Document g2Q9RnZ8D35oVLeB9yypNGaoQ

V- * if H f IJ ' i' . .Vi i . H-' -- a ^ J 1 ,L u 1. - XJ t ^ ______ E. B. EUCHf^R I'T!! i,..yo ill Sl-v !l 1 1 ('?()]) 752-L-ono l f) vVV. nh'MiV: ICO mnnv,'tit if }i V' 'I lr Mr. 1], .1. Kouiay Diroili'v of Purchasing C I Lddeu - Du rkoe Division of SCM Corporation *>()() Dili on Commerce Rldg. C lovo I and, Ohi o hoar Mr. Roinay : Mr. J. D. Kelly asked flint I write you regard i ng the position of load driers in the Coalings Industry. Current ecological attitudes are putting pressure on all heavy metals; and since lotul is known to he toxic and to le cumulative, the Coatings Industry lias been under considerable scrutiny with regard to lead in paints. the law now requires (hat any paint accessible to children shall have not more than one percent lead in the dried film. This allows ample margin for the use of lead as a drier, since its 1 eve l rarely excieils 0,5 percent on the vehicle solids which calculates to not more than 0.3 percent on the total solids. If a loss of dry inhibitor, such as our Nuact, is used, this brings in an additional quantity of lead, not exceeding 0.5 percent on total paint solids, so I hat: even t lie. combination of the. two is well within the limits of the law. The National, Paint, Varnish and l.acqncr Association lias lead a number of releases during 1971 relative to lead in paints. They point out that paints over one percent of lead must cany t a warning label , and that those having less than one percent lead on total solids do not require a warning label. However, they further caution that even though no lead is deliberately added to a paint in the form of driers or otherwise, the paint cannot GL0012637 Mr. F. .1. Kr>may I1 >! V '1 ` T- 2, 11171 be labelled as "lead free," sine.' other i 'v m.i i r i a I ; , particularly |'i gnont.n, will carry trace quani i1 ic:; oj |> i.| . H is my personal opinion Hint tin i : o'. n i d |.< panic and eliminate lead drier;; or lead feeder dfidi:. liow>v<.r, | am woj l aware of the. fact that management d i < ( at.-; a son,. .Major companies are to eliminalc deliberate addition >! lead compounds. These at titudes appear t:o be based upon a Hid, of a complete understanding of the necessity to do so, and I lie ollnn problem:; tinit are created. Soluble lead driers can ho replaced in a given paint formula, hut the drying properties will he different. Our experience indicates that zirconium driers, which are non-toxic, are the best candidate. The negatives are thal thee do noL perform ns quickly or positively as lead in terms of through dry of the film: and, therefore, there would be a greater tendency toward wrinkling. Also, zirconium use would result: in a much higher drier cost, but this would amount to a fractional cent' per gallon of paint. The attributes of zirconium are somewhat subtle, other than its non-toxicity, and relate to such propertics as better gloss and gloss retention in the paint, better color, and better flexibility. In the loss of dry category, the only reasonable alternatives to the lead feeder drier (our Nuact) would be products such as our Cobalt 254. Here there is no doubt about developing equivalent function, but cobalt has an inherent color which carries over into high whites and, therefore, requires careful evalualion as to whether or not any color change is significant. In brief, we feel that lead driers and lead feeder driers can be eliminated, although the law does not require it. A given company has little to gain by such a move., since they cannot label the products as lead free and the substitute materials do not have identical properties. I believe that a carefully programmed study of the alternatives is an appropriate course of action, but 1 recommend against any peremptory judgments. Very truly yours, WJS/kl GL DO 12 63 8 y/k i < v. W. J/ Stewart Industry Manager - Coatings