If you cannot find anything that addresses your concerns, please contact us to see how we can help.
All NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation reports and other NIOSH publications are available at no cost.
You can either download a copy of the publication from the website or contact us for a copy.
For HHE reports, please send an email to HHERequestHelp@cdc.gov.
Information about all other NIOSH publications is available at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pubs/.
We carefully review our reports prior to publication, but we do make errors from time to time.
We regret any typographical or other minor errors that you might find. If you find a substantive factual or data-related error, let us know.
Please send an email to HHERequestHelp@cdc.gov with the report number (ex. HHE 2013-0500-7500),
the authors' names, the error you are reporting, and the page number of the error. We will look into your comments,
fix confirmed errors, and repost the report. Thank you for your interest in the HHE Program.
HHE Search Results
1060 HHE reports were found based on your search terms. Reports are listed in order of year published with the most recently published reports listed first.
Year Published and Title
(2014) Erionite and silica exposure during dirt road maintenance. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a management representative at a federal government agency concerned about potential employee exposures to erionite mineral fibers when maintaining dirt roads in areas where erionite was confirmed or was suspected to be present. We visited two field offices to assess potential employee exposures to erionite and respirable crystalline silica (quartz) during road maintenance activities in October 2012 and August 2013. Erionite is a natur... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a management representative at a federal government agency concerned about potential employee exposures to erionite mineral fibers when maintaining dirt roads in areas where erionite was confirmed or was suspected to be present. We visited two field offices to assess potential employee exposures to erionite and respirable crystalline silica (quartz) during road maintenance activities in October 2012 and August 2013. Erionite is a naturally occurring mineral found in fine-grained sediments such as volcanic ash deposits that have been altered by weathering and ground water. Erionite deposits have been identified in all of the western states except Washington. We observed employees blading and grading dirt roads, replacing culverts and cattle guards, replacing aggregate on parking lots, and pulverizing and analyzing rock samples. We took air samples for mineral fibers and crystalline silica and bulk rock and soil samples to analyze for erionite. We found that employees doing road maintenance activities could be exposed to quartz above the recommended limits. Area air samples indicated a high percentage of quartz, up to 100%. Zeolite mineral fibers, a class of fibers that includes erionite, were not found in the personal air samples. None of the bulk rock samples collected in the areas surrounding where employees worked contained erionite. Because of the variable environmental and geological conditions encountered by the employees and the variability in job tasks, including tasks that aerosolize dust particles, the potential for exposure to erionite and silica dust exists. Therefore, minimizing dust exposure during dust-generating activities is prudent. To address the potential for exposure to dust that may contain erionite or crystalline silica, we recommended the employer (1) not use aggregate that contains erionite to repair roads, (2) maintain air filters in the equipment regularly, (3) wet the soil before doing road maintenance, (4) schedule dust-generating tasks on days when the soil is moist, and (5) provide employees with clothes that are solely designated for work activities. We also recommended monitoring employees' exposure to respirable crystalline silica, and training employees in proper work practices for working in areas that contain crystalline silica or erionite. We recommended employees keep the windows and doors on equipment closed, and not bring work clothing home.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2014) Exposure to chemicals at a polymer additive manufacturing facility. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the union at a polymer additive manufacturing facility. Employees were concerned about developing chronic health problems including lung disease, kidney disease, and cancer, from exposure to workplace chemicals. Chemicals of concern included several used to make the polymer additive (including aniline and N-oxydiethylenethiocarbamyl-N'-oxydiethylenesulfenamide [OTOS]) and manufacturing byproducts (including hydrogen sulfide and a benzo... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from the union at a polymer additive manufacturing facility. Employees were concerned about developing chronic health problems including lung disease, kidney disease, and cancer, from exposure to workplace chemicals. Chemicals of concern included several used to make the polymer additive (including aniline and N-oxydiethylenethiocarbamyl-N'-oxydiethylenesulfenamide [OTOS]) and manufacturing byproducts (including hydrogen sulfide and a benzothiazole tar). We visited the facility in October 2012 and July 2013. We interviewed 10 current employees about health and workplace concerns, observed work practices, sampled the air for chemicals and OTOS dust, wiped surfaces to look for aniline, and reviewed safety data sheets, injury and illness logs, employee medical records, workers' compensation claims, prior sampling results, and facility policies and procedures. We found employees were overexposed to OTOS when compared to the manufacturer's occupational exposure limit of 0.1 mg/m3, but not overexposed to aniline or hydrogen sulfide. Aniline was not found on the wipe samples. OTOS overexposures occurred during product bagging and when troubleshooting a clog in the bagging operation. These overexposures and our observations indicate deficiencies in the local exhaust ventilation system. Although the employees used respiratory protection while bagging OTOS, they did not wear respirators while troubleshooting the clog. In our review of the respiratory protection program, we found critical elements missing and inconsistencies between the written program and actual practice. Some employees had eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation consistent with exposure to workplace chemical irritants. We determined that two former employees with chronic kidney disease had conditions that were unlikely to be related to work exposures. We recommended the employer (1) improve local exhaust ventilation for bagging OTOS and the primary polymer additive product, (2) follow the OSHA respiratory protection standard, (3) encourage employees to report possible work-related symptoms to their supervisors and to seek medical follow-up, and (4) improve communication with employees, particularly with regard to concern about working with cancer causing chemicals. We recommended employees follow all health and safety guidelines, report health and safety concerns, and wash their hands before eating, drinking, and smoking, and before and after using the bathroom.
(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) Exposures of helicopter pilots and gunners to firearm noise and lead during gunnery target training exercises. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program received a technical assistance request from managers in the flight safety office of a federal agency. Managers were concerned about helicopter crews' exposures to gunshot noise, vibration, and lead during airborne offshore and ground range gunnery training exercises. The helicopter crews (50 pilots and 25 gunners) assisted in the interception and disabling of drug- and contraband-running watercraft. They flew MH-65C "Dolphin" helicopters. In response t... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program received a technical assistance request from managers in the flight safety office of a federal agency. Managers were concerned about helicopter crews' exposures to gunshot noise, vibration, and lead during airborne offshore and ground range gunnery training exercises. The helicopter crews (50 pilots and 25 gunners) assisted in the interception and disabling of drug- and contraband-running watercraft. They flew MH-65C "Dolphin" helicopters. In response to this request, NIOSH investigators measured pilots' and gunners' exposures to noise from shooting weapons and from helicopter flights during gunnery target training. We measured exposures to lead from shooting lead-containing ammunition and took surface wipe samples for lead inside helicopter cabins. We also spoke with pilots and gunners about the health symptoms they had while training and during actual missions. We found that helicopter pilots and gunners were exposed to high noise levels during gunnery target training; peak noise levels (exceeding 150 decibels) during weapons shooting were high enough to damage hearing. In our review of audiometric test results, we found that some pilots and gunners had evidence of threshold shifts using NIOSH criteria, but did not have standard threshold shifts using OSHA criteria. Helicopter pilots reported headache and fatigue from gun blast, especially after flights for gunnery target training. Airborne lead exposures were below occupational exposure limits, but surface lead was found inside helicopter cabins. To address the potential for noise exposure among helicopter crews, NIOSH investigators recommended the employer (1) install a partial noise barrier in the helicopters between the pilots and gunner, (2) install a window in the helicopter cabin that can be opened to reduce blast pressure when high caliber weapons are shot, (3) continue to require double hearing protection for everyone in the helicopter cabin when they shoot weapons and during gunnery target training flights, and (4) test employee hearing and report results using NIOSH and OSHA criteria. To address the potential for lead exposure among helicopter crews, we recommended the employer (1) consider using non-lead bullets and non-lead primers as they become economically feasible, (2) clean the inside of the helicopter cabins to help remove surface lead accumulation, and (3) advise helicopter crews to maintain good hand hygiene and thoroughly wash their hands after handling guns or bullets that contain lead and after gunnery target training exercises.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2014) Health concerns at a pet food manufacturing facility - Missouri. (Click to open report) In September 2012, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health received a confidential health hazard evaluation request from employees of a pet food manufacturing plant in Missouri. The requesters expressed concerns about vomiting, seizures, and breathing problems potentially associated with substances used in the manufacture of pet food and dog biscuits and/or possible phosphine exposure, which is a fumigant applied to bulk materials prior to arriving at the facility. They were al... (Click to show more)In September 2012, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health received a confidential health hazard evaluation request from employees of a pet food manufacturing plant in Missouri. The requesters expressed concerns about vomiting, seizures, and breathing problems potentially associated with substances used in the manufacture of pet food and dog biscuits and/or possible phosphine exposure, which is a fumigant applied to bulk materials prior to arriving at the facility. They were also concerned about other issues with their livers, lungs, and kidneys. This health hazard evaluation was conducted after a phosphine investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and in the context of litigation against the company filed by some current and former employees concerning health impacts of employment. In December 2012, we conducted a walk-through site visit at the facility, interviewed employees, and reviewed company records. In February 2013, two interim letters were sent describing the visit, the sampling results of the walk-through survey, and the preliminary recommendations, all of which are included in this final report. The purpose of the survey sampling was to assess potential exposure agents and characterize the process in terms of these agents; it was not designed to assess personal exposures for comparison against regulatory limits. Results from the three tape-lift mold samples indicated no surface mold in the mill room basements. Grain dust was not sampled or tested for mold during the site visit, but it should be examined in any future exposure assessments of this industry. Headspace chemical analysis of bulk materials showed the presence of diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione in one ingredient used in the production process. Fugitive dust emissions were observed during some process events. We cannot conclude from our preliminary walk-through investigation whether health effects reported by workers were work-related or not. We planned a return medical survey since we were concerned with health symptoms experienced by requesters and interviewed employees; the medical survey was cancelled due to plant closure. Further medical testing of employees who work in this industry and industrial hygiene sampling of exposure agents at similar processing facilities are warranted to resolve health concerns raised about phosphine, flavorings, and/or dust exposures that may occur during the production of pet food and treats.
(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)
(2014) Metals, solvents, formaldehyde, ventilation, and ergonomic risks during the manufacture of electrical cable accessories. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from employees at a manufacturer of premolded cable accessories for underground power distribution systems. Employees were concerned about poor ventilation, ergonomic risks, and developing respiratory disease or cancer from exposures during rubber molding, plastic extrusion, soldering, and painting. The plant operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with approximately 300 nonunion production employees working 8-hour shifts. Paint department e... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from employees at a manufacturer of premolded cable accessories for underground power distribution systems. Employees were concerned about poor ventilation, ergonomic risks, and developing respiratory disease or cancer from exposures during rubber molding, plastic extrusion, soldering, and painting. The plant operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with approximately 300 nonunion production employees working 8-hour shifts. Paint department employees normally worked 12-hour shifts. During our evaluation, we (1) talked to employees about their health and work, (2) reviewed safety data sheets and injury and illness logs, (3) looked at work practices and plant processes, (4) inspected ventilation systems, (5) collected air samples for solvents and air and surface wipes for metals, and (6) evaluated workstations for ergonomic risk factors. We found deficiencies in the plant's ventilation system that included holes in the ductwork, disconnected ducts, and broken dampers. Air levels of chemicals were low except for one toluene air sample on a spray painter that exceeded the ACGIH TLV limit, which was adjusted for the 12-hour workshift. This overexposure may have resulted from inadequate exhaust ventilation or improper work practices. Some employees working with irritants and solvents reported eye and upper respiratory symptoms, headaches, and lightheadedness. The air levels of chemicals we measured were below those that have resulted in long-term respiratory problems in other scientific studies; however, these current levels may not reflect those that existed in the plant in years past. We noted that many employees had a combination of forceful exertion, repetitive movements, and twisting and bending during paint spraying, rubber molding, and deflashing operations; these factors put them at risk for musculoskeletal disorders. We recommended the company further reduce chemical exposures by (1) repairing the ventilation system, (2) moving parts further back into the spray booth for painting, (3) providing exhaust ventilation to the drying racks used for painted parts, and (4) ensuring employees keep the spray nozzle inside the spray booth. We also recommended the company improve communication with employees regarding how chemicals can affect their health and how to prevent exposures at work. To reduce the risk for musculoskeletal disorders, we recommended the company (1) move the paint booths so that the elbow of the spray painter is at a 90 angle to the part being sprayed, (2) install a conveyor to help load parts, and use a tool to move parts into the collection bin, and (3) rotate employees between job tasks that use different muscle groups.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2014) Occupational exposures at an electronic scrap recycling facility. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a health and safety manager at an electronic scrap recycling facility. The employer was concerned about workplace exposures, including lead and cadmium. Computers, monitors, hard drives, televisions, printers, light bulbs, and other e-scrap were recycled and processed at this facility. The recycling operations included cathode ray tube (CRT) processing (demanufacturing and glass breaking operations, and electronic sorting, demanufactur... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program received a request from a health and safety manager at an electronic scrap recycling facility. The employer was concerned about workplace exposures, including lead and cadmium. Computers, monitors, hard drives, televisions, printers, light bulbs, and other e-scrap were recycled and processed at this facility. The recycling operations included cathode ray tube (CRT) processing (demanufacturing and glass breaking operations, and electronic sorting, demanufacturing, shredding, and bailing operations for all other electronics. We made multiple visits between 2012 and 2013 to evaluate employee exposures to workplace contaminants. We collected air samples for metals, dust, and crystalline silica; surface wipe samples for metals; and blood and urine samples for metals. We also did employee medical interviews; reviewed the facility's health and safety monitoring plans; and evaluated noise, engineering controls, and ergonomics in the work areas. We measured an overexposure to lead during shredder sorting and overexposures to cadmium on two employees during CRT buffing and grinding. We measured overexposures to noise on employees during CRT buffing and grinding, shredder sorting, forklift driving, and baling. We found metal contamination on surfaces throughout the facility; potentially contaminated air was recirculated back into the production area. We found lead on the clothing and skin of employees and on work surfaces. Blood lead levels ranged up to 13.7 micrograms per deciliter of blood. Two employees were above 10; a level of 10 or above is considered elevated. We noted the potential for taking lead and other contaminants outside of the workplace. Employees were exposed to ergonomic risk factors including extreme working postures, forceful exertions, and repetitive motions. Our recommendations to the employer included (1) following the OSHA lead and cadmium standards, (2) starting a medical monitoring program for all employees exposed to lead, (3) starting a hearing conservation program, (4) requiring respirator use in CRT buffing and grinding and shredder operations, (5) using wet methods or a vacuum with a high efficiency air filter instead of sweeping, and (6) designing work tasks and workstations to reduce bending, lifting, and other postures that do not allow employees to work efficiently and comfortably. We recommended the employees (1) provide and discuss this report with their doctor and discuss blood lead tests for their children and other family members, (2) wear required personal protective equipment, and (3) take a shower at the end of the shift and avoid wearing work clothing or shoes home.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2013) Dermatitis among sanders in a furniture manufacturing plant. (Click to open report) Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program investigators evaluated sanding department exposures and rashes among employees at a furniture manufacturing company in North Carolina. The employer became concerned after two sanders had severe skin reactions at work and were unable to continue work in the area. In November 2011, HHE investigators toured the facility, observed work processes and practices, and reviewed the company's material safety data sheets for the epoxies and other chemicals used in th... (Click to show more)Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program investigators evaluated sanding department exposures and rashes among employees at a furniture manufacturing company in North Carolina. The employer became concerned after two sanders had severe skin reactions at work and were unable to continue work in the area. In November 2011, HHE investigators toured the facility, observed work processes and practices, and reviewed the company's material safety data sheets for the epoxies and other chemicals used in the sanding department. They assessed ventilation in the work area using smoke tubes to observe air flow patterns, collected personal air samples for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), surface wipe samples for bisphenol A and diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (DGEBA) (epoxy components), and surface samples for metals and minerals. They interviewed 18 employees confidentially and reviewed employee medical records and OSHA 300 Logs. The sanders' downdraft tables were ineffective in controlling dust while employees sanded large frames. Compressed air was used to clean off the chairs, which increased the airborne dust levels in the sanding department. The wipe samples of work surfaces in the sanding department found low levels of DGEBA, indicating that employees had potential for skin contact with this epoxy resin component. They found low levels of metals and minerals in surface wipe samples and low concentrations of airborne VOCs. Eight of the 18 interviewed employees, all sanders or prior sanders, reported current or recent skin rash that began within 2 years of our site visit and that they associated with work. Five employees had visible skin rash. A few employees reported upper respiratory symptoms and one employee reported asthma symptoms. Employees reported using a much larger amount of epoxy than they did 2 years prior to our visit because they began plugging furniture screw holes with epoxy instead of wood plugs. Employees reported using their fingers to mix the epoxies because of their thick consistency. The company began requiring employees to wear gloves while working with epoxy about a month prior to the site visit. Medical record review of four employees revealed that one employee had been diagnosed with work-related allergic contact dermatitis after skin patch testing showed an allergic skin reaction to bisphenol A; the other three were diagnosed with contact dermatitis. Skin contact with epoxy resin may cause allergic contact dermatitis and occupational asthma. The increased use of epoxy 18 months before the site visit, insufficient dust control during sanding, and lack of skin protection likely played a role in the development of dermatitis among sanders. HHE investigators recommended the employer reduce epoxy resin exposures by using a dispensing gun to apply the epoxies, adding local exhaust ventilation to the hand-held sanders to control dust, and educating employees on the hazards of epoxy exposure and the need for work practices to prevent skin exposures to epoxy resins, including appropriate glove use. They encouraged employees to report work-related skin rashes and respiratory symptoms as early as possible and those with persistent symptoms were advised to be evaluated by an occupational medicine physician.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2013) Employee exposure to lead and other chemicals at a police department. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program evaluated employees' exposure to lead when working in the parking garage adjacent to the firing range of a police department. Lead was found on surfaces inside the parking garage; the firing range was identified as the main source of this contamination. Investigators determined that the firing range did not meet all of the ventilation design elements recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. When investigators interviewed... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program evaluated employees' exposure to lead when working in the parking garage adjacent to the firing range of a police department. Lead was found on surfaces inside the parking garage; the firing range was identified as the main source of this contamination. Investigators determined that the firing range did not meet all of the ventilation design elements recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. When investigators interviewed employees they found that most employees reported health symptoms that they felt were related to or made worse by the workplace. One employee who reported headache, tiredness, and leg weakness and pain had a higher than normal blood lead level. A lack of ventilation in the property room where illicit drugs were stored was also of concern. Illicit drugs were found on some surfaces in the property room. Employees were also concerned about water intrusion and mold growth on the ceiling tiles in offices, but investigators did not find visual of water intrusion or mold growth. HHE Program investigators recommended that the firing range be redesigned to meet all recommended design elements or that another firing range be used. Officers should be provided with non-lead bullets and lead-free primer. If bullets or primer containing lead are used then investigators recommended collecting air samples. The results of this sampling will help determine which elements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration lead standard need to be followed. Investigators also recommended that surfaces contaminated with lead or illicit drugs be properly cleaned. Change-out schedules for the air filters in the local exhaust ventilation systems and vacuum cleaners should be established and followed. HHE Program investigators recommended that employees wear nitrile gloves when cleaning guns, handling spent cartridge cases, and when working in the firing range or parking garage. Even when gloves are worn, hands should be cleaned with soap and water or with lead-decontamination wipes after firing weapons or doing other work that could result in exposure to lead. Investigators also recommended the use of nitrile gloves when employees handle illicit drug evidence or perform criminology procedures.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
