Document n96D9vj7oNwon8OQOVp608rpX

TThhiiss HHeeaalltthh HHaazzaarrdd EEvvaalluuaattiioonn ((HHHHEE)) rreeppoorrtt aanndd aannyy rreeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss mmaaddeehheerreeiinn aarree ffoorrtthheessppeecciiffiicc ffaacciilliittyyeevvaalluuaatteedd aannddmmaayy nnoott bbee uunniivveerrssaallllyy aaapppppplliilccicaaabbblleele... AAAnnnyyyrrereecccooommmmmmeeennndddaaattitiooionnnsssmmmaaadddeeeaaarrereennnoootttttotoobbbeeecccooonnnsssiiddideeerrereedddaaasssffifinninaaalllsssttataatteteemmmeeennnttstssooofffNNNIIOIOOSSSHHHpppooolliilccicyyyooorrrooofffaaannnyyyaaagggeeennncccyyyooorrriinnindddiivviviiddiduuuaaallliinninvvvooollvvlveeeddd... AAddddititioionnaallHHHHEErreeppoorrttssaarreeaavvaailialabbleleaatthhttttpp::////wwwwww..ccddcc..ggoovv//nnioiosshh//hhhhee//rreeppoorrttss This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved. Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports HETA 91-0377-XXXX JANUARY 1994 GENEVA RUBBER COMPANY GENEVA, OHIO NIOSH INVESTIGATORS: Calvin K. Cook Michael Parker, DO, MSPH I. SUMMARY On September 5, 1991, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a confidential request from employees at the Geneva Rubber Company located in Geneva, Ohio, to conduct a Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE). The request concerned worker exposures to rubber fumes generated in the injection-press area of the facility. On December 17, 1991, a walkthrough survey and preliminary air sampling in the injection-press area was performed. On October 27-28, 1992, NIOSH investigators conducted a follow-up visit to evaluate personal exposures to volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon disulfide (CS2), and amines in areas that include the injection-press area, the paint room, and the degreaser area. Measurements for respirable dust were made using a real-time aerosol monitor (RAM). In addition, 15 employees were interviewed confidentially by a NIOSH occupational physician. Personal breathing zone (PBZ) samples collected on six workers in the injection-press area revealed low concentrations of tetrachloroethylene, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCE), and xylene. Nine full-shift PBZ samples collected in the degreaser area and the paint room detected concentrations of tetrachloroethylene, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), methylene chloride (MeCl2), xylene, and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). Air concentrations of these individual substances were below their respective Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limits (PELs) and NIOSH recommended exposure limits (RELs), with the exception of tetrachloroethylene and MeCl2. NIOSH classifies tetrachloroethylene and MeCl2 as potential occupational carcinogens, and recommends that exposures to these substances be reduced to the lowest feasible level (LFL). Toluene exposures ranged up to 60 parts per million (ppm); some painters' exposures exceeded the American Conference for Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 50 ppm. Respiratory protective equipment was not used. Since tetrachloroethylene, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, MIBK, MeCl2, xylene, and MEK all affect the central nervous system (CNS), a combined TLV for mixtures (TLVm) was calculated. Three workers in the paint room each had a combined TLVm that exceeded the unity value of 1, indicating overexposure to a mixture of solvents. Six full-shift PBZ air samples for CS2 in the injection-press area revealed time-weighed average (TWA) concentrations that ranged from up to 0.79 ppm, with a mean concentration of 0.30 ppm. All CS2 concentrations were below the OSHA PEL of 4 ppm and the NIOSH REL of 1 ppm. Qualitative analyses of air samples for amines detected dimethylamine and dibutylamine. Quantitative analyses for amines could not be performed due to analytical limitations. Real-time respirable dust measurements that were made in the abrasive blasting area ranged from 0.016 to 0.017 mg/m3, and respirable dust concentrations in the Wheelobrator area ranged from 0.45 mg/m3 to 7 mg/m3. There are no current ceiling limits for respirable dust that are adopted by OSHA. The most commonly reported symptoms experienced by injection-press workers were irritation of the mucous membranes, cough, shortness of breath, sinus congestion, and sinus congestion with drainage. Based on the environmental data obtained during this investigation, NIOSH investigators concluded that no specific substance(s) clearly accounted for the irritant and respiratory symptoms reported by injection-press workers. NIOSH investigators suspect that the symptoms reported were associated with occupational exposure to amine compounds, rubber pyrolysis products, or a combination of known and unknown substances. Environmental data show that paint room workers were overexposed to a mixture of organic solvents that affect the CNS. Recommendations are made in section IX of this report to: (1) provide direct exhaust ventilation in the injection-press area, (2) improve exhaust ventilation in the paint room and at the degreaser tank, (3) provide proper personal protective equipment, and (4) further evaluate worker exposures to rubber fumes and other air contaminants. KEYWORDS: SIC 3567 (Rubber Curing Oven), rubber curing, vulcanization, spray painting, volatile organic compounds, amines, degreasing, tetrachloroethylene, organic solvents, carbon disulfide. II. INTRODUCTION In August 1991, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a confidential request from a group of employees at the Geneva Rubber Company located in Geneva, Ohio, to conduct a Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE). The request concerned worker exposures to rubber fumes generated during rubber curing in the injection-press area of the facility. Workers felt that rubber fume generation had increased as a result of a process change which reduced the curing time from 120 to 55 seconds. A number of workers in the injection-press area had experienced symptoms including nose bleeds, chest pains, and nasal irritation that they believed were associated with the reduced curing time. On December 17, 1991, an initial site visit was made by NIOSH investigators to conduct preliminary air sampling in the injection-press area. Air sampling results revealed that injection-press operators were exposed to relatively low concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that were reportedly used in the degreaser area and paint room. An interim letter dated August 28, 1992, presented the results from the initial NIOSH evaluation and discussed plans for a follow-up evaluation. On October 27-28, 1992, NIOSH investigators made a follow-up visit to the plant to conduct a more comprehensive evaluation. An interim report dated June 22, 1993, presented the results of the follow-up NIOSH evaluation. III. BACKGROUND The Geneva Rubber Company manufactures molded rubber parts for appliances used in marine, electrical, and automotive products. The plant is an 18,000 square foot facility that (at the time of this survey) employed approximately 85 workers on an overlapping three shift schedule of 8.3 hours per day, five days per week. Twelve workers on each shift were assigned in the injection-press area that included nine automatic steam-heated injection-presses. Generally, five presses were used during each shift, with one to three workers assigned to a press. During both NIOSH visits, three types of uncured ethylene-propylene-diene modified rubber (EPDM) stock (stock numbers 2632, 7443, and 7510) were in use. Rubber stock was heated to about 400EF with a curing time of about 55 seconds. Several types of primer paints and paint thinners were used in the paint room adjacent to the injection-press area. The paint room had three work stations that included two small paint booths and a work bench. Spray painting was performed at the two paint booths that were equipped with local exhaust ventilation. Tasks such as dip painting were performed at the work bench that was equipped with down-draft exhaust ventilation. During dip painting, metal parts were manually immersed into paint that contained toluene. Generally, there were two to three workers assigned in the paint room. Painters wore hearing protection and safety glasses; however, respiratory protective equipment was not worn during the NIOSH investigation. The degreaser area, located in the center of the facility, had a vapor degreaser tank that contained tetrachloroethylene. Metal parts were cleaned in the degreaser, which was operated by a platter operator, prior to adding rubber components. Above the top opening of the degreaser tank were two slot ventilation hoods that ran the length of the tank, and were ducted directly to the roof outdoors. The local exhaust system was reportedly always in operation. Located at the ceiling approximately 10 feet above the degreaser tank was a fan that exhausted room air directly to the outdoors. The degreaser Page 4 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 91-0377 tank was equipped with access doors that generally remained closed. The degreaser tank was used daily during the first shift only. Approximately 100 gallons of tetrachloroethylene were reportedly used each month. Records on the operating specifications for the local exhaust ventilation in the paint room and the degreaser area were not available. Adjacent to the degreaser tank was an abrasive blasting operation. Prior to assembling rubber components onto metal parts, two workers blasted metal parts using aluminum oxide shot in a small abrasive blasting cabinet. Located near the abrasive blasting operation was a Wheelobrator machine that was used to deflash or remove unwanted rubber on molded, rubber parts using aluminum oxide steel shot. Rubber parts were cooled using liquid nitrogen inside the Wheelobrator. Ten to fifteen loads of rubber were deflashed each day by a worker who reportedly worked 12 hours per day, 6 days per week. This area was cleaned daily after each shift using a broom. IV. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODS A.Initial Site Visit On December 17, 1991, NIOSH investigators made an inial site visit to conduct a walkthrough survey and to collect general-area (GA) air samples for VOCs. Air samples for VOCs were collected on 150 milligram (mg) charcoal tubes for a period of about 2 hours, using battery powered air sampling pumps calibrated at a flowrate of 80 cubic centimeters (cc) per minute. Charcoal tube air samples were submitted for qualitative screening for VOCs and quantitative analyses based on VOC screening results. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) was used for qualitative analyses and a gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector (GC/FID) was used for quantitation. Bulk material samples of three uncured rubber stocks were collected and submitted to the NIOSH analytical laboratory for qualitative analyses. To simulate the curing process, portions of each bulk sample were weighed, place in glass tubes, and heated at 400EF for a period of 10 minutes. Air samples of the emissions were subsequently analyzed using a Perkin-Elmer ATD 400 automatic thermal desorber interfaced directly to a HP5890A gas chromatograph and HP5790 mass selective detector (TD-GC-MSD). B.Follow-up Site Visit On October 27-28, 1992, NIOSH investigators made a follow-up visit to measure worker exposures to VOCs, carbon disulfide (CS2), and amines, and to conduct confidential employee interviews. Real-time measurements for respirable dust were also made at the abrasive blasting and the Wheelobrator machine. Environmental monitoring was conducted during the entire first shift on October 27 and 28, 1992. VOC sampling was performed in the injection-press areas, the degreaser area, and the paint room. Air sampling for CS2 and amines was conducted only in the injection-press area. Page 5 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 91-0377 During the follow-up visit, 16 full-shift personal breathing-zone (PBZ) samples for VOCs were collected. Air samples for VOCs were collected and analyzed following the methods used in the initial survey. Six full-shift PBZ air samples for CS2 were collected on charcoal tubes, using battery-powered air sampling pumps calibrated at a flowrate of 50 cc per minute. Dryer tubes were required by NIOSH method 1600.1 Air samples used during sampling for were analyzed according CS2 as to NIOSH method 1600 with modifications. The analyses were performed using gas chromatography with flame photometric detection. Draeger colorimetric detector tubes were also used to evaluate worker exposure to CS2. The colorimetric tubes had a minimum detection limit of 3 ppm. Three GA air samples for amines were collected approximately 2-3 feet above injection-presses. Samples were collected on stainless steel thermal desorption tubes at a flowrate of 60 cc per minute. Samples were analyzed qualitatively using an automatic thermal desorption system interfaced directly to a gas chromatograph with a mass selective detector (TD-GC-MSD). Currently there are no reliable NIOSH analytical methods to quantify the amines of interest in this survey. NIOSH chemists are currently attempting to develop appropriate sampling methods to quantify these amines. Respirable dust measurements were made to assess airborne concentrations at the Wheelobrator. Measurements were made by using a direct reading GCA Environmental Instruments Model RAM-1 monitor. This portable, battery-operated instrument assesses changes in airborne particle concentrations via an infrared detector, centered on a wavelength of 940 nm. Air is sampled (2 liters per min) through a cyclone preselector, and then passes through the detection cell. Operating on the 0-2 mg/m3 range with a 32-second time constant yields a resolution of 0.001 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3). Confidential medical interviews were conducted with 15 current employees selected by the union representative (11 from the injection press area, 3 from the Wheelobrator area, and 1 from the degreaser area). Past and current medical history, current symptoms, and workplace hazards were reviewed at that time. Additionally, medical records of several employees who had recently visited a hospital Emergency Department were reviewed. V. EVALUATION CRITERIA A. General As a guide to the evaluation of the hazards posed by workplace exposures, NIOSH field staff employ environmental evaluation criteria for the assessment of a number of chemical and physical agents. These criteria are intended to suggest levels of exposure to which most workers may be exposed up to ten hours per day, 40 hours per week for a working lifetime without experiencing adverse health effects. It is, however, important to note that not all workers will be protected from adverse health effects even though their exposures are maintained below these levels. A small percentage may experience adverse health effects because of individual susceptibility, a pre-existing medical condition, and/or a hypersensitivity (allergy). In addition, some hazardous substances may act in combination with other workplace exposures, the general environment, or with medications or personal habits of the worker to produce health effects even if the occupational exposures are Page 6 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 91-0377 controlled at the level set by the criterion. These combined effects are often not considered in the evaluation criteria. Also, some substances are absorbed by direct contact with the skin and mucous membranes, and thus potentially increase the overall exposure. Finally, evaluation criteria may change over the years as new information on the toxic effects of an agent become available. The primary sources of environmental evaluation criteria for the workplace are: (1) NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs),(2) (2) the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values (TLVs),(3) and (3) the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs).(4) The OSHA PELs may be required to take into account the feasibility of controlling exposures in various industries where the agents are used; the NIOSH RELs, by contrast, are based primarily on concerns relating to the prevention of occupational disease. In evaluating the exposure levels and the recommendations for reducing these levels found in the report, industry is legally required to meet those levels specified by the OSHA standard. The applicable NIOSH, OSHA, and ACGIH exposure criteria are presented in Tables II and III. A time-weighted average (TWA) exposure refers to the average airborne concentration of a chemical substance during a normal 8- to 10-hour workday. It should be noted that the current 8-hour TWA PELs for tetrachloroethylene, toluene, and MIBK are 100 ppm, 200 ppm, and 100 ppm, respectively. Under the Air Contaminants Standard passed in 1989, OSHA had lowered the PELs for tetrachloroethylene to 25 ppm, toluene to 100 ppm, and MIBK to 50 ppm. In July 1992, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated this standard. OSHA is currently enforcing the earlier standard for these substances; however, some states operating their own OSHA approved job safety and health programs will continue to enforce the more stringent exposure limits. OSHA continues to encourage employers to also follow the more stringent limits. NIOSH considers tetrachloroethylene to be a potential occupational carcinogen and recommends that exposures be reduced to the lowest feasible limit. B.Substance Specific Evaluation Criteria and Health Effects Summary A list of the substances evaluated in this survey is presented in Table I, along with a brief summary of primary health effects. For VOCs, only those compounds which were found in significant concentrations are included in Table I. C.Threshold Limit Values for Mixtures When two or more hazardous substances which act upon the same organ system are present, their combined effect, rather than that of each individually, should be given primary consideration. In the absence of information to the contrary, the effects of the different hazards should be considered as additive. That is, if the sum of the following fractions, C1/T1 + C2/T2 + " " " Cn/Tn exceeds the value of 1, then the threshold limit of the mixture (TLVm) should be considered as being exceeded. Cn and Tn the corresponding threshold indicates limits.(2) the observed atmospheric concentration Page 7 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 91-0377 Page 8 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 91-0377 VI. RESULTS Qualitative analyses of two GA air samples collected in the injection-press area during the initial site visit revealed the presence of toluene and tetrachloroethylene, with trace quantities of 1,1,1-trichloroethane and xylene isomers. Subsequent quantitative analysis of a GA air sample collected at the hood opening of injection- press #5 revealed concentrations of toluene and tetrachloroethylene of 0.54 ppm and 0.76 ppm, respectively. A GA air sample taken at the scale area located approximately 40 feet from injection-press #5 revealed concentrations of toluene and tetrachloroethylene of 0.25 ppm and 1.20 ppm, respectively. The presence of toluene and tetrachloroethylene is most likely due to the fact that the injection-press area was located approximately 200 feet from the paint room and the degreaser tank that contained tetrachloroethylene. The following substances were identified from the heated uncured rubber stocks: dimethylamine, dibutylamine, piperidine, cyclohexylamine, hydrogen sulfide, CS2, carbonyl sulfide, cyclohexane, and methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK). Results of full-shift exposure monitoring for VOCs during the follow-up visit are presented in Tables II and III. Full-shift PBZ samples collected on workers in the injection press area detected low concentrations of several substances that include tetrachloroethylene, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCE), and xylene. PBZ samples collected on workers in the degreaser area and the paint room detected concentrations of tetrachloroethylene, MIBK, methylene chloride (MeCl2), xylene, and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). Trace amounts of p-chlorotoluene and n-butyl acetate were also detected on some samples. The concentration of individual substances were below the respective OSHA PELs and NIOSH RELs, with the exception of tetrachloroethylene and MeCl2. NIOSH classifies tetrachloroethylene and MeCl2 as potential carcinogens, and recommends that exposures to these substances be reduced to the lowest feasible limit (LFL). Worker exposures to toluene ranged from none detected to 60 parts per million (ppm); some painters' exposures exceeded the ACGIH TLV of 50 ppm. Some of the samples exceeded the TLVm of 1 for a mixture of tetrachloroethylene, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, MIBK, MeCl2, xylene, and MEK. These substances all affect the central nervous system (CNS), and they are assumed to be additive for the purposes of this investigation. Tetrachloroethylene, toluene, and MIBK also affect the liver and kidneys. As previously stated, tetrachloroethylene and MeCl2 are classified as potential carcinogens. When considering the additive effects of these substances, three worker overexposures were documented in the paint room. Full-shift PBZ air sampling results for CS2 revealed time-weighed average (TWA) concentrations that ranged from none detected to 0.79 ppm, with a mean Page 9 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 91-0377 concentration of 0.30 ppm. All CS2 concentrations were below the OSHA PEL of 4 ppm and the NIOSH REL of 1 ppm. CS2 was not detected on the colorimetric tubes. Qualitative analyses of air samples for amines detected dimethylamine and dibutylamine. As previously stated, there are no reliable NIOSH methods to quantify these amines. Since the dust collector inside the Wheelobrator was not functioning (and had reportedly been out of operation for several months), dust was observed discharging out of the Wheelobrator door. Measurements for real-time respirable dust made in the vicinity of the Wheelobrator ranged from 0.45 to 7 mg/m3. There are no current ceiling limits for respirable dust that are adopted by OSHA. Many of the 15 employees interviewed reported symptoms which they believed to be associated with exposures at work. Generally, these symptoms improved with time away from work (for example, on weekends). The most commonly reported symptoms were irritation of the mucous membranes (i.e., watery eyes or nasal burning), cough, shortness of breath, and sinus congestion and drainage. The most commonly implicated workplace exposure was the rubber fumes from the injection-presses. Type and degree of symptoms did not seem to vary among the interviewed employees, regardless of their specific work area. Medical records were reviewed from several employees who had hospital Emergency Department visits for symptoms potentially related to occupational exposures. Discharge diagnoses included upper and lower respiratory involvement. However, no definitive testing was completed to verify diagnoses, especially related to lower respiratory symptomology. No other medical records were available for review. VII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION In the rubber curing industry, the total number of compounds that may conceivably be released during rubber curing can be as many as 1000.(5) These compounds may include amines, ammonia, organic sulfides, hydrocarbons, acids, and esters. It is clearly infeasible to investigate each of the compounds formed that are used in the industry. Because so many reaction products are produced during a curing process, it is difficult to predict the identities of those released in amounts sufficient to affect workers' health. In addition, air sampling methods do not currently exist for some of these potential air contaminants. Initially, the NIOSH evaluation focused on the assessment of personal exposures to rubber fumes during the curing process. Preliminary GA sampling results revealed the presence of tetrachloroethylene and toluene in the injection-press area. Based on the results of the laboratory simulated curing process, where toluene and tetrachloroethylene were not detected, it was concluded that these substances were not components of the rubber fumes. The paint room and the degreaser area, both located approximately 200 feet from the injection-press area, were more probable sources of these solvents. Based on the environmental data obtained during this survey, paint room workers, in particular, were overexposed to a mixture of solvents. However, no specific substance(s) clearly accounted for the irritant and respiratory symptoms reported by injection-press workers. Qualitative analyses of full-shift air samples collected for amines during the follow-up visit detected dimethylamine and dibutylamine. Symptoms Page 10 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 91-0377 reported by workers such as nosebleeds, and irritation of the mucous membrane and respiratory tract are consistent with the health effects associated with amines.(6) VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.The most effective strategy for controlling occupational exposure to any toxic substance is to use a less toxic substance. If feasible, a less toxic degreaser solvent should be considered to eliminate the exposures associated with tetrachloroethylene. For assistance in selecting a substitute, the journal article entitled "An Analytical Approach for Reducing Workplace Health Hazards Through Substitution" can be consulted.(7) 2. NIOSH recommends that worker exposure to tetrachloroethylene be reduced to the lowest feasible limit. Tetrachloroethylene concentrations were measured at almost every work area where air sampling was conducted. It is presumed that engineering controls at the degreaser tank were not effective in controlling these solvent vapors. The exhaust ventilation system at the degreaser tank should be evaluated to ensure that it operates according to specifications recommended by the ACGIH.(8) Appendix A contains examples of ventilation designs applicable to a variety of industrial operations, including degreasing and spray painting. These ventilation designs were obtained from Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice (20th Edition), a document published by ACGIH. 3.Efforts should be made to reduce worker exposure to paint solvents and thinners used in the paint room. To ensure the engineering controls (i.e., spray paint booths and downdraft exhaust ventilation) provided in the paint room operate according to specifications recommended by ACGIH (see Appendix A), the exhaust ventilation at the three workstations should be evaluated by a person knowledgeable in industrial ventilation.(8) 4. Local exhaust ventilation should be provided at each injection-press to minimize worker exposure to rubber pyrolysis products from the curing process. Based on the employee interviews, rubber pyrolysis products from the curing ovens contributed to the symptoms experienced by the workers. 5.Until actions are taken that will reduce solvent exposures below the applicable exposure criteria (ACGIH), a respiratory protection program should be written and implemented for workers in the paint room that is consistent with OSHA requirements and NIOSH recommendations.(9,10) A respiratory protection program should include the following: (a) medical evaluation to determine individual worker's ability to use a respirator and to perform the work required when wearing a respirator (b)regular training of personnel (c) respirator fit testing (d)periodic environmental monitoring (e) proper maintenance, inspection, cleaning, and storage of respirators. Page 11 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 91-0377 The appropriate type of respirator for these workers is an air purifying respirator equipped with cartridges designed to protect against organic vapor and paint spray. It should be noted that respiratory protection should not be used as the primary means of controlling exposures. 6.A worker in the paint room was observed using paint containing toluene for several hours without protective gloves. Also, the platter operator was observed wearing cloth gloves while handling metal parts that were wet with tetrachloroethylene. Repeated or prolonged skin contact with toluene or tetrachloroethylene causes drying and dermatitis.(6) The absence of protective gloves or the use of gloves made of cloth material while handling solvents or paints is not recommended. Workers who handle parts that are wet with solvents should be provided with protective gloves that are resistant to permeation by these solvents. If proper protective clothing is not selected, toxic chemicals can be absorbed through the skin. Glove materials that offer good permeation resistance to both toluene and tetrachloroethylene include polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) and fluorocarbon rubber (Viton). While these glove materials offer better permeation resistance, a glove's resistance to cuts, snags, abrasions, punctures, or tears must also be considered. Another factor is an adequate sleeve (or cuff) length to protect the forearm from solvent exposure. 7.A worker was observed smoking near the degreaser tank where a NO SMOKING sign was located. Although the tetrachloroethylene solvent in the degreaser tank is classified as a non-combustible liquid, the use of tobacco products, as well as eating and drinking while working, can increase worker exposure by way of ingestion. Workers who work with paints, solvents, or other hazardous substances should be encouraged to wash hands and face prior to these activities. Because environmental tobacco smoke is classified as a carcinogen, smoking should be prohibited at the worksite, or at least restricted to smoking lounges that are separately ventilated.17 8.A worker operating the Wheelobrator was wearing a dust/mist mask that was not certified by NIOSH or the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Workers should only use respirators that have been certified by NIOSH. In addition, the dust collector motor in the Wheelobrator should be serviced to help reduce dust generation. 9.Because sweeping with a broom will disperse dust into the air and can elevate worker exposure to dust, this should be avoided when cleaning the Wheelobrator area. To help reduce worker exposure to dust while cleaning, a vacuum cleaner should be used. 10.Full-shift PBZ air sampling for total and respirable particulates was not performed on abrasive blasters and the Wheelobrator operator. PBZ measurements should be conducted by Geneva Rubber Company to assess worker exposures to these particulates. 11.Management should provide a worker education program intended to inform workers about the health risks from exposure to substances in the workplace, the proper use of personal protective equipment, and proper work practice procedures. This should involve more than simply handing out literature for the employees to read. Health care personnel or others knowledgeable about these issues should discuss each of these topics with the employees. Page 12 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 91-0377 IX. REFERENCES 1. NIOSH [1984]. Manual of analytical methods, third edition. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS, (NIOSH) Publication No. 84-100. 2. CDC [1988]. NIOSH recommendations for occupational safety and health standards. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. MMWR 37 (suppl S-7). 3. ACGIH [1991]. Threshold limit values and biological exposure indices for 1991-92. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 4. Code of Federal Regulations [1989]. OSHA Table Z-1. 29 CFR 1910.1000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Federal Register. 5. Fraser DA and Rappaport S [1976]. Health aspects of the curing of synthetic rubbers. Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 17, pp. 45-53, 1976 6. Proctor NH and Hughes JP [1991]. Chemical hazards of the workplace. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Van Nostand Reinhold, pp. 140. 7. Goldschmidt G [1992]. An analytical approach for reducing workplace health hazards through substitution. AM IND HYG ASSOC J. 54:36-43. 8. ACGIH [1988]. Industrial ventilation: a manual of recommended practices. 20 ed. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 9. Code of Federal Regulations [1989]. 29 CFR 1910.134. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Federal Register. 10. NIOSH [1987]. NIOSH guide to industrial respiratory protection. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 87-116. 11. Proctor NH and Hughes JP [1991]. Chemical hazards of the workplace. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Van Nostand Reinhold, pp. 244. 12. NIOSH [1987]. Criteria for a recommended standard ... occupational exposure to ketones. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-173. 13. ATSDR [1991]. Toxicological profile for tetrachloroethylene (draft for public comment). Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Page 13 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 91-0377 14. ATSDR [1993]. Toxicological profile for toluene (draft for public comment). Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 15. ATSDR [1990]. Toxicological profile for 1,1,1-trichloroethane (draft for public comment). Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 16. ATSDR [1990]. Toxicological profile for total xylenes. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry. 17. NIOSH [1991]. Current intelligence bulletin 54: environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace: lung cancer and other health effects. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 91-108. X. AUTHORSHIP AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Page 14 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 91-0377 Report Prepared by: Calvin K. Cook Industrial Hygienist Industrial Hygiene Section Michael Parker, DO, MSPH Medical Officer Medical Section Field Assistance Gregory Burr, CIH Industrial Hygienist Industrial Hygiene Section Glen Hadwen Industrial Hygienist Industrial Hygiene Section Report Formatted by: Donna M. Pfirman Office Automation Assistant Industrial Hygiene Section Originating Office: Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies XI. DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT Page 15 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 91-0377 Copies of this report may be freely reproduced and are not copyrighted. Single copies of this report will be available for a period of 90 days from the date of this report from the NIOSH Publications Office, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. To expedite your request, include a self-addressed mailing label along with your written request. After this time, copies may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Information regarding the NTIS stock number may be obtained from the NIOSH Publications Office at the Cincinnati address. Copies of this report have been sent to: 1. Geneva Rubber Company 2. Confidential requestor 3. OSHA, Region V For the purpose of informing affected employees, copies of this report shall be posted by the employer in a prominent place accessible to the employees for a period of 30 calendar days. Page 16 - Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 91-0377 Substance Aluminum oxide Carbon disulfide Dimethylamine Methylene chloride Methyl isobutyl ketone Tetrachloroethylene Toluene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Xylene TABLE I HEALTH EFFECTS SUMMARY GENEVA RUBBER COMPANY GENEVA, OHIO HETA 91-377 Primary Health Effects Aluminum oxide is classified as a nuisance dust and exposures in humans may cause a nodular response in the lungs.6 Carbon disulfide causes harm to the central and peripheral nervous systems and is known to advance the development, or aggravate, coronary heart disease.6 Dimethylamine is an irritant of the skin, eyes, mucous membranes, and respiratory tract. Prolonged exposure can result in dermatitis and conjunctivitis.11 Methylene chloride is a mild central nervous system (CNS) depressant, and irritating to the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract. This substance is a known carcinogen in animals and is considered a suspected human carcinogen.6 Methyl isobutyl ketone is a solvent that is irritating to the eyes, mucous membranes, and skin. Exposures at high concentrations it causes narcosis in animals, and it is expected to have the same effect in humans.12 Tetrachloroethylene (commonly known as perchloroethylene) is a solvent that produces central nervous system depression and liver damage. Exposure can also cause dizziness, light-headedness, and difficulty in walking and speaking.13 Toluene is a central nervous system depressant. Low to moderate occupational exposure can cause tiredness, headaches, confusion, memory loss, nausea, and loss of appetite.14 Exposure to 1,1,1-trichloroethane can cause central nervous system depression; at high concentrations it causes lightheadedness, loss of balance and coordination. Studies in animals have shown that damage to the breathing passages and lungs, as well as mild liver effects, can result from breathing chronic exposure to high concentrations.15 Exposure to xylene is an irritating to the eyes, nose, throat, mucous membranes, and skin. Occupational exposure to xylene has reportedly been known to cause headache, vertigo, stomach, discomfort, and drunkenness. Exposures to high concentrations can causes narcosis.16 TABLE II FULL-SHIFT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS GENEVA RUBBER COMPANY HETA 91-377 October 27, 1992 Sample Description Platter Operator Abrasive blaster Injection-press Operator Injection-press Operator Injection-press Operator Painter 1 Painter 2 Time-Weighed Average Concentration (ppm)1 Air Volume Tetrachloroethylene (liters) Toluene MIBK 30.5 3.9 ND3 ND 35.6 ND ND ND 36.8 5.0 0.4 ND 36.6 4.8 ND ND 35.8 0.1 0.1 ND 32.3 4.4 17.0 4.3 36.8 3.7 25.4 9.9 MeCl2 n-Butyl 1,1,1-TCE Xylene acetate ND ND 0.2 ND ND 2.4 8.9 ND ND 0.2 ND ND 4.9 4.0 ND ND ND ND ND ND 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND p-Chlorotoluene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND MEK Mixture TLV2 ND ND ND ND ND 1.2 ND 0.08 NA4 0.10 0.10 < 0.015 0.58 0.88 NIOSH REL LFC6 100 50 C7 350 100 LFC 150 NA7 200 OSHA PEL ACGIH TLV 100 200 100 350 100 500 150 NA 200 50 50 50 350 100 50 150 NA 200 1 ppm = parts per million 2 TLV = threshold limit value 3 ND = none-detected 4 NA = not applicable 5 < = less than 6 LFC = lowest feasible concentration 7 C = ceiling Sample Description Injection-press Operator Injection-press Operator Injection-press Operator Platter Operator Abrasive blaster Painter 1 Painter 2 Preparation Metal Painter NIOSH REL OSHA PEL ACGIH TLV TABLE III FULL-SHIFT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS HETA 91-377 GENEVA RUBBER COMPANY October 28, 1992 Time-Weighed Average Concentration (ppm)1 Air Volume (liters) Tetrachloroethylene Toluene MIBK 37.0 1.3 ND3 ND 36.6 0.9 0.5 ND 36.0 1.0 0.6 ND 35.9 5.3 0.1 1.6 35.8 0.03 0.1 ND 35.6 3.0 52.0 7.4 35.4 3.8 60.0 12.9 34.6 1.0 LFL5 53.3 37.3 100 50 1,1,1-TCE ND 0.2 0.2 0.9 ND 24 11.8 1.1 C6 350 Xylene ND ND ND 0.4 ND 5.3 8.5 2.3 100 MeCl2 ND ND ND 0.3 ND 2.0 1.5 0.3 LFL n-Butyl acetate ND ND ND 0.1 ND 0.2 0.2 0.2 150 p-Chlorotoluene MEK ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 6.6 ND 6.6 ND 2 ND NA7 200 Mixture TLV2 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.14 < 0.014 1.43 1.73 1.89 100 200 100 350 100 500 150 NA 200 50 50 50 350 100 50 150 NA 200 1 ppm = parts per million 2 TLV = threshold limit value 3 ND = none-detected 4 < = less than 5 LFL = lowest feasible limit 6 C = ceiling 7 NA = not applicable Appendix A Selected Local Exhaust Ventilation Designs Source: Industrial Ventilation Manual, 20th Edition American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists