Health Hazard Evaluations (HHEs)

(2016) Law enforcement agents' potential exposures during a raid of a clandestine "spice" lab. (Click to open report)
A law enforcement agency requested a health hazard evaluation to look at exposures to synthetic cannabinoids and other compounds during raids of clandestine labs. There was also concern about exposures when they processed evidence at their office. We tested urine, air, and surfaces for AB-PINACA, a synthetic cannabinoid. We also tested for mitragynine, a plant material with opium-like effects in humans. We sampled during the raid and in the office during evidence processing. We spoke with agents... (Click to show more) A law enforcement agency requested a health hazard evaluation to look at exposures to synthetic cannabinoids and other compounds during raids of clandestine labs. There was also concern about exposures when they processed evidence at their office. We tested urine, air, and surfaces for AB-PINACA, a synthetic cannabinoid. We also tested for mitragynine, a plant material with opium-like effects in humans. We sampled during the raid and in the office during evidence processing. We spoke with agents about their work and work-related symptoms. We looked at their use of personal protective equipment. We checked the office ventilation system to see if it was designed for evidence handling and processing. We found AB-PINACA, its breakdown products, or mitragynine in the urine of six of nine agents after the raid. These compounds were not present in any urine samples before the raid. One surface wipe sample from the lab had a detectable amount of AB-PINACA. No airborne AB-PINACA or mitragynine was found. Gloves and protective clothing were not used at all time when needed. This practice could lead to exposure to contaminants or spread of contamination. Hand washing supplies were not provided for agents in the field. The office ventilation system was not designed to contain or control contaminants. We determined that agents are at risk for dermal exposure and ingestion of synthetic cannabinoids and other contaminants. (Click to show less)
(Click to open report)

(2014) Employee exposures during sea lamprey pesticide application. (Click to open report)
The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a health and safety manager at a government agency concerned with potential exposures when employees manually applied pesticides into rivers to control sea lamprey larvae. Sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus) are parasitic fish in the Great Lakes, the Finger Lakes, and Lake Champlain. In a typical treatment year, 30 to 40 U.S. tributaries receive applications of 3-trifluoro-methyl-4-nitro-phenol (TFM) and Bayluscide(TM). In 2012, an estim... (Click to show more) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a health and safety manager at a government agency concerned with potential exposures when employees manually applied pesticides into rivers to control sea lamprey larvae. Sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus) are parasitic fish in the Great Lakes, the Finger Lakes, and Lake Champlain. In a typical treatment year, 30 to 40 U.S. tributaries receive applications of 3-trifluoro-methyl-4-nitro-phenol (TFM) and Bayluscide(TM). In 2012, an estimated 56,000 kilograms of TFM and 1,000 kilograms of Bayluscide were applied. During our evaluation, we (1) observed employee work practices and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) when applying pesticides; (2) looked at health and safety records and documents; (3) asked employees about their work, use of PPE, and work-related health and safety concerns; (4) measured TFM and Bayluscide on work surfaces, work clothing, exposed skin, and glove liners worn under protective gloves; and (5) measured carbon monoxide in a portable laboratory and a portable workstation powered by a propane generator. We found pesticides on work surfaces, PPE, personal clothing, and skin of employees, and a high carbon monoxide reading in a portable workstation. We observed inconsistent and inappropriate reuse of PPE, inconsistent hand washing methods, and some worksites where clean water was not available. We saw employees transfer, handle, and mix pesticides in open containers, which could lead to spills and tracking pesticides out of the work area. During our interviews, employees indicated that they were generally aware of pesticide exposure routes and health risks from exposure, and they wore eye protection and chemical resistant gloves when mixing and applying pesticides. Fewer than five employees reported skin irritation from TFM, skin rash, and poison ivy. We recommended the employer (1) enclose pesticide transfer and mixing equipment; (2) install washing stations so that employees can clean their boots, PPE, and skin; (3) develop PPE cleaning and storage procedures; (4) provide employees with clean water; and (5) reroute generator exhaust. We recommended employees (1) use required PPE and clean it before storing or reusing, (2) wash hands and face with clean water and soap after handling pesticides, (3) change clothes when they become contaminated with pesticide and at the end of the work shift, and (4) report all health and safety concerns to your supervisor. (Click to show less)
(Click to open report)

(2014) Exposure to metals at an electronic scrap recycling facility. (Click to open report)
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... (Click to show more) 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. (Click to show less)
(Click to open report)

(2014) Lead exposure at a firing range and gun store. (Click to open report)
The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request for an evaluation from employees of a firing range and gun store. Employees were concerned about lead exposure and reported being diagnosed with lead poisoning and being medically removed from the workplace by an occupational physician. We visited the facility in December 2013 to interview employees, assess lead exposures, and evaluate ventilation system performance. In February 2014, we provided a summary of the environmental sampling resu... (Click to show more) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request for an evaluation from employees of a firing range and gun store. Employees were concerned about lead exposure and reported being diagnosed with lead poisoning and being medically removed from the workplace by an occupational physician. We visited the facility in December 2013 to interview employees, assess lead exposures, and evaluate ventilation system performance. In February 2014, we provided a summary of the environmental sampling results to the employer and employee representatives and personal sampling results were sent to each employee who participated in the evaluation. Employees generally spent most of their work day at the sales counter in the showroom or in the office. They occasionally entered the ranges to assist shooters who were experiencing difficulty or to supervise league shooting. On Saturdays, employees performed a deep cleaning of the firing ranges. Each range had a separate single-pass ventilation system that supplied outside air to the range and exhausted the air directly outdoors without recirculation. The areas of the facility other than the range were served by two recirculation ventilation systems. All employees had elevated blood lead levels, defined as greater than or equal to 10 µg/dL, when tested by the employer in November 2013. Employee BLLs ranged from 19.9-40.7 µg/dL. No employees had undergone the medical surveillance required by Cal/OSHA. Air sampling results for lead were below the Cal/OSHA permissible exposure limit of 50 µg/m3. We found lead on all tested surfaces in the range and in the showroom. Employees also had lead on their hands and shoes as they left work to go home. The ventilation system had numerous deficiencies, and lead contaminated air circulated throughout the building. Multiple openings between the ranges and the wall separating them from the showroom allowed lead dust to migrate to the air handling units that serve the showroom and office/classroom area. We recommended the employer (1) switch to lead-free ammunition, (2) remove all employees with blood lead levels of 20 µg/dL or higher from exposure to lead until their two blood lead levels taken a month apart drop below 15 µg/dL, (3) hire a ventilation engineer to modify or redesign the ventilation systems, (4) remove lead contamination from the showroom, and (5) follow the Cal/OSHA medical surveillance requirements. We recommended employees (1) talk to their doctor about their exposure to lead at work, (2) not eat, drink, or smoke inside the facility, (3) wash their hands with a lead-removing soap before leaving the facility, and (4) change their clothes and shoes before leaving work to decrease the amount of lead transferred to their car or home. (Click to show less)
(Click to open report)

(2013) Chemotherapy drug evaluation at a veterinary teaching hospital - Michigan. (Click to open report)
In February 2010, NIOSH received a confidential employee HHE request concerning exposure to chemotherapy drugs at a university veterinary teaching hospital (veterinary hospital) in Michigan. Employees were concerned that exposure to chemotherapy drugs may cause adverse health effects such as reproductive problems and hair loss. We visited the veterinary hospital in September 2010 and observed work practices and workplace conditions. We talked with employees about their health and workplace conce... (Click to show more) In February 2010, NIOSH received a confidential employee HHE request concerning exposure to chemotherapy drugs at a university veterinary teaching hospital (veterinary hospital) in Michigan. Employees were concerned that exposure to chemotherapy drugs may cause adverse health effects such as reproductive problems and hair loss. We visited the veterinary hospital in September 2010 and observed work practices and workplace conditions. We talked with employees about their health and workplace concerns related to chemotherapy drugs. We collected surface wipe and air samples for the chemotherapy drugs cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, and doxorubicin. We gave a presentation on the occupational risks associated with chemotherapy and other hazardous drugs to the employer, employees, and students. We also met with university officials responsible for the veterinary hospital's occupational health and safety program. Cyclophosphamide was detected in 4 of 44 surface wipe samples, ranging from ND (< 5 ng/100 cm2) to 240 ng/100 cm2. All detectable levels of cyclophosphamide were found in the chemotherapy drug preparation room and administration area. Ifosfamide was detected in 2 of 44 surface wipe samples, ranging from ND (< 2 ng/100 cm2) to 37 ng/100 cm2. We detected neither cyclophosphamide nor ifosfamide in the air samples. Doxorubicin was not detected (LOD = 7 ng/sample) in any of the surface wipe or air samples, but we believe the recovery of doxorubicin from these samples may have been poor because of the length of time the samples were stored frozen before analysis. Most employees we talked with were not satisfied with the health and safety program, particularly in the areas of training, supervisor communication, and required re-use of disposable PPE. A few employees reported that they did not always wear appropriate PPE when administering chemotherapy drugs. Three employees reported health effects (headache, nausea, and abnormal menstruation) that have been associated with chemotherapy exposure in prior studies, but that also have a variety of other etiologies. No employees reported hair loss at the time of our evaluation. We were unable to determine if the health effects reported by employees were work related. However, similar effects have been reported with occupational exposure to chemotherapy drugs in other studies. We have provided recommendations that may reduce chemotherapy drug exposure, address employee concerns about their workplace health and safety program, and lead to more consistent work practices and personal protective equipment use. (Click to show less)
(Click to open report)