Document Q9pE7K73JoaZwbqgRbb341N7

F. Klebacker r. e. Miller M Vinyl Chloride Monitor Data Analysis ar Assonet Mew Haven u < iipy to June 19, 1974 E. Misenfeld E. Macias R. Chartier This is to summarize my findings resulting from analysis of your VCM monitor data from two sources; the ambient air sheets and personal monitoring sheets.* Data relating to ambient air is obtained from the continuous but non-specific portable instrument and the personal data is from samples collected in bags attached to operators' backs and analyzed by VPC in the laboratory. I examined ambient air data taken on nine days between May 7 and May 22 since these were all the complete sheets available. In comparing personal data with ambient data I used that taken over seven of these days, these being all that corresponded. All data was expressed in PPM, but in order to reduce the data to a manageable size, there being 162 pieces of ambient air data per day, and to eliminate the problem of skewness, I worked only with data above the allowable limit of 50 PPM and made comparisons based upon the number of values above the limit rather than the actual values rhemselves. My interpretations, which are based upon chi-square analysis of these numbers, are as follows: 1. There is a significant difference in the number of values above the limit from day to day. The minimum in any day was 10 and the maximum was 61. This strongly suggests that VCM escapes to the atmospher in such a way that it tends to involve all three buildings. 2. There also is a significant difference between build ing RA and the other two, RA being the worst with 120 values above 50 PPM and RB and RC being about equal with 76 and 64 respectively. 3. Shift number 3 is significantly worse than the others, having 127 values compared with 69 for shift number one and 64 for shift number two. 4. Shift number two in RC building was significantly worse than any other shift - building combination. 5.- There was no significant difference between the first and second halves of the shifts. LI 5029 Wm* ri.e tmii ccpv) ir i';j * t `i :r #rcciry A rltintilm pCH'OO: oms OTH!4 . F. Klebacker -2- June 19, 1974 6. Differences between locations in the buildings were significant, that is, the same pattern exists in all three buildings. The total numbers of values for the nine days at the various locations are: LOCATION 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Slurry Basket Slurry Basket VCM Filters Reactor Aisle Reactor Aisle Recovery Recovery Reactor Aisle Reactor Aisle E W SE NE E W NW SW VALUES ABOVE 50 PPM TOTAL OF ALL BUILDINGS 7 ii 41 16 25 56 40 34 30 The recovery and VCM filter areas are the worst, the reactor aisles are intermediate and the slurry basket areas are the best. It would appear that the greatest gain would be made by tightening up VCM handling pro cedures, which could Include maintenance of equipment involved. 7. Ambient air and personal sampling values are equivalent, as the chi-square analysis shows no significant dif ference in percent of values above allowable even though the number of ambient measurements in seven days was 1134 while the number of personal measurements was only 18. I realize that the OSHA standard calls for personal monitoring, but this argument ooiild be presented to keep it to a minimum while relying on the ambient continuous monitor. This analysis fairly well exhausts this set of data. With improved procedures the data you are now collecting would be expected to show improvement. I will make a comparative analysis when it is ready. REM:hpc Robert E. Miller OLI 5030 ***< MV. Ml TO R. A. Chartier< at As sonet datc from F. R. Klebacher at Assonet copy to subject COLUMN MODIFICATION FOR CONTINUOUS VCM LEVEL MONITOR June 10, 1974 E. T. Chesler E. D. Macias R. E. Martel In order to make the VCM monitor specific for VCM, the column must separate out other components which may be present in the air. I have, therefore, obtained from Ed Chesler and J. Dorsey (Algonquin) lists of organics which could possibly be airborne. This information has been forwarded to T. Capuano in New Haven. The Chemicals listed are: Odorless mineral spirits Ethanolt"' Methanol1' Phenolw 2-ethylhexanol *"' 2 - ethylhexanal ^ Sorbitan mono stearate4'' Sec-butanol4''* ^ Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) Acetaldehyde4' Mineral oils*'" 2-methyl styrene^ Methyl Mercaptan*'" Methane ^ Naphtha *'* Diethanol Amine Triethylene glycol Propane ** Hydrogen*' FRK:jaa R.~TOebacher OLI 5031 TH COM) \P YOU HQ*T HITAlH IT A OlElMit* HTTfNYlOM HCHIOOi OH* ****' QTHtft. ' tf AM 4* I WOO At . Ill I-------,o Distribution i iiuu S Cupach iil'SJKCT VCM MONITORING A I' Assonec AT Assonet math January 29, 1974 cCoOpPyY iltt L. A. Baker R. II. Carte R. A. Chattier E. J. Goettman I noted in the daily report for the period ending 0700, Tuesday, January 29th, a comment concerning VC loss at the main tank farm. It would appear that a pump seal failed and was not detected for approximately two hours, allowing a substantial amount of monomer to be lost to the surrounding area and/or fire pond. Considering the recent newspaper articles concerning probable affects of monomer, I feel we should have some type of continuous monitoring device located in the remote areas of our plant. This device would sound some type of alarm so that supervision would be aware of a problem, and thus be able to act with dispatch. Please look into this and have reconmendations along with costs by Monday, February 4th. SC:j aa OLI 5032 * >* * f u mu coMt i/ m'j ft. a otrtmrt itrf ntion on* ah________. OTMtft