This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIQSH policy or of any agency or individual involved Additional HHE reports are available at http://www cdc govfniosh/hhe/reports I-IETA 

### 87-349-20.22 MARCH 

### 1990**ROCKCASTLE~A~G** MOUNT VERNON, KENTUCKY

I SUMMARY NIOSH INVESTIGATORS: Teresa Seitz, 

### Cll-I Sheny Baron, MD,

On July 10, 1987, 1he National 

### Ins1i1u1e for OccuJX1tional Safely and Healtll (NIOSH) 

### =iveda request for a healtll hazard evaluation from employees at Rockcas1le Manufucturing, MountVernon, Kenlllcky, NIOSH was asked 10 evalua1e complaints of headaches, burning eyes, nausea, vomiting, minting, and adveroo reproductive efl.ec1s 

### among emplqyees attllis fucili1y, which fubricates men's unifonn 

### wrnk p1llts On Seplember 8-9, 1987,NIOSH investiga10rs conducted a combined environmenlaI and medical evaluatim Personal breaIhing zone and general area air samples for fonmldehyde, organic vapors, andpnticu1ates were collec1ed, JX11ches oflhe resin-treated fubria; nsed in

### garmentmanufucture were oblained fur deIennina1ion of funnaldehyde relea9a, and 

### ooofideulial inlerv:iews were heldwilh employees I3ecatre al1Ul1100:ofvenulation and wodcprndioe changes 

### weremade fullowing the 

### ini1ia1 siIe visit, afullow-up visiI was made on JantJill)' 12-14, 1988, Expooure moni1oring fur funnaldehyde andpnticu1ates was perfonned, and a questionnaire was 

### adrninisIered 10 employees 10 obIain infunnation on various syIlljJ1orns, includingm=1oskele1al probleIJJS, and, fur 

### women, 1heirreproductivehisImy, The questiOllnaire was sent 10 former employees \\bo wciIked anytime after Sep1e!nber 1, 1984, Fonnaldehyde air sampJingresults from the 

### ini1ia1 stJl'II'<Yrnnged from 0. 14 ppn110 

### 0.46JlPl11 in five personal brealhing zone (FBZ) air samples, and from 

### 0.32 JlPl1110 

### 0.:70. JlPl11 in 13 area air samples oblained tllfOUghou11he plant On the follow-up**SUlV~,** fonmldehyde exposures were lower, wiIh PBZ conoentrations rnnging OOm DJ9 ppm 10 

### 0..21 ppm, and from DJ8 ppm 10 

### 0..22 ppm in area air samples oblained in productiondepaI1ments The funnaldehyde data a1ro showed less variationbetween depar1ments andjob classifica1ions. All funnaldehyde results were belowthe OSHA and ACGIH evaluation exposure liInits of! 

### ppm, as an S-hourTW A NIOSH, however, oonsiders fonnaldehyde a polen1ial carcinogen, and recorrnnends 1hatfonmldehyde exposures be reduced 10 the lowestfeasible level Fonnaldehyderelease OOm 8 fubric sanlples ranged fium 163 ITIicrograIll'l offunnaldehyde P:;'1 

### gmm offubric (ugigm)1o 

### 143Dugigm TwosampJestllalwerecuredprim1oanalysisshowedreductionsinfunnaldehyde release of425% and 735%
.. Of the 4PBZ organic vapor air sanlples oollec1ed on chan::ml1ubes, only 1,1,I-1richloroetllanewas delecled, with all values below OJ ppm The current OSHA PEL fm 1,1,I-lriclJloroetllane isII lNIRODUcnON OnJuly 10, 1987, 1heNalionallnstitute fur O:cup<!tional Safely and Healfil (NIOSH) received a confidential request for a Healfil I-Ia=dEvaluation fium an antllorized employee represen1ative at RDCkcasfie Mlmnfacturing, MOtmtVemon, Kentucky, TIle request concemed cornp1ain1s of headaches, bruning eyes, IJaUS:a, vomiting, fuin1ing, and adveIre reproductive ef!ec1s, OnSep1ember 8-9, 1987, an initial site visitwas conclncted to evaluate employee exparures to furmaldehyde, organic con1aminanls, andparticulates, and to investigate adVeITe healfil ef!ec1s reported anIDng file laoof' force. PreIiminaIy recommendations regartling local exhanstven11lation, preventive main1erJaJ:Jce, and wodepractices were made ina letterto Rockcastle dated Sep1ember22, 1987. Becanse annmber ofven1ilationand wolkpractice changes were made suh3equentto 1his visi1; afullow-up environmental srnvey was conducted on JanuaJ)' 12-14, 1988. A healfil ques1iormaire was administered during file follow-up investigationto ob1ain infurmalion on wodchis1ory, medical bis1ory, and sympIotns experienced by employee;. An identical qnes1iormaire was mailed to furmer Rockcastle Mannfucturing employees, andmrrentemployees who hadbeenabsent1he day file ques1iormaire was administered 

### 111 BACKGROUND Rockcastle Mannfucturing is arut-!ll:ldsewplantwhich 

### Dca1esmens unifonn wodc pmI& Atfue time offuis evalnalion, fuerewere approximately 

### 190 production employees atfuis fucili1y, fuemajority of which (around 

### 85%) operated sewing machines. TIle remaining individuals worlced as press opemlol1l, oven opem1oI1l, UJt!eI1l, spreader.;, glue sprayCl1l, bundlCl1l, and maintenance wolker& Cellulose-con1aining 

### Deshaving 

### a 65% polyesteI735% cot1onbleod 

### are nsed 10 

### Dcatefile walkpmI& These 

### Desare ob1ained fium 

### atextile finishing rompaoy, where l1leY 

### are impIegna1edwith a**dime1hloldihydroxyelhyleneurea())MD~resinsys1em** Thisresin1reatmeotimpaI1sdurahlepress properties, dimensional 

### s1abiIi1y, and ofilerimpor1antproperties 10 cellulosic textiles (eg. coUon, rayon and blends)..' The mannfacturing process nsed at fuis plantis considered a poot-cureprocess, which refers 10 fue Jilctfuatfile resin is "ctmrl" or chemically oonded 10 l1le 

### fubric aflerl1le gannenthas been fabricated FOIIll'lIdebyde release fium lIDc:urn:d DMDHEUresin-trea1ed 

### DCis fi10Ugbt 10 resultOOm

# mace desmption ofnoncovalenfiy OOoded (or**"free'~** furrnaIck!hyde, as well as fium l1lehydrolysis offue furmaIck!hyd<x:ellul= hemiace1aI lxmds.z TIleresin furmuIalionhas reportedly changed overfile yeaI1l, in an effort 10reduce fOlIll'lldebyde emission fium l1le trea1ed 

### Des. TIle manufucturing fuciIily is loca1ed in a**wareh~** ofsheetme1al construction, having approximately 12,(XX) square feet of open space, Rolls offabric 

### are stored in file 

### DCs10rage arealIDtil needed, genernIly less 11=

### 90 days OOm receipt The 

### DCis tmrOTIed on a 1able in file spreading area, fonning many layers of

### De PaUempieces 

### are rut fium file 1ayCI1l,using &::isson; mprecut 

### dies, and sorted by 1ype Fabric bundles 

### are fi1ell1aken 10 file glue room wherefile edges 

### are sprayedwifil an aqueous acrylic emulsion, 10 preventravelling. This opemtton is 

### perfUlTI1ed in a 

### spray b001h, in a room adjacent 10 file sewing area. TIle 

### DCbundles 

### are filen distnbuted 10 fue appropriate wmks1ations (areas 

### 14), where filey 

### are rewn and assenlbled inlo pan1s
.. Conventional sewing machines 

### are nsed along wifil afew automa1ed machines for specialized operations such as belt loops. Afierinspection, file gaI111e1l1sTen bulle ilibric samples were collected for latent fomIDIdehyde mIDIysis, Patches of:fubric of vmying colors were obtained fiem the :fubric storage area, alnng witll samples of tlle navy ilibric which was being used dnring tlJis stUVey To comrere latent fomIDIdehyde levels on these fubIics, additional fabric smnples were oollec1ed befure and mtheywere cured Individual :fubric smnples were stored in sealed, polyethylene 

### bag<;until analyzed Samples were analyzed fur latent fnnnaldebydeU>ing ametllOd develOjXrl byBnrlington 

### Industries. 4 TIJis oolorimetric method is 

### 1xIsed on tlle American Associatinn ofTex1ile 0Jemists and Colorists' (AATCC) sealedjarmetllod, Test Metllod 112-1984, and was originally develOjXrl to assess fonnaldehyde release UIlder worst-case storage conditions 5 TIlemetllod involves avapor extractionprocedure to measure fnnnaldehyde release fiem a weighed patch ofilibric which has been sllspeoded overwater, in a sealedjar, andbeated at 50"C fur 20 hOllis, TIle conditions of the test are such tlmbetll fire furmaldehyde and furmaldel1)'de fiom l1)'dro\ysis are measured Abulle sample oftlle aqueous ac1)'lic emulsionusedto preventravelling ofilibric edges was analyzedby infrared spectroscopy, Waterwas evaporatedfiom the sample, leaving a film of the polymer, TIle polymer was then dissolved in acetone, and athin film was cast on a saltplate. An infrared spectrum was then obtained ofdlepo1ynJerfilmforlin1heridentificatiOl1oftlJeCOlIlJXlOOJ1s. Eight air smnples were oollected furorgpnic vapor analysis U>ing a cl:JaIw1ltube sampling teclmique. Area air smnples were obtainedin fue gluerocm and infue oven area Personal breathing zone air samples were obtained on individuals worlcing in fueseareas, as wellas byfuepresses. One offue air samples was collected in tlJe head5pace oftlle glue oonlainerto identify volatile oompone!lls oftlJis product Representative smnp1es were analyzedU>ing a gas chromatograpb equippadwitll a mass selective detector (C"'JOMSD) fur peale iWltification Theremaining samples were analyzEd fur epichlorobydrinand ac1)'lates (oomponents oftlle 

## glue1 as well as onntaminanJs ideotified intlJe GCJMSD analyses, Fourpersonal breathing zone (PBZ) and one area air sample were collectedfur totalparticulates (dust and lint) U>ing 5-micron (um) pore-size polyvinyl chloride (PVC) filters and

### calibrated, ba1te!y-opera1lrl sampling pumps operating at flowrates of 15 Lpm, Jobs which appeared to have tlle greatest potential for dust expooure were selected, including maintenance, tum and ticket, spreading, and cutting. Samples were collected and analyzed in accon:lance witll NIOSH Mefuod 0500.' To address a conoemregarding heat exposure, temperature andrelative humidity data were collected at severallocatiollS wifuin fue plantU>ing aba1te!y-operated p>ychrometer, Follow-yP SurvtQ' The follow-up survey was cooducted on Janumy 12-14, 1988., Ten sets ofair samples fur fomIDlde11)'de were collected overfue entire worlcshifr, including tl=personal breatllingzone and seven general area air smnples, Samples were collected in lllaJ1)' of fue smne areas orjobs as onfue 

### initial survey, for oomparison, Side-by-5ide smnples were oollectedU>ingfuree differentfonnalde11}'de smnpling teclmiques: tile liquid inlpinger metllOd (NIOSH Method 3500), tlle solid sorbent tube metllod (NIOSH Metllod 2502), and a passive dilfusionmetllOdutilizing Bacharach AitScan* Fnnnaldel1)'de ExpooneMonitots The 

### purpcxse fur matclling tlle passive mnnitors witll tlle nnpinger and sorbent tube smnples was to observe fue perfonnance of

### There were seveml patterllS 

### ofcomplaints. As 

### previously mentioned, complaints ofhuming ""es were more prevalent in 1he early morning, on hot orhumid days, andwhen itrnined Complaints ofbuming**~** were 

### less prevalentin fue prereding month, which some worl= atlnbuied to fue =1l

### increase inuse offuns 

### and open doors 

### furven1ilation, The worl=who repoI1edrashes believed 1hat 1he absence orpresence ofrash 

### varied wi1h 

### 1he color offubric inuse. Eightwomen interviewed 

### reported adversereproduc1ive effects In additioo, rnnnerous Rockcastle employees s1a1ed 

### 1hat

### 111""pen:eived ahigh rate ohniscarriage among co-wOIi<ffi;. AlfilOUgh some employees believed file excess 

### ofmiscarriages began about oneyear

### afierllle plant opened, 

### l1le majori1y believed fue excess occnrred

### primarily dnring1he prereding two 

### years. Concern was 

### also expressed 

### 1hatfue rate ofhir1h defects among children of wOIi<ffi; may 

### also have been 

### eleva1ed Follow-yp 

### S!.nvm' &wi

### on 1hepmblerns expn=l

### during 1he l1OO-raIJdom ini1ial interviews, 

### aquestionnaire was designed 

### to de1J:lJ.nine fuerate ofmiscaniages, bir1h defucts, andpremature

### bir1hs, as well as llJeprevalenoe of mro.tlookele1al and otlJerhealtlJ complaints 1his 

### questionnaire was dislnbu1ed 

### to all employees during a fullow-up visit on.J3IlI.Ia!)' 13, 1987. An 

### identical questionnaire, 

### as 

### well as one 

### fullow-up reminderletter, were 

### seotto all funner employees who workedany1imeafierSep1ember 1, 1984. V, 

### EVALUATIONCRlJERIA A Envimnrml1al 

### Evaluation As 

### a guide to 1he evaluation of1!Je hazards pooed by work

### place expa;ures, NIOSH field s1aff

### employ enviJ:orJrooJ1aevaluationai1eriafur1!Jeassessmeotofal11.I!I1be:ofchernicalandpbysicalagents These cri1eria 

### are intended to 

### suggestlevels ofexpooure to 

### which most 

### worl<erS may

### be exposed up to 

### 10hollIS per day, 

### 40 

### hours perweekfur 

### awrnking lifutime wifilout experiencing adverse healtlJ effu:ts, Itis, 

### however, inljJOI1antto no1e llJatnotall wOIi<ffi; will

### bepm1ec1ed fium 

### adverse healtlJ 

### effects if llJeirexposures 

### are main1ained 

### below1heoo levels. A 

### small pen:en1age may 

### experienoe adverse 

### healfil effu:ts 

### because of individual stJ.<X:ePllbili1y, apre-exis1ingmedical conditioo, and/or ahypern.:nsi1iviy (allergy). In 

### additioo, some hazmdous subs1ances may act 

### in combination widl 01her 

### wrnkplace expa;ures, fue general 

### environment; or wi1h 

### medications orJXT.lOllal habits 

### oftlJe wrnkerto produce

### healtlJ effu:ts 

### even iffue OCCUJXI1ional exposures 

### are controlled to 

### 1!Jelevel setby 

### file evaluation cri1eriOll. These 

### combined effu:ts are not often considered by 

### fue evaluation cri1eria 

### Also, some SlJOO1anoes 

### are absorbed by direct 

### con1actwitlJ fue skin and mucous membranes, 

### and 1hus 

### po1erJ1iaIIy increase 

### 1!Je overall exposure. 

### Final\y, evaluation cri1eria may change 

### over 1he years 

### as new infonrntion onllJe toxic effu:ts of an agent 

### 1=1Jeavailable. Theprimary SOlJI1:eS 

### ofenvirorunen1al evaluation cri1eria fur 

### 1!Je work

### place are: 1)NIOSH Qi1eria 

### Documents and Recommended 

### ExpooJre 

### Lin1its (RELs), 

### 2) l1le AnJerican 

### Conference of Govenlmen1al Indus1rial 

### Hygienists' (ACGlH) Threshold LimitValues (ILVs), and.3) tile US, DepartmentofI.abor (OSHA) Permisstble ExpooJre Limits (PELs). 

### Ofien, tileNIOSH recommendations andACGIH 1L Vs are lower tlJan 

### tile corresponding OSHA PELs. The NIOSH REI.s 

### and ACGlli 1L Vs are nsuallY !Jased

### pregnantbampstcrs. J4 

### No da!a 

### wen,,: found linking fonnIldel\}'de witil temtogenic elfu:ts in humam. There 

### was one report 

### in which an increased 

### incidence of 

### mens1rual dron:lers, and 

### of complications of pregnancy and deliveI)', were 

### reponed among women worl=exposed 

### to fommldell)1de at a 1exIile fuctrny 

### in tile USSR J5 The 

### rel=ofti=finding;l 

### has been aiticized, 

### however, due 

### to a lack ofinfurmationreg;mling 1he 

### sui1abilily oftlle control group and 

### potential oonfuunding fucIor&J6 

### InApril1981, NIOSH**~ed** Current

### Intelligence Bulletin 34, ''Fonnildell)1de:

- Evidence of Oucinogenicity", DHI-IS (NIOSH) PublicationNo
.. 81-11 L J7 

### In ti1is bulletin, 

### NIOSHreoommends tim fonnildellyde be

### handled as 

### apotential occupational 

### carcinogen and 

### that appropriate controls beused

### to reduce 

### worl<erexposure to the lowest fuasJble leve1 6 This 

### recommendation was l::mrl 

### primarily on a study 

### in which nasal cancers develOjJErl in rats and 

### mice fullowingrepeated inhalation exposures of awroximately 15 ppm fonoaldell)1de
.. In December, 

### 1987, OSHApublished an amended 

### funnaldehyde standard, 

### 29 CFR 1910J048. This standard reduoed 

### fue PEL from.3 ppm 

### to 1ppm, as an 8-hourTWA JB 

### In addition, a 

### 15-minuteshorttenn exposure 1irnit (STEL) 

### was setat2 ppm. ACX3IHhas given 

### fonnildehyde anA2 designation, indicating 

### fuatACX3IH oonsiders 

### formaldehyde a suspected

### human carcinogen. The 

### ACDIH 1LV forfonnildehyde is 

### 1ppm as an 8-hourTW Aand2 ppm as a IS-minute STEL J9 

### ACGIH has**recently~** a ceiling 1irnit

### of03 ppm funnlldel\)'de in

### theirlXltice ofintended cbanges fur 

### 1989-1990. J9 This value 

### will bereoonsidered fur1he adopted TLVlistafier2 yeaIS. C. Particulates Airl:xme 

### dustgenernted during gpnnentmanuJllcture consists 

### ofsolid

### j:eJ1ic1es ofIDbric (lint), 

### whic1l may

### be 

### SllSJX'I1ded in airand 

### inhaled. The CI.IIl1'rl 

### OSHA PEL for total 

### nuisance dust 

### (fmticu1ates not 

### ofuerwise regulated) 

### is 15 milligrnm; 

### ofdustj:eIculJic meter 

### ofair(rng'rri')20 The 

### ACDIH 1LV fortotalnuisance dust is 10 rngjrrr. J9 'Il:ieoo 

### evaluation aiteria were 

### establishedto minimize rnecbanical 

### irritation of1he eyes, nooe, 

### ti:noot and 

### llUlg8. I3ecat.l<e 

### lintj:eJ1ic1es may 

### conlain fu:e orhound funnlldehyde, 

### 1he nuisance dust evaluation aiteria 

### may notbe appropriate. 

## n Adv=ReproductiveOutconies Rates ofmiscarriages, stillbiIihs, biIih detects, and premature biIihs were 

### ascertained for current and 

### funner WOll1en

### RockcastIe employees. The rate ofmiscaniages 

### in tile genernl population is estimated 

### to be from 

### 10-25% depending upon which 

### ascet1airunent metllOd is used and at

### what stage fue pregnancies are documented." The rate 

### ofbiIih demis 

### between I and 10"10 

### depending on whefuerminor defects such 

### as la!ge birth 

### rnarl<s are included,2 VI. RESULTS A Environmental Resulls from 

### tile GlqX6llre monitoring for fonoaldel\)'de conducted 

### during tile 

### initial survey are shown in Table 1.. 

### TWA funnaldell)1de levels ranged fro011n1ce(OJ4 ppm) to 

### 0.46 ppm 

### inPBZ air samples, and from 

### 032 ppm to 

### 0.10 !pmin area air samples obtained inproduction departmenls. 

### A1tiJOugh tile samplesproduct collected on acharcoal tube sample obtained in the headspace of a glue containershowed the presence oface1one, isopropyl alcohoL ethyl acetate, t-bu1anol and etll)'l propanoate, witllminor amounls of etlJanOl rux! etll)'l bu1anoo1e. Epichloroll)'drin, which is used 

### in the manuJilc1nJe of tlJis product, was not fuund 

### in tlle hulk air sample,
A bulk air sample collected on a charcoal tube obtained nearthe two ctning ovens showed low levels of ace1one, isooc1ane, toluene, 

### ruxIperchloroetll)'lene. The remaining organic vapor samples collected as full-shift air samples on the 2 oven operators, a s1eanlpress operator, and the glue sprayer, showed only 1,1,I-trichloroetlme (which is present 

### in a solvent

### ruxI degreasing spray). The concentration of 1,1,I-trichloroetl1ane 

### inthese sanlPles was qui1e low Oess 11mOJ ppm), witll all values fulling wellbelow the ctnrent OSHA PEL for 1,1,1,-lrichloroe1hane of350 ppm as an 8-h.ourTW A The NIOSHREL fur I,I,I-trichloroetlme is 350 ppm as a 15-minute ceiling level Epichlorohydrin, etl1)'1 acetate, t-bu1anoL isopropanoL aoetone, 

### ruxI etll)'l propanoate were not detected on ffi1)' ofthe PBZ charcoal tube air samples, to a limit ofde1ection 0[5 ug persanlPle. This oonesponds wifu levels of epichlorohydrin, etl1)'1 acetate 

### ruxI t-bu1anol ofless lImn OJ ppm 

### On fue initial smvey (Sep1m1ber, 1987), ambient temperatures rnnged fiom 71 

### "F to 83°F, wifu 1I1e higl1est 1emj:Jerntures 

### =nlednearthe s1eanl presses 

### ruxI ctning ovens, The relative hurniditywifuin the plantranged fiom 48"10 to 68%, wifuthe higl1estvalue =nled

### in the glueroom, which was also the sUeoffue lowest air 1emperature of71 

### "F, DIning lIJe Januruy smvey, airtemperatures rnnged fiom 71 

### "F to 82"1', showing liUle cliffu:enoe fiom 1I1e initial smvey, Again, 1I1ehigl1est1emj:Jerntures were 

### =nlednearthe presses ruxlthe ovens, as expected, TIle relative humidi\ywas considerably lower, rnnging fiom 14% bythe presses 

### ruxI ovens, to 36% 

### inthe sewing rueas RMedical Of1l1e 191 current employees, 188 responded to lIJe questionnaire, for aresponse rnre of98% Only 48 of the 262 former employees returned 1I1e questionnaire, fur a funner employee response rn1e of only 18%" Of the current employees who responded to 1I1e questionnaire, 20 were male (II%) 

### ruxI offue former employees, 3 (6%) were male" /If

# t, ,e.,! i 'J**.fi.~** .**~.** 

### RGPJPductive 

# ;it; Among 1I1e women respondenls (current

### ruxI fonner), lIlere were 386 pregnancies, of which 12 were =t pregnancies ruxl2 were ectopic pregnancies, These 14have been exc1nded because 1I1e outcome cannot

### be determined (ectopic pregnancies rue exclnded because 11=is no 

### way to detem1ine ifanomlal pregnancy wouId lJaVe oo::urredhad fue 

### egg implan1ed 

### intheu1erus), Additionally, onewon-lanwho IJad beenpregnant 8times and who had had 6miscaniages was excludedbecaure multiple rniscaniages rue more likely to 

### be dne to genetic or anatomic 

# = rntlJeI 11=to 

### ex1emal canses, SUcll as occupational exposures, TIJis individual lJad 4 of her 6 miscaniages while she was notwodcing 

### ruxI tl=2 additional miscarriages wIllie at Rockcas1le" She was also one oflIle 12 cunentlypregnantet11ployees,

### An eva1uatiem was made of where the individuals wolked who had an adverse ou1come willie worlcing at Rockcasl1e. 1here was no diflerence inl1le dis1nbuliem of jobs hetween there who had anoIllJlll preguancy while wolking at Rockcas1le and 11=who had an adverse ou1comewillie worlcing atRockcastle (fable 6) TIle Ill1e in sewing, 50"/0, wl=mootofthe adverse ou1comes oca.nred, was not suhstantially grealerilian l1le overnll mle of42%. 

### An eva1uatiemwas made 10 determine ifl1lerewas aconcentratiem ofadverse reproductive ou1comes during any time period. Figure 1shows agmph of fue occurrence offuesebiI1h defr:c1s, stilIbiI1llS, andprema1ure biI1llS byl1le year ofOCCUJrellce. TIlere was a shaJp increase infuese adverse ou1comes in 1986. Mll.'rula;kele1al and O1herHealtll Complain1s 1lJeresu11s forfile questions CClI1OOllingmlJ.'ruloskele1al comp1ain1s and ol1Jer healfil comp1ain1s were 

### 1abu1ated for current employees only. Onl1le mll.'rula;kele1ll1 C0111Jllain1s, wolken; were asked 10 Ill1e each complaint em a scale ofllo5 (l=never and 5=oaJ.ways). A pa;itiveresponse was defined as an answer of 4 or5. The proportions ofpa;itiveresponses were calcuJated and can he fu1.ll1d in Table 7. Moot offue comp1ain1s involved file neck, shoulder, OOckand legs as compared 10 1he arms and hands. Forfue questions conceminginitation, worlrelS were asked 10 mark tlJe frequency of1heiI symplorns**(l=neverlo*moot~).** Apositiveresponse was asymplom that occurred em mootdays. TIleseresul1s canhe fuund inTable 

### 8. 1lJe moot COl11l11CID symp10rns reportOO included tlJcre 

### =iatedwith upper respimtrny 1mctinitation, eye initation, headaches and skin initaticm. Vll. DISCUSSION Areductiem in funnaldehyde levels inPBZ and area airsamp1es was noted onl1le follow-up survey. This survey was**~01Illed** afler revernl vernilation changes hadbeen insIi1u1ed, including an increase in 1he atllCJIIDl of dilution vernilation and installation oflocal exhaU5I vernilation above fly press and slean1 press tables. Forrrnldebyde concentrations in sewing areas I through 4, w!Jere fue majority of1he wrnkfurce is located, averaged 0.68 ppm on 1he initial survey and 026 ppm em 1he follow-up survey. In addition, 1he exposure mnge was much nanower eml1le fullow-up survey, suggestingthat1heventilation changes rmy have improved airciluJJationandmixing within file plant 

### It should he noted, howevcr, thatthese funnaldebyde measuremen1s were made at eme point in time andrmy notrellect seasonaI variations. Factors winch rmy affect fonnaldel¥le levels include ambient temperature and humidi\y, volUllJe of 

### s10red fubric, andchanges in

### resinfinishing frnnulations. AlfilOUgh 1he funmJdel1)'de levels measured during fins srnvey were all helow fue OSHA PEL andAa:J1H 1L V of 1ppm, as an &-hourTW A, 

### effor1s 10 further reduce fonna1dehyde levels should cootinue in an effort 10 achieve fue lowest feastble level, as fonnaldebyde is considered a 

### poteotialhurnan carcinogen. A continued reduction in funnaldehyde levels will also help minimize comp1ain1s of eye, na;e, and 1lnmtinitation, which canhe exp!lienced at vaylow levels. 

### As previously noted, resu11s fiurn l1le side-by-side Bachamch 

### Ai=* FonnaIdel1)'de Expa;ure Monilors gave somewhatlowerresu11s than file ofiler two established air sampling metllods furfunnaldel¥le. TIlere was some difficulty in de1enniningfile actual furrmldehdye an:entmtion 

### obtaiIJed with file I11Oln1ors, due 10uneven stain development Thesemoni1ors nJiIizJ;J 1heprinciple ofnuc1eation and aystal growtll, wl:terehy furmaldelldye is reac1ed witllio file rnoni1or, fommJg a aystal seed filat grows with 1he addition ofa developer solution. TIle difficulty 

### inA mnnber ofhealtll complainls were exp=lby employees. Bemuse most ofthe**~ymp1oms** occur 10 mm people atscme 

### time, furthepwposes ofOllrsurvey**a~lp1om** was considered present only ifitwasrepor1ed to be fitxjllGlt C'almm always" or "always" furmtIDJlookele1lll complaints, aod "onmmdays" fortlle otlJef**~1jl1oms)..** Approximately ooo-tlJird oftlle woIirets repor1edpain in tlleir shoulders, neck, back, aodleg;. A1tlloogh not fue pimaI)' focns of our evaluation, we obrerved awkward pooitiOIlS among tlle worl=. Dc'1ailed ergonomic evaluations in otllel: g;nmentmanufacturiog facilities have fOlllld tlJatthere lYJleS of awkward pooitions can result in complainls and can lead 10 anumherof medical conditions such as tendonitis, bUISitis, chronic back strain, aod 

### varicose veins.24 OtherIJealth complainls frequently reportedwere ini1lltion ofthe**~** andnooe, as well as headaches and skin rush. Exposures to f01111aldehyde even in low concentrations can lead 10 fuere lypes ofcomplainls.8 Vlll RECOMMENDATIONS SnJee tlle initial NlOSH investigplion, many ventilationaodworkprnc1ice changes were made, scme of whichhad been recomn=ded by the NlOSH investigptors. Further changes have been made since fue secondNlOSH**visi~** includirJgfue installation oflocal exhaustventilation attlle 

### poilu of steam ger:erationatfue fly press stations
.. These changes have 

### improved working conditions atthis plant The fullawing additional recommendations are offered to fi.n1herreduce fue funrnldebyde exp=repotenlial, to minimizepo1erl1ial ergonomic hazards, aodto monitor future reproductive outcomes ofRockrastle Manufuc1uring employees. 1. Rockcas1Ie MarnlC1ctJning should continue 10WllIkwith tile textile finishing con1JE1Ywhich 5UfPlies fue pmt.ane fubrics 10 ensure utilization ofresin systems offering lowerf01111aldelJYde release
.. Rockcas1Ie should also requesttlJalfue finisher supply fumJaldehyde release data onrnudonJ fabric samples as aquaIi1y control measure. 

### In addition, fuejJO'lllbility ofnsingpnxure fubrics (which may have lower foona1dehyderelease) should be explored 2. Periodic exp=remonitoring forfumJaldehyde shouldbeperfunned, taking into ronsiderationpotential seasonal variations inf01111aldel1)'Cle levels Expooure monitoring should alsobe conducted aflerventilation clJal1ges are made, whennewresintreatmenls are used, aod following otllerworl(practice changes whicll may 

### affirl airbonJe fonnaldehyde levels. 3. The questionnaire data indicated a 1mge number ofcomplainls oftlle shoulder, neck, back, aod legs. To reduce fue potential fordevelopment ofcumula1ivetrauma disoo:lers, an ergonomic evaluation should be 

### perfOl11Jed atfuis facilily. This isparticuJarly irnplr1an1; in light of planned exp3IlSion aodrenovation activities (ms1aIlation ofnew curing ovens, elimination of glue sprnying q:mrtion, increasing fue size oftlle plant etc.) 4. SincetlJis evaluation fuund aclusterof adverse reproductive outcomes, a surveiJJanoe**~** should be established 10 detennine if tlJis trend continues. CIus1em can be due 10 amIDlber of fuctOIs aod the continued surveiJJanoe of pregnancies shoulddif!Gen!iate an ongoing problem OOm one due 10 otlJeIfac1or.s, includirJg**chance~**15.. Shumilina A V Mens1lual and child-beaJing 

### functiOl1S offemale worlcers OCCUfXl1ionally

## exJ.XlS"d to the effects offonnaldehyde
.. Gig TI ProfZabol. 1975,19:18-210 16.. National Research Council Fonnaldehdye and other aldehydes. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. p991, 19810 17. National Institute furO:cnpatiOllal Safuty**andHealU~** NlOSH ClnrentIntelligenceBulletin 34-fonnaldehyde: evidence ofcarcinogenicity. (OHl-lS (NlOSl-l publicationllO. 86-122). 18. O:cnpational Safely and HealUl Administration. Amended Fonnaldehyde Standard. 29 CFR 1910.1048.. Fed Reg 52 (233), Derember4, 1987. 19. American Conference ofGovernmental 

### Irxlu>trial Hygienists. Threshold lilnitvalues andbiological expoo..rre indices for 1989-1990. ACG1H: Cincinnati, Ohio, 1989
.. 20. Occupational Safuty and l-lealfu Administration. Air 

### Contaminants

- PermissIble 

### Exposure Limits 29 CFR 1910.1000(amended).. FedReg,Janumy 19,1989. 210 KlineJ, Steinz, StrobinoB, Susser M,WarlJurtonDSnrveilJance of spontaneous abortions
.. Powerin environmentall11OllilDring Amer JEpidemioll977; 106: 345-'350 22. Bengtl<, Epidemiology ofHuman Reproduction. CRC 

### Press: Boca Raton, 1988
.. 23. BuckGS,GetchellNF
.. US.Patent2957746, 1960. 24. PunnettL,RobinsJM,**WegmanDH,~gWM** SofttissuedisonlersintheUJ:P"flimh;offunale garmentwoIkeffi. ScandJWorlcEnvironl-lealU11985, 11:417425.

### Table 1 Fonnaldehyde Exposure Data, 

### Rocl«:astle Manuillcturing, Mom! Vemon, KentuclIY HETA 87-349, Seplember9, 1987 Sample De;cription SmnplingTure SampleVolum:: Fonnalrehyclc Concenlrnlion TWAb (rninules) (lilcr.;) (ppm)' (ppm) Personn} BIl?athing Zone Air Sanmle;c ovenopcrnlorlll 516 25
. .0 (.0.29) oven opcrntor#2 511 26.7 (.03.0) steam press oJ.XT.Ilor 509 276 .038 glue sptayer 442 19
. .0 (.0.14) fly press opcmlDr 471 24.6 .0.46 AJl.'aAirSarrmlesd coof=toom 339 64.4 0.28 fubric s\or.lgc rum 200 100
. .0 .034 2m 1.01.0 .0.46 .0.4.0 boxingdef<u1rnen1 197 985 .0.41 199 995 .0.48 .0.45 culling table 197 985 .05.0 198 99
. .0 .0.60 .055 area 1 - wells 193 %5 .0.60 198 99
. .0 .0.79 .0.7.0 rum 2 - poci<ct set 194 97
. .0 .0.60 199 995 0.77 .0.69 rum 3 - waist band set 194 97
. .0 .0.60 198 99
. .0 078 .0.69 rum4-beltloop 194 97
. .0 .057 198 99
. .0 0.73 .0.65 Press mea 190 95
. .0 .0.49 204 102.0 .0.67 .058 Press 141 190 95
. .0 .0.47 2m 101.0 .0.69 .058 Press 157 190 95.0 .0.48 193 %5 0.71 .0.60 outside oven (pant 190 95
. .0 .033 rockooolingrum) 197 985 .051 .0.42 gluerocm(stclJ) 186 93..0 .0.32 fiontofficc (bycopicr) 189 945 .0.13 outsiclcovcn(pm1trnckcoolingmea) 15 15
. .0 .0.39 15 15.0 .0.41 NlOSHRerornrnendedEl<posurelimit(REI.) LO\\1:stFeasibleL=1 OSHA Pennisslble El<posure limit (pEL) 8-1"TWA L.o 15·minSTEl 2
. .0 ACGIHTIut\,holdlimitValu::(llV) 8-hrTWA 1.0 15-minSTEl 2.0

, Fonnaldehydc conccnlrnlion**~** cxpr=linf'1I1S per million (ppm). Vnlucs in parentilCS<S indicaJe fonnalrebydc concenlrnli= bet""cn tile limit ofdelcclion (LOD) and limitofquantitation (LOQ). bTWA ref"'" to tile tirro-wciglltOO averngc concenlrnlioo over ti" entire s:unpling)"riod

, Pcn;onnl hreaJhing znne cir s:unples were collected and annlyw:! ru:am1ing to NlOSH MeUlOd 25m (solid SOJbenttube meUJOd). TI" WD andLOQ wero4and 12 microgmrns**persampl~** respectively d Areaairsamples were oollcctcd and annlyw:! accon:ling to NlOSHMetixxl 35OO0mpingermeUJOd). TIJelOD ruxlLOQ were .0.4 and 13 microgmrns per**s:unpl~** respectivelyTable3 latentFonna1dehyde Levels on Resin-Treated Fabrics

Fabric Demiption
IJa\oY blue

- stored attheplant fur less than one 

### IIIOll1h:

steam pressed only steam pressed and cured@ 350 Ffor 15-min IJa\oYblue

- stored at the plantfor >60days:

steam pressed only steampressed and cured@350Ffor 15-min emem1d 

### green -length ofstomge unlmown

notpressed or cured bluishblack

- length of storage 

### on1mown notpressed or cured brown-length ofstomge on1mown

notpressed or cured royal blue -length ofstorage on1mowl1

l10tpressed or cured dad<: 

### green -length ofstorage on1mown

l10tpressed or cured white -length of

### stomge on1mown

l10tpressed or cured Rockcas1le Manufucturing MOllllt Vernon, Kentucky 

### HETA87-349 September 9, 1987

latentFrnma1dehyde uglgpf

468 

### 124 (735% reduction)



### 280 161 

### (42.5% reduction)
312

244
219
1430


### 382
163

a latent fonna1dehyde levels are explessed as micmgl1lms offunnaldehyde per gram offabric (ug'g)Fmploymeut Status 

### duriogpregnancy
Rockcastle (28 pregnancies) Working butNot at

### Rockcastle (91 pregnancies) NotWorking (246 pregnancies)
Fmploymeut Status 

### duringpregnancy
Rockcastle (I9 pregnancies) Working butNot at Rockcastle (71 pregnancies) NotWorking (206 pregnancies) 

# 1< (A)**1~0**



## ...",) il .-::,/./

. 

### TableS Proportions of Adverse Reproductive Outcomes Rocl«:astle Mannfucturing MOUllt 

### Vernon, Kentucky HETA87-349 

### JannlUY, 1988 Gnrent 

### and FonnerWorlrers (365 total

### pregnancies)

Binh Defucts* Stillbi!1hs*


### 14% 25% 4%
13% 4% 0



### 5% 2% 2%
Qurent

### Worlrers Only (2% total 

### pregnancies) Miscarriages Bi!1h Defecls* Stillbi!1hs*


### 21% 

# 'I 13% 7%
15% 

### 1{ 3% 0



### 5% 

## I) 2% 2% 

## *TIlese proportions are based ontile total 

### munber of pregnancies 1hatdid not end in a miscarriage P.remature*


### 13%
1%

3%

Premature*
-)r

### 13%
2%

4%**,~**

### Table 7 Rates 

### ofMusculrnkelellll Complainls Among CurrentRockcastle Employees RockcastleManullctnring MountVemon, Ken1ucky HETA87-349 

### January, 1988
Complaint 

### ProportionWho Reported 

### Symptoms
ShoulderPain 38"/0 NeckPain 

### 35% LowerBackPain 

### 35% UpperBackPain 

### 34% Leg Pain 

### 33% ForeannPain 

### 19% HandNumbness 

### 17% ElbowPain 

### 15%**~.** 

### Number of Births 

## Rockcastie Manufacturing HETA 87-349**7r'------------------------------------------------~** 

## 6 5 4 

## 3 2 1**~~_** ---1 

# o 86 87 85 81 

## 82 83 

## 84 88

_ Normal Births
_ Adverse Outcomes Figure 1--Pregnancy outcomes for Rockcastle Manufacturing employees from 1981-1988.