Document x17Mo97JKxNwwwk7e5BDNO2oQ

L. B. Crider r"aM P. M. Zakriski H. S. Haller (HSH-7-7 MltMcr rUtfjfrrdhfrfifi risLDroiwr on akron KPMrMiNT l.ds. ho. Avon Lake Technical Center niLs Pomr on akron oez>arthcnt n bum. ho. ________Avon Technical Center BFG TECHNICAL DOCUMENT ACCURACY OF CARBON TUBE METHOD OF VCM MEASUREMENT MIC tOIlH UTTKR uate Tina urreo 1-9-75 Introduction: In order to determine the accuracy of the carbon tube method of VCM measurement an experimental program was set up at ALTC and ALGCP where several carbon tubes would be exposed to the same ambient air at different VCM concentrations. All tubes were tested at BRC. Suaroarv: 1. The accuracy of the "carbon tube method"* of VCM measurement is summarized below. Accuracy used in this report means "How close the test results are to the correct value." VCM Range (ppm) 0.25-0.50 0.50-1.00 1.00-4.00 VCM Range 1.5-130. Carbon Tube Accuracy 8 hr. TWA Required OSHA Monitoring Accuracy (95% confidence) 50% + 35% + 25% Actual BFG Carbon Tube Accuracy (95% confidence) 20% + 20% + 20% 15 min. TWA Required OSHA Monitoring Accuracy (95% confidence) + 25% Actual BFG Carbon Tube Accuracy (95% confidence) + 20% 2. The carbon tube method referred to here is at least as accurate as the OSHA specifications for 8 hour and 15 minute TWA's. *VCM is desorbed from the charcoal by placing the charcoal in carbon disulfide. ,iV. Il/n LIYHO. IN U.I.A. NGC 15503 Discussion: 1. M. M. O'Mara at ALTC exposed carbon tubes to different concentra tions of VCM in air. Ten tubes were exposed to air containing about 4 ppm VCM, ten tubes to air containing 23 ppm VCM, and ten tubes to air containing 195 ppm VCM. In addition, at ALGCP, four carbon tubes were exposed to air containing about 0.1 ppm VCM, 4 tubes to air containing 0.4 ppm VCM, and 4 tubes to air contain ing 4.8 ppm VCM. At ALGCP four different pumps were used. 2. There was no variability in measuring VCM in these experiments due to different pumps. HSH/PJE/sp hi. S (( (U.C<K ' H. S. Haller cc: ALTC R. L. Bowles F. E. Krause M. M. O' Mara A. L. Schultz CTF/ITL-4 Cleveland B. A. DiLiddo A. M. Fairlie E. W. Harrington E. G. Schwaegerle R. L. Toole H. ^alternate B. M. G. Zwicker Akron E. B. Katzenmeyer, Jr. P' P. M. Zakriski .. #* NOC 15504 PLANT OSHA ADMINISTRATOR! ! R. L. TOOLE VCM PERSONAL MONITORING ACCURACY All of us have had some misgivings with regard to being able to prove the accuracy of our overall procedure for personal monitoring in order to comply with the OSHA regulations. Many of us have felt that the real "proof of the pudding" would be the comparison of our data with parallel results from OSHA sampling--thinking that no documentation would overcome differences that showed up between our results and OSHA*8 data. The first rough test of this comparison is provided by the recently furnished data from OSHA covering the sixteen personal samples Jointly taken during their inspection of 6-18-75 at Avon Lake General Chemical. This comparison is attached for your information. The agreement seems to be quite as close as we could expect and, based on this limited data, one might expect agreement within 10-12$>, with OSHA data generally being higher. In the case of future inspections at any plant, it should be standard procedure to use our equipment to obtain duplicate samples in order to provide comparison with OSHA data. r RLT'.Jmh cc: E. W. Harrington E. B. Katzenmeyer Jr. J. A. Klupar J. C. Schaap wmmamamm J. M. Whitney B. M. G. Zwicker R. L. Toole 1a* & 4 k 'it r<o. NOC 15505 iLO G ARITHM IC k e u p f e l s esaeft c o . .3 5 9 -1 1 1 .c ih u a, 2 X 2.7 CYCLES J 6506-2 5/9/75 - ' PLANT A L G-C._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DATE b'-tr-7S~ SAMPLED BY (- U^ 1 \ C-S_ _ _ PERSONAL MONITORING DATA TYPE OF PUMP 7fex&l XT' COLLECTOR TUBE: Dpolyethylene Dmsa EJbendix _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _NANE OF POLLUTANTS COLLECTED Sample No. Sampling and Location Dace Taken (Bldg., ecc.' o| ox Name of Employee Job Class Specific Operations /rit- /makt cSuvi^tOp t Expos. Flowrator Time Airflow Rate (min) (liters/mln) Remarks ^4C ssrcc m ye t O Semple Time (oitO Sample Volume co Pollutant Concent*! TOTAL* PPM* IN AIR UlO /. S /4-^P- W ^rO=Y 4, 8 03 OA ^lb3 i >n r Hm EKg. SStc. /OS'S- /.(J ? 4=-<-r | 5/vIv SSLS' /o'? 4-V^ OS' -1 b *-( ^T5cc \3^ 7STS- NOC 15507 O to <Ab2 of lot-*! KS* *** 20aA iNO -* A / Crrtb^ P o llu ta n t C o n c e n t'n 1 tk! /4\ if) jr kS* 04 <r 4^ o a. k H u) \ i CJ < u H 0 at at H P k. o. a at >- nhu 4 OM g V> > i-t <1 Z < at H a. a * v1 c J.I 6 t/5 r> * \ * <r * Vi CO (T cf{ J2 < V^ u *j a S3| S 52 r",2 *M*j4 mH*J <^ vr 1 sS {N oo ci 1 j cS (4 1 vj O & <S'| j to 1 Oi c- ct> o H *1 Oo <X> O <0*4 c6 1 0- * Oo O fti # j V V5 Ci 'G * Expos. T im e (m in ) S p e c ific O p e ra tio n s Job C la s s |lr < % a^0 %^ ^<3 & _a- <v ] t3 S' <t 5 TJ at H & at M 3 >CO > *H Q 111 Sg Nl > 5 > O -H c"u P> s= * <d o H - Oat p. at 41 JS O ag UJ a u Hcc uat ao x> o a. 2 iu " Of W tu i < Q f40H aCtO at u 1 at > 4J U TJ d at Mu oOu .0C0 M 1 i i l I 5 I ( B ld g . , e tc .) E m ployee S a m p lin g Name L o c a tio n o f O VG KM to "gH n at co a tr O vf (T O REEIACTED 3 =r o 0 ef "in *3- z 'T d cT 0 " t U ^r 0" O f0e3 JaSt u u o TJ 41 <2 Q at u oa. (A 01 H ao o +arn> ./ora 8505-2 5/9/75 PLANT ___ / DATE____ SAMPLED BY PERSONAL MONITORING DATA TYPE OF PUMP . ' , COLLECTOR TUBE: polyethylene msa Dbendix ____________ NAME OF POLLUTANTS COLLECTED Sample No. Sampling and Location Date Taken (Bldg., etc.) G\tT 3 L e* 4 * K U. Name of Employee i P5 Job Class Of Specific Operations Expos. Flovrator Time Airflow Hate (min) (liters/mia) //g r S'S`x Remarks ** Afi[ALYS1S & CALCULATIONS___ Sample Sample Pollutant Concent*n Time Volume TOTAL PPM* (min) (liters'1 (m) IN AIR n. <?./? Of STSk*. 7i^ JO. fa si NOC 1 - u ut oo s. This space is reserved for the BFG Corporate Environmental laboratory use. LOS Nrv MTr ** - ANALYZED BY. .