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL (100% - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection sundatory Hearing Protection worn Exceeds OSHA PEL (100% - 90 dBA) Hearing Protection mandatory Hearing Protection not worn Exceeds OSHA PEL <100% - 90 dBA) Nearing Protection mandatory Hearing Protection not worn Exceeds OSHA PEL (100% - 90 dBA) M.*ar 1 ng Protect ton mandatory CTD020328 HILLSBORO A/C PIPE PLANT 'A' a co CTD020329 lb 10 HILLSBORO A/C PIPE PLANT 'A' a co O) c c o Ic CO O 'c oco il CTD020330 CTD020331 HILLSBOBO V PIPE PLANT PIPE MACHINE FIGURE 4 10/83 OSITION Mixer Operator (4) Machine Tender (5) Press Operator (4) ipe Handler (5) Laborer (2) Manufacturing Supervisor (7) Autoclave ,* Truck Driver Relief Operator LOCATION A-C 8-9 B-E 6-9 D-E 6-9 B-E 1-2 A-E 1-9 A-E 1-9 SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (dBA) 72-86 84-89 85-88 86-94 76-79 72-94 ESTIMATED dBA DOSIMETER-TWA dBA 80 85 90 REMARKS 87.5 91.6 90.5 92.6 84.2 Tray Loader 84,2 A-E 1-3 76 92.7 180 Hyster A-E 1-9 72-94 88.8 CTD020332 HILLSBORO 'A' PIPE PLANT FINISHING DEPARTMENT FIGURE 5 IB/83 POSITION LOCATION SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (dBA) ^athe Operator Line #2 Lathe Operator Line #3 Inspector Line #2 Inspector Line #3 Hydrotester Operator . Line #2 Hydrotester Operator Line #3 Coupling Tester Operator Lg. Coupling Saw Operator Rework Saw Operator Material Operator (10) V._j^ruck Driver (4) Laborer (1) Finish Supervisor (4) Crusher Operator A-B 3-4 A-B 5-6 A-D 1-4 A-D 5-6 C-D 1-3 C-D 5-6 A-B 7-8 C-D 7-8 D-E 7-8 C-D 1-6 A-F 1-8 A-F 1-8 A-F 1-8 D-F 8 85-99 92-95 82-99 85-98 82-99 87t96 85-90 95-101 ESTIMATED dBA DOSIMETER-TWA dBA 80 85 90 98.1 95.0 91.2 93.4 92.4 93.8 95.7 92.5 95.3 91.6 92.5 87,5 91.0 94.3 REMARKS (4) Lathe Operator Rotate Between Lines (5) Inspectors Rotate Between Lines (2) Hydrotester Rotate Between Lines Work as Bellers/ Handlers & Stackers on Lines Rebanding Pipe- Also Operates Wood Saw > Drives Truck to Dump CTD020333 HILLSBORO 'A* PIPE PLANT FITTINGS DEPARTMENT FIGURE 6 10/83 , OSITION vj------------- Coupling Cut Off Saw Operator (1) Coupling Stacker Boring Mill Operator #1 (1) Boring Mill Operator #2 (1) Boring Mill Operator #3 M. Lathe Operator (2) FM Saw Operator (1) Specialty Lathe Operator (1) LOCATION SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (dBA) A-C 1-3 88-1Q1 B 3-5 A-C 1-5 87-91 88-92 A-C 5-6 91 A-B 6-7 85-91 A-C 7-8 91-97 A-C 7-8 A-C 9-10 88-96 83-93 ESTIMATED dBA DOSIMETER-TWA dBA 80 85 90 REMARKS 94.1 94.4 96.0 96.6 Consider all Mill Operators Exposed >90dBA 93.7 101 96.6 94,7 . CTD020334 HILLSBORO 'B' PIPE PLANT PIPE MACHINE FIGURE 7 10/83 1 .TTION Mixer Operator (4) Machine Tender (5) Press Operator (4) Mandrel Handler (5) Tray Unloader (2) Manufacturing "upervisor (7) ; toclave Truck VCii'I>river Relief Operator LOCATION A-B 5-7 C-E 4-7 E 4-6 C-D 4-6 C-E 1-2 A-E 1-7 C-E 1-2 A-E 1-7 SOUNO PRESSURE LEVEL (dRA) 72-86 81-94 86-94 87-94 79-82 79-94 79-82 79-94 ESTIMATED dBA DOSIMETER-TWA dBA 80 85 90 86.4 92.6 92.1 93.1 88.4 REMARKS 90.9 CTD020335 ii HILLSBORO 'B' PIPE PLANT FINISHING DEPARTMENT 5 FIGURE 8 10/83 POSITION Lathe Operator Hydrotester Finisher y-Vorklift Driver LOCATION SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (dRA) A'-C 1-3 B-C 1-2 C-E 1-3 1~3 85-105 98-100 87-97 87-94 ESTIMATED dRA DOSIMETER-TWA dRA 80 85 90 REMARKS 95.6 95.2 94.2 94.3 CTD020336 HILLSBORO A/C PIPE PLANT EPOXY DEPARTMENT FIGURE 9 6/82 POSITION Pipe Cleaner Coupling Painter LOCATION SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (dBA) A-D 8 C-D 4-5 DOSIMETER-TMA ESTIMATED dBA dBA 80 85 90 REMARKS <85* 84.7 (1) Classified Person in Epoxy Department Not running at this time. fl)02M3T c HILLSBORO A/C PIPE PLANT MISCELLANEOUS JOB POSITIONS FIGURE 10 6/82 POSITION LOCATION SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (dBA) Fittings Maker (2) Fittings Area 79-85 Mechanic (11) Maintenance Boiler Operator (3) Machinist (3) Electrician (1) Plant B 77-87 Boiler Rm. Maintenance 72-80 Maintenance Maintenance Supervisor (3) Maintenance Equipment Operator (3) Yard Bulk Cement Unloader (1) Yard Warehouse Supervisor (1) pressure Operator (1) Loading Laborer (1) Truck Driver (1) Shipping Supervisor (1) Lab Technician (1) Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Lab ESTIMATED dBA DOSIMETER-TWA dBA 80 85 90 REMARKS 89.2 86.9 86.1 1 Boiler running 83.5 83.4 82.4 Doors closed 88.8 89.8 <85 78.4 <85 89.5 78.0 85.7 CTD020338 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro Asbestos/Cement Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 Appendix I Monitoring/Analytical Procedures and Current Standards Asbestos Personal samples. Area samples (which reflect employee exposure levels) and Area/Environmental/Engineering samples were obtained on Millipore 0.8 micrometer Mixed Cellulose Ester Filters (MCEF). DuPont P4000 and P2500 air sampling pumps were calibrated before and after each sampling day to approximately 2-liters per minute (1pm). In most cases, a series of three or four different filter samples were obtained for the person or area to establish an 8-hour time-weighted average concentration (TWA). The analysis was conducted according to the USPHS/NIOSH Membrane Filter Method for Evaluating Airborne Asbestos Fibers (P & CAM 239) by an experienced fiber counter who was trained by NIOSH. Fibers were counted on a Nikon Model 96982 phase contrast microscope at 400X magnification. The current OSHA standard is given in 29 CFR 1910.1001. It calls for an employee TWA airborne limit of two fibers, longer than 5 micrometers, per cubic centimeter of air (f/cc). Also, no employee shall be exposed at anytime to airborne concentrations in excess of 10 f/cc. Dust Sampling Total dust samples were obtained on MSA FWS-B polyvinyl chloride filters. Gravimetric analyses were accomplished on a Cahn C-25 electrobalance according to methods given in the OSHA Industrial Hygiene Field Operations Manual April 2, 1979. DuPont P4000 and P2500 air sampling pumps were utilized for area samples and were calibrated at approximately 1.7-2.0 liters per minute before and after each sampling day. The percent free silica (quartz, christobalite, tridymite) in the airborne dust samples were analyzed by the National Loss Control Service Corporation (NATLSCO of Long Grove, 111.). The method utilized for these analysis was NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 2nd. Edition, P&CAM 259. This method utilized the redeposition of the particulate material into a silver membrane filter followed by x-ray diffraction scan for the silica peaks. CTD020339 Industrial Hygiene Survey Hillsboro Asbestos/Cement Pipe Plant October 17-20, 1983 The limit for Total Nuisance particulates is 15 mg/m3. The permissible exposure for silica dust is a function of the percentage of silica in the dust sample obtained as follows: Silica (Crystalline): Quartz (Respirable) = 10 mg/m3 % Si02 + 2 Quartz (Total Dust) = 30 mg/m^ % Si02 + 2 Noise A B & K 2215 precision sound level meter with a B & K 4165 1/2 inch microphone, was utilized to obtain sound pressure level measurements. This instrument was calibrated before and after this survey. A 3" foam sphere was used as a microphone windscreen. The reference for all sound pressure level measurements is 0.0002 microbar. DuPont Model D-376 and D-381 audiodosimeters utilized during this survey were set at the 80 dBA cutoff mode. The DuPont audiodosimeters were calibrated before and after each day of dosimetry sampling utilizing the DuPont Audiodosimeter Calibrator Model C-114 by the direct reading method. Before and after each survey week the audiodosimeters were calibrated by the time calibration procedure utilizing the DuPont calibrator C-114 and Model R225 readout. This calibration was done for 5-minutes, 10-seconua at 114 dB to give an expected 30% +/- 4% result. Also used for evaluating noise exposures, was the Metrosonics db 301/652 Metrologging System and the db-306 Sound Level Analyzer. The db-301 is used for correcting the basic sound level data in either a time history or statistical distribution computer program. The db-652 receives the data from the db-301, processes it, and provides a printout of the two program formats. The 80 dB cutoff mode is incorporated into these programs. The db-301 and db-306 models were calibrated before and after each survey day with a Metrosonics CL-302 Calibrator. The permissible OSHA noise exposure, (29 CFR 1910.95), ranges between 90 decibels for 8-hours per day through 115 decibels for a maximum duration of 1/4-hour per day. The maximum permissible audiodosimeter dose is 100% on the 85 and 80 dBA modes. CTD020340 r APPENDIX II Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 215 / Friday. November 4. 1983 / Rules and Regulations < 51139 respirators, and to assure that all such multiples of the reduced PEL of 0.5 f/cc. Authority and Signature employees participate in the program nd are informed of specified categories J information. OSHA considers this provision to be "necessary" within the meaning of section 6(c) of the AcL to reduce the grave danger faced by asbestos exposed employees. The absence of a training program requirement in the asbestos standard has been pointed out as one of the serious deficiencies of the current standard. OSHA believes that participation in an adequate training program is essential for the protection of employees because most protective provisions enlist the employee as an active participant For example, many employees handling asbestos depend on effective work practices. Without training in applying these work . practices, employee protection would be rather than multiples of the previous 2 il cc permissible limit. For example, This document was prepared under the direction of Thome C. Auchtcr. approved air purifying respirators may be used only where asbestos concentrations ere not expected to exceed 5 f/cc (10 x the PEL). Before the ETS. because the PEL was 2 f/cc. such respirators could be used where asbestos concentrations would not have exceeded 20 f/cc (10.x the PEL of 2 f/cc). Similarly, powered air purifying Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupations! Safety and Health. U.S. Department of Labor. 200 Constitution Avenue. NW. Washington. DC 20210. Pursuant to Sections 6(b). 6(c). 8(c) and 8(g) of the Act. 29 CrR 1910.1001 is amended by adding a new paragraph (k I as set forth below. respirators may be used where asbestos (Secs. Sib). 6(c). 8(c) *nd S|g). Pub. L 91-590. concentrations do not exceed 100 timesthe PEL which at the new level of 0.5 (/ 64 Slat 1593.1590.1599.1600; 29 US.C 655. 657: Sec. 107. Pub. L 91-54. 63 Slat. 96 (40 U.S.C. 333); 29 CF3 Part 1911: Secretary of cc is 50 f/cc. Previously, employers Labor's Order No. 9-S3 (48 FR 35736)) could have used such respirators at concentrations up to 200 f/cc. Signed at Washington. D.C- this 2nd day uf November 1983. It is likely that the main impact of the Thome G. Auchter. reduced PEL on respirator choice will be Asstsicn; Secretary ofLabor. In operations and industries where exposure levels are between 5 f/cc and - [ PART 1910--(AMENDED] inadequate. Where the employee plays a 20 f/cc. Formerly, employees exposed in more passive role in his protection such this range could use helf-mask air Section 1910.1001 of Part 1910 of Title at where engineering controls are relied purifying respirators: now they must be : 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is on. training is also essential, because protected by a powered air purifying hereby amended by adding a new the employee must know the sources of respirator or a full facepiece respirator, paragraph (k) reading as follows: workplace asbestos contamination, and or they may use a supplied air the health hazards of asbestos exposure, respirator. * '51910.1001 Asbestos. in order to assess his own exposure situation and to help recognize when engineering controls are not operating properly. Certainly where housekeeping .lays an important roie in control, instruction about housekeeping methods, for example, frequent vacuuming, is essential Perhaps most importanly. where employee protection depends upon respirator use. OS1 lA's experience shows that training employees in the use. fitting and limitations of respirators is critical tu the effectiveness of respirator protection. Accordingly this requirement applies where airborne concentrations are reasonably expected to exceed &5 f/ 6. Paragraph (kl(Ph Warning signs during the ETS. The ETS requires that legible signs warning of the health hazards of asbestos be displayed at locutions where airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers exceed the reduced exposure limit of 0-S f/cc. No specific legend is required signs for newly posted during the ETS. OSHA wishes to make as practicable as possible the rapid posting of signs, especially in workplaces where there has been previous non-compliance and in areas where asbestos concentrations were formerly below the 2J) f/cc PEL XL Public Participation \ (k) Emergency temporary stcr.dcrd effective November 4. 2083.--(1) Scope.This emergency temporary standard is (issued pursuant to section 6(c) of the i Act and applies to ail workplaces where [employees may be exposed loasbeslus in all industries covered by the Act. : including, general industry, construction j and maritime. Except to the extent / modified by this emergency temporary standard all provisions of 4 1910.1001 remain in effect.. (2) Permissible leveis of exposure. The 8-hour time-weighted average airborne concentration of asbestos fibers to which any employee may be cc. even if employees use respirators to reduce breathing zone concentrations and thereby comply with the ETS. As set forth in paragraph |k)(4) the employer must inform the employee of Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments with respect to the revisions to the asbestos standard made by the ETS. These comments must be ; exposed shall not exceed one-half (0.5) j fiber, longer than 5 micrometers, per cubic centimeter of air. as determined . by the method prescribed in paragraph ; (e) of this section. the health effects of asbestos exposure: postmarked oh or before January X 1964 j (3) Methods of compliance with thr the relationship between asbestos and smoking in producing lung cancer the and sent to the Docket OfTtcer. Docket ! emergency temporary standard. No. H-033C. Occupational Safety & ! Notwithstanding any other requirements operations exposing employees to Health Administration. U-S. Department j of this section, compliance with the osbestos fibers and necessary protective of Labor. 200 Constitution Avenue. NW_ j reduced exposure limit of 0J f/cc shall steps to minimize exposure: the purpose, Room S-6232. Washington. D.C 20210. j be achieved by any feasible proper use. fitting instructions and* limitations of respirators, and the The data, views and arguments that are submitted will be available for combination of engineering controls, work practices, and personal protective contents of all the provisions of the public inspection and copying at the equipment and devices. Asbestos Standard at 1910.1001. above address. All timely written (4) Employes information and S. Paragraph (k)fSI Respiratory submissions will be made a part of the training.--(i| As soon as possible, but protection during the ETS. The ETS record of the proceeding. not later than thirty (30) days from the adds a new paragraph (k)(5| which includes a table which ties respirator List of Subjects in 2$ CFR Part 1910 effective date of this emergency temporary standard, the employer shall selection to the 0.5 f/cc PEL Under thr Occupational safety and health. institute a training program for all ETS. the concentration cut-offs for Asbestos. Health. Emergency temporary employees exposed to airborne various kinds of respirators are standard. Cancer. concentrations of asbestos in excess of CTD020341 0I14U federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 215 / Friday. November 4. 1983 / Rules and Regulations t 0.5 f/cc. without regard to the use of respirators and shall assure their participation in the program during the effective period of this emergency temporary standard. "i) The employer shall assure that . such employee is informed of the following: (A) The health effects associated with asbestos exposure: (B) The relationship between asbestos and smoking in producing lung cancer (C) The nature of operations which could result in exposure to asbestos and necessary protective steps to minimize exposure including, as applicable, engineering controls, work practices, respirators, housekeeping and protective clothing: (D) Tne purpose, proper use. fitting instructions and limitations of respirators permitted by the standard; and (E) A review of all the provisions . : contained in 1910.1001. t (5) Respiratory protection during the ETS. Notwithstanding any other requirement cf this section, where respirators are used to achieve the permissible exposure limit of 0.5 f/cc they shall be selected according to Table 1. (6} Wcming signs during the 75. In addition to the requirements of paragraph (g}(l) of this section, legible signs warning of the health hazards of asbestos shall be provided and displayed at each location where airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers may exceed 0.5 f/cc. table i 1 Respiratory Protection For AiroorneConcentrations of Asoestos . Airocme Concentration of Asbestos (Twa) Not In excess of 5 f/cc (10 1 PELj Not in excess of 50 f/cc 1100 X pa> treater than 50 f/cc Reouirea Respirator^ Aeusanlc or single use air purifying respirator Full facepiece air purifying respirator, or a powered air purifying res pirator A type *C* continuous flow or pressure oesand, supplied air respirator. * Respirators specified for hign concentrations say Oe used at io>er concentrations of asoestos. (Secs. 6(b). 6(c). 6(e) and 6(g). Pub. L 91-696. 64 Sul 1593,1596.13S9. ItjOO; S3 VS.C 655. 657; Set 107. Pub. L 91-54.63 Stal 96 (40 US.C. S3): 39 CPU Part 5311. Secretary of Labor's Order No. P-83 (46 FS 31730)) irsOxoacnriMiwaaiiiirmi mjjno coot tsto-n-M CTD020342 5-88 APPENDIX III INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION 500 cfm 1 Duct velocity=3500 fpm Entry foss= 3.5 VP in duct riser (Point A) For booth enclosure, see VS-40! AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS RADIAL SAW DATE 1-68 VS-709 CTD020343 NO. 31 line INC) APPENDIX IV -J- ULii- lun >i.n i. > u j He still recommends, though, that employers continue to log the inspec tor's activities. OSHA RELAXES NOISE STANDARD TO 100 DBA! In a surprise move, OSHA issued instruction CPL 2-2.35, Enforce ment of the Occupational Noise Exposure Standard, effective November 9, 1983, in which engineering and administrative controls are not to be required until the Time-Weighted Average noise exposure has reached 100 dBA or, equivalently, a dosimeter exposure value of 400%. The enforcement principles of this instruction are: "The enforcement of 29 CFR 19l0.95(bXl) will allow employers to rely on personal protective equipment and a hearing conservation pro gram, rather than engineering and administrative controls, when hear ing protectors will effectively attenuate the noise received by the employee's ear to levels specified in Table G-16 or G-16a of the stand ard. The principles set forth below and Appendix A of this instruction are provided to aid in this evaluation. Professional judgement is necessary to supplement these general guidelines. In cases where de viations from these guidelines seem to be warranted, the Regional Office shall consult the Directorate of Field Operations. "1. Area directors shall issue citations for violations of 29 CFR 1910.95(bXH when engineering and/or administrative controls are both technically and economically feasible; and "a. Employee's exposure levels are so high that hearing protectors alone may not reliably reduce noise levels received by the employee's ear to the levels specified in Table G-16 or G-16a of the standard. Given the present state of the art, hearing protectors which offer the greatest attenuation may not reliably be used when employee exposure levels border on 100 dBA. (See Appendix A.) "b. The costs of engineering and/or administrative controls are less than the cost of an effective hearing conservation program. "NOTE: See Chapter III of the Field Operations Manual for guidelines on technical and economic feasibility. In addition, in the National Office the Directorate of Technical Support is a resource for infor mation on engineering control costs and technological feasibility data requested by Regional Offices. "2. A control is not reasonably necessary when an employer has an on-going hearing conservation program and the results of audiometric testing indicate that any existing controls and hearing protectors are adequately protecting employees. Take into consideration such factors as the exposure levels in question, the number of employees tested, and the duration of the testing program. "3. When employee noise exposures are less than 100 dBA and an em ployer does not have an on-going hearing conservation program or the results of audiometric testing indicate that the employer's existing program is not working, consider whether: "a. Reliance on an effective hearing conservation program would be less costly than engineering and/or administrative controls. "b. Improvements could be made to the hearing conservation proaram which could bring the employer into compliance with Table G-16 or G-16a. "c. Engineering and/or administrative controls are both technic ally and economically feasible. "NOTE: If noise levels which are received by the employee's car can be reduced to the levels specified in G-16 or G-16a, citations un der the hearing conservation standard should be considered rather than citations requiring engineering controls. If improvements in the hear ing conservation program cannot be made and feasible controls exist, a citation under 1910.95(bXl) should be considered. The Area Director CTD020344 shall discuss such cases with the Regional Administrator prior to issuing a citation. When the Regional Office determines that controls are justifiable, the Regional Administrator shall contact the Director of Field Operations. A decision will be made at the National Office level and communicated to the Area Director through the Regional Ad ministrator. The citation shall not, however, be delayed beyond 6 months." Thorne G. Auchter, Assistant Secretary. Distribution: National, Regional and Area Offices, All Compliance Officers, State Designees, NIOSH Regional Program Directors, 7(cXl) Project Managers. \ \ RECAP OF THE MAJOR POINTS: These guidelines result from the November 1982, Castle & Cooke Foods court decision. Engineering and/or administriative controls will be required when exposure levels are so high that hearing protectors alone may not provide enough protection. Engineering and/or administrative controls are not required if the employer has an effective hearing conservation program. It is assumed that hearing protectors will not be sufficient for / exposures exceeding 100 dBA. If the employer's hearing conservation program is not providing adequate protection, the National Office will decide if engin eering and/or administrative controls are justified...evgn for ***e*xp*o*su*res*b*e*low**10*0 *dB*A.******************** NOISE CONTROL COSTS FIVE TIMES MORE THAN THE VALUE OF THE NOISE MAKER A noise expert for the Dolese Company (OSHRC #76-3460) testified that a crawler crane valued at $1200.00 could be modified to protect the operator from excessive noise exposure. Only one operator was in volved, and the noise control modification was predicted to cost at least $5,800.00. A Review Commission judge originally vacated the citation on the grounds that the costs of the controls outweighed the benefits that would be achieved. On remand, the judge ruled that the proposed modification of the crane was technologically feasible, and cited the Review Commission's precedent in the Sun Ship, Inc. ruling of December 1982 in requiring that the modifications to the crane be made. The employer's argument that hearing protectors provided better protection at lower cost was rejected because in the Sun Ship ruling, the Review Commission held that cost-benefit analyses do not apply in safety and health matters. ********** OSHA has recently completed an amendment to the noise rules gen- erly referred to as the "Hearing Conservation Amendment". That amend ment became effective on 7 April 1983 but had no effect on the 90 dBA action level for engineering solutions. It was announced in October that OSHA is scheduled to begin a re view of the engineering requirements of Sections (a) and (b) in June 1984. ********** According to William Ihde of S V Engineering, Inc., management has several incentives for installing engineering controls in foundries. One incentive has been OSIIA's recent position that excessive noise is a serious violation that carries fines in excess of $200.00 per violation. Another incentive, Ihde says, is the compensation cost for noise-induced CTD020345 CURRENT REPORT South Carolina inspectors conducted eight cotton dust in spections in their stale. However, since the standard look c(T<.ct, federal OSHA has conducted only four inspections, all sponsc to complaints, in the two states under federal cmorccmcnt jurisdiction, Frumin reported. "This policy against enforcement," he asserted, "has had the practical effect of ejemptino cotton textile employers from the need to comply with the standard." Joan Ciaybrook, president of Public Citizen Research Croup, suggested that the Administration's "disastrous poli cies" on enforcement could be corrected if Auchter would ask Congress for more inspectors, substantially increase follow-up inspections, immediately halt current targeting policies, and discontinue the policy of evaluating compliance officers based on their ability to settle as many contested cases as possible. Noise OSHA ENFORCEMENT INSTRUCTIONS ALLOW USE OF PROTECTORS TO COMPLY WITH NOISE RULE New enforcement instructions issued Nov. 9 by the Occu pational Safety and Health Administration to its field staff will allow employers to rely on hearing protectors and a hearing conservation program to comply with the OSHA noise standard, rather than engineering and administrative noise controls, when the protectors can effectively reduce employee noise exposure to levels specified in the standard. However, the agency said that feasible engineering and /or administrative controls are required when exposure levels are so high (in the area of 100 dBA) that relying on ring protectors alone may not provide adequate election. The agency issued the new instructions to address the ruling of the UJS. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Donovan v. Castle and Cooke Foods and OSHRC (Current Report, Dec. 2, 1982, p. 541). The court held in that case that the implementation of engineering and/or administrative controls could not be required under the noise standard without comparing the relative costs and relative effectiveness of these abatement methods with personal protective equipment Adequate Protection OSHA said that administrative or engineering control of noise "is not reasonably necessary when an employer has an ongoing hearing conservation program and the results of audiometric testing indicate that any existing controls and hearing protectors are adequately protecting employees." To make that determination, the number of employees tested and the duration of the testing program should be taken into account. Whenever a hearing conservation program appears not to be providing adequate protection for employees who are exposed to noise levels less than 100 dBA. a decision will be made at OSHA's national office as to whether engineering and/or administrative controls arc justifiable. When employee noise exposures arc less than 100 dBA and an employer docs not have an ongoing hearing conservation orogram or the results of audiomctric testing indicate that ? employer's existing program is not working, enforce ment personnel were advised to consider the following: Whether reliance on an effective hearing conservation program would he less costly than engineering and,-or ad ministrative controls. 661 Whether improvements could be made to the hearing conservation program which could bring the employer into compliance with Table 0-16 or G-16a of the standard. Whether engineering and/or administrative controls ire both technically and economically feasible. Section 1910.95(bXl) requires employers to first attempt to use feasible administrative or engineering controls when employees arc subjected to noise levels exceeding those listed in the standard. Hearing protection can be used only if such measures fail to reduce sound levels to within the limits of the standard. The agency said if employee noise doses can be reduced to levels specified in the standard, citations under the hearing conservation amendment should be considered rather than citations requiring engineering controls. If improvements in the hearing conservation program cannot be made and feasible controls exist, a citation under 1910.95(bXl) should be considered, the agency said, adding that the area director will discuss such cases with the regional administrator prior to issuing a citation. When the OSHA regional office determines that controls are justifi able, the regional administrator shall contact the director of OSHA field operations. A decision will be made at the national office level and communicated to the area director through the regional administrator. Determining Degree of Protection OSHA told its enforcement personnel that when compar ing the relative degree of attenuation of personal protectors and engineering and/or administrative controls, they must consider and document the following factors: Appendix B of the noise standard should be used to determine the laboratory-based noise reduction for a given hearing protector. However, enforcement personnel were instructed to apply a safety factor of 50 percent (divide the calculated laboratory-based attenuation value in half), be cause lab attenuation values are seldom achieved in the workplace. The adjusted attenuation values should be sufficient to reduce employee exposure levels to within the limits of the standard. However, OSHA said that "depending on the spe cifics of the case," an exception may be appropriate when an employer is in compliance with the hearing conservation amendment and has a history of an effective hearing conser vation program. * Documentation of any hearing loss must include the amount of hearing ability lost and date if, was recorded, exposure level, frequency and duration of exposure, length of employment, explanation of any followup measures tak en, and any other pertinent information. The estimated costs for engineering controls must be "reasonable" and include the annualized cost of installing controls and. if available, the annual cost of their mainte nance and costs due to any resulting loss of productivity or efficiency, according to the guidelines. The agency said that in order to consider the permanency of engineering controls, enforcement personnel should com pare the estimated cost for engineering controls to the estimated annual cost of a hearing conservation program multiplied by the approximate number of years the controls would be effective. An anticipated reduction in employee noise exposures should be considered significant if a three to five dll de crease is achieved by one. or a combination of the following: source controls, controlling the industrial environment by Occupations Snfnty 4 Health Reporter 0O95J?jr.pU/J0O*0 CTD020346 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER measures such as barriers and enclosures, or adminislnlivc controls. When evaluating control options, enforcement personnel r consider all types of abatement possibilities. OSIIA s.. for example, that partial use of controls "may be beneficial to implement some of the controls while forego ing more costly ones." OSIIA also said that abatement plans may include plans for replacing process equipment with quieter equipment that will significantly reduce exposure levels and make interim engineering controls for existing machinery impractical. Enforcement OSHA TO LAUNCH `NEW INITIATIVE' AIMED AT IMPROVING WORKPLACE HEALTH PROGRAMS NEW ORLEANS -- (By a BNA Staff Correspondent) -- In the "near future" the Occupational Safety and Health Ad ministration will launch a "new initiative" aimed at improv ing long-range workplace health programs while ensuring compliance with the agency's standards as well as control ling potential health hazards. Deputy Assistant Labor Secre tary Patrick R. Tyson announced Nov. 3. Tyson called on members of the American Academy of Occupational Medicine, the American Academy of Industri al Hygiene, and others in the workplace health eofnmunity, for their support and active participation, saying it is "cru cial" to the success of OSHA's program. Tyson said that the agency's new policy, together with the assistance of health professionals, "is the only one that makes sense" for solving workplace health problems. More than 500 occupational physicians and industrial hygienists attended the Joint Con' te on Occupational Health meeting Nov. 2-4. ..i the past, the agency has relied on standards and enforcement to accomplish the objectives spelled out in the Occupational Safety and Health Act. While OSHA remains committed to issuing "effective, well-crafted rules," and improving and "enforcing those on the books," Tyson said that it now will focus on the provision in the Act charging the agency with the responsibility "to stimulate employers and employees to institute new and to perfect existing programs for providing safe and healthful workplaces." The agency's approach to workplace health programs is patterned after its safety targeting system which is aimed at conducting inspections at the most hazardous manufac turing worksites. Tyson described the new focus as a "dou ble-edged incentive" which recognizes employers with good worker health systems while concentrating inspections on those with poor programs. Reliance would be on the OSHA inspector's "informed judgment" to use the employer's records to estimate the "scope and severity of potential hazards." he explained. If the employer's record and the inspector's short-term sam pling indicate that hazards arc well controlled, then the inspector can move on to another area of the plant or to a different workplace. Tyson said that the agency wants employers to know that this "common sense" approach, which is basically how the agency's inspection system currently is working, will create the incentive for workplaces to strengthen their health programs. "The better your program." he declared, "the less <' -e your workplace will undergo a lengthy OSHA .. etion." OSIIA also will use training and education as a way to promote workplace health, giving "$|iccinl consideration" to grant applications for health protection projects and offer ing more courses at the agency's training institute on the establishment and management of workplace health systems. Effective Program Elements Tyson described for the audience some of the key ele ments for an effective workplace health system which were developed by the agency as a result of a conference on the issue last year and a follow-up field managers' conference during the summer (Current Report, July 21, p. 171). As a minimum the system must require compliance with OSHA standards; must have labor and management support; must contain written objectives, policies, and procedures; must have a plan for the recognition and abatement of hazards; should prescribe specific work practice procedures; and incorporate employee training and education. Further, the OSHA official said that the program must be staffed by qualified and professional health personnel, and must provide for industrial hygiene monitoring, medical surveillance, and the retention of records with employees having access to data on hazardous substances. Hazards, he added, should be controlled through "cost-effective engi neering controls wherever technologically feasible" and use of personal protective equipment should be permitted where engineering controls are not feasible. In response to audience concern that OSHA's policies are in fact "opening up a can of worms" leading to employer falsification of records, Tyson conceded that the agency is aware of this "potential." However, he maintained that OSHA is doing "enough records checks to keep them [em ployers] honest" and will issue citations when false records are discovered, either through reviews by inspectors or employee complaints. NIOSH Also Seeks Assistance ~ J. Donald Millar, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, also called on the health professionals to help his agency with its data collection. In many cases, he said, the agency does not have sufficient data to tell "where we are or where we are going." He noted that this has been one of the main complaints that the institute has received in comments on its list of the 10 leading causes of occupational disease and injury -- that the agency lacks the required data to justify its ranking. "The collection of data without feedback or action is useless," he commented. In his remarks Nov. 2. Millar also told the gathering that he wants to re-establish the cooperative programs, that once existed between the two professional groups and the insti tute. In particular, he said he wants to "revitalize" the now defunct system whereby association experts review NIOSH's criteria documents, as well as other publications, before they are released. Millar reported that he has put Dr. Frank Mitchell in charge of working out the details and setting up communications between NIOSH, AAOM, and AAIH. In another area, Millar reported that the institute is in the "final stages" of selecting members for us newly formed Board of Scientific Counselors, which is intcmlo.l to provide advice to the institute to ensure scicntmc quality and timeli ness in NIOSH research (Current Report. July 14. p. Ifil). Millar said that he expects the peer review group to begin work in early 1984. It*17-03 Copyright <0 19&1 by 1h* Btiiomi ot National AffAirs. Inc. oo*. too so CTD020347 Ijgj 3^ W - o sV CM o V 8 : ro o v cr\ co o ^ T" " v| ieen'n o V Aa v| n ID CN CN *" *" I O CN CN " " j 00 O OO CN < H IL I B O P 0 V C P IP E PLANT CTD020348 FOLLOW-UP CertainTeed Date November 30,_1983 ;ct HILLSBORO A/C PIPE PLANT ASBESTOS FIBER SAMPLING RESULTS NOVEMBER 28, 1983 To Jack Anderson From Peter Norris Location and mail Hillsboro, 257 Location and mail code _1125/4____________ cc: B. Haigh - Hillsboro, 257 D. Hall - 2125/2B The results of asbestos fiber sampling performed by B. Haigh on November 28, 1983 shows that the Rework Saw and the Small Coupling Tester Operators are still exposed in excess of 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc) OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). The results are listed in the attached table. The Rework Saw Operator was exposed to 0.64 f/cc which is above the OSHA ETS of 0.5 f/cc and higher than the sample taken during the week of October 17-20, 1983. Exposures tothe Small Coupling Tester were 0.3 f/cc and 0.48 f/cc, resulting in a time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.38 f/cc. This level is below the OSHA ETS, but statistically the operator may still be overexposed. Table I also shows that based on a 95% confidence limit, exposure in excess of the ETS is still a possibility. These samples were taken after a curtain was installed between the open door and the Rework Saw to hopefully block any air drafts which would carry the dust from this operation over to the Small Coupling Tester. Also, the hopper used by the Rework Saw Operator was moved closer to him to lessen the airborne dust produced when throwing the pieces into the hopper. If you need more assistance, don't hesitate to contact me. PJN/car Attachment CTD020349 SAMPLE NO. N738 N677 N802 N798 ~ N733 TABLE I HILLSBORO ASBESTOS SAMPLES POSITION Sm. Cplg. Tester Sm. Cplg. Tester Rework Saw Rework Saw BLANK FIBERS/FIELD 2,08 2.96 5.56 0.01 FIBERS/CC 0.30 0.48 0.64 Voided TWA-F/CC 0.38 0.64 EXPOSURE SAMPLING CONFIDENCE LIMITS Lower Confidence Limit (LCL) - 95% = Y - SAE Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) - 95% = Y + SAE X - Samples N738 & N677 Concentration - 0.38 f/cc PEL - Asbestos, 0.5 f/cc SAE - Asbestos, 0-25 f/cc Y = X/PEL Y = .38/.5 Y = .76 LCL (95%) = Y - SAE = .76 - .25 LCL = .51 UCL (95%) = Y + SAE = .76 + .25 UCL = 1.01 If LCL <_ 1 and UCL exceeds the PEL. 1, the true exposure possibly CTD020350 CertainTeed Date December 5, 1983 ecl Asbestos Sampling Results Hillsboro A/C Pipe Plant November 30, 1983 To Location and mail code Jack Anderson From Hillsboro, 257 Location and mail code Peter Norris fJ 1125/4 cc: B. Haigh - Hillsboro, 257 D. Hall - 2125/2B Asbestos fiber sampling performed by B. Haigh on November 30, 1983 show exposures to the Coupling Cutoff Saw and Rework Saw Operators to be consistently above the 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc) limit. Exposure to the Small Coupling Tester was less than the 0.5 f/cc limit. The 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposures to the operators are as follows: Coupling Cutoff Saw - 0.81 f/cc Rework Saw - 0.5 f/cc Small Coupling Tester - 0.26 f/cc All three operations were running during this sampling period. Other than that, conditions remained the same as the November 28th sampling with the curtain located between the plant opening and rework saw and the pipe hoppers moved closer to the operators. Refer to the attached table for sample details. PJN/car Attachment CTD020351 TABLE I SAMPLE N0.~ N723 N559 N685 N746 P004 N691 HILLSBORO ASBESTOS SAMPLING NOVEMBER 30, 1983 LOCATION Cplg. Cutoff Saw Cplg. Cutoff Saw FIBERS/FIELD 5.9 6.3 FIBERS/CC 0.76 0.86 Rework Saw Rework Saw 3.6 0.47 4.0 0.53 Cplg. Tester Cplg. Tester 1.5 0.27 0.6 0.23 TWA-F/CC 0.81 0.5 0.26 y /j CTD020352 Certairfleed Date December 15, 1983 Oject HILLSBORO A/C PIPE PLANT 'W' ASBESTOS FIBER SAMPLING RESULTS December 7, 1983 /JoV \/ To Location and mail code J. Anderson From . ll(TVU^ P. Norris v v Hillsboro, 257 Location and mail code VF 1125/4 cc: B. Haigh - Hillsboro, 257 D. Hall - 2125/2B J. McGinley - 2125/2B The results of asbestos fiber sampling by B. Haigh on December 7, 1983 show time weighted average exposures to the Plant B Mandrel Handler (0.1 f/cc) and Press Operator (0.05 f/cc) to be below the 0.5 f/cc level. Exposure to the Press Operator (0.43 f/cc) in Plant A is still statistically above the 0.5 f/cc level. The results_ are listed in the attached Asbestos Monitoring Data Sheets and the 95% Confidence Level calculations for the Plant A Press Operator are in Table I. PJN/ejs Attachments i CTD020353 TABLE I EXPOSURE SAMPLING CONFIDENCE LEVELS Lower Confidence Limit (LCL) - 95% = Y - SAE Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) - 95% = Y + SAE X = Samples N811 & N817 TWA exposure to Plant A Press Operator - 0.43 f/cc PEL = Asbestos - 0.5 f/cc SAE = Asbestos - 0.25 f/cc Y = X/PEL Y = 0.43/0.5 Y = 0.86 LCL (95%) LCL = Y - SAE = 0.86 - 0.25 = 0.61 UCL (95%) = = UCL = Y + SAE 0.86 + 0.25 1.11 If LCL 1 and UCL > 1, the true exposure possibly exceeds the PEL. CTD020354 CertainTeed Date January 30, 1984 __ hject Hillsboro A/C Pipe Plant Asbestos Fiber Sampling Results January 18, 1984 To J. Anderson From Peter Norris Location and mail code Hillsboro, i/257 Location and mail code 1125/4 B. Haigh - Hillsboro D. Hall - 2125/2B J. McGinley - 2125/2B The results of asbestos fiber sampling by B. Haigh on January 18, 1984 shows a time weighted average exposure to the line //I Hydrotester Operator of 0.405 f/cc. This exposure is still statistically above the 0.5 f/cc level. The results are listed on the attached Asbestos Monitoring Data Sheet and the 95% confidence level calculation for the Hydrotester is in Table I. CTD020355 TABLE I EXPOSURE SAMPLING CONFIDENCE LEVEL Lower Confidence Limit (LCL) - 95% = Y - SAE Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) - 95% = Y+ SAE * X = Sample N818 & N1826 TWA exposure to line #1 Hydrotester Operator - 0.405 f/cc PEL = Asbestos - 0.5 f/cc SAE = Asbestos - 0.25 f/cc Y = X/PEL Y = 0.405/0.5 Y = 0.81 LCL (95%) = Y - SAE = 0.81 - 0.25 LCL = 0.56 UCL (95%) = Y + SAE = 0.81 + 0.25 UCL = 1.06 If LCL and UCL ^ 1, the true exposure possibly exceeds the PEL CTd020356 Certairileedm Subject Date T Location and mail code ___ March 13. 1984_______ __ Mr ._Peter Norris_____ ___ V-F. H?S/4__________ Location and mail code 1st Quality Progress Report Hillsboro A/C 7J. L. Anderson cc: J. P. McGinley #257 Hillsboro 41-2S-OOOS The following report is submitted in accordance with your recommen dation No. 7 in your report of the survey, October 17 - 20, 1983. 1. The exhaust ventilation ductwork has been inspected and no clogs nor leakage was discovered. The fan speed has been checked and it is running at the design rpm. 2. The local exhaust ventilation and ductwork has been redesigned and installed in accordance with your recommendation in appendix III of your report. Although this design did not result in the fiber count falling within acceptable limits it has helped. ? ^[l& 3. A windbreak was installed between the small rework saw and the ? ^3 door preventing wind entrainment of dust from the saw flowing into the Cp/ Scuo-^'^^ ' coupling tester area. After this installation, the coupling testers were resampled and the counts are below the .37 limit/' ^ The results of (2 these counts have been duly documented and recorded. In view of the lr V7 (u '-S3 favorable counts, respirator protection is not required. ^Iri *-)/<, r" < 21 C\HCf OIL 4. The Press Operator in A plant has been resampled. The count is SV a (-CS still above the .37 allowable, therefore respiratory protection is required for this employee as well as the mandrel handler working on the other side of the machine. Work is continuing on this problem and 1 d<-c '3 2^ f( cc our progess will be reported in the next report. O . i l t/ c C The B plant machine tender and press operator have been resampled and acceptable counts were obtained. 'pit'.-. C? - o. cm' J f . '"<^53 ; MV.;,, - o.: -rif< We have not attempted an engineering control for the problem of the Line 1 Hydrotester. This will be accomplished this quarter. 9 - 0 L(0 S flee. 5. Hearing protectors are now mandatory in all areas of the plant other than the maintenance shop. This is a most difficult matter to enforce because the employees dislike the requirement intensely. If we can come up with an engineering control for noise, it will help considerably with our employee morale. 6. All employees have been notified of the results of the measure ments. The proper documentation has been completed and entered into their files in accordance with company procedure. The results are also permanently displayed,^M-jft&?Hployees1 bulletin board. CTD020357 Mr. Peter Norria March 13, 1984 Page 2 We are currently preparing a instantaneous recovery of all ways: ( a ) by name (b) by occupation (c) by fiber count (d) by date computer file which will counts classified in the allow us following This work is expected to be completed this quarter. General Comments Although we have not completed all of our goals in the area of indus trial hygiene, we have made some significant starts. 1. We have purchased 2 additional portable vacuum cleaners which have been placed in the finishing departments. General area housekeeping is greatly improved. 2. We have received approval to install a developmental random cutter which may greatly reduce use of the rework saw. This equipment will be similar to the F/M cutter. A comparison of counts is as follows: Equipment Small rework saw F/M cutter Count 0.56 - .33 0.25 - .18 This concept has a good probability of success, although it is still in the developmental stage. CTD020358 Certairfleed April 19, 1984 jbject HILLSBORO A/C PIPE PLANT ASBESTOS FIBER SAMPLING RESULTS APRIL 6, 1984 To J. Anderson From TV Peter J. Norris Location and n code Hillsboro, 257 Location and mail code 1125/4 cc: D. Hall - 2125/2B J. McGinley - 2125/2B The results of asbestos fiber sampling by B. Haigh on April 7, 1984 show a timeweighted average exposure to the Rework Saw Operator of 0.69 f/cc. The operator on the Small Coupling Tester was exposed to a 0.08 f/cc level. The results are listed on the attached Asbestos Monitoring Data Sheets. PJN/car Attachments CTD020359 CertainTeedH Fo J. Anderson Mail Code #257 From P. J. Norris Subject HILLSBORO A/C PIPE PLANT ASBESTOS FIBER SAMPLING RESULTS JUNE 22-28, 1984 , Mail Code Ext. 1125/4 7707 Date July 10, 1984 cc: B. Haigh - Hillsboro, 257 D. Hall - 2125/2B J. McGinley - 2125/2B The time-weighted average (TWA) results of asbestos fiber sampling by B. Haigh during the period June 22-28, 1984 are as follows: POSITION TWA - f/cc Rework Cutter Operator 0.02 Rework Cutter - Area 0.003 Inspector Line #1 0.085 Hydrotester Operator Line #1 None Detected Press Operator 0.097 Boring Mill Operator #1 0.94 All the results are listed on the attached Asbestos Monitoring Data Sheets, PJN/cac Attachments CTD020360 p rin to u t SAS 22 ---- --------------- SURVEY NUMBER=83-23 ---------------------- ------ -- * EMPLOYEE NAHE JOB POSITION P39 RAY, HILLE MIXER 240 WARD. BRUCE MIXER 24! RODRIGUEZ, RAY MACHINE TENDER 242 COOK, HILTON PRESS OPERATOR 243 COOK, HILTON f'RESS OPERA TOR 244 CHAMBERS, JOHN PRESS OPERATOR 245 THOMPSON, CALVIN MANDREL HANDLER 245 THOMPSON, CALVIN MANDREL HANDLER 247 BLACK, ROY MANDREL HANDLER 243 SONNENBERG, ALVIS TRAY LOADER 249 YOUNG, LARRY TRAY LOADER 250 BIBER, SHANNA RELIEF 251 YATES, JAKES RELIEF 252 FLAHERTY, CHARLES LINE 1 LATHE OPERATOR OBS DBA.THA START STOP STOP MORE MIN HOUR MIN PROT JOB.fiRP 6RP LOCATION DEPT SOCIAL SAMPLER SN 3HPL SECURITY SMPL START DATE NUMBER NBR HOUR 831018 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-HAN PIN 77 j7 831020 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-HAN PJN 7a a 831020 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-HAN PIN "9 3 331018 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-HAN PJN 80 17 831019 PPS HILLSBORO PLT A-HAN PJN 3! 17 831020 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-HAN PJN 82 B 831013 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-HAN PJN 33 0 831019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-HAN PJN 34 !? 831020 PPS HILLSBORO PLT A-HAN PJN 35 8 331018 PPS HILLSBORO PLT A-HAN PJN 85 17 831020 PP6 HILLSBORO PLT A-MAN PJN 3^ ' 3 331018 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-HAN PJN 88 17 831020 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-MAN PJN 89 3 831019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT fl-FIN PJN 90 7 12 REM3 REH4 STRTJM SIP !M TTLMIN 6T/ SAMPLE HOUR LT SHIFT METHOD SHIFT 239 240 24! 242 { ;3 245 245 247 248 249 250 251 252 OBS 10 10 22 cJ 0 15 0 0 5 4 0 0 27 53 REH1 23 3 15 29 15 23 23 10 23 1 15 29 00 23 1 15 33 23 5 15 27 23 6 15 31 15 35 87.2 N 37.5 N 0.0 0.0 91.1 Y 89.9 Y 0.0 92.5 y 92.7 Y 85.2 Y 83.2 88.9 Y 88.5 N 98.7 V 2ND 80 1ST 80 1ST 30 2ND 80 2ND 80 1ST 80 30 2ND 80 1ST 80 2ND 30 1ST 80 2ND SO 1ST 80 1ST 80 REM2 1030 490 502 1025 1020 495 0 1020 485 1024 480 1020 507 478 HOUR SP HOUR ST 1398 929 923 1390 133! 9 28 C 133! 933 1335 927 1336 931 935 MIN SP 358 439 425 355 351 434 0 351 448 352 447 365 424 458 MIN ST 239 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR ACTION LEVEL (85D8A) BELOW 8-HOUfi PEL (90DBA! - PROTECTION RECOMMENDED 23 17 08 10 240 EXCEEDS 3-HOUR ACTION LEVEL I85DBA) BELOW 8-HOUR PEL I90DBA) - PROTECTION RECOMMENDED 15 8 29 10 24! SAMPLE VOIDED - INSTRUMENT MALFUNCTION 15 B 23 22 242 SAMPLE VOIDED - INSTRUMENT MALFUNCTION 243 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL (90DBA) PROTECTION MANDATORY 23 i" 10 05 23 | n 0! 00 244 EXCEEDS 3-HOUR ACTION LEVEL (85DBA) BELOW 8-HOUR PEL (90DBAI - PROTECTION RECOMMENDED 15 8 29 15 245 SAMPLE VOIDED - INSTRUMENT MALFUNCTION (} 0 00 00 246 EXCEEDS B-HGUR PEL (90DBA) PROTECTION MANDATORY 23 17 0! 00 247 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL I90DBA! PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 B 33 05 248 EXCEEDS 3-HOUR ACTION LEVEL (85D8A) BELOW 8-HOUR PEL (90DBAI - PROTECTION RECOMMENDED 23 17 06 04 249 BELOW 8-HOUR ACTION LEVEL (85D8A) NO PROTECTION NECESSARY 15 8 27 00 Q1,-550 EXCEEDS B-HOUR ACTION LEVEL I85DBA) BELOW ,8-HOUR PEL (90DBA) - PROTECTION RECOMMENDED 23 17 06 00 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR ACTION LEVEL I85DBA) BELOW 8-HOUR PEL (90DBA) - PROTECTION RECOMMENDED 15 3 3! 27 ^52 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL (90DBA1 PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 7 36 SB CTD020361 >= .4 SAS 23 SURVEY NUHBER=83-23 -<SRS EMPLOYEE NAME JG8 POSITION JOBSRP SRP LOCATION DEPT SOCIAL SAMPLER SN SMPL SECURITY SMPL START OATE NUMBER NBR HOUR 253 SELLERS. BILL LINE 1 LATHE OPERATOR 259 NELSON. ODELL LINE 3 LATHE OPERATOR 255 MUSE, ALLEN LINE 3 LATHE OPERATOR 256 HUMPHREY, LARRY LINE I HYDROTESTER 257 KOLAR, FRANK LINE 1 BELLER 250 H0R6AN, JERRY LINE 3 BELLER 259 MORSAN, JERRY LINE 3 BELLER 260 BAN IK, RONALD MULTIPLE COUPLING SAN OPERATO? 261 BRENER, PETER 11 BORINS MILL OPERATOR 262 BROWN, CHARLES 12 BORINS MILL OPERATOR 263 COASTER, AUTRY 13 BORINS MILL OPERATOR 26A HOOKER, JERRY COUPLING STACKER 265 RODRIGUEZ, SIMON FM SAN OPERATOR 266 STARRETT, BETTY FH SPECIALTY LATHE OPERATOR OBS DBA.TNA START STOP MIN HOUR STOP Min WORE GT/ PROT LT 831019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN 831013 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN PIN 91 a PJN 92 j t 831018 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN PIN q3 16 831019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN PJN 99 3 831019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN PJN 95 3 B31018 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN PJN 96 331059 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN 831019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN PJN 07 14 PJN 98 ? 831019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN PJN 99 3 631019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN 831019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN PJN 100 PJN 10! 3 t 3 831019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN PJN 102 8 831019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN PJN 103 8 831019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN PJN 10A 8 12 REH3 REM9 STRT TM STP TM TTLMIN SAMPLE HOUR SHIFT METHOD SHIFT 253 0 25A A7 255 A9 256 27 7 2A c53 50 259 5! 260 56 261 10 262 8 263 6 26A i0_ 265 !x 266 !A QBS KEH1 15 36 23 2 23 3 15 50 15 38 23 5 23 5 15 27 15 30 15 30 15 30 15 2? 15 32 15 31 97.5 9A.7 95.1 92.A 95.1 0.0 89.9 9A.1 96.0 96.6 93.7 9A.A 96.6 101.0 Y Y Y Y v N Y Y N V Y Y Y REM2 1ST 80 2ND 80 2ND 80 1ST 80 1ST 80 2ND 80 2ND 80 1ST 80 1ST 80 1ST 80 1ST 80 1ST 80 1ST 30 1ST 80 A80 1007 1009 507 50A 1010 101! A76 A90 A 88 AB6 A82 ASA A9A HCUR.SP HOUR_ST 936 1382 1383 950 938 1335 1335 927 930 930 930 927 932 93! MIN.SP A56 375 37A AA3 A3A 375 37A A51 A AO AA2 AAA AA5 AAB A37 M!N_ST 253 EXCEEDS 3-HOUR PEL 190DBA! PROTECTION MANDATORY !5 8 36 00 259 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL 190DBAI PROTECTION MANDATORY 23 !6 02 97 255 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL (90DBA) PROTECTION MANDATORY 23 16 03 99 256 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL 190DBAS PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 8 50 27 257 EXCEEDS 3-HQUfi PEL !90DBA.i PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 8 3E 29 258 SAMPLE VOIDED - INSTRUMENT MALFUNCTION 23 16 05 50 259 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR ACTION LEVEL (85DBA) BELOW 8-HOUR PEL (90DBA) - PROTECTION RECOMMENDED 23 16 05 51 260 EXCEEDS B-HOUR PEL 190DBA! PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 7 27 56 261 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL 190DBA) PROTECTION NANDATORY 15 8 30 10 262 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL ! 90DBA) PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 8 30 08 263 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL !9QBBAi PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 8 30 06 96A EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL (90DBAI PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 3 27 02 65 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL (90DBA1 PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 8 32 09 266 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL (90DBA! PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 8 31 19 CTD020362 SAS 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ SURVEY NUMBEI9=83-23 -- -- - arq EMPLOYEE NAME JOB POSITION JOB GRP GRP LOCATION DEPT SOCIAL SAMPLER SN SMPL SECURITY SMPL STAR T START DATE NUMBER NBR HOUR MIN 249 JEWETT. ROY LARGE M LATHE OPERATOR 331019 PPG HILLSBORO PIT A-FIN 248 ROWLAND, DWAYNE COUPLING TESTER 831019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN 249 RUSSEL, JAMES REWORK SAW OPERATOR 831019 PPG HILLSBORO FLT A-FIN 270 POSTON, WARNER LATHE OPERATOR (MANUAL! 831019 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN 271 WILSON, ROBERT FORKLIFT DRIVER 831018 PPG HILLSBORO PLT A-FIN 272 CLARK, JAMES FORKLIFT DRIVER 831019 PPG HILLSBORO FLT A-FIN 273 CLAY, DONALD HUES 831018 PPG HILLSBORO PLT B-MAN 279 HAWKINS, DENNIS MACHINE TENDER 331013 PPG HILLSBORO PLT B-MAN 275 SULAK, GARY PRESS OPERATOR 331018 PPG HILLSBORO PLT B-MAN 274 3HUFFIELD, DON MANDREL HANDLER 831018 PPG HILLSBORO PLT B-MAN 277 GREER, CHARLES TRAY LOADER 331018 PPG HILLSBORO PLT B-MAN 278 MCFARLIN, NIKE RELIEF 831018 PPG HILLSBORO PLT B-MAN 279 VENABLE, CLYDE LATHE OPERATOR 831020 PPG HILLSBORO PLT B-FIH 200 MILLER, DAVE HYDROTESTER 831020 PPG HILLSBORO PLT 8-FIN DBS DBA TWA 12 REM3 REM4 STRTTM STPTM TTLMIN REM1 STOP STOP WORE 6T/ SAMPLE HOUR HOUR MIN -PROT LT SHIFT METHOD SHIFT PJN PJN PJN PJN PJN PJN PJN PJN PJN PJN PJN PJN PJN PJN 105 104 107 108 109 ISO 111 112 113 114 115 114 117 1 IB 3 15 8 17 g 20 8 30 14 42 8 34 P 20 1? 15 17 14 17 25 17 24 17 27 8 55 B 53 247 15 33 248 15 34 26? 15 37 270 15 33 23 1 i. '2 15 24 273 23 18 274 23 15 275 23 15 274 23 18 277 23 14 278 23 14 279 15 50 280 15 50 OBS REM2 94.7 92.5 95.3 91.0 91.1 92.5 84.4 92.4 92.1 93.1 88.4 90.9 95.4 95.2 Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N M Y Y 1ST 80 1ST 30 1ST 30 1ST 80 2ND BO 1ST 80 2ND 80 2ND BO 2ND 80 2ND 80 2ND 30 2ND 80 1ST 80 1ST 30 HOUR.SP 495 497 500 510 1002 514 1040 1035 1034 1045 1044 1947 535 533 HDUft.ST 933 433 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL I90DBA) 934 437 EXCEEDS 8-HQLR PEL (90DBA! 937 437 EXCEEDS 8-HO'JR PEL (90D8A) 933 423 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL (90DBA! 1381 379 EXCEEDS 8-HQUR PEL (90DBA) 924 410 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL (900341 1398 358 EXCEEDS 8-HOL!R ACTION LEVEL (85D8A' 1395 340 EXCEEDS 8-IIGUR PEL (90DBA! 1395 341 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL (90DBA) 1398 353 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL (90DBA) 1394 348 EXCEEDS 3-HOL'R ACTION LEVEL (85DBA) 1394 34" EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL (90D8A1 950 415 EXCEEDS 8-HOUR PEL (90DBA) 950 4U EXCEEDS 8-M01IS PEL (90DBA! MIN.SP HIN.ST 247 PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 8 33 15 248 PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 5 34 17 249 PROTECTION MANDATORY itf 3 3" 20 270 PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 3 33 30 271 PROTECTION MANDATORY 23 lc 01 42 272 PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 8 24 34 273 BELOW 8-HOUR PEL (90DBA) - PROTECTION RECOMMENDED 23 17 18 20 27*. PROTECTION MANDATORY 23 17 15 15 275 PROTECTION MANDATORY 23 17 15 14 274 PROTECTION MANDATORY 23 17 IS 25 277 BELOW 8-HOUR PEL (90DBA) - PROTECTION RECOMMENDED 23 17 14 24 '98 PROTECTION MANDATORY 23 17 14 27 ? PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 8 50 55 280 PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 3 50 53 CTD020363 SAS 25 SURVEY NUMBER=83-23 OBS EMPLOYEE NAME JOB POSITION JOBGRP GRP LOCATION DEPT SOCIAL SAMPLER SMF'L SECURPY DATE NUMBER 281 BAKER, ROBERT FINISHER 331020 PPG HILLSBORO PLT B-FIN PJN 282 STEVENS, PHILIP FORKLIFT DRIVER 531020 PPG HILLSBORO PLT B-FIN P ] `:J OBS 3N DBA.TWA 12 REM3 PE1A STR9.TM STP.TM SMPL START START STOP STOP SORE ST ! SAMPLE HOUR NBR HOUR MIN HOUR MIN PROT LT SHIFT METHOD SHIFT 28! 119 282 120 OBS TTLMIH 8 52 15 A 7 94,2 N 8 A? 15 A 7 74.3 N REM! PEM2 1ST 1ST HOUR.SP 80 30 HOUR.ST MI N SP HIN ST 532 529 9A7 99? 281 A15 282 A18 EXCEEDS 3-HOUR PEL (90DBA) EXCEEDS B-HOUR PEL (90DBA) PROTECTION MANDATORY PROTECTION MANDATORY 15 15 8 A? 52 8 A? A9 CTD020364 IH S 8 3 -2 3 .HILLSBORO A /C P IP E /' PPG 1 0 /1 7 -2 0 /8 3