Document ppmJxgR8R2Ox1mgLo9v67yqxB

' ,* ,,< ; ,. t* , ,*, \ J '>+\ * ^ 1 - * X v *V *', . \ 'V*i"1 , -/ Oi Monday, 'March ]8, I met with Mr. J. Jeram,' Pittsburgh District - . J&nager of Pittsburgh Testing laboriory whoso address is'850 Poplar Street, 'Pittsburgh 20, Pennsylvania* Also present in the meeting was Mr. William 1 Walters, head of the Chemical Division of FTL* Otur meeting was for the pur pose of discussing the method for determination of lead extracted from glased >-ceramic 'surfaces developed by our group in cooperation with lettering Labora- X '.'tories and our desire for them to arrange to run these tests in the future. r* t x *' ' *> - ^ f ^ ~ ` Vy.j*.V Meedless to say they are quite interested in the matter and feel-that ' they are quite competent to handle it; ` I left a `copy of the procedure ,,with - them for review. They would like for us'to, send them thrse sets of samples containing one half dozen teacups in each set so that two sets can be run o o o eo Co %f r\ in' triplicate for comparison purposes. They would like for on set to re c~' present a very high*lead release such as Cerahsbotqne. The other two' samples rwould represent approximately the high'and jlow to be expected in the general jvrjm of'production of the rep^table^ dinnerwsre manufacturers* Thsy expressed 1fthe opinion that obey would like to have something already run by Mattering recently released by .Kettering aod -the report, on the Lofton ware and Cerama- stone refire. Lets take these ,,one ~at a time. *. ' * * ' ' * ' * ' r % * * * *' i * " ' ' : , 1. Methods. We,did not^question the details of the preparation of so lutions and the method of determining lead released,by the dithi2one process / Our interest was directed toward the steps which we have adopted for preparir a solution to be subjected,to the'dithizone for testing. - >* The method dce3 not state specifically,the quantity of calyoni to bo used'in the rinse material. It says one^^spoonful pe*' gallon oul does not 'state whether thisklevel, rounded or heaping. This should be state , I belief -in grams per gallon so that we have a specific amount. ' O11 Page 1 of the long method, Section 2, Line 2, 60F should be changed X o 60C The sams error occurs in the report on the Lefton and Cer&mastone, 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 <4'1Vr..T-- -IJj-u lead leaching is determined. They are.not concerned with what we do with those -'results after /they are determined. f: Tv / -i \ ' It is our opinion that with a tough test stich as this that does not actually ^ reflect use conditions, a :sons of ,1 to 2 pjmt: is -rn'inecessarily restrictive. We feel eg , , that the 40,50 and 90 ppm materials should properly be eliminated. Node of the m - y*,' r .-""ware-produced by the reputable manufacturers comes close to such a range. For / Vlthis reason we favor a zone of 7 to 10 ppa as being adequate for the protec m - tion of the public interest and reasonable for the industry. ,y -\v ..2, Lefton 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 th other hand, they also recog- 1 / ^ nize the'"fact that If this information is not released and U3ed with a degree 2 wisdom hot"nreviouslv evident, that the' effect could be to bocmerane on. all ' V. ;3 V , . < > n i } y ?j** v - *.?ci^ H 4 * t >7. \ *> 'i h " -x ** Mr, Don G, Fowler *7; ` f H * * J ` '`V ' P ? ^ *_1 / -a ' - , -* . ->- .* *--Vit f f h * Y v 'V , '*' V, ?/ - Page, 3 March 21, 1963 . questioned Mr. Merwin with regard to the details of the refiring procedure .. which he used*' Me . Merwin stated that the cups were placed in a laboratory ` globar kiln whose temperature'was programmed with a cone 5 cam. The maxi- v . mum temperature reached was V1840F-. The cups were placed in a relatively : triangular pattemiwith the thermocouple between them. The time at the peak . temperature was' one `hour'.' Mr^-MSrwin stated that the appearance of the cups *; before' refire was mat'as was thdir '-appearance after, refire. ; t In questioning the reasons .why we did not have a drastic reduction in lead 1 "release obtained during TPemco*s'test, several points were brought cut, Pemco^s ,test was run at slightly higher temperature, 1860F. While this was not a large ", -differnce,' some phase changs taking place in ceramic melts take placevatpity-. - Jcritical temperatures. 'This could be a 'factor. Mr. Thiemeckc brought up what ` perhaps is a more likely-point in pointing out that regardless of the use of .the cone'5 call, the schedule of the lab furnace would not 'be directly compar ..`able with a production furnace where the warm-up period, the soaking period ',,'at maximum temperature and '.the cooling off period would be three to four times ;a3 long as that involved in the laboratory furnace. Therefore, the time-te - iperature 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 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 r'/a commercial kiln operation a given amount of heat work could be accomplished at ; a lower- temperature than could be expected in a laboratory 'din w'th a shorter IT .time.- - - 'We believe that wo do not dare allow this Cersmastone refire Question to lstop-at-sthis point for the reasons given above. We suggest that this test bo ---fcepeted starting with new samples if available. -O C3 CV) ` -it &> '3 'Sampling. 'We discussed a matter brought up by Pittsburgh Testing Lab oratories with regard to the question of who is going to do the sampling when -'this matter of testingbecccr^t, regular procedure. The reason few the question , ' "is' obvious. In our discussion today we are in agreement that the reputable r- s ' k idinnerware manufacturers have too much at stake to send phony samples for test " " \ ing. We are'not so certain about 4thhee. fringe group who are most likely to be 7 '%i sthe offenders'1in ary event. We simply discussed this matter and put it in the ' " '^.repopd'hsre tlkt we'have considered it and leave it for future di3cus3ion and , - detenrdnation. Certainly the Public Health Services are going to have to be r 1' ^considered'in this;matter. ' ' $S!; & - & SCZ1-r.r. -t. ^ sfc-i *.' V i l w 1U ' f /'T'ir'is - Mr. Don G. Fowler' \ Pags 4 March 21, 1963 - .. Y . . * ." ! **> -- *. : -"f. '-v 1 . * - * * . Y.*.:. y * '' /r.cng the questions to be discussed would be: ` > ,, ',, - , ,;`-' ' vi . ,,*'> r * , * =' ^ f ^v*'`, '< ' * >' 1. The comprehensive report^for Dr* Einert. , `. _ 2. Further discussion'of'tolerance. * ^* 3* Further discussion of backstan^l ** ' `4* Review of results at' PTL a n d `comparison with `Kettering Laboratory, results.^ ^; f' 5* Discussion of hew ware tV'be^suhmittedf to Fill shall be , sampled 'and by whom. . . . ' -'t . - 6. Frequency of testing.,; >. ,,*/ I - < - " >' 7. Soma general''discussion'of ,what our relations with state , and federal health-agencies,should,be and ;how- they should : .i f be handled. . v - v - v ' ' . What to do about high'release imports.' :- There may be other max-terstdeveloping in the meantime but this osoen* tially covers the developments of the last tvo days, t .; I was pleased to have the'opportunity for a brief discussion or. the telephone yesterday and I hope`that you car. get some prompt action on tho matter of samples for PTL. Sincerely, ' HAMMOND:.LEAD PROD! > im:. f0faA, -j/ S. Nordyke ice President., Saies JSN:pl VT * cci * *Hr, Syron }j, Merwin - hall China Company o o o cc ou <x>