Document aDV2pvkjBdXkRNBvwVv85Bjny

TOs L. P. Stoltz JJH: TfrSt XF: rV^0 Interoffice Communication FROM: Tom Grumbles DATE: August 29, 1984 SUBJ: GMD SAMPLING BADGE EVALUATION REPORT I have reviewed the report regarding your evaluation of the GMD sampling badge. I would have to agree that to use the GMD badge in your head space analytical scheme would offer no substantial benefits in time or reduction of handling errors in-plant. To be efficient and reduce those errors, the thermal desorption method; which does not require carbon decanting, is necessary. Also, if the plant chose to routinely analyze both sections of all badges, rather than to use the second section in the event of indicated breakthrough, analytical time would be effectively doubled. You are correct in that one of the concerns expressed in industrial hygiene audits was the chain of custody and preparation of sampling badges. If the changes described in that sampling scheme are implemented, I will be much more comfortable with using the REAL badge. As to the establishment of a quality control program with a certified laboratory, I spoke with several labs in 1983. Those contacted all used the NIOSH method for VCM analysis which utilizes liquid desorption and liquid injection. The labs did not have the capability to do head space analysis, and were uncomfortable in attempting quality control checks with different analytical methods. Solvents used for desorption were also different. The labs were willing to work with us but no solution was evident to resolve the analytical differences and assure direct comparison of results for accurate comparisons. However, we could try again. I'd like to discuss any ideas you have on how to accomplish this. Thomas G Grumbles a^o cc Al Sather Dave Cox VVV 000016318