Document Rpp9dEKeKjqYj35d77XX6dkaz

FILE NAME Brakes BRK DATE 1994 Apr DOC BRK152 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Journal Article - Asbestos Awareness and Control Measures in Brake and Clutch Repair Services in Knoxville and Knox County Tennessee FEATURES A Preliminary Assessment of Asbestos Awareness and Control Measures in Brake and Clutch Repair Services in Knoxville and Knox County Tennessee Charles C. Phillips MSEH MPH CIH and Charles B. Hamilton Dr.Ph.D MPH Abstract The pending OSHA standard revision proposed in 1990 to lower the asbestos Permissible Exposure Limit PEL and to mandate effective asbestos control measures ACM in brake and clutch assembly work may have a profound effect on industries involved in such operations Health protection of workers will be improved and costs of improved control methods and training will increase Considering these facts this preliminary study was designed to assess the level of worker and management awareness of asbestos hazards associated with brake and clutch repair and to determine what ACM had been implemented by businesses in Knoxville and Knox County Tennessee The study in a metropolitan area ofapproximately 336,000people revealedeight different categories ofbusinesses conducting brake and clutch repair work with an estimated 363 potentially exposed employees Results ofthe study suggest that managers and employees of the 80 businesses studied were in need of asbestos hazard awareness training and more adequate asbestos control measures There are more than 150,000 full- time brake and clutch mechanics working with containing brake shoes and clutch facings in the United States 1 In the Knoxville County Tennessee area there are approximately 363 such workers including time mechanics working in 107 business loca- tions Worker exposure in brake and clutch repair operations is regulated by 29 CFR 1910.1001 General Industry Standards requiring employers to ensure that workers are not exposed in excess of the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit PEL eighthour time weighted average 0.2 fibers of breathing air or in excess of the 30minute excursion limit 0.1 fibers 2 If half of the PEL is demonstrated in the workplace protective program requirements such as medical surveillance recordkeeping training respiratory protection and regulated areas must be implemented Alternatively Appendix F of the regulation can be adopted as the method of choice by the employer in lieu of the afore- mentioned requirements and is triggered when half of the PEL is exceeded Appendix F entitled Work Practices and Engineering Controls for Automotive Brake Repair Operations is nonmandatory Appendix F provides guidance on procedures to be implemented such as enclosed High Efficiency Particulate Air HEPA vacuum systems compressed solvent systems and spray cans that can be used by workers to reduce exposure On July 20 1990 OSHA issued a newly proposed rule to further protect workers against unnecessary exposure to asbestos associated with brake and clutch work 3 The proposed rule which is likely to be adopted in the new administration would amend the nonmandatory Appendix F by mandating control measures New requirements would include use of one of the following protective measures the enclosed cylinder vacuum system method the solvent spray can method the wet brush recycle method or equivalent methods that would reduce exposure levels to those of the first procedure cited above Alternate methods of control would have to be proven protective through sampling Further the proposed standard would lower the PEL for workers from 0.2 fibers cc fibers eight time weighted average Several studies in the United States Great Britain Finland Germany Japan and China have demonstrated exposures above the PEL during brake clutch and associated repair work 4-9 However when good work practices were utilized worker exposures fell well below the PEL 5,10 Many of the aforementioned studies evaluated exposure levels but made few asbestos control measure recommendations As a result of National Institute of Occu- pational Safety and Health's NIOSH findings in studies of known asbestos control measures OSHA issued a proposed standard in 1990 that will mandate tech- niques to protect the health of brake and clutch repair workers This proposed standard's impact can be measured only by determining the types of ACM in use and the level of asbestos hazard awareness ex- isting in brake and clutch repair businesses in the U.S. at the present time Health Risk of Asbestos Asbestos is characterized clinically and has been the subject of extensive epidemiological research 11-16 Although there are several published retrospective studies demonstrating asbestosis fibrosis rales pulmonary deficiency and few cases of mesothelioma in brake shoe and clutch repair workers debate in the literature as to the toxicity of dust associated with this type of work is conflicting Studies conducted to determine the presence and size of asbestos April 1994 Journal194Journal 1994 Journaol f Environmental Health 7 copyright Title Code Material may be protected by law 17 U.S. EnvV.i56ronmental | Other 1 Tire Service 2.9 2. Transmission Repair 2.9 3 Body Shop 2.9 4. Muffler Repair 2.9 5 Truck Dealership 29 % Percentage 34 Responded to Survey 20.5 20. 05 . 20.5 7 7 tionnaire The questionnaire containing 33 questions was designed to assess the knowledge level of management and that of employees as perceived by management and to determine the types of ACM currently in use The questionnaire was divided into three sections The first requested descrip- tive information about the business opera- tions It was designed to identify types of businesses number of workers types of repair duration and quantity of brake and clutch work The second concerning health hazard awareness was designed to reveal knowledge level and belief of risk assoc~-ated with asbestos as indicated by management It was anticipated that the resultant responses in conjunction with information from the third section concerning asbestos control methods would reveal researchers if a relationship between health beliefs knowledge and ACM might exist 21 The third section was comprised of multiple response questions to identify ACM or its absence Descriptive data was compiled by comparing frequencies and percentages of responses to questions and by a selective comparison of questions Discussion and Results The findings of this exploratory study can be broadly generalized to the target population of all brake and clutch repair businesses in Knoxville and Knox County Auto Svc Centers Garages Gas Svc Stations Other Survey results were skewed because three categories of brake and clutch repair busi- nesses automobile service centers garages and gasoline service stations made up 85 Figure 1. Types of businesses by percent and total responding to survey of responders Five other business types each with a single responder made up the fibers have shown asbestos content in brake to the hazards of working with asbestos- remaindeofr the results Figure ) Findings may not be applicable to businesses included shoe dust ranging from 0.1 to 30 by containing brakes and clutches and is rel- in this portion of the target population AEH weight with a median length of 0.5 microns evant to both large and small business op- Based on responses the survey identified AR eR 17 The current debate centers around erations Also asbestos control methods as many as 363 workers engaged in brake Aaitosa findings that high braking temperatures utilized in the Knoxville County area and clutch repair The response rate of 1 result in dehydroxylation of crysotile as- at the time of the study are discussed 42.5 34 of 80 businesses responding bestos followed by loss of morphology and based on two mailings most likely resulted transformation into fosterite and silica 17- Methods due to such factors as small size of firm 20 Although thought not to cause The study descriptive by design was level of education of the potential respon- asbestosis related cancers the biological limited to a target population of 107 brake dent and privilege of nondisclosure Al- activity cytotoxicity associated with these and clutch repair businesses known to be though personal follow visits to inter- materials has not been extensively studied located in the Knoxville County view those who did not respond was con- However asbestos diseases have occurred Tennessee area The local Chamber of sidered such action would have introduced in this occupational workforce This study occurring between January 1 and March 31 1991 examines the aware- Commerce was utilized to identify repair locations and their managers Eighty of the 107 businesses were randomly selected and another variable The average number of brake jobs accomplished ranged from 2.4 to 14.5 per ness level of management and employees their managers queried by a mailed ques- week A brake job consisted of one axle 8 Journal of Environmental Health Volume 56 Number 8 Material may be protected by copyright law Title 17 U.S. Code " with two sets of brakes The average time required to conduct brake ranged from 0.7 to 7.25 hours a day Dependent on the number of available workers sharing the effort employee's exposure time could range from 1.25 to 7.25 hours a day This was the case only if a worker repaired one vehicle or at the most two vehicles per day Literature review revealed one study that found it unusual for a mechanic to perform brake service work on more than one vehicle Training 47.1 -No Training 52.9 a day 5 Assuming an individual inhales 100 liters of air per minute while working for 1.25 hours the person would breathe 7,500 liters of air This would equate to 43,500 liters for 7.25 hours If the individual used the worst ACM method compressed air blowing 0.11 fibers exposure he she would have an exposure of 935,000 fibers for a 1.25 hour brake job ) Given an exposure of 0.11 fibers the 1.25 hour work period unprotected would result in an exposure level less than the OSHA PEL of 0.2 fibers The 7.25 hour work period would reach only the OSHA PEL action level of 0.1 fibers Based on historical data from five different studies compiled by NIOSH the normal length of time typical for a brake job and the assumption that similar working conditions and ACM were used it would be unlikely that brake workers in the Knoxville County area are exposed routinely to asbestos in excess of the PEL If the proposed rules to lower the PEL to 0.1 fibers of air are implemented then the PEL could be exceeded routinely 2 However if findings of other studies were used as a means of projecting exposures to brake repair for example a 15.9 fibers exposure level associated with compressed air blowing the responding repair loca- tions would exceed the current OSHA PEL Figure 2. Percent of employee hazard awareness training on asbestos as indicated by management of businesses surveyed ported one to two clutch jobs a day at 2 to 4.5 hours each local area workers could exceed current and future recommended OSHA PELS Considering that brake and clutch repair work in the businesses surveyed especially when compared to findings of similar studies may be potentially hazardous due to asbestos dust emissions the need for use of asbestos parts and worker hazard awareness training becomes more evident The results of the survey revealed that even though fourths of the businesses surveyed stocked asbestos- free parts 65 continued to use those containing asbestos Hazard awareness training reportedly had been given to employees at only 47 of the businesses reviewed Figure 2 Eightyeight percent of managers also indicated that workers were aware of asbestos haz- ards associated with brake and clutch repair Figure ) With a high degree of accuracy 3 Compared to brake work management indicated that clutch repair work was con- Not Aware 5.9 ducted on less frequent basis in all reporting categories averaging 2.5 clutches per week Management Not Sure to 14.5 clutches for the larger automobile service centers Length of time required to 5.9 complete clutch repairs varied from 2 to 4.5 hours a vehicle One British study demon- strated an average asbestos exposure of 0.79 fibers of air to personnel during a normal eight work shift 14 As- suming similar working conditions and procedures while accomplishing as re- Figure 3. Percent of employee's awareness of asbestos hazards associated with brake and clutch dust as indicated by management of businesses sur- veyed Material may be protectebdy copyright April 1994. 1994. Iournal of Environmental Health 9 copyright law Title 17 U.S. Code Low Risk 58.8 \ thought it a high risk The responses conceivably are a good example of denial of threat and possible worker incentive to minimize the threat of illness to ensure continuance of employment This is a classic example of preventive health behavior as reflected in the Health Belief Model 90 It is also realized that such responses me could be due to ignorance of hazards or the wed Moderate Risk 8.8 lack of communication of hazards by man- a agement The ignorance level also could be due to the absence of involvement of in- surance carriers local health departments and state OSHA health inspectors in pro- Did Not Know 17.6 No Risk 14.7 viding guidance This is supported by the results showing that 71 % of these businesses were not informed on basic health protec- tion Management 79 was aware that deh asbestos could cause cancer and almost half knew of asbestosis Surprisingly Sptear Figure 4. Belief of degree of disease risk associated with asbestos as reflected 12 were either unsure or did not think that by 34 of 80 responding business managers asbestos caused disease These responses ral i served to contradict the survey finding that these same individuals identified brakes contradictions found when reviewing the a majority view asbestos as a low risk x disc pads and clutches as sources of asbestos exposure This knowledge in conjunc- tion with a better than average response on what particular jobs could cause asbestos exposure seemingly indicated a moderate overall responses cast serious doubt on the awareness level of management and their employees When asked to rank the health risk associated with asbestos exposure 58 of responders considered it to be a low Management was aware that asbestos causes terminal diseases and knows where it is found in the workplace yet they still consider it a low risk This contradictory situ- ation indicated a need for awareness train- degree of knowledge about the hazards of working with asbestos However several hazard Only 17.6 considered asbestos to be a moderate health hazard and none ing half of management surveyed re- sponded that they were familiar with OSHA laws on asbestos and 23 reportedly were Yes No Do Not Know No Response aware of pending stricter changes to the OSHA requirements The responses to the survey revealed that 94 were not aware of Does Tennessee have laws concerning asbestos use 17 0 50 17 50 the PEL a level of exposure emphasized by 0 the law although 50 said they were fa- miliar with current OSHA requirements Is management aware of newly proposed laws requiring specific asbestos control measures ACM 23 68 3 8.8 8 24 0 Adding further contradiction to management's cognizance of Tennessee OSHA laws was the finding that only one Is management aware that newly proposed legislation would reduce by half the legal allowable exposure limit to as- bestos 15 44 7 20.5 12 35 1 2.9 manager was aware that the law regulated use of respirators for protection against asbestos and almost third were sure no such legal requirement existed Figure 5 Assuming truthful reporting by manage- Is management aware that the legal allow- able exposure limit to asbestos was 2 fibers 2 % 32 94 ment the need for awareness training is made obvious by the responses to the questionnaire The most convincing evidence that Is management aware of the legal requirements for a respirator program when respirators were used 1 2.9 10 29 22 65 1 2.9 workers and managenent were deficient in asbestos hazard awareness was the fact that only 47 of the businesses had provided such training and of those only % had Figure 5. Awareness of asbestos legal requirements current and pending as indicated by management surveyed included legal requirements as a topic covered This deficit in training is substanti- 10 Journal of Environmental Health Volume 56 Number 8 Material may be protectebdy copyright law Tit 17lU.eS. Code ated by the reported unfamiliarity of legal requirements In summary although management expressed general awareness of hazards associated with asbestos work and awareness of legal requirements a closer inspection of the survey results indicated limited knowledge when compared to OSHA training requirements 3 When queried on what asbestos dust control measures were implemented during brake and clutch repair 50 of businesses surveyed were found to be using wet brush recycle liquid solvent squirt bottle and wet brush methods Figure 6 The first two mentioned are recommended under the current OSHA standards and will be man- dated if proposed rules are adopted The most preferred method recommended by OSHA the enclosed cylinder High Efficiency Particulate Air HEPA vacuum method was used by only one business The scarcity of this method was probably due to its high cost and concern that it would be difficult to operate 11 The wetwipe cloth method used by 26 of those surveyed presents the problem of temporarily wetting fibers down that can latebre aerosolized This method gives a false sense of security as does the water hose method of control used by 11.8 of the businesses responding The water hose method merely wets down surfaces contaminated with asbestos which after drying allows dust to be reentrained into the workroom air Alarmingly 14.7 of those surveyed were using compressed air hoses to blow out brakes and clutches a method that has been shown to generate high fiber counts at great distances from brake and clutch work Concentration levels as high as 29 fibers at distances of 5 feet from brake drums and 4.8 fibers at distances of 20 feet have been measured 17 Peak exposures in the breathing zone of mechanics have been demonstrated by NIOSH to reach 15 fibers eight time weighted average 3 Use of compressed air blowing is strictly forbidden by OSHA Another method cited as used by 8.8 of the businesses surveyed was ordinary vacuuming which differs from HEPA vacuuming Vacuum cleaners without HEPA filters create a greater hazard by reducing further the fiber sizes of asbestos and by exhausting the dust back into the workroom Use of vacuuming should be allowed only when HEPA filters are em- Enclosed Cylinder HEPA Vac Ordinary Shop Vac HEPA Vac w Enclosure Dry Brushing Brush Recycle Method Liquid Solvent Squirt Bottle Air Hose Wet Wipe Cloth Water Hose Wet Brushes Do Not Know 0 ; 2.9 | | ;! | 2.9 1 ; ; 47 50 14.7 | 26.426.4 1! 1.8 ! | 50 50 2.9 l 2.9 / oe Y 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percentage Figure 6. Percent of use of cleaning and dust control methods as indicated by management survey Firms may use more than one mehtod ployed 3 Such filters clean exhaust air at a 99.97 efficiency The use of these inad- equate methods and the lack of use of approved methods by all businesses surveyed further underscored the need for awareness training and guidance on appropriate asbestos control measures and legal requirements Floor cleaning methods were found inadequate to control asbestos dust in work areas especially in that 23 of the businesses allowed employees to dump wheel drum dust directly on the shop floor Sixtyfive percent of those surveyed used water hoses to wash down work areas The sec- ond most prevalent method used wet mopping 47 presents a similar occurrence to that of the water hose method Dry sweeping an extremely hazardous procedure used by 29 of the firms surveyed readily aerosolizes asbestos fibers into the air for workers to breathe The use of an air hose as reported by one business surveyed is a violation of state law The method often used by businesses surveyed to protect asbestos workers from those mechanics working with as- bestos was handwashing Although handwashing prevents asbestos workers from possibly ingesting asbestos fibers it does little to protect adjacent workers in the area More importantly and used less frequently by those studied was the use of showers clothes changes for personnel segregated repair areas entry prevention signs and appropriate asbestos dust control measures to reduce dust in work locations Conclusion Based on responses received to questions on workers asbestos health hazard aware- ness knowledge is concluded to be weak Substantiating this conclusion was evidence that more than half of the respondent businesses had provided no training on asbestos awareness and control measures Those that indicated they had provided training did not address the legal requirements of OSHA Although methods of control had been implemented in all locations a large percentage of the control methods employed during brake and clutch repairs and housekeeping measures were inadequate potentially enhancing exposure of personnel In some cases the methods were in violation of OSHA standards Conditions reported in this survey at a minimum could be exposing workers at the OSHA action level 0.1 fibers which triggers legal requirements for worker health hazard training 3 Available site as- bestos clutches and brakes were not preferentially utilized in all locations In most areas management of the businesses surveyed were not receiving training or guidance from insurance carriers local health departments or Tennessee OSHA on appropriate asbestos protective mea- Material may be protectebdy copyright April 1994 J ournal of Environmental Health Health 11 copyright law Title 17 U.S. Code en ee ae cas eete sures NIOSH Publication No. 89-121 sure During Brake Lining Maintenance and Barriers to workers asbestos awareness 2. USDOL OSHA 1989 Occupational Repair Environmental Research 12 110-128 training may exist due to costs in providing such training and the fear of interference with work schedules Although not traditionally involved in occupational health investigations austere state budgets may create a vacuum in worker health surveil- Exposure to Asbestos Tremolite Anthophyllite and Actinolite Current Rule CFR 1910.1001 USDOL OSHA 1990 Proposed Rules 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 CFR 1926.58 Federal Register 55 29712-25 3 Federal Register 1990 Proposed Rules Vol 55 No. 140 13. Lorimer W.V. MD A.N. Rohl Ph.D. A. Miller MD W.J. Nicholson Ph.D. and IJ Sclikoff MD 1976 Asbestos Exposure of Brake Repair Workers in the United States The Mount Saint Journal of Medicine Vol 43 No. 3 14. Mossman B.T. J.B. Gnon M. Corn A lance of small businesses that local health departments may have to fill Such an ap- 4 Kauppinen T. and Korhonen 1987 Exposure to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance Seaton and J.B.L. Gee 1990 Asbestos Scientific Developments and Implications for Public proach is one of the service and protection of Automotive Vehicles by Different Methods Policy Science Vol 149 247-300 we objectives cited in Healthy People 2000 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 22 In conclusion implementation of the following recommendations by the busi- Am Industrial Hygiene Association J. 48 5 499-504 5 Moore L.L. 1988 Asbestos Exposure Associated with Automotive Brake Repair in Pennsylvania Am Industrial Hygiene Association J. 49 A12 15. Garcia J.G.N. R.F Dodson and K.S. Callahan 1982 Effect of Environmental Particulate on Cultured Human and Borine Endo Thelium Cellular Injury via an Oxidant Pathway Laboratory Investigations 61,53- 61,53- 61 nesses surveyed should protect the health 6. Cheng V.K.I and F.J. O'Kelly 1986 16. Liddel D. and K. Miller 1991 Mineral of their employees and assist in complying Asbestos Exposure in the Motor Vehicle Repair Fibers and Health CRC Press Boca Raton with current and future legal requirements and Servicing Industry in Hong Kong 10 63- Florida 72 17. Anderson A.W. R.L. Gealer R.C. 1. Preferentially use asbestos brakes disc pads and clutch parts 2. Businesses should seek input from insurance carriers local health departments state or federal OSHA on available guidance and training on asbestos exposure prevention 3. Ensure that one or more of the four primary recommended asbestos dust control procedures are used 4. Avoid use of asbestos control methods that aerosolize asbestos dust in brake and clutch repair and cleaning operations Do not use compressed air or broom cleaning methods and do not allow brake drum dust to be dumped on the floor 7 Rodelsperger K H. Jahn B. Brukel J. Manke R. Paur and H.J. Woitowitz 1986 Asbestos Dust Exposure During Brake Repair Am J. Industrial Hygiene Med 10 63-72 8 Inoko Masanori and Arisso Kyoko 1982 Determination of Chrysotile Fibers in Residual Dust on Road Vehicle Brake Drums Institute of Environmental Science and Technology Yokohama National University Yokohama Ja- pan Environmental Pollution Series B 249- 255 9 Hickish D.E. and K.L. Knight 1970 Exposure to Asbestos During Brake Maintenance Ann Occupation Hygiene Vol 13 pp 17-24 10. P.E.I. Associates Inc. 1985 Asbestos Dust Control in Brake Maintenance A Study 11. Bernarde M.A. 1990 Asbestos the Hazardous Fiber CRC Press Boca Raton Florida McCune and J.W. Sprys 1973 Asbestos Emissions from Brake Dynamometry Tests Society of Automotive Engineers Pub No. 730549 18. Williams R.L. and J.L. Muhlbaier 1982 Asbestos Brake Emissions Environmental Re- search 29 70-82 19. Fleet Owner 1963 Friction Materials on Automobile Brakes 20. Carrol W.G. 1962 The Manufacture of Brake Linings British Plastics 414-417 21. Maiman L.A. M.H. Becker J.P. Kirscht D.P. Haefner and R.H. Drachman 1977 Scales for Measuring Health Belief Model Dimensions Test Predictive Value Internal Consistency and Relationships Among Beliefs Health Education Monograph Vol 5 3 215-230 22. USDHHS 1990 Healthy People 2000 5. Utilize HEPA wet vacuum methods when 12. Rohl Arthur N. Arthur M. Longer M.S. Pub No. PHS 91-50213 cleaning floors Wolff and I. Weisman 1976 Asbestos Expo- 6. If recommended control mea- sures are not utilized be prepared to pro- vide monitoring data to show lack of need GUNDERBOOM patee for compliance and ten wean 7. Institute administrative procedures and oe 6 ne methods and provide adequate facilities to ste Doo prevent inadvertent exposure of asbes- Bathing Beach Filtration Screen - tos workers to asbestos dust Keeps Pollution Out Storm Water Pollution Control - Charles C. Phillips CIH Group Leader Industrial Hygiene Section Oak Ridge National Laboratory Martin Marietta Energy Systems Inc P.O. Box 2008 Oak Ridge TN 37831 Keeps Pollution In CO - CO BOOM BOOM Cleaner Waterways For America References Gunderboom designed by Peratrovich Nottingham & Drage Inc. Alaska 347 Glen Cove Ave. Sea Cliff N.Y. 11579 Fax 516-671-6536 1. NIOSH 1989 AsbeofsAt sbeostsos Expo- sure During Brake Drum Service DHHS Circle No. 1 for more information 12 Journal 12 Journal 12 Journaol f Environmental Health Volume 56 Number 8 Material may be protectebdy copyright copyright law Title 17 U.S. Code