Document 41OJa24E500ZvM1pYznzEqqp

Monsanto #hOM iNAMI lb IW.AIIONi v St. Louis - General Office uaVi July 1, 1968 subject *CFERMCt TO EVALUATION OF DRUM LINERS FOR ELECTRICAL AROCLOR Your report #3, Job #370-501 Dated 6/24/68 * TO : W. H. Howard - ANNISTON e y/&. /7/y^A/^^ ct ' '' C. E. Anagnostopoulos - CANAG' D. C. Armstrong - KRUMMRICH H. S. Bergen - HBERG J. G; Bryant H. C. Carder HCARD D. Danna - DDANN W. B. Dunlap - ANNISTON V. R. Haupt - ANNISTON H. O. Hehner - HHEHN D. B. Hosmer - DHOSM N. T. Johnson . W. B. Kuhn - WKUHN J. C. Landwehr - ANNISTON G. W. Miller - ANNISTON feWw^mibywH^KRTJMMRICH^ ^ R. H. Munch - SECOND STREET W. B. Papageorge - ANNISTON J. F. Quinn - SECOND STREET W. R. Richard - WRICH J. R. Savage - QUEENY C. M. Williams H. L. Williams - ANNISTON To develop a drum package which will maintain high quality electrical Aroclor for both domestic and foreign customers. \ 2. SUMMARY OF ANNISTON'S RECOMMENDATION: As a result of the Anniston studies, one coat of clear epoxy-phenolic . lining is recommended to solve the problem. 3. OUR REASONS TO QUESTION THIS CONCLUSION: '1 ' . a) Two coats of clear phenolic, which is the lining presently used, was found to give superior results regards power factor and resistivity retention qualities of all coatings tested--including also Dalbon; epoxy-phenolic, clear and pigmented and applied either with one coat or two coat applications. ' b) In all instances the experimental drums were flushed three times with good quality Aroclor to clean the drums prior to using them ' for packaging the Aroclor. .. . ' os'N^1 STLCOPCB4066740 * W. H. Howard ' -2- July 1, 1968 c) As we do not normally flush our drums prior to packaging with Aroclor, ,the experimental approach is inconsistent with our practice. Moreover, as the recommendation made to solve . the problem does not call for flushing the drums prior to packag ing-, we wonder whether the problem is really being solved. d) '. As- a result of the work done, .the recommendation colls for using one coat of phenolic-epoxy lining, which is merely the cheapest way to provide a coating (with a saving of $12, 000 a year)--and probably without having solved the problem. . e) : . This is to say that unless triple flushing or equivalent effective drum flushing were undertaken (and this could be costly), we may be no better, or in fact, worse off than we now are using two coats of the clear phenolic lining. We acknowledge that the clear phenolic lining has a drawback of being brittle, and that modification with epoxy would probably improve this feature. In that case, it appears that the use of two coats of epoxy-modified phenolic should be considered. .. It is known that one coat of any lacquer does hot completely cover the interior of the drum; in which event we wonder why use such a single coating ? ,, . f) Trip Report: Florida Drum Company, Pensacola, Florida, July . 18-21, 1967, by J. G. Bryant, August 3, 1967: "To test the least expensive alternate to phenolic, we made up five single coat epoxy-phenolic lined drums. The surface of these drums after coating had "fish eyes", or concave bubbles, which yield bare spots (or at best, minute coverage of the metal). To correct this . problem, five double-coat drums were fabricated. The impact resistance (according to the lacquer manufacturer) is improved. ` With crude testing (ball hammer), we can see no difference between the clear epoxy phenolic and the clear phenolic. " 4. CONCLUSION .. . We do not feel that the experimental work done has lead to the proper solution of the problem at hand, and Marketing is not inclined to accept the recommendation being made by the factory, to use one coat of phenolic-epoxy. DSW 296828 STLCOPCB4066741 p W. H. Howard 3 July 1, 1968 In any event, experience shows that two lacquer coats are required to cover the metal surface. Moreover, we could use a solid gold or platinum drum and still not solve the problem unless*the drums were thoroughly flushed or cleaned. Bayer an<j) Prodelec employ special drum cleaning to effectively maintain electrical values. How much would't cost us to do this? Will the added cost be justified by the results obtained by the user under normal circumstances ? In general, the answer is probably NO--in some special situations the answer could be yes. Therefore, will Anniston please establish what it would cost to specially flush (three times) or otherwise specially clean the drums to bridge a special situation, if needed. /ecd P. G. Benignus DSW 296829 STLCOPCB4066742