RE: Mercury surface standard

[Guest guest]

Steve,

Mercury clean ups are usually assessed based on air samples and

references surface samples.

I would do some surface samples in other areas and use them as a

comparative reference. Lab quantification can vary significantly.

Are you sure this was elemental mercury? Or mercurial compounds? Only

elemental mercury is really of significance.

As do some air monitoring. This better reflects elemental mercury

which volatilizes.

How was the " clean up " done? Was it just HEPA vacuumed? Did they use

a mercury spill kit with sulfur dust?

Was a mercury reactive cleaning solution applied?

It is not so much removal of the mercury but reacting it with something

so it is no longer volatile.

Bob

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve and all!

Illustrates the need to always establish your " standards " prior to

sampling. Otherwise, you just have data and no good way to evaluate

it. Good luck with it!

-

Klane, M.S.Ed., CIH, CHMM, CET

Klane's Education Information Training Hub (KEITH)

" Take a step in the right direction "

93 Norridgewock Road

Fairfield, Maine 04937-3116

207-453-KEITH (5348)

Fax:

@... www.TrainerMan.com

Steve Carlson wrote:

> Apologies for a somewhat non-IAQ issue, but I have a quick question

> for those listmembers with experience with mercury.

>

> The removal of an electrical relay in an electrical box resulted in a

> spill of a small amount of mercury in the box. Clean up was

> attempted, and we were requested to wipe sample. Result was 11

> ug/100cm2. Cleaning and sampling was repeated, with about the same

> result.

>

> It is worth noting that this electrical box is in a vault under a

> floor hatch in a federal facility building. Therefore there is a next

> to zero chance of children ever gaining proximity to the area, and

> only rare and infrequent chances for exposure to adults.

>

> What is a reasonable goal for a mercury surface " clearance " level in

> this electrical box?

>

> Opinions appreciated. Despite the decidedly isolated location, this

> has become a somewhat contentious issue in this facility.

>

> Steve Carlson

> Liesch Associates

>

>

[Guest guest]

A very good point ...FWIW, this is not my project, but a co-worker's.

D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

Liesch Associates, Inc.

-----Original Message-----From: Klane Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:27 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Mercury surface standard

Hi Steve and all!Illustrates the need to always establish your "standards" prior to sampling. Otherwise, you just have data and no good way to evaluate it. Good luck with it!- Klane, M.S.Ed., CIH, CHMM, CETKlane's Education Information Training Hub (KEITH)"Take a step in the right direction"93 Norridgewock RoadFairfield, Maine 04937-3116207-453-KEITH (5348)Fax: TrainerMan www.TrainerMan.comSteve Carlson wrote:> Apologies for a somewhat non-IAQ issue, but I have a quick question> for those listmembers with experience with mercury.>> The removal of an electrical relay in an electrical box resulted in a> spill of a small amount of mercury in the box. Clean up was> attempted, and we were requested to wipe sample. Result was 11> ug/100cm2. Cleaning and sampling was repeated, with about the same> result.>> It is worth noting that this electrical box is in a vault under a> floor hatch in a federal facility building. Therefore there is a next> to zero chance of children ever gaining proximity to the area, and> only rare and infrequent chances for exposure to adults.>> What is a reasonable goal for a mercury surface "clearance" level in> this electrical box?>> Opinions appreciated. Despite the decidedly isolated location, this> has become a somewhat contentious issue in this facility.>> Steve Carlson> Liesch Associates>>

[Guest guest]

In an OCCUPATIONAL setting I would use:

Ca. 420 ug/cm2 for low contact areas

Ca. 10 ug/cm2 for high contact areas

Alternatives could be derived using Monte Carlo techniques.

If you want the 40-50 page justification and risk assesment give me a PO for

$6,000. Otherwise, you'll have to take my word for it.

Presumptions:

Good wipe sampling technique

Reasonable stats on number of wipes (above is mean value criteria)

Inorganic mercury only

If compound is less bioavailable could go higher

Could also adjust for losses over time

Does not account for inhalation due to volatilization of Hg

Skin not significantly abraded

Tony

...........................................................................

" Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

PO Box 34140

Indianapolis, IN 46234

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any

consultant can give you the other 10%â„ 

This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally

privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual

or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if

this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read,

copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please

delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender

by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any

attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended

in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages

express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may

not be copied or distributed without this statement.

Mercury surface standard

Apologies for a somewhat non-IAQ issue, but I have a quick question

for those listmembers with experience with mercury.

The removal of an electrical relay in an electrical box resulted in a

spill of a small amount of mercury in the box. Clean up was

attempted, and we were requested to wipe sample. Result was 11

ug/100cm2. Cleaning and sampling was repeated, with about the same

result.

It is worth noting that this electrical box is in a vault under a

floor hatch in a federal facility building. Therefore there is a next

to zero chance of children ever gaining proximity to the area, and

only rare and infrequent chances for exposure to adults.

What is a reasonable goal for a mercury surface " clearance " level in

this electrical box?

Opinions appreciated. Despite the decidedly isolated location, this

has become a somewhat contentious issue in this facility.

Steve Carlson

Liesch Associates

FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material

available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,

human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17

U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to

those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information

for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted

material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner.