Document 12p4jEv5Omda4Zxvn5y61oma

INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE INDUSTRIAL HYGIENB P. O. BOX <71, TEXAS CITY, TEXAS 77M* July 17, 1985 To: S. J. Pooter D. R. Reem Texas City Plant Copy to: T. L. Bateman J. Schultz A. P. Yalcinkaya Subject: Texas City Plant Asbestos Concerns Asbestos containing .insulation and an assortment of other materials (transits, ceiling tile, accoustical lagging, gasket, etc.) have been elevated to a high priority health~public relation concern in the Texas City Plant. With the advent of the EPA regulation of asbestos renovation or demolition this site has been subjected to a series of inspections by the Galveston County Health Department that resulted in six (() Notices of Violation. In January of this year the Galveston County Health Board granted the Health Department permission to file suit against Union Carbide if violations were found in the future. (Daily Sun article attached.) The state has now begun to issue fines for past notices of violations at the Texas City Plant. These 6 NOV's have not been acted on but potential fines could total $25,000 per violation (BNA article attached). To date Mr. J. Ickes, the County Inspector, has limited the scope of his site visits to active demolition projects. This, however, is no guarantee that future visits by the County Health Department will be limited to active demolition work sites. Due to the age of our facilities an extensive amount of insulation is open to the environment and would provide fertile ground for the inspector to raise the question of violation of EPA standard and/or potential exposure to employees and community. This concern is being addressed- by the plant thru an effort headed by Mr. Joe Schultz* To dat* the plant has surveyed to establish priorities for corrective action, cost, and potential methods of correction. No. 2 Olefins was identified as the top priority due to the amount of insulation exposed and proximity to employees. Asbestos bearing insulation in No. 2 Olefins is concentrated on .the equipment on the NE cogrner of the unit adjacent to Bldg. 133 laboratory, and is badly weather due to the effects of hurricane Alicia. In view of the units present status the apparent best method of insulation removal would be to lay the equipment down prior to demolition. Asbestos containing insulation in the remainder of the unit is primarily associated with steam lines, acetelyne lines, and column bases. UCTC 07752 S. J. Footer, D. R. Reem July 17, 1985 Page 2 Any work involving this area will require written notices to the Texas Air Control Board and will subject us to potential inspections. Inaction holds the plant up to potential adverse publicity for contributions to public exposure to asbestos. It is my recommendation that the plant proceed with removal or renovation of exposed insulation on the theory that it would be more desirable to be accused of doing something rather than doing nothing. Sincerely, KEM:IRt Kirk E. Martin UCTC 07753 JSJTF i --| f\ s/xr/sr- . JIT Qc. "or Ll-t No. 130 Highlights... Asbestos demolition operations arc tops on federal and slate enforcement agendas .. . p. 1 EPA seeks guinea pigs for dry sorbent injec tion tests... p. 2 Perchloroetbylene rules may not be necessary after all ... p. 3 Sludge management techniques are highlight ed in ASME report... p. 4 If Aab--*o FM--, So WIM Money i Careless handling of asbestos fines will lead to even pigger civil fines as states and EPA demonstrate that Jhey take the asbestos demolition rules very seriously. Records show that during the first fiscal quarter of 1985, EPA and state enforcement personnel inspected 608 asbestos removal operations amd issued 42 no tices of violation. The U.S. Department of Justice presently is working on 22 active asbestos enforce ment cases. The agency says it will seek the maximum fine of S25.000 per violation for serious infractions of the asbestos rules. Moreover, the agency will act against the owner of the building if the asbestos demolition firm cannot afford to pay. Penalties may be reduced under certain circumstances, EPA says. Repeat viola tors, on the other hand, will be watched like hawks, the agency says, and will be more likely to be caught if they persist in their nonconforming ways. The message is clear to those who contract for asbestos removal. They first should be fully cognizant of the asbestos removal rules, which are more compre hensive and demanding than they may suspect. Next, they should check into the backgrounds of competing removal firms before they award contracts. Finally, they should expect to spend some time on the site themselves, as they will be the losers should an inspec tor spot a serious violation and slap on a hefty fine. For a detailed description of the asbestos removal rules, consult the binder at p. 125:301. Countdown For Review If there must be a race, at least it should be fair. EPA says in issuing a rule that sets an explicit lime of day by which requests for review of its regulations must be made. March 13, 19M Under the Clean Air Act, races to the courthouse have been infrequent, EPA explains, largely because the Act is quite specific as to when and where appeals may be made. If rulings arc nationwide in ct!cci, appeals must be made to the United States Court of Appeals. Decisions of more local impact, such as state implementation plan approvals, innovative technology waivers, new source waivers, delayed compliance or ders, smelter orders, and PSD applicability determi nations, should be reviewed by the court of appeals for "the most appropriate circuit." In both cases appeals must be made within 60 days of the time the disputed action is published in the Federal Register. Appeals of actions that are not recorded in the Register must be made within 14 days of the date on which they are signed. In all cases, the new EPA rule sets 1:00 p.m. as the time of day when the review period ends. Setting an exact cutoff lime for review is not a totally new idea, the agency explains. The 1:00 p.m. review deadline was added to language in the Clean Water Act back in April 1980 as a means of stem ming the use of walkie-talkies, human signalling chains and similar means to achieve a favorable forum. The change did not eliminate forum shopping and courthouse races, the agency says, but it did make them fairer. The favorable results achieved from the change in the Water Act led to the rule discussed here, which is designed to assure fairness in the review procedures for all of the environmental laws. Toxics Information On Tha Rlsa The explosion of interest in the nature and effects of toxic air emissions that has occurred over the past year has generated a corresponding explosion of information. The EPA/STAPPA/ALAPCO Air Toxics Infor mation Clearinghouse now has ready several contri butions that should help satisfy the widespread hun ger for a greater understanding of the complex world of toxic pollutants. '-*+** In the binder . . . Information on how to interpret process weight tables, control guide lines for SOCMI air oxidation processes, and a revised index are among materials in binder supplement No. 61, with this issue. Copyright C 1969 by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC.. Washington. D.C. 20037 oiaa-riM/ae/so* so UCTC 07755 9/e: at "Oc 3 V) O ca/) (a Q. aa ac ?5 jgc a. <u " D u UCTC 07756 2-A 9Ht Calntitoo Ballg Strum Thursday Morning, January 31, im&_. f- Suit voted if rules on asbestos violated By MAX R1ZLEY, JR. Newt Staff Writer LA MARQUE - County health district directors voted Wednes day to sue Union Carbide Corp., and Its demolition contractor, Klmmons Inc., If federal rules on the handling of asbestos are vio lated again. Dr. Edward Ibert, district pollu tion control director, said Inspec tions of a demolition project at Union Carbide have repeatedly shown "at least lax handling of asbestqs." "They are not protecting people in the plant or oft the premises" from asbestos dust during demoli tion of a powerhouse and a buta diene unit, Ibert said. Both sites are within ISO feet of public roads, he added. Specifically, Ibert said, some of the asbestos has not been soaked thoroughly enough to keep dust frees being produced,, and con tainer*-of the carcinogenic mineral fibers have at times not . bean sealed to the specifications se- sue by thr federal En' vlrsamcatal Protection Agency. Ibert emphasised that not all the 300^000 pounds of asbestos being removed has been handled incor rectly. "It's not hundreds of pounds," he said, "Just hart and then and hen and then -- but It has no business being anywhen." Tbs violations wen found dur ing routine health district inspec tions of the work sites, end Ibert said official notices of violation wen issued after the first two in spections. The sites have been inspected a total nine or 10 times since the demolition began last June, said Ibert, and the asbestos dust con trol measures wen "adequate" on two of the last three Inspections. In feet, the moat recent survey showed "excellent" control, said Ibert, which Is why the district did not vote to go to court right sway. What the unanimous vote means Is that if the EPA rules an vio lated again, the district Is authorized to file suit without again asking board permission. li the violation!' recur)' said Ibert, the district will sue on that and all past violations. In other business, the board ap proved Its 1MB contract with the Texas Department of Health for more than $000,000 In state support lor various district activities. UCTC 07757