Document 3eRwp6jkbeVyZMdybkq8zYpN6

SEF-i6-d3 THU 6:29 KB rriA flu. 03buz4 Environmental TechnologieSi 1010 S. MtfnolU Savtavard, MagaaUa, TtU> 7733*17*1 CHS) 33*6038 * (800) 683-1046 fix (7tJ) 330.0224 Inc. r. 802 September 13, 1993 RB: ETI #90227 Mr. Dennis Reich Reich & Bisstpck, P.C. Attorney! at Law 4263 San Felipe, Suite 1000 Houston, Texas 77027 SUBJECT. Richard Dear Mr. Reich: I appreciate the opportunity to review this Interesting case. My opinions are based on the Information tad records supplied by your office, my tour at the Ethyl facility, the scientific literature and other references generally relied upon by members of my profession and my experience. Based oa our discussions, I have focused my efforts or the following areas: Mr. Richard's exposure to various chemicals within his work areas, Warnings and training provided to Mr, Richard. Industrial Hygiene practices of Ethyl, Mr. Richard's records indie'.Us be was hired by Ethyl In January 1969 es a laborer in the maintenance seotion. It appears he progressed through machinist trainee to his final classification of outside machinist, which he held uadi mid 1986, when be was placed on extended disability leave. The record does not provide a complete picture of oil the places Mr. Richard worked during his employment at Ethyl. However, at least the following areas have been identified from a variety of sources on the record: ETI #90227 s AMIa OITUb <781 Wank !** 8--iwuX. Sim UJ. Awcta, T8 imV4J*4 Ota 8M-41M (MO) W-IJa f*t Oil) Ht-ttll 1 ocr'icrao mu ;oo no rnA w ocdOiz* r. uo 083 Environmental TceitmHogie*, //*,% Specialties Area (CHA) * Offload Rail Cars SAS Ship Dock Area Blockhouse Tank Farm Terminal & Utilities (T&U) * Brine Pumps HB-2 Operating Area All Ovcr/AU Plant -- - '*+ The record also does not provide a clear picture aa iu the tasks he performed during bts employment. One of Mr. Richard's coworkers. Mr. K. Atkinson, In his deposition, describes the tasks an outside machinist would do included fixing everything that broke, except anything electrical. Tills included taking in and out of service pumps, valves, lines, hydraulic systems and conveyors, as well as repairing or maintaining them in place. Another coworker, Mr. Oreenwell, described the duties of a machinist to include substantially the some tasks. ,* Likewise, there are no clear records as to the chemicals to which Mr. Richard was exposed. However, a 1988 Houston Plant Chemical list identifies some 860 chemicals used in the plant for which a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) is available. A cursory review Indicates these materials fall into three broad categories: purchased Products Sthyl Products Waste Produeu Theta seams to bo little, if any, information on intermediate produeu produced within the plant during lu normal operations. Mr. Richard waa most likely also exposed to these intermediates during his routine work tasks. Based on where he worked and his coworker's deposition (Mi. Greenwell), it is suspected Mr. Richard worked in close proximity to at least the following chemicals: Ethylene Dichloride Hydrogen Chloride Vinyl Chloride ETI #90227 > 2 , ."i.i IW4 >W * W^ . t v* Tetraethyl Lead (TBL) Brine Benzene Ethyl Chloride Aluminum Chloride Ortho-Toluidine Dichloroanalfne Environmental Tkchnotogit*. /rte. The record ineludes no information on Ms exposure levels or the exposure frequency. He was sot identified as port of any ongoing industrial hygiene surveillance program even though exposure standards existed throughout his employment, bt feet, starting in the mid 1970`s, a speciflo OSHA standard (29 CFR 1910.1017) was promulgated for vinyl chloride wMeh specifically required, among other things, exposure level monitoring. Lacking clear exposure data, one must rely on other indicators of exposure. First, there is no evidence that Mr. Richard was ever aoutely overcome by exposures lo chemicals. This would tend to define an upper boundary of possible exposures of 1,000 - 2,000 ppm for most of the chemicals so far identified. On the other extreme the exposures were likely to be zero on thoso days when he performed no work that brought him into eonttec with any ohemlealt. Finally, on those days he worked on equipment containing chemicals or their residues, he most likely was exposed to levels in the l's to 100's of ppms, depending on the circumstances. The record has no indication that direct reading Instruments wore provided to or used by Mr. Richard to measure levels of chemicals in his work area. Consequently, he was required to rely on bis senses to tell him when he was being or about to be exposed so he eontd don his protective equipment. The primary source of self defense was his sense of smelt. Table Z. sets out the average odor threshold for the chemicals so far identified to have been in his work areas. ETI #90227 3 \jCA 46 Environment*/ 7ieAno/ugjmjc, toe. Table I. Chemical Odor Threshold^> Texts PELO: OSHAt^ II (Ppm> _ .. ^tSRSaTStSuorSe***" 24(4) 19 CD Hwoaen cifiaride Vinyl chloride o&S.iaoi ... --"ly.jp fair*ethyl lead. NB bichlCroanlUne Methylene eWorld* _ Ng _ f60(d) 230 (r) 196i9 ^ 19i 72 "ippm 500 ppm Qlmx/jn* " 'W ' " 1972-1986 so cem. S <et com l (TWA)j 8 <c) ppm 6073 rpK/nr1 NB SOEJppm Benzene Ithyi Chfinde AWifhum Alkyl 8Td) 7TK NB -lOOOwm - " 'WT" - 1000 ppm - . NE Ortho-Toluldln* oms-ae 11 Seen 5 ppm - d Dateeted. t * Recognised. NS - Not eatablUhed. 1 . qanr ThrMhflld far CtemtotH- WUh .EmblUhefl -Ttecumutuujil Health Standard!. American Industrial Hygiene Awociatloa, 1989. 2 - Ppcuptt)BBl Wealth Jtctt'jlition*. MSSlmUffl.;..f.fltiIalB, .CtUlBCHttsHOllS of_ AtmtuwheHC- CoftfamlBflnu. tn_ JJacxi _cf_ Bmalnvnictn. Timms Sate Department of Health, 1988. 2 - OSHA Safely and StaBdarfli fl QFit 89/0), V. 8. Department vf Libor. 1981. For chemical* auch a Ethylene Dlehlorido and Benzene the avenge recognizable odor it well above the 08HA PEL. The reported odor threshold for Vinyl Chloride la 10 times the current OSHA Standard and for Benzene tome 4 to IQ times. Obviously* the sense Of smell can be useless in preventing enposures tn excess of the standards. Therefore, Mr. Richard was moat likely unknowingly exposed to these ohemleals vnd looking any other method to deteot their presence was helpless to defend himself from them. The other major source of evidence of exposuro occurring to Mr. Richard, regardless of protective equipment available, is Mr. Richard's medical history, documenting his exposure to organic lead. The history of tfae occupational hazards of Tetra Ethyl Land (TEL) and Ethyl Corporation are synonymous. Starting after World Wax 11, Ethyl developed a relatively sophisticated program for its oostomert and employees to prevent exposure to TEL. By the late 1960'i it was well recognized that exposure monitoring, training, and medical monitoring along with personal protective equipment and engineering controls were required in order to prevent exposures and protect worker health. ETI #90227 4 006 Gnvfrwtmiatmi TkcbnofafK* fac. How then could Mr. Richard have elevated blood level* of lead? The only explanation is that Ethyl's management practices were inadequate to prevent hU exposure to TEL. If they were inadequate to prevent TEL exposure then, more likely than not, they were inadequate to prevent exposure to the myriad of other volatile chemical* present in Mr. Richard's work place. There are no records indicating that he received warnings on the hoxardz of the materials he worked with or training la the use of personal proteotive equipment, In conclusion, It is my opinion that Ethyl Corporation foiled to provide Mr. Richard with a reasonably safe eaviroument by: Exposing Mr. Richard to hazardous chemicals over the period of his work life. Such exposures ranged from aero to at least several hundred part* per million. At those times when he was exposed to the real material or residues remaining in equipment, he, more likely then not, was exposed in excess of contemporaty standards. There is no evidence that Mr. Riohard was adequately warned about the hazards of the materials to which he was required to be exposed. , There is no evidence Mr. Richard received adequate safety training to equip Mm to safely execute his duties in the presence of all of these hazardous chemicals . Ethyl's industrial hygiene practices were inadequate, in that they never attempted to quantify Mr. Richard's exposure levels to the many hazardous chemicals present la his work place. There is also no evidence that he was included in a medical surveillance program for exposure to hazardous materials other than TEL. FMP/oe ETI #90227 i 5 \JC4470