Document EmKGaLROEorrG95KLaQwajyLV

REPORT ON INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE SURVEY OF SELECTED PLANT OPERATIONS Tyler Plant, Pittsburgh-Coming Corporation Tyler, Texas May 7, 1969 by Morton Corn, Ph.D. v< ` -v\ / *1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 II. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 3 III. THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUE FOR ASBESTOS .......................................... 5 IV. DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING ANDANALYTICAL METHODS ... 8 V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................................................................ 11 VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................................... 21 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: 1. Letter from W. R. Blair, Regional Director, U. S. Department of Labor, Dallas, Texas, to J. K. Bierer. 2. Letter from B. M. Stout to W. R. Blair. 3. Letter from . Corn to W. R. Blair APPENDIX B: Duct Velocity Determinations (Primary Data and Calculations) APPENDIX C: Photographs of Selected Plant Oper ations I. INTRODUCTION A survey to determine the adequacy of the existing ventilation system and associated dust collection equipment to control air borne dust was performed in the production area of the PittsburghComing Tyler, Texas plant on May 7, 1969 by Dr. Morton Corn. Dr. Corn was accompanied and assisted by Mr. John L. Hyde, of the En gineering Section, Pittsburgh-Corning Research Center, 800 Presque Isle Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15239. The survey was per formed at the request of Mr. Byrl M. Stout, Vice President of Manu facturing, Pittsburgh-Corning Corporation. The request was made on April 28, 1969 at the Pittsburgh-Corning Research Center during i a~meeting called to discuss the enclosed citation of the Tyler plant by the Department of Labor (see Appendix A). The survey was concentrated exclusively on assessment of hygienic risk to airborne amosite asbestos dust and evaluation of plant facilities to reduce this risk. During the period of the survey outdoor weather conditions were clear, sunny and warm, with temperatures in the 70-80F range. Humidity was high. (Relative humidity in plant approximately 75%).* The author is unaware of any special precautions taken to en sure that the ventilation system was operating in anything but the "normal" mode during this survey. Therefore, results of mea surements made in this survey must be considered representative of conditions in the plant during summer months when doors and windows are open. In general, winter conditbns impose more * Measured at 11:45 AM in plant. <N 2 stringent requirements on plant dust control systems because win dows and doors are closed to preserve heat. There is no benefit of_"dilution ventilation" from outdoor air. With the same facil ities for dust removal by a ventilation system, in-plant dust in air concentrations during winter months will usually exceed those present during summer months. 3 II. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS An industrial hygiene and ventilation survey of this plant performed on May 7, 1969 suggests that asbestos fiber concentra tions are high in worker breathing zones (Builder and Feeder Op erators) and at breathing level in certain other plant locations. There are no hygienic guidelines for concentration of Amosite fibers in air and the judgment of excessive dustiness in this plant is referred to guidelines for Chrysotile dust. Utilization of hygienic guidelines for Chrysotile asbestos concentration in air for Amosite asbestos fibers in air is an accepted procedure in the U. S. at this time. The finding of excessive dustiness .at "spot" sampling locations in the plant is consistent with survey measurements which revealed inadequate quantities of air at t local exhaust hoods. Insufficient air at local sites of dust emission was reflected in low air velocities at hood faces and low air conveying velocities in branch lines and ducts. The ven tilation system was estimated for Builder and Feeder areas to move approximately one sixth of the air required to ventilate these processes. In addition to the inadequacies of the ventilation system and the resultant excessive dustiness, it was found that general house keeping is poor in the plant. Also, during the entire day of the survey not one employee in the production area was observed to wear a respirator. In the opinion of the author, this short survey strongly suggests that employees at this plant are being exposed, on a 4 daily basis, to excessive concentrations of Amosite asbestos dust It is recommended that efforts be immediately focussed on design of a complete ventilation and dust collection system at this plant. The system is rudimentary in concept and is underdesigned Efforts to "doctor up" this system would probably lead to a less than satisfactory system and would involve expenditures in time and equipment equivalent to those associated with design of a new system. < 5 III. THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUE OF ASBESTOS DUST "The threshold limit values refer to airborne concentrations of substances and represent conditions under which it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, without adverse effect. Because of wide variation in individual susceptibility exposures of an occasional individual at or even below the threshold limit may not prevent discomfort, aggravation of a pre-existing condition, or occupational illness. "Threshold limits should be used as guides in the control of health hazards and should not be regarded as fine lines between safe and dangerous conditions."* The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists had, in 1967, a T.L.V. for asbestos of 5 million particles per cubic foot, as determined by impinger sampling and counting by light-field techniques. In a considered revision (1968), the Con ference endorsed the retention of this T.L.V. for "most forms of asbestos". However,~for crocidolite, because of the production of mesotheliomas, it was recommended that workers be equipped with =ir-supplied helmets because "no safe limit can be established for this form of asbestos at this time." The British Occupational Hygiene society recently issued hy gienic standards for chrysotile asbestos dust.** The standards are based on the objective that the risk of contracting asbestos Extracted from the Preface, Threshold Limit Values for 1968. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1014 Broadway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 11, 47-69 (1968). IS . , <' 6 be reduced to 1 per cent of those who have a lifetime's exposure to the dust. By "asbestosis" the committee meant the earliest demonstrable effects on the lung due to asbestos. These standards are cited here because they are more stringent than the U. S. guideline referred to above. The exposure guidelines are: TABLE 1 BRITISH HYGIENIC GUIDELINES FOR ASBESTOS DUST Negligible Low Medium High I .CONCENTRATION AVERAGED OVER 3 MONTHS I DUST CATEGORY I Fibers/cm3{MPPCF*i 0 0.4 0.5 - 1.9 1! o.on 1j ; 0.014 - 0.054 : 2.0- 10 ! 0.054 - 0.28 I Over 10 i Over 0.28 I ! ! The concentrations refer to fibers greater than 5 microns in length as determined by the membrane filter method. The problem faced today with respect to Amosite asbestos is that there simply is insufficient data for dosage-response pre diction of exposed populations.** The guidelines for Chrysotile will undoubtedly' continue to be the threshold limit value guide line for exposure to other'forms of asbestos dust for years to come. In a survey of dust concentrations in the Unibestos facility. Port Allegheny Plant of Pittsburgh-Corning, simultaneous impinger Million particles per cubic foot (as fibers). ** Stokinger, H. E."Development of TLV's for Fibrous Materials." Paper presented at Special Session on Fibers, Annual Meeting of American Industrial Hygiene Association, Denver, Colorado, May, 1969. 7 and membrane filter sampling was performed. The conversion of values obtained by one method to those of the other method was not possible. At each location, the numbers of the fibers and particles varied. The impinger method is based on particles while the membrane filter method assesses only fibers. For the purposes of this preliminary survey, either method would yield data suggesting that airborne dust concentrations were acceptable or unacceptable. Therefore, the membrane filter technique was used and the British guideline is applicable (Table I). 8 IV. DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS A. Assessment of Airborne Dust Samples were obtained at either worker breathing zones as they performed their routine tasks, or at breathing level to re present "background air". Samples were obtained during a five or ten minute period at a flow rate of 21 1pm by utilizing a vacuum pump in conjunction with a filter holder and sample filter. The system was precalibrated in terms of pump inlet pressure and air flow with all sampling line components, including filter, in place. A membrane filter (Type HA Millipore) was used to obtain samples for microscopic evaluation of fiber and dust particle concentrations. This paper is composed of pores 0.45 microns in size and has been shown to retain, with 100% efficiency, par ticles down to 0.05 micron diameter.^- The filter was first visually examined to detect any loose dust or uneven dust deposition. In the few cases where the fil ter deposit did not pass this examination, it was necessary to re suspend the collected dust in distilled water and refilter this suspension on VF grade Millipore filter to assure an even dust distribution over the entire filter area. A pie shaped segment of the filter was then placed on a microscope slide and rendered completely transparent with Cargille certified index of refraction liquids. Cargille liquid of index of refraction 1.500 was usually most suitable. The counting of the dust particles and the count ing and sizing of asbestos fibers was performed with the aid of a ^Megaw, W. J. and Wiffen, R. D*: Int. j. Air Water Poll. 1_, 501 (1963). 9 Zeiss Photomicroscope using Phase Contrast Illumination. The ob jective lens was a Zeiss Neofluor Ph 63x with a numerical aperture of 0.90. The eyepiece had a magnification of 20x and contained a calibrated Porton graticule. The optovar feature of the Zeiss scope contributed to the total magnification of 2016x. Resolution was approximately 0.35 microns. Particles and fibers of size 0.30 microns could be detected. In the evaluation procedure, all particles and fibers in the Porton field of view were counted and the fibers were grouped by fiber length into three categories (less than five microns, five to ten microns, and larger than ten microns). This procedure was repeated for a number of randomly selected fields on the face of the filter. Because only a portion of the total filter area i was evaluated by this method, it was necessary to correct the count by the ratio of the total filter area to the evaluated area. The resultant particle or fiber number was divided by the volume of the air sample to obtain dust or fiber concentration expressed as millions of particles per cubic foot (MPPCF). The statistical reliability of the evaluation was expressed as the standard deviation, calculated as N 1/2 , where N is the particle or fiber count. The procedure outlined follows, in its essential points, that i. E. Ayer in their article "Mea- surement of Asbestos Exposure" which appeared in the Journal of Occupational Medicine, Volume 10, January, 1968. 10 B. Measurement of Air Velocities at Hoods A calibrated velometer was used to measure face velocit ies of hoods and room air velocities.* C. Air Velocities in Ventilation Ducts A standard 1/4" dameter pitot tube was used in conjunct ion with a Dwyer 1:10 inclined manometer to determine velocity pressures in ducts. Ten point traverses were taken in larger ducts (>6" diameter); centerline readings only were obtained in smaller ducts. All measurements are considered to be approximate (estimated reliability + 10%) because of the conditions imposed by the system. For example, there were few locations where measure ments could be made 10 diameters from entries or elbows. Also, the standard pitot tube should not be used in lines smaller than B" diameter. However, the reliability of measurements achieved is perfectly adequate for a preliminary survey of the type under taken here. Alnor Velometer, Illinois Testing Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois. 11 V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Airborne Dust Concentrations Measured concentrations of dust particles and asbestos fibers are summarized in Table 2. In order to facilitate com parison with the guidelines from Table 1, the last two columns (5 and 6) of Table 2 for fiber concentrations have been added to yield Column 7, which should be compared with Column 3 of Table 1. On this basis, operators at the feeders are receiving High exposures. Builder operators are also receiving High expos ures. Although much dust is present at the cutting operation the single sample obtained suggests that particles and not fibers are the major contributors to the dispersion. Table 2 suggests that outdoor air is Negligible in terms of fiber content, as is the dust collector effluent. However, the aisle of the warehouse op posite the Feeders is High, suggesting the large zone of influence of the dust sources in the Feeder areas. It cannot be too strongly stressed that these are "spot" samples and must be viewed as sug gestive results only. However, they do convey a picture of high dust exposures in Feeder and Builder areas, as well as in adjacent zones. The author must state, based on previous experience, that dust concentrations in plant air would almost certainly increase during winter months. ^irfeiesThere are design guidelines for face velocities of air at local exhaust hoods.* In general, a face velocity of 100 fpm is * See Chapter 5, Industrial Ventilation, 10th Ed. American Con ference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1014 Broadway, Cincinnati, Ohio. ASBESTOS FIBER CONCENTRATIONS AT SELECTED PLANT LOCATIONS <q to VO c (TJ rH 0X O + H 0 u -P E-t in 0 N <T > V X ix/ *v 4. If'*. Vf. > 0 a 03 0q <0 03 q0 c (0 aX X co u + X X0 c0 3 * o uU H XI 03 U aq a) & to 0 rH o H X q 0 Cu 44 0 n o A 10 q 0 X "* o (X i-4 m o o + r4 o CM --1 o + *3* VO o CO CM 3. o in + Vo VO m to 0 VO uo H X + cn q H3 CM a t-4 00 -i <r & CO oXil o X *3* o o +1 r-4 o VO o o +1 fO o CN O o +1 CM o t o cn o o +1 vo o o 4; o ov 00 X CN 1 * 1 o" ' \ CO CN O 3 X0 N. 4* * CM o o +1 m o o CM o o +1 m o o CM O o +1 o rH o cn o o +1 00 o CN o o +1 o r4 o m o o + CO rH o cn i-4 o +1 o m cn o o + i-4 r- o o o +1 VO f-4 o CN rH o +1 VO CM rH O' o o + CO r4 in o +1 in o t-4 CN o + cn CM CN o +1 in rH t" iH +! o m cn CM o + CN m 'Sri iH ''y v 4 o x \ in o o + rH CN O vo o o +1 o CN o o CN o + CM O *cr in v: r V X X vo o n V + in <n x: CN rH ' *. . "'I Ni 0 X *H w O' q q rH a E f0 cn 44 0 c o H X a H q V CO 0 a i qq 00 aX o O' .. O c00 q H X rH 0 q 0 rH 03 3 2 O 0 03 U 0 a CN X 10 44 03 o> 3 0 C C 03 0 H 0 03 -P c *H 0 0 00 N co 4-1 c 00 O' c * 44 c H cn H x C tr. x H C X CU*H 0 q 0 rH 0 000 CQ CO CO O 0 i 03 0 >1 0 s M r-4 ro 0 2 o C2 q .--i 0 0 03 >0 00 rH a O' o C -P H -P Xc 00 0u CQ -n -P CO q3 0 Q CN -p 0 03 0 O' C rH 0 0 f-4 CQ 0 rH u o to 4J q 0 0 4-1 c 3 H Q j rH Fq 0 0 q X 4-4 44 o qq -p a o c a-P 00u 30 i-4 to <H 44 tpr-l 00 w CQ o q 10 -C 0 -P c 0 0^ qu X1 0 03 -P 0 O' c 0 -H rH 03 a0 eo (t5 rH CO c qo H 0 r-4 0 0 CO q>3 O0o 0 rH X 03 -P O' rH ]J U *rl O -H O i H i ia oc 03 0 a0 - D X 0 X CN O' O0 0c *0 0 -P q iH 0X CO -0 q rH H 0 U >i rH H 03 n a O' C 03 >1 0 (0 to rl 0 0 atN a c 0 03 r4 w' 0 C -q H q x 3 cn 0 >1 CQ rH 0 q oq0 rH u q 3 CQ cn q a C0 - H C 44 0 a > a O' 0 0 o 2 u to o O c rH CO 0 *H 0 3 rH >0 00 cC ~c O' 0 0 2 03 G rH 0 X 0 o H r-4 c 0 0 -q rH 0 0 N X CO q CO N C3 qc O' 0 H 0 03 C O' 4. X rH m q X O' X C 2 X c q to *H Clq G H H 0 0 3 *H - O' X to q X XXX X qc -p 0 0 -p 0 H n X o -q 0 -P 03 0 q c - 0 0 X 03 0 CO 0 0 0 2 O' X 03 000u q 0 -<if --Vh* ~W"U tr --M-"V4--O 4^-- m x a CQ O rH q 2 0 CQ 0 rH 0 CM 0 r4 a a E c ro CO cn 0 4-1 X0 <0 a0 E H E- 1 aa o in cn cn CN CM X in 1 aa i a vo vo ro CM CM o in CM rX in rX in N 1 aa in in O rH cn cn i aa in in rH CN cn cn 1 aa oo ro tt cn m r- X X X in m in 1 aa in VD in mn X in 77~ \ X, X- \i X A N x 0* TABLE 2 (c o n tin u e d ) \ 1 \ V in J X v \ T V v x .\ TT . \ \X V CO X X v x XN \ vX V \ .X CM .X \ X V-\ . V, \j \*\l- X\ <.' X iXT ^ X- X kf X. JJ V, ro X<V X^ V v. (i X^ \ V */\ X +I x * wy 14 recommended for control of fume and vapors, while higher veloci ties are not uncommon for control of materials emitted with great force. At the Port Allegheny Plant, Mr. John Hyde, of Pittsburgh- Coming, and the author are designing for 200 fpm face velocity at hoods which interface with plant air: internal process hoods are designed for 100 fpm. Table 3 is a summary of measured air velocities at selected hoods in the Tyler Plant. With the exceptions of the Builder hoods and the Scrap Grinder hood, face velocities at hoods are inadequate. Smoke tube tests performed at each hood offered visu al confirmation of this conclusion based on velocity measurements. Although the hood on the Intermediate Saw was satisfactory, it would not be so if two or more saws were used simultaneously. C. Air Flow Associated with Local Exhaust Hoods and Dust Collectors Figure 1 is a line diagram of the ventilation ducts in the Feeder and Builder Areas. The duct locations for Pitot tube tra verses are denoted by numbers. Table 4 is a summary of volume of air flowing at these points as determined on the day of this survey The values listed in Table 4 are probably overestimates because cer tain of the ducts were partially clogged with settled fibers. All data and calculations for the Table 4 summary are included in Ap- pendix-B. _ ___ .. _______________________ Table 4 and data in Appendix B indicate the following: 1. Air is very poorly distributed in the ventilation system. As an example, hoods 2, 3 and 4 for similar operations were allo cated 63, 391 and 202 cfm respectively. 15 TABLE 3 UNIBESTOS LINES: SUMMARY OF HOOD AIR VELOCITIES 1 Location Site of Measurement* and Average Air Velocity, fpm** Line No. 1 40" Fiber Feeder+ Left Side Center Right Side Top Middle Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 Note: Smoke tube test revealed poor control. Line No. 1 30" Fiber Feeder* Left Side Center Right Side Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom 20 20-30 60 60 60 50 Line No. 1 30" Fiber Feeder+ Left Side Top Middle Bottom 20 0 0 Center Right Side Top Middle Bottom Top Middle 20 0-10 0-10 20-30 30 Line No. 1 40" Fiber Feeder Left Side Center Right Side Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom 0 0 0 10 10-30 10-30 0 20 20 -Line- No. -2------ 40" Fiber-------- ------Le-t_S.ide ._Top _ Feeder Middle | (Note: Approx. 75% of Bottom hood face blocked by Center Top fiber) 1 1 Right Side Top Bottom 50-100 75-100 75-100 30-40 30 50 Room air in vicinity of feeders measured to be 30-40 fpm, South to North (fans off). Room air in vicinity of feeders measured to be 300 fpm, South to North (fans on). 16 TABLE 3 (continued) Line No. 2 30" Fiber Feeder Stand by (not in use) Line No. 2 30" Scrap Feeder Left Side Center Right Side Left Side Center Right Side Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Too Bottom Top Middle Bottom Top Bottom 10-50 30 20 20 40 30 0 40 20 75-100 100 100 100 75-100 125 75-100 Line No. 3 20" Scrap Feeder Left Side Right Side Top Bottom Top Bottom 0 20-30 0 30-40 Builder Hoods Line No. 2 Line No. 3 Line No. 1 125-150 150 Invalid measurements because instrument could not be properly placed. Smoke tube revealed good control. Scrap Grinder Hood -------- Left Side Center Right Side Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Top Middle Bottom Saw Area: Intermediate Saw+ 75-100 100-150 150 75 75-100 100 50-75 50-75 50-75 200-300 +Large Rip Saw Off. * All measurements in vertical plane at hood face, unless otherwise specified. ** Feet per minute. L IN E 17 Figure 1. S chem atic o f U n ib e sto s L in e s Showing V e n tila tio n System and P ito t T ra v e rs e P o in ts . T y le r P la n t, P ittsb u rg h -C o rn in g C o rp o ra tio n S c a le ; 1" = 8 '- 0 '' S ource: Dwg. No. 56-2002-0 (6 -1 2 -5 6 ). j 18 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF VOLUMETRIC AIR FLOWRATES IN DUCTS IN FEEDER AND BUILDER AREAS I Duct Number I (Fiqure 4) 1 | Feeder Area: 11 j 2 3 4 5 6 7 Builder Area: 8 9 Air Flow, Cubic Feet Per Minute 2,769 63 391 202 1,940 183 877 1,724 810 19 2. Conveying velocities within ducts are generally very low for handling asbestos dust. A minimum design velocity of 4000 fpm is being used for the new ventilation system.* Duct 7 (Scrap Grinder Hood) and the 10" diameter duct into the Block Dust Col lector were the only ducts with adequate air velocities for con veying asbestos dust. 3. Total air volume for the Builder and Feeder areas is very low (2769 + 1724 + 877 cfm). Estimates for Port Allegheny place the air requirements for adequate control for three lines at ap proximately 6.5x times this amount of air. In summary, as judged by three different parameters, i.e. dust concentrations, face velocities at hoods, and duct air vol umes, the ventilation system, and hence dust control at this plant, are unsatisfactory. D. General Housekeeping In general, housekeeping is judged to be poor at this plant. Appendix C is a selection of photographs taken during this survey. Asbestos dust is on all surfaces as well as in the air. It was noted that with the exception of Mr. Hyde and the author not a single person in the plant wore a respirator. It can only be concluded that Amosite fiber at this plant is not being handled with the care and respect that any substance with this toxic potential deserves^ The practice of exhausting bag dust collectors to plant air would not be permitted in the states of Pennsylvania and New York. Air cannot be recirculated when toxic substances are * Port Allegheny Plant. 20 involved. In the case of nuisance substances, recirculation is permitted if the recirculated air contains the toxic agent in concentrations less than 20% of the Threshold Limit Value. 21 VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to express his appreciation to Mr. John L. Hyde, of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation. Mr. Hyde provided in valuable assistance with survey measurements. APPENDIX A 1. Letter from W.R. Blair, Regional Director, U. S. Department of Labor, Dallas, Texas, to J. H. Bierer, President, Pittsburgh-Corning. 2. Letter from B. M. Stout, Vice-President, Pi-tsburgh-Corning to W. R. Blair. 3. Letters from M. Corn to W. R. Blair. ---t 8, 1959 22 U.S. DEPART*,:Ei-rr OF labor CURiAU OF LA30R STAKDARVZ Office of Occupational Safety Room 601, 411 N. Akard Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Jzzzzz T.. llcrsr, Pr-cclient Pittclcr' Coming Corporation - C.z'zzzrzy '---zzz-zz'z, PenneyIvanis. Z.zr 11*. Piercri A recent survey of your establishment revealed that certain conditions did not meet the Safety and Health Requirements of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. The Act stipulates that "No part of such contract will be performed nor will any of the materials, supplies, articles or equipment to be manufactured or furnished under said contract, be manufactured or fabricated in any plants, buildings or surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary or hazardous or dangerous to the health and safety of the employees engaged in the performance of the contract." Enclosed is a notice listing those unsatisfactory conditions found, and you should take corrective action immediately. You are requested to notify me on or before the compliance date on the notice concerning action taken to correct the unsatisfactory conditions. Sincerely yours, Wendell R. Blair Regional Director Enclosure cc: Mr. Charles Vetr. Home, Uks. Manager, CWcntown, Texas U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LADOR BUREAU OF LABOR STANDARDS i KOTiCZ OF { SAFETY AND HEALTH VIOLATIONS ! | I\aV,C wr ?!SM 2 ' Pittsburg Corning Corporation CONTRACTOR NUMOER ' J ' STREET ADDRESS CITY COUNTY 1 Bo:: 5U57 - Tyler, Texas Oventovn Smith .STATE Terns ZIP 75701 ' 1 - CrrlCiA^S CONTACTED * NAME AND TITLE Charles Van Horne, *ks. Manager t i 1 i * plant survey maoe with | Mr. Van Horne j REPORT FURNISHED TO | James H. Bierer, President ? U SO L SAFETY ENGINEER | M. Padilla, Industrial Hygienist : COMPLIANCE | .DATC ! i i j.Mry 3,1969 i fOATECF ^SURVEY 1 ? ft -3 /AC | | ! ASjEVSY Or YOUR FACILITIES HAS REVEALED CONDITIONS WHICH DC- NOT COMPLY WITH L'SOL SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PUBLIC LAW CHECKED. THE CONDITIONS ARE LISTED SELOWWTH REFERENCE TO CODES ANOSTANDARDS VXiCX HAVE SEEN ADOPTED AS THE DEPARTMENT'S SAFETY AND HEALTH R-- C J i A --..I CN T S. THESE UNSATISFACTORY CONDITIONS MUST BE CORRECTED. regional director . VTar.dell ?., Blairon or before AS Tl i hZ CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN. PLEASE ADVISE Met 8, 1969 IPU3LIC LAW - 7A-OAS Ev/alsh-healey jjPUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT ^PUBLIC LAW CS-23S IXC N AW AR A - O'm ARA jsERVICE CONTRACTS ACT rPuouc law --ns-rc? CARTS AND HUMANITIES Pact I PUBLIC LAW-8"3SJ ] VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION act r NO. j CODE-STANDARD * REFERENCE CORRECTIONS REQUIRED ;iy: 50-204.264 UNSATISFACTORY CONDITIONS NOTED ON INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE SURVEY 0? 2/13/69 Process Area No certified first aiders. Ibc: Recommend that several employees be trained so that each shift vill have qualified personnel to take care of emergencies. .. . ,t I 2.1 50-204.275, Local exhaust ventilation not according to_.st.andards. -- '?, < V ? Iiid. Vent. ACGIH 5-93 Hbc: Local exhaust ventilation system vas tested with the foilovin<T findings: a. Grinder hood, 25-50 f?n at face. !y~ b. Feeder at material point of entry, 50 fpm. 1 c. Scrap feeder at material point of entry, 50 fpm. d. Saving ducts 500 fp_n._at_.face.- ' Rec0amend that employer make a study of present local exhaust ventilation vith professional advice, to cone up to standard. It is believed that present system is belov-the required~c~pacityi sr.--rm:---------------- \t/9cee To P/)x. Sr-s'/-. /T rf/j ,s a * S7jc- /:r-P<?c v.C> A _/// ,,/ -//T Cr. S3 SStT /SS ~//J. OcS/? TZst'P_ y/s /;// ~Dc/Z7-_ //t.CsjS (C) -L sSo Pzsa-sEat s/j /^y pay>y ty . .. *// y ` '. - /-/'*?/, y.? y P(SP/ C&'srA /ICT'S SjC r- (S<C7-scsy/J Cr SVC-CS.3T- s&ct/c" /ly tarty . (ft /Jr */),,!:,,: /**-psrft Sr>S,>^ 3 isJJZZJcZ /iC r. Va.- /TV P.-f /V -- *. a* -- /'-V^ / y, f y ---- . ._ s, _ _ . + ,y/r. r I to-*'. 24 PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION April 11, l'^S ** **t ^' * \i .... #% / ^ - 2/13/'> li *-v. ccrrccc t;:o iz:zz-z^i.zzz~~j .-.*---- .--. t--------- -- -------J X-*', A-* W>. v* *" ^ * --- * _.p - - *7 * J / * < * i " < /* m* .... . *. .*> .*'*-- 7l. *.* /W-*..'.l ^- X.*.**.-, * '.W"W 7W~* *"* "* * .\;'*?'*w. w* yvwf" ~ Lx* I ^r- - " -- ^ * r~ ** * # * ^ ^ ^ w ^^ ^ **! ' < w-; \toaa.i Ww Ui-jf pC.-CTMi C-i *.* C-^-~to-~* csrviCwS of Leo 13. C. V' ';'. * * * * ' * * ' ** * * * ~ ( -- -> * * - *' .*./" -a i f/', -* ^r>c i*s r- ^ ^ -* 'wiT ^ *''*' "* ^2 * ' ^ ^ ^ ^ C *i#.*.. ^ ** *y-* *- -- f** *'-*- ' - -- p**-** f*.--------------------------- -------^stfcvwft e *<---* - -r ~ T T - --*' -. 7- .....wta. .'...*W Lu fc* M ^ W a < ^'' - TJ ^ to i .V ,^v...Wvicr. cu^u%.i<^ MtoV.tUi to ' ^ - -- >? * ^ *\ toto/* ** * 4 r1! -----* to.li.aia. , '* > <**4 /* r ^ .`"i n '' *- -- - .* *- to- W ^ < V .to W*.to M J.W4i^> latoawCtorto* U*< W . . ^ ^ toa , ir is rccuiruf, 3 a ccr.-'itlca cf c~;.'lc^_;:.l, i!_3L ^.'.^--- cvy.cjcz -vcor a 1-32 Too l:I5 2;i3p-Iroior fCI-7^020 c-prcv-- k.V w^v L7. C. Iurcc*j of 25 V. t--'-1 *7 c 4 v;>. c: CZ V c: v. -/ u CO cc; ,/ If *rC-W. a 4w^ww-----*v rv\~* i w lNDLSTR *L H 'G'Z AIR FC-LLT.-ON 26 Morton corn. Ph d.. b. Ch CONSULTING ENGINEER 3 10 BOWER HILL ROAD P.TTSBURGH. PENNSYLVANIA 15228 e. May 1, 1969 TELEPHONE 412.36 1.6237 Mr. Wenuell K. uiair, Regional b. S. Department of Labor bureau of Labor Standards Office of Occupational Safety Room 601 411 North Akard Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Director Subject: Letter of 4/8/69 to Mr. J. h. Bierer, President, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation. Re: Survey Plant - Tyler, Texas - 2/13/69 Dear Mr. Blair: I am writing to clarify the letter from Byrl M. Stout, Vice President of Manufacturing, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation to you dated April 11, 1969. I have been working with Pittsburgh Corning Central Engineering engineers on dust control in tneir Port Allegheny, Pennsylvania V.'crks. Tne manufacturing operation in this plant is similar to that in the Tyler, Texas Plant. We are installing an entire ventilation system and dust collectors at Pert Allegheny. however, it should be noted that I have never visited or surveyed the Tyler, Texas Plant of this Corporation. I first saw the letter from. Mr. Stout to you on April 28, 1969. At that time, Mr. Stout suggested tnat I visit the Tyler Plant and I have scheduled tc do so on May 7, 1969. you may rest assured that all the engineering skills which have been brought to bear on the Port Aliegneny Plant dust control system will ce focused on the Tyler Plant. Sincerely yours, cc: Lee b. Grant, M.D. Byrl Stout Morton Corn, Pn.D. APPENDIX B DUCT VELOCITY DETERMINATIONS (Primary Data and Calculations) 27 PITOT TUBE TRAVERSE Duct 1 (17" Line) In front of 40" feeder, Line #1, feeds from Lines 1 , 2, 3 before blower. i----------------- IPoint Position (inches from wall) i Velocity Pressure (VP)("H20) ;i 12 |3 j4 1 !s l !6 j7 i8 !9 i 10 1 l 1 1/2 1 3/8 2 1/2 3 7/8 5 3/4 11 1/4 13 1/3 14 1/2 15 3/8 16 1/2 0.00 -0.04 0.16 ; 0.32 1 0.44 | 0.60 0.58 0.48 0.20 j 0.08 'Totals Averages 1 i Vvp * ; o.ooo ;-0.200 !i 0.400 I 0.566 : 0.663 t 0.774 j 0.762 ! 0.693 j 0.447 j 0.283 i 4.388 0.439 Q = 2769-cfm i Air Velocity (fpm) | o -801 1602 2267 2655 3100 3052 2775 1790 1133 17573 1757 j j | | ! j '* j 1 ! i! j PITOT tube traverse Duct 2 (5" Line) VP Centerline = 0.02 "I^O; V = 566 fpm Q = 63 cfm 28 PITOT TUBE TRAVERSE Duct 3 (6" Line) Point t ii i2 1 i3 4 5 i6 1 ! Position ' (inches from wall) ; i/8 ; 1/2 7/8 ; 1 3/8 2 4 CO in i 8j 9| 5 1/8 5 1/2 j Velocity "T~n " i Pressure ! (VP) ( "H2 0) j y vp i O oo j 1.20 ; 1.15 ii 1.10 | 0.80 1 0.52 0.00 J 0.02 ! 0.00 i 1.095 ! 1.072 | 1.049 j 0.894 1 0.721 j 0.000 j 0.141 ; 0.000 i 0.000 10 | 1 5 7/8 | ! f ' Totals 0.00 i 0.000 1 4.974 1 Averages 0.497 Air Velocity (fpm) 4385 4293 4201 3580 2888 0000 565 0000 0000 0000 19913 1991 Q = 391 cfm 1 j Point i 1 11 \2 3 ----------i PITOT TUBE TRAVERSE Duct 4 (4" Diam) i I Velocity Position ' Pressure ! /vp i(inches from wall) | (VP) ("h20) Air Velocity (fpm) 1/8 ! 0.2 | 0.447 1790 i 1/2 0.2 0.447 1790 :2 i i 0.7 1 0.837 3352 j Totals 1.731 6932 i Ave;rages--------- --------- -0.577--------------------------------- Q = 202 cfm 29 PITOT TUBE TRAVERSE Duct 5 (12" Diam) 12" Duct, Line 1+2 main leading to 17" main Point 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 j Position i(inches from wall) i i 3/8 i t_ : i 3/4 I 2 3/4 4 1/8 i 7 7/8 | 9 1/4 : 10 1/4 ! 11 | 11 5/8 o 00 o o Velocity Pressure (VP)("H20) 0.28 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.42 0.44 0.44 0.40 VP 0.529 0.583 0.600 0.600 0.616 0.632 0.648 0.663 0.663 0.632 1 Totals i 6.168 - ! Averages 0.617 ____i------------------------------------- Air Velocity (f pm) 2119 2335 2403 2403 2467 2531 2595 2655 2655 2531 24695 2470 ! i Q = 1940 cfm 9 30 2'' PITOT TUBE TRAVERSE Duct 6 (6" Diam) 2 in i t Point 1 Positioner |Velocity iPressure |> 1 (inches from_#al 1) ! (VP) ("H2O) 1 ' * ....... ,, Air Velocity (fpm) 1: 2 ' VP) ("T i/8-- 1/2 2 ir 0.04 | 0.06 i i 0.200 | 0.245 801 981 000 0 0 0 3: 7/8 * 3 j 0.283 1133 4; 5! 6i 7: 1 3/8 3 2 4 '3 4 5/80*4 0 0 0.10 ; 0.10 j 0.316 j 0.316 ! 0.245 j 0.245 1266 1266 981 981 8| 9i 10 : 5 1/8 -4 5 1/2 ^ 5 7/8u *L : 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 j Totals 1 0.200 j 0.141 Ji_ _0_._1_4_1_ i 2.333 801 565 565 9339 j Averages 0.233 934 ' Q = 183 cfm :4- 31 PITOT TUBE TRAVERSE Duct 7 (6" Diam) i j Point Position 1 j--------------- (inches fron wall) iVelocity Pressure (VP)("H20) ii 1/8 1.12 |2 1/2 1.26 i3 i4 7/8 1 3/8 1.26 1.28 ; 5 1 2 1.26 I. 6 i >7 4 4 5/8 1.32 1.34 o 00 i8 S9 i- 1 t--------------i 5 1/8 5 1/2 5 7/8 1.30 1.22 r-----------------Totals i t Averages ! r' ',VP j j ------------------L1 1.058 j 1.122 ! ! : 1.122 j J Air Velocity J (ftm) 1 i 4237 j 4494 i 4494 j : 1.131 i 4530 j 1.122 4494 ! . 1.149 i 4602 1 ; 1.158 | i i.i4o ;| ; 1.105 i 1.039 j i 11.148 4638 4566 4426 4161 44640 Sj | j ! ' 1.115 4464 Q = 877 cfm 32 PITOT TUBE TRAVERSE Duct 8 (11" Diam) f * Point Position i '(inches from wall) f1 1 ~ Velocity Pressure (VP) ("H 2 0) t 1; 1/4 0.24 | 2i 7/8 0.28 3 1 5/8 0.32 4j 2 1/2 0.34 5; 3 3/4 0.38 6 7 1/4 0.42 7 i !8 I !1 9 10 1 1i1 : | | i ,81/2 9 3/8 10 1/8 10 3/4 0.42 0.40 0.86 0.78 1 Totals 1 1 j Averages i ;vp | 0.490 j 0.529 | 0.566 | 0.583 ! 0.616 | 0.648 ! 0.648 ; 0.632 i 0.927 j 0.883 ! iAir Velocity i i (fpm) : j! !! 1962 * j 2119 ; j 2267 | 2335 i 2467 !i 2595 i 2595 2531 i 3713 i i1l 3536 6.523 26121 0.652 2612 t Q = 1724 cfm 33 PITOT TUBE TRAVERSE Duct 9 (11" Diam) Point 1 2 3 !4 1 5 i Position : (inches from wall) j Velocity j Pressure ! (VP) ("H20) i iVP 1/4 ; 0.36 0.600 < 7/8 0.38 0.616 : i s/s 1 0.38 0.616 2 1/2 ! 0.38 0.616 j 3 3/4 ji 0.38 0.616 __J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11 Totals 3.066 t1\ Averages 0.613 t Air Velocity ; (fpra) i j 2403 j 2467 ! 2467 j 2467 j j 2467 12271 2454 i Assumption: 1/2 duct area is blocked by fiber . *. Q = 810 cfm 34 PITOT TUBE TRAVERSE 17" Duct in Saw Area: Main Duct into Dust Collector T1---------------------------- Point j Position i (inches from wall) 1 Velocity Pressure (VP) ("H20) >VP Air Velocity (f pm) 1 ' 2 31 4j 5| 6| 7! 81 9| 10 j 1/2 1 3/8 2 1/2 3 7/8 5 3/4 11 1/4 13 1/8 14 1/2 15 5/8 16 1/2 0.44 0.663 0.46 0.678 0.68 0.825 0.74 0.860 0.80 0.894 0.82 0.906 0.70 0.837 0.66 0.812 0.72 0.849 0.48 0.693 ___________________ ___________ fTotals 8.017 l Averages I 0.802 2655 2715 3304 3444 3580 3629 3352 3252 3400 2775 32108 3211 i Q = 5061 cfm 4 35 PITOT TUBE TRAVERSE 10" Duct into Block Dust Collector 1 Point 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Position '(inches from wall) , Velocity i Pressure 1 (VP) ("H20) ' 'T ------------i :i VP ;Air Velocity (f pm) 1/4 7/8 1 1/2 1.66 1.66 1.50 ; 1.288 ; 1.288 ; 1.225 ! ii j 5158 5158 4906 2 1/4 3 3/8 1.40 1.26 . 1.183 j I 1.122 j 4738 4494 i 6 5/8 7 3/4 : 0.74 0.70 ! 0.860 f ; 0.837 ' i 3444 3352 ! 8 1/2 : 0.70 i 0.837 | 3352 9 1/8 i 0.82 ! 0.906 | 3629 ! 9 3/4 f CO ot | 0.917 ; 1 3673 Totals 10.463 41904 Averages 1.046 4190 t Q = 2285 cfm ! i APPENDIX C PHOTOGRAPHS OF SELECTED PLANT OPERATIONS rA? "i it} ire j 21 6 f3 38 38 J. 36 ^ ares 1C Lines 1 and 2 Feeders Showing Method of Emptying Bag Line 2 Feeders and Bag Collector (Note Cart for Scrap Feed) h4 > I Close up of scrap feed and bac collector (Line 2) note axial fans directed at carts and feeder hoods. Scrap cutter hood and dust collector Dust collector for scrap hood and feeders (Line 1-3), showing scrap hood entry closest to blower intake. Builder on Line No. 2 t frn tii tm W - IIB - I>. 0. B r* J P ro te c to r M *F fc P M 6 ClQtBCtGf MES -- -- V. P. C. i Cutting area dust collector and two saws with attached hoods M ti 1 & i