Document kmaLQBNOVq6Nrem9QzvQqe9XD

laveeber tO, 1966 Subj - 9tout V. deljt - Manufacturing ocro^O ^ S^Sp8 Corning -darpxlpation yr lf/ani*i /$222 i/,/Vx. >, / Evaluation Of Dust Hazard Control In Dnlbestoa Operation - Port Allegany - August. 1966 ,, Attached for your infonaation and appropriate'action ia a cover letter and reporterrog> ^. Korton^Corn and also a bill, for professional aervicaa V /"/rendered. 'Ca ? *Wbnf0tx?^^^1^'^Iwiicate8 the mmd for * *>a^jorJrPe^ddeesaigiinn of;the preeent duet collecting eyeten.to /ffeqt aebeetoa duet oontrol within th*'plant to afe level*. . Co>>,. / ^ W/zV/Ch* 1 Dr. Corn hae agreed to aeai^.in ibe, above redesign at such tine /asyyou require, for this further a8d40tahca,/^u nay contact him direct! ' Sincerely, %> lee B. Orant, H.D. Medical Director . LBOilnr Attachnenta eei Hr, 1. Q, Griffith Dr. Morton Corn r*" &> ?H d DEFENDANT'S sI EXHIBIT -S5.563"7 4 DUSTRIAL HYGIENE AJR POLLUTION MORTON CORN. Ph. D., B. Ch. CONSULTING ENGINEER 310 BOWER HIEL ROAD PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15228 E. TELEPHONE 412.661.62J7 The Port Allegany Plant; survey report is enclosed. As you will see, <6y opinion based on .the data obtained is that a redesign of the exhaust system is in order. I am fully aware of the future efforts associated with this recommendation but cannot reach any other conclusion 4,n view of the measures .taken .to ensure that the system was operating'-at hiqh efficiency .during'"my survey. Thus, at best performance^'dt..is just not good enough. /S. V/ / In accordance wit^'j^our. request, the repo/t does not dwell on design aspects because btfr.'tHirpose was to determine whe're we stand at present. / Sincerely yours. MC/pfh Enclosure . // e-L. L&Ln Morton Corn, Ph.D. J BB 0008683 | Report on GIENE SURVT-V rsv _______ THIS DOCUMENT WAS NOT A RECORD OF PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. DID NOT COME FROM <T'<5 FILES AND CANNOT BE AUTHENTICATED i_ff_000868A~J 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. III. IV. V. [NgSpDqCTION SUMJ2&RY tfDsRECOMMENDATIONS THRESHOLD LIMIT*VALUES OF SUBSTANCES MEASURED y/i IN THIS SURVEY / DESCRIPTION OF S&lPtlN'O AND ANALYTICAL METHODS /\ / RESULTS AND DISCUSSION/ /\ f/ \ J /\ \ *7^ y - ;,<* <y.'. //) vV;p. 1 1 2 3 4 THIS DOCUMENT was not^a ^EfRON, PPG ^JSS'.lbr-BE AUTHENTICATEDI I BB 0008685 | . I. INTRODUCTION A survey of airborne dust concentrations was performed in the Unibestos area of the Pittsburgh-Corning Port Allegany plant on August. 27-28~by Dr. Morton Corn. The survey was performed at the request of Lee Grant, M.D., Medical Director, PPG Industries. The survey was aimed specifically at assessing the degree of dust control achieved in the Unibestos facility with the improvements made since the former survey by the author in April, 1966. Also, because a ngw assessment technique for asbestos fibers (Membrane filter) i/s ipowS&eing used, the present survey was performed by simultanApo^^y sampling at the same location with the traditional sampling instrument\midget impinger) and the new instrument. During th^peripd^f the survey outdoor weather conditions were clear, cool, ana-fiunr#,/with outdoor temperatures in the range 60-75F. 7/X It should be noteidd''tthhat thfie dust collection system in the /X / Unibestos facility was thoroughly .cleaned during the week prior vDx A - ' to this survey .-^Therefore,/`it/can be reasonably assumed that dust concentrations measured in this-., suryley/are representative of the lowest concentratrons',&hich can be achieved-, with the present dust control system. -x v /l II. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS l/\ This survey was performed .-.by simullt`taanneeoouuss^ly saampling airborne dust in the Unibestos plant''byvt*j different ^echpoques. Results of both methods of assessment sug*$t that dust ^cop^ntfrations in the plant are high when judged by the present U. S. Threshold/iimit Value for asbestos dust, or by the recently proposed Britisnguidelines for asbestos dust. Because the dust collection system was operating at, or close to the maximum efficiency achievable with present facilities, . modifications and additions to the present system would appear to be in order. It is beyond the scope of this report to present detailed recommendations for system modification, but certain obvious major sources of dust emission in the plant as cited in Section V of this report. It is recommended that attention be focussed on major redesign of t! pres nt system. It is obvious that additional air capacity for new local exhaust hoods will be necessary, and thatthis capacity probably cannot be found in the present system, which was not adequately handling existing hoods. document WAS NOT a ECOW. of FILES AND CANNOTINDUSTRIES, INC. ________ | BB 0008686 | i III. .THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUE OF AS3EST*0S D0ST;- "The threshold limit values refer to airborne concentrations of substances and represent conditions under which it is believed that .early all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, without 'adverse effect. Because of wide variation in individual susceptibility exposures of an occasional individual at or even below the threshold limit may not prevent discomfort, aggravation of a pre-existing condition, or occupational illness. "Threshold limits should be used as guides in the control of health hazards and should not be regarded as fine lines between safe and dangerou^CR4itions." * Thfe' American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists had,' in xg67, for asbestos of 5 million particles per cubic foot, as" determinedjby^impinger sampling and counting by light-field techniques. xlvj>^onsidered revision (1968), the Conference endorsed the retention of tbts T.I/.V- for "most forms of asbestos". However, for crocidolite, becauj6 of^the ^production of mesotheliomas, it was recommended that workers-^be equipped with air-supplied helmets because / "no safe limit can be established for this form of asbestos at this time." '"`The Britfeh Occupational hygiene/Society recently issued hygienic ta'n'dards 'for cbrys'otile asbestos dust'."** /The standards are based on t he objective that^the risk of contracting asbestos be reduced to 1 per cent"of'thcSs'e,'Who"have' a lifetime's aetxrtpAoets.Yu-rACvv4t-or\ ^thViea dust, gy "asbesto'sis" "the 'committee' meant the earliest demonstrable eeffffee.cts on the-lung due to" asbestos. ' These standards are ci^d harfSe because they are' more' stringent than''-`the* U'.S. guideline ref erredth^jabb/ye. The exposure guidelines" 'are":' _ ' ~~X~m'-'.V, ----- -- * ---.^able i . . * r` = ~'BRITISH' 'HYGIENIC" GUIDELINES FOR ASBESTOS DUST '- : - -, DUST CATEGORY CONCENTRATION AVERAGED OVER 3 MONTHS Fibers/cm^ MFPCF*** z .i rv* z .. .. Negligible Low : Medium High 0 - 0.4 0.5 - 1.9 . 2.0 - 10 over 10 0.011 0.014 - 0.054 0.057 - 0.28 over 0.28 Extracted from the Preface, Threshold Limit Values for 1968. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1014 Broadway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. ** Ann. Occup. Hyg. 11, 47-69 (1968). *** Million particles per cubic foot (as fibers) record ^^ eoDVO^CU^MoENTTBEAUtHC^OM^ETEO -2- 'bt;SpFpg >^sTes, .HO rir-0-0-0leirT The concentrations refer to fibers greater than 5 microns in length as determined by the membrane filter method. IV. DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS Because of the current state of evaluation of the methods of assessing the potential hazard of asbestos dust, the standard impinger technique and the membrane filter technique were used in this survey. A. Impinger Method A midget impinger containing 10 ml of demineralized, distilled water was operated at 0.1 cfm air flow rate by means of a battery operatedfoump.^ Samples were agitated prior to withdrawing drops of suspensioqfor extsmination in a Spencer Brightline Haemocy tome ter Cell. Particles we^e /counted by viewing the sample with an objective lens of 0.25 Numerical \^erparerf(10x) and a 15x Ocular. Approximately 200-300 particles were cbuqtpti an e4ch size class, except where frequency of occurrence in the vi^iijg^fj^slcbwas very low, indicating concentrations in air far below the thre^fod li^mit value. The counting standard deviation was estimated tot w^ere N is the total count for the sample. A blank count was made<^m^the ^l^tilled water. Dust concen tration in the air, expressed as millibn^ of^particles per cubic foot ,MPPCF), was calculated from the sampl^ volume, liquid collection reservoir, and Sample and blank dust courf{s.I / B. Membrane'^ilter Method \f A membrane filter (Type HA Millipore) Oas zfsedi obtain samples for microscopic evaluation of fiber and dust part^cJ^*^oacentrations. This paper is composed of pores 0.45 microns in size ana has been shown to retain, with 100% efficiency, particles down to 0.05 n^cron diameter'1'. The filter was first visually examined to detect any loose dust or uneven dust deposition. In the ew cases where the filter deposit did not pass this examination it was necessary to resuspend the collected dust in distilled water and refilter this suspension on VF grade Millipore filter to assure an even dust distribution over the entire filter area. A pie shaped segment of the filter was then placed on a microscope slide and rendered completely transparent with Cargille certified index of refraction liquids. Cargille liquid of index __________ | BB 0008688 | Megaw, W.J. and Wiffen, R.D.: Int. J. Air Wat. Poll. 1, 501 (1963). THIS DOCUMENT WAS NOT A RECORD, OF PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. DID NOT COME FROM ` |-p5 piles and cannot be authenticated -3- BY PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. refraction 1.500 was usually most suitable. The counting of the dust particles and the counting and sizing of asbestos fibers was performed with the aid of a Zeiss Photomicroscope using Phase Contrast Illumination. The objective lens was a Zeiss Neofluor Ph 63x with a numerical aperture of 0.90. The eyepiece had a magnification of 20x and contained a calibrated Porton graticule. The optovar feature of the Zeiss scope contributed to the total magnification of 2016x. Resolution was approximately 0.35 microns. Particles and fibers of size 0.30 microns could be dejected. In the evaluation procedure, all particles and fibers in the Porton fi^ld of vjau were counted and the fibers were grouped by fiber length into^fir^e categories (less than five microns, five to ten microns, 'and larger than ten micryfis). This procedure was repeated for a number of randomly selected fie^usjonythe face of the filter. Because only a portion of the total filhe-fc ate^ was evaluated by this method, it was necessary to correct the c/o4rft, bjyc /th/ve ratio of the total filter ar to . 'the evaluated area. The result^any'paf^ticle or fiber number was divided 'by 'the volume of the air sample jCo obtain dust or fiber concentration r / /X "expressed as millions of particles^eryCubic foot (MPPCF) . " The statistical reliability of the evaluation was expressed as che `standard deviation, calculated as ri'be'r `count:. ':1 * 'E * : whejr4 j/ is the particle or "The procedure'Outlined follows, in its essential points, that -.............. i recommended by J. R..Lynch and H. E.-Ayer in their/artartl: "Measurement *of Asbestos Exposure^yirfch appeared in the Journal of - ....... . '/V " Medicine; Volume 1, Jaqyuhry, 1968 cunAtional" V. "4 ""RESULTS -AND DISCUSS V\ : Measured concentrations.';6f .'dust'and asbestos fibers are summarized "in _.. Table ,. . .2; - All , "samples 'werfe/obfafried ............. in the breathing zone of men or "at breathing level in areas where me* n* ,were hot at work at the time Samples were obtained (in aisles, for instance). Impinger and membrane filter samples were obtained simultaneously at the sites shown. Only 'at the last five sites were midget impingers used without simultaneous membrane filters operating. * ... It is seldom that air sampling reveals a picture as consistent -as the one depicted by the data in Table 2. With the exception of two samples obtained with the impinger, all results indicate concentrations -4- TH1S DDOOCCUUMwEmNrnT DniDotn0AT COMt PTP-? SESSaSd cannot BE AUTHENTIC* II'*ED bVpVg ES, in excess of the present U.S. Threshold Limit Value of 5 MPPCF. It should be noted that the U.S.T.L.V. is in terms of total particles ~N and not fibers alone. This approach stems from epidemiological methods .nitially used in surveying the asbestos industries. According to the British classification, three membrane filter samples were in the Medium dust category (0.057-0.28 million fibers (>5 urn) per cubic foot) and the remaining six samples were in' the High dust category ( 0.28 million fibers (>5 urn) per cubic foot) . These results suggest that with the present dust control facilities operating under jajrfeijnum conditions of maintenance, dust concentrations are high in the Unibesto^ plant. .The highest conceertrations of dust were measured at cutting stations and in the vicinity of the) feed Stations in the raw materials formulation {J area. The high results t^ buildup station were due to dust from the /f feed area backing up to the buildup area. The high dust levels at the Uniclad area are * surprising, bfut^it'^^w^s noted that the men use a special abrasive sponge to smooth the ro'lls and this may contribute to the dust. Exhaust hoods are not used in this areal % ' + /r ' - .-Possible major sources of the excessive dust are not hard to pinpoint nd they will now be cited. - - .* V X> AT Raw materials formulation area. * - i>f ii. -.j r:l. . T^^sfer of asbestos from bags""'to'''feed ^bi^s and recovered asbestos from th^^pllectioh "house" to bins are ^najor^burces of dust emission. Present Efforts directed at pneumatic picJk^upyOf scrap will reduce the latter 1 ----- L-s-i :ir.:2, ":Line fe^^biiii-hoods are not effective basetTonSfl/easuted face velocities.' The 'new jbin hood design is superior to thef old design, but the.:need-to :open..asbe^tbs'<.bags from, the-tops iof-bins-results in-low air velocities at 1 the bases'>'-nifa,-opening faces.- =The-problem is the :. sloping face design of the bin ent^j^ : - i- -- ' - -- - s:-'.-:: 3. Low room air velocities in-the feed area indicates poor air turnover in this room. Velocities were 20-30 fpm. - = . .4. ` Doors, remain open in the scrap storage bin and dust enters the room .as material drops to the base of the bin and "pulses" the dust laden air outward. __ - - -5- TU19 DOCUMENT WAS NOT A RECORD Or industries, INC. DID NOT COME FROM IT'S FILES AND CANNOT BE AUTHENTICATED RV PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. $ 5. Floor sweeping and cleaning in this area generate a large amount of dust. B. Unibestos Cutting Area 1. Absence of hood at No. 3 Line Unloading Station. 2. Line No. 3 "push-pull" hood system at cutter is inefficient. The "push" and "pull" areas are equal and the jet merely "splashes" off the hood after expansion in transit. f 3. )Line No. 3 exit hood ineffective. V 4. LiTTfe^No. 2 cutting hood is downdraft on the left side, side. The latter is ineffective. A o set-up for Line No. l,a canvas hood installed / / >,by the operator, ajipear^if towork well and should be looked at for permanent design and i|se ap Lines 2 and 3. Thus, the problem in this-' aj^eX^is really one of poor or non existent local exhaust hood/design. ; It;, is beyond the scope of this report to present detailed hood^desighs. * The designs required at these sites are not elaborate, but the additi'onal- air capacity must be in the dust collection system. _InformationNconveypdyo\^he author by Mr. Dolaway ^iicated that the present sys tkih t have this capacity . - - . * l1 fc. . _ vC/"o -------- : *. - - . - - - * it---. ------- 1': - "C-: v-i THIS. DOCUMENT WAS NOT A RECORD OF PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. DID.NOT COME FROM IT'S'FILES A^D CANNOT BE AUTHENTICATED BY PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. ' l BB 0008691_| Date and Time of Sample DUST AND ASBESTOS FIBER CONCENTRATIONS AT SELECTED PLANT LOCATIONS Description of Sampling Site Dust or Fiber Imprnger Sampling Particles Fibers Concentration, Fibers < 5 jum MPPCF + Standard Deviation Membrane Filter Sampling Fibersj Fibers 5 - 10 jam I >10 /Um Particle 27 1:05 PM- Loader BZ* Cutting 6.1 + 0.6 1:15 PM Unibestos (2* x 6") on Line No. 2 0.60 + 0.17 1.54 + 0.11 0.09 27 1:25 PM- Unloader BZ* Cut 1:35 PM. ting Unibestos (21 x 6") on Line No. 2 6.2 + 0.6 0.65 +^0.18 0.82 + 0.11 \ oS. 27 1:45 PM- Unloader BZ* Cut 1:55 PM ting Unibestos (2 1/2' x 16") Line No. 3 27 2:25 PM- Loader BZ* Cut 2:35 PM ting Unibestos (2 1/2' x 16") Line No. 3 I19-2 X>x` 1.7 95 + 0.31 3.20 + 0.56 2.17 + ff'ilr "07l4 X. X / 1.62 Vs0 fl5 0.23 + 0. 05 + 0.06 /'A. 27 3:05 PM- General Back 3:15 PM ground in Aisles at breathing leve1. Opposite office adjacent to cutting area 27 4:20 PM- Raw Materials & 4:30 PM Line Formulation Area Line Feed Op rator BZ* in vicinity of Lines 1A, IB, S- 1C. Note: large amounts of visible dust. Breathing Zone. i-- i M iw! II O II IoI I 00 I 2.9 + 0.4 0.80 + 0*. 20*' -- vV 0/^93 +0.11 0.49 + 0.08 ^XoO^/6.32 10.0 + 0.7 4.74 + 0.28 0.51 + 0.09 -A lTOUN3HlnVMX 0^ i?na!a '3NI ~ OXU V ION SVM lr;3wnc0d SiHi 0.051 + 0.021 2.40 + 0. 0.015 + 0.015 2.34 + 0, 0.017 + 0.017 3.62 + 0. 0.071 + 0.032 2.44 + 0, 0.44 + 0.08 6.69 + 0 0.22 + 0.06 5.72 + 0. TABLE 2 inued) s Date and Time of Sample Description of Sampling Site Impinger Sampling .Particles Fibers Fibers <5 urn Membrane Filter Sampling Fibers Fibers 5 - 10 um >10 um Particles 8/27 4s35 PM- Raw materials and 44.3 + 2.1 6.40 + 0.80 4.43 + 0.29, <T8K+ 0.19 0.72 + 0.11 7.07 + 0.3 4 t 45 PM Line Formulation .. ! i ' i1 * *, * Area Background \ Sampling at breath 4- V ing level Note: Large amounts' 1 <> ar;;oJ>. * of visible dust A 1 * c) J 8/28 8130 AM 8:40 AM Breathing Level Adjacent to Kiln (in aisle opposite control panel) . '2-;'3>t 0.3 0.40 + 0.14 1.40 >v0.16 0.15 + 0.05 0.074 + , A/ / / VX * 0.037 -,Cv Xs' 7.38 + 0.3 8/28. 8:55 AM- Raw materials andv / . 9:05 AM Line Formulatiofiv Area. Breathing XX Level in vicinit^' of Lines 1 and:;2 bins and adjaig&nt to storage area. 8/28 9:35 AM- BZ* of builder 9:45 AM operator at Line No. 2 (2* x 6" rolls) 5.2 + 0.5 0.50 + 0V16' 4.^5 + A t * > /-s. / *v / X 32.0 + 1.8 ^v20/+ 0.96 -----'> -- 8/28 9:50 AM- BZ* of builder 0.50 + 0.16 10: 00 AM operator at Line No. 1 8/28 10:05 10 :15 AMAM Breathing in storage level area s/\ ^28^8 + 1.1 2.10 + 0.32 behind Lines No. 1 and 2. Feed bins (Asbestos and Decalite bag J |storage).__________ j Breathing Zone. -- I qni 's3tyisnaNj Ddd as (J3!V3!IN3HinV 38 iONMVO OMV S3H3 SJ.I IMOdd 3HOD 10W aia `ONI 'S3!HiSnaNI Odd 30 080038 V ION SVM INBiAinOOd SIH1 0.29 0.57 + -- -- 0.10 0.31 + 0.07 -- -- 6.98 + 0.3 --------. :S BB 0008693 t'-d'l.!' ; M--. .) TABL^, l (continued) Date and Time of Sample | * " 11 < * Description of Sampling Site . ` - n _____1 Dust or Fiber Concentration,>MPPCF + Standard Deviation Impinger Sampling Me^nbraneV-Filter Sampling Fibers Fibers J Fibers - Particles Fibers <5 urn ; -10 urn Particles / .... (X 8/28 10*25 AM- Cutting Area bZ* 17.3 + 0.9, 0.90 + 0.21 10: 35 AM of Line No. 1 * ' * Feed Operator c--> X t N \ (Cutting 16" X""1 ; c\ X'' 2' rolls) , 1 vrV'*. '-0 " 11 .'IT 1 S S. lH ' ' /^V M 8/28 10*50 AM11:00 AM Uniclad Area i,, ffl;.2 BZ* operator j ,/ N` " .> v ' %/V. + 2.5 1.20 + 0.35 *, rv A f ' trJf ,X --X---------------- * Breathing Zone, S'K. *-'. -- 1 -------- -- /X vj u X V. X, ti t-- I !J !"l ISI ISI 1st !*! I-- I ` CO =i 2 ^ > I * * t ^ fft P y) 1 ' 'nr 1 O " -- ifi cz o 2>C (/) m 2 HO W -i 2m > 2 2 < 2o5 _ O c/) O2 HO O2 2 m O H XmOom33 2 X3 o 2 3? m mx Oo CoO mO O:S O-n i\ n . ; n . mi < i> t