Document NyKKLdRV60EDM7aa1d2J19GV
Caustic Plant 1986 Industrial Hygiene
Annual Report
Summary
The results of previous years' industrial hygiene surveys were evaluated and present problems were identified. Based on the results of the sur veys , it was discovered that the exposure levels did not change over the past few years. Therefore, yearly surveys will be conducted only in problem areas. Several years of study on caustic exposure revealed that the operators were exposed to levels well below the TLV limit. The hydrochloric acid exposure is extensively controlled at present until the plans to improve the iron cell area are executed. Noise studies over the past several years revealed that most personnel samples were within allow able limits, but several area samples were high. Problem areas will be focused on for future plans which include the high exposure level of caustic and hydrochloric acid in the iron cell area and the high level of noise still in the plant.
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Personnel exposure levels of caustic were well below the TLV ceiling limit as a result of several years of study. Based on these results, it is not necessary to perform personnel studies every year except in problem areas or if there is a process change.
There are a few potentially high caustic exposure areas that need to be evaluated, such as the iron cell area, the centrifuge seal areas, and the recirculation pump packing leaks. Even though these areas do not exceed the allowable TLV, these are the only areas left in the plant that provide any exposure of operators to caustic. These pro blems will be addressed in 1987 plans.
2. The potential of exposure by the operators to hydrochloric acid is high in the iron cell area when the cells are being acidized. The operators are informed of the problems and presently take specific precautions to avoid exposure to the acid. There is no need to perform surveys in this area every year unless changes are made, since this is the only area where the acid can be found. Future plans include process design improvments to the iron cell area to eliminate exposure to the acid.
3. Area noise surveys of the plant did not reveal any significant changes in noise levels. Because of this, whole plant surveys are not needed on a yearly basis. Only problem areas or areas where process changes occur need to be analyzed. The high noise level areas of the plant are properly posted with ear protection warning signs and the location of these areas are properly communicated to all operators.
TBS 4/3/87:mls
Page 2
Caustic Exposure Evaluation
Sampling Method and Guidelines
The caustic that operators may potentially be exposed to In normal operations is 50% regular grade caustic.
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygiene (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Value-Ceiling for sodium hydroxide is 2 mg/m , The threshold limit value is the time-weighted average concentration for a normal 8-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek to which all workers may be repeatedly exposed without adverse effect. However, the ceiling is the concentration that should not be exceeded during any part of the working exposure.
The method of sampling involved at least one sample per classification taken over an eight hour period. The personnel samples were obtained from the operators breathing zones and represent actual exposures as nearly as possible.
The samples were pulled through a milipore filter size 0.8 micron at a rate of 2 liters per minute using a three piece filter at the end of a high flow pump. The pump should be calibrated with a rotometer to 2.0 liters before and after all readings are taken.
Personnel Monitoring
As shown in Attachments 1 to 3, the results of three years of studies, all exposure levels were well below the TLV ceiling limit. Based on the results of these studies, sampling for caustic this year was not deemed necessary.
Area Surveys
The areas with the highest potential of caustic exposure at present are: the iron cell area, the centrifuge (CF-1) seal areas, and the recirculation pump packing areas. Plans are in effect for 1987 to improve the iron cell area and practically eliminate all caustic exposure. Chlor-Alkali II will be implementing a seal modification on their centrifuge in 1987. If this modification works, then the Caustic Plant will also Implement the seal modification. Plans for 1987 also include mechanical seals in place of packing for the recirculation pumps. At minimum, the causes for packing leaks are being investigated.
Hydrochloric Acid Exposure Evaluation
Sampling Method and Guidelines
The AC^IH Threshold Limit Value for hydrochloric acid is a 5 ppm or a 7 mg/in ceiling. The threshold limit value is the time-weighted average concentration for a normal 8-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek to which all workers may be repeatedly exposed without adverse effect. However, the ceiling is the concentration that should not be exceeded during any part of the working exposure.
TBS 4/3/87:mls
0fo936
DO ^
ad
CO^F"1
Page 3
Hydrochloric Acid Exposure Evaluation
Sampling Methpd and Guidelines (cont'd)
Since hydrochloric acid is used in a batch process, the sample is taken as an area sample whenever the iron cells are being acidized. The air was tested for hydrochloric acid by using the impinger method over a 3-hour sampling period.
Area Monitoring
The only area with the potential for hydrochloric acid exposure is the iron cell area. When acidizing the iron cells, the hydrochloric acid is routed to open trenches. A survey was not done this year because this is a known high exposure area and is the only area possible for HC1 exposure. Presently, when the iron cells are acidized, an announce ment is made in the block to clear the area until the acidizing is com pleted, and it is usually done on the night shift to reduce potential exposures. Plans for 1987 include process design improvements to the iron cell area which will completely contain the acid in a piping system. These improvements will provide a more controlled means of containing HC1 in the block limits and then releasing it as needed.
Also, new hoods will be placed on the iron cells that will aid in re ducing acid exposure. Full face masks are required when acidizing the iron cells.
Noise Exposure Evaluation
Method and Guidelines
An Edmont Sound Level Meter type S2A was used to measure employees' exposure to noise and was also used as a sound level meter to measure area noise levels. The sound meter meets all current requirements established by U.S. government agencies. All noise measurements were made using an 80 and 90 dB(A) threshold level and a 90 dB(A) criterion level. The threshold is the level that noise must exceed to be in cluded in the dose calculation and the criterion is the decibel level that will yield a 100 percent dose in eight hours. The 90 dB(A) cri terion level is an OSHA regulation, but the Louisiana Division cri terion level is 85 dB(A). To obtain this dose level, multiply the allowable exposure limit by two. The sound meter was calibrated with an approved acoustical calibrator, the Edmont Sound Calibrator model 60-535, before and after all measurements were made.
Personnel Monitoring
Since ear protection is required to be worn in all high noise areas (above 85 db(A)) of the plant, the noise doses that were detected were potential doses. The potential doses are those the operators would have been exposed to if hearing protection was not worn.
A noise survey was not performed this year because of the results of the previous years' studies and since no process changes were made.
TBS 4/3/87:ml
106939 C0^.TDErnttal
Page 4
Noise Exposure Evaluation
Personnel Monitoring (cont'd)
In 1980t three samples were run on each job classification and showed that all jobs were within the allowable limits. A 1982 study revealed that all samples were within allowable limits. Six samples were taken each in the evaporator and finishing areas for the SOT classification and four for the 0T classification in the loading area. In 1983, four samples were caught: Two in the finishing area and two in the loading area. All samples showed minimum exposure. In 1984, only one sample from the finishing end exceeded the allowable limits. Personnel monitoring was not performed in 1985. Data from these previous studies are available in Attachments 1 to 6. The average potential exposure from 1980 to 1985 has been 22%.
Area Surveys
Area noise levels were measured over the previous six years as seen in the appendix. The high noise areas (greater than 90 dBA) are the evaporator area: E-201, E-202, E-203, E-204A, HE204: the air compressor area: AC-301: and the river water pumps P71A, P71B, P71C, and P71D.
All of the high noise areas listed above are designated ear protection areas. The perimeters of these areas are posted with high noise warning signs. All employees are informed of these areas annually in the safety meetings.
Sample Strategy
Future Plan
Hazard Caustic
TyP-e Personnel
// Samples 16
Quarter 4 th
Comments
Before and after work on iron cells
HC1 Area
4 4th Before and after work on iron cells
Noise
Personnel/ Area
16
3rd Identify source of noise
TBS 4/3/87:mls
DO 106940 C0NFXDFNTIA1
Page 5
Accomplishments in 1986
1. A high level alarm was installed on T-203, the hot salt settler tank, to prevent 50% caustic from overflowing over the top of the tank.
2. Two leaking iron cells were completely changed out with two brand new cells. The old cells were so badly corroded, they were scrapped.
3. The ejector on the iron cell venture scrubber is regularly cleaned to improve the efficiency of capturing all mists and vapors.
4. An overhead carbon steel steam line, that sometimes has caustic in it, was replaced with nickel pipe. The carbon steel line kept leaking, but the nickel piping will be a permanent repair.
5. Condensate is now being used instead of brine in the salt column to reduce corrosion.
6. The drain on the steam line to the evaporator evacuation system is routed to the ground to reduce the potential for exposure to steam/ condensate.
7. The use of a new kind of impact wrench reduces physical strain on the operators loading cars.
8. The vent on T-204, the salt settler, was modified to reduce expo sure to caustic mist.
9. Sections of the carbon steel brine line was replaced with lined pipe as a permanent solution to leaks in the line.
10. The monogoggle area was extended past the parking lot to the front office. This area is marked by a big yellow line.
11. Operators are required to wear a full slicker suit and face shield when opening pumps to reduce exposure to caustic.
12. The valve handles were repositioned on C-202, plug valves were in stalled in place of gate valves on T-205 for better handling, pump platforms were Installed in the evaporator area. All of the above were done to reduce physical strain.
Goals for 1987 ,
1. The iron cell area will be improved to reduce caustic and hydro chloric acid exposures.
2. The pumps to T-205 will be relocated so that the pumps can be ac cessed if T-205 overflows. The pumps are located directly under neath T-205 and they must be accessible to stop the further over flowing. Relocation of the pumps will also make them more reliable.
TBS 4/3/87:mls
DO 106941 CQNFTDETNTTAI
Page 6
Goals for 1987 (cont'd)
3. The Installation of demister pads on T-204, T-205 and D-205 vents will catch caustic vapors leaving the vents.
4. The best method to stop recirculation pump packing leaks will re duce exposure of operators to any caustic leaking through the packing.
5. The evaluation of a seal modification on the centrifuge at ChlorAlkali II will determine if the modification will be used on Caustic's centrifuge.
TBS 4/3/87:mls
106942 CONFIDENTIAL
December 31* 1980
ATTACY\rf\ f^T
L
All Caustic Plant Personnel
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SURVEYS FOR NOISE AND AMMONIA AND CAUSTIC IN THE AIR
Belov is a summary of the surveys vhich were conducted during the month of December.
The ammonia samples are area samples which were-run for three hours at a time. Eight different samples were caught. The TLV for ammonia-is 18 mg/m^. The lowest sample caught was .367 mg/m3 while the highest one was A.Ill mg/m^.
The caustic samples were personnel samples run for one hour periods. The TLV for caustic is 2 mg/m3. Three samples were caught on each classification.
SS OS SOT - Finishing SOT - Evaporator OT
High .034 .023 .016 .034 .023
Low .006 .010 <.004 .009 .021
The noise results are expressed as a percentage with 100' being the maximum allowable eight hour exposure without any hearing protection. Three samples were caught on each classification.
SS OS SOT - Finishing SOT - Evaporator OT
High 7
21 15 28 17
Low 1 1 2
22 14
As you can see, all of our jobs and areas within the allowable limits. -If you have any questions about these surveys, please see me. Please sign and date this letter and return to me.
w/ B. J. Prescott Environmental Health Representative
lne
I have read, this letter ____ ^ ___________________ _____ _____________ Please sign and date and return to me.
DO 106943 CONFIDENTIAL
FILLED IN BY_ ~t&
77to
-
PLANT Cjh/mc
IHCHIU'CMT TfJL * LOYEE EXPOSURE SUMMARY
QUARTER ^rud YEAR / 9 8*0
BLOCK
C/tuST?c.STRESS
MINIMAL DETECTABLE LIMIT AND UNIT
DO 1 0 6 9 4 4 CO NFIDENTIAL
PERSONNEL
AREA
EXCURSION
JOB CLASS
orr-
AREA/ TASK
OT
SOT
OS
ss iBt Fw*irf
*
*PT. TWA
NO.
SAMPLE
EQ. BASIS SAMPLES AVG. HIGH DURATION
Y\fiWL YW
YlBAH-
tm
r
3 3 3
.o/7 .oo~7 .Gib 3
.&(ff .ah
NO. SAMPLES
LAB
TECH CLER.
*
INSTR
LABORER i SUMMER
EXCUR.
NO.
AVG. HIGH DURATION SAMPLES AVG. HIGH
i
il
CONT MAINT
NON-OS SPEC.
SECUR.
MATL CONT
1 LOADING
T/C CLNG
KCRS/NON OP
AREA SAMP
Vno jc>
**
*
1
*
.g, t%sc'a'yf
FILLED IN BY
PLANT Ca-usTi C
ATTACHMZHT -to B>
EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE SUMMARY
QUARTER S/2 cl
% (jon-%60^
BLOCK
/ MINIMAL DETECTABLE STRESS f\/AfS LIMIT AND UNIT
YEAR l3M
PERSONNEL
AREA
EXCURSION
JOB CLASS
AREA/ TASK
OTT
OT
SOT RVfir?
OS
SS
6Sfrn(j 1 H"
*PT. EO.
s
TWA BASIS
s S'
&
NO. SAMPLES
3
3
X
3
AVG.
/$
n
S'
7
SAMPLE HIGH DURATION
n,
2l
7
ts*
NO. SAMPLES
EXCUR.
NO.
AVG. HIGH DURATION SAMPLES AVG. HIGH
\
LAB TECH
*
CLER.
INSTR
LABORER
SUMMER
CONT MAINT
NON-OS SPEC.
t SECUR.
KATL CONT
i
*
LOADINC T/C CLNG
*
MGRS/NON OP
- area samp fun' tr^
\
u) Y a
) c-t 5 1 1
,
ATTAClVNACMT
1982 INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE SAMPLE RESULTS
Hazard
Noise
VV II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II
IteGH
ii i
ii
it
ii
it
ii
ti
ii
it it
ii
it
ii ii
. ii
Ammonia
11 II
HC1
Classification
Sample (%)
Area
Comments
SOT
11 It II 11 II II II II II II II II
OT
II II It II
SOT
II II II II 11 II II It II It 11
OT
II I II II
SOT Area
11 II
28 Evaporators
64 17 37 89 10 29 16 19 13
5 5 5 5 11 1 1 1 .016
/&
11 II II II II II
Finishing
11
II II
II II
Loading
II
11
11
II
1 Evaporators
.015 .01 .01 .01
.017 .01
.01 .01 .028 .01 .01
.011
.015 .01 .01
wJ-01
It II
II
Finishing
II
II It II It
Finishing Loading
II 11 II It
(120 min) 1.7ppm (125 min)111.Oppm (120 min) 4.2ppm (180 min) 0.8ppm (180 min) 24.4ppm
Finishing Purification
II
Upwind Downwind
100% is equal to an 8 hr. TWA of 90 dba Sample duration 6-8 hrs.
TLV * 2mg/m Ceiling Sample duration 6-8 hrs.
TLV=2mg/m Ceiling
TLV25ppm (v/v) 0SHA 8h T.W.A.-35ppm (v/v)
3 TLV-5 ppm or 7mg/m ceiling.
00 106947 CONFIDENTIAL
Attach
3
1/5/83
ALL CAUSTIC PLANT PERSONNEL
INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE SAMPLES AND RESULTS FOR FOURTH QUARTER OF 1982
CAUSTIC - TLV is 2 mg/m3
Four samples caught.
,,
Evaporator area (2) both less than 0.01 mg/gi .
Finishing area (2) both less than 0.01 mg/m ,
NOISE - TLV is 85 dBA for eight (8) hours. If operator stayed eight (8) hours in 85 dBA area, sample results would read 100%. Four samples were caught. Finishing area (2) both 5%. Loading area (2) both 1%.
Industrial Hygiene Representative mis
The industrial hygiene samples and the results, for the fourth quarter of 1982 have been discussed with me.
PLEASE SIGN AND DATE
00 106948
confidential
JUNE 25,1984
ATTACMM feMT -*t 4-
ALL CAUSTIC PLANT PERSONNEL
BELOW'IS A SUMMARY OF THE SURVEY WHICH WAS CONDUCTED DURING THE WEEK OF JUNE 18, 1984.
THE SAMPLES ARE GIVEN AN A PERCENT OF 100. EXAMPLE - IF AN OPERATOR WAS EXPOSED TO 90 dBA FOR EIGHT(8) HOURS, THE SAMPLE WOULD READ 100%. IF THE OPERATOR WAS EXPOSED TO 90 dBA FOR FOUR (4) HOURS, THE SAMPLE WOULD READ 50%.
EVAP. AREA
FINISHING END
IOADER
SHIFT SUPV
76% 29% 0% 15%
0%
109%
26%
36% 0%
51% 55%
SAM BOUDREAUX SAFETY/TRAINING/ENVIRONMENTAL
no 106^50
confidential
^TTACMMEOr 4*4 CAUSTIC PLANT NOISE SURVEY JUliE 19&4
8KE WOULD LUCE TO GET A H01SE SAMPLE FOR A DURATION OF
WEAR THE DOSIMETER FOR THE DURATION OF THE TEST.
HOURS. PLEASE
TIME
CARTRIDGE
DATE START STOP NUMBER
ms 026<mn *
| f-'/f'
, , /v (FRONT)
*/ E.O.T.
(,-n
ms oi/
03 59
3 rft /
f+ . /
O.S.
(BACK) S.O.T.
(FRONT) S.O.T.
kit ObOV Ifco kit Oloo nilco
o53o-/? 3. o<i O
/g 37 l/l/
^ *? -5 O.T.
i-/y 3000 o$3& *ht.
&x. . (BACK) / E.O.T.
Cso cooo
(, 3
7^ f) O.T.
'oOo O'Vo 030 97
NAME
*
RESULT |5?0
W ?6f.
fact: OCmlL^ les^g- tho/aas
ri8?a *2.4%
7+-C v/-9
A '/a 51* **. J1 JfigA. <f )OoU>eo ua f4
0%
0% 10 9g
75& IfaZE'OT_______ l(*%
/
/
/
/
S
SAM BOUDREAUX SAFETY/TRAINING
DO 106951 DONFIDfr/vriA/
Attach mt
CAUSTIC PLANT NOISE SURVEY JUNE 1984
WE WOULD LIKE TO GET A NOISE SAMPLE FOR A DURATION OF WEAR THE DOSIMETER FOR THE DURATION OF THE TEST.
HOURS. PLEASE
TIME
CARTRIDGE
DATE START STOP NUMBER
NAME
RESULT
(FRONT) S.O.T.
aaflL (BACK) S.O.T. (FRONT) S.O.T.
O.T. (BACK) S.O.T.
O.T.
km
o-n/tj
Dtyi
tatty l?oo
)$0D mo
/S'
3? fv/
*39
2,7/Z/df<r
36
-&
Qf/cht'd'Cllrtty
{(J/orf*/ ) ^
SAM BOUDREAUX SAFETY/TRAINING
DO 106952 CONFIDENTIAL
AttachMthir #5
g. 8..
cj i/5~ coMpieTeb a t^ofs<p
(m T(+
CauspV pC^nT;
'=b*(i*n $ R-lj 5c~(ZS&RSt
ATTAcIAGO is '774-E R
loth- T&e
/j(P(SG /"?/?vfsr C< a.jD(F/2-L/sv.D . S/6m$ co Ul &<G PuT
Ujp / AJ ( AAfc AJ <5 /T-/2-- /--CV 7"V/2c j & Lf T~ Cr OC-/L>-^ c5 /U<? tO G&~-Ps
TO f><P ?9-ts/4r2G' &F TfrS Ri?cacC>rr s9-/Z~ey9-5 /}svD UJ&&/Z-
~/-M?// J-T /ZA/u& p/?oTcT*& *J /9S Qut/2Si>.
*^TCn^ ^3\
4Jl<4 f^O/SC? frfltflS 1 - flc. 3a f
Z- 00 0<r<7
3 V-^-i "`o
V- P 7,1 f 'a
i'- (Z **-> pu*if>s
6 ~ c C.
u $(Ai$
f/vip-fcli uljQSAJtti-
"7 ' f * P-7^r'p
z AaZfi'ts
/6 *- e - "2*W 4 ^ ,is^
DO 106954 CONFTDFNTrAL.
CfiU6,fL >1 o' /IFH wb
/ \ r*. w * * \ hioise SURVEY
AttachSA
2.05 ] 3
00
89
?r
fo
9
&*/#) ss ' 93-
<97 T)Ov*J M
0?
^2^4<rMp'<~?
?3
^
<9/
F ROklT OFFICE.
4 a FtnuirJ&s I|0 DBA
DO 106955 CONFIDENTIAL
I AREA ~B Moise suRsiev
Arr^CHKAtor **=
I
*4
c5c
CAus'i't
$<f5,ooo *t 5 Ttrirt < i *- 'VP#
<0 vUitvO
AIL iW' DBA
DO 106956 CONFIDENTIAL
j
I ' lcI( IJr
*
it
n
?
Ih m j
IID ?
1*
Mhil m1 1I}
i
Jt
l(Ut )
Mi r
il
tl
fl
No\se suRMev
AREA C
a. attach wtur 4i se
FllB
F* l ID
6S
F-tllA
F-EI1C.
s'-e-8</ ChucTic
"0** JfP# o/#C>
T-e.i ) 'k8 [ t-^8
555
? k
(
9n/sn Ti
-e^
T^MICTRUCIC
LoADIklb BAC
TAnJVl CAR.
LOAD) Mb R>OL
kLU
i4 DBk
______________ ^ Dovj ., V4
DO 106959 CONFIDENTIAL
MUI l fvvnirlOiOn
tl'
tf
(
ltfiWut hilHHl fti
Mcail
0(
tliiclti
{I
( Ct
AK.c.n /-v
Attach tAfcWT #6
N'Qi-SE SURVJE^
JL.
*W- /a -/t'-f'S'
g'a.
L
M.
JC &L
i3l 1/e-j.vtP, tf
2.
Jr?>
Ik
Fromt off ice
DeuJ
All
DO 106961 CONFTDFNTIAl
(N
ALL DBA !
i
I AREA fl__________ I go--
__________ _
kmcMAeuT* fee
i i
t
it#/Ac, /D?r
jzi
i2L|
TKvnCTHOC c LoADIklb RACK,
TAhJK. CAR. LOADING R.ACK
M.L
______ _X
Dovj \si
DO 106964 CONFIDENTIAL
1ST
Area 5
%3z
( HE.-EJ'S ~) <//
i i 1 i i
1 DO 10696^ CONFIDENT IAI.
1 AR FA fl
7(,
FllB
f- ana
f
F*IIA
F-BI1C
)j&
h iM i- ll I i I I hi
:il
u
Tl'iViK-rtICCKI . LoAbnJb RAC*C
TAMk. CAR. LOAtrJl>
X
DOVJ Kj
DO 106968 CONFTDfTNTIAl
^____________
p0viJ
N1
I
7#7#GSFtlAVE BATON ROUGE. LA 70608
4 Q*~>
DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY Plaquetnine, Louisiana
January 23, 1987
One (1) filter cassette sample was received at West-Paine Laboratories, Incorporated January 6, 1987 for the analysis of asbestos content. This sample was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at a magnification of 2,000X to determine the size and quantity of fibers present. Each fiber observed was identified using energy dispersive x-ray spectrometer (EDS) analysis according to NIOSH method 7402. The result of this analysis is listed on the attached data sheet.
r>
Microscopy Laboratory Supervisor
^WEST-PAIN E Ja&oycLtoxijeA inc. M
797 GSRI AVE. BATON ROUGE, LA 70820
SAMPLE ID: 07413
This sample could not be quantified due to the high concentration of fiberous and non-fiberous organic material present. Four (4) photomicrographs were taken for illustration. A log for these pictures is provided below. Cl) Secondary electron image at 500X showing several large and
small organic fibers. A high concentration of non-fiberous organic and inorganic particles are also present. (2) Backscattered electron image at 500X showing the same field as shown in photo #1. Inorganic particles exhibit high contrast bright images. Organic particles exhibit low contrast subdued images. (3) and (4) Secondary electron images at 2000X showning two fields of organic fibers.
/ DO 106971 CONFIDENTIAL
/ I i
i
C0O0NFl0IDfeEMNTTTIAALl
4
*
/
;l
D0 106973
confidential
4
OB-Aua-86 7i19 FM
2n O
M S-*.
nOi o 2H vj
2>
Worksheet: (17) HH INVENTORY
Rfdloni A1..E17
IHA2ARD0US MATERIAL
1
1 |ACETIC ACID
|ACETONE
| ACETYLENE
>
(AMMONIUM HYDROXIDE, >12% AND <44% AMMONIA
|AMMONIUM FLUORIDE
1 AMMONIDH ACETATE
|ARGON, COMPRESSED
1 BORIC ACID
1 CARBON DIOXIDE
1 CHLOROFORM
1 COFFER CHLORIDE
IF001- RCRA HASTE NUMBER
(FERRIC CHLORIDE SOLUTION
(FERRIC CHLORIDE, SOLID
IHELIUM, COMPRESSED
1HYDROCHLORIC ACID
1ISOFROFANOL
(LEAD NITRATE
(LITHIUM CHROMATE
IMERCURIC THIOCYANATE
1 HEP CURIC IODIDE
1 METHYL ALCOHOL
(HETHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
1 NICKEL
(NICKEL SULFATE
INITRIC ACID, >40%
(NITROGEN, COMPRESSED
I0IL: LUBRICATING
I0IL: MOTOR
1 OXYGEN, COMPRESSED
(PAINT RELATED MATERIALS
)FETROLEUM ETHER
(FHENOL
(POTASSIUM CHROMATE
IFOTASSIUM IODIDE
(PROPANE
(3ILVER NITRATE
1 SODIUM CHLORATE
1 SODIUM HYDROXIDE, DRY SOLID
1 SODIUM HYDROXIDE, LIQUID
|SULFURIC ACID
ITHIOCLYCOLIC ACID
|TOLUENE
1 ZINC CNLORIDE SOLUTION
1A1 B
11 1! 1 1X 1 1X t 1X I 1X t !X
1 tX 1 1X
11
1 1X 1 1X 1 1X
11 1 1X 1 1X 1 1X
1 (X 1 1X 1 1X
11
11 1 1X 1 1X
!1
1X1 11 tX1 X 1 1X 1 1X 1 1X 1 1X 1 1X t 1X 1X1X i 1X
11 1 1X 1 1X 1 1X 1 1X 1 (X 1X1 X 1 1X 1 1X 1 1X
.
'
/' ?''
/
'
I ,, '
f
1 rJ
'
Fao*! 1- 1 lfl-Au<J-H6 7(19 PH
lorkaheet t (17) HH INVENTORY
Redloni F1..H47
c1ni
'l I
1t X 1X1
X1 X1
!xI
XtxI
X tx I
X 1 xI
11
1x(
x1
X 1xI
X1XI
X1
\
X xI
X1xj
1
X1XI
1X(
X1X1
X1
1
X1
1
1XI
X1XI
X1XI
X1
1
11
X1 XI
I1
1X1
1 X1
(
I1
1I
X1 X(
X 1 X1
1x1 Ix1
X1xI
1X1
X1xI
X1x X1xI
11
X1xI
X 1X1
i 1
j t 1
CODE
AAC ACT ACE AMH AFR AAT
BAC CDO CRF CPC
FCL FCL
HCL I FA LNT
MID MAL MIK
NAC
OLB OHT
FHN FCH FT I PRP SVN 5DC SHD SHD SPA
TOL ZCL
t QUANTITY 1
11
11 | 91 | 6001 | 2601 | B31 ( 2| | 11 1 350 1 ) 21 ) 901 | 16| | 11
1 1200) | 1! | 2| | 30| | 150001 | 41
| 1] | 401 1 1) ( 11 ( 141 ) 4|
1 11 1 11 | 1B4(
1 7641 | 5000( | 501
1 5601 | 360)
1 St | 11 | 11 | 4|
( 30| | 231 | 2| | 5| | 500000001 | 131 ] 4|
| 4| | 11
COHHENTS 1
LAB
|
LAB LAB LAB
LAB
LAB LAB
| j |
|
| |
25500 MAX LAB LAB
LAB LAB LAB LAB LAB LAB LAB
7300 MAX
| | |
( ( ( | ( | I
|
LAB LAB LAB LAB
t | | I
LAB
|
LAB
|
LAB
|
120000000 MAX |
LAB
(
LAB
|
LAB
|
LAB
|
Pad* 1-2
/
DO 1 0 6 9 7 5
C O N F ID E N T IA L .
/m
SAFETY & LOSS PREVENTION STANDARD - S-310
HEARING CONSERVATION & NOISE CONTROL
Scope: The purpose of this Standard Is to define permissible levels of exposure to noise in the Louisiana Division of The Dow Chemical Company In order to prevent noise Induced hearing loss.
1. Essential Requirements of Hearing Conservation Programs A. Baseline audiogram for all employees.
B. Definition of high noise level work areas.
C. Monitoring of noise exposures for employees working In high noise level areas.
D. Follow-up audiometric testing as part of the annual physical exam program.
E. Education of personnel in the consequences of exposure to excessive noise levels.
F. Maintain a written noise abatement program for all high noise level areas.
2. Permissible Exposure LlmltB
A. The permissible exposure to continuous noise shall not exceed an eight hour time-weighted average of 85 dB(A), with a doubling rate of 5 dB(A), which means that the allowable exposure time doubles with each 5 dB(A) reduction in noise level.
(1) Steady State Noise - Single Level
Permitted Sound Pressure Levels Versus Duration of Exposure
Sound Level dB(A)
`
Duration Per Day ___ Hours
85 8
90 4
95 2
100 1
105 1/2
110 1/4
115*
1/8
*No exposure to Continuous or Intermittent in excess of 115 dB(A).
(2) Impulse or Impact Noise
Exposure to Impulse or impact noifee shall not exceed a peak sound pressure level of 140 dB(A).
DO 106976 CONFIDENTIA
HEARIBG CONSERVATION & NOISE CONTROL - S-310
Page 2
3. Responsibilities
A. Plant Superintendent - Must maintain a written noise abatement program intended to prevent excessive noise exposure which can result in hearing loss among his employees. An abatement program shall consist of one or all of three possible methods of control: personal protective equipment, administrative, and engineering depending on feasibility.
B. Industrial Hygiene Representative - Will conduct the annual noise surveys in all areas, personnel monitoring, and additional surveys as needed in problem areas. He must also maintain necessary records of area and personnel monitoring as well as signed documentation of employee education and training.
C. Industrial Hygiene Department - Is responsible for keeping supervision informed of present and proposed noise regulations, supplying technical guidance as needed, and continually monitoring the division program to assure that the division remains within Dow, State and Federal government regulations.
D. Medical Department - Will provide the audiometric evaluation services
and documentation thereof.
Medical is also responsible for
determining employee's capabilities to use various types of hearing
protectors.
4. Sound Monitoring Equipment
A. All instrumentation used for noise measurements within the Louisiana -t Division must conform to the American National Standard
specifications.
(1) Sound Level Meters - Meet ANSI SI.4-1976.
(2) Audiodosimeters - Meet ANSI SI.25-1978 with an operating range of 85-120 dB.
B. Instruments available in the Louisiana Division include several types of sound level measuring instruments and approved audio dosimeters. For details in proper instrumentation use and availability contact the Industrial Hygiene Department.
i
t C. Calibration - An approved acoustical calibrator is necessary to verify accuracy of the instruments used. All equipment must be calibrated before and after measurements are made. A signed notation confirming calibration must be made on all data recorded.
5. Employee Education
*
The education portion of the hearing conservation and noise control program shall include the following:
A. Employees who can potentially be overexposed to noise will be informed annually of the consequences of overexposure to noise and the precautions required to protect their hearing.
^0 106977 conftoenttai.
HEARING CONSERVATION & NOISE CONTROL - S-310
Page 3
Dgram I t in 1 isist 1. sonal g on
toise s as s of i of
sion Bf ylng 1: sion m
and *
Ices K for I
ring I
ana ard
of
pes rs. the
B. Employees who work in high noise areas will be informed of the results of the annual noise survey.
C. Employees who are required to use personal protective equipment because of high noise levels will be trained in the proper use and care of the devices.
6. Control Measures
A. Engineering controls shall be used whenever feasible to meet the acceptable noise exposure limit.
B. Until engineering controls are Installed or deemed not feasible two types of control measures are available.'
(1) acceptable noise exposure levels<
(2)
equipment (i.e., ear muffs) may be authorized for the employees. The plant/department is responsible for furnishing equipment and enforcing use.
7. Warning
% A.
A caution sign shall be at entrance and around the periphery of areas
where the noise levels exceed 90 dB(A). The sign must include the following:
WARNING NOISE AREA MAY CAUSE HEARING LOSS USE PROPER EAR PROTECTION
B. All signs shall be in accordance with OSHA's regulations for "CAUTION" signs - black letters on yellow background. Yellow sign blanks are available in the division Stock Department.
-fy
:ed :ng
am
ed he
DO 106978 CONFIDENTIAL
CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE TRAINING DOCUMENTATION RECORD
DATE: CONTRACTOR:
__
SUBJECTS COVERED:
PLANT: _S^5Xi^__X.____ Cov^wiM isj \ ciet^ ^0
EMPLOYEES ATTENDING
INSTRUCTOR
Cor.crsctcr /% i tO/lc< I fflcoA'^c <?
73zSL7
\'.\V /l/> //-/ .
pe/j-'Us T&}r rps
U N\e-
o fr\ C. b-^<
DO 106979 CONFIDENTIAL
DOW EMPLOYEE TRAINING DOCUMENTATION RECORD
DATE: 5'T-Vfto SUEJECTS COVERED:
PLANT:
(k\*^ ^
^
INSTRUCTOR: y>SL
EMPLOYEES ATTENDING: Name
Classification
f.S.
Z.J.T,
S o<r~
&5
fT
c?Z
Master No.
4S/& Os #3*?/ H3ais1
m o?j 43 W
VJ30?/
_D i06980 CNrrDIENTrAL
DOW EMPLOYEE TRAINING DOCUMENTATION RECORD
DATE: SUBJECTS COVERED: OS\\f
PLANT: _S
INSTRUCTOR
EMPLOYEES ATTENDING:
_NN aitttee_______________________Classif ication
M.&-1 bh/'t-j C__
So <Z<pT
yij CSrM^
1't f?. ~Th c
Ti
Master_N o. 3 30^
y t -* f-
DO 106981 CONFIDENTIAL.
DOW EMPLOYEE TRAINING DOCUMENTATION RECORD
DATE:
__ PLANT:
SUBJECTS COVERED: Wfv'^'U
rJ u ffrwivi
INSTRUCTOR
licuil.,
_____
EMPLOYEES ATTENDING Name
/ >
^u^Jl V
'
^/r-
Classification
o. s.
^ 5.
O5 $>'O-) .
5- s.
S v7~
oS
SOT
<P*
__ Master No.___ "a 3 \i ? t~
^3 2 3 ft?
y?p>' i'7
lj 333^$
if 3 o86^f /r-?/<f-2.^ 4/J0 f93T~
&33 *4/7
//J
^^
r,0 1.069S? CONFtOFMTTAV..
DOW EMPLOYEE TRAINING DOCUMENTATION RECORD
DATE: ------------3-- r-H--i-l-
SUBJECTS COVERED:
PLANT: P^p
fj ^ L+'!Xrt>cI
INSTRUCTOR: ^*0.' 6&Ab,^
EMPLOYEES ATTENDING: Name
Classification 03 .
Serf
__Master No.
^53Z37 ~
V335"7^.
V 3 3(^/7^
2-Y JOlh^^r^
<r.5. oT
S-tf.7-
Gn l>p h
<y 3 ^/ 7.2</$/'?'? f
y3
o f s1 s i r*
733/y 7
i/ ? o s 7 5
Do J06983
CONFIDENTTA!
DOW EMPLOYEE TRAINING DOCUMENTATION RECORD
DATE: SUBJECTS COVERED:
PLANT:
INSTRUCTO><X^l
EMPLOYEES ATTENDING: Name
Classification
~$CT
Master No.t~
'tf? 3 eS /'
106934 CONFrDTNTrAL