Document VKyeeYzxyLjBNa3KQMgZvrXqw

u.s. d e p a r t me n t o f l a b o r OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL SOLICITOR :V-5 MARKET STREET, ROOM 14-5SO PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19104 :i 5-5v'6-l 126 June 7} 1978 The Honorable Joseph L. Chalk Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 6525 Belcrest Road, Suite 1005 Hyattsville, Maryland 20782 Re: NIi Industries, Inc. v. Marshall OSHRC Docket No. 77-2539-P, Region III Dear Judge Chalk: Enclosed please find copies of Respondent's initial statement of objection to the Petition for Modification of Abatement Date in the above captioned matter. Said objection was inadvertently for warded to the Review Commission offices. Also enclosed please find a detailed Response in Opposition to the Petition for Modification of Abatement Date. As indicated on the Certificate of Service, appropriate copies have been served. Respectfully yours. Marshall H. Harris Regional Solicitor Enclosure cc: Thomas E. Anderson, Plant Manager SOL:JTC:dad N 27284 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION NL INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner V. RAYMARSHALL, SECRETARY OPLABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. : : i OSHRC DOCKET NO. 77-2539-P : RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF ABATEMENT DATE_________ j Respondent, Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, by his attorneys hereby opposes the Petition for Modification of Abatement Date therein, and as grounds therefor states that: 1. On March 20, 1978 NL Industries, Incorporated sub mitted a petition for modification of abatement date with regard to Citation K9638 No. 63 issued December 22, 1975. Copies of said Petition and Citation are attached hereto made a part hereof and marked Exhibits A&B. 2. Respondent opposes the two (2) year modification of abatement date sought by Petitioner on the grounds that, N 27284.01 NL 000041259 (a) as a result of a PMA monitoring visit to Petitioner's plant on April 26 and 27, 1978, it was determined that no substantial progress has been made in cited areas during the one-year period since the last petition. (b)' the visit further revealed Petitioner failed to mention any past efforts toward abatement or future proposals in the Oxide Department (instance "a" of the original citation) in their petition. The inspection revealed no changes in this area nor could company representatives provide any sound explanation for the oversight. (c) There has been virtually no progress toward reducing airborne lead concentrations at the continuous dryer operations (instance "e" of the original citation. (d) As regards the packing stations it was stated that only a four-month delivery time would be required on ventilation and dust collection equipment. e) The Petitioner has not given sufficient assurances C^,A. j^-that all available interim steps have been taken to safeguard the employees against the cited hazard during the abatement period. 2- - Nt 000041260 Petitioner continues to refuse to provide the biological lead monitoring data of employees for examination. Such data is the best known indicator of the effectiveness of employee protection against lead exposure when airborne concentrations are known to be excessive and where housekeeping is a factor. WHEREFORE in light of the foregoing Respondent opposes the Petition for Modification of Abatement Date and requests that it be denied. Carin Ann Clauss Solicitor of Labor Marshall H. Harris Regional Solicitor Joseph T. Crawford Attorney UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Attorneys for Complainant. NL 000041261 r- Industrial Chemicals March 20, 1978 Mr. Walter E. Wilson Area Director Occupational Safety & Health Administration Suite 4256, Federal Building 600 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Citation K5638, No', 63, December 22, 1975 Dear Mr. Wilson: This will serve as our petition for modification of the abatement period for the above citation. In order to resolve all aspects-of the above referenced citation, ML Industries, Inc. respectfully requests a two year extension of the present' abatement period for the Philadelphia plant. i ' The additional time is necessary because circumstances beyond our control have prevented us from fully abating the cited conditions. Despite installation of existing recognized engineering controls in an effort to correct the conditions, certain areas appear to- require further attention. Furthermore, because of the inter-relationship and close proximicy of seme of the cited areas, conditions in some areas may have deleterious effects on conditions in other areas, despite the absence of any local contributing cause. For certain of 'bhis plant's processes, at present no feasible engineering controls ^appear to be appropriate and which can be applied to the plant's affected processes. NI has therefore .embarked on a program to design 'new technological solutions. The work involved is complex. We have installed feasible engineering controls wherever practicable. With respect to the plant's efforts to date, since March 1977, we have allocated resources as depicted in the attached table. Considerable time and engineering effort have been expended on our Number 5 Flash Dryer Packer. This packer is to serve as a prototype for our other Industrial Chemicals Division'N'L '-.c-sr^es. he. 2545 Arsmingo Avenue, ?n*iace ?a. 13-25 Tel. (215)426-0600 NL 000041262 N 27284.02 Page Two packing stations. To date, we have redesigned #5 Packer th stages and now have an engineering model which meets the re specified in the Industrial Ventilation Manual (see excerpt We now have a packer which has a uniform 300 linear feet pe face velocity, which should theoretically control any dust sa the packer. Personal monitoring of the men working at this location has a yielded sporadic results, due to several factors: a variable: :>f the product being packed, excessive sifting of the bag i: an excessive amount of powder dropping from the packer noz the bag. To alleviate these problems, we have made further in the prototype, are investigating installing an automatic surge the nozzle of remaining product, and are experimentin' "sift-proof* bag and "heat sealing" of the bag spout. Upon of the development of this prototype, we plan to adapt it to packing stations. The proctor-Sc'nwartz Continuous Dryer has developed into an saga problem. We have had'difficulty in maintaining a. negative in the vicinity of the dryer without inhibiting drying effii recently had a respresentative from P & S visit our facility attempt to gain further insight into the problems associateddryer. We have to date spent $57,300 in an effort to upgradefit system and are presently installing a new mill at a cost of to try to "clean-up" that stage of the operation. Lead-in-r indicated that the dryer is still operating unsatisfactorily ^/appears that novel technology will have to be developed. We recently purchased a GCA RDM201 Mass Monitor in an effort to. the specific problem points. In addition to our current work in the cited areas, we have the process of improving the following equipment: 45X Packs Pot Dust Collection; and Compactor Dust Collection. Additionally, several engineering concepts are being develo; lead-in-air values. First, a process has been developed whi render part of our production "dustless". The installation facility is scheduled for this year at an approximate cost drJ Secondly, a semi-bulk "air pallet" system is being developed^ and for the storage of intermediate products used in the pia*, our corporate engineering staff is investigating novel pack: with which to replace our present packers. In order to ensure that the health of our employees is main during the interim period necessary to complete our engineezig studies and facilities modification we have the following prgg in progress: A. Respiratory Protection - Consistent with provisions of NL 000041263 Pager Three- rs */ 3. Biological Monitoring - Employes blood lead levels are monitored every six to eight weeks by a certified physician, dependent upon job classification. C. Administrative Control - Employee time in "lead" areas is subject to strict limitations based upon the medical evaluation issued by the company physician. D. Education - The plant Safety Supervisor evaluates work practices, respirator usage, housekeeping, and personal hygiene throughout the plant and initiates corrective measures when necessary The plant Safety Supervisor's efforts are being effectively complemented by the assistance of the Divisional Industrial Hygiene and Safety Manager The above\programs are providing full protection. In conlusion, while we are making considerable progress, we have not achieved abatement in the cited areas. Because of the complexity and magnitude of the problem we respectfully request a two year extension of our abatement date. The two year period requested is critical to the further development, purchase, and installation of engineering controls. In this connection, we would be pleased to review with you- our specific timetable needs. 1 NL INDUSTRIES, INC. Industrial Chemicals Division THOMAS E. ANDERSON Plant Manager TEA/tle C; G. Smigo, President I.A.M.A.W. District #1, Local 2568 Plant Posting Nl,, 000041264  N 27284.03 ! FEC1F1C OPERATIONS MisceIlsncc-.:s Specific Cperalion Standards (Continued} 5-93" Operation or Industry Drilling (rocks) Electric Arc Furnaces Forge (hand) Packaging Machines * ' 3aper Machine Juartz fusing lubber Calendar rolls ilver Soldering .earn Kettles arnish kettles ire Impregnating ' ` Ventilation Type of Hood Air How or Capture Velocity Minimum Transport Velocity fpra Special trap (see references) 60 cfra- -vertical (downward) work 200 cfra--horizontal work References and Remarks (9, 17, 18) May vary with size and speed of drill Patented hood Canopy 2500 cfm/ton charge 200 fpm through area between furnace and canopy 3500 2000 (1, 22, 23) ----- High air volumes required (9) Booth--enclosure 200 fpra at face ..1500 (14) ------ Booth Downdraft s Complete / Enclosure^' 50-100 fpra at face 95-150 fpra down ip0-400 fpm opening 3000 4000 / ------ Canopy 200-300 fpm at face 1500 (14) ------ . Booth on bench 150-200 fpm at face (35, 36) ------ Canopy--side panels 75-100 fpm indraft 3500 (14, 39) ------ Free Hanging 100 fpm at source 2000 -- Canopy 150 fpm at face 2000 -- Canopy 200-250 fpm at face 1500 (14, 39) ... * Covered tanks 200 cfm/sq ft of opening -- (46) Chlorinated napthalenes & diphenyls N 27284.04 NL 000041266 HOOD DESIGN DATA TABLE 4-1 RANGE OF CAPTURE VELOCITIES.{7,24) Condition Of Dispersion Tfi,U. i of Contaminant_______________________ Ex a-pies ` Released with practically no velocity into quiet air. Evaporation from tanks; degreasing, etc_. ` Released at low velocity into moderately still air. ..... ................... / Active generation into zone of 'u rapid air motion Spray booths; intermittent container filling; low soeed conveyor transfers: welding; plating- pickling J Spray painting in shallow booths; barrel filling; conveyor loading; crushers Released at high initial velocity into zone of very rapid air motion. Grinding; abrasive blasting, tumbling ~ 4-5 ' * Capture Velocity, fpm_______ 50-100 100-200 / --- N. C22^l J> . V 500-2000 - Hood Design Procedure Effective control of a contaminant producing process is brought about by first eliminating or minimizing all air motion about the process and then capturing the contaminated air by causing it to flow into the exhaust hood. Flow toward the suction opening must be sufficiently high to maintain the necessary capture velocity and to overcome opposing air currents. -* Elimination of sources of air motion as a first step in hood design is an important factor in cutting down /r. the required air volume and the corresponding power consumption. Important sources of air motion are: 1. Thermal air currents, especially from hot processes or heat-generating operations.* . f 2. Motion of machinery, ashy a grinding wheel, belt conveyor, etc. .3. Material motion, as in dumping or container filling. 4. Movements of the operator. 5. Room-air currents (which are usually taken at 50 fpm minimum and may be much higher). 6. Spot cooling and heating equipment. The shape of the hood, its size, location and rate of air flow are important design considerations. The hood should enclose the operation as much as possible. If enclosure is not practicable, the hood should be located as closje as possible to the source and shaped to control the area of contamination. Flanges should be used whenever possible to eliminate exhausting airjrom ineffective areas {see page 4-1) and also to decrease the hood entry loss. HoocI Entry Coefficient and Static Pressure If by creating Suction air enters an opening, a typical flow pattern results as shown in Figure 4-2. Maximum convergence of the air stream occurs at a short distance downstream at the plane of the vena contracts where the diameter of th jet Is smaller than the diameter of the duct. The formation of the vena contracia is accompanied by a conversion of static pressure to velocity pressure and from velocity pressure hack to static pressure. A loss of about 2% in static pressure results from the conversion of sialic to velocity pressure and a much greater loss in static pressure results from the conver sion of velocity pressure at the vena contracta to static pressure as the air fills the duct. The area of the ai^ stream at the vena contracta will vary with the shape of the hood or duct opening and for most hood shapes .wiU.range from 70S to 100S of the duct area. N 27284.05 NL 000041267 r*v. 600 Arch Street -- Suite 425S> Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1910& (215) 597-4955/6/7 TO: 2. NL INDUSTRIES 2607 Curcf>irla**. Street Philadelphia,Pennsylvania 19125 1 i t l I ! . _J 3. Citation Number. 4. Page 1 of 5. ft; TVF OF ALLEGED ^WEATIONfS): EBP A T E D 7. 1275 An inspection vvasaBde nn9/29.30 & 10/7,?; 19 JZ5 of a place of employment located at: ug, s-2607 Cumberland St. , Phi la., PA __________________________________ and described as follows:^? 9` lead chemical smoducer-____________________________________________ _______________________g ----------------------;---_----_---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:---------------Si On the basis at the inspafion it is alleged that you have violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq-.mfte foHowing respects:;''________________________________________ 5j! ia I turn number 11. Standard, r^gulaliM or lection ofthe A* allegedly violate* 1Z Description of allied violation 29 CFE 1910.1*00 Employees, J.n the following locations, were formerly exposed to materials listed in Tables 2-2 . 29 CFR 1910.B of this' section, and their exposures were not limited in accordance with, the require ments of 29 CFR 1910.1000(b),. Samples were obtained at the breathing zone of the em ployees : ' a}_ Oxide Department -- millman BE Building 9 t - Packer #13 and Blender #3 cl Building 2 -- Flash Drier Packer #5 13. DaUby whldi allegsd vioUlion &.] jmijtbecorrfcclsd Il- .'i -- 'jg ^Submission Si of a da- p tailed plaisf for long ft .term abate-fj ment.to be | submitted to -the Arejg Director atsi the above j| address by January 22J 1976 | d); Building 2 -- Packer #1 eE Building 2 -- continuous Drier Operator fX Building 18 --r Blender 2 I *Coittplete a--a batement bj June 22,197 it ^ 6 g). Building 18 -- Packer #12 '' I Employees at the preceding locations, a thru g, were exposed to lead in excess of eighthour time-rwaighted averages. The employer was previously cited for an alleged violation in Item Number 1 of `the Citation Number 1 issued August 28,19.73, for this standard. y.Qoo Hk n crtT-aryf* -Foy 2.T-yp t~<=>it oPr-ffi)) yfir*g;*\ *1^ The law requires Sat a copy of this citation shall be prominently posted in a conspicuous place at or neir each place that an aflegd violation referred to in the citation occurred. The citation must remain posted until all alleged violations cit^dtherein are corrected, or for 3 working days*, whichever period is longer. RIGHTS Or EMPLOYEES Any employ*- or nps-s^-i-stivs of employees who believes tbit any p-rlod of tine fixed Tn this citation f--r 1 he correction of r \i V'tion ;; unr*:p50-.*b>l--. r;-bt to coni** Lvtb i:n? for currction by submitting n letter to th-f U.3, Dp* rtmrnt of Labor :A lh ^ n *!town within 13 working d\yV* of the ; - .tnc? of thii citation. *'No p-rson shall dbtrhr-e or in any mann-r d^crirr.ir.i**: agair-it rny employer h-mos* i'. c*r cj5~d '* ~ ?!:tuled any prcc-` 'ir.^ ;md-r or reared to this Act or has ernp.oye* ha- : rd ir.y complaint or is abour Jo :- vciry in sch l r< .* hi-cn.:* * c4 i; vx^rcVse by such err; oy<?- on L-.h.df of 1.. If or Oil.. r.of:rv rigst afford by tr. s Act.**S-Ufc> (i) oi the- Occup'ttjcnalfarty and HvaUh Act of 11*70, z`* U S.C 7A; t v ) * - i * * .1 . -J ll?a!!h Act, the term j J./s < I'd nit : *k . 8 r^ccmb N 27284.06 NL 000047268 OCCUPiSppNAI. SAFETY & HEALTH AENBNIST^ION William J. Greene, Jr., Federal BvjTTding Snire 4455 -- 600 Arch Slrreei Phi1adelohia, Pennsylvania 19106 DATE: December 22, IS75 TO: Mr. Daniel Hurley, Plant Manager KL INDUSTRIES 2607 Cumberland Street Philadelphia., Pennsylvania 19125 SUBJECT: Attachment to Citation issued December 22, 1975; CS50 #X9638 0SHA-1 Report No. 63 "* ,' ABATEMENT REQUIREMENT Detailed Plan(s) .. Complete Abatement.;. .this detailed plan for the long tern program is to in- '?f,NV.y = elude feasible engineering VUlyp* and/or administrative controls and a time schedule of pro-_ posed action for each cited item. This plan is to be implemented in accordance . with their provisions. ; i/Va'v .the date by which feasible engineering and/or administra- / tive controls must be im- .. piemented to reduce the em-- ployees' exposure to the cited air contaminant to .a level not ' 7J to exceed the respective . ; V eight-hour time-weighted averages listed in Table G-3 or-to the . j l j.- employees' exposure to noise levels in excess of those listed in Table G-16. - = ,, .vhii -1 Until final abatement is achieved, written progress reports should. be submitted to the Area Director . , every two months. List in each' '.T ' progress report the accomplish-- .:* r.ents on each cited item. Sampling results of specific operations should be included. . -' - '. 4/ t - NL 000041269 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joseph T. Crawford, hereby certify that I served the Respondent's Response in Opposition to Petition for Modification of Abatement Date, by mailing a true and correct copy thereof. in a government envelope, postage prepaid, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following: Thomas E. Anderson, Plant Manager N L Industries, Inc. 25^5 Aramingo Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19125 Dated: June 7, 1978 ____________________________ t Joseph T. Crawford Attorney N 27284.07 NL 000041270