Document jy3xOKZj8gxRddvEYjoOg5oo2

Jhne 22, 1973 Mr. J. A. Keller, Supervisor Personnel Services Section General Services Subject: Asbestos Fiber Emissions from Sears Model No. 7i>0*17031 Shop Vacuum Cleaner As requested, ve evaluated abbectoD fiber enicsions from the Sears and Roebuck Model I!o. 7i50*17831 chop vacuum cleaner. This vacuum cleaner is intended to be used in lieu of compressed air clean up of asbestos laden brake lining dust on brake linings and drums. The Sears vacuum has tv/o vacuum motors each having its ova discharge. Each discharge has a paper rod a cloth type filter. The contaminant is deposited in a 45 c^llon plastic drum. Section 1910.93a of the Federal Register specifies: asbestos fiber in air deter minations to comply vith the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSUA) \rill bo determined by 430X phase microscopy and collected at two liters per minute on a 37 mn cpen face Type AA Jhllipore membrane filter or its equivalent. In order to conduct an isokinetic efficiency of the vacuum cleaner, it vculd have been necessary to deviate drastically from the prescribed sampling rate and fj-c:.'. the open face filter :ioie, thereby yielding sample results vitb no standard to compare the re cults to. Therefore, it vadecided tc place the vacuum clc-mcr in a c all seeded rccr. vith no air changes talcing piece, rod the only air movement in the rear: vculd be that goneraced by the discharge of the vacua.', clavier. She room die sen held r. volume cf 33d ft. of air. The vacurn vas placed in the saddle cf the room and then five sampling stations vere set up around the room equidistant fee;-.) the vacuum clcaier. Ten pounds of asbestos fiber insulating material iv.s then vacuumed up over e 12 minute period. Tiie current OZ Tnicshwld Lit titan y microns leuper fibers greater ;i 9 microns July 1, 17i 3. 4*0 * JLo. wD C/ vr-.cuuo or v.ll vith;.: vor ;.JL cl* irbornc asbestos fiber is 5 fibers create ir vith a dovr.rard revision to 2 milliliter of air scheduled for ampler tro.en during the tost cf the nd 2 fiber greater than 5 microns in n.,, |V-. - **'>'2*"* 'r ' ]/? J .imp vaevv. i.v r-.eccpte'ole from ro vxx. r.hr. *. r-.:: -C..* s.: :ir-..L ...'c u'.io.io '.'ill be required vhen empty .'..:;; rod cl :nr..ir.g the '.menu:. An approved dust respirator for pneumocc- niosis prolmcinm Oust, rl cull be vcmi vi -n rleroiop tie vacuum. The dust in the plastic erne oh- -.11 he : m v.id f-m. th: dtu.s -..mt rod then disposed of in properly jabeled sealed cc.etn .nc:s. T.." tiller: <v. ;`hs..' U ports should also bo dis- posed of \dicn they ' nec:.n l:-'-'. .. rv.:kn* ih-u r.tt- <1 ting to clean them. These filters should be mi;. .rl cf .... r.rpco' .y lr!,el:.i scaled containers. Ilcnrv D. Lick Lndubtrlal Lygicnxs. 8006 0489 PRODUCED BY FORD <x /5 s CONFIDENTIAL Chronology of Van Dyke Asbestos Incident o A boiler fed water steam turbine pump was purchased and a scope of work to install the punp and associated piping was developed. o On or about February 11, 1983, three "fab" shop pipefitters removed approximately 3 ft. of pipe insulation from a 2-1/2" boiler house steam line in preparation for the installation of the puirp. The pipefitters were at the work site for approximately 30 minutes. One of the three pipefitters presented a segment of the insulation to the Union-Health and Safety Representative with the question - "Is this material asbestos''? o February 25, 1983 - the Health and Safety Representative contacted the Plant Safety Engineer and submitted a portion of the original insulation sample and requested that it be forwarded to Ford Industrial Hygiene for analysis. She also communicated that she had previously submitted a sample to the State Health Department for analysis. No additional work was performed at job site. o February 25, 1983 - insulation sample forwarded to Industrial Hygiene by Plant Safety Engineer - no additional work performed at work site. o State report received by Union indicating sample contained asbestos. o March 14, 1983 - report from Industrial Hygiene indicating negative fin dings (not asbestos). No additional work performed at job site. o March15, 1983 - Union notified of Industrial Hygiene findings. o March15, 1983 - Division Safety Activity notified of conflicting findings. o March 15, 1983 - Industrial Hygiene directed to call State Health Department and review testing protocol to confirm conflict. o March 15, 1983 - Industrial Hygiene notifies Division Safety Activity that they had confirmed that the state testing protocol was appropriate. o March15, 1983 - formal "stop" placed on work site. o March16, 1983 - a second test sample (residue of former sample) sent to commercial lab by Industrial Hygiene. o Commercial lab confirms state report (insulation contains asbestos). PS63-68 8006 0490 PRODUCED BY FORD Page 2 o Review of Industrial Hygiene testing protocol started. o March 16, 1983 - Union informs plant they plan to notify the Ford Department of the International Union. o March 16, 1983 - J. J. Whelan Union Relations Staff confirms call from the International Union and notifies Dr. F. V. Viola (Associate Medical Director) of the incident. Since no sampling was conducted during the 30 minute work period, the extent of exposure is unknown, the level of asbestos content, 15-24*, is considered small and significant exposure is considered unlikely. The incorporation of the sub ject employes into a medical surveillance program is not planned since it may be counterproductive - asbestos related disease has an incubation period of from 10 to 20 years. Medical X-rays will not identify asbestos exposure or the pro bability of contracting the disease - unfortunately when the X-rays identify the presence of asbestos related disease, there is no medical treatment that will effect a cure. PS63-68-1 8006 0491 PRODUCED BY FORD