Document mmedNK0aaZR2m2qGGq3RrNwZB

Dear Dons JVV- V - . .....a.r...'-..'. :.-yr.'L'i - ;-.- ict.'. , . < - :Y -V . .v* - r . - >. -i*V.: 'u-. iv. . > r. ' On Monday, 'March 18,' I met .with Mr. 'J., Jeram,'. Plt^s^iar^h District Manager of Pittsburgh Testing I&bortory whose address is"850 Poplar Street, -Pittsburgh 20, Pennsylvania!' ."Also . prssnt\::;ln,%tha'.;,iRW.t.i^\^|.:\.^*>.*^'i^-':^*ts J- - -Walters,"head of the. Chemical- Division of,.,FXU.., . ,f<?r .the. pur- ' ; pose of discussing the method for determination of lead extracted from glased , . ceraniic surfaces developed by our group in. cooperation with Xettering Labora-- -is-t'ories :ahd; our -desire for;;them to arrange, to:..rnn;-Ahese,-.^ests;:in..-,the,.future. jwith ______.j uo .zv *. us v#ujsend onem unr-se sets of samples containing one half dozen teacups in each set so that two sets can be rise #^^in"-.uriplicate.^lror -comparison, purposes, --for,-'one set to re- : - ^ ^present a very-high ?lead release such as .-Xeraa^tone-^'.^he other two- samples v.-.-.would .represent- - '*- c. cr c~ wf ,,,, r......----- .. .*-.**. vax'pwui:'.-^ra*;^:i-i.:nse:'-presun^blywould-he `-Fiesta- -.^^-Red-.'and one p .-thW.%1ea^giazea^from^ar^-^burctev'ftapli,eate-sate would-in that ^ 25.00 per test. N9695 at their headquarters in East. Liverpool, Ohio for discussion, of the methods recently released by .Kettering uod -the report, on the Lofton ware ^erama- stone refire. Lets take these aone ~at a time'. sjk. rft, ` *rn * , i. Methods. We,did not .question the details of the preparation of so lutions and the method of determining lead released,by the dithizone process. / Our interest was directed toward the steps which we have adopted for preparing a solution to be subjected,to the'dithizone for testing. The method dce3 not state specifically,the quantity of calyori to bo `used'in the rinse material;,* It says one'^^spoonful.'. p^r gallon but dees not Estate'whether thiswlevel, rounded, or heaping. This should be state;' , I believe a :;in grams per gallon so-that we have a specific amount. - . ;.'-v.,,?r.-vOn'-:jBage 1 of the long method. Section 2, Line. 2, 60F should be changed to 60C The sams error occurs in the report on the Lefton and Ceramastone. Page 2, top of Column 2. . With regard to the screening method, there is no specific statement with regard to how and where to obtain the kit. We feel that Note B on Page. 6 of the long method should be removed. We have not yet set a zone of tolerance.arid,`in any event, this is not of concern to ASTM. They are concerned only with how the precedure is established and the lead leaching, is determined. They are not concerned with what we do with those -'results after they are determined. Tv *-.jt is our opinion that with a tough test stich as this that does not actually reflect use conditions, a sons of 1 to 2 pjast is unnecessarily restrictive. We feel that the 40,50 and 90 ppm materials should properly be eliminated. Node of the -4s,V ' ;i ware produced by the reputable manufacturers cornss close to such a range. For this reason we favor a zone of 7 to 10 ppa as being adequate for the protec- ,,v v rr v . > `"tion of the public interest and reasonable for1hejindustry. Jl-ltc'-'. m _ .2, Leffcon and Ceramastone refire. The committee recognizes the fact that 'the results obtained on the Lefton ware indicate that definite action should be .(taken to_keep such material off the,market. On the other hand,:they also recog nize the '"fact. that if this information is not released and used with a degree *$' t r ^ i, 1 5 i* I >,,'*'s?'*4'*i'<ZvS*~*^-~Xt'LtJii*yraZ3*8l*jv^aS-7$' $."V* I*'v**'$^a***Vl&lr%X*y** &*-3-,. fcV* r*,4 . ; t; - ,'** ' 'V4?,' ,, ^> v,i 1 - =S>; 7. Mr, Don G. Fowler "7; \T. d~r Page. 3 March 21, 1963 questioned Mr. Merwin with regard to the details of the refiring procedure / which he used*11 Me . Merwin stated that the cups were placed in a laboratory globar kilh whose temperature "t?as programmed with a cone 5 cam. The maxi- mum temperature reached was'1840F. The cups were placed in a relatively triangular pattemtwith the thermocouple between them. The time at the peak . "' temperature was' one`hourV` MrL-M&rwin stated that the appearance of the cups , before refire was" mat'as was 'thdir -appearance after, refire. ; i In questioning the reasons .why we did not have a drastic reduction in lead ^"release obtained during'Pemco^s-test, several paints were brought out, Pemco^s .test was run at slightly higher temperature, 1860F. While this was not a large ~ difference,'some phase changes baking place in ceramic melts take place &t/p/ ' critical temperatures. This could be a `factor. Mr. Thiemecke brought up what '' perhaps is a more likely point 'in pointing out that regardless of the use of -the cone''5 cam, the schedule of the lab furnace would not 'be direc'iy cmpar- ,, 'able with a production furnace where the warm-up period, the soaking period / at maximum temperature and `the coding off period would be three to four times a3 long as that involved in the laboratory furnace. Therefore, the time-teas, ','perature factor would be much less in the lab furnace than would be expected in ' a commercial run. For this reason even if 1840 is a suitable temperature for ' a production run, that could not necessarily be the conclusion as applied to a-`the laboratory run since time and temperature are both important factors in .the heat work which is to be done. For this reason it would be expected that in commercial kiln operation a given amount of heat work could be accomplished at 'r;a':lower''''tsm.perature . than; could, be expected in a laboratory kiln wxch a snorter IT . /time.. -M 'We believe that wo do not dare allow this Cersmastone refire question to . stop at this point for the reasons given above. We suggest that this test be ~ Repeated starring with new samples if available. GJ Cft to ' l "3.. 'Sampling. ` We discussed a matter brought up by Pittsburgh Testing Lab- Q -oratories with regard to the question of who is going to do the sampling when --'this matter of testingbecccrat TM regular procedure. The reason for the,question / is' obvious. In our discussion today we are in agreement that the reputable r/dinner-ware manufacturers have too much at stake to send phony samples.-fdr test', ing. We are'not so certain about 4he. fringe group who are most likely to be . the 'offenders * in ary event. We simply discussed this matter and pubpi^pih/the p discussion'and to have to be 4. 7leit meeting. We"suggest Thursday, May 2, 1963 starting at 9:30 A.II, % % Cf,, , 9 /n 1 ** * *'**.f,*-Sy S"ivr^`;.r*;|V*9^, * '* Page 4 Mr Don" G. Fowler' t {.'t*'* % , r, ' r. 1 - . Harch 21, - . ., > ..v . -. --i \7 - i. : .%: - ..-. : - ? - r. *j T.'r .?.:* * v .1:: r ;; i * - j ` J-. . . =.. - s . -y k` . v . * *? > ^. v * *-*. y - .. -V, >* ./... r-\-- ^-T * . ' , *' - . H : ' i * \ ._} ./ y . * *.. i \\ <> . te \ : - Air.ong the questions to be discussed would be: 1963. , .. * 1. The comprehensive report'for Dri Einert. 2* Further discussion'of tolerance. ' i 3. Further discitssion of backstansp * ` 4- Hevlew o? Results at PTL and`comparison with, `-Kettering Laboratory. result'siv/j^ `~ 5. Discussion of how ware to''beIsubmitted' to PTE shall be sampled and by whom. . "' vi - 6. Frequency of testing.,; - >. ,// ' / <- * :' '" ', " 7. Soma generaE'discussion'or -what our relations`with state , and federal health-agencies should be and;how-they should ' - f 'be handled. v .- -- :' 8. What to do about high'release imports.- : * There may be other masters`.developing in the meantime but this ?soen*. tially covers the developments of the last two days, / I was pleased to have the'opportunity for a brief discussion o :hv telephone yesterday and I hope'that you can get some prompt action on the matter of samples for PTL. ' Sincerely, ` HAJJHCSID LEAD P1C?HTS J JSN:pl ,,cc:. 'Mr, Syron W Kerwin - '-all China fompany