Document NNp6BYe54qmDg66GBZDqwrp2b

FILE NAME: Marley (MAR) DATE: 1983 July 12 DOC#: MAR012 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Inter-Office Letter r:l{.OF^ICE LTT" To: DV.r. THE MARLEY company r J y - * - . rCnonn. s t r u c t i o n L y * ->dRE m o n i t o r i n g lA j v / E R & LIGHT, UNIT #1 I M P O R T A N T ! A lW A Y S SEND COPIES TO OFFICES INVOVVED From. Kevin Carroll Officci Corporate Safety Date; J u ly 12, 1983 I SDn?-83-66 Gary: , ---- ... . .:.v . / \ Employees in v o lve d in the ACB f i l l removal operation oil, Duquesnn B n it 1/1 were monitored on June 28 and 29 to determine i f they ard~esjipr6'(i to a i r borne asbestos f ib e r s , and if. so, to what concentration. A ll employees wore personal p r o t e c t 1v.e equ ipment d u rin g the ACB removal, including disposable co ve ra lls, respiratory.protection, boots, gloves, and hard hats. T h e : p o te n tia l f o r employee exposure .was.greatly reduced through the use of wet.work p ra ctice s. A to tal o f e ighteen personal and area samples were co lle c te d iri the two day period. One b u lk sample o f mud from the basin f l o o r vias a l s o analyzed for a s b e sto s c on ten t. U n f o r t u n a t e ly , the wetting o f the ACB and r e s u l t i n g mud/debris fouled eight, o f the eighteen f i l t e r s enough to void the samples. The remaining ten samples in d i c a t e t h a t although employees are exposed tn low c o n c e n tr a tio n s o f a sb e sto s f i b e r s , the concentrations are well below both the cu rre n t PEL o f 2 f ib e rs / c c and the medical action level of C.l f ib e r s / c c . The bulk mud sample was found to contain le s s than 1% cfirysot i 1e a s b e s t o s . I am encouraged by the r e s u l t s of. the m o n ito rin g program. I t appears that the procedure o f w e ttin g the ACB p r i o r t o i t s removal i s e f f e c t iv e in con t r o l l i n g , the c o n c e n t r a t io n o f airborne: a s b e s t o s f i b e r s . The f a c t that our labor force i s wearing the approved personal protective equipment (PPE) further reduces the potential fo r employee exposure. As p rom isin g as these i n i t i a l r e s u l t s are, we believe i t would be prudent f o r MCT to c o n s i d e r c o n t in u in g the p r a c t i c e s o f wetting the f i l l material and wearing the PPL', a t l e a s t u n t i l we feel secure that we can control employee exposures through l e s s e xte n sive precautionary measures. Should you agree, we wi l l co n t in u e to m onitor employee exposures on future recon s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t s . T h is wi l l p rovide us with the data necessary to re evaluate the exposure s i t u a t i o n and the protective measures required for same. I f you have any q u e s t io n s or need o f more inform ation, please c a l l Bob Best or me d i r e c t l y . / cc. R. Wrobel B. Best C. Meeker Attachment S P X C -0 3 2 'l