Document KRn82v7Dv4Jrvr1pzGD9Dzd2r

Ii fSSHh w ON ttBldfe INTERNAL. CORRESPONDENCE 'NION CARBIDE CHEMICALS COMPANY institute plant p. o. box 2831, charleston, west Virginia *0 (Nome) ompany ecetiftli Mr. S. C. Glambruno Industrial Relations Df 4 December 1962 Origmoling D.pt. Medical Department Answering ftflir dole Plant 512 pr to Mr. L. N. Dickinson Mr. E. G* Heinz s`'bi#c* Mr. G. H. Daniels Mr. P. E. Henry Mr. N. S. Eastman Mr. R. A. Neal Mr. R. A. Huber Mr. D. R. Matheny Mr. B. F. King Mr. N. H. Ketcham Mr. F. B. Snyder Dr. C. U. Dernehl '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 thiB 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 Rale 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 ."Therraobestos,, 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 INTERNAL. CORRESPONDENCE I NION CARBIDE CHEMICALS COMPANY INSTITUTE PLANT P. 0. BOX 2831, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA 'o<Nnm.} R. J* Sexton, M.D* Medical Department rspy Id Dai* 3 December 1962 owaiftaiiB* D.pt Industrial hygiene - Plant 512 Answering Isffir cfaf# Sifb|*cf Johns Manville "Thermobestos" 1 "" " On 21 March 1962, an Industrial Hygiene Report, i*e., 62-IH-1-6-1, 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 , aj4a57 UCC 006124 R. J. Sexton, M.D* 3 December I962 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 their 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-1* 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 end 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 utllitlzed 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 wsb 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 satis ifled 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, eto. Very truly yours, REP:gh Enclosure Robert E. Peele Industrial Hygienist J,.04fj5i' UCC 006125 DISCUSSION At.7.03picric - o* concentration tost:' were r.ido on Cctotor 30, 19^2, daring tbo fabrication of Insolation blocks on tho DO-ALL Kodol L-H-V band ctv in the Pose arch Center Materials Tooting Laboratory a ra.plo preparation roox. ibo National Conforcnco of Govornnantnl Industrial Hygionista Tect Mothed * follovod using tho Greonburgh-Snith iupizvjar. Tocto vero conduotcd by 'ir. T. F. EidnarchuJi of the J-M Industrial Hygiene Laboratory at MariVillo, To obtain comparatives data, tho rooa ventilation vna adjusted to gives coro than tho usu.il ajBOunt of atsoophoric dust. Tho tost net up is Bhovn in tho photo graph bulov. UCC 006126 ri .t 3 ten ci,;.' at si rr.tr of I? cn ft par .via. she ccm blrfo we: ,nt.rxlcrd crd. bad sir teeth p;r in. crd c, Lineal speed of 2eC0 ftper :JLn. The hleofcn teoro 18 i U ;; 4 or 6-lei* And vero out oo that the blc.de catered tho 11-la. cd^c. 2?lvo typ-va - iroulatloa vexo terted ivolr/Hrj etce:lM-d iheerobcstos, te:G three cc^.crir.netrJL pea cact blocb:. J7oit.vJ.C3 ara t;ivrei 1; Appizilx I. ?Mor to testing biesho cf ecch v:ro conditioned fcjl a) drying a r.ilnlezm of .Do-rcn days at 250?j b) dryln- at 2501* tv;1, coidilloni: 3 fer 1C days at 70 par ooni III, 70?j c) drying at 250? rri occditloair" for 18 dtps ct 95-1C0 par coat HI, 95?* ' Lea test acta Arc circa la Jp;.vu'e: SI. H:.o Gupt oo&scntmtioa ioats uoro t:-.tl;ru::d r.tvi Indicated that tie ouporloriiy report' 1by Chica Ctrbdc-.o of over eVx:*,~rd Sicrtslwatoa erd tho eerperlr.:atrvl prn arati blcohiJ aulnelticJ to then io oubjeat la qae-stios, am rsenlto elro ladlflaisi that tho alr.to uu.7* cccqwaiiion, 2~A'f, ccuscd leeo ct^ooyhcrio cbv:t tiwa iho other tjpeo of bleahj. . .. iho effect tbit oc.r.iltienAr,c of vbn bloch;? Led oa tbo Cart co::.ocatratlca la elr v'.e aot ctyareat. Thlo is etcritnte! ts tho H'dird evouat of rr.toritl toatrG erd tlio poaciblLity that aec cqullitritr: c ow'dtie.v. of "t ocsacatratloa la tho pc--allr j Area nay s:oi bovo tecu reeshe-G ia f :rv5 otexo. la order to doflaitoly oatibllcii tho effect zadaturo coatoat of tho blccha boo cti-eepherlo out 11 r.ero c-tcsalvo eorioo cf tecta u'ould bc required, Seoh tevt.; would ,;l.::o ccreo to noro dofinitoly cctahlich tho rajativo duetiaeco cf tho ferraleo irv.xii I'eL A n!j L*+ {o3 6 0 UCC 006127 - L' 3 APr2:3H II r;s? daia ATiiosKnaic dost co;:csiJrrjiTioii data j 1 ll-VC * -1 Pan Cast m 2-\7 ! 3-/-T3 i>id. 4-in. .i Std. 4-in. /--AT ! 5-.T Ccmcniraiiou la nppaf of Air Dried at 250? Conditioned at 7 ns, 70? Conditioned at 95-ICC^ 3, 95? no.c 59.3 99.6 Avj. of tlnroo condition:; 33.2 1 ; Kaisturo Absorbed During Conditioning - Dry to 704 13, 707 Dry to 95-3003 E2, 957 !I 2.7 13.6 >w. 19.9 v- ' A5.1 i c : 2.0 12.3 16.4 47.1 i 31.6 j 1 2.5 17.2 ' ] | I 34.2 15.8 51.3 52.0 36.4 9*7**.*6* 62.0 o. o 15.6 3.9 ; 12.8 I c`iiii3 formulation woo used for car.plcn antedtted to Onion Carbide for ^.v.ltntlo.n. fiofer to foraala No. 53, ccaploa 21, 22, 25, Jlcjcnran* Soport Kb. p 1. A A04a6 : UCC 006128