Document rBxn2Jem7vnXEdZnYgNyN7mYa

l.'T' 1I o ji (*\NZPT.c&&Tf/t/t, /mtERHAL CORRESPONDENCli------- ' i, irtlOH CARBIDE CliKMICALft COMPANY imstitut* tlamt p. o. box nil. chmiHion. wist yircinu iki'| R. J. Sexton, M.D. Medical Department *i <* *` 3 December 1962 , OrtgUtfUg o.pf. Industrial Hygiene Plant 512 A*lrh| lall.f All) . ' Johns Manvllle "Thermobestos" ------------------------------- ------------- ?Jr* On 21 March 1962, an Industrial Hygleoe Report, i.e., 62-IH-1-6-L, Identified the existence of a hazard to health In the Construction Insulation . Shop during such times as when insulation blocks manufactured by the Johns Manvllle Company are being fabricated with exhausted baud save* It was recommended at that time thnt 18" x 36" x h" "ThermobeBtoe" insulation blocks* should not be fabricated with the existing equipment unices -- (a) The atmospheric dust problem could be reduced to belov 20 toppef 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, dUBt 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. ' Oo 20 July 1962, a second Industrial Hygiene Report, i.e,, - 62-IH-2-C-1, was submitted subsequent to an evaluation of three new insulation materials supplied by the Johns Manvllle Company. This report concluded that . these materials were Improved over the original. However, the duet concentrations produced upon fabrication of these Insulation blocks were substantially in excess of the recommended 6afe 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. H. Matheny, 3^; General Foreman of the Insulation Shop, who stated that three Johns Manvllle ,3*,J 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 BuildiDg 2, at which time Mr. Saxer produced the accompanying copy of portions of a report submitted by the Johns Manvllle Industrial Hygiene Laboratory located at Manvllle, 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 *Tbe Johns Manvllle trade name for their insulation blocks s 10 4 8 5 4 UCC 006121 n. J. Sexton, M.D. 3 December I962 Page 2 our environmental conditional sampling and evaluating the duet concentrations contained therein were subject to question* At this point he stated also that this conclusion vaa promoted on the basis of their analysis of the atmospheric dust conditions produced by their competitors product, (i*e., Kaylo or Item if 5AT in the report) which in no way agreed with the data submitted in the Industrial Hygiene Report "-IH-62-I-Q-1. It vbb explained at this point, that this department's interest in this problem 1b alvayo confined solely to the environmental conditions ns 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 oqc . company's product over that of another* Upon completion of this statement, Hr* Saxcr proposed that Mr. D* R. Matheny and the Plant's Industrial Hygienist make a trip to Msnville, Hew Jeroey, at Johns Mauville's expense and at a time celected 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 utilJtlzed by the Institute Plant's Industrial Hugiene Department* It was Mr. Saxer's opinion that such a viBit would permit a more positive approach to the problem and remove the possibility of misunderstandings, etc., that results from written ' correopondence. 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, Hr, L. H. Dickinson, through appropriate channels before a final decision could bo made, ' . In concluBion, it Bhould. be stated that a phone coll was received from Mr. F. 0* 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 sntislfied both by verbal explanation and by the promise that copies of both reporto, i.e., 62-HI-I-G-I and 62-IH-2^-l, 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 wioe 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 I. . UCC 006122