NIOSH HEALTH HAZARD EVALUATION REPORT:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

HETA #2003-0114-2924

Felker Brothers Corporation

Marshfield, Wisconsin

January 2004

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 NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports

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 NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports

applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.

Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports
ii

PREFACE

The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch (HETAB) of the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducts field investigations of possible health hazards in the

workplace. These investigations are conducted under the authority of Section 20(a)(6) of the Occupational

Safety and Health (OSHA) Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 669(a)(6) which authorizes the Secretary of Health and

Human Services, following a written request from any employer or authorized representative of employees,

to determine whether any substance normally found in the place of employment has potentially toxic effects

in such concentrations as used or found.

HETAB also provides, upon request, technical and consultative assistance to Federal, State, and local

agencies; labor; industry; and other groups or individuals to control occupational health hazards and to

prevent related trauma and disease. Mention of company names or products does not constitute endorsement

by NIOSH.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

This report was prepared by Ronald Hall, Daniel Rhodes, and Elena Page of HETAB, Division of

Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies (DSHEFS). Field assistance was provided by Chad

Dowell, Chandran Achutan, and Donald Booher. Analytical support was provided by Data Chem

Laboratories. Desktop publishing was performed by Robin Smith. Review and preparation for printing were

performed by Penny Arthur.

Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management representatives at Felker Brothers

Corporation and the OSHA Regional Office. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced.

Single copies of this report will be available for a period of three years from the date of this report. To

expedite your request, include a self-addressed mailing label along with your written request to:

NIOSH Publications Office

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

800-356-4674

After this time, copies may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at

5825 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Information regarding the NTIS stock number may be

obtained from the NIOSH Publications Office at the Cincinnati address.

For the purpose of informing affected employees, copies of this report shall be

posted by the employer in a prominent place accessible to the employees for a period

of 30 calendar days.
iii

Highlights of the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation

Evaluation of metal exposures at Felker Brothers Corporation

On December 23, 2002, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a union request

from the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers regarding worker exposures to chromium and nickel compounds

during the manufacturing of stainless steel products and fabricated piping systems at Felker Brothers Corporation in

Marshfield, Wisconsin. 

What NIOSH Did

# We collected air samples on workers during cutting,

welding, grinding, and pickling operations.

# We talked to employees about health concerns in

the workplace.

# We looked at Illness and Injury reports for the past

5 years.

What NIOSH Found

# Some workers may be exposed to nickel and

hexavalent chromium above NIOSH criteria. 

# Some workers may be exposed to manganese above

American Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienist® criteria.

# Sampling results indicate highest concentrations for

nickel, manganese, and hexavalent chromium occur

when workers weld inside large stainless steel pipes

or when welding fins on large pipes.

# Area air samples for ozone indicate concentrations

above NIOSH criteria and the potential to exceed

other occupational criteria if continuous welding is

done inside the pipes throughout the work shift.

# At the time of our evaluation, the types of cancers

linked to nickel and chromium compound

exposures have not been reported among current or

former workers. 

# Welding fumes, acid vapors, ozone, general plant

dust, and general plant ventilation could contribute

to irritant symptoms reported by some workers.

What Felker Brothers Managers 

Can Do

# Put controls (i.e., local exhaust ventilation) in areas

where sample results indicate exposures above

criteria.

# Re-evaluate worker exposures after controls have

been put in place.

# Do not allow eating, drinking, or smoking in work

areas.

# Support communication between worker

representatives and management on the plant’s

safety/ergonomics team.

# Improve housekeeping practices by avoiding

dry–sweeping and use wet clean–up methods (i.e.,

mopping) or HEPA filter vacuums. [Don’t use wet

methods in areas where it could cause potential

electrical or safety hazards.]

# Protect workers from potential fall hazards.

What the Felker Brothers Employees Can Do

# Use controls as instructed.

# Do not eat, drink, or smoke in work areas.

# Report health and safety concerns to management and

safety/ergonomics team.

# Follow plant safety and health guidelines.

Highlights of the HHE Report

What To Do For More Information:

We encourage you to read the full report. If you

would like a copy, either ask your health and safety

representative to make you a copy or call 

1-513/841-4252 and ask for

 HETA Report #2003-0114-2924
iv

Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2003-0114-2924

Felker Brothers Corporation

Marshfield, Wisconsin

January, 2004

Ronald M. Hall, MS, CIH

Daniel Rhodes, MD, MPH

Elena Page, MD, MPH

SUMMARY

On December 23, 2002, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a

request from the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers regarding worker exposures to chromium and

nickel compounds during the manufacture of high-quality, corrosive-resistant stainless steel products and

fabricated piping systems at the two Felker Brothers Corporation facilities in Marshfield, Wisconsin. Union

officials also expressed concerns about potential carcinogenic effects of these exposures. 

On February 5, 2003, NIOSH investigators made an initial site visit to gather information on stainless steel

cutting, welding, grinding, and pickling processes. An in-depth industrial hygiene evaluation was conducted

during May 28-29, 2003. In addition, a NIOSH physician conducted private medical interviews with 23

employees.

Personal breathing zone (PBZ) air sampling was conducted on employees during stainless steel cutting,

welding, grinding, and pickling operations. PBZ air samples were collected for elements (various metal

compounds including nickel and chromium), total welding fumes, hexavalent chromium (CrVI), ozone,

nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and inorganic acids. Carbon dioxide, temperature, and relative humidity

were also measured.

PBZ air samples indicated the potential for some workers to be exposed to nickel and CrVI concentrations

above the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL) and to manganese above the American Conference

of Governmental Industrial Hygienists’ (ACGIH®) Threshold Limit Value (TLV®). The highest

concentrations for nickel, manganese, and CrVI occurred during operations in which workers welded inside

large stainless steel pipes or welded fins on a large stainless steel pipe. Two detector tube results for ozone

also indicated concentrations exceeding the NIOSH REL ceiling limit and the potential to exceed ACGIH,

and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) occupational criteria (if continuous welding

occurs throughout the work shift) during welding operations inside stainless steel pipes. 

A total of 23 employees were interviewed. The average tenure at Felker Brothers was 24 years (range: 6

months to 38 years). Seventeen of the 23 employees reported ever having work-related or work-aggravated

health problems, mainly upper respiratory/mucous membrane irritation or musculoskeletal injury. Seven of

the 23 employees reported current upper respiratory or mucous membrane irritation. All reported that these

symptoms were not severe enough to keep them from working. Welding fumes, acid vapors from the pickling

tank, general plant dust, and general plant ventilation could contribute to these symptoms. Twelve (52%) of

those interviewed were previous smokers, 6 (26%) had never smoked, and 5 (22%) were current smokers.

There was no significant relationship between current mucous membrane irritation and smoking status. 

 
v

PBZ air samples indicated the potential for some workers to be exposed to nickel and CrVI concentrations

above the NIOSH REL and to manganese above the ACGIH® TLV®. Although the potential for exposure

to nickel and chromium exists, at the time of our evaluation, the types of cancers linked to exposure to these

substances have not been reported among current or former employees of Felker Brothers. Welding fumes,

acid vapors from the pickling tank, general plant dust, and general plant ventilation could contribute to irritant

symptoms reported by some workers. Engineering controls (i.e., local exhaust ventilation) should be used

in areas where sample results indicated exposures exceeding applicable occupational criteria. Other

recommendations to reduce worker exposures are provided in the report.

Keywords: SIC 3317 (Steel Pipe and Tubes). stainless steel, nickel, chromium, pipe, tube, fittings,

pre-fabricated piping systems, cutting, welding, grinding, fabricating, pickling. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Acknowledgments and Availability of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Highlights of the HHE Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Introduction and Background ........................................................... 1

Methods ........................................................................... 1

Industrial Hygiene Evaluation ....................................................... 1

Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Total Welding Fumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Hexavalent Chromium (CrVI) .................................................... 2

Ozone (O3) .................................................................. 2

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) ........................................................ 2

Carbon Monoxide (CO), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Temperature, and Relative Humidity . . . . . . . 2

Inorganic Acids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Medical Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Hexavalent Chromium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Nickel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Ozone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Manganese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Industrial Hygiene Evaluation ....................................................... 4

Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Nickel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chromium Compounds ..................................................... 5

Manganese .............................................................. 5

Other Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Total Welding Fumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Hexavalent Chromium (CrVI) .................................................... 6

Ozone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, and Carbon Dioxide ............................. 6

Inorganic Acids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Local Exhaust Assessment ...................................................... 6

Medical Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

OSHA 200/300 Logs ........................................................... 7

Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924 Page 1

INTRODUCTION AND

BACKGROUND

On December 23, 2002, the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received

a request from the International Brotherhood of

Boiler makers regarding worker exposures to

chromium and nickel compounds during the

manufacturing of high quality, corrosive resistant

stainless steel products and fabricated piping

systems at the two Felker Brothers Corporation

facilities in Marshfield, Wisconsin. Union

officials also expressed concerns about potential

carcinogenic effects of these exposures, although

they reported being unaware of any current or

former employees having been diagnosed with

cancer. 

Felker Brothers Corporation is a manufacturer of

stainless steel commodity products (pipe, tube and

fittings), and stainless steel custom products

(pre-fabricated piping systems) with

approximately 114 employees working in

production areas of the two facilities.

Manufacturing processes at the facilities include

cutting, welding, grinding, fabricating, and

pickling. 

On February 5, 2003, NIOSH investigators made

an initial site visit to gather information on

stainless steel cutting, welding, and grinding

processes. The opening conference was attended

by management, union officials, and NIOSH

representatives. An in-depth industrial hygiene

evaluation was conducted at the two facilities (i.e.,

main and depot facilities) during May 28-29,

2003. Air sampling was conducted throughout the

plant during stainless steel cutting, welding, and

grinding operations. Air samples for inorganic

acids were collected on workers involved in

pickling and acid paste operations. In addition,

temperature and humidity measurements were also

collected. 

A NIOSH physician interviewed 23 serially

selected employees from approximately 114

production workers within the two facilities.

Private medical interviews covered employees

tenure and department, past medical history,

smoking history, and current symptoms,

complaints, and concerns. A closing conference

was held on May 29, 2003, during which

preliminary findings and recommendations were

discussed.

METHODS

Industrial Hygiene Evaluation

Personal breathing zone (PBZ) air sampling was

conducted on various employees within the main

and depot facilities during stainless steel cutting,

welding, and grinding operations. PBZ and area

air samples were collected for elements (various

metal compounds including nickel and

chromium), total welding fumes, hexavalent

chromium (CrVI), ozone (O3), nitrogen

dioxide(NO2), carbon monoxide(CO), carbon

dioxide (CO2), temperature, relative humidity, and

inorganic acids. 

Elements

PBZ air samples for elements were quantitatively

analyzed for silver, aluminum, arsenic, beryllium,

calcium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper,

iron, lithium, magnesium, manganese,

molybdenum, sodium, nickel, phosphorus, lead,

platinum, selenium, tellurium, thallium, titanium,

vanadium, yttrium, zinc, and zirconium using a

Perkin Elmer Optima 3000 DV inductively

coupled plasma spectrometer according to NIOSH

Method 7300.1

 These samples were collected on

37–mm diameter (5–:m pore–size) polyvinyl

chloride (PVC) filters, using sampling pumps

calibrated at 2 liters per minute (Lpm). 

Total Welding Fumes 

PBZ air samples for total welding fumes were

collected on 37–mm diameter (5–:m pore–size)

PVC filters, using sampling pumps calibrated at 2

Lpm. Filters were gravimetrically analyzed (filter

weight) according to NIOSH Method 0500.1
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924

Hexavalent Chromium (CrVI)

PBZ air samples for CrVI were collected on

37–mm diameter (5–:m pore–size) PVC filters,

using sampling pumps calibrated at 2 Lpm. These

samples were analyzed by high performance liquid

chromatography (HPLC) according to NIOSH

method 7605.1

Ozone (O3)

Area monitoring for O3 was conducted with

colorimetric detector tubes (Draeger 0.05/b,

#6733181 – range 0.05 to 0.7 parts per million

[ppm] with 10 strokes on the pump) in the

breathing zone of workers during welding

activities. The detector tubes are used by drawing

air through the tube with a bellows–type pump.

The resulting length of the stain in the tube

(produced by a chemical reaction with the sorbent)

is proportional to the concentration of the air

contaminant. 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Area monitoring for NO2 was conducted with

colorimetric detector tubes (Draeger 0.05/c,

#CH30001 – range 0.5 to 10 ppm with 5 strokes

on the pump) in the breathing zone of workers

during welding.

Carbon Monoxide (CO), Carbon Dioxide

(CO2), Temperature, and Relative Humidity

Area real-time CO, CO2, temperature, and relative

humidity spot measurements were taken using a

hand-held, battery operated, TSI Q-TrackTM

(Model 8554) indoor air quality (IAQ) monitor in

the breathing zone of workers during welding

operations. This portable monitor uses an Electrochemical sensor to measure CO in the range of 0-

500 ppm. The monitor uses a non-dispersive

infrared absorption (NDIR) sensor to measure CO2

in the range of 0-5000 ppm. In addition, the

monitor is capable of measuring temperature in the

range of 32 to 122 degrees Fahrenheit, and is also

able to measure relative humidity in the range of

5 to 95%.

Inorganic Acids 

PBZ air samples for inorganic acids (i.e.,

hydrofluoric, hydrochloric, nitric, phosphoric,

sulfuric, and hydrobromic acid) were collected on

solid sorbent tubes (washed silica gel, 400

milligrams [mg]/200 mg with glass fiber plug)

attached by tubing to sampling pumps calibrated

at a flow rate of 0.2 Lpm. The samples were

analyzed for fluoride, chloride, nitrate, phosphate,

bromide, and sulfate ion concentrations by ion

chromatography according to NIOSH sampling

method 7903.1

 The ion results were then

converted to the respective acid. 

Medical Evaluation

Twenty-five employees were serially selected for

interviews from approximately 114 production

employees at both the main and depot facilities.

Information regarding current or former

employees with cancer was solicited from these

interviews and from the union and management.

The Illness and Injury reports (Occupational

Safety and Health Administration 200/300 logs)

from the past five years were reviewed. 

EVALUATION CRITERIA

As a guide to the evaluation of the hazards posed

by workplace exposures, NIOSH field staff

employ environmental evaluation criteria for the

assessment of a number of chemical and physical

agents. These criteria are intended to suggest

levels of exposure to which most workers may be

exposed up to 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week

for a working lifetime without experiencing

adverse health effects. It is, however, important to

note that not all workers will be protected from

adverse health effects even though their exposures

are maintained below these levels. A small

percentage may experience adverse health effects

because of individual susceptibility, a pre-existing

medical condition, and/or a hypersensitivity

(allergy). In addition, some hazardous substances

may act in combination with other workplace

exposures, the general environment, or with

medications or personal habits of the worker to
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924 Page 3

produce health effects even if the occupational

exposures are controlled at the level set by the

criterion. These combined effects are often not

considered in the evaluation criteria. Also, some

substances are absorbed by direct contact with the

skin and mucous membranes, and thus potentially

increases the overall exposure. Finally, evaluation

criteria may change over the years as new

information on the toxic effects of an agent

become available.

The primary sources of environmental evaluation

criteria for the workplace are: (1) NIOSH

Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs),2

 (2) the

American Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists’ (ACGIH®) Threshold Limit Values

(TLVs®),3

 and (3) the U.S. Department of Labor,

OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs).4

Employers are encouraged to follow the OSHA

limits, the NIOSH RELs, the ACGIH TLVs, or

whichever are the more protective criterion.

OSHA requires an employer to furnish employees

a place of employment that is free from

recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to

cause death or serious physical harm

[Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,

Public Law 91–596, sec. 5.(a)(1)]. Thus,

employers should understand that not all

hazardous chemicals have specific OSHA

exposure limits such as PELs and short-term

exposure limits (STELs). An employer is still

required by OSHA to protect their employees

from hazards, even in the absence of a specific

OSHA PEL.

A time-weighted average (TWA) exposure refers

to the average airborne concentration of a

substance during a normal workday. Some

substances have recommended STEL or ceiling

values which are intended to supplement the TWA

where there are recognized toxic effects from

higher exposures over the short-term.

Hexavalent Chromium 

The toxicity and solubility of chromium

compounds that contain chromium in the Cr2+,

Cr3+, or CrVI valence state vary greatly, but those

that contain CrVI are of the greatest health concern.

CrVI compounds include lead chromate and zinc

chromate pigments, chromic acid, and soluble

compounds such as those used in chromium

plating. Some CrVI compounds are severe irritants

of the respiratory tract and skin, and some

(including chromates) have been found to cause

lung cancer in exposed workers.5

 Allergic

dermatitis is one of the most common effects of

chromium toxicity among exposed workers.

NIOSH has identified CrVI as a potential

occupational carcinogen. The NIOSH REL for

CrVI, based on a designation as a potential

occupational carcinogen, is 0.001 milligram per

cubic meter (mg/m3

) full shift TWA.2 The OSHA

PEL for CrVI is a ceiling limit of 0.1 mg/m3

,

6

 and

the ACGIH TLV is 0.01 mg/m3

 for insoluble CrVI

compounds and 0.05 mg/m3 for soluble CrVI

compounds.3 Nonoccupational sources of

exposure to chromium may include cigarette

smoke. 

Nickel

Metallic nickel compounds cause allergic contact

dermatitis.5

 NIOSH considers nickel a potential

occupational carcinogen, as nickel refining has

been associated with an increased risk of nasal and

lung cancer.6

 Cigarette smoking may also be a

nonoccupational source of exposure to nickel

compounds.7

 The NIOSH REL for nickel, based

on the designation as a potential occupational

carcinogen, is 0.015 mg/m3

.

2

 The ACGIH TLV for

insoluble compounds of nickel (i.e., nickel

oxides8

) is 0.2 mg/m3 (inhalable fraction), for

soluble nickel compounds (i.e., nickel compounds

that include chloride, sulfate, and nitrate8

) the

TLV is 0.1 mg/m3 (inhalable fraction), and the

TLV for elemental nickel is 1.5 mg/m3

 (inhalable

fraction).3

 The OSHA PEL for nickel is 1 mg/m3.

4

Ozone

Low concentrations of O3 (0.01 ppm to 0.05 ppm)

may produce a sharp, irritating odor even during

brief exposures.9

 Symptoms of ozone exposure

include irritation of the eyes, dryness of the nose

and throat, and cough. At higher ozone
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924

concentrations, more severe symptoms may

develop. These symptoms may include headache,

pain or tightness in the chest, and shortness of

breath or tiredness.9

 Short–term exposure (a few

hours) to O3 concentrations on the order of 0.1

ppm has been shown to produce temporary

decreases in measured lung volumes in humans.10

The NIOSH REL for O3 is 0.1 ppm and is to be

measured as a ceiling limit.2

 A ceiling limit is a

peak concentration that should not be exceeded at

any time during the workday. NIOSH has also

recommended an immediately dangerous to life

and health (IDLH) limit of 5 ppm for O3.

6

 The

current OSHA PEL for O3 is 0.1 ppm for an

8–hour (40–hour work week) TWA.4

 The current

ACGIH TLV is based on the amount of physical

exertion or work load required for the job being

accomplished and is to be average over an 8–hour

period. The TLV is 0.1 ppm for jobs requiring

light physical exertion, 0.08 ppm for moderate

physical exertion, 0.05 ppm for heavy physical

exertion, and 0.2 ppm for heavy, moderate, or

light work loads less than or equal to 2 hours in

duration.3

 

Manganese

Manganese (Mn) is an abundant and ubiquitous

element present throughout the environment

including soil, water, air, vegetation, and food

items. Manganese is an essential trace element

necessary for the formation of connective tissue

and bone as well as the metabolism of

carbohydrates and lipids; for these reasons, adult

humans require 2 to 3 milligrams (mg) of dietary

Mn per day.11 There are many important

industrial uses for Mn; it is used in the metal alloy

industries, in ceramic and glass products, in rubber

and wood preservatives; and in dry-cell batteries.5

The health effects of excessive occupational Mn

exposure are primarily neurological and

respiratory (including irritation, pneumonitis, and

chronic bronchitis). Metal fume fever has also

been reported with exposure to Mn fume. Most

notably, occupational exposure to Mn dust is

known to cause manganism, a Parkinsonian-like

syndrome. This condition has also been referred

to as Mn poisoning and chronic Mn toxicity. 

Chronic Mn toxicity has been found in workers

exposed to Mn during operations in which high

concentrations of dust or fume were generated.

Such operations have included mining, ore

processing, purification processes, metallurgical

and manufacturing processes, and welding of Mn

alloys or use of welding rods containing Mn.12

Inhalation is the primary route of occupational

exposure, but most inhaled Mn dust is mobilized

from the lungs and swallowed.13 Thus, the

gastrointestinal tract may be an important route of

absorption for inhaled as well as ingested Mn dust.

The NIOSH REL for Mn compounds is 1 mg/m3

(full shift TWA), with a STEL of 3.0 mg/m3 based

on central nervous system effects and

pneumonitis.14,2 The OSHA PEL for manganese

is a ceiling criteria of 5.0 mg/m3

.

4

 The ACGIH

current TLV for manganese is 0.2 mg/m3

.

3

RESULTS

Industrial Hygiene Evaluation

Elements 

A total of 44 PBZ air samples for elements were

collected throughout the main and depot facilities.

These samples were analyzed for silver,

aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, calcium, cadmium,

cobalt, chromium, copper, iron, lithium,

magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, sodium,

nickel, phosphorus, lead, platinum, selenium,

tellurium, thallium, titanium, vanadium, yttrium,

zinc, and zirconium.

Nickel

PBZ air samples with nickel concentrations equal

to or above the NIOSH REL of 0.015 mg/m3 are

listed in Table 1. All other nickel samples (not

listed in Table 1) collected in the main and depot

facilities indicated nickel concentrations less than

occupational criteria (NIOSH, ACGIH, and

OSHA).

Four of the highest concentrations of nickel were

on workers in the main facility. Two of these
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924 Page 5

workers were performing welding/grinding

operations inside large stainless steel pipes

(department 206). The PBZ samples collected on

these workers indicated nickel TWA exposures of

0.12 mg/m3

 and 0.15 mg/m3. One worker had a

nickel TWA exposure of 0.16 mg/m3

 while

welding fins on the outside of a large stainless

steel pipe in department 206, and another worker

had a nickel TWA exposure of 0.16 mg/m3

 while

performing tasks as a fabricator in the main

facility. 

One PBZ sample collected on a worker in the

depot facility while performing welding

operations on stainless steel indicated a

concentration of 0.0197 mg/m3

, which is above the

NIOSH REL. The worker that this sample was

collected on consistently smoked in the shop

during the work shift. Smoking may also be a

nonoccupational source of exposure to nickel

compounds.7

 All other PBZ samples collected on

workers in the depot facility indicated

concentrations of nickel below applicable

occupational criteria. All PBZ samples collected

and analyzed for nickel had concentrations below

the OSHA PEL of 1 mg/m3

. 

Chromium Compounds

All PBZ air samples for chromium compounds

had concentrations below applicable occupational

exposure criteria (i.e., NIOSH REL of 0.5 mg/m3

,

ACGIH® TLV® of 0.5 mg/m3

, and OSHA PEL of

0.5 mg/m3

). Chromium concentrations for those

samples that had nickel concentrations above the

REL are listed in Table 1. These samples

represent some of the more elevated chromium

concentrations at the facility. Workers with the

highest reported TWA chromium exposures were

located in department 206 where two of these

workers were welding/grinding inside large

stainless steel pipes (0.26 mg/m3

 and 0.36 mg/m3),

and one worker welded fins on a large stainless

steel pipe (0.36 mg/m3

). A worker performing

tasks as a fabricator in the main facility had a

chromium compound TWA exposure of 0.24

mg/m3

. 

Manganese 

PBZ air sample results for three workers in

department 206 indicated concentrations

exceeding the ACGIH TLV of 0.2 mg/m3

 for

manganese (see Table 1). Two of these workers

were welding/grinding inside large stainless steel

pipes and had PBZ TWA manganese

concentrations of 0.34 mg/m3

 and 0.32 mg/m3.

The manganese TWA concentration for another

worker was 0.31 mg/m3

 while welding/grinding

fins on large stainless steel pipes. These

concentrations are below the NIOSH REL of 1

mg/m3

. All other manganese samples were below

applicable occupational criteria. 

Other Elements

Results of sampling for all other element

compounds analyzed by NIOSH method 7300

indicated concentrations below applicable

occupational exposure criteria. 

Total Welding Fumes 

A total of 44 PBZ air samples were collected and

gravimetrically analyzed for total welding fumes

on workers throughout the main and depot

facilities. These samples were also analyzed for

elements to get a breakdown of the different

elemental compounds and concentrations. One

PBZ sample indicated a total welding fume

concentration of 5.2 mg/m3

 which exceeds the

ACGIH TLV of 5 mg/m3

. However, this sample

was collected on a worker who performed

grinding operations in addition to operations

where he may have been exposed to welding

fumes. Therefore, this sample is representative of

both grinding dust and welding fumes. The

element results for this sample indicated that

concentrations of the various metal compounds

were below applicable occupational exposure

criteria, with the exception of nickel, which was

present at a concentration of 0.04 mg/m3

 (above

the NIOSH REL of 0.015 mg/m3

). All other PBZ

air samples for total welding fumes were below

the ACGIH TLV (5 mg/m3

 for total welding

fume). 

Hexavalent Chromium (CrVI)
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924

A total of 46 CrVI PBZ air samples were collected

in the main and depot facilities. Table 2 list CrVI

PBZ air sample results exceeding the NIOSH REL

of 0.001 mg/m3

. All other CrVI PBZ air samples

collected at both facilities (not listed on Table 2)

indicated concentrations below applicable

occupational exposure criteria. 

The two highest PBZ air sampling results were

taken on workers in department 206. PBZ

samples for a worker who performed work tasks

such as welding/grinding inside large stainless

steel pipes and another worker who welded fins on

large stainless steel pipes both indicated CrVI

concentrations of 0.02 mg/m3, which exceeds the

ACGIH TLV (0.01 mg/m3

) for insoluble CrVI

compounds. 

Ozone 

O3 samples were collected in the breathing zone of

workers during welding operations.

Concentrations of 0.13 ppm and 0.59 ppm were

detected near a worker welding inside large

stainless steel pipes in department 206. These

results exceed the NIOSH REL (Ceiling limit of

0.1 ppm), and indicate a potential to exceed the

ACGIH TLVs (8-hour TWA of 0.1 ppm for light

work, 0.08 ppm for moderate work, 0.05 ppm for

heavy work, and 0.2 ppm for heavy, moderate, or

light work loads less than or equal to 2 hours in

duration) and OSHA PEL (8-hour TWA of 0.1

ppm) if continuous welding is done inside the pipe

throughout the work shift. All other O3 samples

collected throughout the main and depot facilities

had concentrations below applicable occupational

exposure criteria. 

Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, and

Carbon Dioxide

Instantaneous real-time samples collected for CO,

NO2, and CO2 near the breathing zone of workers

while performing welding operations, indicated

concentrations well below applicable occupational

exposure criteria.

Inorganic Acids

Inorganic acid samples were collected in the

breathing zone of workers during pickling

operations in the main facility at the pickling tank,

and pickle paste operations in both the main and

depot facilities. Nitric acid concentrations were in

the range of 0.008 to 0.094 ppm, hydrochloric acid

concentrations in the range of 0.0045 to 0.026

ppm, sulfuric acid concentrations in the range of

0.0002 to 0.002 ppm, and hydrofluoric acid

concentrations in the range of 0.1 to 0.87 ppm.

These results indicate that inorganic acid

concentrations were below applicable

occupational exposure criteria. Hydrobromic and

phosphoric acids were not detected on our

samples. 

Local Exhaust Assessment

The big plasma cutting table was not equipped

with a local exhaust ventilation (LEV) system

during the time of our evaluation. This table was

located in an area of the main facility near one of

the two fixed dilution ventilation systems in the

shop. The dilution ventilation systems in the shop

provided approximately 20% outside air and 80%

recirculated air from the shop. They maintained

the shop under positive pressure and were

equipped with filters that filtered the air before resupplying it back into the shop. 

The facility had LEV for plasma cutting

operations on the cybermation table and elbow

cut-off station. The ventilation measurements

collected on the downdraft ventilation system at

the cybermation table indicated a velocity of 76

feet per minute (fpm) at the face and 55 fpm at

approximately 6-8 inches above the face. The

area of the cybermation table was approximately

53 square feet (ft2

) and the volume of air moved

(based upon the area and our face velocity

measurements) was 4028 cubic feet per minute

(ft3

/min). Observations during work activities and

smoke powder test indicated that fume generated

from cutting operations on this table may escape

the capture of the hood. During our survey,

considerable amounts of slag material from the

cutting operations was located in the bottom of the
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924 Page 7

downdraft hood and may have resulted in reduced

air flow through the system. 

The elbow cut-off station had two hoods located

near the elbow cutting operation. The ventilation

duct located directly under the cutting operation

had an area of 0.11 ft2

 and an average face

velocity of 209 fpm, which produces a calculated

volumetric air flow of 23 ft3

/min. The rectangular

hood located off to the side of the cutting

operation had an area of 0.125 ft2

 and a face

velocity of 780 fpm, which produces a calculated

volumetric air flow of 97.5 ft3

/min. Observations

during normal work activities and smoke powder

testing indicated that the elbow cut-off ventilation

system effectively controlled fume emissions.

A ventilation system located inside the grinding

booth was also evaluated during our survey. This

system consisted of flexible duct attached to two

small hoods. The flexible duct was connected to

a fan mounted on top of a 55-gallon drum inside

the grinding booth. The system appeared to be

designed to capture the large metal particles

generated during grinding activities. However,

our observations and smoke test indicated that

small aerosols captured by the system were blown

out the top of the drum and into the work area.

Therefore, this system did not appear to be

effective. 

Medical Evaluation 

Interviews

Twenty-five employees were serially selected for

interviews from approximately 114 production

employees at both the 4th street (main facility) and

depot street facilities. One of those selected was

off work on the days of the interviews and two

declined to be interviewed. One of those who

declined was replaced, therefore a total of 23

employees were interviewed. Nineteen (83%)

were from the 4th street facility and four (17%)

were from the depot street facility. The majority

of employees (about 70%) work at the 4th Street

facility and the processes and exposures are

similar at both sites. The average age of those

interviewed was 52 years (range: 30 to 62 years).

The average length of time these employees had

worked at Felker Brothers was 24 years (range: 6

months to 38 years). Five were described as

machine operators, five as utility, four as

fabrication/fitter, three as welder, three as

semiskilled, and three as either maintenance,

patternmaker, or tool builder. Seventeen of the 23

employees reported ever having work-related or

work-aggravated health problems, mainly upper

respiratory/mucous membrane irritation or

musculoskeletal injury. Seven of the 23

employees reported current upper respiratory or

mucous membrane irritation. All reported that

these symptoms were not severe enough to keep

them from working. Twelve (52%) of those

interviewed were previous smokers, six (26%) had

never smoked, and five (22%) were current

smokers. There was no significant relationship

between current mucous membrane irritation and

smoking status. Interviewed employees were not

aware of current or former employees with cancer.

Union officials reported that nine retirees may

have had cancer, but were unable to provide

details about the type of cancer, time of diagnosis,

or job history. 

OSHA 200/300 Logs

The OSHA logs from January 1998 through

December 2002 were reviewed. There were 71,

47, 30, 24, and 29 recorded injury or illness

entries for the years 1998 through 2002,

respectively. These totals are for both facilities.

The majority of entries were for strains,

contusions, lacerations, and foreign body to eye.

There was only one entry for mucous membrane

irritation; it occurred in 1998.

DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSIONS

PBZ air samples collected during our evaluation

indicated the potential for some workers to be

exposed to nickel and CrVI at concentrations above

the NIOSH REL (see Tables 1 and 2), and to Mn
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924

above the ACGIH TLV (see Table 1). The PBZ

results indicated that the highest concentrations of

nickel, Mn, and CrVI occurred during operations in

department 206 where workers welded inside

large stainless steel pipes or welded fins on a large

stainless steel pipe. Two detector tube results for

O3 also indicated concentrations exceeding the

NIOSH REL ceiling limit and the potential to

exceed ACGIH and OSHA occupational criteria

(if consistent welding is accomplished throughout

the work shift) during welding operations inside

stainless steel pipes in department 206. 

Engineering controls (i.e.,LEV) should be used in

areas where sample results indicated

concentrations exceeding applicable occupational

criteria. Portable air cleaning systems are

commercially available for the collection and

filtration of welding fumes. However, these

systems require stringent maintenance to ensure

that they are operating at manufacturer

specifications to effectively remove the aerosols

generated during cutting or welding operations. If

these systems are not maintained properly or are

not performing to manufacturer’s specifications

they may release welding aerosols back into the

work environment. The ACGIH ventilation

manual recommends avoiding recirculating

filtered air from welding hoods back into occupied

spaces unless the welding is low hazard and

produces low quantities of contaminants.15

Because nickel and CrVI compounds are

considered potential occupational carcinogens the

use of systems that re-circulate filtered air back

into work areas is not recommended. 

The filters on the dilution ventilation systems in

the main facility may not be effective for

removing fumes generated during welding

activities inside the shop without the use of high

efficiency particulate air filters (HEPA) and

appropriate seals. Also, these systems are not

effective for reducing emissions at the source of

the welding operations in the shop. 

LEV is the best way to remove fumes at the source

of the operation. A welding ventilation movable

exhaust hood system could be used to capture the

contaminants generated during welding

operations. The local exhaust ventilation system

should be designed to have a capture velocity

(minimum hood-induced air velocity necessary to

capture and convey the contaminant into the hood)

of approximately 100 - 170 fpm with the higher

values used for poor conditions such as high crossdraft velocities and with higher hazard levels.15

The system should also have a minimum duct

velocity of approximately 3000 fpm (welding

ventilation movable exhaust hoods Figure VS-90-

02, ACGIH Ventilation Manual).15 The hood of

the local exhaust ventilation system should be

placed as close as possible to the source of

contaminant generation. However, it should be

noted that capture velocities above 100–200 fpm

may disturb shield gas.15 Anytime LEV is used in

a facility, sufficient clean make-up air must be

provided to the shop for the systems to operate

effectively. Depending on the climate, the

temperature of the make-up air supplied to the

shop may need to be considered. 

Additional methods that could be used to control

worker exposures in areas where sample results

indicate concentrations exceeding applicable

exposure criteria consist of administrative controls

and personal protective equipment (PPE) (i.e.,

respirators). Administrative controls and PPE are

designed to protect workers from airborne

exposures while engineering controls are being

implemented or when engineering controls are not

feasible or effective in reducing air contaminants

to acceptable levels. For respirators to be worn by

employees, an appropriate respiratory protection

program must be utilized by the company and be

in accordance with OSHA regulation 29 CFR

1910.134.16 Under the NIOSH respirator use

policy for protection against carcinogens, NIOSH

recommends respirators based on the following

selection criterion:

Assigned protection factor (APF) > (workplace

airborne concentration/NIOSH REL)

This selection criteria only applies to respirators

used in a proper respirator program under the

supervision of a properly trained respirator

program administrator. Respirators used without
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924 Page 9

such a program with all its essential elements can

not be relied upon to protect workers.17

Each worker required to wear a respirator must be

medically evaluated and cleared by a physician to

wear the specific respirator before performing

assigned tasks. For respirators to be effective and

protect workers from harmful exposures they must

be selected, inspected, and maintained properly.

Respirators should be inspected by the worker

prior to and after each use for any defects.

Respiratory protective equipment should also be

cleaned and disinfected after each use.

Respiratory protective devices should never be

worn when a satisfactory face seal can not be

obtained. Many conditions may prevent a good

seal between the worker's face and the respirator.

Some of these conditions include facial hair,

glasses, or an unusually structured face. All

workers required to wear a respirator must be

properly trained on the selection, use, limitations,

and maintenance of the respirator and also be

fit–tested to assure a proper seal between the

workers face and the respirator prior to performing

work tasks in a contaminated area. A recent

article [Campbell, D.L. et al. 2001], recommends

to purchase only respirators with good fitting

characteristics (h $ 0.95) and then carefully

conduct fit-test on individual workers.18 All

workers should receive annual fit–testing with a

quantitative testing device. When not in use,

respirators must be stored in a clean environment

located away from any source of contamination. 

During our evaluation, we observed workers

eating, drinking, and smoking in the production

areas of the plant. These activities should be

restricted to designated areas away from

contaminants in the shop to reduce potential

secondary exposures. Additionally, workers

should also change out of contaminated clothing

and wash thoroughly to remove any contaminants

prior to eating, drinking, smoking, or leaving work

(to prevent any possible contamination of vehicles

or homes). Housekeeping practices could also be

improved to reduce secondary exposures to

contaminants. Dry–sweeping in the facilities

should be prohibited to prevent dust from

becoming airborne which would increase workers'

exposures. Only wet clean–up methods (i.e.,

mopping) or vacuuming with an approved HEPA

filter vacuum should be used during clean–up

activities. Wet clean–up methods should not be

used in any area where they may cause a potential

electrical or safety hazard. 

The plant currently has a safety/ergonomics team

which consist of management and worker

representatives. This team has scheduled meetings

to address health and safety issues within the

workplace. We encourage the exchange of

concerns and communication between

management officials and worker representatives

on this team. Employees should be made aware of

workplace health and safety concerns and

decisions made by facility managers to address

those concerns. Any employees with work-related

health concerns should be encouraged to report

these concerns to the safety/ergonomics team

representatives.

During our evaluation, NIOSH representatives

observed workers loading stainless steel pipes on

a truck at a distance of approximately 10-14 feet

off the ground without fall protection. OSHA

regulation 1910.23©)(1) states “every open-sided

floor or platform 4 feet or more above adjacent

floor or ground level shall be guarded by a

standard railing (or the equivalent as specified in

paragraph (e)(3) of this section) on all open sides

except where there is entrance to a ramp, stairway,

or fixed ladder.”19

Seven of 23 (30%) interviewed employees

reported current upper respiratory or mucous

membrane irritation related to work. Welding

fumes, acid vapors from the pickling tank, general

plant dust, and general plant ventilation could

contribute to these symptoms.

While we did not receive any specific information

to suggest that there is an excess of cancer among

current or former employees at Felker Brothers,

some general information on cancer and how we

look at cancer in workplaces is provided in the

following paragraphs. 
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924

Cancer is a group of different diseases that

have the same feature, the uncontrolled

growth and spread of abnormal cells. Each

different type of cancer may have its own set

of causes. Cancer is common in the United

States. One of every four deaths in the United

States is from cancer. Among adults, cancer

is more frequent among men than women, and

is more frequent with increasing age. Many

factors play a role in the development of

cancer. The importance of these factors is

different for different types of cancer. Most

cancers are caused by a combination of

several factors. Some of the factors include:

(a) personal characteristics such as age, sex,

and race, (b) family history of cancer, ©) diet,

(d) personal habits such as cigarette smoking

and alcohol consumption, (e) the presence of

certain medical conditions, (f) exposure to

cancer-causing agents in the environment, and

(g) exposure to cancer-causing agents in the

workplace. In many cases, these factors may

act together or in sequence to cause cancer.

Although some causes of some types of

cancer are known, we don't know everything

about the causes of cancer.

When cancer in a workplace is described, it is

important to learn whether the type of cancer

is a primary cancer or a metastasis (spread of

the primary cancer into other organs). Only

primary cancers are used to investigate

cancers. 

Because cancer is a common disease, cancer

can be found among people at any workplace.

In the United States, one in two men and one

in three women will develop cancer over the

course of their lifetimes. These figures show

the unfortunate reality that cancer occurs more

often than many people realize. When several

cases of cancer occur in a workplace they may

be part of a true cluster when the number is

greater than we expect compared to other

groups of people similar with regard to age,

sex, and race. Disease or tumor rates,

however, are highly variable in small

populations and rarely match the overall rate

for a larger area, such as the state, so that for

any given time period some populations have

rates above the overall rate and other have

rates below the overall rate. So, even when

there is an excess, this may be completely

consistent with the expected random

variability. In addition, calculations like this

make many assumptions, which may not be

appropriate for every workplace. Comparing

rates without adjusting for age, sex, or other

population characteristics assumes that such

characteristics are the same in the workplace

as in the larger population, which may not be

true.

The relationship between some agents and

certain cancers has been well established. For

other agents and cancers, there is a suspicion

but the evidence is not definitive. When a

known or suspected cancer-causing agent is

present and the types of cancer occurring have

been linked with these exposures in other

settings, we are more likely to make the

connection between cancer and a workplace

exposure. Although the potential for exposure

to nickel and chromium exists, at the time of

our evaluation the types of cancers linked to

exposure to these substances (i.e., lung and

nasal)20,21, have not been reported among

current or former employees of Felker

Brothers.

The time between first exposure to a

cancer-causing agent and clinical recognition

of the disease is called the latency period.

Latency periods vary by cancer type, but

usually are 15 to 20 years, or longer. For

example, it can take up to 30 years after

exposure to asbestos for mesothelioma to

develop. This means that past exposures,

which can be very difficult to assess, are more

relevant to current cancer cases than are

current exposures. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The highest exposures occurred during welding

operations inside stainless steel pipes, and when

welding fins on stainless steel pipes in department
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924 Page 11

1. NIOSH [1994]. Cassinelli, M.E. &

O'Connor, P.F., Eds. NIOSH manual of analytical

methods. 4th ed. U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers

for Disease Control, National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)

Publication No. 94–113.

2. NIOSH [1992]. Recommendations for

occupational safety and health: compendium of

policy documents and statements. Cincinnati, OH:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention, National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)

Publication No. 92-100.

3. ACGIH [2003]. 2003 TLVs® and BEIs®:

threshold limit values for chemical substances and

physical agents. Cincinnati, OH: American

Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists.

4. CFR [1997]. 29 CFR 1910.1000. Code of

Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal

Register.

5. Hathaway G et al, eds. [1991]. Proctor and

Hughes' chemical hazards of the workplace, 3rd

206. Local exhaust ventilation systems to control

worker exposures should be a priority for these

operations. A welding ventilation movable

exhaust hood system could be used to capture the

contaminants generated during welding

operations. 

Other recommendations for possible LEV systems

to control emissions from welding and cutting

operations are provided in the ACGIH Ventilation

Manual (pages 10-148 through 10-154).15 Any

ventilation system must be designed to meet fire,

safety, or environmental codes that apply to this

facility and operations.

2. Frequent maintenance should be performed on

a regular basis to remove material that

accumulates in the cybermation downdraft hood.

Personal monitoring should be conducted to

characterize worker exposures during the

maintenance activities. Personnel performing

these maintenance operations should be provided

with appropriate controls or personal protection

equipment to protect them from exposures. 

3. After engineering controls have been installed,

worker exposures should be re-evaluated to

determine if controls are effectively reducing

element (e.g., CrVI, nickel, and manganese) and

ozone concentrations below occupational

evaluation criteria. Worker exposures should also

be re-evaluated after any process changes in the

facilities to determine the level of exposures under

new conditions. 

4. Eating, drinking, or smoking should not be

allowed in work areas. Workers should also

change out of contaminated clothing and wash

thoroughly to remove any contaminants prior to

eating, drinking, smoking, or leaving work (to

prevent any possible contamination of vehicles or

homes).

5. The plant’s safety/ergonomics team which

consists of management and worker

representatives should continue scheduled

meetings to address health and safety issues within

the workplace. Employees with work-related

health concerns should be encouraged to report

these concerns to the safety/ergonomics team

representatives.

6. Housekeeping practices should be improved to

reduce secondary exposures to contaminants.

Dry–sweeping in the facilities should be

prohibited. Wet clean–up methods (i.e., mopping)

or vacuuming with an approved HEPA filter

vacuum should be utilized during clean–up

activities. Wet clean–up methods should not be

used in any area where they may cause a potential

electrical or safety hazard. 

7. OSHA regulations that pertain to fall protection

in this industry must be followed to protect

workers from potential fall hazards. 

REFERENCES
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924

ed. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

6. NIOSH [1997]. NIOSH Pocket Guide to

Chemical Hazards, Cincinnati, OH: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Public

Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication

No. 97–140.

7. IARC [1985]. IARC Monographs on the

evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to

humans. Tobacco Smoking. Volume 38. Lyon:

World Health Organization. [International Agency

for research on Cancer.] 

8. ACGIH [1991]. Nickel and Inorganic

Compounds. In: Documentation of the threshold

limit values and biological exposure indices, Sixth

ed. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc, BEI–69.

9. NIOSH [1981]. Occupational health

guidelines for chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Public Health Service, Centers for Disease

Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety

and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)/DOL (OSHA)

Publication No. 81–123 and supplements 88–118,

89–104.

10. Karen E. Stine and Thomas M. Brown.

[1996]. Principles of Toxicology, Lewis

Publishers, CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida.

page 206.

11. WHO [1981]. Environmental Health Criteria

17: Manganese. Geneva, Switzerland. World

Health Organization. 

12. Tanaka S [1993]. Manganese and its

compounds. In: Zenz C, Dickerson OB, Horvath

E (eds.). Occupational medicine: Principles and

practical applications, 3rd ed. Chicago: Year

Book Medical Publishers, Inc.

13. Mena I, Horiuchi K, Burke K, Cotzias GC

[1969]. Chronic manganese poisoning: individual

susceptibility and absorption of iron. Neurology

19:1000-1006.

14. NIOSH [1988]. NIOSH testimony on

OSHA's proposed rule on air contaminants.

Compendium of policy documents and statements.

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers

for Disease Control, National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health, NTIS No.

PB-90-115-337.

15. ACGIH [2001]: Industrial Ventilation, A

Manual of Recommended Practice, 24th edition.

Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

16. CFR [1996]. 29 CFR 1910.134. Code of

Federal regulations. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal

Register.

17. NIOSH [1997]. NIOSH Respirator Use

Policy for Protection Against Carcinogens. U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Public

Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health, RUP 1.0.

18. Campbell DL, Coffey CC, Lenhart SW

[2001]. Respiratory Protection as a Function of

Respirator Fitting Characteristics and Fit-Test

Accuracy. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 62:36-44.

19. CFR [1996]. 29 CFR 1910.23. 

Walking-Working Surfaces. Code of Federal

regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register.

20. Sjogren B, Hansen KS, Kjuus H, Persson P

[1994]. Exposure to stainless steel welding fumes

and lung cancer; a meta-analysis. Occup Environ

Med 51:335-336.

21. Grimsrud TK, Berge SR, Haldorsen T,

Andersen A [2002]. Exposure to Different Forms

of Nickel and Risk of Lung Cancer. Am J

Epidemiol 156:1123-1132.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924 Page 13
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 2003-0114-2924

Table 1

Personal Breathing Zone (PBZ) sample results for nickel, chromium, and manganese 

HETA 2003-0144-2924 

Felker Brothers Corporation

Sample

Number

 Task/Location Nickel (mg/m3

) Chromium 

(mg/m3

)

Manganese

(mg/m3)

Sample

Time

(minutes)

343 &

355

Burner operations TWA = 0.032 TWA = 0.072 TWA = 0.042 Total Time

(n=2) 277

327 Depot Facility 0.0197 0.034 0.01 415

382 &

378

Department 206

Welding/Grinding

inside pipe

TWA = 0.122 TWA = 0.26 TWA = 0.34 Total Time

(n=2) 443

400&

375

Department 206

Welding/Grinding

inside pipe

TWA = 0.15 TWA = 0.36 TWA= 0.32 Total Time

(n=2) 439

389 &

394

Department 206

Welding/Grinding

Fins on pipe

TWA = 0.16 TWA = 0.36 TWA = 0.31 Total Time

(n=2) 423

383 Machine

operator (angle

rings)

0.015 0.03 0.009 432

371 Utility Worker

Department 108

0.017 0.032 0.007 407

381 Department 206

cutting/welding/

grinding

0.018 0.04 0.029 278

344 &

334

Department 206

cutting/welding/

grinding

0.021 0.043 0.015 Total Time

(n=2) 448

345 &

372

Fabricator 0.052 0.087 0.042 Total Time

(n=2) 415

342 &

332

Fabricator 0.156 0.24 0.08 Total Time

(n=2) 416

360 Grinding/Oven 0.045 0.066 0.013 287

TWA = Time Weighted Average (based on total sample time)

mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
Table 2

Personal Breathing Zone (PBZ) sample results for Hexavalent Chromium(CrVI) exceeding

NIOSH REL 

HETA 2003-0144 -2924 

Felker Brothers Corporation

Sample

Number

Worker Task/Location CrVI Concentration

(mg/m3

)

Sample Time

(minutes)

HC26 &

HC28

Department 206

Welding/Grinding inside pipe

TWA = 0.005 Total Time = 443

(n=2)

HC27 &

HC29

Department 206

Welding/Grinding inside pipe

TWA = 0.02 Total Time = 439

(n=2)

HC38 &

HC33

Department 206

Welding/Grinding Fins on

pipe

TWA = 0.02 Total Time = 423

(n=2)

HC70 &

HC68

Fabrication Fitter TWA = 0.008 Total Time = 416

(n=2)

HC73 &

HC64

Assembly/Tack Welder TWA = 0.001 Total Time = 424

(n=2)

HC23 &

HC66

Fabrication Fitter TWA = 0.004 Total Time = 415

(n=2)

HC35 &

HC67

Burner TWA = 0.003 Total Time = 277

(n=2)

HC13 Fabrication Fitter 0.0016 408

HC36 Department 203

Header Line Welding

0.002 421

HC22 Grinding/Oven 0.001 287

TWA = Time Weighted Average (based on total sample time) 

mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health4676 Columbia ParkwayCincinnati, OH 45226-1998OFFICIAL BUSINESSPenalty for private use $300

Delivering on the Nation's promise: Safety and Health at work for all peoplethrough research and prevention

To receive NIOSH documents or information about

occupational Safety and Health topics

contact NIOSH at:

1-800-35-NIOSH (356-4674) 

Fax:1-513-533-8573 

E-mail: pubstaft@cdc.gov

or visit the NIOSH web site at:

www.cdc.gov/niosh/homepage.html

S A F E R • H E A L T H I E R • P E O P L ETM