Document Nn9LdBqBznwbDo8KvG4XKkag

AyeniicnicriiieiOwOfnpanj irutiHei wui fc^pWnwtrilwt Date: Subject: From/Location: To/Location: 3uly 16, 1982 Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY Stanley Factor - AP-32S5 JVL2J 1982 D-F. davis MANAGEMENT SUMMARY In response to your request for industrial hygiene consultation, a review of shipboard operations was conducted on the ARCO PRUDHOE BAY from May 25-29, 1982 by Patricia H. Hall of the Corporate Safety and Industrial Hygiene Department. This study was conducted with the assistance of Danny Davis of ARCO Marine Inc. We traveled with the vessel from Panama City through the Panama Canal on May 25, sailing to Texas City with arrival on May 29. The master of the ship was Captain'Mark Tighe. Implementation of the ARCO Ace Program (Assess and Control Exposure to Hazardous Chemical and Physical Agents) was directed to the following major areas of study: 1. A preliminary noise study was conducted, indicating that the engineroom personnel are regularly exposed to high noise levels which may result in noise- induced hearing loss. Recommendations are suggested for the implementation of an effective hearing conservation program, placing greater emphasis on monitoring activities, the use of hearing protective equipment, audiometric testing, training of personnel, and designation of high noise hazard areas with appropriate warning signs. 2. Air sampling was conducted to 'determine the potential for airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers throughout the accommodation areas and the engineroom. All sampling proved negative for airborne asbestos contamination. Suggestions are submitted to adhere to safe handling practices when maintenance or repair work is necessary in the engine room where asbestos insulation is suspected to be present. . 3. A preliminary study of heat stress exposure was conducted in the engineroom. Heat stress levels vary from moderate to excessive, and exposures are variable. Guidelines for limiting exposure times in areas of excessive heat are submitted, along with suggestions for consideration of engineering modifications to reduce heat exposure. Medical surveillance and training activities are also recommended. 4. Several other areas are addressed in the body of this report, including operations requiring further study and evaluation. An item which should receive primary consideration is the capability for detection of potentially hazardous exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas while carrying sour crudes, and the effectiveness of emergency response capability. Our department looks forward to the opportunity to assist you in addressing these areas for further study, and in the implementation of the recommendations presented in this report. % PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT A.R.CO.-1-13 ARCO 38 V Stanley Factor Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY 3uly 16, 1982 Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments, or if I may be of any further assistance. cc: H. Strom, AP-1795 D. F. Wilson, AP-451 L. R. Birkner, AP-447 PHH/cjmk LRB/ N TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY / INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE STUDY 1. Noise Exposure Survey Methods Results 2. Asbestos Survey Methods Results 3. Heat Stress Evaluations Methods Results FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Evaluation of Noise Exposure 2. Asbestos Survey . 3. Heat Stress 4. General Paint Chipping Procedures Manual ' 5. Areas for Further Study Hydrogen Sulfide - Detection and emergency response Chemical Handling APPENDICES A, Results Table 1 Noise Level Measurements Table II Noise Dosimetry Table III Airborne Concentrations of Asbestos Table IV Heat Stress Measurements B. Publication ' U.S. Department of Labor OSHA - Hot Environments Page No. 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 14 15-17 18-20 21 22 23 . 24 3 Stanley Factor ` Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY 3uly 16, 1982 * INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE STUDY 1. Noise Exposure Survey Methods Noise level measurements were recorded using a Metrosonics dB 306 Integrating Sound Level Meter, which automatically performs integrations for sound level measurements when the sound level varies with time. This unit records sound levels from 70-134 decibels, using an A-weighting filter. Random noise level measurements were recorded using this instrument throughout the vessel, including occupied and non-occupied machine spaces, accomodation spaces, services spaces and deck areas. ' Additionally, crewmembers were requested to wear noise-recording instruments for the. full duration of a 24-hour time period to evaluate the 24-hour effective Exposure Level (Leff(24)). Metrosonics dB-301 Metrologgers were used for this purpose, with the 301/27 3M program module, which integrates noise levels between 70-134 with a 5dB exchange rate, for up to a 24-hour time period. The dosimeters were calibrated before and after each sample session using a Metrosonics Calibrator #2367. All noise measurements were recorded with the ship underway in the loaded condition, operating at normal design service speed. Measurements in port during loading and off loading were not recorded during this study. Results . ~- ` i ' Tables 1 and II, Appendix A, summarize the' results of the noise survey. Table I summarizes noise level measurements recorded throughout the vessel. Table II reflects the results of noise dosimetry. The dosimeters used in this study produce noise exposure data as an average sound level measurement every 3 minutes, with hourly averages, and an hourly cumulative summary. The results reported in Table II reflect the 24-hour average exposure level (Leff(24)), which is used for comparison with pending Coast Guard noise exposure regulations. The last four columns reflect the distribution of the hourly average noise exposure levels. 2. Asbestos Survey 9 Methods Airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers were measured by drawing air through a mixed cellulose ester filter, Type AA, with an 0.8 u pore size. Dupont P-4000 and SKC 113 Personal Sampling Pumps were used as the vacuum source, drawing air at a flow rate of 1.5 liters per minute. All samples collected were general area samples, measured in workspaces and accommodation areas. Stanley Factor Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY Duly 16,1982 The filters were analyzed for asbestos fibers by NATLSCO Environmental Services Laboratory, Long Grove, Illinois, which is accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. The fiber count was conducted using Phase Contrast Microscopy. Additionally, a bulk sample was drawn from the insulation material stored in the metal drum in the engineroom. This sample was analyzed for the presence of asbestos using bulk-dispersion staining microscopy. Results . The results of air sampling for asbestos fibers are reported in Table III, Appendix A. 3. Heat Stress Evaluation Method S The instrument used for this study was a Reuter-Stokes Mini Wibget Heat Stress Monitor RSS-213. This instrument is a hand-held portable wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) meter which is used for measuring environmental conditions which may produce unacceptable levels of heat stress. While there are currently many different methods utilized to evaluate heat stress, the WBGT is felt to provide a useful index of heat stress, which combines the effects of air temperature, humidity, air. velocity and thermal radiation into a single reading. Random measurements were recorded. throughout the engindfoom to obtain an initial profile of the potential heat exposure of engineroom personneL Results : Heat stress evaluations are recorded in Table IV, Appendix A. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Evaluation of Noise Exposure The data collected during this study provides a good representation of noise exposures on the ARCO PRUDHOE BAY during normal operating conditions and representing the average daily exposures. Additional sampling should be conducted to acquire data for those crewmembers for which sample data was lost, as noted in Table H. Noise monitoring should also be conducted during loading, off-loading and docking operations. In December of 1981, the Coast Guard submitted a NAVIC (Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular) regarding Recommendations for Control of Excessive Noise on Merchant Vessels. This Circular established recommended limits for noise exposure based upon criteria for protecting crewmembers from excessive noise exposure which can cause permanent noise-induced hearing loss. Criteria for noise exposure adopted by regulatory agencies such as OSHA do not address the unique exposure conditions aboard merchant vessels. The effect of noise on hearing is a function of the noise level and the duration of 5 fy Stanley Factor ' Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY 3uly 16, 1982 exposure. Shipboard personnel, however, do not have the same opportunity for retreat to a quiet environment subsequent to excessive noise exposures, as do workers in general industry. Therefore, the Leff(24) has been established as the most meaningful measure of shipboard noise exposure. This 24-hour exposure limit considers normal work-shift exposure as well as the necessary recovery time to evaluate whether there is sufficient low-noise time for recovery from a temporary threshold shift of hearing ability. The initial proposal suggested the following limits for noise exposure: Existing Vessels New Vessels Leff(24) 84dBA 79dBA Maximum Noise level for berthing, mess, and recreation spaces ' 75dBA' 70dBa However, subsequent notifications of Coast Guard Activities indicate that they will lower the proposal for Leff(24) to 82dBA for existing vessels, and 77dBA for new vessels, to concur with more recent data regarding the conservation of hearing ability, and to concur with IMCO (Inter-governmental Maritime Consultive Organization) guidelines issued in November of 1981. The results pf noise monitoring presented in Tables I and II, Appendix A, indicate that. essentially all engineroom personnel are exposed to high noise levels and may be subject to noise-induced hearing loss with continued unprotected exposure to these levels. Because of the variety of noise sources and exposure tasks in the engineroom, it is well recognized that it would be quite difficult, it not impossible, to provide engineering modifications that would sufficiently reduce noise exposure to acceptable levels. Therefore, it is considered necessary to implement an effective hearing conservation program to protect employees from a significant potential for noise-induced hearing loss. Efforts currently in effect to administer a hearing conservation program should be expanded to address all of the following elements: 1. Initial noise monitoring should be conducted for all employees potentially exposed to noise levels in excess of 85 dBA. Noise monitoring should consider all noise exposures underway and in port, including loading and off-loading. 2. Periodic monitoring should be conducted of all noise-exposed employees. 3. Pre-placement and periodic (annual) audiometric tests should be conducted for all employees routinely exposed to noise levels in excess of 85 dBA. The results of this survey indicate that all engineroom personnel should be included in the audiometric test program. Because of the variation in shipboard noise exposures, it would be desirable to include all personnel in the test program. In particular, crewmembers working in the galley are exposed to noise levels between 75 and 85 dBA for a significant portion of time during food preparation and clean-up activities. , 6 V Stanley Factor ` Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY July 16, 1982 . 4. Hearing protective equipment should be provided to all employees exposed to noise levels greater than-85 dBA, and the use of such equipment should be enforced. It is suggested that a variety of hearing protectors be provided so that employees may choose that which is most acceptable to them, and thus most likely to be worn. Hearing protectors should be available to all employees. Re-usable equipment should be issued to those employees who prefer them, and disposable plugs should be readily available in all high noise exposure areas. It is desirable to place containers of ear-plugs at entry ports to the engineroom to ensure accessibility at all times. - 5. All crewmembers should receive training regarding the hazards associated with high noise exposure and the potential for noise-induced hearing loss. Instruction should include a description of the hearing conservation program, the types of hearing protection provided, and the use and care of this equipment. Crewmembers should become aware of their responsibility for participation in the vessel's noise control program and protection of their own hearing ability. 6. Warning notices should be placed at the entrances to all areas where noise levels exceed 85 dBA, designating the area as a high noise level area and indicating the requirement for hearing protction in the area. This should include the engineroom and diesel room, and any other areas so identified. Where incidental noise exposure will occur, such as in paint chipping operations, etc. appropriate warning information should be provided. It is felt that an effective hearing conservation program as outlined above should be initiated as soon as possible to protect crewrciembers from noise-induced hearing loss. . Such a program should receive the full support of all Company personnel. 2. Asbestos Survey Air sampling was conducted throughout the vessel to evaluate the potential for airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers. The tiles used in the overhead deck throughout the house are reportedly composed of an asbestos-impregnated material. These tiles were observed to be in good condition, and were not observed to be "friable", which describes a deteriorating condition which creates the potential for release of the asbestos material into the atmosphere. Air sampling was conducted throughout the accommodation spaces during slow speed operation of the vessel, and during operation at normal design service speed to determine if ship vibration was contributing to airborne concentrations of asbestos. All measurements indicated concentrations less than 0.01 fibers of asbestos per cubic centimeter of air, which is essentially a normal "background" level and an indication of no airborne asbestos contamination. 7 Stanley Factor Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY 3uly 16, 1982 It was anticipated that the greatest potential lor asbestos contamination was in the engineroom, where there is reported to be asbestos present in some of the remaining pipe lagging and insulation. Sampling locations were selected on the basis of the greatest potential for the presence of asbestos and the greatest potential for employee exposure. The results of air sampling indicated no detectable airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers* On the basis of this study, employees are not exposed to airborne asbestos fibers on this vessel during normal shipboard operations. However, engineroom maintenance and repair tasks involving asbestos insulation may release potentially hazardous asbestos fibers into the workplace atmosphere. As it is almost impossible to visually identify the presence of asbestos in insulation materials, it is suggested that a coding system be developed to differentiate asbestos insulation materials from theNasbestos substitutes. When it is required to work on insulation material that is not clearly identified as free of asbestos, the material should be treated as asbestos, implementing all asbestos handling procedures to prevent the generation of airborne dust and to protect exposed personnel. The asbestos handling procedures should include the following minimum precautions: * 1. Every effort should be made to minimize dust generation, using careful handling techniques, thoroughly wetting the material before handling, etc. 2. Employees should be required to utilize dust masks which are approved for asbestos, and should be instructed in the use of this equipment. 3. It is desirable to utilize disposable protective coveralls which can be discarded after use. This will eliminate th$ precautions that must be followed in handling and cleaning contaminated clothing. 4. All asbestos materials, including disposable clothing should be thoroughly cleaned up after work is complete, sealed in labelled plastic bags or containers and disposed of properly. A sample was taken of insulation material stored in a meted drum in the engineroom. The sample was analyzed and found to contain no asbestos. The sample contained essentially a mineral wool fiber, that is considered safe for use with minimal handling precautions. The drum should be labeled to identify its contents as a "non-asbestos" material. 3. Heat Stress Heat Stress Evaluations must consider the environmental and physical work factors that constitute the total work load that is imposed upon the body. The environmental factors include the air temperature, radiant heat exchange, air movement, and humidity. Physical work contributes to the total heat stress associated with a job by producing metabolic heat in the body in proportion to the intensity of the work performed. A number of induces have been proposed to describe the severity of heat stress exposures, due to Varying interpretations of the physiological responses to heat stress. The WBGT index (Wet Bulb Globe Temperature) has been used extensively because of greater ease in application and good results as an indicator of excessive levels of heat strain, . 8 Stanley Factor ' Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY 3uly 16,19S2 incorporating the parameters of air temperature, air movement, radiant heat and humidity. This study was conducted to gain information regarding heat stress exposures for engine room personnel. Those ships sailing through tropical waters will be of particular interest, as high ambient temperatures and humidity will increase the heat load in the engineroom. It should be noted that this initial heat study was conducted during weather conditions of cloudy, overcast skies and lower temperatures than what might be considered normal for this particular area and time of year. As noted in Table IV, a thermometer reading at the maneuvering station in the engineroom indicated 93<>F, while personnel report frequent readings of around 100OF. Therefore, heat stress exposures may be higher than the levels reported, dependent upon ambient temperatures. For the purposes of this discussion, the following ^uide will be used to assess heat exposure: 9 Stanley Factor Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY 3uly 16, 1982 Recommendations of the ACG1H American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (1981) FIGURE I Permissible Heat Exposure Threshold Limit Values (Values are given in oC. WBGT) Work - Rest Regimen Continuous work 75% Work 25% Rest, Each hour 50% Work 50% Rest, Each hour 25%,Work 75% Rest, Each hour Light 30.0 30.6 31.4 32.2 Work Load Moderate N 26.7 28.0 29.4 31.1 Heavy 25.0 . 25.9 27.9 30.0 The work load category must be established by ranking each job* into light, medium and heavy categories on the basis of the type of operation, as follows: ' (1) light work (up to 200 kcal/hr or 800 Btu/hr): e.g. sitting or standing to control machines, performing light hand or arm work. (2) . moderate work (200-350 kcal/hr or 800-1400 BTU/hr);e.g. walking about with moderate lifting and pushing. ' (3) heavy work (350-500 kcal/hr or 1400-2000 Btu/hr)e.g., pick and shovel work. 10 Stanley Factor ' Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY 3uly 16, 19S2 The majority of work activity in the engineroom would be characterized as light to moderate. Many of the heat levels recorded in Table IV represent excessive heat levels in machinery spaces which are normally unoccupied, with the exception of repair or maintenance activities. Interpreting the exposure limits presented in Figure 1, a task requiring light to moderate work could be performed continuously in an environment up to a WBGT of 30oC, but only 25% of the time (15 minutes every hour) at a WBGT of 35oC. The key to lowering heat stress on the job is to either make the work easier or lessen its duration by providing adequate rest time. There is general agreement that resting in cool surroundings considerably reduces the stress of working in hot environments. There is no definite information on the ideal temperature for a rest area, but general information supports a temperture of 75-760F. It is therefore suggested that consideration be given to the addition of an air conditioned control room at the maneuvering station. As personnel,spend a fair amount of time in this area, such an addition could then provide considerable relief from heat exposure, and enable personnel to tolerate higher exposure levels. Acoustical insulation of the control room would also prove beneficial from the standpoint of reducing excessive noise exposure. Consideration should also be given to increased use of spot cooling to reduce temperatures in occupied work areas, using air conditioned supply-air ducts. Suggestions are submitted to solicit input from the Medical Department regarding pre placement and periodic medical surveillance of engineroom personnel, giving particular emphasis to medical history, general physical fitness, and review of the cardiovascular system. ' " ^ Engineroom personnel should receive training in the health effects associated with working in hot environments. Employees should understand the way in which the body acclimates to heat, requiring gradual exposure upon initial work in hot environments or after being away from heat exposures for a period of time. It is generally well recognized that the individual who is acclimated to hot environments can withstand greater exposure to heat stress than an unacclimated individual. A copy of an OSHA publication regarding work in hot environments is submitted in Appendix B, and may be of some assistance for training purposes. Personnel working in hot environments should be advised to drink plenty of water to replace that which is lost. However, the use of salt tablets should be discussed with medical personnel as this practice does not have the full support of the medical community. There are flavored drinks currently on the market which are effective in restoring the electrolyte balance and are well received by employees. Information on specific products which have been used successfully in industrial applications can be provided to you upon request. As discussed, the key to protecting employees from excessive heat exposure lies primarily in limiting the time spent in hot areas (Figure 1) and providing an area of lower temperature for relief. Careful pacing of the work activity, coupled with good training and medical surveillance, should protect crewmembers from the potential adverse health effects of work in hot environments. 11 Pr Stanley Factor ' Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY Duly 16,1982 k. General Paint Chipping Activity . Chipping of painted surfaces is typically performed prior to welding or cutting operations. It should be noted that as some of the paints utilized contain lead, it is important that the paint is thoroughly removed before beginning any welding or cutting to prevent the potential for generation of toxic lead fumes. Additionally, employees involved in chipping activities should be provided with dust masks approved for toxic dusts. Dust masks were observed in the engine room where such chipping activities were performed which did not meet this criteria. It is also noted that chipping operations create excessive noise levels, up to 110-111 dBA. . The insert hearing protectors may not achieve sufficient noise reduction for this activity. An NRR (Noise Reduction Rating) of 29 dB may achieve a reduction of only 20 dB , depending upon proper use and insertion of the plug. It is therefore suggested that the ear muffs currently available be used for this operation. (An employee wearing ear plugs may wish to place the muffs over the plugs for added protection). - Procedures Manual It is suggested that specific procedures for safety and health be incorporated into the Procedures Manual. This should include personal protective equipment requirements, safe chemical handling procedures and other safety and health information relevant to the operation. Thus will help to ensure that crewmembers receive such training and information in the first stages of job training activities. . 5. Areas for Further Study The following areas are suggested for further review and study: Hydrogen Sulfide - Detection and Emergency Response It was also noted during this review that sour crudes are transported periodically, presenting the potential for exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas. The Mexican crude, in particular, has been identified as a very sour crude which is being carried by the PRUDHOE BAY. There is currently no detection equipment available on this vessel that would alert crewmembers of the presence of dangerous concentrations of hydrogen sulfide gas in the event of an emergency. Gas badges which turn color at 5 ppm (parts per million) provide no information regarding concentrations considered hazardous, whereas the permissible exposure limit for hydrogen sulfide is 10 ppm, which is considered safe for an 8-hour time-weighted average exposure. A discolored badge could indicate exposure to 5 or 5000 ppm. Colorimetric indicator tubes provide the capability to evaluate higher gas concentrations, but do not provide the immediate information necessary in the event of an excessive gas accumulation on deck or in the pump room or engineroom. 4 The Corporate Safety and Industrial Hygiene Department would like to offer their assistance in your efforts to evaluate potential exposure to hydrogen sulfide and review gas detection and emergency response capabilities. 12 Stanley Factor ' Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY 3uly 16, 1982 Chemical Handling , Further review of chemical handling activities, particularly in the engine room is suggested to evaluate the adequacy of personal protective equipment and the potential exposure of engineroom personnel. Added emphasis should be placed upon employee training and hazard communication. All crewmembers should become familiar with the Material Safety Data Sheets for chemicals which they are routinely required to handle. It is hoped that the information provided in this study will be of assistance in your efforts towards the implementation of the ACE Program and provision of a safe and healthy working environment for shipboard personnel. S 13 Stanley Factor ' Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY Duly 16, 1982 APPENDIX A: SURVEY RESULTS ARCO MARINE, INC. ARCO PRUDHOE BAY Table I Noise Level Measurements May 26,19S2 Location Accommodation Spaces - Bridge Deck Bridge Chart Room Bridge Watch Post-Port Bridge Watch Post - Starboard . Captain's Deck (Stack Deck) Captain's Office Captain's Stateroom Captain's Sitting Room Radio Room - No Audio Signals Outer Deck - Near Ventilator Fans for Engineroom Boat Deck Chief Officer's Cabin "* Thwart Ship Passageway Third Officer's Cabin - Starboard side . Chief Engineer's Office Passageway - Starboard side Passageway - Port side > Cadet's Cabin Mess Deck .. Officers' Lounge - (background) Officers' Mess . Galley - (Food equipment not operating) Crew's Lounge Crew's Mess Thwart Ship Passageway Port Passageway Starboard Passageway Emergency Gear Locker Average Noise Level (dBA) 70* 70 73 72 70 70 ..70 70 98-101 70 71 70 70 73 72 70 70 70 71 70 70 70 71 71 70 Note: As previously referenced, the lower recording limit of the sound level meter used in this study was 70 dBA. Actual sound levels in accommodation spaces may be below 70dBA, but are recorded herein as 70dBA. . 15 ARCO MARINE, INC./ARCO PRUDHOE BAY Table 1 (Continued) Location . Average Noise Level (dBA) Accommodation Spaces Outside House Fore Deck Aft Deck Port Deck Starboard Deck Diesel Room (operating) Outside Diesel Room - (Diesel Operating) Outside Diesel Room - (Diesel Not operating) Main Deck Thwart Passageway (Fore) Thwart Passageway (Aft) Port Passageway Starboard Passageway SR11 - Ordinary Seaman's Cabin Outside House - Starboard Deck Aft Deck Engine Room Upper Cat-Walks Forced Draft Fans > DC Heater Findley Area - (Stack joins top of boiler) Crossover - (Forced Draft Fans Meet) .. Behind Boiler - (near soot blowers) Near new oil gravity tank Shop Level Deck Behind Boiler - near superheater Feed Water Regulator Refrigeration Units Starboard Storeroom Engineer's Workshop 70-75 74-80 70-71 70-71 107-108 85 78 72-78 .74 72 72 70 . 70 76 98-111 98 95 97 94-97 97 91 94 90 85 89-90 16 ARCO Marine, Inc./ARCO PRUDHOE BAY Table I (Continued). Location Average Noise Level (dBA) Control Level . Port Storeroom Maneuvering Station - Desk Electrical Store room First Stage Heater Front of Boiler Behind Boiler - Superheater Control Value Superheater Temp. Control Port Boiler - Mud Drum Generator Level Aft Air Ejector Between Feed Pumps Main Generator Reduction Gear Low Pressure Turbines 's * Lower Engineroom Near Reduction Gear Cargo Pit - Saltwater Service Pump Fuel Oil Service Box .. Lube Oil Service Box Shaft Alley ^ Steering Gear t Chipping operation - Chipping paint oh ship side near cargo pumps 89 90-92 85-86 93-97 93-94 89-93 89 89 92-94 92-95 96 96 92-93 101 92-93 95-96 97 90-91 86-87 110-112 Patricia Hall Atlantic Richfield Co. - Corporate Safety and Industrial Hygiene 17 AKCO UNti, INU. ARCO PKUDHOE BAY Table II Noise Dosimetry ' May 26-29, 1982 Date Crew Member SS. No. 3ob Title Location Sampling Time Leff(24)* Hours of Exposure at (dBA) <75 75-85 85-90 >90 (dBA) 5/26-27 R. McKay 203-46-2944 Engineman Engineroom 9:04a.m. - 9:04a.m. (8-12) 91.5 9 0 2 13 5/26-27 3. McFalls 179-40-0403 5/26-27 3. Ryan ' 5/26-27 B. Morgan 058-42-8256 Engineman Engineroom 10:05a.m. - 10:05a.m. (4-8) / 87.6 Second Assistant Engineer (8-12) ` m* * . Engineroom 9:52a.m. - 9:52a.m. 87.9 Wiper (8-12) Engineroom 9:47a.m. - 9:47a.m. 95.2 10 10 11 2 5 1 1 11 18 1 11 5/26-27 H. Mclivaine Chief Engineer Office, 10:15a.m. - 10:15a.m. 186-16-0948 House, Deck 76.6 17 5 20 5/27-28 S. White 084-48-6735 Cook-Baker Galley 1:20p.m. - 1:20p.m. 79.7 ; 8 15 0 1* 18 ARCO Marine, Inc./ARCO PRUDHOE BAY Table II (Continued) Date Crew Member SS.No. 3ob Title Location Sampling Time Leff(24)* Hours of Exposure at (dBA) <75 75-85 85-90 >90 (dBA) 5/27-28 M. Almquist 535-62-4268 AB Seaman Day Worker Deck, House . l:30p.'m. - 9:30a.m. 74.8*** (Leff(20)) 14 5/27-28 E. Stromberg Ordinary Seamani /Deck, 143-42-2327 Day Worker House 1:25p.m. - 1:25p.m. 74.2 .A , 5/27-28 H. McKay 035-32-0078 % Second Officer (4-8) House, l:25p.m.-l:25a.m. Bridge, Deck 75.6 5/28-29 P.M. Graham Third Officer House, 3:00p.m. - 3:00 p.m. 553-29-3762 (8-12) Bridge, Deck *** 20 8 6 4 16 00 00 00 5/28-29 3. Hayden 006-44-2177 5/28-29 3. Rezanka 147-38-0800 First Assistant Engineer (4-8) Engineroom 3:05p.m. - 3:05p.m. i Pumpman Deck, Engineroom 3:35p.m. - 3:35p.m. **** i ##** 19 ARCO Marine, Inc./ARCO PRUDHOE BAY Table II (Continued) Date Crew Member SS. No. Job Title Location Sampling Time Leff(24)* Hours of Exposure at (dBA) < 75 75-85 85-90 >90 (dBA) 5/28-29 R. McCann 152-38-1379 AB Seaman Deck 3:35p.m. - 3:35p.m. **** Notes: * . ** *** **** / ^ = "less than" = "greater than". '~ Leff(24) - 24-hour Effective Exposure Level. This hour represented accidental placement of the dosimeter near high noise producing equipment during off-hour recreational activity. Excessive noise level (101 dBA) for 30 minutes produced a slightly higher Leff(24) than expected. Noise dosimeter recorded only 20-hour exposure. No reading, due to equipment malfunction. Patricia Hall Atlantic Richfield Co. - Corporate Safety and Industrial Hygiene . 20 Date ARCO MARINE, INC. ARCO PRUDHOE BAY Table III Airborne Concentrations of Asbestos Mav 25-29. 1982 Location Conditions Sampling Time Asbestos Concentration (fibers/cc) 3/25 Officers' Mess Ship crossing canal - slow speed 9:32a.m. - 6:10p.m. 5/25 EngineroomManeuvering Station n tt 1:05p.m. - 9:30p.m. 5/25-26 Cadet Cabin Boat Deck Port Side Ship underway - 6:30p.m. - 7:30a.m. operating at normal design speed 5/26 Officers' Mess It II 9:15a.m. - 9:30p.m. 5/27 Engineroom Maneuvering Station It It 7:25a.m. - 7:25p.m.*' 5/28 Crew's Lounge It II 7:35a.m. - 7:00p.m. .5/28 Engineroom - Control Deck - in front of boiler It It 10:25a.m. - 6:25p.m. 5/29 Engineroom - Lower deck - Near cargo pumps nn t 8:45a.m. - 6:00p.m. > <0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 _____* . < 0.01 < 0.01 . NOTE: ' fibers/cc = fibers of asbestos, (longer than 5 microns, length to width ratio of 3:1), per cubic centimeter of air . ^ = "less than" * Sample lost due to equipment malfunction. Patricia Hall Atlantic Richfield Co. - Corporate Safety and Industrial Hygiene 21 Location ARCO PRUDHOE BAY Table IV Heat Stress Measurements May 26, 1982 Heat Exposure Level WBGT oc Engine Room Upper Cat Walks Forced Draft Fans DC Heater . Findley Area (Stack joins top of boiler) Crossover (Forced draft fans meet) Behind boiler (Near soot blowers) Near new oil gravity tank 32.2 38.7 38.0 34.5 39.1 34.1 Shop Level Deck -' * ' Behind boiler - Near superheater n Feed Water Regulator Refrigeration units Engineer's workshop .. v' . ' ' 41.1 33.1 30.6 29.0 Control Level Front of boiler Maneuvering station - at desk Port boiler - Mud Drum . 31.4 29.0 36.6 Generator Level Aft Air Ejector Between Feed Pumps Low Pressure Turbines Lower Engine Room * Near reduction gear Cargo Pit - Saltwater Service Pump Fuel Oil Service Box Lube Oil Service Box Shaft Alley 32.2 . 33.6 * 30.3 32.3 30.7 29.8 27.8 28.0 Steering Gear 27.0 Note: WBGT C = Wet Bulb Globe Temperature, degrees Centigrade All measurements were recorded during ambient weather conditions as follows: Conditions: Overcast, cloudy Temperature: 82-840F Relative Humidity: 86% Thermometer reading near desk at Maneuvering Station: 93F Patricia Hall Atlantic Richfield Co. - Corporate Safety and Industrial Hygiene 22 Stanley Factor . Industrial Hygiene Consultation - ARCO PRUDHOE BAY 3uly 16, 1982 ' s APPENDIX B: PUBLICATION I I HOT ENVIRONMENTS JOB HEALTH HAZARDS SERIES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Eula Bingham, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary Occupational Safety and Health Administration U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Anthony Robbins, M.D., Director / U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Center for Disease Control National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health July 10B0 9r aelt *4 piMhf Ofllc*. WasMniNn, D.C. IM9I