Page 1 of 5

EPA-H Q -OPPT-2009-0922 SANITIZED
1. How many workers have the potential for exposure to the chemical, and how many are wearing respirators? What activities are the workers that wear respirators involved in? Consortium members reported a range of workers from 8

- 20 . The number can vary depending on the types of tasks being performed on any given day (e.g., maintenance, scale calibrations, filter removal/replacement, etc.). One consortium member reported that respirators are not worn during non

intrusive activities such as walking through the plan t or sitting in the control room. One c onsortium member reported using 3M Versaflo M

- 400 PAPR ( APF = 1000 )

. Consortium member reported a variety of tasks for which workers wear respirators , including:
 o pening up the closed system for inspection, cleaning, or repair
 unloading raw materials
 entering confined spaces
 any maintenance work
 opening sagger handling system (inspection/cleaning/maintenance), including changi ng out saggers (ceramic trays) and the sagger cleaning brush
 sampling
 chang ing out filter/mill drop drums
 filter cartridge change out
 mixer cleaning
 finished product packaging 2. It appears that workplace exposure monitoring has been conducted at the worksite(s). What were the results of the monitoring?
 Please provide the site monitoring reports since they would possibly contain pertinent details regarding which workers were selected for monitoring, the sampling and analytical methods, exposure levels, and the laboratory results.
 Important: Indicate if monitoring was conducted with fully functional engineering controls in place on the days of the monitoring. Consortium members rep orted that all engineering controls were in place and operational at the time of monitoring. One consortium member provided the table bel ow in response to this question:

This document is the property of the sponsor and may be used only for that purpose intended by the sponsor. Every other or additional use, exploitation, reproduction, publication or submission to other parties requires the written permission of the sponsor, with the exception of the recipient regulatory agency acting within the limits of its administrative authority pursuant to applicable law (e.g., TSCA). The use of these studies/documents for regulatory, registration or other commercial purposes, including but not limited to Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH), without the express written permission of the sponsor is unauthorized and strictly prohibited.Page 2 of 5

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0922 SANITIZED

Note for table: Sampling was conducted using 0.8 um MCE filters and a constant flow air sampling pump at 2 lpm. The analytical method was NIOSH 7303 using ICP

- Mass Spectrometry with a reporting limit of 0.003 micrograms for each element. Total metals were reported as the sum of the results for cobalt (III) oxide, lithium oxide, manganese (IV) oxide and nickel oxide to represent airborne concentrations for the NCM substance. Another consortium member provided the following information (2

- page table)

.Page 3 of 5

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0922 SANITIZEDPage 4 of 5

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0922 SANITIZEDPage 5 of 5

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0922 SANITIZED
3. Describe the engineering controls and other controls and work practices that are currently in place. Consortium companies reported the use of many controls, including local exhaust ventilation, air scrubbers and bag filters. One consortium member offered the following details: The plant was designed and incorporates state

- of

- th e - art engineering controls, including an enclosed process design concept. Enclosed process design is used to accommodate current SNUR. In order to avoid dust emissions, the plant, including a 3 story conveyor, is designed to run under a slight under press ure of around

– 5 mbar, by managing either flow or pressure control loops. The exhaust air for each process is drawn by the central filter stations. Each process operation has primary control device filter installed. In some cases, there is a secondary aft er filter installed. In some process areas, state

- of

- the

- art mechanical seals are installed. Purge air (plant compressed air) ensures operability of equipment seals. Purge air is added by variable area flow meter to each purge spot. The packaging process involves a stand

- alone filter station, only operating when packaging is happening. Packaging booth is designed for proper capture velocity. During central filter change out, a Bag

- In/Bag

- Out concept was designed. Total Productive Maintenance (Operator Rou nds) and a full PM program are in place. We have removed one of the original design screw conveyors that used mechanical purge seals, and have replaced that conveyor with one that does not incorporate mechanical purge seals. This removal of the screw feed er prevents leaks and subsequent exposure. 4. Do you anticipate making any changes or additions to existing controls in the future? The consortium member who offered the detailed response to question #3, offered the following in response to this questio n: Yes. Another screw feeder, with the same issues previously mentioned, will be replaced soon. The packaging system is also being modified. During drum filling, the liner, which is being filled, undergoes a slight positive pressure that affects the final weight. In order to correct this weight discrepancy, the operator has to manually modify the final weight, which increases the exposure hazard. We will control the pressure in the fill bag during final packaging to a manner in which a slight negative pre ssure is predominant.