Document 6bEgzgngxZYX1roKjrXG5MdEE

% PLAINTIFF'S 2 EXHIBIT INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS COMPANY institute plant p. o. box 2831, charleston, west Virginia J (NamW Company gallon Mr. S. C. Giambruno Industrial Relations DaU 4 December 1962 Originating o.pi. Medical Department - Plant 512 Answering lHr dal* .apy lo Mr L. N. Dickinson Mr E. G. Heinz Subltet Mr G. H. Daniels Mr P. E. Henry Mr N. S. Eastman Mr, R. A. Neal Mr R. A. Huber Mr, D. R. Matheny^r-^ Mr, B. F. King Mr, N. H. Ketcham Mr, F. B. Snyder Dr, C. U. Deraehl 'Dr, E. M. Best, Jr. Insulation Block Dust Survey Construction Insulation Shop Plant 511. Two reports by Mr. R. E. Peele have been issued on this subject (21 March 1962 and 20 July 1962) and sent out under my signature. On 16 May 1962, a copy of a letter from Doctor Nale to the UCC Central Purchasing Department in New York pertaining to this subject was sent to some of the people on the above distribution list. Undoubtedly, Johns Manville is extremely interested in having our Construction Department use their "Thermobestos" blocks. However, I believe that possibly unnecessary pressure is being applied to us from several sources. The enclosed report by Mr. Peele includes information on an invitation for Mr. Peele to visit Manville, New Jersey, at Johns Manville's expense to evaluate their industrial hygiene studies. Mr. Peele points out in this report also that he has been contacted recently by the Design and Construction Department at the Technical Center who have implied that Mr. Peele should comply with Johns Manville's proposal. It is my opinion that we should continue to do surveys, with limitations, on samples of '"thermobestos" blocks that are of a new formula and are submitted to our Construction Insulation Shop at the Institute Plant for evaluation. However, I am not in favor of Mr. Peele accepting Johns Manville's invitation and would appreciate approval or disapproval for this trip from my supervision so that Mr. Peele can be informed accordingly. Very truly yours, RJS:gh Enclosure R.w. Sexton, M.D. Plant Medical Director O M`J -J. I INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS COMPANY INSTITUTE PLANT P. 0. BOX 2831, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA ro (Naij Company iscaiio* R. j. Sexton, M.D. Medical Department Copy lo Dat 3 December 1962 Originating Dmpt. Industrial Hygiene - Plant 512 Answering Uttar data Subject Johns Manville "Thermobestos" -- On 21 March 1962, an Industrial Hygiene Report, i.e., 62-IH-1-61I, .. identified the existence of a hazard to health in the Construction Insulation Shop during such times as when insulation blocks manufactured by the Johns Manville Company are being fabricated with exhausted band saws. It was recommended at that time that 18" x 36" x 4" "Thermobestos" insulation blocks* should not be fabricated with the existing equipment unless -- (a) The atmospheric dust problem could be reduced to below 20 mppcf of air through the use of ventilation, etc., or (b) The producer of this product begins manufacturing an insulation block which will not release upon fabrication with a band saw, dust concentrations in excess of 20 mppcf of air. In accordance with these recommendations, the Construction Insulation Shop discontinued almost immediately the purchase of "Thermobestos" Insulation blocks. ' " On 20 July 1962, a second Industrial Hygiene Report, i.e., 62-IH-2-G-1, was submitted subsequent to an evaluation of three new insulation materials supplied by the Johns Manville Company. This report concluded that these materials were improved over the original. However, the dust concentrations produced upon fabrication of these insulation blocks were substantially in excess of the recommended safe concentrations of 20 mppcf of air. Therefore, the recommendations contained in this report remained exactly as those stated in the initial report of March, 1962. On 20 November 1962 the author was contacted by-Mr. D. R. Matheny, General Foreman of the Insulation Shop, who stated that three Johns-'Manville representatives, i.e., Messers. F. E. Saxer, N. Gordon, and H. E. Kaufman, were present and had requested a meeting with the Plant Industrial Hygienist. This meeting was held in the lobby of Building 2, at which time Mr. Saxer produced the accompanying copy of portions of a report submitted by the Johns Manville Industrial Hygiene Laboratory located at Manville, N.J. Mr. Saxer stated that, in accordance with this report, they were not able to produce results which agreed with those contained in the reports submitted by this department. Therefore, they were concerned and interested in learning if their methods of reproducing *The Johns Manville trade name for their insulation blocks R. J. Sexton, M.D. 3 December 1962 Page 2 our environmental conditions, sampling and evaluating the dust concentrations contained therein were subject to question. At this point he stated also that this conclusion was promoted on the basis of tbeir analysis of the atmospheric dust conditions produced by their competitors'product, (i.e., Kaylo or Item # 5AT in the report) which in no way agreed with the data submitted in the Industrial Hygiene Report -* IH-62-I-G-I. It was explained at this point, that this department's interest in this problem is always confined solely to the environmental conditions as they effect the health of our workers, and that no part of the investigation should be construed as an attempt to arbitrarily promote the use of one - company's product over that of another. Upon completion of this statement, Mr. Saxer proposed that Mr. D. R. Matheny and the Plant's Industrial Hygienist make a trip to Manville, New Jersey, at Johns Manville's expense and at a time selected by Union Carbide. This visit would be for the specific purpose of observing, scrutinizing and comparing their method of atmospheric dust evaluation with that as utilitized by the Institute Plant's Industrial Hugiene Department. It was Mr. Saxer's opinion that such a visit would permit a more positive approach to the problem and remove the possibility of misunderstandings, etc., that results from written correspondence. At this point, Mr. Saxer was assured that there would be no personal objection on my part to the performance of such a service. However, a proposal of this nature would have to be submitted to the Plant Manager, Mr. L. N. Dickinson, through appropriate channels before a final decision could be made. In conclusion, it should be stated that a phone call was received -from Mr. F. G. Comerford of Design and Construction on the morning of ......... -- 21 November 1962, who requested that he be brought up to date on this specific problem. This request was immediately satisifled both by verbal explanation and by the promise that copies of both reports, i.e., 62-IH-I-G-I and 62-IH-2-G-1, would be mailed to him immediately. Mr. Comerford further stated that we should^ not back down on our requirements, but that it probably might be wise to consider their proposal in light of the many ramifications of the problem as it affects the whole company structure, i.e., purchasing, sales, manufacturing, etc. Very truly yours^, REP:gh Enclosure Robert E. Peele Industrial Hygienist l DISCUSSIOH '-oseerie concentration tests war;; -ado on Oc to ter 30, 19^, fabrication o.'` insulation blocks on ins DCKILL Kodol L-H-V cnnd cs.'.: i;n no S/iiiiifirea Cor.'.or Materials Taatlnu ba'oarutot-y u&t-.plo prina.r.tlon roox.. Van National ConcCorcnco of Govormssntal Industrial Hygienists Test Moihoc! wus - foilovo-i usins the Greoabut*gh-Snith lupin^or. Tocta uero conduotcd by !!r. T. F. Ejdnarchuk of the J-M Industrial Hygiene Laboratory at KanVilla. To obtain conparativo data, tho rooa ventilation van adjusted to give roro than tho usu.il aicount of ataoaphoric dust. Tho tost cot up is shown in tho photo graph bulov. i\ [' / d J T >/'- ( l In : '.lilc.: to "ho re.-:: vcaiil'-tirv; ' W-K/ Lh-s '.Cc/;.'" r.l a rate o'-" 37 ou ft per .*../*> * . .. J*i Xi, 'ev: "M.arlil ho "in.': curve,end* the ee*.; at a r.-.ie of 1? on ft per :ci=u s.v.: blrlo w -ierd i:rib uur in. and r. lineal speed oh ,iz~/0 ft per :*-In. ~.o '-Cvou 4 or 6- in; read voro out co 'chat tho blr-do entered the 11-La. a i- o i. -- ' '' elrc iyprn oh iraulitloa vero tented inolr/ilrj etcer-'ni'd `nec tarre ee^rerivearbrJl pea cent blochn. ?o melon era "ive.:i in Ap.v'.riin I. Prior to tentin'*5 blocks of coch irero aoriiticov.d by: n) drying a r.iininuu of .nven dr.yo at 2501'; b) drying at 2$G? k-3 contltionia" for 1C days at 70 per coni III, 70?j c) di-yirqj at 250? rei condition!e.^ for 10 dtyn at 95-1C0 per cent 1X1, 95?. 1XIo tent data arc ci^on in Ay-"-:: din II. ado uupt concentration tonic vero a-;-.:JL*r.;:/l r-r.d lr.ilsaiod that the ouporiority report'd by Cedea Carbide of over et-v.v.Veri -her. e-e-rnton and tie enyerinentnl pen cent blooln nalniitcd to then in subject to question. `Zee rocHlts alro inAin.at ai that tbo slr-to cunt ccnpociticn, 2-i`X, ecu."?, loro etrcejlorio da:i tirn, tin ether types of bleaks. __ tOno cffcot that ccrditicairrr of tin blacks had on tbo duct couscntraticn in eXjr_z.-/.n 20wA. ic------* ---- X-lV uv>ci.uv.*>C^ O o/*0 JJL^lUiZZ* w*.;3UI1* OX wr--J. X Ou y.'vi * ---..4 c possibility that an cruilibrlu.a aorviiiie/n of duct concentration in the er-vrL Lava bran reeahed in oar:'; In order to definitely ont; vn ocfee; ..n:u:iurQ content of the ulcakn non on ^-C-Ayrrio cunc u --era ee of tcata v:ould be required. Scab tcr-tn uv/nld also eerro to rare definitoly cetablieb the relative duotineco cf t'no fcmulan irrveeti.'h'-ed. o AR-:OIZ II GST DATA ATK0SPH3RIC DUST COUCDIJTDATIOil DATA Concentration la eppof Rapcrinoatal Pan Cost* 11 ,, PI on 1-A7 4 2--AT ' 5'jJ Std. .4-iA. j Sid. 4-ln. Vh <^Tf'` *~*''--' i i /.-AT 5 5-A.V i J- of Air Dried at 250? Conditioned at. 7C3 Ibi, 707 Conditioned at 95-lCC 23, 957 110.3 39.3 99.6 19.9 34.3 :.o.6 16.4 47.1 ! i n. , 34.2 15.8 10/,. 0 52.0 36.4 : 07.6 Avj. of tbroo conditions 83.2 15.1 31.6 j 51.3 62.0 Koisturo Absorbed During Conditioning - w Dry to 73.6 13, 70? Dry to 95-1COS E3, 95? j 13.6 I ii 2.0 12.3 2.5 17.2 1 <<I* } 1 l >0 V*0 . o co c'tiis forr.als.tloa voo used for car.?ics autnitted to Union Carbide fo: Refer to fornala ib. 53, sarploa 21, 22, 23, Research Report Ib. H-5 I