Document 5bNxdzbpgNqOmDkoxneMV3Q2z
COlc
UNITBD STATES MINBRAL PRODUCTS COMPANY
gear* omc* A4 Plynt
UAMHOfC. HCW JCJISCV 07S74
TM. 44M200 Um CM* SSt CUMi CAfCOiNtUU NH TM|
17, 17*7
3p*vau Jliaaral Tiber
liiOtUtlail
Rr* f TisMUtt tf a maini 'MKte Kr* J. K. i>'itU0pf
js A. H* Tothy 3*1th 4 taaalar fnai--j~ H 1. terine, Aebeetoeprey CorporvtlMi Mr* J* doyer* CedraladeTy diekenhan % tafi
3ubJeoti Oongred Tiber Oaat Tecta
S*Ctl**aAi
I*Mlo#d r* tw* eopdaa of the latart
multi fro*
^1111 K* "radley *ad iacoetatec oa the fifth eerli m *ii eoreyed
fiber <hurt teete dated Jtagart Hy 1967#
T)*e result* appear too good rrf for that races* it is
3uxe*ted that iaiPraatioa set bo relaoeed UKtlX It la diraond
at the eeetln* scheduled ftr Se-taater 7.
The isreiee for $552*00 la bein tost ta Treasurer Sort
lariat* The invoice breefcdcesi la apparently $200*C0 fee for Hr*
&7afly, $100,W for aa caaljtazzt, $210.00 for the 21 aaaplaa taken,
cad i nxpartad $12.00 for lsash*
Oismrmly
/y
JKa/m Xaeleeuru
frajjnrr^s tcarpf 71 ee Preside! - ^eeeirrh
ci (1m caalceurea)
fir* X* Li off, aith A r ?ralar
fir* X* VUaoa^ Saldvla-^raWlll
f't(i * *6*(6 nine Mo&vcrt o* & *e vO* 't<utgi( IIUU'lM ct'l'*6 JUUKl MCAAi.Ai ftOUliO* fiilAJ* *A CC*Jv*C ll(L
CUC9 VUUO !(! **OOu<!* <o i *i**ac
V WH>K1 ** (4giP*f. Aft* U>4\\<,
#
A c
l
<
William R. Bradley and Associates
KXVlftOKMEMTAL .HEALTH COHSULTAHTS 11 GII1N STREET NEWARK, N. J. 07102
201 022-4246 August il# 1967
*
Sprayed Mineral Fiber Manufacturers Association. Suite 2300 One Hall Street Hew York. Hew York 10005
Inc*
Re: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH INVESTIGATION
A series of simultaneous air samples were collected during a ten-minute, mineral, fiber, spray application using the products of four manufacturers. The samples 'were collected at head level at the spray operator's sta tion, and then in a line perpendicular to the surface being sprayed at distances of ten feet, twenty feet and forty feet behind the operator. Prior to the collection of air samples, the operator had sprayed a wall and a ceiling for a period of twenty minutes.
Air samples were analyzed for the presence of res pirable-size asbestos fibers. The testing was conducted July 26, 1967 at the Smith and 3CanzIer Company plant in
Linden* Sew Jersey* Manufactured products A* C, D and B were tested in that order at a spray concentration of ten ^ pounds fiber to ten pounds water* A twelve-hole spray nozzle was used.
Poliowing the spraying of the first three products, and after a one-hour lunch break# product B was sprayed at the 10-pound fiber to 10-pound water ratio* Then* using the twenty-minute, spray period and ten-minute, sampling period, product B was sprayed at a ratio of 10 pounds fiber to 7.5 pounds water and again at a ratio of 10 pounds fiber and 5 pounds water*
#
Spraying and Testing Schedule,
Time 10:50 a .m. 11:10 a .ni
11:20 a.m. 11:30 a.m. 11:50 a.m.
12:00 noon
Test Data
Began spraying Product A. Continued spraying Product A. Began air sampling*
End of air sampling.
Began spraying Product C.
Continued spraying Product C. Began air sampling.
End of air sampling.
-2 -
Spraying and Testing Schedule -- Cont'd
Time 12:03 p.m. 12:23 p.m.
12:33 p.m. 1:37 p.m. 1:57 p.m.
2:07 p.a. 2:08 p.a.
2:28 p.m.
2:38 p.a. 2:41 p.m.
3:01 p.m.
3:11 p.a.
Test Data
Began spraying Product D.
Continued spraying Product D. Began air sampling.
End of air sampling.
Began spraying Product B.
Continued spraying Product B. Began air sampling.
End of air sampling.
Began spraying Product B at 10 to 7.5 ratio.
Continued spraying Product B. Began air sampling.
End of air sampling.
Began spraying Product B at 10 to 5 ratio.
Continued spraying Product B. Began air sampling.
End of air sampling.
Results of Dust Counts
Product
A C D B B (10 to B (10 to 5)
in
Millions of Particles Per Cubic Poot of Air
Source 10 Feet 20 Peet 40 Peet
4.1
3.2
2.6
2.0
4.4
3.3
2.7
2.1
4.6
3.3
2.6
1.9
5.3
4.6
3.1
2.5
5.9
5.2
3.3
2.7
6.2
5.5
3.4
.
2.8
Identification of Products
A - Asbestospray B - Pyrospray C - Cafco D - Spraycraft
Product B with lower water ratios produces more .asbestos fibers as veil as clays when s. rayed. Products
cA, B# and D did not present a respirable# asbestos-dust#
inhalation hazard when sprayed at a 1 to 1 ratio under the conditions of the test. Product B was borderline# however.
_It is advisable that spray op< ators wear respiratory protection while at work as the conditions of spraying in confined quarters may be encountered.
It is advisable that spray operators aar respiratory protection when spraying Product B at the lower fiber to water ratios# (10 to 7.5 and 10 to 5).
No respirable dust protection is considered necessary for wor)oaen located ten feet or more away from sprayed, mineral# fiber applications that use asbestos fibers when conducted in seal-open areas.
\i J
WRB/bg
5