Document KzzQad9X0EvBNKkYza4dExdG0
Environmental Heal'h Perspectives Vol. il, pp. 129-IJC. 1981
Worker Exposure to Vinyl Chloride and Poly(vinyl Chloride)
by James H. Jones*
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in early 1974 began industrial hygiene studies of vinyl chloride exposed workers. Three VC monomer plants, three VC polymerization plants, and seven PVC fabrication plants were surveyed. VC polymerization plaht workers and workers in one job category in VC monomer plants were exposed to average levels above 1 ppm. The highest average exposure was 22 ppm. NIOSH health hazard evaluation studies since these initial surveys have primarily shown nondetectable levels of vinyl chloride. A
NIOSH control technology study in 1977 showed that exposure levels in VC polymerization plants had been drastically reduced but exposure levels above 1 ppm were still found in several cases.
Introduction
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) began studies ofvinyl chloride (VC) early in 1974 following a report of increased incidence of angiosarcoma of the liver among VC exposed workers. A part of this work included retrospective cohort mortality and industrial hy giene studies of the VC polymerization industry. Also, NIOSH contracted with Bendix Corporation, Launch Support Division, to conduct industrial hygiene studies in the VC monomer production industry and the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) fabrica tion industry. These industrial hygiene studies were done to document the levels of VC exposure occurring in industry at that time. Three VC monomer plants, three VC polymerization plants and seven PVC fabrication plants were studied. In addition to the VC industry-wide study, NIOSH, through their health hazard evaluation (HHE) program has sampled for PVC at 34 other plants, primarily VC fabrication operations. Also a study to document control methods utilized in the plastics industry was performed under contract by Enviro Control. This study included work at five VC Polymerization plants (1-36).
,, j?.'V'R'on Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
<6 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 46226.
October 1981
Industry-Wide Study
VC Monomer Plants
One of the VC monomer plants sampled used the acetylene-hydrogen chloride process, the older pro cess for making VC, and the other two used the ethylene dichloride pyrolysis process. It was not possible to assess the difference in worker exposure between the two processes because the plant using the acetylene-hydrogen chloride process was oper ating at only 10% capacity during the surveys in 1 December 1974.1
As can be seen in Figure 1, only the job of loader shows exposure substantially above 1 ppm. VC exposure for this job was being reduced, at the time of the surveys, by the redesign of tank car hookup systems and the use of air-supplied breathing apparatus while the tanks cars were connected or disconnected.
VC Polymerization Plants
Three VC polymerization plants were sampled. Located at these plants were three suspension resin operations, three dispersion resin operations, one mass resin operation and one solvent resin operation. As can be seen in Figure 2, suspension and dispersion resin operations had the highest exposure levels. Within plants the reactor area operators and helpers had the highest exposures.
129
UCC 088228
vT Concentration
T 'Pt
2ft Hunt .' J Ranee or A hr. T*iA*i
IS
lft
S .
gfel-T -.T-. Ub Tech
Loader
&\
-rs*n____ P^}-4-da
Maintenance
Operator
Figure 1, Means and ranges of VC exposures in VC monomer production plants.
vc Concentrut Ion
pfH
Aren oncmtor
Area
llelner
Area Operator
Figure 2. Means and ranges of VC exposures in VC polymerization plants.
Environmental Health Perspectives
.gS^-:.;^.1:*?.*
><*-/*. ' ^
~x>-i ~.....
eT-.> V*.-?
-*r*
PVC Fabrication Plants
In the seven PVC fabrication plants samples were collected in calendering, compounding, extru sion, molding, and plastisol operations. All expo sures were quite low with calender operators having the only exposures above 1 ppm. Figure 3 shows the relationship of VC exposure between the segments of the PVC industry. As would be ex pected, VC polymerization had the highest expo sures and PVC fabrication the lowest.
Changes in Exposure Since 1974
We have no information generated by NIOSH
and know of none in the literature on how VC
monomer plant exposures have changed since 1974,
although it would be expected that the single "high"
exposure category, loader, has had exposure reduc
tions.
\
Information on how well VC polymerization plants
were able to reduce exposures since 1974 was
obtained during the control technology study. This
information is in the form of company personnel
sampling data for VC over a period of time. At the
first plant, a mass polymerization plant, the per
centage of personnel samples below 1 ppm has gone
from 2% in 1974 to 73% in 1976 (Fig. 4). At the
second plant, a suspension and dispersion polymer
ization plant, the percentage of personnel samples
below 1 ppm has gone from 0% in 1974 to 65% in
1977 (Fig. 5). At the third plant, a mass polymer ization plant, VC exposures are given by job for the
period October 1974 to May 1975 and then for January 1977. In Figure 6, it can be seen that exposures dropped substantially, in most cases by a factor of almost 10. VC exposures at the fourth plant, a suspension polymerization plant, are given for both 1975 and 1976. As seen in Figure 7, in most cases a two-fold drop in exposure levels occurred. Although the percentage drop is lower than the third plant, the final exposures are about the same. At the fifth plant, a dispersion polymerization plant (Fig. 8), VC exposures are given by job for the period May 1975 to December 1975 and then for January 1976 to September 1976. Again reductions were sufficient to bring exposure averages to the same approximate level (less than 1 ppm) as the
preceding two plants. PVC fabrication plants had exposures predomi
nantly below 1 ppm in early 1975 when the industry wide study was done. In addition to this work, HHE's have been conducted at 26 PVC fabrication plants beginning May 1974 and ending in April 1978. Detectable levels of VC were found in only 10 plants with only 1 plant of the 15 sampled since April, 1975 having detectable levels. At that plant sampled in March, 1976, the highest level found
was 0.38 ppm. PVC dust exposures were also briefly examined
27 97 M S3
October 1981
131
UCC 088230
//
1974
PPM VC 1975
1976
Figure 4. Distribution of VC exposures at a mass polymerization plant.
u
ftr)>
ig74
1975
1976
1977
Figure 5. Distribution of VC exposures at a suspension and dispersion polymerization plant.
Environmental Health Perspectives
UCC 088231 Sra
*
* v'i", *
t-''
` - - h: ` A
.-7^* *
, *u2r*^-r;^;t'y
"'\a2ke.
>r-*
[~~|in/74-S/75
2-
@
SunVrv.sor
s
ForenAn Control
Room
Operator
tsa
fT^
S3
Crew M.Cr
F1TM" `t`^n"nce
header Leader Cleaner
Figure 6. Change in VC exposures at a mass polymerization plant.
October 1981
Figure 7. Change in VC exposures at a suspension polymerization plant.
133
UCC 088232
7
d
t;
1 r 6. t! n n e a o
a
Charging
Dunping
Figure 8. Change in VC exposures at a dispersion polymerization plant.
19
c Y
F c
t
r
t
-*> *t<t *n to era
v> r r
Figure 9. PVC dust exposures at VC polymerization plants.
Environmental Health Perspectives
UCC 088233
uring the industry-wide study. Total dust concenrations were determined. Because it was felt that 'VC would be the primary constituent of the dust,
Report No. 75-90-236, Russell Cor]>oration, Alexander City, Alabama, DHEW, I'HS, CDC, NIOSH, 1975. 9. Geissert, J. 0., and Herbert, j. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 76-28-332, Welch Plastics and
io analysis for PVC was performed. Respirable
Manufacturing Company, Columbus, Ohio. DHEW, PHS,
.amples were not collected because it was felt that ije static charge on PVC particles would cause nalfunctioning of the normally used sampling equip ment, such as nylon cyclones. A few samples were
CDC, NIOSH, 1976. 10. Geissert, J. 0., and Herbert, J. Health Hazard Evaluation
Determination Report No. 76-29*322, Columbus Products Corporation, Columbus, Ohio. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH,
1976.
examined by optical microscopy. In these samples 11. Gilles, D. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report
all particles had diameters less than 7 pm, and 9.0% of the particles had diameters less than 2.5 pm. The samples examined were from dispersion resin oper ations.
No. 74-134-193, PHC Industries, Inc., Camden, New Jersey 08103. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1975. 12. Gilles, D., and Lybarger, J. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 77-111-501, Allied Chemical Corporation, Danville, Illinois. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH,
This result was expected, since dispersion resins
1978.
generally are in the range of 2-10 pm in diameter. Suspension resins, the major resins in terms of production, are generally much larger, about 100
13. Gunter, B. J., Butler, G. J., and Lucas, J. B. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 74-125-215, Monoghan Company, Denver, Colorado. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1975.
pm in diameter. The sampling results displayed in 14. Gunter, B. J., and Hatch, L. Heath Hazard Evaluation
Figure 9 show that dispersion resin bagging had by far the highest Exposure, averaging 8.6 mg/m3. We have no information on whether PVC dust expo sures have been reduced since 1974.
Determination Report No. 75-135-328. A & S Tribal Indus tries, Poplar, Montana. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1976. 15. Gunter, B. J., and Lucas, J. B. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 74-61-232, Gates Rubber Com pany, Denver, Colorado. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH,
It appears, based on the information that we
1975.
currently have that the PVC fabrication industry has achieved good control of VC exposures. The VC polymerization industry was making big strides in
16. Gunter, B. J., and Nelson, B. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 77-4-402, A & S Tribal Indus tries, Poplar, Montana. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1977.
17. Hervin, R. L. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination
rolling exposures, but we have no information
Report No. 75-81-252, Artex Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
ell if they have continued to lower exposures
Overland Park, Kansas. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1975.
since 1977. We have reductions in the VC
no information on exposure monomer production indus
18.
Jones, J. H. Worker exposure to vinyl chloride during production and fabrication of vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1980.
try, but it appeared that only one job category was 19. Kominsky, J. R., and Wisseman, C. L. Health Hazard
significantly above the standard in 1974.
Evaluation Determination Report No. 77-35-123, Ford Motor
Company, Vinyl Operations Plant, Mt. Clemens, Michigan.
DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1977.
REFERENCES
20. Okawa, M. T. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 74-71-142, Delco Remy Division, Anaheim,
1. Burroughs, G. E. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 77-13-414, Tee Printing, Lancaster, Pennsylva
nia. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1979. 2. Butler, G. J. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination
Report No. 74-149-189, Protecto Wrap Company, Denver, Colorado. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1975. 3. Butler, G. J. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 74-161-181, Western Forge Corporation, Colo rado Springs, Colorado. DHEW. PHS, CDC, NIOSH. 1975. 4. Butler, G. J., and Bodner, A. H. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 74-29-161, Ethyl Visqueen Divi sion of Ethyl Corp., Terre Haute, Indiana, DHEW, PHS,
CDC, NIOSH, 1974. 5. Chrostek, W. J., and Tboburn, T. W. Health Hazard
Evaluation Determination Report No. 74-107-279, General Electric Company, Silicone Products Department, Water ford, New York. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1976. 6. Enviro Control, Inc. Engineering control technology as sessment for the plastics and resins industry. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1978. 7. Flesch, J. P., and Rostand, R. A. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 74-94-253, Armstrong Cork Com pany, Jackson, Mississippi, DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1976. Geissert, J. O. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination
California 92801. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1974. 21. Okawa, M. T. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination
Report No. 74-96-173, Richdel Corporation, Carson City, Nevada. DHEW. PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1975. 22. Okawa, M. T. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 75-20-209, Richdel Corporation, Carson City, Nevada. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1975. 23. Okawa, M. T. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 75-1-194, Storm Products Company, Palo Alto, California. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1975. 24. Okawa, M. T. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 75*120-220, Storm Products Company, Palo Alto, California. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH. 1975. 25. Price, J. H. Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Report No. TA 74-45, Appalachian Laboratory and Occupa tional Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1977. 26. Price, J. H. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 77-92-541, Packard Electric, Division of General Motors Corporation, Warren, Ohio. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1978. 27. Roper, C. P., Jr. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 74-120-200, Goodyear Tire anti Rubber Compa
ny, Gadsden, Alabama. DHEW, PHS, CDC. NIOSH, 1976. 28. Roper, C. P.. Jr., and Cromer, J. W,, Jr. Health Hazard
October 1981
135
UCC 088234
t
Evaluation Dcli-rinination Kc|Hirt No. 74-118 218, General Tin* nml liuhlier Company, Marion, Indiana. DHEW, PHS,
CDC, NIOSH, 1976. 29. Kuhe, R. L. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination
Rejmrt No. 76-94-2J9, l'roto Production Plastic*. Inc., Itmddcr, Colorado. DHEW, PHS, CDC. NJOSH, 1976. 30. Ituhe, R. L. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Rejiort No. 78-70-628, Honpal Medical Corporation, Little ton, Colorado. DHEW, I'HS, CDC, NIOSH, 1978. 31. Ruhc, R. L., and Andvraen, L. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 76-17-396, The Hayes & Albion Company, Spcncervillc, Ohio. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1977. 32. Salisbury, S. A. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 7G-65-348, Shellcr-Globe Corporation, Hardy
Division, Union City, Indiana. DHEW, I'HS, CDC, NJOSH 1976.
33. Straub, W. E. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination lte|irt Nu. 74-86-186. M. H. Call Company, J.anraster Pennsylvanin. DHEW, I'HS, CDC, NIOSH. 1976.
34. Straub, W. E. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Re|>ort No. 74-89-189, New York Telephone & Telegraph Company, 42nd Street and 7th Avenue, New York, New York. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1976.
36. Thobum, T. W. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 73-123-298, Campbell Plastics, Inc., Schenecta dy, New York. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1976.
36. Vandervort, R. Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 74-59-217, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company St. Marys, Ohio 45885. DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH, 1976.
136 Environmental Health Perspectives