Evaluation of Employee Exposures to Libby Amphibole Asbestos During Forest Management Activities in the Kootenai National Forest
Corey Butler, Robert E. McCleery, Max Kiefer, Martin Harper, Eun Gyung (Emily) Lee, Kenneth Wallingford
The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from managers serving the Kootenai National Forest in Montana. The request concerned employees' potential exposure to Libby amphibole during forest management and fire suppression activities in an area surrounding a former vermiculite mine. The site has approximately 40 full-time employees, and up to 100 additional employees in the summer. Work shifts are typically 8–10 hours per day. Most of the work involves land management activities, including civil engineering, trail and road maintenance, forest biology, fuels and timber management, hydrology, and wildland fire suppression. Our evaluation included (1) observing work activities and use of PPE, and (2) collecting and analyzing the samples for asbestos and Libby amphibole. We collected full shift and activity-based personal air samples on employees conducting various forest management activities; bulk samples of bark, duff, and soil; and wipe and vacuum samples from surfaces in the hydrology lab. Six of 109 personal air samples analyzed by PCM exceeded the occupational exposure limit of 0.1 f/cc; however, we found non-asbestos material that met the definition of a fiber on these samples. Of the 27 personal air samples evaluated by TEM, which included the six air samples exceeding 0.1 f/cc, six contained mineral fibers. Five of six contained richterite (one of the fibers that compose Libby amphibole), and one contained chrysotile (a serpentine form of asbestos). Of the five samples containing richterite, four were collected during fireline construction and one was collected during tree thinning. On the basis of these results, we found that employee exposures to Libby amphibole did not exceed occupational exposure limits during activities in the mine area. We detected no Libby amphibole in the bulk or surface samples. Employees wore respirators during trail maintenance and fuel reduction activities and completed a 3-stage decontamination; removed and discarded equipment and clothing, showered, and changed into street clothing. We recommended the employer (1) create a respirator program for employees working in the mine area, (2) periodically monitor employees' exposure to Libby amphibole, (3) analyze samples for Libby amphibole by electron microscopy in addition to current methods, (4) schedule dust generating work when the potential for dust generation is low, and (5) train employees on good work practices to minimize dust.
A full report is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2012-0077-3223.pdf.
Evaluation of Employees' Exposures to Lead, Noise, and Heat at an Automotive Lead-acid Battery Recycling Company
Bradley S. King, Kristin Musolin, Diana Ceballos, Scott E. Brueck, Catherine Beaucham
The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from employees at a battery recycling plant in Puerto Rico. Employees were concerned about exposures to lead and noise. The company collected lead-acid automotive batteries and operated a secondary lead smelter 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The company had 106 employees. We visited the plant in April 2012 and September 2012. We observed work practices; sampled for lead in air and on surfaces; interviewed employees about their medical and work history; looked at the company's health and safety programs and employee blood lead test records; and measured employees' noise exposures. We found (1) airborne lead overexposures among foundry, battery breaker, and some warehouse and maintenance employees; (2) lead on most work surfaces and on employees' skin after they took a shower at the end of the work day; (3) 85% of interviewed employees reported at least one symptom that could be related to lead overexposure; (4) 78% of employees had an elevated average blood lead level (at or above 10 μg/dL) even though average blood lead levels have declined since 2009; and (5) inadequate local exhaust ventilation. We also found employees were overexposed to noise and had the potential to be exposed to heat stress conditions. The company did not have a hearing conservation or a heat stress management program. The respiratory protection program was deficient because some respirators did not have a protection factor sufficient for the employee's lead exposure, training was not conducted annually, and respirators were worn and stored incorrectly. Employees lacked knowledge about the health effects of lead and how they could help protect themselves. We recommended the company (1) install ventilated enclosures around the battery breaker and shredder, (2) provide more local exhaust ventilation, (3) make a path so employees can go from the clean locker room to the lunchroom without crossing lead-contaminated areas, (4) continue blood lead testing of employees, (5) provide more protective respirators for certain jobs, and (6) stop dry sweeping floors. We also recommended the employer start hearing conservation and heat stress management programs, improve the respiratory protection and hazard communication programs, start a health and safety committee, and encourage employees to report health concerns that may be related to their work. We recommended employees (1) wear all required PPE, (2) wash their hands using a lead removal cleaner before eating, drinking, and leaving work, (3) leave work clothes or boots at the plant, (4) drink plenty of water at work and take rest breaks, and (5) participate in the health and safety committee.
A full report is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2012-0071-3224.pdf.
Evaluation of Exposure to Metals at an Electronic Scrap Recycling Facility
Catherine C. Beaucham, Melody M. Kawamoto, Scott E. Brueck
The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from managers at an electronic scrap recycling company. The request concerned possible employee exposure to lead and cadmium. The company's primary activities included recycling batteries, metals, cardboard, and ballast and capacitors for fluorescent lights. Other activities included sorting, dismantling, and shredding electronic equipment such as computers (excluding cathode ray tube monitors), printers, keyboards, central processing units, fax machines, cameras, medical equipment, and photocopiers. Our evaluation included (1) observing work activities and processes; (2) testing air, work surfaces, and employees' hands for metals, including beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, and lead; (3) testing employees' blood for lead and cadmium; (4) measuring noise exposures; and (5) interviewing employees about their work history and health and safety concerns. Our metal sampling results indicated that the air levels were below their occupational exposure limits. Employees' blood did not show detectable amounts of lead, and cadmium levels were well below the limit that would trigger Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements. We detected metals on surfaces, including those in break areas. The metals that we found on employees' hands before they left the facility and the practice of taking work clothes home for laundering can lead to take-home exposures. Some employees were overexposed to noise. We observed a lack of machine guards on some equipment, employees eating near work areas, and some work activities that could lead to low back injuries. Our interviews with employees found that cultural differences related to national origin might create barriers to communication about workplace health and safety. To address exposure to metals, we recommended the employer provide employees with a designated eating area, provide laundering facilities on site or contract with a laundering service, and prohibit dry sweeping. We recommended the employer address noise exposures by implementing a hearing conservation program, requiring employees to turn down the radio volume, placing scrap parts on the conveyor instead of throwing them, and replacing old equipment with new equipment that generates less noise. The employer should also replace all missing machine guards, evaluate the risk for musculoskeletal disorders, and promote employee engagement in workplace health and safety.
A full report is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2013-0130-3226.pdf.