Document 91J6N9onOzKLDag6wpJL40pGq
FILE NAME: Dow Chemical (DOW)
DATE: 1986 June 2
DOC#: DOW006
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo with Summary of Consultation Report ResultsEconomic Evaluation of Asbestos Removal from Steam Lines
\
ST0658775
DON CHEMICAL U.S.A. Material Technology
CONSULTATION REPORT NO.
7-0050-86
TO: Dave Barnett
Group:
Department: Utiliti.eess Distribution
Distribution: R.J. Jaroein D.M.Bertelsaan/File
Insulation/Pireproofing Services Date of Report: June 2, 1986
Title: Economic Evaluation of Asbestos Resuvsl From Steaa Lines
rnflfpn T iTTnu REPORT NO. 7-0019-86 was a study of the Economic Thickness of Insulation to be replaced on existing steaalines in view of the reduced steam costs from co-ganerated steam. The recommendation of that report was to leave the asbestos Insulation in place and rejacket with aluminum over the existing asbestos felt.
This CONSULTATION REPORT deals with the costs of removal of the asbestos insulation and replacement with new. Much of the existing asbestos insulation has already b a m rejaefceted in Plant A and a significant amount in Plant B. Estimated cost of rejacketing the remaining asbestos insulation is $1,000,000.
The results of the study indicate the following;
1. The least expensive and the recommended alternative is to rejacket the existing insulation. To obtain the current heat loss would require an . expenditure of approximately $5,000,000 additional. ETI thicknesses could be applied for $3,800,000 additional but would give no protection against
rising steam prices.
2. The second alternative is to wait as long as possible except where projected stripping costs exceed approximately 2.5 times the current cost. Meeting the proposed regulation of 0.1 fibers/cc will be more a matter of shielding the surrounding area from fibers rather than the worker. This will require nore materials and equipment Worker, time should increase by the time it takes to enter and exit the area.
At present, the EPA attitude appears to be removal of asbestos by attrition rather than dictating removal. Any decision by the EPA to dictate removal could be tied up in court for a long time because of the expense.
intangibles such as the potential cost of lawsuits by Pipefitters, Palters, and Insulators who routinely work in pipeways and any *Good Will obtained by Dow from it's employees by a policy of removing asbestos now ere decisions to be 1"-^ by Upper Management. The question has already risen as to why Texas Operations has the money to spread rock but doesn't have the money to remove
