Document 2qd1K9LYvLBd817BzQJJR5aR
On March 20, 1979, an evaluation run was performed for a second teflon-treated stabilizer. The materials weighed were Tribase EXL from ML Industries (BFG Code S--67) and the teflon-treated equivalent from American Cyanamid, Cyastab 670 (BFG Code 709-895). Fifty-four batches @20#/batch of each material were weighed under conditions similar to the test performed on December 28, 1978 (report of 1/26/79 attached).
The weighman was monitored while each material was weighed, and the two samples were sent to Brecksville for analysis.
Sample No.
Material
Sample time (min.)
Exposure (
299
T reated
60
300
Non-treated
^5
15^8
2631
The results show a reduction in exposure of over
for the teflon-treated stabilizer.
This reduction, while sizeable, is far short of the 85% reduction in the previous
run. An eight hour time-weighted average (assumuag'''tRe'\stabi 1 izer is weighed for
the normal 90 minutes) would yield an exposure qr 29Q^t/g/nr ^for the teflon-treated
material, a level that exceeds the current 1Imlt ot-TOO g/nr . These results highlight
the importance of other controls, especially work practices, in addilton to the
use of treated stabilizers, in reducing exposures to toxic dusts.
7
JMG/re
Distribution
<T.$. Blalke Akron A.W. Clements Cleveland R.J. Coffey Cleveland F.C. DeWolfe - D.P. Knechtges - Cleveland
J. W. Goetsch - Pedricktown K. L. Blanton - Pedricktown C.W. Purks - ALTC W.A. Reed - J.A, Kiel - Pedricktown H, Waltemate - Cleveland
26184001
attachment:
t -C. 2/77
1 ; 1- O U i t
BFG46731
TO
See Distribution
. *OM
J.M. G1ickman
SUBJECT
FIELD POINT OR DEPT. & BLDG. NO.
FIELD POINT OR DEPT. & BLDG. NO.
Pedricktown
EVALUATION OF "TEFLON-COATED LEAD STABILIZERS
____ i
DATE YOUR LETTER
DATE THIS LETTER
1/26/79
As part of our program to assure compliance with the OSHA Standard for Occupational Exposure to Lead, we have begun the evaluation of nTef]on"-coated lead stabilizers, A 140,000 pound run of 84059 Gray 243 was chosen for the first test. Th.|s compound contains Halbase 10, a lead stabilizer that Is available in both, treated and nontreated forms (BFG codes 709-881 and 709-195, respectively). One half of the run was made with each form of the stabilizer. The two stabilizers were ordered in mid December and received on December 27*
The weighing of the hand weighs was performed on December 28, under the following conditions, in order to minimize any variations not due to the stabilizer themselves.
1. All the weighing was completed on the same day. 2. One technician performed all the weighing. 3. 123 Batches at 14.3 pounds per batch of each stabilizer were weighed. 4. The weighing of each stabilizer was completed in the same amount of time,
A total of four (4) samples were taken. One sampling pump was placed on the welghman and one on top of the scale for each stabilizer weighed. When the weighing was completed, the samples were sent to Brecksville for analysis, The results were as follows:
Sample No.
Location
Material
Exposure -^g/m3
200^8192
271
Weighman
Treated
272 Sea 1 e
Treated
100 30
273
Weighman
Non-Treated
680
274 Sea 1 e
Non-T reated
83
These figures represent the exposure level for the task of weighing these particular materia 1s.
The sample time for weighing each of the stabilizers was 100 minutes. During the course of a normal day, a weighman would not be weighing lead for more than 100 minutes out of eight hours. If the results for the treated stabilizer were time-weighted over an eight-hour period (assuming no lead exposure while not weighing lead), the exposure level would drop to 2lAj/m3, which Is less than one half of the permissible Exposure
Limit for the new standard.
These results indicate a sizable reduction in the exposure to the weighman, and repre sent an encouraging first step In the evaluation process, it must be emphasized that this test only represents a first step;, and that the results will not be^ sw i. gn,ifI i.can t-
if they are not supported by additional data.
BFG46733
JMG/bjc Distribution:
T.S. Bialke - Akron A.W. Clements - Cleveland R.J. Coffey - Cleveland F.C. DeWolfe-D.P. Knechtges-Cleveland
J,W Goetsch C.W, Purks
W.A* Reed-J.A. H. Waltemate
Kiel
- pedricktown
- ALTC - pedflcktown - Cleyel^nd
IlFGoodrich
INTER-ORGANIZATION CORRESPONDENCE
TO
J. M. Glickman / JOM / _______ J. A. Wallbrov^n
SUBJECT
fiao POfNT OR DEPT -RectnlckjtQwn
NO.
MELD POINT OR DEPT. & BLDG. NO.
Brecksville R & D Center, D/8506
DATE YOUR LETTER
I^T.^9
I received 9 personal monitors with a request for analysis of lead, cadmium and antimony. The lead results are tabulated below. I regret to report that the remainder of the samples was lost during analysis and I am unable to report the results for cadmium and antimony. If further sampling is necessary please indicate that you have resampled and I will give them priority. The Log number for these samples is 94-79. The asterisk (*) involved your evaluation of teflon-treated lead stabilizers.
Sample
Date
Name
Vol. Liters
Microqrams Pb
Microqrams/M
315 316
4/09/79 4/10/79
Wilson ii
378 192
475 425
1257 2214
317
4/10/79
Burke
947
175
185
*318
4/11/79
Wilson
257
275
1070 -
*319
4/11/79
Hunter
456
375
822
*320
4/17/79
Stockwel1
195
475
2436
*321
4/18/79
I
245
325
1327' /
*322
4/19/79
Cheesman
770
65
84
323
4/20/79
Lockwood
237
300
1266
Blank
J J(am (x)&
Jdftnn Wall brown
jb
cc: P. M. Zakriski E. B. Katzenmeyer, Jr. R & D Files
TOOS8I92
aCG-456'0 2/77 LITHO J54
V -1I :' "> ^t-
I/'-'
BFG46734
I received from you 9 cassettes. These were personal monitors for lead, antimony and cadmium. They were given Log # 57-79, and analyzed by
atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
Sample
Name
Vol (M3)
Lead
Microqrams Antimony
Cadmium
286 Brown
0.123
716.7
40.0
287
Fauntleroy
0.302
6.7 9.9
288 Kidd
0.990
583.3
33.3
289 Cheesman
0.672
883.3
16.6
290
Fauntleroy
0.326
31.6
99.9
291 Billings
0.177
116.7
9.9
292 Billings
0.093
23.3
6.6
293
Kachiwski
0.940
110.0
326.7
<0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2
<0.1 0.2 0.2
jb
cc: P. M. Zakri^it*-- Katzenmever. Or
R S D Files
*0098192
BFG49B6*D 2/77 LlTHO USA
BFG46735