Document X7KM2eMw0MgQpYG4EjzN2j3RB

UNION CAUBIDE INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS COMPANY INSTITUTE PLANT P. 0. SOX 2831, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA (o (Nam*/ empany oration apy to Mr. S. C. Giambruno industrial Relations Poll h December 1962 OrffrirtotfftQ D*pf. Medical Department - Plant 512 Answering letter date Mr. L. N. Dickinson Mr. G. H. Daniels Mr. N. S. Eastman Mr. R. A. Huber Mr. B. F. King Mr. F. B. Snyder Dr. E. M. Best, Jr. Mr. E. G. Heinz Subl*cl Mr. P. E. Henry Mr. R. A. Neal Mr. D. R. Matheny -c'' Mr. N. H. Ketcham Dr. C. U. Dernehl Insulation Block Dust Survey Construction Insulation Shop Plant 511 Two reports by Mr. R. E. Peele have been issued on this subject (21 March 1962 and 20 July 1962) and sent out under toy signature. On 16 May 1962, a copy of a letter from Doctor Nale 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 "Thermobestos" 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* a S f // a AV exhibit No. --si Very truly yours, Case No. --ReceivedDate,--, RJS:gh Enclosure 7 No. of PagesUCC 010583 Plant Medical Director A i 63Ob I INTERNAL. CORRESPONDENCE IK..ON CARBIDE CHEMICALS COMPANY INSTITUTE PLANT P. 0. BOX 2831, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA jfc.. G> Company Ratcliffe iocoo,, Industrial Relations Pn'* 20 July 1962 Or,'0i"a'in9 Depl- Medical Department - Plant 512 Answering Itfltr dat* Mr. L. N. Dickinson Mr. Q. H. Daniels Mr. N. S. Eastman Mr. R. A. Huber Mr. B. F. King Mr. F. B. Snyder Dr. C. U. Dernehl: Dr. E. M. Best Sub'*c' Mr. E. G. Heinz Mr. P. E. Henry Mr. R. A. Neal Mr. D. R. Matheny Mr. N. H. Ketcham - Insulation Block Dust Survey Construction Insulation Shop Plant 511 Enclosed is an industrial hygiene report by Mr. R. E. Peele on the potential hazardousness of "new and improved** "Thermobestos" insulation blocks submitted by the manufacturer for evaluation by band sav processing in the Construction Department1s Insulation Shop. The report points out that the three "new and improved" sample blocks, subjected to test conditions identical with those in use and reported upon in March of this year, are an improvement somewhat, but these blocks too, release quantities of asbestos dust particles into the working environment considerably above the acceptable safe limits (i.e., the T.L.V.). Therefore, definitely, the processing of "new and improved" blocks also constitute a hazard to health. Mr. Peele recommends that "Thermobestos" blocks not be processed in the Construction Department Insulation Shop until they meet acceptable standards and I concur fully. Very truly yours, RJStgl Enclosure R. &< Sexton, M.D. Plant Medical Director A !62b3 UCC 010584 INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE SURVEY CONSTRUCTION INSULATION SHOP - BUILDING 511-2018 REPORT 62-IH-2-G-1 SUMMARY: In March of this year, following an industrial hygiene survey, it was recommended that band saw fabrication of "Thermobestos" insulation blocks in the Construction Department Insulation Shop at Plant 512 should cease completely and permanently unless the blocks, or the dust control techniques used in fabricating the blocks, are Improved so that atmospheric dust concentrations are found to be within acceptable safe limits. In the following month of April, three new "Thermobestos" insulation blocks were submitted to Plant 511 for evaluation under environmental conditions Identical with those experienced heretofore. Critical analysis of the data obtained on this more recent survey revealed the existence of some degree of improvement in the dxist contamination associated with the fabrication of these particular "Thermobestos" insulation blocks. However, the magnitude of the improvement did not reduce the atmospheric dust concentrations to within the recommended safe acceptable limits of 20 mppcf (million particles per cubic foot) of air. Therefore, the recommendations remain exactly as those stated in the report of the survey of March, 1962*. INTRODUCTIONt It was established unquestionably, in an industrial hygiene report submitted in tferch of this year, i.e., Report 62-IH-l-G-l, that an Inhalation hazard to health is produced within the Construction Insulation Shop whenever "Thermobestos" insulation blocks are fabricated. Furthermore, it was recommended also that the fabrication of "Thermobestos" insulation blocks Bhould cease until at least one of the following two conditions are met: First, that the atmospheric dust problem is reduced to below 20 mppcf of air through the use of ventilation, etc., or, second, that, if a new insulation block should be manufactured by the producer of "Thermobestos" blocks that, it would be subjected to testing under identical conditions as before thereby establishing the fact that it will not release, upon fabrication with a band saw, dust concentrations in excess of 20 mppcf of air. The Industrial Hygiene Department's recommendations met exact compliance by those responsible persons In the Construction Insulation Shop, in that no "Thermobestos" Insulation blocks have been fabricated with band saws for vise in this plant since the date of the issuance of these recommendations. However, some change in procedure was indicated when, on 25 April 1962, thiB department was contacted by Mr. D. R. Matheny, General Foreman of the Insulation Shop. At that time, Mr. Matheny requested an evaluation of a new "Thermobestos" insulation block which had been developed by the manufacturer, in an effort to comply with the specifications ns stated in the second part of the above listed recommendations. Insulation Block Dust Survey, Construction Insulation Shop, Plant 511 Report 62-IH-l-G-l. UCC 010585 2. DISCUSSIONi Mr. Matheny's request for services was Immediately acted upon at which time two basic decisions were made! First, Fridays the 27th of April, would be the most opportune time for obtaining the Information needed in the performance of this evaluation ani, second, two atmospheric dust samples of each condition should be obtained with each one being taken in Identical locations so as to provide greater reliability. These sampling plans had to be altered somewhat, however, on the site, when it was discovered that the manufacturer had provided only three insulation blocks each of which differed in the precise manner in which it had been produced*. This shortage of material, with identical characteristics, complicated the sampling and evaluation procedures somewhat, since it was impossible, therefore, to obtain more than one sample of atmospheric dust being produced by any one material (in actuality, a total of only three atmospheric dust samples were collected during the test period). However, this complication was not so severe as to render the sample data of no use, as is revealed in the condensed explanation of the sampling procedure selected on this date which is as follows: First t The data contained on page 8 of Report 62-IH-1-6-1 revealed clearly that the greatest concentrations of atmospheric dust were produced at the band saws, and that location #3, i.e., 2 band saw while sawing, definitely provided the greatest hazard to health. Consequently each of the three samples, under consideration in this report, i.e., 62-IH-2-G-1, were taken at this same location. Second; All of the results revealed in the preceding report, i.e., 62-IH-l-O-l, were obtained during the late fall and winter, therefore, the doors to the building were closed for purposes of heat conser vation. These environmental conditions were duplicated during the performance of this second survey. Third: The operator of the #2 band Saw employed sawing techniques as nearly identical with those in evidence during the preceding periods of evaluation as were possible to duplicate, i.e., position of the block with respect to the saw blade, speed of feeding the block into the saw blade, position of the operator's head with respect to the block, etc. Fourth; Each of the dust samples obtained during the time of performing the initial survey were held in the operator's breathing zone. This feature was also duplicated for this second survey, i.e., 62-IH-2-G-1. EVALUATION: Each of the three samples collected were evaluated ip the laboratory in accordance with recommended and prescribed light field microscopic counting techniques as referred to and identified in Report 62-IH-l-G-l. It should be noted that no effort was expended to obtain anything more than a knowledge of the concentration of dust in the air since the composition and particle size of this material should not be expected to deviate to any degree from the prior recorded values. This supposition was based on two facts, (l) the *tn accordance with information received from "the manufacturer each"block was composed of Identically the same materials and was formed in the same general manner, i.e., by the "Pan Method". However, the similarity in production differed from here on with the manufacturer being the only one in possession of the exact description and the specific alterations incorporated in each method. ^ ' 8 3 \J ' UCC 010586 3. chemical make up of these materials was reported as being Identical with the "Thermobestos" materials reported on in the prior survey and, (2) the saving techniques utilized on both occasions were identical in nature. PROCEDURES t Both sampling and analytical methods were identical in detail with those described in the earlier report, with sampling being accomplished through the use of the Mine Safety Appliance Company's Midget Impinger Pump and Apparatus and the analysis taking place in accordance with light field microscopic counting techniques. RESULTSi Analysis of the physical data contained on page 5 reveals that the atmospheric dust concentration in mppcf (million particles per cubic foot) of air for each of the three new materials was (a) 3^.8 mppcf of air for J.M. #21, (b) 48.1 mppcf of air for J.M.#22, and (c) 44.1 mppcf of air for J.M. #23. CONCLUSIONSi (1) None of these three samples revealed a concentration as high as that recorded in the previous report for "Thermobestos" exposures in this position, i.e., 101.4 mppcf of air for Location #3. However, by the same token, none of the present three samples revealed a concentration as low as that recorded for "Kaylo" exposures in this position, i.e., 17.1 mppcf of air for Location #3. (2) Each of the three values exceeded the established T.L.V. (Threshold Limit Value) of 20 mppcf of air by a substantial amount. (3) None of the three Insulation materials, i.e., J.M.#21, J.M.#22, and J.M.#23, as submitted by the manufacturer of "Thermobestos", should be fabricated with band saws in the Insulation Shop by our employees unless the manufacturer complies exactly with the following conditions: The physical and/or chemical characteristics and composition of these materials are improved to the degree that some further future evaluation might reveal them to be incapable of releasing concentrations of dust into the atmosphere that are in excess of the T.L.V. RECOMMENDATIONS: Do not fabricate the 18" x 36" x 4" "Thermobestos" insulation blocks (J.M.#21, J.M.#22, J.M.#23) with existing equipment unless -(l) (l) The producer of this material can further improve his product to the point that it will not release, upon fabrication with our ventilated band saws, dust concentrations in excess of 20 mppcf of air, or, 4 UCC 010587 (2) The atmospheric dust problem can be reduced to below 20 mppcf of air through the use of Improved ventilation techniques, or other safeguarding measures* REPsgl 15 July 1962 0^9.0. Submitted by t ___._____________ Robert E. Peele Industrial Hygienist UCC 010588 A 1 63J3 5 INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE SURVET EVALUATION OF ATMOSPHERIC DUST CONCENTRATIONS AT THE CONSTRUCTION INSULATION SHOP Atmospheric Dust Concentration Data on Three "Thermobestos" Materials As Collected vith the Midget Impinger Pump and Apparatus TYPE OF DUST MATERIAL LOCATION Rate in cfra Time in Min. SAMPLE Vol. Blank in # Dilution C.F. Particles Factor Count # Particles Cone, in rappef of Air TM #21 #2 Band Saw, Breathing 0.1 10 Level of Operator 1.0 8.3 100 94.8 36.8 JM #22 JM #23 Same as Above Same as Above 0.1 10 0.1 10 1.0 1.0 8.3 8.3 250 57.8 200 65.O 48.1 44.1 UCC 010589 A 63 o /+ INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE w.4ION CARBIDE CHEMICALS COMPANY institute plant p. o. box 2831, charleston, west Virginia fo (Namo) Company location R. J. Sexton, M.D. Medical Department 'oftf to Do' 3 December 1962 Originating D.pt. Industrial Hygiene - Plant 512 Answering lolUr dafo Subj.ct Jo"h"n's Man1ville "Thermobestos" 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 Buch 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 A 16 3 J 6 UCC 010590 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-I. 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 and 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 utilitized 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 was 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 satisifled 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, etc. Very truly yours, REP:gh Enclosure Robert E. Peele " Industrial Hygienist UCC 010591 A 1 6 3 vi 7 DlSCUSSIOH Atr-osph-ric t concentration ioati* ware nr.da on Cteiobor 30, 19&? daring tho fabrication o." insulation blocko on ihs DCklLL Kodol L-H-V bond caw in tho Research Center iiatoriala Tost lag Lucoratory aar.plo proporation room. Too National Conforcnco of Governmental Industrial Hygionistfl Test Moth eel waa * followed using tho Greonburgh-Saith impingor. Tocta vero conducted by llr. T. F. Eodnsrehuk of the J-M Industrial Hygicno Laboratory at ManVilio. To obtain comparative data, tho room vontilatlon vn3 adjusted -o givo r.ore than tho usual amount of atmoaphoric dust. Too tost cot up ia shown in tho photo graph bolow. rrrI *r^. !!I ri } i\ J- ) 4 f i 'IIIi UCC 010592 A * 63j3 Ia 'rAAitl*.: to t.-'.i re-:; vcntHdiiv; -/Sim, ;dr v*a reroved fro;; dlrsoily tty/o iho .'il ft r.vio of 37 ou ft per rf_n aaJ frca the artnl bo as in* curroundlnj iko cc.tr at a ret* of lo ca por :.dn* Yio cm hlr-a vas .standard and had sis teeth p:r in. erd ft lineal spoed of 2e00 ft per zdn. ho laic oka troro 18 r 11 ;c 4 or Cr In and voro out 00 that tin binds catered iho 11-In. cd^-o. Two typos of imulntloa vero tested lidlr/lirj atcerJ/ei'd 'fboee'obeotos, a::i three eaq:ori"^utrl pea cost blocks. Porr-ilos * are ;:ivc;> in App-:aider I. ?Aior to tcatin.7, bio oka of each u*;ro ooaiitir.iv.d bps a) dryirr; a :.liftInns of .poren cLr-yc at 250I'j b) drpln;: at 2>0? cni coniilionLrrj fer 18 ckrrr, at 70 par oont III, 70?j c) drying at 2507 end ccEditioairp for 18 cloys at 95-1C3 per coat EH, 957. Sso teat data arc given la Ifjjc-'iia II. Ho dupt co3cntmtia toots irsro analysed rsd irdianiod that the suporiority rayort'd by Union Cnri-ido of over ctr.ai.-erd Hicriioboatosi csd tho es^si^antril pm asst blrs.'yi cralarlttcd to then la subject to question. *Xb.o results lro IsiloG'I'r-d that iho slate uuat cor.pouition, 2-AY, causal lorn atrosykerio cizuii tAm the oikdr tjperj of blocks. . woo effect that cc.niiticaIrN~ of tls Ultoks lewl 00 tho dart csnjocntratica la clr t-as rot rrrnrcat. Yolo is ctirltatci to tho iiniA-nd casual of rxrtorltl tooted card the possibility that an c^olUfcrirn oorniitioa of dart ocuseatratlou in tho emnllrj area rap rot hnvo toss rocskoi in r inn oases. In order to dofinitoly ostnblink tin effect roisiuro content of tho bleak:: lass on atrnnpkrris dust a r.oro orrtonslva series of toe to irould bo rsqtdrsd. Cash tents irould .nlao corvo to nore definitely establish tho rslativo ductimco of tho fcrrrjloj invest! .Acd. UCC 010593 A i63j3 mzxnz ii C21 DATA AE'IOSPIERIC DOST C0i:C2K72ATI02 DATA Ibiporiroat al Pen Cncl I-*? Ceneentraiion la nppof of Air Dried at 250? Conditioned at 70$ na, ?o? Conditioned at 95-100,$ n, 9?? 110.0 39.3 _99*4 Avj. of chroo condition."; 63.2 Keiciuro Absorbed During Conditioning - $2 Dry to 7# 21, 70P Dry to 95-100$ a, 95? 2.7 13.6 ... 2--fT'"fc`V 19.9 148 ::n.6 i 15.1 * 3 3-AT^> 1 1 16.4 47.1 jlLA 31.6 }> j j ! ! 12.0 12.3 2.5 17.2 * Sid.. 4-in.-J Sid. 4-ln. To^r-'- -?- -- V<4 I 5-A.T f 34.2 52.0 15.8 36.4 10/, f0 ZL,& 51.3 62.0 6. o 15.6 3.9 12.8 7his x'oreolatioa uco uacd for cor-plcn eiic/aiticd to Union Carbide for e,vl-cniiort. Refer to fornala lJo. 53, canploo 21, 22,, 23, Rcjcarnii' Roport 12>. il._il.41>, p 1, \ UCC 010594 A I 63 ; c ---- 7 ---- --------- Ur* D. C. Willard Building B-96-2 C. Q. Hull, u.D. April 28, 1967 fSjV'\ I i - '.. Particulate Hatter In Air Asbestos Duat Project Mo. lH-rAfl-7 6-67 Dear Doni Aa per our telephone conversation today, I am attaching a resume* of nur determinations of duot breathed by the employees while cutting and installing "kale" insulation. Wo fool that further air sampling la needed to give you more meaningful conoluaioha as to the beat protection for the employees handling thia material. ' At your convenience, we will bo glad to diacuss those findings Nith you. In the meantime, if you would keep us informed of jobs pertain ing to cutting, installing and removing "kayle" insulation, it would be helpful in scheduling the air sampling work, ' Thanks i Bort Murray ri; I 1 'I Case No. --Exhibit No. JP Pages i i I t* it UCC 010595 A i 6 3 ; 3 * .4 rAH IICULATE Til Mil Lust ilrcb lived by the Employees iHilla Cutting onJ installing 'Kayla" Insulation. ?lont-wlde Survey - Plant 51*1 Authors: H. II. Warwick U, L. Hurray ' Uoto: September 21, 15G5 ' Project Ko,: Iil-iC-Uii 4 Doctor Mull, Plont Medical Dlroctor, requested n plnnt-ultlo industrial hyglono study to dotcrmlna tho potential exposure of 1 nsulntcws to csbestos filter dust concentrations, 'l'oblu I glvos tho results of seven sopnriiiii tests, Including 24 breathing zone loval atr samples end shoos an average dust concentration of 5.2 million particles per cubic foot of till*. A ''threshold limit value" of 20 mppcf of olr l\os been suggested.* When three employees, or less, hand-cut and cpply "Koylo" ~'v.::uIation, the concentration of dust is considered sofc from the .colrh standpoint; however, with G men tho dust count exceeds the VlV. It is at this phase of tho operation that ezhoust ventilation should be used. Excessive dust conccntnJtlons con be expected when the Insulation is removed from piping and tonks. Again, exhaust venti lation should be used to move ths dust away from the employees, if possible; otherwise, respirators are advised. "Koylo" Insulation contains 12 to 13% asbestos onil 5.G to 7.4'A! crystalline-free sllico.^ This material Is reculvoil In block ond pijm form ond tho insulator measures and marks tho motcrlol Into appropriate sizes and cuts It with a hand suv. The lnsulotlun motcrlol Is wired Into position around tha tonk or pipe. Tho tasks of cutting and apply ing the "Kaylo" insulation ore shown In Figures 1 and 2. *. . 'iho olr samples were collected with a midget Jmplngcr nnil a Uni-jot _scmplcr, droving 0.1 cubic foot of air per minute through lmplngtr flasks sntoinlrg 10 milliliters of distilled watur. Dust counts, made by the ulght Fla id Microscopic Counting Technique, oppeor in Table I. This study has revoolcd thot further research work Is needed to: 1, Attain on ostablishcd flguro for the "threshold limit value". 2. Utilize ozhoust ventilation to remove tho dust from tho work or co. 0; Determine tho particle size of tho osbestos fiber vhoro tho dust count czcccds 5 mppcf, .4, Obtoin Range Fii'.dlng Tests on animals Reposed to different percents of asbestos fiber.5 5. Continue our plont-wldo study In support of these conclusions. 1. Ccok, Uurren A., and I'oele, Hubert F., fm.'.r doled February 12, 1U!12 liij l/nlverslty of Miidilgon School of Public ! n' Mi. 2. IwUio, II. i.,, Industrial Hygiene Survey - Const; m. tl ou Tr. rti l u M r,u dmldlnj bll-2Ulf). Ilepurt U2- (Mend. Ml, 1%H). A i 63 , 4 UCC 010596 I ** , - taij.`: i ' I'AllTICULATii I'lATi't'.n III Allt Dust Drenthed by Employees While Cutting and Installing "Kayla" Insulation I ,,3tC 1-19-G5 2-i-!:S * 3-i-gs 3-22*-G5 5-EG-G5 G-14-C5 Sample Cumber i' 1 2 3 4. Sampling Conditions at Breathing Level Mutsbcr uf Employees 5-iiiln. cuttlig, 5-mln, application lnsldo building Sumo Suiae 7-min. cutting, 3~mln, eppllcutlon 2 2 2 2 5 6 '7 Cutting and application during entire sampling period - Inside building . Same Same G G G 0 Seme 9 5cme 10 . Application of Insulation - no bond sav cutting 11 Some 2 2 2 1 12 Cutting ond tppllcolion during .2 sampling period - outside building 13 Slime 2 14 Some 2 15 ' Application of insulating - no 3 cutting - Inside building JG . Somo 3 17 7~mln. cutting; 3-min. opplicol imi 1 1U Cleon up of lnsulotlon from floor 2 ovcoplng dnd shoveling - Inside M r (/ 19 Sane 2 20 Sumo 2 21 Cutting and application during 2 sampling period - Inside building 22 Sunc 2 23 Some 2 24 St me 2 fuse Cuv.nV HIMVI'* (1) 2.1 2.G 1.7 :i,u 22, S 17.11 22.5 U.U l.G U.3 U.l 7.B 2.4 4.0 J .'.1 13.11 7.3 U.U U.l l. u y.u ;5 i.i (l) Million porticlca por cubic foot of o*r, 1U-14-U5 UCC 010597 A 163 ;b t ^ _ *. o . tr /- / * `' !'.c?ar .3icn* 1 * lliOJIjCT Wi./ // HUmSTiUAL HYGIENE F,VM,UATIOH AND yiHVriY lime / ` ... Project .. I *, i * 'r> - /, '.> / ,y. t f C Location__ t " * v /' / Dldg. tip. jeCr..-.eCr1oUl. CI.UoMnUdIiVtiIo^.n1s1:. ~^ . ^t lleoson ~ .............. " ,>vx- ,,y ;* *'. / . ;./ ' ' ./: **/' f f '// f . ., f /& ^ / '* - ----- -- ----- r ------ "-- ------------------------------------- - * '/ ------- S.. V Sampling Method find Equipment / ? V y t' ^ .* ; <* , rf /*< ^ .s' /* / / ' .J / -* , *w t Shift: j5a.-pl e |!lur.fccr 1/ Iley ___ Eve. 5 amp 1 i r>g tone Time-Min. /I Mid No. Employees Sotppled by //`S' ' AVo C I,, **<t V a'. ' J-'Io CUNCEN1KATI0N Specinl Conditions na te / /// 's-' -p' A ^ o.;5 ,. j. ./ i / . w. v * >. ' .,?>( /* ' T * /' % . - / /* c/ y /.> 0.6 / 3 i*. / ;v 0.y` <.-.0 / '- A~ <'//;* ' -'/ ' / ---------- / .** A*'. V. y 0.7 o.5 / r' . ' /, v/ /. ^ / // V . /- ' - ^ * * 'I' Colcuiotlon: tO ^ y / y: </D./ <0,2$ /<. w . V- Hcporks t //, / - / v / * * ^ i" ' /x/ ------- ---------------------------------------------- / // /r-^ Sketch - Sco neverso Side. ncf,;renco No. 'P/jO 4^_ Anolyzod by < \ . l>;t.i < ^'163-: 6n UCC 010598 I'ARTICULATE MATTER 1H AIR Dua Breathed by the Employees while Cutting end Installing, "Koylo" Insulation l Figure 1. Seeing block oectlono. Breathing tone level air sample being collected in the background* i' |j ; 'iIi i \ DLtf. Figure 2. Applying lnsulaticn block. Breathing zone level air sample being collected in the foreground. UCC 010599 A ! 63 , 7 Ifl | YlM o~/ J lmmomiAL hygiene evaluation Aim survey . . mojLCT i:o.y// /;/' ,,.c ^ Terortmcnt / Time /<^ 'jy ^A-PrJoct Location '*' ^/iV' <7t44^ /'/.'astL 4 Bldg. No.Al'/i Requested by# ,_S_/./_y V c \, / _____ Reason D'lb am ,'sn a/^'s u General Conditions: J? 47 <-"/4 (2 " 5 } r/ 44- //{>//< ____________ ;____________ Sampling Method and Equipment /'*' r*^'/*,7 ^ - * r/- ^ f ^y,V y<~<V S<3 /J* r/4 A K V77 <7--~ r-^ / Jg--T * '7 Shift: Dny ___ Eve. Mid ___ No/Employees ^ Sampled by /44*<</- C~(n(' i5zr.pl e Number / Sampling Zone TlDe-Mln. /O __ 4 flow COIiCEN IKATIQH Rate c~/U CXM.* r/rre, Atf <c./ <0.25 Speclol Conditions "A* i 7- /o /.o ohe /,4 /---^7" tun''-"/ /~/<*(>*"<rr*~'y '44/; 'JL.o 3 JO 27 Ad 2.1 5.5 Calculation: A Remarks: U-- -- ., ,, *i x /O r Ac; * ^ .. A Skotch - See Revcrsa Side, flcfcronco Ho. /O Analyzed by ' A 5 63,8 UCC 010600 iJoto <J MEMO AVOID ORAL INSTRUCTIONS DATE i/k/ I97^3L TO //c Aar xtlflfcdhjpAdi & fafjj *f Oe/%*&L> JU4ttu JLlil*. aOul.^rylJL^ ^L* ~Jhj sj6u<rfl$liC'&Zt&jt XH`) ^ snett^ ^cu.d^j & fHa4a*iM ^ &UOS pA*L *&uj diyaup+af *jp Z$. Jj&f*4ia?fUuf'<*+' -*, Snydbuu -<r*z XS//fi. zt*- ^iy*? <e$+*^< -$mA_ Zr-+*yyu>iA 4$mt'Ait**tiaP $ULj~ _________________________________________ _ S 14 III- 0 rr; "HOT + DO IT THE SAFE WAV + SIGNED R. H. STEINBERG suf Bwll ^ I ft* * &-** * - - :.*. f~r:eV'-.;-".A*:z^-;,.>V', r*-i *ri * .*;; A$&* feSs `ail L*-T`TW :'$*? y'?ih-rl,* in ? *r'v v- 1 l*.&tM .,, >Wd f* *?-s*-*'?>i--> '*T--..1,s1 Drags/ "/losJ ;:Exhibit No. J^- ': ",v; ^Case kN. i_o.. - ; ' ' * ^ERe*croerivuerdl-' ' . . ' > - . ' .'/ - Date Ar ^ ~O iNoi. oFf rPaaggeess--: _. . -: .. v , . . ` *' UCC 010601 .-- 'A t.vi* INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE CARBlDt 1EMICALS AND PLASTICS ofNom*) *xflr. Fred Williams >/rlilon otaHon opr Mr. R. 0. Midkiff Mr, R. E. Peele INSTITUTE PLANT P 0 80X ?3?t, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA 25330 Dau January 24, 1973 ' Originating D>pt. Employee Relations Hygiene/Safety Antwtring lelltr daft Asbestos Sampling Values 511 Insulation Fabrication Shop f*pt -S? TLV ***?/17i' Asbestos fiber counts for samples we have collected at the Plant 511 Insulation Fabrication Shop are submitted for your information. They may serve as guidance for any sampling program you may initiate and they should be valid as part of a records program. Sample No. Date Sampling Time, min Fiber Count/ml Sample-Job Description k^512-HHF-01 3-8-72 */512-HHF-02 3-8-72 "'512-HHF-03 3-8-72 >"512-HHF-04 11-21-72 ''512-HHF-05 11-21-72 m ^512-HHF-06 11-21-72 ^ 512-HHF-07 11-21-72 S512-HHF-08 12-4-72 *" 512-HHF-09 12-4-72 512-HHF-10 12-4-72 ' 512-HHF-ll 12-4-72 ^512-HHF-12 12-4-72 ^512-HHF-13 12-4-72 - 512-HHF-14 12-4-72 512-HHF-15 12-4-72 15 Too heavy to S. E, Painter - Dust count ' collection removal for disposal. 5 61.5 ^ S. E. Painter - Dust -tTo/r collector wearing respirator. W *' 1*r' *r"` 15 24.5 rain.i/ S. E. Painter - End of dust removal job. 6 4.1 L. I. Mitchell - Butt sawing. 6 23.4 ^ L. I. Mitchell - Placing pairs of sawed blocks in cartons. 9 4.1 H. Stanley - Janitor broom sweeping. 15 3.9 H. E. Samples - Cementing pre-formed blocks. 15 0.05 L. I. Mitchell - Off bearing south saw 1st cut. 15 5.3 H. E. Witt - Separate sawed block - apply glue. 9 - Bad filter - not counted. 15 11.8 min H, E. Samples - Removing glued blocks from stack-edging. 4 27.8*' H. E. Samples - Sawing block. 13 6.5 L. I, Mitchell - Off bearing second cut - placing in carton. 1?S 9.8 L. I. Mitchell - Unpacking a single carton - sawed 22 pcs. & 48.3-' L. I. Mitchell - Filling carton with sawed blocks. A I 6 32 C > UCC 010602 Mr. Fred Williams Page 2 January 24, 1973 All samples were collected on the person of the employee and each of them represents a peak exposure for the various work tasks. All work was involved with asbestos containing KAYLO block materials. The problem area most deserving corrective measures is obviously the dumping procedure of the shop dust collecting facility. Excessive exposures are encountered in the handling, especially packing, of sawed block material. Exposure values have not been reported to the employees nor to shop supervision. Very truly yours 'U HHFjllh H. H. Frazier A 1632 1 UCC. 010603