Document 99LOpE1Q434Bgj0vyRYzGxjQ5

226-2047 ^ Roger J Zipfel 07/27/2001 01:30PM To: cc: Subject John E Crum/SBDuPont@DuPont Ta-Wei Fu/CL/DuPont@DuPont Re: C-8 sampling Q John, this is very perplexing information. I dont in anyway believe this is coming from any liquid solutions of C-8 in B-124. Ron runs a pretty tight ship and there is minimal C-8 laying around. What is happening is that we are not abating the vent from the fine powder scrubbers. This plume of C-8 must be entering the recovery building. We find high levels of C-8 on the roof areas of B-162, levels above the AEL. I believe this situation will disappear when we get our exhaust filters on line. Prior to that we could do an extensive study to verify one source vs. another. Again t don't think this is coming from any aqueous leaks. Thus your concern is not the main concern relative to this issue. Roger. John E Crum /y John E Crum 07/27/2001 07:54 AM To: cc: Subject: Ta-Wei Fu/CUDuPont@DuPont, Roger J Zipfal/AE/DuPont@DuPont C-8 sampling Please note the attached. The samples seem to be consistantly on the high side. I would like to understand what is causing this? Ta-Wei you inidicated it must be from dry powder over the phone yesterday because of the high vapor pressure of C-8, but somehow 1 remember in the old days of us saying that C-8 azeotroped with water in the dryer and that we needed water in order to help remove the C-8 from the polymer. Otherwise the dryer could not "evaporate" C-8 and it would remain with the polymer. My concern is the extra exposures that will occur with the new RO unitsl) We will be releasing a lot more dilute C-8 liquids to the floor area in the building and determine if this is coming from vapor concentrations rather than particle concentrations. Dried C-8 particles can be kept to a minimum by hosing down the floor well, but we will have difficulty in keeping vapor concentrations down. And whether this is from the present units or new units, I would assume that having this restriction is going to be a long term problem/concern that we may want to deal with. Can we live with having a 15 min exposure limit in the room for the long term? ---------,,-------- Forwarded by John E Crum/SE/DuPont oti 07/27/2001 07:34 AM -------------------- {^ Donald E McKown 07/26/2001 05:03 PM To: cc: Subject: John E Crum/SE/DuPont@DuPont, John S Hammond/HO/DuPont@DuPont C-8 sampling .-.-------- Forwarded by Donald E McKown/SE/DuPont on 07/26/2001 05:03 PM Jack L Offenberger 07/26/2001 01:21 PM EID339020 To: cc: Subject: James W HunVCUDuPont@DuPont Donald E McKown/SE/DuPont@DuPont, Becky Szakats Dines/CUDuPont@DuPont, Nicholas K Reed/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Mark D Cothern/SE/DuPont@DuPont, Anthony J Playtis/CUDuPont@DuPont, Fred M Lentz/SE/DuPontQOuPont C-8 sampling We have had some complaints regarding the posted signs in the C-8 Recovery building requiring Respiratory Protection while working in the building over a 15 minutes time frame. We have done some extra sampling in the building to see if the levels are low enough to remove the signs. Below are the results of the most recent sampling. DATE 7/3 7/20 7/20 7/24 7/24 RESULT 0.31 0.52 0.46 0.48 0.52 %ofAEL 55.4 92,9 82.1 85.7 92.9 Sample Routine sample Extra Sampling Extra Sampling Extra Sampling Extra Sampling Out of the last 25 samples taken in that area, 4 have been over the AEL, another 13 have been well over 1/2 of the AEL and 8 were less than 1/2 the AEL. Should we continue with the extra sampling? Based on these results, I lean towards keeping the respiratory protection requirement. Thanks "Jack Offenberger, Teflon S&OH Coordinator ex+,4959 EID339021