Document 2JZ373qLJxJxMwad1eRozyBD6

COt .oco Interoffice Communication To L. N. Vernon From D. V. Porchey Date May 8, 1974 Subject Fixed Point VCM Monitoring f On May 3, 1974, a meeting was held at the Sheraton Chateau Charles in Westlake, Louisiana, to discuss fixed point VCM monitoring (FPM). In attendance were: L. N. Vernon E. M. Smith v R. D. Gamblln R. M. Walston R. E. Laramy D. V. Porchey Saddle Brook Aberdeen Lake Charles - VCM Ponca City - MED Ponca City - R&D Ponca City - R&D In addition, B. R. Brown, Vice-President, Personnel, attended the morning session. MED had previously arranged for Honeywell to reserve for Conoco 13 FPM hulks with associated equipment. The agreement, for which Conoco is paying $100 per day, is to expire on May 8, 1974. As one of the action steps decided upon and discussed below, our option on a portion of the reserved equipment will be exercised. FPM equipment will be placed in our VCM and PVC plants. The following action steps were decided upon: 1. The tubxlmum practical distance between sample point and analyzer will be determined. (BMW) 2* The feasibility of building and of operating a mobil FPM for use by LC will be evaluated* (BMW) 3. The number of units to be ordered will be determined based on the results of items 1 and 2. The number of units will be between 6 and 9. (BMW) 4. Honeywell will be informed by May 8, 1974, of our decision to exercise a portion of our equipment option. (BMW) 5. An attempt will be made with Honeywell to reserve one unit for the new Pilot Plant at Oklahoma City. No purchase commitment will be made. (RMW) VVC 000002701 L. N. Vernon May 8, 1974 Page 2 6. Timing for delivery of the Honewell units and of the sample systems and for installation of both will be estimated. (RMW) 7. AFE cost estimates will be prepared for and presented to each plant. (RMW) Discussion: The usefulness and limitations of FPM were discussed at length. The decision was made by the plant managers present to install FPM in their plants in order to determine more accurately the VCM level in our workplace environment and to provide documentation of those levels. Appropriate warning alarms will also be included on each unit. Goodrich is using FPM to document environments in an attempt to replace dosimeter testing. This result, if successful, could be an added benefit of FPM to Conoco. Honeywell and Applied Automation have provided cost estimates to MED for 10-point gas chromatographic analyzers. The estimates were presented by RMW and discussed. Based primarily on price and on MED recommendations concerning reliability, availability, and experience, Honeywell GC-16 instruments were chosen for our application. The base price of each GC-16 instrument with controller and strip chart but without sample system and installation is about $7,600. The alarms may be about $1,500 each. Delivery is tentatively expected to be 60 days for the GC-16's. RMW will determine costs and timing for delivery of the sample systems. Installation cost, method, and timing alternatives will also be evaluated. The number of points and units to be placed in each plant was discussed. Aberdeen will Install four 10-point units. Oklahoma City and Lake Charles will install one unit if the physical separation between units and sample points will allow adequate sampling. If distances are too great, both locations will require a second unit. RMW will determine the maximum practical separation distance between sample points and analyzers, thus, whether or not two units are required. RDG requested that an evaluation be made to determine whether or not a portable unit could be constructed for use at the LC ship loading dock, plant fences, etc. RMW will also perform this evaluation. If a portable unit is feasible, one will be estimated for the VCM plant. The total units required is summarized as follows: Minimum Possible With Portable Unit Aberdeen OKC LC-VCM Total 4 1 1 6 4 2 2 8 4 2 3 9 VVC 000002702 L. N. Vernon Hay 8, 1974 Page 3 RMW will also ask Honeywell to reserve a unit for use In the OKC pilot plant. No dollar commitment will be made. u. v. rorcney Research Chemical Engineer Engineering Research Chemicals Research Division Research and Development Department gl CC: Attendees Listed:FK:GFT:EWB:RSM:RSM:RAF:RTF CIRCULATE TO: mcr RETURN TO PLANT MANAGER'S OFFICE L. 0 . S chuman May 8, 1974 - Wall Street Journal cc: JDB, FK, JJL, KLS, AJA, LNV Vinyl Chloride Hazard Stressed by Safety Panel -- ( /? 7 r Wam, >Lnw:hT .fuemvAi, Sin '] icr WAFIIl.'lCTOM -The Consigner Product Safctv Commission joint'd c'.kor federal rijjoncicvs in. we. i con ra ;krit the use! of aerosol sprays ptvpc'leci by vinyl chloride ! m;iy be a health hazard. [ Vinyl chloride has been linked with aj rare form ci liver cancer amor;? industrial I workers involved in convert hr? tin: ~nscrisi j chemical to the elastic polyvinyl chloride. I Vinyl chloride is one of several suhsL'nccr! that can be used as a propellant for aero.: )lj sprays. j Besides warnhr: that the chemical could | "ni'KiTl a substantial prnbnel h.iyanV the commbn.io.i asked p:n.f and present maker:, of vinyl chloriiP-propcllod spriv--. to ruhmit i information about the distribution and use I patterns os tlu- r r-rcduci.e. : Last month the lhivironintmt.il PrclecItion .\.:oney recalled and banned peraicicie la.civ;. ols conbiirua? vinyl ohkuu!. ar.d the , Food and 1'riur Adniinisl; 'alien re. riled Br itain cosmetic products empinyir.;- the chcni- jica.l. If llio ihv'iuel Safety O':i:ii'.i.'.;io!i deiciilcs that other products in by: vnyl eh'or* ilde arc hazardous, it could ban tl:c r rale. VVC 000002704