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
1063 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) A pilot assessment of occupational health hazards in the U.S. electronic scrap recycling industry. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation Program established an interagency agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to learn more about work-related health hazards and their control in the electronic-scrap (e-scrap, also called e-waste) recycling industry. This industry contributed approximately $20.6 billion to the U.S. economy in 2012, compared to less than $1 billion in 2002. Additionally, this industry sector employed more than 45,000 full-time employees, up from 6,000 employees in 2002.... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation Program established an interagency agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to learn more about work-related health hazards and their control in the electronic-scrap (e-scrap, also called e-waste) recycling industry. This industry contributed approximately $20.6 billion to the U.S. economy in 2012, compared to less than $1 billion in 2002. Additionally, this industry sector employed more than 45,000 full-time employees, up from 6,000 employees in 2002. Currently, 25 states have laws mandating e-scrap recycling. As part of this interagency agreement, we surveyed a randomly selected sample of e-scrap recycling facilities nationwide to characterize work processes, exposures, controls, and health and safety programs. We contacted 278 e-scrap recycling facilities between September 2012 and April 2013. Forty-seven facilities completed the survey; a response rate of 17%. Because of the low response rate, this survey may not represent the U.S. e-scrap recycling industry. Surveyed facilities averaged 58 employees and most facilities had an industry certification. Surveyed facilities reported recycling a wide variety of electronics. The most common recycling processes were manual dismantling and sorting. Other processes included shredding, crushing, and automated separation. Most facilities reported having local exhaust or general ventilation, having a health and safety committee, and providing personal protective equipment for employees. Some facilities reported having environmental/ industrial hygiene monitoring and biomonitoring, using compressed air for cleaning, and allowing food and drinks in the production areas. E-scrap recycling has the potential for a wide variety of occupational exposures (e.g., metals, noise) particularly because of the use of manual processes. On-site evaluations of e-scrap recyclers are needed to determine if reported work processes, practices, and controls are effective and meet current standards and guidelines. Educating the e-scrap recycling industry about good health and safety practices, specifically related to safe handling of metal dust, would help protect employee health.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2014) Coccidioides exposures and coccidioidomycosis infections among prison employees. (Click to open report) The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program received a request on behalf of a state correctional and rehabilitation agency and a state correctional health care services agency concerning potential employee exposure to the fungus Coccidioides at two state prisons in California. Coccidioidomycosis, also known as valley fever, is a disease caused by inhalation of spores of a fungus of the Coccidioides species, which grows in the soil in semiarid areas. The prisons are located in counties where the d... (Click to show more)The Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) Program received a request on behalf of a state correctional and rehabilitation agency and a state correctional health care services agency concerning potential employee exposure to the fungus Coccidioides at two state prisons in California. Coccidioidomycosis, also known as valley fever, is a disease caused by inhalation of spores of a fungus of the Coccidioides species, which grows in the soil in semiarid areas. The prisons are located in counties where the disease is considered hyperendemic. At the time of our evaluation in 2013, staff numbered over 1,300 in prison A and 1,500 in prison B. NIOSH investigators reviewed work and occupational health policies and practices, reviewed medical and work information for the coccidioidomycosis cases among prison employees, interviewed a convenience sample of 172 prison employees about their work practices and exposures, and looked at the ventilation systems in buildings where more employees worked such as clinics and offices and some inmate housing units. We identified 103 confirmed cases of coccidioidomycosis among prison employees over a 4½-year period (January 2009-June 2013). The crude average annual incidence was 1,039 cases per 100,000 employees for prison A and 511 cases per 100,000 employees for prison B over this time. However, we do not know if each confirmed case of coccidioidomycosis among prison employees was due to an exposure at work or outside of work. Interviews with employees revealed that they may be potentially exposed to Coccidioides in the outdoor work environment through soil disruption activities, being present during dust storms, and other outdoor activities. Employees may also be potentially exposed to Coccidioides during outdoor activities outside of work. Neither the written respiratory protection plans nor the aerosol transmissible diseases exposure control plans specifically discuss exposure to Coccidioides. Most of the offices and clinics were air-conditioned, temperature and relative humidity measurements were within established guidelines, and an adequate amount of outdoor air was being provided. However, some prison areas had airflow patterns that could result in entrainment of unconditioned outdoor air. Environmental control measures such as wetting soil before it is disturbed, maintaining grass on exercise yards, stabilizing soil, paving roads, improving building ventilation, and changing work practices (such as reducing time spent outdoors) would be expected to reduce dust exposures to varying degrees. However, none of these measures will eliminate exposure to Coccidioides, and their relative effectiveness in reducing occupational coccidioidomycosis is unknown. To address the potential for exposure to dust, NIOSH investigators recommended the employers (1) install door sweeps and seal gaps around doors and windows and ensure doors and windows are kept closed as much as possible; (2) ensure employees wet soil before disturbing it, and continuously wet it while digging; (3) consider closing the prison yards and advising inmates and employees to stay indoors during dust storms and unusually windy or dusty days; and (4) replace air filters in the ventilation systems as needed. NIOSH investigators also recommended the employers (1) provide education and training during work hours to all prison employees on coccidioidomycosis and ways to minimize exposure, (2) consider offering the coccidioidal spherulin skin test to employees when it becomes commercially available, (3) review injury and illness records for reports of coccidioidomycosis infections among prison employees to look for trends over time, and (4) encourage prison employees to report suspected symptoms of possible coccidioidomycosis to a supervisor.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(2014) Employee exposures to Libby amphibole asbestos during forest management activities in the Kootenai National Forest. (Click to open report) 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, in... (Click to show more)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.
(Click to show less) (Click to open report)
(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)
