Document LKeX2k6y6zoGxony8z102v0mz

FILE NAME: Grumman (GRU) DATE: 1965 DOC#: GRU006 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: National Safety Congress Transactions with Officer Lists & Journal Article - Evaluation of Protective Clothing for use with Fluorine National Safety Congress Transactions Volume1 I GENERAL SESSIONS ANNUAL MEETING OF MEMBERS CONGRESS BANQUET LIST O F EXHIBITORS GENERAL INDEX O F ALL VOLUMES NATIONAL SAFETY C O U N C IL 425 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 National Safety Council (Board o f Directors, continued) J , V , G rim aldi, Consultant, Health, Safety & Plant Protection, General Eldctric Company, New York, New York R kv. R obert A . G uunow , Concordia Seminary, S t. Louis, Missouri S a m u e l R . G uard, Manager, Marketing Research, Chicago SunT imes and'Chicago D a ily N ew s, Chicago, Illinois-- -- --j------- R o y I I a e u s u m , Automotive Sa fety Engineer, Chrysler Corporation, Detroit, Michigan E dward B . H acc.erty, International Safety Representative,. Interna i ! tional Association o f Eire Fighters, Cincinnati, Ohio H oward E . H allas, Vice President-- Public Relations, Am erican Mo tors Corporation, Detroit, Michigfin . 1 R . M . Tart m a n , Assistant M anager of Compensation and Safety, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Bethlehem, .Pennsylvania A lbert L . H a c k , Director, Safety and Public Relations, Transpor tation Umlerwriters, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana * D a n ie l F . H ayes, Chief,. Industrial Safety & Fire Protection Branch, United States Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D . C . R obert C . H endon, Vice President, industry A ffa ir s,-R E A Express, New York, New York R ussell E , H eston, Director of Engineering, Griimrli Mutual Rein surance Company, Grinnell, Iowa D onald M . Hrcht.vs, Director, H ealth and S a fely Service, Boy Scouts o f America, New Brunswick, New Jersey R r, R ev, M sor. ' G kokue G . I lt(.o in s, Director, Department of Social Action, National Catholic Welfare-Conference, Washington, D . . CfiAS, R . H olloway, J ., Vice President, Northwest Natural Gas Company, Portland, Oregon P a u l J . H oover, V ice President, .The Halle Bros. C o., Cleveland, Ohio PAROL R . H osea, Director o f Research, National Association o f Motor Bus Owners, Washington, D . C , W . G , H otchkiss, Manager--Personnel Service, Chrysler .Corpora tion, Detroit, Michigan .W , L H u kem a n , Vice President and Getterai Manager, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota F red H ulken, Corporation Director of Personnel, The Boeing Com pany, Seattle,. Washington < 14 1 I OFFICERS O F THE AEROSPACE SECTION NATIONAL SAFETY COUN CIL 1965-66 General Chairman--C. I). Attaway,, Chief Safety Eng., Tbiokol Chemical Corp., Longhorn, Div., Marshall, Texas < Vice Chairman--11. J , S tone,. Chief Safety Eng., Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Safety Org. 27-12, Sunnyvale, Calif. 94088, Secretary-Treasurer--D, A . Frasier, North American Aviation, Inc., El Segundo; C alif. Newsletter Editor--B. Gawain Bonner, Chief Safety Eng., General Atomic Div., General ' Dynamics Corp., San Diego, Calif, 92112 . Associate Newsletter Editors--J , G aigal, Safety Eng,, Grumman Aircraft Eng. Corp., Bethpage, Long Island, N; Y .; J . W . Gunn, J r., Chemical Propulsion Information Agency, ' Johns Hopkins University, Silver Springs, Md. Senior Program Chairman--\V. G . Hayden, Mgr,, Safety & Security, Thiokol Chemical Corp., Wasatch Div., Brigham 'City, Utah Program Chairman (East)--). C C aldwell, Chief Safety Eng., Federal Aviation Agency, Washington, D .C , } - Program Chairman (West)--Raymond A . Norwood, Director of Safety, The Seattle, Wash". 98124 I ' - Senior Education and Training Chairman--'*Fred T emple, Chief Safety Eng., Div., General Dynamics Corp., Fort-Worth, Texas 76101 Boeing Co., Fort Worth Education and Training Chairman--C. V . C arson, Mgr, o f Safety, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Cocoa Beach, Fla. Senior Engineering Cluttrman--H oward. P. C utter, Safety Coordinator, Lockheed Missile 1 & Space Co., Vandenberg A F B , Calif; ' . . ' i Engineering Chairman (East)-rTerrence L anigan, Specialist, Safety, General Electric Co., , Apollo Support Dept., Daytona B.each, Fla. Engineering Cftairman (South)--J ohn M- K a n ak, Safety Officer, Manned Space Center, National Aeronautics &l Spare Administration, Houston, Texas 77058I I Engineering Chairman (Central)--J, R. C rawford, Section Mgr,, Safety Michoud Plant, Space Div., Chrysler Corp,, New Orleans 26, La. l . , Membership. Chairman--J . W. D o su a m , Safety Director, Martin Marietta Corp., New York, N . Y . 10CI17 , . 35 Senior Industrial Hygiene Chairman--H a r m Donaldson, M gr., Industrial Hygiene & Safety, The Brush Beryllium Co,, Elmore, Ohio ; ' ' Industrial Hygiene Chairman--E , Gi Troutman, Safety 1Supvr., Westinghouse Electric Corp., Astronuclear Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15236; W . C. A pplegate; Chief, I^ealth . & Safety, The Boeing Co., Michoud, La. Statistics and Contest ChainnaA--Q, M . Orihood, Asst, Mgr., Safety Dept, Aerojet- General Corp., Sacramento, Calif. ' . . . Off-The-Job Safety Chairman--R. W. Gorr, M gr.'of Safety, Bacchus Works, Hercules Powder Co., Magna, Utah Military Representative--W n .u a m C, Sexton, Head, General Safety, Bureau of Naval Weapons, N'ayy Dept-, Washington 25, D , C . , Long Range Planning Chairman--*}ohn W . Garrison, Chief Safety Eng., General Dy- namics/Convair, San Diego, Calif. 92112 ,. 1 Nominating Committee Chainnan--*C . D. A ttaway, Chief Safety Eng,, Thiokot Chemical Corp., Longhorn, Div., Marshall, Texas; *John W . Garrison, Chief Safety Eng., Gen eral Dynamics/Convair, San Diego, C alif. 92112; H . J , Stone, Chief Safety En^., Lock heed Missiles & Space Co., Safety Org. 27-12, Sunnyvale, Calif. 94088 Advisory Committee--* R : W ilkins, Mgr., Labor Relations Autonetics, A Division o f North American Aviation, Inc,, Anaheim, C a lif.; ` Robert S . Moore, Safety Dir., Grumman Aircraft Eng. Corp., Bethpage, Long Inland, N . Y . ; *Fed R. T emple,;Chief Safety Eng., General- Dynamics Corp., Fort Worth:Div., Fort Worth, Texas 76101; *E.' P , Marconi, Mgr., Safety B ranch,'AR O Inc., Arnold Air Force Station, Tenn.; *Frank W , Starr, . Safety Eng., Douglas Aircraft Co., Jnc., Long Beach 8, Calif.; *Lyle A. Gates, Safety , Eng., Douglas Aircraft Co,, Inc., Long Beach, Calif. 90801; *M. M; C lancy, Dir., 'Safety & Insurance, Ryan Aeronautical Co., San Diego 12. Calif.; *Kbnnetii L. Stebbins, Dir.'of Safety, Lycoming Div., AV CO Mfg. Corp., Stratford, Conn-5 *John D, Donohue,. Supvr., Security & Safety, Rohr Corp., Chula Vista, Calif, 92012; *Col. W. L,. T ubbs (Ret.), Laguna Beach, Calif.; B, Jf, Wilke, J r., Chief Safety Ertg., Grumman,, Aircraft Eng. Corp,, Bethpage, Long island, N. Y. Staff Representative--Ralph M , Riley, National Safety Council, 425 N , Michigan Ave., ' Chicago; 111. 60611 ' Past General Chairmen S, i ' ' N 36 ' '' l A OFFICERS OF THE CEMENT, QUARRY, AND MINERAL AGGREGATES SECTION NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 1965-66 General ClMirnuin--F itA s a * W . Hu s h , S r., Director of Safety, M . J . Grove I-ime Company, Frederick, Md. f i r s t I'ice CVwiVtmpi--G arland K. M idyettk, S a fe t y , Director, Superior Stone Company, Division ot Martin-Marietta Corporation, Raleigh, N . C t. Second P'ice Chairm an--) . R. T xeapaw ay, Safety Director, Vulcan. Materials Company, 'Birmingham, Ala. ... 1 Secretary--W tiBAK XI. H o x it, Safety Engineer, Corps o f Engiheens, New England Division^ Waltham, Mass. 1 S 'etcsletler Editor-- V incent G allagher, Assistant Safety Director, Materials Service-- Division o f General Dynamics Corporation, Lyons, III. , Associate! N ew sletter Editor-- Robert J . G homi.ev, Safety ,,Director, T h e Standard Slag Company, Youngstown, Ohio - " Program Committee--G arland E . M idyette (Chairm an), S a fe ty Director, Superior- Stone Company, Division o f Martin-M arietta Corporation, Raleigh, N C . ; R obert ML H oi.de- kied, S a fe ty Coordinator, Standard Materials D iv ., M artin-M arietta Corporation, In- . diauapolis, In d.; H oward F . J ohnston, Division Mainager, Industrial' Relations, The Knbcroid Company, Bound Brtx>k, ,N . j . ; A nthony W oew ucki, J r., Director, IndustriaL- Hygieue, Continemal Casualty Company, Chicago, 111.; W . B. Da h h x , Safety Engineer, . The New Haven Trap Rock Company, New Haven, Conn. > 1 M em bership Committee--P atrick C . H atixk (Cliairm an), Labor Relations Assistant, Ideal Cement Company, Denver, C o lo .; L eslie S . V'oi.tz, Sa fety Engineer, Vulcan Materials Company, Consumers Company Division, Hillside, H I.; Leonard R. F licker, Director of Safety, Pcrmanente Cement' Company, .Oakland, C a lif.; E . J . W ari.no, Lsivcrack and Haines, Inc., Buffalo, N, Y .; G . E . William s, Safety Director, American Aggregates Corporation, Greenville, O h io; A . V ictor' A bnee, J r., Secretary-Qeneral M anager, Gypsum Association, CLirago, 111. Statistic's and Contests Committee-- ikmM sc Moyer (Chairm an), U . S. Bureau o f Mines, W ashington, J). C ,, ; V incent I*. A iikakn, J r.. Assistant Managing Director, N a tio n a l^ Sand & Gravel Association, Silver Spring, M d .; E . W . Ba u m a n , Managing DirectorSecretary, N'ational Slag Association, Washington, D . C . Engineering Committee-- Darrell M . C ornell" (Co-Chairm an, W est), Safety Engineer, Portland Cement Association, Chicago,. III.; G eorge J . R eynolds, Technical M anager, Electrical, U . S . Gypsum Company, Chicago, III.; V incent G allagher, Assistant Safely Director, Materials Service--Division of General Dynamics Corporation, Lyons,. 111.; A kvid T ienson, Sa fety Director, M aterials'Service-- Division o f General Dynamics Corporatum,' I.yolis, 111.; Leslie S . V olte, Safety Engineer, Vulcan Materials C o . Con sumers G * Div., Hillside, III.; R alph W ray, American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., Baltimore. M d .; F red E . Sio k c ii, Director o f Safety and Personnel, The W hitehall Cement Manufacturing Company. Ctmeiiton, P a .; Roy G S ia n , M ining Health and 45 Safety Engineer, U . S. Bureau of Mines, Washington,' D, C ,; J ohn J . S weeney, Safety Engineer, Stone and Slag Operations, Bethlehem Limestone Company, Steelton, P a .; . H oward R iefenstahl, Manager of Training and , Safety, Alpha Portland Cement Company, Easton, P a.; W . M , H oxie (Co-Chairman, East), Spfety Engineer, Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, Mass, Visual A id s Committee--W m. A . . K ipp (Chairman), Manager-Safety, Universal Atlas Gement Division, U . S . Steel Corporation, New York, N , Y .; H qwaiuj F . J ohnston, ' Division Manager, Industrial Relations, The Ruberold Company, Bound B ro o k ,-N ..J.;, J ohn J . McCleixand,/National Crushed Stone Association, Washington, D, C . ' . ' Off-the-Job Commttee--lM iiA m Fucker (Chairman),, Director of Safety, Permanente > Cement Company, Oakland, C alif.; J . R . D . Brown, ' A ssistant Manager, Accident Pre- - vention Bureau, Portland Cement Association, Chicago, III..; W . B . Da hill, Safety En gineer, The New Haven Trap Rock Company, New Haven, Conn. < . Publicity Committee--K enneth A . Gutschick (Chairman), Manager-Technical Services, National Lime Association, Washington, D . C .; V incent P . . A hearn, J r., Assistant Managing Director, National Sand & Gravel Association, Silver Spring, Sjd.; William C arter, Executive Director, National Crushed Stone Association, Washington,-D. C. Training Committee--H oward R iefenstahl (Chairman), Manager of Training and Safety, Alpha Portland. Cement Company, Easton, Par;-RALPH M . Richie, Director o f Safety & Community Relations, Medusa Portland Cement Company, Cleveland, Ohio; A nthony Woewhcki, J r., Director, Industrial Hygiene, ContinentaiL Casualty Company, Chicago, III.; G eraLu D . Raver, Logansport, Ihd.' . . . Long Range Planning Committee--A m o T ienson (Chaifman), Safety Director, Materials. Service--Division of General Dynamics Corporation, Lyons, 111.; L eslie S , V qltz, Safety Engineer, Vulcan Materials Company, Consumers Company Division, Hillside, III.; F red E . S torch, Director of Safety and Personnel, The Whitehall Cement Manufacturing Company, Cementon, P a .; H oward F. J ohnston, Division'. Manager, Industrial Relations, The Ruheroid Company, Bound Brook,. N . J . ; Paul J . JNohseck, Manager-Safety and W elfare, Lehigh Portland Cement Company, Allentown, P a.; H oward R iefenstahl, - Manager of Training and Safety, Alpha Portland Cement Company, Easton, Pa. Hospitality Committee--Martin D . Gentry (Chairman), -Manager-Industrial Relations, General Portland Cement Company, Chicago, III,; J ohn J . M cClelland, National Crushed Stone Association, Washington, D . C. j Arvid T ienson, Safety Director, M a terials Service--Division of General Dynamics Corporation, Lyons, 111. > Nominating Committee--Lw m z S , ' V oi.tz, Safety Engineer, Vulcan Materials Company, Consumers Company, Division, Hiljside, 111. Personal Protective Equipment Committee--P aul J . Worshjck (Chairman), Manager-Safety arid Welfare, Lehigh Portland Cement Company, Allentown, P a .; Garland E. M ipyeitb, Safety Director, Superior. Stone Company, Division of Martin-Marietta Corporation, Raleigh, N, C . ; J . R. T readaway, Safety Director, Vulcan Materials Company, Birming ham, Ala. , . ' Members-at-Large--T . W . J ones, Vice President in Charge of Production, New Haven Trap Rock Company, New Haven, Conn.; Ivan F. L eGobe, Safety Director) Portland Cement Association, Chicago, H I.; Dorse O. S ejple, -Jb., The Standard Slag Company, Youngstown, Ohio , Staff Representative--C harles S , W olff, National Safety Council, 425 North ^Michigan Avenue, Chicago, III. 60611 , 1 46 I - 1965 National Safety Congress EVALUATION OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FOR USE WITH FLUORINE B y .M , C H A IN R O B B IN S , M :p ,H . Safety Engineering, Aerospace Group, T h e Boeing Companyj Seattle, W ash. D uring the past year, various government agencies have shown a growing interest in fluorine as ah oxidizer in liquid propulsion systems. Boeing has been conducting laboratory and remote-site tests with both liquid fluorine (ILF*) and fluorine-oxygen ( F L O X ) . Sy s tem .design parameters define requirements f o r r e m o te operations of pressurization, transfer, purging,' etc. Personnel, however, must make and break connections and per form various operations attendant to testing when system failure might present exposure conditions. A ir Force and N A S A concern for per? sonne! safety has stimulated the protective clothing manufacturers to develop suits for protection against a variety o f fuels and oxidizers, yet maintaining wearability and flexibility in service. ( S e v e r a l suits are presently on the market, but government specifications to date have, not required man ufacturers to demonstrate performance in dynamic exposure environments.) The Boeing Aerospace Group Safety Engi neering organization reviewed current pro tective clothing practices in the chemical and jaerospace industries. There is no uniformity in clothing materials being used against oxb dizers such as.fluorine. in fact, there is very little dynamic test data available on materials presently being used or proposed for use with fluorine. A gainst this background we Undertook a test' program whose objective has been to evaluate those materials in use or proposed fo r use under dynamic conditions of iexposure to gaseous and liquid fluorine., From these evaluations' a determination has been made o f the most suitable m aterial-and'a specification d e v e lo p e d for protective-suit construction. Technical Approach 47 possible protective-suit materials wereselected fo r test. These included butyls, neoprenes, cellulose acetate, Teflon, F E P , K c l-F , p o ly u r e t h a n e s , Armalon 97-001, . Armaion 97-001A , a n d . Armalon-97-OOIG. (Armalon is a Du Pont trade name used to identify a Teflon laminate consisting o f T ef lon fabric ,0.008 inch thick overcoated on one side with Teflon ( F E P ) 0.005 inch thick film, and is identified as 97-001. Some sam ples had a vacuum deposition o f aluminum or gold and wire further identified as "A " or "G " respectively after the 97-001. The selection -of D u Pont's 97-001 material was based on N orth American Aviation, Rocketdyne Division test report No. 2091 on Con tract AF04 (611)-5963, which indicated the 97-OOlG material to be exceptionally resistant to gaseous F# chlorine-trifluoride ( C T F ) , and pentaborane.) The Boeing test program consisted o f five phases: ' 1. Chemical compatibility tests ,on all ma terial samples. 2. Gaseous permeation tests on materials that showed the best performance in Phase i ; in addition, test specific areas o f ^uit con struction (seanjs, joints,* etc,). i 3. Tensile, strength tests on materials that ijurviye P h a ie 2. ./ 4. Gaseous fluorine impingement tests on materials that showed the best performance in Phases 1 and 2. 1 5, Liquid fluorine impingement tests on materials that performed best in Phases 1, 2, and 3. - Test Apparatus Tlic same facility was used for; the gaseous chemical compatibility, permeation, and im pingement tests. Thei facility consists of a source o f fluorine gas fo r filling a set of s i x , cells or jigs. P yrex glass cells were used for flip chemical compatibility studies and stain? less steel, jig s for the permeation studies. Fluorine gas was supplied from a cylinder enclosed in- a steel barricade equipped with remote -controls for operating valves. Using 0.25 inch diameter stainless steel tubing, fluorine gas was brought into the inlet mahi- Aerospace Section Id o f the, test apparatus affcrNpassing results, such as neoprenes (2-0262) (2-0022) rough. an absorption tube for hydrogen (# 8 9 ) ; butyls (62.72) (8.02SS) (#80-011) ; loride ( H G ) removal and a rotameter for polyurethane ( U R 29E Black) ; Nordell >w rate measurement. The H F * scrubber (50-001 ) ; ' and Surlyn" ( A ) and"Vttorr~A, mtained an a c tiv a t e d form of-sodium ,9-0277'and 80-060. loride. The entire test setup was assembled a laboratory fume hood. Fluorine gas was Phase 2--Permeation Tests traduced into each glass cell individually The same' facility in Phase 1 was used for id valved, allowing it to have its own the permeation* test, however, stainless steel mosphere independent of- the others. A line jig s were fabricated and used instead o f the om a vacuum pump, including a. coil im- , Pyrex glass cells. The jig s were fabricated ersed in a liquid-nitrogen bath qrid soda- into two halves, with a mating flange at the me-packed tube, was attached to the outlet equator. The diaphragms o f test materials anifold. T he cold trap prevented any or-, were placed between the mating equators and anic vapors from the vacuum pump from torqued tight. A continuous flow o f 'dry itering the test area,.w hile the soda-lime nitrogen was passed through the top section. ibe will prevent fluorine from reaching the A fluorine atmosphere was produced in' the acuum pump. Nitrogen was dried by passing lower section by flowing seven liters o f GF ie cylinder gases through a coil immersed into and through the chamber during a 10 i dry ice before entering the test setup. The minute purge.' The lower section was then, itrogen gas was valved for'purging any o r - "sealed;""" -- .............................. II parts of the complete system. A pressure age wB3 located ahead o f the fluorine flow- Only Isamples that showed best perform leter to read the-pressure regulator on the ance in Phase 1 were tested. Each specimen uorine cylinder. A vacuum gage; calibrated began as a six inch square; it was then cut gidnst a mercury manometer, was located into the. shape o f a, ping-pong paddle, with n the inlet manifold; the "paddle" part th same diameter as the outside diameter o f the permeation jig and Hittse 1--Chem ical Compatibility Tests \ its "handle" available for" positioning'the The test samplesWere approximately. 0.5 speditile.in the jig . nch wide and two. inches long., Prior to Quantitative measuring o f the permeation esting, the samples were solvent-cleaned, dis- rate o f GF* was accomplished by sweeping illed w ater rinsed, wiped clean, and air the outlet gas intd a bubbler containing 10 fried. milliliters o f 0.1N N a O H through the outlet The samples were hung on stainless steel iooks located inside the glass cells. The lystem was .first passivated with gaseous N, hen' evacuated. A vacuum was drawn and jaseous fluorine (G F j) was tjien introduced nto the cell until reaching a- 1-atmosphere positive pressure. The samples were exposed ! 100 per cent G F i environment at 1-atmos phere for two hours. The samples were weighed on an analytical balance before an^ after exposure, to, G F , to determine any weight change. side o f the N * jig . section fo r five minutes. ( A hose was connected to thei outlet orifice o f the N j half o f the jig , and gaseous N i containing the permeated Ft gas was bubbled, into the -0,1N N a O H solution.) Previous tests indicated,that this system will quantit'tively absorb F t and H F from a gas stream, The pressure on the bottom 'on the Ft side was built np to 1-atmosphere positiva pres sure; the pressure on the N , or top side o f the jig was built up to 1-atmosphere plus two inches o f H ,0 positive pressure during sampling; Bubbler sampling was done peri Test Results odically during the test. The Armalon 97-001; 97-001A , and 97011G, butyl-coated nlyon (parachute) cloth, Buna N coated nylon, Gjentex 2 (Alj-nylonneoprene), and Du Font neoprene ny!on S009 demonstrated the best performances of the Supported m a t e r ia ls . Sawyer-Tower, neo prene-nylon and Gralite failed this test. Sev eral unsupported samples demonstrated good Test ResuHs W ilgard 89 (Neoprene) Glove Material (0.030 Inch T h ick )---This material demon strated the best results of all the materials tested. Two samples were -tested up to 24 hours and no detectable p e r m e a tio n was found. Subsequent examination showed only I 1965 National Sa fely Congress that the exposed side had whitened some what | Arm alon 97-001---This m a t e r ia l demon strated the best overall Teflon results with low permeation rates. 1 F Concentration 100% 10% 5% ppm/average suit/hour ` 160 16.9 8.45 3. In five minutes, the leakage would be: Arm alon 97-001A and G --Although som e^ samples demonstrated low permeation rates, . some had high rates. Close examination' re- vealed pin holes through the material. It Is /felt that in tfie process of vacuum deposition, there is some tendency to, cause F E P film degradation. , ' Arm alon 97-001 Containing Sevved-Sealed . S e a m -H ig h permeation rates. Arm alon 97-001G , Sewn and Sealed--H ig h permeation rates. Arm alon 97-001A , Sewn and Sealed--H igh permeation rates. Cellulose Acetate Faceshield--T w o samples (approximately 0,060 in c h th i.c k ) were tested. N o detectable permeation was found during the first four hours, and this time cbiild be greatly increased since it was the following day before it was retested. Equi librium values o f abqut 13 micrograms/inchV hour we.re noted after one day. Subsequent examination revealed some attack, as evi denced by the pronounced odor o f acetic acid. The material, however remained op tically clear but slightly discolored. . Butyl (D u Pont T-5595 Sheet S t o c k ) -- ' One sample of D u Pont T-5595 Butyl burned immediately upon F j exposure. .FsuConcentration ppm/average suit 100% , 14.1 10% 1.41 5% ` ' 0.71 Example 2 (Leakage R ate -- 700 ugfinchf, hour , ' 1. Multiply the leakage rate times suit area to find the leakage perl hour, expressed in ppm per-average suit per hour, 2. In this example, the leakage per hour would b e: F* Concentration ppm/average suit/hour 100% 11,739 1 0 % ...............................1,173.9 " 5% 586.95 3. In five minutes, the leakage would b e : F j Concentration 100% ' 10% S% ppm/average suit 9782 97.8 . 48,9 T h e results shown above take on added meaning in light o f . emergency exposure levels published recently b y the National* Academy of Science. See fa b le I . Table 1: Emergency Exposure Levels ' , .Free Fluorine , Theoretical. Sa it Permeation T o get some insight as to the significance of the.permeation relative to full-size fuelhandler's stiits, calculations were made show ing the projected suit leakage rates. Times o f exposure and percentages o f gaseous F* were varied, T he calculations were based on the surface area o f an average size man (15.5 ft.*). T h e assumption is made d m ' the suit is under two inches o f water positive pressure from supplied air or its own en vironmental control system, ' , Concentration L evel 5 ppm 3 ppm 2 ppm 1 ppm 0.1 ppm Tim e o f Exposure 5 minutes 15'minutes 30 minutes ' 1 Itour 8 hours , Hydrogen Concentration Level 30 ppm 20 ppm 10 ppm 8 ppm Fluoride Time, o f Exposure 5 minutes 15 minutes "i 30 minutes I hour Exam ple 1 ( L e a k a g e Rate -- 10 u g lF i f j inch1h o u r) 1. Multiply ihe leakage rate times suit area to find the leakage per hour, expressed in ppm iter average suitper hour.----- - - 2. In this example, the leakage per hour would, b e: Phase 3---Tensile Strength T ests A ll specimens that were permeation tested were later tensile tested per Federal Specifi cation CCC-T-191b, Method 5102. "Specimens (m & Ju c h JtjF -six inches) were placed symmetrically into die dam ps o f an Instron Tester, with long dimension parallel 12 Aerospace Section and the short dimension at right angles, to . Test R esults the direction of load application. The yam running parallel to the long dimension o f the specimen was aligned with onp outside edge o f the front jaw o f each dam p to ensure the There was no visible reaction or change in ,the weight or appearance o f the samples. Phase 5--Liquid-Fluorine Impingement Tests same being gripped in both clamps. The tension \vas evenly distributed on the yarns between clamps. Force was applied ^it the specimen at 12 -- 0.5 inches per minute. A fte r specimen rupture, the breaking force was read from the dial indicator and re corded. The- jaw s were faced with rubber to prevent slippage. Dynamic liquid-fluorine iriipingement tests' were conducted at the Tulalip Remote Test Site in conjunction with Boeing Flight Tech nology personnel. T h e tests involved imping ing 24 samples. Som e samples were retested two or three times to verify results. O nly sample materials that passed the gaseous chemical compatibility tests were liquid-im- Test Results T h e test results are shown in Table I I , . pinged. ; The 10 gallon liquid-fluorine transfer test apparatus was used ' fo r the impingement Table I t : Tensile Strength Tests 1 Tensile Strength ' As After Ft - Loss M aterial' Received C m tM m dtioh (Percent) tests. Here liquid, fluorine was made by. con densing gas from cylinders in a liquid-nitro gen bath. The stand consisted o f a' stainless steel rack, subdivided into six individual,, cells. Each cell was partitioned by stainiess 97-001 75 psi 63 psi 16 steel baffles and copper wife screen fo r 97-001A 68psi 63 psi 7 mounting the samples. A stainless steel mani 97-001G 97-001 68 psi 64 psi 6 fold was located at the base of the test , rack, to which six 0.25 inch diameter stain (peam) 97-001A 120 psi 112 psi 7 less steel lines were welded. The litres were arranged so that each sample was impinged (Seam ) 97-01G 120 psi , 115 psi ' '5 ' separately. The lines were restricted at the exit end by installing an A N 818-4B nut and "(Seam) Butyl 120 p s i, - / 114 psi 6 an A N 806-4 plug with the plug drilled to a 1/16 inch diameter orifice.. (T-559S) 1960 psi Neoprene (W ilson 89) 3760 psi 1010 psi 2825 psi 48 The test samples were approximately six , by six inches and were solvent cleaned, water rinsed, and air dried prior to testing. One . 25 impingement was conducted per sample. Cellulose The samples Were mounted to the copper Acetate 7166 psi 5280 psi 26 screen holder. T h e je t orifices and samples Phase 4--Gdseoup Impingement Tests Sample materials that demonstrated the best performance In the first three phases o f . were, protected from moisture by placing a >small bag over the purging jet ofifice and a . small Teflon shield over each sample to protect against atmospheric moisture. The testing were subjected to the gaseous im pingement tests; in addition, three materials bag and shields were removed prior to pres surizing the system. (8-0255 butyl, Nordel 50-001, and 62-72 butyl) that had only been given the chemi cal compatibility test were tested in this phase. ` A fter condensing the liquid fluorine in-the 10 gallon test apparatus, it was transferred through the 0,25 inch` diameter line immersed in a h'quid-qitrogcn bath (to maintain the A test apparatus similar to the chemical density o f the liquid fluorine during the compatibility test equipment was used. The transfer) into the manifold located on the system was evacuated and the sample sus test rack. The m anifold was also immersed pended 0.1 inch from an orifice (0,16 inch in a liquid hath and then impinged onto each diam eter). Gaseous fluorine was then flowed sample separately. Approximately three liters into the evacuated chamber until the pres of liquid fluorine were condensed from each sure 'reached 1-atmosphere agiiin (about one gas cylinder. Each ,sample was jet-impinged minute o f flow). with approximately 500 cubic centimeters o f 13 1965- Natiow! SafetyjC(ingress L ,, L F j per test (1/16 inch orifice, five to eight seconds, at 50 psig). . , Test Results Table 111 tabulates individual test results. It indicates the specific reaction, such as immediate fire, delayed-ignition time, degree ' of fire, no reaction, etc. Conclusion The results o f .the chemical compatibility tests indicated that, o f the 47 materials tested, only four supported elastomers, 10 unsupported elastomers, and three fluoro carbons proved, to be compatible. It is not known whether the method o f polymer application or compounding made the difference in compatibility. Spectroanalysis did. not reveal enough differences in .polymer. formulation or molecular arrange ment. to indicate specific differences.between polymers. Several of the materials, such as hutyl over nylon, neoprene over nylon, B u n a -N over nylon, neoprene 89, and Gentex 2, which demonstrated good results in the chemical compatibility tests, caught fire when liquidimpinged. The following summarizes the results o f both the gaseous and liquid tests: - 1. Armalon 97-t^l material demonstrated the best overall performance to both gaseous and liquid tests. 2. Armalon 97-001G was demonstrated to be chemically compatible, .and two samples demonstrated the lowest fluorocarbon (per meability rates. A third sample, however, had high leakage rates and, when closely exam ined, pinholes.were found. (It was hypothe sized .thqt the pinholes were caused when the gold was vapor-deposited onto the film.) Portions o f the gold samples caught fire when liquid-impinged. _ _3 . Arm alon S7r001A also was demonstrated; to be chemically compatible but, when per meation tested, one sample demonstrated e x cessive leakage rates. (A g a in ,, when closely examined, pinholes were found.) T h e sample caught fire, when liquid-impinged. T rad e . Naipe Centex Wllgard Clove 89 Wilson Rubber Co. Du Pont 190-27-3 Du Pont Armalon 97-001 , i ' Du Pont Armalon 97-001G Du Pont Armalon 97-001A Du Pont Armalon 97-001G . Cellulose Acetate . Wllgard Clove Du Pont 8009. Du Pont 8085 Acrylic Du Pont Armalon 97-0010 Cellulose Acetate Du Pont Armalon 97-001 HT-l-FEP-Gold . P E P film , 0.005 Inch thick . .' P E P , 0.020 Inch thick Gra-Ute - p u Pont Armalon 97-001 . , Du Pont Armalon 07-001 P E P film, 0.020 Inch . thick Cellulose Acetate Qra-lite TABLE H I: RESULTS Composition Ali-Glasa-Neoprene Neoprene Butyl-coated nylon Teflon fabric--T e flp n P E P film ` Same as above 97-001--gold coating Same aa 97-001G except alumi num coated (Retest) Same aa Sample 5 Faceshleld,. 0.060 inch thick Neoprene Neoprene over nylon Buna-N over nylon Faceshleld (Reteat) Same aa'Samples 5 and 7 with butyl rubber seam (Retest) Faceanleld Same as Sample 4 P o l y a m i d e - F E P film plus gold deposition , Faceshleld Faceshleld C o t t o n - c o a t e d , both aides, with PVC. (Retest) Same aa Samples 4 and 16 Thla sample had been ex posed to G F j for ' 24 houra prior to liquid testing. Faceshleld Same os Bample 18 Faceshleld Same, as Samples 8 and I t ' (Retest) Same as Sample 19 Results___________ r _________ Caught fire-Immediately. Caught fire. Delayed fire reac tion. Caught fire immediately. v Caught fire. One end burned. Delayed fire, Caught fire on one aide. Caught fire. D e la y e d a c tio n . Burned quite r a p id ly once i t . started. Caught fire around perimeter of sample. Edge of the gold burned and flaked off. Caught Are,, D e la y e d reaction. Once started, it burned up ap proximately 2 inches o f face- sbleJd. /' Caught fire. Delayed action. , Caught fire Immediately. Caught fire Immediately, Caught fire immediately. Seam c a u g h t .fire'immediately with vigorous burning. No reaction. No reaction. Violent fire Immediately. ,No reaction. No reaction. Caught fire Immediately. No reaction. No reaction! No* reaction. ' No reaction. .Caught fire immediately. i 14