Document e50rEO53dVjJD6wdOzdzanKJp

I INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE 'NION CARBIDE CHEMICALS COMPANY institute plant p. o. box 2831, charleston, west virgin 'ompmnj Mr. s. C. Glambruno Industrial Relations Data 4 December 1962 Originating o.pi. Medical DepartmentPlant 512 Antwtring Uttar data PI Mr. L. N, Mr G. Hi Mr. N. Si Mr. R. Ai Mr. B. F, Mr. F. B, 'Dr. E. Mi Dickinson Daniels Eastman Huber King Snyder Best, Jr. Mr. E. G. Heinz s"b'*d Mr. P. E. Henry Mr. R. A. Neal Mr. D. R. Matheny -,* Mr. N. H. Ketcham Dr. C. U. Dernehl Insulation Block Dust Survey Construction Insulation Shop Plant 511 PLAINTIFFS: EXHIBITS UC-833'^g^ ;:-;3tu Two reports by Mr. R. E. Peele have been issued on this subject (21 March 1962 and 20 July 1962) and sent out under my 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 vas Bent to some of the people on the above distribution list. Undoubtedly, Johns Manvllle 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. m The enclosed report by Mr. Peele includes information on an invitation for Mr. Peele to visit Manville, New Jersey, at Johns Manvllle'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 Manvllle*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 ny supervision so that Mr. Peele can be Informed accordingly. A 0 4 8 5;; Very truly yours, RJS:gh Enclosure Plant Medical Director INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE NION CARBIDE CHEMICALS COMPANY institute plant p. o. box 2831, charleston, west vircinia '. (Hama) R. J. Sexton, M.D. Medical Department *opy to Dot. 3 December 1962 Originating DapL Industrial Hygiene - Plant 512 An..ring Uttar data S.bj.cl Johns Manville "Thermobestos" On 21 March 1962, an Industrial Hygiene Report, i.e., 62-XH-1-6-1, identified the existence of a hazard to health In the Construction Insulation Shop during such tines as when Insulation blocks manufactured by the Johns Manville Company are being fabricated with exhausted band save* It vas 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 belov 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. Matbeny, 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 J4857 R. J. Sexton, M.D. 3 December 1962 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 tbelr analysis of the atmospheric dust conditions produced by their competitors product, (l*e., Kaylo or Item f 5AT in the report) which in no way agreed with the data submitted in the Industrial Hygiene Report - m-62-I-G-1* 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 Manvllle, New Jersey, at Johns Manvllle's expense and at a time selected by Union Carbide* This visit would be for the specific purpose of observing, scrutinizing and cosparing their method of atmospheric dust evaluation with that as utilitlzed 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. lb conclusion, it should be stated that a phone call was received from Mr. F. G. Camerford 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, l*e*, purchasing, sales, manufacturing, etc* Very truly yours, REP:gh Enclosure Robert E* Peele Industrial Hygienist * ' * '-l V. I DISCUSSION ltro3ph~ric concentration tssts vr.ro r.ido on Cctobor 30, 1962, daring tho fabrication of Insulation bloc bo on the DO-ALL Kodol L-H-V bond clm in the Sasenreh Center Materials Tooting Lfooratory ssr.plo preparation room. Too National Conforcnco of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Test Mothod was - follouoi us ins tho Greonburgh-Saith impingor. Tocto ucro conduotcd by l!r. T. F. Eodnarchuh of the J-M Industrial Hygiene Laboratory at KanVillo. To obtain comparative data, tbo roos ventilation van adjusted to give sore than tho usual ajoount of atsoaphoric dust. Tbo tost oct up is shown in tho photo graph bolow. Ia til.".!.ic.l to tio rcm TcntilaiaR:; SyOtra, air vaf rc-ravcd frou dlrootly c-hivo the Uic.ch at a rate 37 ou ft per rla ;a:J fria iho "rli-il io.v.ia.'r c-crrour-dia;! Via c^vr at a rata of ip a ft per .'iin, Tho c'-ir blalo vao at.rxdasd aiid had sia tooth p.v.* in. rd a lineal speed of f:eOO ft pa* She. hicoko vara 18 s 11 ^ 4 or 6- in * and vers out 00 that tho blade catered tho U-ie\. else. Sivo trpro of inrruintioa vero tretcl ixolcilr^ standard 'fhcr.'okcetos, end threo ce^oriTaatrl paa coot blocks. ?omica-era ;:ivcn in Ap^ziia I. ?Mor to testin':, blcoks cf each v;ro ccziitiorv.d by* a) drying a ninizas of .Devon days at 250?| b) dryini at 2>0? tv:! coniitlonirg fer 1C dnyr. ct 70 par oonl ill, 70?j c) drying at 250? cal ecrditlozirg for 1G daya ct 95-1C0 par coat EH, 95?. *2io test data arc civoa 3n l^yrrlin II. Sko Cunt oonscntritioa toots vera r.-al ir.ilsa.ol that tho ouporiority report:: 1 by Chics Cnrhido of over ct.*ui:7ird Tkoi'.rtro'toa cad tho czr^criaritrOL pra ot.st hlrsha aultittcl to then lo subjeot io (jovetion. *bo rosulto tiro iniiar.tiru that tho r.lato uuot conpooition, 2-A`f, cause 1 lara atnsajhcrio dast than tho ether tjpso of fclcaha. offcot that oer.iJLtianir^ of tk/a sb'-ch; hod 02 tho dent coraoatraticn la clr v*.3 aat apparent. 7kio is cttritatcl to tho liriied cnount of zr.tori-1 toot'd crl tho possibility that an cquilifcrir.a coned*,dan of dzet ccnecatratloa la tha or-riHrj area .any rot fcsvo teen rcssisd in f.;r-.a oos-vj. la order to doflnitoly oatablizh tha offcot roisturo content of the blech;: boo on atzocpkrrlo cuat u raro orioasivo eerie.; cf tests could bs rcpulrcd. Geek tevts could .:i.::o ccrvo to zero doflnltsly establish tho relative duotiacco ef iho fcn.ulee irv.:cti.;:/-cd* &0486C V-i-'i 6r & 3 % jis:3n ii IIS" Di.Il AECQSKDHIC DUST CCTOKriATIOa DATA riirsrf. nl Pas CasA0 | ?-V? 2 ~\7 3--/-T3 l Ccmcntruiioa ia nppof of Air Dried at 2*50? Conditioned at 7C^ S3, 70? Conditioned at 95-1005 13, 95? 11Q.C 59.3 -Si2af Avj. of tbrao condition.:: 63.2 Koisiuro Absorbed Daring Conditioning - Jl Dry to VGA 13, 70? Dry to 95-3003 E3, 95? j 2,7 13.6 19.9 24.0 t j 15.1 j a' 2.0 12.3 16.4 47.1 :t ./ 31.6 2.5 17.2 . * i 1 i i * i j Old. -4~iiu j Sid. 4-in. A-AT i 5-`T t 34.2 52.0 15.8 36.4 ,10'... 0 51.3 QiW7..6 62.0 0.0 15.6 3.9 12.8 ? *11113 formulation was uacd for ccr-olcs entnitied to Onion Carbide for *r.\Jxatio,n. Pofor to formula lb. 53, oamploo 21, 22, 23, Scncara'.* Report Jb. JZ'~S'-S->, p 1* A 04 86!