Document garkJJNDBe1Kw41O6BEN9Dkea

l--U--W-----A-L C-O-R--R--E--S-P--O---N-DENCE [JUL Bo CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS RIVER ROAD, BOUND BROOK, NEW JERSEY 08805 To (Namei Division Loci! ion Mr. R. W. Lasher Chemicals & Plastics New York, N.Y. Copv Dr. C. N. Merriam - BB Dr. W. P. Miller - SC / Mr. R. N. Wheeler - SC ' Date July 18, 1978 Originating Dept. Research & Development Answering letter date Subject VCM in Coatings for Potable Water Tanks My recent accident, among other things, contributed to delay action on your request to update my February 2, 1978 Report on the subject. To refocus the problem: 1. There is a need, voiced primarily by the Sales Force, to have data available so that it may be handed out when opportune. 2. My February 2, 1978 Report was written for in ternal circulation only. 3. Subsequent work by R. J. Petrochko, considering a computer evaporation model, yielded numbers much lower than mine, which were obtained without consideration for evaporation. To assemble all of this work in a self-contained unit, I suggest to issue it as a Technology Letter. The readership for this will be varied; some of our data will be more meaningful to one segment than for another. For this reason, I recommend to include in it: a. The calculation shown in my Feb. 2, 1978 Report. b. The Derivation of Equations written by B. Y. Hill, and transmitted to R. J. Petrochko by letter dated Feb. 24, 1978. c. The calculations performed by Petrochko for the case of a water tank, dated March 21, 1978, taking into account the computer evaporation model. d. Copy of C. M. Hansen's article published in JOCCA in July 77, which was attached to my Report. UCC 030625 Mr. R. W. Lasher 2. We are aware of the continuing work being done at Bound Brook to confirm experimentally the computer model. The outcome of this work, expected in the near future, could confirm or modify the calculations. In either case, a report of that experimental work could be included in the Technology Letter, if appropriate. Due to the multiplicity of internal sources, it appears that the indicated objectives would be better served without assigning authorship in the Technology Letter. The attachment is a rough, unedited assembly of the mentioned sources, so that you may have a better idea of what the final product may look like. Please let me know whether you agree with this outline, so that we may proceed. TG:jmd Attachments (4) UCC 030626 2 paper ,/Vhich two majot/prtionS/^ / / 1) AReview of the autt evaporation from drying vinyl fij ery readable, comprises s earlier work and solvent / Application of author' the problem of VCM retention. L It is important^ to realize that these two phases were conducted with different vinyl products. Jn the first phase, our VYHH was used, and' the product is ci^d by name in several occasions. The secoiid phase was carried out with a commercially available paint, m^ae with a vinyl re^n of undisclosed 9rxgin, having 16 ppm VCM, Because of the obvious linkage that the y see between VYHH and the resin in the commercj ir. Hansen was contacted for a clarification, nn the attached letter, dispells any connects / sual reader paint, reply, shown / At any rate, Mr. JIansen reports the following ctions the extremely important finding that no (tec table VCM waj tered e^en in cases where^the paint wasy eeded with 4,Qj0v ppm VCM. In ther subsequent conclusions, he stat that: "The dry film will neverycontain signi [cant amo V/CcB(/, 1because the relative volatility will be hi, regard tqe solvent used". Hypothetical VCM Concentration in a Water Tank Union Carbide vinyl resins are certified having less than 0.2 ppm vinyl chloride monomer. It is an interesting exercise to find out the effect that 0.2 ppm in the resin would have in a typical water tank situation. To that effect, we have selected arbitrarily vinyl System No. 4 of the American Water Works Association, which is based on the Department of the Interior (Bureau of Reclamation) Specification VR-3. Union Carbide's starting Formula Suggestion to meet that Specification is VP-3010. For our calculations, we have taken the case of a onemillion gallon water sphere. The following assumptions have been made: 1) The tank is painted with AWWA System No. 4. 2) The paint formula used is VP-3010. 3) The vinyl resin contains 0.2 ppm VCM. 4) None of that VCM evaporates during drying. (This, of course, has been disproven by Hansen) 5) All the VCM contained in the vinyl resin migrates at once in a single filling of the tank. ucc 03062? 3 Calculations: volume of sphere: iV = Trr3 = 4.189r3 V r 4TT3? 1,000,000 gallons S 133,690 ft. ,, _ "\ /133,690 It~3 ^ r " V 4.189 *" 32 ft. Surface of sphere: S = 4rr2 = 12.57r2 = 12.57 x (32 ft.)2 QZ13,000 ft.2 2 1-mil coverage of VP-3010 : approx. 330 ft. /gal. for 6 mils dry, coverage od. 55 ft.2/gal. for 13,000 ft.2, approx. 236 gals, of paint needed. Paint (VP-3010) has approx. 1.4 lb. vinyl resin per gallon. 236 gals, paint have 330 lb. 150kg. vinyl resin. If vinyl has 0.2 ppm VCM =0.2 mg/Kg .*.150 Kg x 0.2 mg/Kg = 30 mg. VCM 1,000,000 gals. = 8,330,000 lbs. water CH 3,778,500 Kg = 9 0 '/C. 3,779,50qT000,obo mg. water- = 3,778,500,000,000 mg. 0.000,000,000,000,12 0.12 part per trillion UCC 030628