lllllllll 01 Ill llll llll ill IIII IIII IIIII Ill Il1 Ill1
lllllllll01IllllllllllillIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIl1Il1 One Source. One Search. One Solution.
HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION REPORT HETA 84-151-1544, NUTURN CORPORATION, NEW CASTLE, INDIANA
NATIONAL INST. FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, CINCINNATI, OH. HAZARD EVALUATIONS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BRANCH APR 1985
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical lnfomtion Senrice
Health Hazard Evaluation Report REPRODUCED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE U.S. DEPARTNE#t OF COMMERCE SPRINGFIELD. VA 22161
HETA 84-151-1544 NIITUW CORPORATION NEN CASTLE, INCIMA
PREFACE The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch of NIOSH conducts f i e l d investigations of possible health hazards i n the workplace. These investigations a r e conducted under the authority of Section 20(a) ( 6 ) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 2S U.S.C. 66S(a)(6) which
authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services, following a written request from any employer o r authorized representati ve o f employees, t o determine whether any substance normally found i n the place of employment has potentially toxic e f f e c t s i n such concentrations a s used o r found.
.The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch also provides, upon
request, m d i cat, nursing, and industrial hygiene technical and consul t a t i v e assistance (TA) t o Federal, s t a t e , and local agencies; labor; industry and other groups or individuals t o control occupational health hazards and t o prevent related trauma and disease.
MentSon of company names or products does not constitute endorsement National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health.
by t h e ,
som R-
101
#1CUklENlATlON PAGE
1 a.
1
RtCORT
2
.n.bumitt.
L TW
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA-84-151-1544, Nuturn Corporation, New Castle, Indiana
'. -* 9. W
I3. RrlWt~t'sAmulorr
p~b.J38724:US r R m 0 . k 6
n
85/04/00
. hrbrmiry HETA-84-151-1544 oqsn~xatfocrn e w ~k.
.fluhe, R . L. , and J . Lipscoab h
.
Na
1Q hol.d/l&m
g mn~tanon Mama 8136 Add-
Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, NIOSH, U.S. Departrent of Health and Human Services, Cincinnati, Ohio
Untt Ph.
11. ~ o c r kw~&&~ GI )
NO.
(Q
(a If
qrpnlutlocr Noma and A&?msa
I
l3-Ty#dIh.onLPmnodCamd
Environmental and breathing zone sampler were analyzed for asbertos (1332214). formaldehyde (50000), phenol (1089521. and total particulates at Nuturn Corporation (SIC-3714), New Castle, Indiana in June, 1984. The survey was requested by a union representative to evaluate asbestos exposure during the manufacture o f brake shoe linings. Pulmonary function tests and chest X-rays were taken for 170 workers. Asbestos uas detected in 51 personal and 1 of 3 mnvironrontal samples. Concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 0.91 fiber per cubic centireter (cm3). The OSHA standard for asbestos is 2.0 fibers/cm3. Total particulate concentrations ranged from 0.8 to 25.3 ailligrams per cubic meter m g . The OSHA standard for particulates is 1Sng/a3. Formaldehyde and phenol uere not detected. Twenty workers had abnormal pulmonary function tesr results. Twelve showed evidence of obstructive impairment, one had evidence of restrictive impairment, and seven showed both obstructiv+ and restrictive impairment. Five U o r k e ~ Sshowed X-ray-abnormalities; one was suggestive of asbestosis and one of a pneumoconiosis. The authors conclude that a health hazard due to asbestos exposure exists at the facility. Recommendations include reducing asbestos exposurer.by engineering controls, good uork practic+s, administrative controls, and using personal protective equtpment. Asbestos should be replaced i f feasible.
NIOSH-Publication, NIOSH-Author, NIOSH-Health-Hazard-Evaluation, Hazards-Confirmed, Region-5, Rotor-vehicles, Asbestos-dusts, Air-monitoring, Pulmonary-congestion, Inhalants, HETA-04-151-1544
NIOSH-Technical-Assistance-Report,
'
HETA 84-151-1544 APRIL 1965 NUTUI:N CORPORATION NEW CASTLE, INDIANA
NlOSH INVESTIGATORS: Raymond L. Ruhe Jane L i p scomb
I n January, 1984, the National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a request f o r a Health Hazard Evaluation from Nuturn Corporation i n New Castle, Indiana, t o evaluate workers exposures t o asbestos during the manufacture o f brake shoe l i n i n g s . On June 6-7, 1984, NIOSH i n v e s t i g a t o r s conducted an environmental-medical evaluation. Asbestos was detected i n 51 persorial and 1 of 3 area a i r samples; concentrations ranged from l e s s than detectable l i m i t s (0.01) t o 0.91 f i bers/cubic centimeter ( f i b e r / c c 8-hour time weighted average (TWA). The exposure concentrations ( f i b e r s / c c ) by job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are as follows: preform operators 0.01-0.91, crusher operator 0.90, mixer operators 0.02-0.67, u t i l i t y operators 0.09-0.41, and press cure operators 0.19-0.36. The NIOSH r e c o m n d e d c r i t e r i o n f o r asbestos i s t o reduce exposure t o the lowest feasible l i m i t . The Occupational Safety and Health Admini s t r a t i o n (OSHA) permissible exposure lim i t (PEL is 2.0 f i berslcc 8-hour TWA. Four personal breathing zone samples were c o l l e c t e d f o r t o t a l p a r t i c u l a t e . Concentrations ranged between 0.8 t o 25.3 m i l l i g r a m s per cubic meter o f a i r (sg/m3) 8-hour TWA. The preform operators ranged from 14.8-25.3 mg/m3, the mixer operators ranged from 0.8-13.2 mg/m3. The OSHA (PEL) i s 15 mg/m3.
A i r concentrations o f formaldehyde and phenol were belaw the l i m i t o f detection, 0.2 microgram per sample and 0.02 m i l l i g r a m per sample respectively. Twenty o f the 170 (12%) workers'who performed pulmonary function t e s t s (PFTs) had some type o f abnormal t e s t r e s u i t . Twelve workers had evidence o f obstructive Smpairatent, one worker had evidence o f r e s t r i c t i v e impairment, and seven workers had evidence o f both types o f impairment. Two o f the workers w i t h r e s t r i c t i v e impairment, had worked a t the p l a n t f o r G o o r l e s s years. The other s i x workers had employment h i s t o r i e s ranging from 8-38 years. Of the seven w i t h r e s t r i c t i v e impairment, s i x were obese. O f the 20 workers w i t h abnormal PFTs, nine were c u r r e n t smokers, s i x were ex-smokers, and f i v e were non-smoker s. F i v e o f 170 chest x-rays were i n t e r p r e t e d as abnormal. One o f these worker s had a f i n d i n g suggestive o f asbestos-related disease, w h i l e a second worker had evidence o f pnuemocon'i osis, though n o t the type c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f asbestos exposure. Based on - the environmental and medical data obtained i n t h i s i n v e s t f gation NIOSH i n v e s t i g a t o r s conclude t h a t a h e a l t h hazard t o asbestos d i d e x i s t a t t h e t i m o f t h i s survey on June 6-7, 1984. Recommendations t o a i d i n p r o v i d i n g a safe and h e a l t h f u l working environment a r e presented i n Section VIi o f t h i s report
.
KEYWORDS: S I C 3714 (motor vehicle p a r t s and accesories!, asbestos, t o t a l particulates, formaldehyde, phenol, and pulmonary function
Page 2 11.
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
INTRODUCTION I n January 1984, NIOSH received a request f o r a health hazard evaluation a t Nuturn Corporation i n New Castle, Indiana. The United Rubber Workers (URN) International Union and the URN Local No. 238 requested t h a t NIOSH evaluate workers's exposure to asbestos during the manufacture o f brake shoe linings. On March 1-2, 1984, NIOSH investigators conducted an f n i t i a l wal k-through survey. A t t h f s t i m e we col lected background information on the manufacturing process and the workforce. The NIOSH investigators returned t o the p l a n t during the week o f June 4-8 and conducted an environmental and medical evaluation. On August 1, 1984, NIOSH conducted a follow-up survey t o evaluate the venti l a t f on system and explain the environmental sample r e s u l t s collected on June 4-8. Preliminary findings o f the evaluations were reported i n a l e t t e r o f August 24, 1984, to the requestor and mnagemnt.
111.
BACKGROUND Nuturn began manufacturing brake shoe l i n i n g s a t the New Castle f a c i l i t y i n 1978. The p l a n t was operated by the Firestone Company from approximately 1941-1975. I n 1975 the p l a n t was purchased by the Royal Company, which was purchased by Lear-Siegler Corporation i n 1976. The p l a n t was shut down f o r approximately s i x months p r i o r t o being purchased by Nuturn. Approximately 401 o f the current workforce was employed by one o f the previous owners. I n March 1984, Nuturn produced 50,000 sets (8-piece sets) of brake shoes per month. There were 135 production workers and 35 salaried workers. The workforce was approximately 601 male. To achieve the desired f r i c t i o n properties, a wide variety o f ingredients are commonly used i n the manufacturer o f brake linings. Asbestos and processed mineral f i b e r s (PMF) are used f o r f i b e r reinforcement o f the f r i c t i o n product. Organic binders are p r i m a r i l y phenolic type resins (phenol-formaldehyde) selected f o r high binding strength. F r i c t i o n modifiers are added to achieve a desirable c o e f f i c i e n t o f f r i c t i o n (CF). Overall operating conditions included among these materials are zinc, brass, chashew n u t o i l , graphite, and oxides o f iron. F i l l e r s such as rubber scrap, barites, clays, s i l i c a , coke, coal and other minerals are used. The raw materials are unpacked, blended, weighed, pre-formed by compression, baked and further compressed before f i n a l processing.
Page 3
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
A t the t i m e o f the NIOSH survey, Nuturn had a medical program which consisted of a pre-placement chest X-ray, pulmonary function t e s t (PFT) , audiogram, medical h i story, and physical examination. Annual medical examinations included chest X-rays, PFTs, and audiometry ( f o r those workers i n areas where noise l e v e l s exceeded 85 db). A chest X-ray was offered t o workers a t termination o f employment. The medical t e s t i n g was conducted by a t l e a s t three d i f f e r e n t contractors over the past s i x years. The p l a n t health and safety technician conducted annual PFTs, using a Breon 2400 spirometer, between 1981 and 1983. The p l a n t has a union-management health and safety committee which meets once a month "when possible".
IV.
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODS A Environmental Personal and area samples f o r airborne asbestos were collected on mixed c e l l ulose ester membrane f i1ters, mounted i n open-faced cassettes using a battery-powered vacuum pump operating a t a flow r a t e a t 1.7 l i t e r s per minute (lpm). The samples were analyzed usin phase contrast microscopy according t o NIOSH method P & Cam 239.
f
Personal a i r samples f o r t o t a l p a r t i c u l a t e were collected on preweighed m-5 pvc f i l t e r s using a battery-powered vacuum pump a t a flow r a t e 1.7 lpm. The t o t a l weight o f each sample was determined by weighing the sample plus t h e - f i l t e r on an electrobalance and subtracting the previously determined the tare weight o f the f i l t e r . The b r e and gross weighings are done i n duplicate. Personal and area a i r samples were collected f o r formaldehyde on "Supelco Orbo 22' sorbent tubes. The samples were drawn a t a flow r a t e o f 0.05 l i t e r s per minute, analysis was by gas chromatography using NIOSH method 354.2 Personal and area a i r samples f o r phenol were collected through midget bubblers containing 15 m l o f 0.1 N sodium hydroxide. The samples were collected a t a flow r a t e o f 1.0 Ipm and analyzed by gas chromatography using NIOSH method S-330.3
B.
Medical I n A p r i l 1984, a medical contractor employed a t the company conducted PFTs and chest X-rays amoung 32 o f the 35 salaried and 130 o f the 135 hourly employees. PFTs were performed using a Chest X-rays were reviewed by a Puri tan-Bennet Spirometer B-reader (a physician t r a i n e d and c e r t i f i e d i n i n t e r p r e t i n g X-rays f o r pneumoconiosis) who works f o r the p r i v a t e contractor. On June 6-7, A NIOSH medical investigator reviewed the aggregate t e s t r e s u l t s from t h i s survey and the medical records o f a l l workers i d e n t i f i e d as having abnormal chest X-rays o r PFTs.
.
Page 4
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
V.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
A.
84-151
Environmental C r i t e r i a As a guide t o the evaluation o f the hazards posed by workplace exposures, NIOSH f i e l d s t a f f employ environmental evaluation c r i t e r i a f o r assessment o f a number o f chemical and physical agents. These c r i t e r i a are intended t o suggest l e v e l s o f exposure t o which most workers may be exposed up t o 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week f o r a working l i f e t i m e w i t h o u t experiencing adverse health e f f e c t s . It i s , however, important t o note t h a t n o t a l l workers w i l l be protected from adverse h e a l t h e f f e c t s i f t h e i r exposures are maintained below these levels. A small percentage may experience adverse h e a l t h e f f e c t s because o f i n d i v i d u a l suscepti b i 1ity, a pre-exi s t i n g medical condition, and/or a hypersensitivity (allergy). I n addition, some hazardous substances may a c t i n combination w i t h other workplace exposures, the general environment, o r w i t h medications o r personal h a b i t s of the worker t o produce h e a l t h e f f e c t s even i f the occupational exposures are c o n t r o l l e d a t the l e v e l set by the evaluation c r i t e r i o n . These combined e f f e c t s are o f t e n n o t considered i n the evaluation c r i t e r i a . Also, some substances are absorbed by d i r e c t contact w i t h the s k i n and mucous membranes, and thus p o t e n t i a l l y increase the o v e r a l l exposure, F i n a l l y , evaluation c r i t e r i a may change over the years as new information on the t o x i c e f f e c t s o f an agent become available. The primary sources o f environmental evaluation c r i t e r i a f o r the workplace are: 1 ) NIOSH C r i t e r i a Documents and recommendations, 2 ) the Ameri can Conference o f Governmental I n d u s t r i a l Hygienists ' (ACGIH) Threshold L i m i t Values (TLV1s), and 3) the U.S. Department o f Labor (OSHA) occupational h e a l t h standards. Often, the NIOSH recommendations and ACGIH TLV's are lower than the corresponding OSHA standards. Both NIOSH recommendations and ACGIH TLV's u s u a l l y are based on more recent information than are the OSHA standards. The OSHA standards a l s o may be r e q u i r e d t o take i n t o account the f e a s i b i l i t y o f c o n t r o l l i n g exposures i n various i n d u s t r i e s where the agents are used; the MIOSH-recommended standards, by contrast, are based p r i m a r i l y on concerns r e l a t i n g t o the prevention o f occupational disease. I n e v a l u a t i n g the exposure l e v e l s and the recommendations f o r reducing these l e v e l s found i n t h i s report, i t should be noted t h a t i n d u s t r y i s l e g a l l y required t o meet only those l e v e l s specified by an OSHA standard.
Page 5
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
A time-weighted average (TWA) exposure r e f e r s to the average airborne concentration o f a substance during a normal 8- t o 10-hour workday. Some substances have recommended short-term exposure l i m i t s or c e i l i n g values which are intended t o supplement the TMA where there are recognized t o x i c e f f e c t s from high short-term exposures. 1.
Asbestos Asbestos has been widely used i n b u i l d i n g material f o r fireproofing, thermal and acoustical i n s u l a t i o n and decoration. The p o t e n t i a l f o r release o f f i b e r s from these materials depends i n p a r t upon the characteristics o f material t h a t contains the asbestos fibers. Soft, crumbly materials tend,t o release f i b e r s more e a s i l y than do hard, cementi t i o u s materials. The soft, crumbly material i s defined as f r i a b l e ; material t h a t when dry may be crumbled, pulverized or reduce t o powder by hand pressure. Asbestos f i b e r s are extremely durable, and t h e i r size and shape permit them to remain airborne f o r long periods o f time. Fibers become suspended i n the a i r by disturbance o f the f r i a b l e asbestos-containing materials or d e t e r i o r a t i o n causing the material t o release fibers, and by resuspension o f previously released f i b e r s t h a t have s e t t l e d onto f l o o r s and other surfaces. Inhalation o f asbestos dust can r e s u l t i n serious and i r r e v e r s i b l e diseases; I t has been causally associated w i t h lung cancer, a r a r e cancer o f the chest and abdominal l i n i n g called mesothelioma and cancers o f the esophagus, stomach, colon and other organs.4 Inhalation also causes asbestosis, a non-malignant, progressive, i r r e v e r s i b l e lung disease caused by the i n h a l a t i o n o f asbestos dust.5 Asbestosis i s a chronic disease o f the lung, characterized by f i b r o s i s (scarring) o f the lung tissue. The i n i t i a l symptom of asbestosis I s shortness o f breath on exertion, often accompained by a dry cough. Radiographic changes are o f t e n the f i r s t c l i n i c a l findings i n asbestosis and may be present i n a person w i t h normal pulmonary function. Less commonly, decrements i n pulmonary abnormal it i e s (FVC) are associated w i t h asbestosi s, other pneumaconioses, and connect4 ve tissue diseases. Obstructive impairment ( FEVl or FEVl FVC) can be associated w i t h intense, short-term asbestos exposure, b u t i s nost commonly due t o the e f f e c t s o f cigarette smoking.6
Page 6
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
There i s t y p i c a l l y a period o f many years between i n i t i a l exposure and the appearance o f asbestos r e l a t e d disease. Available data show t h a t the lower the exposure, the lower the r i s k o f developing asbestosis and cancer. Excessive cancer r i s k s , however, have been demnstrated a t a l l f i b e r concentrations studied t o date. Evaluation o f a11 a v a i l a b l e human data provides no evidence f o r a threshold o r "safe" l e v e l of asbestos e ~ ~ o s u r e . 5 Since asbestos i s a carcinogen, NIOSH p o l i c y i s t o reduce t o the lowest f e a s i b l e l i m i t . The OSHA standard i s 2.0 f i b e r s / c c 8-hour TUA. 2.
Total P a r t i c u l a t e I n contrast t o fibrogenic dust which, when inhaled i n excessive amounts, cause scar t i s s u e t o be formed i n the lungs, so c a l l e d "nuisance" dusts are stated t o have l i t t l e adverse e f f e c t s on lungs and do n o t produce s i g n i f i c a n t organic disease o r t o x i c e f f e c t s when exposures are kept under reasonable control. The "nuisace" dusts have a l s o been c a l l e d ( b i o l o g i c a l l y ) " i n e r t n dusts, b u t the l a t t e r term i s inappropriate t o the e x t e n t t h a t there i s no dust which does n o t evoke some c e l l u l a r response i n the lungs when inhaled i n s u f f i c i e n t amount. However, the lung t i s s u e r e a c t i o n caused by i h a l a t i o n o f "nuisance dusts" has the f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : 1) the a r c h i t e c t u r e o f the a i r spaces remains i n t a c t ; 2) collagen (scar t i s s u e ) i s n o t form t o a s i g n i f i c a n t extent; and 3) the t i s s u e r e a c t i o n i s p o t e n t i a l l y reversible. Excessive concentrations o f dusts i n the workroom a i r may seriously reduce v i s i b i l f t y , may cause i r r i t a t i o n o f the eyes, ears, and nasal passages; o r cause i n j u r y t o the s k i n o r mucous membranes by chemical o r mechanical a c t i o n per se, o r by the rigerous s k i n cleansing procedures necessary f o r t h e i r removal .7 The American Conference o f Governmental I n d u s t r i a l Hygienist (ACGIH) Threshold L i m i t Value (TLV) f o r t o t a l p a r t i c u l a t e s i s 10 mg/m3. The OSHA (PEL) i s 15 mg/m3. NIOSH has no recommended standard. Formaldehyde Formaldehyde gas may cause severe i r r i t a t i o n t o the mucuous membranes of the r e s p i r a t o r y t r a c t and eyes. The aqueous s o l u t i o n splashed i n the eyes may cause eye burns. U r t i c a r i a has been reported f o l l o w i n g i n h a l a t i o n o f gas. Repeated exposure t o formaldehyde may cause d e r m a t i t i s e i t h e r from i r r i t a t i o n or allergy.
Page 7
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-15:
Systemic i n t o x i c a t i o n i s i n 1ik e l y t o occur since f ntense i r r i t a t i o n o f upper respiratory passages compels workers t o I f workers do inhale high leave areas o f exposure. concentrations o f formaldehyde, coughing, d i f f i c u l . t y i n breathing and pulmonary edema may occur. Formaldehyde has induced a r a r e form of nasal cancer i n two t e s t animal species as reported i n a study by the Chemical Industry I n s t i t u t e o f Toxicology. Formaldehyde has a1so been shown t o be a mutagen i n several systems .8*9 I n 1976, NIOSH recommended t h a t occupational exposure t o formaldehyde be l i m i t e d t o a concentration o f 1 ppm f o r any 30 minute sampl i n g period.10 This recomnendation, however, was I n 1979, based solely on the i r r i t a n t e f f e c t s o f formaldehyde. evidence f o r the carcinogeni c p o t e n t i a1 f o formaldehyde became known and i n 1980, NIOSH issued a new c r i t e r i a which considered formaldehyde as a p o t e n t i a l occupational carcinogen and recommended formaldehyde as a p o t e n t i a l occupational carcinogen and recommended t h a t exposures be reduced t o the lowest feasible l e v e l .9 ACGIH~, i n i t s notice of intended changes f o r 1983-84, has proposed t h a t exposure t o formaldehyde be l i m i t e d t o a c e i l i n g l e v e l o f 1 ppm (1.5 mg/m3). The federal O S H A ~standard ~ for exposure t o formaldehyde i s an 8-hour TWA of 3 ppm, a c e i l i n g l e v e l o f 5 ppm, and an acceptable maximum peak above the c e i l i n g l e v e l o f 10 ppm for no more than a t o t a l of 30 i i n u t e s during an 8-hour workshift. This c r i t e r i a i s based on the f r r i t a n t e f f e c t s o f formaldehyde rather than i t s p o t e n t i a l carcinogenicity. Pheno1 Phenol i s an i r r i t a n t o f the eyes, mucous mmbranes, and skin. Systemic absorption causes convulsions, as well as l i v e r and kidney damage. Routes o f exposure are skin absorption, ingestion, and inhalation. The skin may be the main route o f ent r y . Skin absorption can occur a t low vapor concentrations, apparently without d i scomfort. Signs and symptoms can develop r a p i d l y w i t h serious consequence, including shock, tremor, muscle twitching, convulsions, cyanosi s, coma, and death. Phenol vapors cause marked i r r i t a i t i o n o f eyes, nose, and throat. Solutions o f phenol have a marked corrosive a c t i o n on tissue, s i m i l a r t o cresol
Page 8
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
Phenol has been shown t o be a weak s k i n carcinogen i n mice .I3914 Condi t i o n s o f these experiments, however, do n o t r e f l e c t i n d u s t r i a l experiences w i t h phenol. Results of these studies suggest t h a t phenol functions p r i m a r i l y as a nonspecific i r r i t a n t and may be capable o f promoting tumors. To date, there i s no evidence t h a t phenol a c t s as a s p e c i f i c carcinogen o r mutagen a t low concentrations w i t h i n normal physiologic l i m i t s . 12
VI.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Environmental Results o f the a i r samples c o l l e c t e d f o r asbestos are presented i n Table I. Asbestos was detected i n 5 1 personal and 1 area sample; concentrations ranged from l e s s than detectable l i m i t s (0.01 t o 1.05 f i b e r s l c c 8-hour TWA. Since asbestos i s a carcinogen, NIOSH recommends exposure be reduced t o the lowest f e a s i b l e l i m i t . The OSHA standard i s 2.0 f i b e r s l c c 8-hour TWA. The personal breathing zone sample c o l l e c t e d f o r asbestos on the automatic stamping operator was 1.05 f i b e r s l c c 8-hour TWA. The high concentration can be a t t r i b u t e d t o the malfunction o f the v e n t i l a t i o n on the automatic stamping machine the day the sample was collected. The personal breathing zone sample c o l l e c t e d f o r asbestos on the crusher operator was 0.90 f i bers/cc. Four personal a i r samples c o l l e c t e d f o r asbestos on the mixer operators ranged from 0.02-0.67 f i b e r s / c c w i t h a mean o f 0.32 f i b e r s l c c . The u t i l i t y operators ( 4 personal samples) ranged from 0.09-0.41 f i b e r s l c c w i t h a mean of 0.26 f i berslcc. The preform operators (12 personal samples) ranged from 0.01-0.91 f i b e r s / c c w i t h a mean o f 0.29 f i b e r s l c c and the press cure operators ( 3 personal samples) ranged from 0.19-0.36 fibers/cc w i t h a mean o f 0.27 fibers/cc. These concentrations o f asbestos exposure i s mainly due t o inadequate v e n t i l a t i o n and poor work practices. However, these concentrations w i l l vary from day to day depending on asbestos and/or processed mineral f i b e r s used f o r f i b e r reinforcement of the f r i c t i o n product. Results o f the a i r samples c o l l e c t e d f o r t o t a l p a r t i c u l a t e , formaldehyde and phenol are presented i n Table 11. Two persona1 breathing zone a i r samples c o l l e c t e d on the manual preform operator The mixer ranged from 14.8 to 253 mg/m3 w i t h a mean o f 20.1. operator (2 personal samples) ranged form 0.8 t o 13.2 mglm3 w i t h a mean o f 7.0 mg/m3. By comparison the ACGIH (TLV) f o r t o t a l p a r t i c u l a t e s i s 10 mg/mm3. The OSHA (PEL) i s 15 mg/m3. NIOSH has no recommended standard. A i r concentrations o f formaldehyde and phenol were below the l i m i t o f detection.
Page 9
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
A i r flow measurements were taken a t the work stations o f several mixer and preform operators. The capture v e l o c i t y a t the v e n t i l a t i o n source was 100-200 f e e t per minute (FPM), and the average v e l o c i t y was less than 50 FPM a t the worker's breathing zone. Smoke tube t e s t i n g indicated inadequate venti l a t i o n a t the source o f airborne production ( i .e. , the mixing chute, weighing pans, and presses). This i s not adequate to capture f i b e r s t h a t become airborne. Fiber concentrations should be measured a t the sources o f t h e i r production and a t the breathing zone t o assess the effectiveness o f removing f i b e r s from the area
B. Medical Five o f 170 chest X-rays were interpreted as abnormal by the. contractor. One o f these workers had a f i n d i n g suggestive o f asbestos-related disease, while a second worker had evidence of pneumoconiosis, though n o t the type c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f asbestos exposure. The f i r s t worker had pleural thickening along the l e f t l a t e r a l wall, w i t h no densities o r c a l c i f i e d pleural plaques. This worker was a non-smoker and had r e s t r i c t i v e and obstructive impairments on PFTs. He had worked f o r the former owners o f Nuturn more than 25 years ago. A chest X-ray taken one year e a r l i e r was interpreted as normal. The second worker had p,q opacities (round, nodular), density 110 (few i n number), throughout both lung f i e l d s w i th no pleural thickening o r c a l c i f i c a t i o n s noted. This worker's PFT r e s u l t s were normal. He had worked a t the p l a n t f o r three and a h a l f years and was a non-smoker. A chest X-ray taken one year e a r l i e r was interpreted as normal. Twenty o f the 170 (12%) workers who had PFTs had some type of abnormal t e s t r e s u l t . NIOSH investigators defined an abnormal PFI r e s u l t as a forced v i t a l capacity (FVC) o r forced expiratory volume i n one second (FEVl) o f l e s s than 80% o f predicted, or a FEVl/FVC of less than 70% o f predicted. Twelve workers had evidence o f obstructive impairment, one worker had evidence o f r e s t r i c t i v e impairment, and seven workers had evidence o f both types o f impairment. Two o f the workers w i t h r e s t r i c t i v e impairment, or a combination of both, had worked a t the p l a n t f o r two o r l e s s years. The other s i x workers had employment h i stories ranging from 8-38 years. O f the seven workers w i t h r e s t r i c t i v e impairment, f o r whom weights and heights were available, s i x were obese ( > 15 pounds over the upper range o f t h e i r i d e a l weight). Obesity i s known t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h the mechanics o f lung expansion and may have contributed t o these worker's abnormal results. O f the 20 workers w i t h abnormal PFTs, nine were current smokers, s i x were ex-smokers, and f i v e were non-smokers.
Page 10
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
There was one X-ray which was suggestive o f asbestosis and one suggestive o f some other pneumoconiosis. However, f u r t h e r c l i n i c a l evaluation i s needed t o 1) confirm these findings, and 2) consider other possible causes o f the abnormalities. Restrictive pulmonary function abnormalities, i n the absence o f obesity, and obstructive impairment, i n the absence o f a h i s t o r y o f cigarette smoking, may be associated w i t h asbestos o r other occupational dust exposure. Further c l i n i c a l evaluation o f these workers i s necessary f o r the reasons stated above. Based on the environmental and medical data obtained i n t h i s investigation NIOSH concludes t h a t a health hazard t o asbestos d i d e x i s t a t the time o f t h i s survey on June 6, and 7, 1984. V I I. RECOMMENDATIONS Worker exposures should be reduced by a combination o f engineering control s, good work practices, admini s t r a t i ve controls, and personal protective equipment. The best control measure available would be t o elimf nate the use o f asbestos e n t i r e l y and substitute material such as PMF i n i t s place. However, the long-term health e f f e c t s o f other mineral f i b e r s are n o t y e t known. Good housekeeping and a clean work environment are also necessary, even i f asbestos were t o be replaced. 2.
The unloading o f packaged asbestos should be done w i t h i n an enclosed exhaust-ventilated area so t h a t there i s no d i r e c t contact w i t h free airborne asbestos once the bags are open. An automatic bag unloader can be used to remove workers from the immediate v i c i n i t y where asbestos dust i s generated.
3.
The asbestos containing dust created i n the manufacturing process should be immediately v e n t i l a t e d t o the baghouse by use o f captive hoods, booths, and enclosures. The v e n t i l a t i o n intake should be beween the asbestos containing material and the worker t o prevent afrborne spread td the workers breathing zone. Intakes should also be placed beneath the asbestos t o exhaust any dust which may f a l l t o the floor. This would eliminate any hazard t o someone subsequently sweeping the f l o o r or walking through the area
4.
Both personal and environmental monitoring should be performed. Personal samples should be c o l l e c t e d from the breathing zone of the employee and should be scheduled a t l e a s t once every s i x months. The duration of the sampling should be long enough t o determine an 8-hour TWA. Affected employees should be given an opportunity t o observe the monitoring and have access t o the results.
Page 11
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
5.
Permanent and continuous monitoring f o r asbestos and other f i b e r s would be q u i t e valuable, because a permanent record can be kept on f i l e , documenting continuous exposure l e v e l s a t a l l work stations. Monitoring devices provide an objective means f o r assessing whether control measures are effective.
6.
A l l external surfaces should be maintained free o f accumulations o f
asbestos fibers. Areas should be vaccumed clean using a high e f f i c i e n c y p a r t i c u l a t e a i r f i l ter (HEPA).
7.
Periodic maintenance of the v e n t i l a t i o n equipment should be performed to prevent malfunction. Holes i n the v e n t i l a t i o n duct should be repaired.
8.
Asbestos waste, scrap, debris, bags, containers, equipment, and asbestos-contaminated clothing, consigned f o r disposal, should be col 1ected and disposed o f in sealed, impermeable bags o r containers
9.
Areas where employees are allowed t o e a t or drink should be kept free o f asbestos o r any other t o x i c material.
10.
Caution signs should be posted a t a l l approaches t o areas where airborne concentrations o f asbestos may exceed the exposure l i m i t s . Also, cautionary labels should be a f f i x e d t o a l l raw materials, mixtures, scrap, waste, debris, o r other products containing asbestos fibers.
11.
Respirators should not be. used i n place o f environmental controls which are aimed a t reducing airborne l e v e l s but, i f needed, should be used i n conjunction w i t h other control measures.
.
12.
Experience has demonstrated t h a t r e s p i r a t o r s may be so uncomfortable t h a t they 'are infrequently worn and t h a t r e s p i r a t o r s are only p a r t i a l l y effective, especially if used by employees w i t h beards. Consequently, r e s p i r a t o r s cannot be considered as a f r o n t - l i n e o f defense against airborne asbestos.
13.
Development o f j o i n t management-union education programs t o address worker concerns and needs regarding material used, e f f e c t s o f contaminants i n the workplace, as well as more e f f e c t i v e use o f the labor-management health and safety committee are recomnended.
14.
The medical monitoring program, c u r r e n t l y i n place, should be continued. While medical m n i t o r i n g may detect asbestosis i n i t s e a r l y stages, i t i s n o t an e f f e c t i v e means o f reducing m o r t a l i t y from asbestosis o r asbestos-related cancers. The only known method for preventing these diseases i s t o reduce or prevent exposure t o asbestos.
Page 12
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
15.
Medical examinations should be provided to any employee working i n an asbestos-containing environment p r i o r to employment and p e r i o d i c a l l y thereafter. This exam should include, as a minimum, a medical h i s t o r y ( t o e l i c i t symptoms o f respiratory disease), a physical examination o f the chest, a chest X-ray interpreted by a physician trained i n the ILO pneumoconiosis c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system, and pulmonary function tests.
16.
A l l workers should receive w r i t t e n n o t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l medical r e s u l t s . Workers should keep a record o f a l l medical resul t s so t h a t they too ( i n addition to the company) can monitor changes i n r e s p i r a t o r y function over time.
17.
Any worker who i s found t o have an abnormal medical examination should be r e f e r r e d t o a physician, preferably one who i s experienced i n the diagnosis and treatment o f occupational lung disease, f o r f u r t h e r evaluation
.
V I II. REFERENCES 1.
National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH Manual o f Analytical Methods, Vol 5, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r OccupatSonal Safety and Heal th, 1979, (DHEW (NIOSH) Publ ication No. 79-141).
2.
National I n s t i t u t e for Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH Manual o f Analytical Methods, Vol 7, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health , 1981 (DHHS (NIOSH) Publ ication No. 82-100)
3.
National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH Manual o f Analytical Methods, Vol 3, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health, 1977 (DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-157-C) .
4.
Michaels, L., Chrssick, S., Asbestos, Properties, Applicati ons and Hazards, Val. 1, John Wiley and Sons, 1979.
5.
Workplace Exposure to Asbestos. 81-103, 1980.
6.
Morgan W.K., Seaton A., Occupational Lung Disease, Philadelphia: W. B e Saunders Company, 1975.
7.
American Conference o f Governmental I n d u s t r i a l Hygienists. Documentation o f the threshold l i m i t values. 4th ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH, 1980.
.
DHHS (NIOSH) Publ ication No
.
Page 13
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
8.
National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health. Occupational diseases: a guide t o t h e i r recognition. Revised ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health, 1977. (DHEW (NIOSH) publ i c a t i o n no. 77-181).
9.
National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health. Current i n t e l l i g e n c e b u l l e t i n 34--Formaldehyde: Evidence of carcinogenicity. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health, 1981. (DHHS (NIOSH) publ i c a t i o n no. 81-111).
10.
National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health. C r i t e r i a for a recommended standard: occupational exposure t o formaldehyde. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health, 1977. . (DHEW p u b l i c a t i o n no. (NIOSH ) 77-126 )
.
11. Occupational Safety and Health Admini s t r a t i o n . OSHA safety and Occupational Safety and health standards. 29 CFR 1910.1000. Health Administration, revised 1980. 12.
National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health. C r i t e r i a for a recommended standard: occupational exposure t o phenol. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupatf onal Safety and Health, 1976. (DHEW publ ic a t i o n no. (NIOSH) 76-196).
13.
Uynder El, Hoffman D: Study of-tobacco carcinogenesis o f the a c i d i c f r a c t i o n s as promoters. Cancer 4:1306-15,
14.
- the r o l e 1961.
Boutwell RK, Bosch DK: The tumor-promoting a c t i o n o f phenol and r e l a t e d compounds f o r mouse skin. Cancer Res. 19:413-24, 1959.
I X . AUTHORSHIP AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Report Prepared by:
Raymond L. Ruhe I n d u s t r i a l Hygienist I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene Section Jane tipscomb, R.N., M.P.H. Nurse Epi demi 01ogi s t Medical Section
Page 14
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
Environmental Evaluation:
84-151
Michael Crandall , C. I.H I n d u s t r i a l Hygieni s t I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene
.
Larry Reed I n d u s t r i a l Hygfeni s t I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene Section Michael King I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene Technician I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene Section Originating Office:
Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch Division o f Survei 1lance, Hazard Evaluations, and F i e l d Studies
Report Typed By:
Lynette 3011if f e Clerk-Typi s t I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene Section Kathy Conway Clerk-Typi s t I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene Section
X. DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT Copies o f t h i s r e p o r t are currently available upon request from NIOSH, Division o f Standards Development and Technology Transfer, Publications D i ssemination Section, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. After 90 days, the r e p o r t w i l l be available through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 P o r t Royal, Springfield, V i r g i n i a 22161. Information regarding i t s a v a i l a b i l i t y through NTIS can be obtained from NIOSH Publications O f f i c e a t the Cincinnati address. Copies o f t h i s r e p o r t have been sent to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Local 238, United Rubber Workers, New Castle, Indiana United Rubber Workers International Union, Akron, Ohio Nuturn Corpora tion, New Castle, Indiana NIOSH, Region V OSHA, Region V
For the purpose o f informing affected employees, copies o f t h i s r e p o r t s h a l l be posted by the employer i n a prominent place accessible t o the employees f o r a period o f 30 calendar days.
Table I
Results of Personal Samples f o r Asbestos Nuturn Corporation Ikw Castle, Indiana HE 84-151 June 6, 1984
Sampling Period
Val urn
Liters
Concentration (Fi bers/cc )
0712-1434
751
0.52
Mixer Operator 11
0715-1013
303
0.67
6-7-84
Mixer Operator 53
0722-1440
745
0.08
6-7-84
Mixer Operator 12
0716-1436
748
0.02
Date
Job and/or Location
6-6-84
Mixer Operator 53
6-6-84
Area Between Mixer 283 U t i l i t y Operator (Zi g-Zag) U t i l i t y Operator (Zig-Zag 1
u t i 1i ty Operator (Zi g-Zag 1 U t i t i ty Operator (Zig-Zag)
Auto~ati'cPreform, Operator Automatic Preform Operator F i l t e r Overloaded
Ridgeway Preform Operator Ridgeway Preform Operator
0.52
Ridgeway Preform Operator
0.47
Ridgeway Preform Operator
0.33
Commercial Preform Operator C o ~ r c i a lPreform Operator Commercial Reform Operator Coramercial Preform Operator
1
(Continued)
Table I (Continued)
Date
Job and/or Location
Sam1i ng
Sample Volume
Perf od
Liters
Asbestos Concentrat! on (Fibers/cc
6-6-84
Snow Ran Preform Operator
0746-1446
714
0.17
6-7-84
Snow llan Preform Operator
0752-1446
701
0.28
6-6-84
Manual Preform Operator
0727-0950
243
0.16
6-6-84
Press Cure Operator
0739-1445
634
0.36
6-6-84
Press Cure Operator
0741-1444
629
0.19
6-7-84
Press Cure Operator
0734-1445
655
0.27
Plant Service Operator Plant Service Operator Plant Service Operator Plant krvf ce Operator
O u t s i & Grinder Operator Outsf de Grinder Operator Outside Grinder Operator Inside Grinder Operator Inside Grinder Operator Rockwell Saw Operator
De Walt Saw Operator Pauldi ng Saw Operator
(Continued 1
Table I (Continued)
Date
Job and/or Location
Sampling Period
Samle volume Liters
Asbestos Concentration (Fiberslcc)
6-6-84
Automatic O r i l l Operator
0804-1448
687
0.16
6-6-84
Hand D r i l l Operator
0806-1450
687
0.14
6-6-84
Comercia1 Hand D r i 11 Operator
0823-1453
598
6-7-84
Hand D r i l l Operator
0748-1328
529
6-7-84
Cossrercial Hand D r i l l Operator
0750-1450
663
6-6-84
BdB New Cutter Operator
0756-1449
702
0.12
6-7-84
BL8 New Cutter Operator
0740-1447
726
0.38
6-6-84
Automati c Staaping Operator
0803-1450
6 39
1.05
6-6-84
Hand Stamping Operator
0810-1453
627
0.09
0.18
Packaging Operator Packagfng Operator Crusher Operator Oven Operator Commercial OD & I D Grinders Operator O f f i c e (Area
0.02
Cafeteria (Area)
LD*
Cafeteria (Area 1
LO
Present OSHA Standard 2.0 f / c c 8 hour WA 10.0 f/cc 15 minute c e i l i n g
--
Reconnnended K ~ SStandard H Lowest Feasible Linrit
Concentrations o f asbestos are given i n f i b e r s greater than 5u i n length per cubic centimeter of a i r (f/cc). L i m i t o f detection used by the laboratory was 0.03 f i b e r s l f i e l d . qD
- Less than detectable l i m i t s .
fable I1 Results o f Personal and Area Salrples for Total Particulate. Fornrldehyde, and Phenol Nuturn Corpora t lon New Castle, Indiana HE 84-151 June 6-7, 1984
Ua t e
Sam1Ing Per Iod
Saw"e Vol unc L lt e r s
M I xer Operator 12
6-6-84
0709-1430
750
13.2
Mixer Operator 13
6-7-84
0722-1440
745
0.8
Manual Preform Operator
6-6-84
0950-1441
401
14.8
Manual Preform Operator
6-7-84
07 30- 1443
668
25.3
Mixer Operator 13
6-6-84
0712-1434
33.9
Area Between 12 1 13 Hlxer
6-7-84
0724-1436
32.8
MIxer Optrr t o r +I
6-6-84
0715-1013
12.6
MI xer Operator 12
6-7-84
07 16- 1100
13.0
Area Between 12 1 13 Hlxer
6-7-84
0800-1438
29.6
Job and/or Location
Envl r o n r n t a l C r l t e r l a mg/n3
L l n l t o f Detection
*mg/m3 = M l l l l g r a ~ n sof substance per cubic neter o f a i r sampled. **LO Less than detectable l i m i t s .
-
Total Partlc late mg/n
!I*
-
F o r m1deHyde
Pz$ -
Mi,,+
-
-
LD** LD
Larest: Feaslb l e Level
-
-
-
-
LD LD
HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION REPORT HETA 84-151-1544, NUTURN CORPORATION, NEW CASTLE, INDIANA
NATIONAL INST. FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, CINCINNATI, OH. HAZARD EVALUATIONS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BRANCH APR 1985
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical lnfomtion Senrice
Health Hazard Evaluation Report REPRODUCED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE U.S. DEPARTNE#t OF COMMERCE SPRINGFIELD. VA 22161
HETA 84-151-1544 NIITUW CORPORATION NEN CASTLE, INCIMA
PREFACE The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch of NIOSH conducts f i e l d investigations of possible health hazards i n the workplace. These investigations a r e conducted under the authority of Section 20(a) ( 6 ) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 2S U.S.C. 66S(a)(6) which
authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services, following a written request from any employer o r authorized representati ve o f employees, t o determine whether any substance normally found i n the place of employment has potentially toxic e f f e c t s i n such concentrations a s used o r found.
.The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch also provides, upon
request, m d i cat, nursing, and industrial hygiene technical and consul t a t i v e assistance (TA) t o Federal, s t a t e , and local agencies; labor; industry and other groups or individuals t o control occupational health hazards and t o prevent related trauma and disease.
MentSon of company names or products does not constitute endorsement National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health.
by t h e ,
som R-
101
#1CUklENlATlON PAGE
1 a.
1
RtCORT
2
.n.bumitt.
L TW
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. HETA-84-151-1544, Nuturn Corporation, New Castle, Indiana
'. -* 9. W
I3. RrlWt~t'sAmulorr
p~b.J38724:US r R m 0 . k 6
n
85/04/00
. hrbrmiry HETA-84-151-1544 oqsn~xatfocrn e w ~k.
.fluhe, R . L. , and J . Lipscoab h
.
Na
1Q hol.d/l&m
g mn~tanon Mama 8136 Add-
Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, NIOSH, U.S. Departrent of Health and Human Services, Cincinnati, Ohio
Untt Ph.
11. ~ o c r kw~&&~ GI )
NO.
(Q
(a If
qrpnlutlocr Noma and A&?msa
I
l3-Ty#dIh.onLPmnodCamd
Environmental and breathing zone sampler were analyzed for asbertos (1332214). formaldehyde (50000), phenol (1089521. and total particulates at Nuturn Corporation (SIC-3714), New Castle, Indiana in June, 1984. The survey was requested by a union representative to evaluate asbestos exposure during the manufacture o f brake shoe linings. Pulmonary function tests and chest X-rays were taken for 170 workers. Asbestos uas detected in 51 personal and 1 of 3 mnvironrontal samples. Concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 0.91 fiber per cubic centireter (cm3). The OSHA standard for asbestos is 2.0 fibers/cm3. Total particulate concentrations ranged from 0.8 to 25.3 ailligrams per cubic meter m g . The OSHA standard for particulates is 1Sng/a3. Formaldehyde and phenol uere not detected. Twenty workers had abnormal pulmonary function tesr results. Twelve showed evidence of obstructive impairment, one had evidence of restrictive impairment, and seven showed both obstructiv+ and restrictive impairment. Five U o r k e ~ Sshowed X-ray-abnormalities; one was suggestive of asbestosis and one of a pneumoconiosis. The authors conclude that a health hazard due to asbestos exposure exists at the facility. Recommendations include reducing asbestos exposurer.by engineering controls, good uork practic+s, administrative controls, and using personal protective equtpment. Asbestos should be replaced i f feasible.
NIOSH-Publication, NIOSH-Author, NIOSH-Health-Hazard-Evaluation, Hazards-Confirmed, Region-5, Rotor-vehicles, Asbestos-dusts, Air-monitoring, Pulmonary-congestion, Inhalants, HETA-04-151-1544
NIOSH-Technical-Assistance-Report,
'
HETA 84-151-1544 APRIL 1965 NUTUI:N CORPORATION NEW CASTLE, INDIANA
NlOSH INVESTIGATORS: Raymond L. Ruhe Jane L i p scomb
I n January, 1984, the National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a request f o r a Health Hazard Evaluation from Nuturn Corporation i n New Castle, Indiana, t o evaluate workers exposures t o asbestos during the manufacture o f brake shoe l i n i n g s . On June 6-7, 1984, NIOSH i n v e s t i g a t o r s conducted an environmental-medical evaluation. Asbestos was detected i n 51 persorial and 1 of 3 area a i r samples; concentrations ranged from l e s s than detectable l i m i t s (0.01) t o 0.91 f i bers/cubic centimeter ( f i b e r / c c 8-hour time weighted average (TWA). The exposure concentrations ( f i b e r s / c c ) by job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are as follows: preform operators 0.01-0.91, crusher operator 0.90, mixer operators 0.02-0.67, u t i l i t y operators 0.09-0.41, and press cure operators 0.19-0.36. The NIOSH r e c o m n d e d c r i t e r i o n f o r asbestos i s t o reduce exposure t o the lowest feasible l i m i t . The Occupational Safety and Health Admini s t r a t i o n (OSHA) permissible exposure lim i t (PEL is 2.0 f i berslcc 8-hour TWA. Four personal breathing zone samples were c o l l e c t e d f o r t o t a l p a r t i c u l a t e . Concentrations ranged between 0.8 t o 25.3 m i l l i g r a m s per cubic meter o f a i r (sg/m3) 8-hour TWA. The preform operators ranged from 14.8-25.3 mg/m3, the mixer operators ranged from 0.8-13.2 mg/m3. The OSHA (PEL) i s 15 mg/m3.
A i r concentrations o f formaldehyde and phenol were belaw the l i m i t o f detection, 0.2 microgram per sample and 0.02 m i l l i g r a m per sample respectively. Twenty o f the 170 (12%) workers'who performed pulmonary function t e s t s (PFTs) had some type o f abnormal t e s t r e s u i t . Twelve workers had evidence o f obstructive Smpairatent, one worker had evidence o f r e s t r i c t i v e impairment, and seven workers had evidence o f both types o f impairment. Two o f the workers w i t h r e s t r i c t i v e impairment, had worked a t the p l a n t f o r G o o r l e s s years. The other s i x workers had employment h i s t o r i e s ranging from 8-38 years. Of the seven w i t h r e s t r i c t i v e impairment, s i x were obese. O f the 20 workers w i t h abnormal PFTs, nine were c u r r e n t smokers, s i x were ex-smokers, and f i v e were non-smoker s. F i v e o f 170 chest x-rays were i n t e r p r e t e d as abnormal. One o f these worker s had a f i n d i n g suggestive o f asbestos-related disease, w h i l e a second worker had evidence o f pnuemocon'i osis, though n o t the type c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f asbestos exposure. Based on - the environmental and medical data obtained i n t h i s i n v e s t f gation NIOSH i n v e s t i g a t o r s conclude t h a t a h e a l t h hazard t o asbestos d i d e x i s t a t t h e t i m o f t h i s survey on June 6-7, 1984. Recommendations t o a i d i n p r o v i d i n g a safe and h e a l t h f u l working environment a r e presented i n Section VIi o f t h i s report
.
KEYWORDS: S I C 3714 (motor vehicle p a r t s and accesories!, asbestos, t o t a l particulates, formaldehyde, phenol, and pulmonary function
Page 2 11.
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
INTRODUCTION I n January 1984, NIOSH received a request f o r a health hazard evaluation a t Nuturn Corporation i n New Castle, Indiana. The United Rubber Workers (URN) International Union and the URN Local No. 238 requested t h a t NIOSH evaluate workers's exposure to asbestos during the manufacture o f brake shoe linings. On March 1-2, 1984, NIOSH investigators conducted an f n i t i a l wal k-through survey. A t t h f s t i m e we col lected background information on the manufacturing process and the workforce. The NIOSH investigators returned t o the p l a n t during the week o f June 4-8 and conducted an environmental and medical evaluation. On August 1, 1984, NIOSH conducted a follow-up survey t o evaluate the venti l a t f on system and explain the environmental sample r e s u l t s collected on June 4-8. Preliminary findings o f the evaluations were reported i n a l e t t e r o f August 24, 1984, to the requestor and mnagemnt.
111.
BACKGROUND Nuturn began manufacturing brake shoe l i n i n g s a t the New Castle f a c i l i t y i n 1978. The p l a n t was operated by the Firestone Company from approximately 1941-1975. I n 1975 the p l a n t was purchased by the Royal Company, which was purchased by Lear-Siegler Corporation i n 1976. The p l a n t was shut down f o r approximately s i x months p r i o r t o being purchased by Nuturn. Approximately 401 o f the current workforce was employed by one o f the previous owners. I n March 1984, Nuturn produced 50,000 sets (8-piece sets) of brake shoes per month. There were 135 production workers and 35 salaried workers. The workforce was approximately 601 male. To achieve the desired f r i c t i o n properties, a wide variety o f ingredients are commonly used i n the manufacturer o f brake linings. Asbestos and processed mineral f i b e r s (PMF) are used f o r f i b e r reinforcement o f the f r i c t i o n product. Organic binders are p r i m a r i l y phenolic type resins (phenol-formaldehyde) selected f o r high binding strength. F r i c t i o n modifiers are added to achieve a desirable c o e f f i c i e n t o f f r i c t i o n (CF). Overall operating conditions included among these materials are zinc, brass, chashew n u t o i l , graphite, and oxides o f iron. F i l l e r s such as rubber scrap, barites, clays, s i l i c a , coke, coal and other minerals are used. The raw materials are unpacked, blended, weighed, pre-formed by compression, baked and further compressed before f i n a l processing.
Page 3
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
A t the t i m e o f the NIOSH survey, Nuturn had a medical program which consisted of a pre-placement chest X-ray, pulmonary function t e s t (PFT) , audiogram, medical h i story, and physical examination. Annual medical examinations included chest X-rays, PFTs, and audiometry ( f o r those workers i n areas where noise l e v e l s exceeded 85 db). A chest X-ray was offered t o workers a t termination o f employment. The medical t e s t i n g was conducted by a t l e a s t three d i f f e r e n t contractors over the past s i x years. The p l a n t health and safety technician conducted annual PFTs, using a Breon 2400 spirometer, between 1981 and 1983. The p l a n t has a union-management health and safety committee which meets once a month "when possible".
IV.
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODS A Environmental Personal and area samples f o r airborne asbestos were collected on mixed c e l l ulose ester membrane f i1ters, mounted i n open-faced cassettes using a battery-powered vacuum pump operating a t a flow r a t e a t 1.7 l i t e r s per minute (lpm). The samples were analyzed usin phase contrast microscopy according t o NIOSH method P & Cam 239.
f
Personal a i r samples f o r t o t a l p a r t i c u l a t e were collected on preweighed m-5 pvc f i l t e r s using a battery-powered vacuum pump a t a flow r a t e 1.7 lpm. The t o t a l weight o f each sample was determined by weighing the sample plus t h e - f i l t e r on an electrobalance and subtracting the previously determined the tare weight o f the f i l t e r . The b r e and gross weighings are done i n duplicate. Personal and area a i r samples were collected f o r formaldehyde on "Supelco Orbo 22' sorbent tubes. The samples were drawn a t a flow r a t e o f 0.05 l i t e r s per minute, analysis was by gas chromatography using NIOSH method 354.2 Personal and area a i r samples f o r phenol were collected through midget bubblers containing 15 m l o f 0.1 N sodium hydroxide. The samples were collected a t a flow r a t e o f 1.0 Ipm and analyzed by gas chromatography using NIOSH method S-330.3
B.
Medical I n A p r i l 1984, a medical contractor employed a t the company conducted PFTs and chest X-rays amoung 32 o f the 35 salaried and 130 o f the 135 hourly employees. PFTs were performed using a Chest X-rays were reviewed by a Puri tan-Bennet Spirometer B-reader (a physician t r a i n e d and c e r t i f i e d i n i n t e r p r e t i n g X-rays f o r pneumoconiosis) who works f o r the p r i v a t e contractor. On June 6-7, A NIOSH medical investigator reviewed the aggregate t e s t r e s u l t s from t h i s survey and the medical records o f a l l workers i d e n t i f i e d as having abnormal chest X-rays o r PFTs.
.
Page 4
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
V.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
A.
84-151
Environmental C r i t e r i a As a guide t o the evaluation o f the hazards posed by workplace exposures, NIOSH f i e l d s t a f f employ environmental evaluation c r i t e r i a f o r assessment o f a number o f chemical and physical agents. These c r i t e r i a are intended t o suggest l e v e l s o f exposure t o which most workers may be exposed up t o 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week f o r a working l i f e t i m e w i t h o u t experiencing adverse health e f f e c t s . It i s , however, important t o note t h a t n o t a l l workers w i l l be protected from adverse h e a l t h e f f e c t s i f t h e i r exposures are maintained below these levels. A small percentage may experience adverse h e a l t h e f f e c t s because o f i n d i v i d u a l suscepti b i 1ity, a pre-exi s t i n g medical condition, and/or a hypersensitivity (allergy). I n addition, some hazardous substances may a c t i n combination w i t h other workplace exposures, the general environment, o r w i t h medications o r personal h a b i t s of the worker t o produce h e a l t h e f f e c t s even i f the occupational exposures are c o n t r o l l e d a t the l e v e l set by the evaluation c r i t e r i o n . These combined e f f e c t s are o f t e n n o t considered i n the evaluation c r i t e r i a . Also, some substances are absorbed by d i r e c t contact w i t h the s k i n and mucous membranes, and thus p o t e n t i a l l y increase the o v e r a l l exposure, F i n a l l y , evaluation c r i t e r i a may change over the years as new information on the t o x i c e f f e c t s o f an agent become available. The primary sources o f environmental evaluation c r i t e r i a f o r the workplace are: 1 ) NIOSH C r i t e r i a Documents and recommendations, 2 ) the Ameri can Conference o f Governmental I n d u s t r i a l Hygienists ' (ACGIH) Threshold L i m i t Values (TLV1s), and 3) the U.S. Department o f Labor (OSHA) occupational h e a l t h standards. Often, the NIOSH recommendations and ACGIH TLV's are lower than the corresponding OSHA standards. Both NIOSH recommendations and ACGIH TLV's u s u a l l y are based on more recent information than are the OSHA standards. The OSHA standards a l s o may be r e q u i r e d t o take i n t o account the f e a s i b i l i t y o f c o n t r o l l i n g exposures i n various i n d u s t r i e s where the agents are used; the MIOSH-recommended standards, by contrast, are based p r i m a r i l y on concerns r e l a t i n g t o the prevention o f occupational disease. I n e v a l u a t i n g the exposure l e v e l s and the recommendations f o r reducing these l e v e l s found i n t h i s report, i t should be noted t h a t i n d u s t r y i s l e g a l l y required t o meet only those l e v e l s specified by an OSHA standard.
Page 5
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
A time-weighted average (TWA) exposure r e f e r s to the average airborne concentration o f a substance during a normal 8- t o 10-hour workday. Some substances have recommended short-term exposure l i m i t s or c e i l i n g values which are intended t o supplement the TMA where there are recognized t o x i c e f f e c t s from high short-term exposures. 1.
Asbestos Asbestos has been widely used i n b u i l d i n g material f o r fireproofing, thermal and acoustical i n s u l a t i o n and decoration. The p o t e n t i a l f o r release o f f i b e r s from these materials depends i n p a r t upon the characteristics o f material t h a t contains the asbestos fibers. Soft, crumbly materials tend,t o release f i b e r s more e a s i l y than do hard, cementi t i o u s materials. The soft, crumbly material i s defined as f r i a b l e ; material t h a t when dry may be crumbled, pulverized or reduce t o powder by hand pressure. Asbestos f i b e r s are extremely durable, and t h e i r size and shape permit them to remain airborne f o r long periods o f time. Fibers become suspended i n the a i r by disturbance o f the f r i a b l e asbestos-containing materials or d e t e r i o r a t i o n causing the material t o release fibers, and by resuspension o f previously released f i b e r s t h a t have s e t t l e d onto f l o o r s and other surfaces. Inhalation o f asbestos dust can r e s u l t i n serious and i r r e v e r s i b l e diseases; I t has been causally associated w i t h lung cancer, a r a r e cancer o f the chest and abdominal l i n i n g called mesothelioma and cancers o f the esophagus, stomach, colon and other organs.4 Inhalation also causes asbestosis, a non-malignant, progressive, i r r e v e r s i b l e lung disease caused by the i n h a l a t i o n o f asbestos dust.5 Asbestosis i s a chronic disease o f the lung, characterized by f i b r o s i s (scarring) o f the lung tissue. The i n i t i a l symptom of asbestosis I s shortness o f breath on exertion, often accompained by a dry cough. Radiographic changes are o f t e n the f i r s t c l i n i c a l findings i n asbestosis and may be present i n a person w i t h normal pulmonary function. Less commonly, decrements i n pulmonary abnormal it i e s (FVC) are associated w i t h asbestosi s, other pneumaconioses, and connect4 ve tissue diseases. Obstructive impairment ( FEVl or FEVl FVC) can be associated w i t h intense, short-term asbestos exposure, b u t i s nost commonly due t o the e f f e c t s o f cigarette smoking.6
Page 6
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
There i s t y p i c a l l y a period o f many years between i n i t i a l exposure and the appearance o f asbestos r e l a t e d disease. Available data show t h a t the lower the exposure, the lower the r i s k o f developing asbestosis and cancer. Excessive cancer r i s k s , however, have been demnstrated a t a l l f i b e r concentrations studied t o date. Evaluation o f a11 a v a i l a b l e human data provides no evidence f o r a threshold o r "safe" l e v e l of asbestos e ~ ~ o s u r e . 5 Since asbestos i s a carcinogen, NIOSH p o l i c y i s t o reduce t o the lowest f e a s i b l e l i m i t . The OSHA standard i s 2.0 f i b e r s / c c 8-hour TUA. 2.
Total P a r t i c u l a t e I n contrast t o fibrogenic dust which, when inhaled i n excessive amounts, cause scar t i s s u e t o be formed i n the lungs, so c a l l e d "nuisance" dusts are stated t o have l i t t l e adverse e f f e c t s on lungs and do n o t produce s i g n i f i c a n t organic disease o r t o x i c e f f e c t s when exposures are kept under reasonable control. The "nuisace" dusts have a l s o been c a l l e d ( b i o l o g i c a l l y ) " i n e r t n dusts, b u t the l a t t e r term i s inappropriate t o the e x t e n t t h a t there i s no dust which does n o t evoke some c e l l u l a r response i n the lungs when inhaled i n s u f f i c i e n t amount. However, the lung t i s s u e r e a c t i o n caused by i h a l a t i o n o f "nuisance dusts" has the f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : 1) the a r c h i t e c t u r e o f the a i r spaces remains i n t a c t ; 2) collagen (scar t i s s u e ) i s n o t form t o a s i g n i f i c a n t extent; and 3) the t i s s u e r e a c t i o n i s p o t e n t i a l l y reversible. Excessive concentrations o f dusts i n the workroom a i r may seriously reduce v i s i b i l f t y , may cause i r r i t a t i o n o f the eyes, ears, and nasal passages; o r cause i n j u r y t o the s k i n o r mucous membranes by chemical o r mechanical a c t i o n per se, o r by the rigerous s k i n cleansing procedures necessary f o r t h e i r removal .7 The American Conference o f Governmental I n d u s t r i a l Hygienist (ACGIH) Threshold L i m i t Value (TLV) f o r t o t a l p a r t i c u l a t e s i s 10 mg/m3. The OSHA (PEL) i s 15 mg/m3. NIOSH has no recommended standard. Formaldehyde Formaldehyde gas may cause severe i r r i t a t i o n t o the mucuous membranes of the r e s p i r a t o r y t r a c t and eyes. The aqueous s o l u t i o n splashed i n the eyes may cause eye burns. U r t i c a r i a has been reported f o l l o w i n g i n h a l a t i o n o f gas. Repeated exposure t o formaldehyde may cause d e r m a t i t i s e i t h e r from i r r i t a t i o n or allergy.
Page 7
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-15:
Systemic i n t o x i c a t i o n i s i n 1ik e l y t o occur since f ntense i r r i t a t i o n o f upper respiratory passages compels workers t o I f workers do inhale high leave areas o f exposure. concentrations o f formaldehyde, coughing, d i f f i c u l . t y i n breathing and pulmonary edema may occur. Formaldehyde has induced a r a r e form of nasal cancer i n two t e s t animal species as reported i n a study by the Chemical Industry I n s t i t u t e o f Toxicology. Formaldehyde has a1so been shown t o be a mutagen i n several systems .8*9 I n 1976, NIOSH recommended t h a t occupational exposure t o formaldehyde be l i m i t e d t o a concentration o f 1 ppm f o r any 30 minute sampl i n g period.10 This recomnendation, however, was I n 1979, based solely on the i r r i t a n t e f f e c t s o f formaldehyde. evidence f o r the carcinogeni c p o t e n t i a1 f o formaldehyde became known and i n 1980, NIOSH issued a new c r i t e r i a which considered formaldehyde as a p o t e n t i a l occupational carcinogen and recommended formaldehyde as a p o t e n t i a l occupational carcinogen and recommended t h a t exposures be reduced t o the lowest feasible l e v e l .9 ACGIH~, i n i t s notice of intended changes f o r 1983-84, has proposed t h a t exposure t o formaldehyde be l i m i t e d t o a c e i l i n g l e v e l o f 1 ppm (1.5 mg/m3). The federal O S H A ~standard ~ for exposure t o formaldehyde i s an 8-hour TWA of 3 ppm, a c e i l i n g l e v e l o f 5 ppm, and an acceptable maximum peak above the c e i l i n g l e v e l o f 10 ppm for no more than a t o t a l of 30 i i n u t e s during an 8-hour workshift. This c r i t e r i a i s based on the f r r i t a n t e f f e c t s o f formaldehyde rather than i t s p o t e n t i a l carcinogenicity. Pheno1 Phenol i s an i r r i t a n t o f the eyes, mucous mmbranes, and skin. Systemic absorption causes convulsions, as well as l i v e r and kidney damage. Routes o f exposure are skin absorption, ingestion, and inhalation. The skin may be the main route o f ent r y . Skin absorption can occur a t low vapor concentrations, apparently without d i scomfort. Signs and symptoms can develop r a p i d l y w i t h serious consequence, including shock, tremor, muscle twitching, convulsions, cyanosi s, coma, and death. Phenol vapors cause marked i r r i t a i t i o n o f eyes, nose, and throat. Solutions o f phenol have a marked corrosive a c t i o n on tissue, s i m i l a r t o cresol
Page 8
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
Phenol has been shown t o be a weak s k i n carcinogen i n mice .I3914 Condi t i o n s o f these experiments, however, do n o t r e f l e c t i n d u s t r i a l experiences w i t h phenol. Results of these studies suggest t h a t phenol functions p r i m a r i l y as a nonspecific i r r i t a n t and may be capable o f promoting tumors. To date, there i s no evidence t h a t phenol a c t s as a s p e c i f i c carcinogen o r mutagen a t low concentrations w i t h i n normal physiologic l i m i t s . 12
VI.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Environmental Results o f the a i r samples c o l l e c t e d f o r asbestos are presented i n Table I. Asbestos was detected i n 5 1 personal and 1 area sample; concentrations ranged from l e s s than detectable l i m i t s (0.01 t o 1.05 f i b e r s l c c 8-hour TWA. Since asbestos i s a carcinogen, NIOSH recommends exposure be reduced t o the lowest f e a s i b l e l i m i t . The OSHA standard i s 2.0 f i b e r s l c c 8-hour TWA. The personal breathing zone sample c o l l e c t e d f o r asbestos on the automatic stamping operator was 1.05 f i b e r s l c c 8-hour TWA. The high concentration can be a t t r i b u t e d t o the malfunction o f the v e n t i l a t i o n on the automatic stamping machine the day the sample was collected. The personal breathing zone sample c o l l e c t e d f o r asbestos on the crusher operator was 0.90 f i bers/cc. Four personal a i r samples c o l l e c t e d f o r asbestos on the mixer operators ranged from 0.02-0.67 f i b e r s / c c w i t h a mean o f 0.32 f i b e r s l c c . The u t i l i t y operators ( 4 personal samples) ranged from 0.09-0.41 f i b e r s l c c w i t h a mean of 0.26 f i berslcc. The preform operators (12 personal samples) ranged from 0.01-0.91 f i b e r s / c c w i t h a mean o f 0.29 f i b e r s l c c and the press cure operators ( 3 personal samples) ranged from 0.19-0.36 fibers/cc w i t h a mean o f 0.27 fibers/cc. These concentrations o f asbestos exposure i s mainly due t o inadequate v e n t i l a t i o n and poor work practices. However, these concentrations w i l l vary from day to day depending on asbestos and/or processed mineral f i b e r s used f o r f i b e r reinforcement of the f r i c t i o n product. Results o f the a i r samples c o l l e c t e d f o r t o t a l p a r t i c u l a t e , formaldehyde and phenol are presented i n Table 11. Two persona1 breathing zone a i r samples c o l l e c t e d on the manual preform operator The mixer ranged from 14.8 to 253 mg/m3 w i t h a mean o f 20.1. operator (2 personal samples) ranged form 0.8 t o 13.2 mglm3 w i t h a mean o f 7.0 mg/m3. By comparison the ACGIH (TLV) f o r t o t a l p a r t i c u l a t e s i s 10 mg/mm3. The OSHA (PEL) i s 15 mg/m3. NIOSH has no recommended standard. A i r concentrations o f formaldehyde and phenol were below the l i m i t o f detection.
Page 9
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
A i r flow measurements were taken a t the work stations o f several mixer and preform operators. The capture v e l o c i t y a t the v e n t i l a t i o n source was 100-200 f e e t per minute (FPM), and the average v e l o c i t y was less than 50 FPM a t the worker's breathing zone. Smoke tube t e s t i n g indicated inadequate venti l a t i o n a t the source o f airborne production ( i .e. , the mixing chute, weighing pans, and presses). This i s not adequate to capture f i b e r s t h a t become airborne. Fiber concentrations should be measured a t the sources o f t h e i r production and a t the breathing zone t o assess the effectiveness o f removing f i b e r s from the area
B. Medical Five o f 170 chest X-rays were interpreted as abnormal by the. contractor. One o f these workers had a f i n d i n g suggestive o f asbestos-related disease, while a second worker had evidence of pneumoconiosis, though n o t the type c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f asbestos exposure. The f i r s t worker had pleural thickening along the l e f t l a t e r a l wall, w i t h no densities o r c a l c i f i e d pleural plaques. This worker was a non-smoker and had r e s t r i c t i v e and obstructive impairments on PFTs. He had worked f o r the former owners o f Nuturn more than 25 years ago. A chest X-ray taken one year e a r l i e r was interpreted as normal. The second worker had p,q opacities (round, nodular), density 110 (few i n number), throughout both lung f i e l d s w i th no pleural thickening o r c a l c i f i c a t i o n s noted. This worker's PFT r e s u l t s were normal. He had worked a t the p l a n t f o r three and a h a l f years and was a non-smoker. A chest X-ray taken one year e a r l i e r was interpreted as normal. Twenty o f the 170 (12%) workers who had PFTs had some type of abnormal t e s t r e s u l t . NIOSH investigators defined an abnormal PFI r e s u l t as a forced v i t a l capacity (FVC) o r forced expiratory volume i n one second (FEVl) o f l e s s than 80% o f predicted, or a FEVl/FVC of less than 70% o f predicted. Twelve workers had evidence o f obstructive impairment, one worker had evidence o f r e s t r i c t i v e impairment, and seven workers had evidence o f both types o f impairment. Two o f the workers w i t h r e s t r i c t i v e impairment, or a combination of both, had worked a t the p l a n t f o r two o r l e s s years. The other s i x workers had employment h i stories ranging from 8-38 years. O f the seven workers w i t h r e s t r i c t i v e impairment, f o r whom weights and heights were available, s i x were obese ( > 15 pounds over the upper range o f t h e i r i d e a l weight). Obesity i s known t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h the mechanics o f lung expansion and may have contributed t o these worker's abnormal results. O f the 20 workers w i t h abnormal PFTs, nine were current smokers, s i x were ex-smokers, and f i v e were non-smokers.
Page 10
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
There was one X-ray which was suggestive o f asbestosis and one suggestive o f some other pneumoconiosis. However, f u r t h e r c l i n i c a l evaluation i s needed t o 1) confirm these findings, and 2) consider other possible causes o f the abnormalities. Restrictive pulmonary function abnormalities, i n the absence o f obesity, and obstructive impairment, i n the absence o f a h i s t o r y o f cigarette smoking, may be associated w i t h asbestos o r other occupational dust exposure. Further c l i n i c a l evaluation o f these workers i s necessary f o r the reasons stated above. Based on the environmental and medical data obtained i n t h i s investigation NIOSH concludes t h a t a health hazard t o asbestos d i d e x i s t a t the time o f t h i s survey on June 6, and 7, 1984. V I I. RECOMMENDATIONS Worker exposures should be reduced by a combination o f engineering control s, good work practices, admini s t r a t i ve controls, and personal protective equipment. The best control measure available would be t o elimf nate the use o f asbestos e n t i r e l y and substitute material such as PMF i n i t s place. However, the long-term health e f f e c t s o f other mineral f i b e r s are n o t y e t known. Good housekeeping and a clean work environment are also necessary, even i f asbestos were t o be replaced. 2.
The unloading o f packaged asbestos should be done w i t h i n an enclosed exhaust-ventilated area so t h a t there i s no d i r e c t contact w i t h free airborne asbestos once the bags are open. An automatic bag unloader can be used to remove workers from the immediate v i c i n i t y where asbestos dust i s generated.
3.
The asbestos containing dust created i n the manufacturing process should be immediately v e n t i l a t e d t o the baghouse by use o f captive hoods, booths, and enclosures. The v e n t i l a t i o n intake should be beween the asbestos containing material and the worker t o prevent afrborne spread td the workers breathing zone. Intakes should also be placed beneath the asbestos t o exhaust any dust which may f a l l t o the floor. This would eliminate any hazard t o someone subsequently sweeping the f l o o r or walking through the area
4.
Both personal and environmental monitoring should be performed. Personal samples should be c o l l e c t e d from the breathing zone of the employee and should be scheduled a t l e a s t once every s i x months. The duration of the sampling should be long enough t o determine an 8-hour TWA. Affected employees should be given an opportunity t o observe the monitoring and have access t o the results.
Page 11
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
5.
Permanent and continuous monitoring f o r asbestos and other f i b e r s would be q u i t e valuable, because a permanent record can be kept on f i l e , documenting continuous exposure l e v e l s a t a l l work stations. Monitoring devices provide an objective means f o r assessing whether control measures are effective.
6.
A l l external surfaces should be maintained free o f accumulations o f
asbestos fibers. Areas should be vaccumed clean using a high e f f i c i e n c y p a r t i c u l a t e a i r f i l ter (HEPA).
7.
Periodic maintenance of the v e n t i l a t i o n equipment should be performed to prevent malfunction. Holes i n the v e n t i l a t i o n duct should be repaired.
8.
Asbestos waste, scrap, debris, bags, containers, equipment, and asbestos-contaminated clothing, consigned f o r disposal, should be col 1ected and disposed o f in sealed, impermeable bags o r containers
9.
Areas where employees are allowed t o e a t or drink should be kept free o f asbestos o r any other t o x i c material.
10.
Caution signs should be posted a t a l l approaches t o areas where airborne concentrations o f asbestos may exceed the exposure l i m i t s . Also, cautionary labels should be a f f i x e d t o a l l raw materials, mixtures, scrap, waste, debris, o r other products containing asbestos fibers.
11.
Respirators should not be. used i n place o f environmental controls which are aimed a t reducing airborne l e v e l s but, i f needed, should be used i n conjunction w i t h other control measures.
.
12.
Experience has demonstrated t h a t r e s p i r a t o r s may be so uncomfortable t h a t they 'are infrequently worn and t h a t r e s p i r a t o r s are only p a r t i a l l y effective, especially if used by employees w i t h beards. Consequently, r e s p i r a t o r s cannot be considered as a f r o n t - l i n e o f defense against airborne asbestos.
13.
Development o f j o i n t management-union education programs t o address worker concerns and needs regarding material used, e f f e c t s o f contaminants i n the workplace, as well as more e f f e c t i v e use o f the labor-management health and safety committee are recomnended.
14.
The medical monitoring program, c u r r e n t l y i n place, should be continued. While medical m n i t o r i n g may detect asbestosis i n i t s e a r l y stages, i t i s n o t an e f f e c t i v e means o f reducing m o r t a l i t y from asbestosis o r asbestos-related cancers. The only known method for preventing these diseases i s t o reduce or prevent exposure t o asbestos.
Page 12
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
15.
Medical examinations should be provided to any employee working i n an asbestos-containing environment p r i o r to employment and p e r i o d i c a l l y thereafter. This exam should include, as a minimum, a medical h i s t o r y ( t o e l i c i t symptoms o f respiratory disease), a physical examination o f the chest, a chest X-ray interpreted by a physician trained i n the ILO pneumoconiosis c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system, and pulmonary function tests.
16.
A l l workers should receive w r i t t e n n o t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l medical r e s u l t s . Workers should keep a record o f a l l medical resul t s so t h a t they too ( i n addition to the company) can monitor changes i n r e s p i r a t o r y function over time.
17.
Any worker who i s found t o have an abnormal medical examination should be r e f e r r e d t o a physician, preferably one who i s experienced i n the diagnosis and treatment o f occupational lung disease, f o r f u r t h e r evaluation
.
V I II. REFERENCES 1.
National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH Manual o f Analytical Methods, Vol 5, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r OccupatSonal Safety and Heal th, 1979, (DHEW (NIOSH) Publ ication No. 79-141).
2.
National I n s t i t u t e for Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH Manual o f Analytical Methods, Vol 7, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health , 1981 (DHHS (NIOSH) Publ ication No. 82-100)
3.
National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH Manual o f Analytical Methods, Vol 3, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health, 1977 (DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-157-C) .
4.
Michaels, L., Chrssick, S., Asbestos, Properties, Applicati ons and Hazards, Val. 1, John Wiley and Sons, 1979.
5.
Workplace Exposure to Asbestos. 81-103, 1980.
6.
Morgan W.K., Seaton A., Occupational Lung Disease, Philadelphia: W. B e Saunders Company, 1975.
7.
American Conference o f Governmental I n d u s t r i a l Hygienists. Documentation o f the threshold l i m i t values. 4th ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH, 1980.
.
DHHS (NIOSH) Publ ication No
.
Page 13
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
84-151
8.
National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health. Occupational diseases: a guide t o t h e i r recognition. Revised ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health, 1977. (DHEW (NIOSH) publ i c a t i o n no. 77-181).
9.
National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health. Current i n t e l l i g e n c e b u l l e t i n 34--Formaldehyde: Evidence of carcinogenicity. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health, 1981. (DHHS (NIOSH) publ i c a t i o n no. 81-111).
10.
National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health. C r i t e r i a for a recommended standard: occupational exposure t o formaldehyde. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health, 1977. . (DHEW p u b l i c a t i o n no. (NIOSH ) 77-126 )
.
11. Occupational Safety and Health Admini s t r a t i o n . OSHA safety and Occupational Safety and health standards. 29 CFR 1910.1000. Health Administration, revised 1980. 12.
National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupational Safety and Health. C r i t e r i a for a recommended standard: occupational exposure t o phenol. Cincinnati, Ohio: National I n s t i t u t e f o r Occupatf onal Safety and Health, 1976. (DHEW publ ic a t i o n no. (NIOSH) 76-196).
13.
Uynder El, Hoffman D: Study of-tobacco carcinogenesis o f the a c i d i c f r a c t i o n s as promoters. Cancer 4:1306-15,
14.
- the r o l e 1961.
Boutwell RK, Bosch DK: The tumor-promoting a c t i o n o f phenol and r e l a t e d compounds f o r mouse skin. Cancer Res. 19:413-24, 1959.
I X . AUTHORSHIP AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Report Prepared by:
Raymond L. Ruhe I n d u s t r i a l Hygienist I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene Section Jane tipscomb, R.N., M.P.H. Nurse Epi demi 01ogi s t Medical Section
Page 14
- Health Hazard Evaluation Report No.
Environmental Evaluation:
84-151
Michael Crandall , C. I.H I n d u s t r i a l Hygieni s t I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene
.
Larry Reed I n d u s t r i a l Hygfeni s t I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene Section Michael King I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene Technician I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene Section Originating Office:
Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch Division o f Survei 1lance, Hazard Evaluations, and F i e l d Studies
Report Typed By:
Lynette 3011if f e Clerk-Typi s t I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene Section Kathy Conway Clerk-Typi s t I n d u s t r i a l Hygiene Section
X. DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT Copies o f t h i s r e p o r t are currently available upon request from NIOSH, Division o f Standards Development and Technology Transfer, Publications D i ssemination Section, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. After 90 days, the r e p o r t w i l l be available through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 P o r t Royal, Springfield, V i r g i n i a 22161. Information regarding i t s a v a i l a b i l i t y through NTIS can be obtained from NIOSH Publications O f f i c e a t the Cincinnati address. Copies o f t h i s r e p o r t have been sent to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Local 238, United Rubber Workers, New Castle, Indiana United Rubber Workers International Union, Akron, Ohio Nuturn Corpora tion, New Castle, Indiana NIOSH, Region V OSHA, Region V
For the purpose o f informing affected employees, copies o f t h i s r e p o r t s h a l l be posted by the employer i n a prominent place accessible t o the employees f o r a period o f 30 calendar days.
Table I
Results of Personal Samples f o r Asbestos Nuturn Corporation Ikw Castle, Indiana HE 84-151 June 6, 1984
Sampling Period
Val urn
Liters
Concentration (Fi bers/cc )
0712-1434
751
0.52
Mixer Operator 11
0715-1013
303
0.67
6-7-84
Mixer Operator 53
0722-1440
745
0.08
6-7-84
Mixer Operator 12
0716-1436
748
0.02
Date
Job and/or Location
6-6-84
Mixer Operator 53
6-6-84
Area Between Mixer 283 U t i l i t y Operator (Zi g-Zag) U t i l i t y Operator (Zig-Zag 1
u t i 1i ty Operator (Zi g-Zag 1 U t i t i ty Operator (Zig-Zag)
Auto~ati'cPreform, Operator Automatic Preform Operator F i l t e r Overloaded
Ridgeway Preform Operator Ridgeway Preform Operator
0.52
Ridgeway Preform Operator
0.47
Ridgeway Preform Operator
0.33
Commercial Preform Operator C o ~ r c i a lPreform Operator Commercial Reform Operator Coramercial Preform Operator
1
(Continued)
Table I (Continued)
Date
Job and/or Location
Sam1i ng
Sample Volume
Perf od
Liters
Asbestos Concentrat! on (Fibers/cc
6-6-84
Snow Ran Preform Operator
0746-1446
714
0.17
6-7-84
Snow llan Preform Operator
0752-1446
701
0.28
6-6-84
Manual Preform Operator
0727-0950
243
0.16
6-6-84
Press Cure Operator
0739-1445
634
0.36
6-6-84
Press Cure Operator
0741-1444
629
0.19
6-7-84
Press Cure Operator
0734-1445
655
0.27
Plant Service Operator Plant Service Operator Plant Service Operator Plant krvf ce Operator
O u t s i & Grinder Operator Outsf de Grinder Operator Outside Grinder Operator Inside Grinder Operator Inside Grinder Operator Rockwell Saw Operator
De Walt Saw Operator Pauldi ng Saw Operator
(Continued 1
Table I (Continued)
Date
Job and/or Location
Sampling Period
Samle volume Liters
Asbestos Concentration (Fiberslcc)
6-6-84
Automatic O r i l l Operator
0804-1448
687
0.16
6-6-84
Hand D r i l l Operator
0806-1450
687
0.14
6-6-84
Comercia1 Hand D r i 11 Operator
0823-1453
598
6-7-84
Hand D r i l l Operator
0748-1328
529
6-7-84
Cossrercial Hand D r i l l Operator
0750-1450
663
6-6-84
BdB New Cutter Operator
0756-1449
702
0.12
6-7-84
BL8 New Cutter Operator
0740-1447
726
0.38
6-6-84
Automati c Staaping Operator
0803-1450
6 39
1.05
6-6-84
Hand Stamping Operator
0810-1453
627
0.09
0.18
Packaging Operator Packagfng Operator Crusher Operator Oven Operator Commercial OD & I D Grinders Operator O f f i c e (Area
0.02
Cafeteria (Area)
LD*
Cafeteria (Area 1
LO
Present OSHA Standard 2.0 f / c c 8 hour WA 10.0 f/cc 15 minute c e i l i n g
--
Reconnnended K ~ SStandard H Lowest Feasible Linrit
Concentrations o f asbestos are given i n f i b e r s greater than 5u i n length per cubic centimeter of a i r (f/cc). L i m i t o f detection used by the laboratory was 0.03 f i b e r s l f i e l d . qD
- Less than detectable l i m i t s .
fable I1 Results o f Personal and Area Salrples for Total Particulate. Fornrldehyde, and Phenol Nuturn Corpora t lon New Castle, Indiana HE 84-151 June 6-7, 1984
Ua t e
Sam1Ing Per Iod
Saw"e Vol unc L lt e r s
M I xer Operator 12
6-6-84
0709-1430
750
13.2
Mixer Operator 13
6-7-84
0722-1440
745
0.8
Manual Preform Operator
6-6-84
0950-1441
401
14.8
Manual Preform Operator
6-7-84
07 30- 1443
668
25.3
Mixer Operator 13
6-6-84
0712-1434
33.9
Area Between 12 1 13 Hlxer
6-7-84
0724-1436
32.8
MIxer Optrr t o r +I
6-6-84
0715-1013
12.6
MI xer Operator 12
6-7-84
07 16- 1100
13.0
Area Between 12 1 13 Hlxer
6-7-84
0800-1438
29.6
Job and/or Location
Envl r o n r n t a l C r l t e r l a mg/n3
L l n l t o f Detection
*mg/m3 = M l l l l g r a ~ n sof substance per cubic neter o f a i r sampled. **LO Less than detectable l i m i t s .
-
Total Partlc late mg/n
!I*
-
F o r m1deHyde
Pz$ -
Mi,,+
-
-
LD** LD
Larest: Feaslb l e Level
-
-
-
-
LD LD
