Document ID: OSHA-H005C-2006-0870-1574
Agency: osha
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2015-08-07T04:00Z

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO BERYLLIUM:

BERYLLIUM FACILITY #3 – ALUMINUM/BERYLLIUM FOUNDRY, and
COPPER/BERYLLIUM FOUNDRY AND MACHINE SHOP 

	

PRINCIPAL AUTHORS:

Daniel Almaguer, MS

Ed Burroughs, Ph.D., CIH, CSP

Dave Marlow

Li-Ming Lo, Ph.D.

REPORT DATE:

November 2008

FILE NO.:

EPHB 326-16a

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Division of Applied Research and Technology

4676 Columbia Parkway, R5

Cincinnati, Ohio  45226



SITES SURVEYED:		Beryllium Facility #3

Aluminum Beryllium Foundry, Copper/Beryllium Foundry and Machine Shop

								South-Eastern USA

NAICS:	331521 

SURVEY DATE:	September 26 - 27, 2007

SURVEY CONDUCTED BY:				Dan Almaguer, M.S.

								Ed Burroughs, Ph.D, CIH

Dave Marlow

								LiMing Lo, Ph.D.

DISCLAIMER

Mention of company names or products does not constitute endorsement by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On September 26 - 27, 2007, the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted an in-depth industrial hygiene
survey at a facility with two foundries: an ingot foundry which
manufactured aluminum/beryllium and copper/beryllium ingots; and a
greensand foundry with a cutting and grinding operation which
manufactured a variety of copper/beryllium products including
non-sparking hand tools.  The company employed a total of 20 employees
in the two foundry operations and the cutting and grinding shop.  The
ingot foundry produces both aluminum/beryllium alloy and
copper/beryllium alloy ingots containing 1.0 % to 5% beryllium.  The
greensand foundry and associated cutting and grinding operations produce
a variety of copper/beryllium products containing a maximum of 4%
beryllium, 0.25% up to 2.5% cobalt, 0% up to 1.8% nickel, with the
balance being copper.  

The facility employed several control technology and administrative
controls to reduce the potential for worker exposures to beryllium.  The
ingot foundry, green sand foundry and the cutting and grinding shop are
beryllium designated areas with access limited to employees who have
been trained and cleared to work in those areas.  Employees entering
beryllium designated areas are required to wear respiratory protection,
protective clothing, safety glasses and safety shoes.  Additionally,
employees working in the cutting and grinding shop are required to use
ear plugs or ear muffs for hearing protection.  Employees must enter and
exit the plant through a series of clean side locker room, shower room
and beryllium side (dirty) change rooms.  At the end of their shift,
employees existing the beryllium designated areas must enter the dirty
side locker room, remove company provided work clothing, shower, and
change to street clothing in the clean side locker room before leaving
the worksite.  The employee lunch room in the building is physically
divided to separate the beryllium side of the building from the clean
side (see plant diagram), and the two lunch rooms are on separate HVAC
systems. 

The beryllium ingot foundry, the greensand foundry and the cutting and
grinding operations were equipped with local exhaust ventilation (canopy
hoods, side draft, slot, etc.) to reduce process emissions.  All workers
wore half-face MSA Comfo air purifying respirators equipped with P-100
cartridges or 3M 8293 P-100 disposable filtering face masks in beryllium
designated areas including the two foundry areas, greensand molding
operation, melt shop, shake out, cut off, and grinding areas. 
Additionally, when pouring molten metal and certain other operations,
workers wore protective jackets, gloves, leg protection and face
shields.

Air sampling results indicate that three samples exceeded the NIOSH REL
for beryllium (0.5 µg/m3) while none exceeded the OSHA PEL (2 µg/m3). 
The three samples that exceeded the NIOSH beryllium REL were personal
samples: one sample collected on the copper/beryllium foundry supervisor
showed a concentration of 0.58 µg/m3; one collected on the
aluminum/beryllium furnace operator showed a concentration of 0.55
µg/m3; and one collected on a grinding room employee showed a
concentration of 1.07 µg/m3.  The highest copper metal dust
concentration detected was less than 5% of the NIOSH and OSHA criteria
(1000 µg/m3), the highest copper metal fume concentration detected was
less than 6% of the NIOSH and OSHA criteria (100 µg/m3), and the
highest aluminum concentration detected was less than 5% of the NIOSH
and OSHA criteria (5000 µg/m3).  

Surface wipe sample results indicated measurable quantities of beryllium
ranging from 0.2 µg/100 cm2 up to 180 µg/100 cm2.  The lowest
beryllium surface concentrations detected (0.2 µg/100 cm2) were on a
table top in the clean side lunch room and a concentration of 0.7
µg/100 cm2 was detected on the table top in the beryllium side of the
lunch room.  These levels are below the DOE Guideline (3 µg/100 cm2)
for non-operational periods.  The two lunch rooms had separate entrances
and separate HVAC systems.  The highest beryllium surface concentration
detected (180 µg/100 cm2) was on a wood workbench surface in the
Aluminum/Beryllium ingot foundry.  Another sample collected on a
workbench in the copper/beryllium foundry area showed a surface
concentration of 95 µg/100 cm2.  Employees spend a lot of time at these
benches where they frequently touch the surfaces as they fill-in work
logs to document work orders. 

These levels are many times the DOE Guidelines which recommend that
removable surface contamination levels be maintained at concentrations
that do not exceed 3µg/100 cm2 during non-operational periods. 

The results of size-selective sampling show beryllium was detected on
six of the 11 personal samples collected; two of these six samples
indicate measurable quantities of beryllium particles in stage B (size
range 1.0 to 2.5 µm).  This tends to suggest that some airborne
beryllium is present in concentrations that may potentially reach lower
portions of the respiratory tract.

Recommendations to further reduce airborne beryllium concentrations and
controlling worker exposures to beryllium-containing dust and fume at
this facility are included in the body of this report.

I.	INTRODUCTION

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
working under an interagency agreement with the Office of Regulatory
Analysis of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
conducted a study of occupational exposures in secondary beryllium
processing facilities to document engineering controls and work
practices affecting those exposures.  The performance of a thorough
industrial hygiene survey for a variety of individual employers provides
valuable and useful information to the public and employers in the
industries included in the work.  The principal objectives of this study
were:

1.	To measure full-shift, personal breathing zone exposures to metals
including beryllium, copper and other toxic metals.  

2.	To evaluate contamination of surfaces in the work areas that could
create dermal exposures or allow re-suspension of metals into the air.

To identify and describe the control technology and work practices in
use in operations associated with occupational exposures to beryllium,
as well as to determine additional controls, work practices, substitute
materials, or technology that can further reduce occupational beryllium
exposures.

4.	To evaluate the use of personal protective equipment in these
facilities.

5.	To determine the size distribution of airborne particles.

An in-depth evaluation was conducted September 26 - 27, 2007.  During
this evaluation, two full shifts of environmental monitoring were
conducted for the duration of normal plant operations.   

II.	PROCESS DESCRIPTION 

On September 26 - 27, 2007, NIOSH conducted an in-depth industrial
hygiene survey at a facility with two foundries: an ingot foundry which
manufactured aluminum/beryllium ingots and copper/beryllium ingots; and
a greensand foundry which manufactured a variety of copper/beryllium
products including hand tools and a cut-off and grinding operation. 
This was the third of three facilities selected to investigate worker
exposures to beryllium where secondary processing of beryllium products
takes place.  The purpose of the study was to measure airborne beryllium
and heavy metal concentrations in the machining and foundry operations,
and to identify and describe the control technology and work practices
being used in this facility.

The company employed a total workforce of 20 employees in the two
foundry operations.  At the time of the NIOSH survey the two foundries
were operated on one shift from 5:00 am to 1:00 pm, and the cut-off and
grinding operation operated one shift from 7:00 am to 3:00 pm.  The
ingot foundry was approximately 9,800 square feet (ft2) with a total of
four employees; the greensand foundry was approximately 10,500 ft2 with
a total of 10 employees; and the cut-off and grinding operation was
approximately 3250 ft2 with six workers.  

The ingot foundry produces both aluminum/beryllium and copper/beryllium
ingots, but was only producing aluminum/beryllium ingots on the days of
sampling.  The greensand foundry and associated cutting and grinding
operations produce a variety of copper/beryllium products including hand
tools.  The aluminum/beryllium ingots contain 1.0 % to 5% beryllium with
the remaining balance being aluminum.  The copper/beryllium greensand
foundry and cutting operations manufactures copper/beryllium products
containing a maximum of 4% beryllium, 0.25% up to 2.5% cobalt, 0% up to
1.8% nickel, with the balance being copper.  

Process Description and Work Practices

Greensand Foundry

Operations in the copper/beryllium greensand foundry involved the
production of a mold with associated core(s), the melting and pouring of
copper/beryllium alloy into that mold, and the subsequent shake-out
operations where the solid metal casting is released by removing the
refractory material of the mold.  A number of potential health hazards
are associated with each stage of this operation.  The focus of our
evaluation was processes where workers had potential exposures to
beryllium and other metals.  The main products manufactured in the
greensand foundry were various types of copper/beryllium alloy tools
(wrenches, shovel blades, hammer heads, etc.).

The principle exposures typically associated with mold and core
production are silica sand and binders such as isocyanates, urea, phenol
and formaldehyde.  When sand from the shake-out is re-used in the
production of molds, there is the potential for metals from previous
castings to be carried into this step of the operation, and for that
reason testing for metals was conducted in the mold and core making
operations.  

The operations believed to pose the greatest potential for exposure to
beryllium and other metals in the foundries are the melting and pouring
processes.  The furnace operators, pourers, and foundry supervisors are
present in the foundry areas of the facility during the entire work
shift.  Specific tasks involved in melting and pouring, include
weigh-out of proper ingredients to produce copper/beryllium products
containing approximately 0.5% up to 4% beryllium, charging the furnace,
temperature testing, and the pouring of molten metal into the molds. 
Each of the tasks has potential for exposure to beryllium and other
metals in various forms and particle sizes, as well as associated safety
hazards.  All workers involved in the furnace operations wore half-face
MSA Comfo air purifying respirators equipped with P-100 cartridges or 3M
8293 P-100 disposable filtering face masks safety boots, safety glasses,
and leather gloves.  During pouring operations the workers wore face
shields and fire-proof over coats.

Weighed quantities of copper and beryllium were placed in a furnace and
melted.  Ceramic molds and the crucible were preheated.  The furnace was
mechanically tilted forward to pour molten copper/beryllium alloy into a
crucible which is transported by overhead crane from the furnace to the
pouring area (see photo 1).  A slotted hood LEV fitting with flexible
hoses connected to the Hawley Trav-L-Vent system was placed over the
crucible to remove fume during pouring and transport.  Workers used two
long metal arms to position the crucible, tilted it forward and poured
molten copper/beryllium into molds.  This operation required one furnace
operator, two workers to operate the crane to move and position the
crucible, and one mold worker.  Two other workers in the near vicinity
of the pouring operation worked preparing molds.  All workers in the
greensand foundry wore half-face MSA Comfo air purifying respirators
equipped with P-100 cartridges or 3M 8293 P-100 disposable filtering
face masks.  

The shake-out operation has the potential for exposures to beryllium and
other metals in the form of small particles when the solidified (but
still hot) castings are freed from the molds, as well as potential
exposure to the sand, which may contain metals, from contact with the
molten alloy.  Removal of spurs and similar finishing processes using
cut-off wheels or grinders also pose the potential for creating airborne
particles of metals.  All of these operations were monitored for metals,
especially beryllium, in the air and on surfaces where skin contact
could occur.

Ingot Foundry

The ingot foundry produces both aluminum/beryllium and copper/beryllium
ingots, but only aluminum/beryllium ingots were produced on the days of
the NIOSH survey.  The ingot furnace and pouring operations used a
permanent mold system which eliminated the need for sand molds.  The
furnace was equipped with a canopy hood with canvas extensions and a
slotted hood over the furnace pot.  In this operation weighed amounts of
aluminum and beryllium are placed in the furnace and melted.  When the
molten metal is ready to pour, the furnace is mechanically tilted
forward to allow the molten metal to flow into a trough positioned over
a continuous loop conveyor system containing ingot molds.  The bottom of
the trough has slots which allow the molten metal to flow into the ingot
molds as they slowly rotate under the trough.  The ingot molds move
slowly down the conveyor toward a shoot where the ingots drop out of the
molds into the shoot where they are collected.  Four workers were
involved in this process, two furnace operators that monitored the
pouring of molten aluminum/beryllium alloy into the ingot molds, a
worker that removed dross, and a worker that monitored the cooling
process and conveyor to ensured that ingots were released from the molds
and dropped into the shoot.  All workers in the ingot foundry wore
half-face MSA Comfo air purifying respirators equipped with P-100
cartridges or 3M 8293 P-100 disposable filtering face masks.  

The aluminum/beryllium alloy ingots being produced during our sampling
contained approximately 2.5% beryllium with the remaining balance being
aluminum.  The ingot furnaces were equipped with canopy hoods over the
furnace and troughs (see Photo 2).   

Measurements of breathing zone concentrations of metals and
determination of area concentrations of metals were conducted in the
furnace rooms of both the greensand foundry and ingot foundry.   In
addition, particle size distribution was also evaluated in these areas. 
While there are other potential hazards associated with foundries such
as heat stress, infrared radiation, and a variety of safety hazards,
this evaluation focused primarily on worker exposures to beryllium and
toxic metals.  

Cut-off and Grinding Shop

In the cutting and grinding room four workers operated saws and grinders
to remove (cleaning and de-burring) excess metal from the
copper/beryllium alloy castings produced in the greensand foundry.  All
cutting and grinding operations were conducted in enclosed booths
equipped with LEV (see photo 3) to exhaust airborne metals created
during these processes.   All workers in the cutting and grinding shop
wore half-face MSA Comfo air purifying respirators equipped with P-100
cartridges or 3M 8293 P-100 disposable filtering face masks.  

Cutting tools generally remove metal in relatively large chips, and tend
to produce little respirable particulate.  The use of LEV and enclosure
of these operations reduces this potential.  The potential for dermal
exposure, however, is significant in cutting and grinding operations
with beryllium metal.  Area and personal samples were collected in the
cutting and grinding operations for airborne metals.

Grinding, polishing and buffing all involve the removal of metals from
the surface of a casting in increasingly smaller amounts.  The decrease
in mass, however, may be offset by a corresponding decrease in particle
size that may carry with it an increase in toxicity.  Therefore,
particle size information was collected in the cutting and grinding room
as well as the two foundry operations. 

Control Technology and Administrative Controls

The ingot foundry, green sand foundry and the cutting and grinding shop
are beryllium designated areas.  Access to the foundries and the cutting
and grinding shop is limited to employees that have been cleared to work
in beryllium designated areas.  Employees entering beryllium designated
areas are required to wear the appropriate personal protective clothing
and equipment (see personal protective equipment section for additional
detail).

Employees working in beryllium designated areas (i.e., ingot foundry,
green sand foundry, and the cutting and grinding shop) must enter and
exit the plant through a clean side change room.  The clean side change
room is equipped with lockers for employees to store their personal
clothing and shoes during their work shift.  After changing from street
clothing to clean work clothing, which is provided by the company, the
workers pass through a corridor adjacent to the shower area to the
beryllium side change room which is equipped with lockers for storage of
work boots and equipment.  At the end of their work shift, employees
enter the beryllium side change room, store their work boots and
equipment in the lockers, leave their work clothing to be laundered by
the company, enter the shower room to shower prior to entering the clean
side change room to change into their street clothing prior to exiting
the plant (see plant diagram).

Employees enter beryllium designated areas through one of two air
showers.  The employee lunch room in the building is physically divided
to separate the beryllium side of the building from the clean side (see
plant diagram).  Each of the two lunch rooms are on separate HVAC
systems. 

Most of the beryllium foundry and the cutting and grinding operations
described above were equipped with some type of local exhaust
ventilation (canopy hoods, side draft, slot, etc.) system with fixed or
flexible ducting to reduce process emissions.  Some of the process
operations (e.g. ingot furnace and pouring stations) were equipped with
a hydraulic system which enabled the furnace to be lifted and reoriented
to allow for pouring of the molten metal.  Workers are present and
remain in the production areas during all the operations described
above, and interact with the processes.  Visual observations indicated
that smoke and dust from these operations moved toward the local exhaust
ventilation openings.  Air velocity measurements were made to document
the magnitude and direction of air movement at selected processes.

All copper/beryllium cutting and grinding operations in this facility
are equipped with local exhaust ventilation.  The exhaust air is
filtered before exhausting outdoors to contain and control the release
of metal particles containing beryllium.  

Current Housekeeping Practices

Current housekeeping practices include the use of HEPA vacuums to clean
equipment and remove dirt and dust from work surfaces.  Portable HEPA
vacuums are used in the greensand foundry and in the cutting and
grinding shop while a stationary central HEPA vacuum system is used in
the ingot foundry.  Each worker is responsible for cleaning and
maintaining their work areas throughout the day and at the end of their
work shift.  Additionally, workers must enter/exit the plant through
change/shower rooms described earlier and must enter/exit beryllium
designated areas (i.e., the foundries and the cutting and grinding shop)
through an air shower.

Personal Protective Equipment

Entry to and exit from designated beryllium areas (ingot foundry,
greensand foundry, and the cutting and grinding shop) was limited to
employees who are cleared to work in those areas.  Employees entering
beryllium designated areas are required to wear respiratory protection,
protective clothing, safety glasses and safety shoes.  Workers are
required to wear their respiratory equipment before entering the air
shower leading to the beryllium designated areas.  Additionally,
employees working in the cutting and grinding shop are required to use
ear plugs or ear muffs for hearing protection.

All workers wore half-face MSA Comfo air purifying respirators equipped
with P-100 cartridges or 3M 8293 P-100 disposable filtering face masks
in beryllium designated areas including the two foundry areas, greensand
molding operation, melt shop, shake out, cut off, and grinding areas. 
Additionally, when pouring molten metal and certain other operations,
workers wore protective jackets, gloves, leg protection and face
shields.

III.	SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS

This field study was conducted in accordance with regulations governing
NIOSH investigations of places of employment.  Methods used to assess
worker exposures in this workplace evaluation included: personal
breathing zone and area sampling for metals; particle size sampling; and
surface wipe sampling to assess surface contamination.  The methods used
in this evaluation are described in more detail in the following section
and the resulting data is presented in Section V (RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION).

A.	Workplace Observations

Information pertinent to process operation and control effectiveness
(e.g. control methods, ventilation rates, work practices, use of
personal protective equipment, etc.) was collected and recorded. 
Information was obtained from conversations with the workers and
management to determine if the sampling day was a typical workday and to
help place the sampling results in proper perspective.  In addition,
engineering control information including ventilation flow rates were
collected.

B.	Particulate Sampling and Analysis

 μm pore-size mixed cellulose ester filter) in a 3-piece, clear plastic
cassette sealed with a cellulose shrink band.  

C.	Particulate Size Sampling - Measurement of Size/Mass Distribution of
Airborne Particles  

One of the objectives of this study was to determine the particle size
and mass concentration of airborne beryllium particles generated during
the manufacturing process.  There is substantial evidence that the
presence of an ultrafine component increases the toxicity for chronic
beryllium disease and possibly other toxic effects., ,   The potential
hazard for chemical substances present in inhaled air, as suspensions of
solid particles or droplets, depends on particle size and the mass
concentration because of 1) the effects of particle size on the
deposition site within the respiratory tract, and 2) the tendency for
many occupational diseases to be associated with material deposited in
particular regions of the respiratory tract.  For example, the ACGIH
recommends particle size-selective TLVs for crystalline silica because
of the well established association between silicosis and respirable
mass concentrations.  NOTEREF _Ref196213091 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6  
Because of this association, size-selective sampling was conducted to
collect information on the aerosol size distribution to assist in
evaluation of the health hazard.  Additionally, the measurement and
characterization of airborne particle size and mass distribution in
workplace environments can provide useful information about the emission
and exposure routes of air contaminants generated; the data collected
can be used to identify appropriate control methods to reduce or
eliminate contaminant sources to protect workers.

The measurement of particle size and mass distribution was accomplished
using three different instruments and methods.  Personal breathing zone
and general area air samples were collected using Sioutas cascade
impactors to determine particle size distribution.  Additionally, a
Micro-Orifice Uniform Deposit Impactor (MOUDI) and an Aerodynamic
Particle Sizer (APS) spectrometer were used to measure the particle size
and respirable mass concentrations in the general workplace air.  

Sioutas Cascade Impactor Samples

Personal breathing zone and general area aerosol size distributions were
determined using four-stage Sioutas Cascade Impactors (SKC, Inc., Eighty
Four, PA), having nominal 50% cut points of 0.25 (m, 0.5 (m, 1 (m, and
2.5 m aerodynamic diameter.  The smaller the particle size the more
likely it is to reach deep into the lungs.  

50% cut-point of each stage at 9 lpm

Stage A	2.5 to 10 µm

	Stage B	1.0 to 2.5 µm 	Course particulate matter

Stage C	0.5 to 1.0 µm	Course to fine particulate matter

Stage D	0.25 to 0.5 µm	Ultrafine particles

, provided by a calibrated Leland Legacy™ sampling pump (SKC, Inc.,
Eighty Four, PA).  A 25-mm diameter, 0.8 µm pore size PVC filter was
used on each stage of the impactor to collect particles.  A 37-mm
diameter, 5 µm pore size PVC filter was used as a backup to collect all
particles that were not impacted on the previous four stages.  The
impactor filters were analyzed for 31 metals/elements by ICP in
accordance with NIOSH Method 7300 modified for microwave digestion. 
NOTEREF _Ref203366990 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  2 

Micro-Orifice Uniform Deposit Impactor (MOUDI) Samples

The MOUDIs (Model 110, MSP Corp., Minneapolis, MN) were used to
determine aerosol size distributions in the greensand foundry near the
furnace copper/beryllium pouring areas and in the ingot foundry near the
melting furnace during the production and pouring of aluminum/beryllium
ingots.  The MOUDIs were connected via tubing to a high volume pump
operating at a flow rate of 30 lpm.  The MOUDI consists of a pre-filter
to collect particles larger than 18 (m, ten filter stages in series with
nominal cut points of 10 (m, 5.6 (m, 3.2 (m, 1.8 (m, 1.0 (m, 0.56 (m,
0.32 (m, 0.18 (m, 0.10 (m, and 0.056(m and a post-filter to collect all
remaining particles smaller than 0.056(m.  The smaller the particle size
the more likely it is to reach deep into the lungs.  At each filter
stage particles larger than the cut size are collected by a 47-mm
diameter substrate on the impaction plate due to inertial impaction
while particles smaller than the cut size follow the airflow streamlines
and proceed to the next stage until the final stage filter (37-mm
diameter, PTFE, SKC Inc.).

Two different substrates were used in the MOUDIs to collect airborne
particulate: PTFE membrane filters with a 0.5-(m-pore-size manufactured
by SKC Inc., and PTFE membrane filters with a 2.0-(m-pore-size
manufactured by Pall Corp.  The two different PTFE membrane filters with
different pore sizes and manufacturers were used to eliminate sampling
bias from collecting materials.  All the sample filters remained in the
balance room for 24 hours before pre-weighing on an electric balance
(Model AT20, Mettler-Toledo, Switzerland) to 2 (g resolution, stored and
transported in Petri dishes before and after sampling.  

Three MOUDIs were used in this study to measure the mass distribution of
airborne particles at the locations near the furnaces where high
particle concentrations were expected.  Usually 8-hour sampling is
necessary to obtain adequate mass for the following gravimetric
analysis.  Similar to the preparation steps mentioned above, the filter
samples were kept in the Petri dishes after MOUDI sampling, and the
post-weighing was conducted in the NIOSH laboratory after 24-hour
conditioning in the balance room.  After post-weighing, the PTFE filters
were sent to a contract laboratory for the metal analysis.   

Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS) Samples

An APS spectrometer (Model 3321, TSI, Shoreview, MN) was used to collect
real time particle number measurements at the same locations where the
MOUDI samples were collected: the greensand foundry near the
copper/beryllium pouring area and in the ingot foundry near the melting
furnace during the production of aluminum/beryllium ingots.  All the APS
sampling data were collected by   HYPERLINK
"http://www.tsi.com/documents/1930064e-APS.pdf"  Aerosol Instrument
Manager Software for APS Sensors .  This instrument is capable of
measuring particles ranging from 0.5 (m to 20 (m at 5.0 lpm total
sampling flow rate including 1.0 lpm aerosol flow and 4.0 lpm sheath
flow.  A minimum of 10 samples were collected at each sample location
with the APS set to run in a one-minute sampling mode.

D.	Surface Sampling Procedures and Analysis

Surface sampling is not as useful as airborne contaminant measurements
for evaluating exposed dose since there are few criteria for reference,
but some comparisons and professional judgments can be made based on the
data collected, as discussed below.  Surface sampling is useful for
evaluating process control and cleanliness and for determining
suitability for release of equipment.  

Surface wipe samples were collected using Ghost™ Wipes (Environmental
Express, Mt. Pleasant, SC) and Palintest® Dust Wipes (Gateshead, United
Kingdom) to evaluate surface contamination.  These wipe samples were
collected in accordance with ASTM Method D 6966-03, except the cardboard
template, with a 10-cm by 10-cm square hole was held in place by hand to
prevent movement during sampling.  Wipes were placed in sealable test
tube containers for storage until analysis.  

Ghost Wipes™ were sent to the laboratory to be analyzed for metals
according to NIOSH Method 7303.  Palintest wipes were analyzed for
beryllium using the Quantech Fluorometer (Model FM109515, Barnstead
International, Dubuque, Iowa) for spectrofluorometric analysis.

E.	Other Measurements

Ventilation airflow measurements were collected at the ingot furnace
slot hood and canopy hood; the greensand foundry slot hood and pour pot;
and in the cutting and grinding shop at the cut-off saw and belt sander
using a TSI VelociCalc Plus Air Velocity Meter Model 8360.  Each of
these hoods was connected to a central exhaust ventilation system for
their respective areas.  

IV.	OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS AND HEALTH EFFECTS

In evaluating the hazards posed by workplace exposures, NIOSH
investigators use mandatory and recommended occupational exposure limits
(OELs) for specific chemical, physical, and biological agents. 
Generally, OELs 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
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
produce health effects even if the occupational exposures are controlled
at the level set by the exposure limit.  Combined effects are often not
considered in the OEL.  Also, some substances can be absorbed by direct
contact with the skin and mucous membranes in addition to being inhaled,
thus contributing to the overall exposure.  Finally, OELs may change
over the years as new information on the toxic effects of an agent
become available.

Most OELs are expressed as a time-weighted average (TWA) exposure.  A
TWA refers to the average exposure during a normal 8- to 10-hour
workday.  Some chemical substances and physical agents have recommended
short-term exposure limits (STEL) or ceiling values where there are
health effects from higher exposures over the short-term.  Unless
otherwise noted, the STEL is a 15-minute TWA exposure that should not be
exceeded at any time during a workday, and the ceiling limit is an
exposure that should not be exceeded at any time, even instantaneously.

 

In the U.S., OELs have been established by Federal agencies,
professional organizations, state and local governments, and other
entities.  Some OELs are mandatory, legal limits; others are
recommendations.  The U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OHSA) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) [29 CFR
1910 (general industry); 29 CFR 1926 (construction industry); and 29 CFR
1915, 1917 and 1918 (maritime industry)] are legal limits that are
enforceable in workplaces covered under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act and in Federal workplaces under Executive Order 12196.  NIOSH
recommended exposure limits (RELs) are recommendations that are made
based on a critical review of the scientific and technical information
available on the prevalence of hazards, health effects data, and the
adequacy of methods to identify and control the hazards. Recommendations
made through 1992 are available in a single compendium; more recent
recommendations are available on the NIOSH Web site
(http://www.cdc.gov/niosh).  NIOSH also recommends preventive measures
(e.g., engineering controls, safe work practices, personal protective
equipment, and environmental and medical monitoring) for reducing or
eliminating the adverse health effects of these hazards. The NIOSH
Recommendations have been developed using a weight of evidence approach
and formal peer review process.  Other OELs that are commonly used and
cited in the U.S. include the threshold limit values (TLVs)®
recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH)®, a professional organization.  NOTEREF
_Ref196213091 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6   ACGIH-TLVs are considered
voluntary guidelines for use by industrial hygienists and others trained
in this discipline “to assist in the control of health hazards.” 
Workplace environmental exposure levels (WEELs) are recommended OELs
developed by AIHA, another professional organization. WEELs have been
established for some chemicals “when no other legal or authoritative
limits exist.”

Employers should understand that not all hazardous chemicals have
specific OSHA-PELs and for many agents, the legal and recommended limits
mentioned above may not reflect the most current health-based
information.  However, an employer is still required by OSHA to protect
their employees from hazards even in the absence of a specific OSHA-PEL.
In particular, 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, NIOSH
investigators encourage employers to make use of other OELs when making
risk assessment and risk management decisions to best protect the health
of their employees. NIOSH investigators also encourage the use of the
traditional hierarchy of controls approach to eliminating or minimizing
identified workplace hazards. This includes, in preferential order, the
use of: (1) substitution or elimination of the hazardous agent, (2)
engineering controls (e.g., local exhaust ventilation, process
enclosure, dilution ventilation) (3) administrative controls (e.g.,
limiting time of exposure, employee training, work practice changes,
medical surveillance), and (4) personal protective equipment (e.g.,
respiratory protection, gloves, eye protection, hearing protection).  

Both the ACGIH® TLVs® and OSHA PELs and address the issue of combined
effects of airborne exposures to multiple substances.  NOTEREF
_Ref196213091 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6 ,  NOTEREF _Ref188088056 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  10   ACGIH® states:

When two or more hazardous substances have a similar toxicological
effect on the same target organ or system, their combined effect, rather
than that of either individually, should be given primary consideration.
 In the absence of information to the contrary, different substances
should be considered as additive where the health effect and target
organ or system is the same. That is, if the sum of

 			Eqn. 1

exceeds unity, the threshold limit of the mixture should be considered
as being exceeded (where C1 indicates the observed atmospheric
concentration and T1 is the corresponding threshold limit…).

A. Inhalation Exposures

Metals found in the workplace under investigation range from slightly
toxic to extremely toxic by inhalation.  While a subset of five primary
contaminants have been selected for consideration through the body of
this report because of their high toxicity or other special interest,
the occupational exposure limits of all 31 metals/elements quantified in
this work are listed in Table 1. 

Occupational Exposure Criteria for Beryllium 

The current OSHA PELs for beryllium are 2 micrograms per cubic meter
((g/m3) as an 8-hour TWA, 5 (g/m3 as a ceiling not to be exceeded for
more than 30 minutes at a time, and 25 (g/m3as a peak exposure never to
be exceeded.  NOTEREF _Ref196213265 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  10   The current
NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) for beryllium is 0.5 µg/m3 for
up to a 10-hour workday, during a 40-hour workweek.  The current
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®)
Threshold Limit Value (TLV®)  NOTEREF _Ref196213091 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT 
6  is an 8-hr TWA of 2 µg/m3, and a Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) of
10 µg/m3.  

Beryllium has been designated a Group1, known human carcinogen, by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 1993).  In 2006 the
ACGIH published a Notice of Intended Change (NIC) to reduce the TLV®
for beryllium from 0.002 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 0.00005
mg/m3 or 0.05 µg/m3 based upon studies investigating both chronic
beryllium disease (CBD) and beryllium sensitization (BeS).  NOTEREF
_Ref187589953 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3  

Occupational Exposure Criteria for Copper

In this facility copper metal is present in two physical states, copper
fume and copper dust, and each has a separate environmental criteria. 
The NIOSH-REL  NOTEREF _Ref188097634 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  14  and
OSHA-PEL  NOTEREF _Ref188088056 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  10  for copper fume
are 0.1 mg/m3 (100 µg/m3), while the ACGIH-TLV is 0.2 mg/m3 (200
µg/m3) as an eight-hour TWA.  NOTEREF _Ref196213091 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT 
6   Inhalation of copper fume has resulted in irritation of the upper
respiratory tract, metallic taste in the mouth, and nausea.  Exposure
has been also associated with the development of metal fume fever. 
NOTEREF _Ref196214615 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  12 , 

The NIOSH-REL for copper dust is 1 mg/m3 (1000 µg/m3) measured as an
8-10 hour TWA.  NOTEREF _Ref188097634 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  14   The
ACGIH-TLV and OSHA-PEL are also 1 mg/m3 (1000 µg/m3) measured as an
8-hour TWA.  NOTEREF _Ref196213091 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6 ,  NOTEREF
_Ref188088056 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  10  

Occupational Exposure Criteria for Aluminum

There are several occupational exposure criteria for aluminum, all of
which are primarily intended to minimize the potential for irritation of
the respiratory tract.  The NIOSH-REL  NOTEREF _Ref188097634 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  14  and ACGIH-TLV  NOTEREF _Ref196213091 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT
 6  for welding fume is 5 mg/m3 (5000 µg/m3) as an eight-hour TWA;
there is no OSHA-PEL  NOTEREF _Ref188088056 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  10  for
aluminum fume.  

B. Surface Contamination Criteria 

Occupational exposure criteria have been discussed above for airborne
concentrations of several metals.  Surface wipe samples can provide
useful information in two circumstances; first, when settled dust on a
surface can contaminate the hands and then be ingested when transferred
from hand to mouth; and second, if the surface contaminant can be
absorbed through the skin and the skin is in frequent contact with the
surface.  Although some OSHA standards (e.g. asbestos, lead, cadmium,
shipyards, longshoring, grain handling facilities, etc.) contain
housekeeping provisions which address the issue of surface contamination
by mandating that surfaces be maintained as free as practicable of
accumulations of the regulated substances, there are currently no
quantitative surface contamination criteria included in OSHA standards. 
For example, under the lead standard (29 CFR 1910.1025); employers need
to establish a housekeeping program sufficient to maintain all surfaces
as free as practicable of accumulations of lead dust. Vacuuming is the
preferred method of meeting this requirement, and the use of compressed
air to clean floors and other surfaces is absolutely prohibited. Dry or
wet sweeping, shoveling, or brushing may not be used except where
vacuuming or other equally effective methods have been tried and do not
work. Vacuums must be used and emptied in a manner which minimizes the
reentry of lead into the workplace.  The health hazard from these
regulated substances results principally from their inhalation and to a
smaller extent from their ingestion; those substances are by and large
“negligibly” absorbed through the skin.  NOTEREF _Ref199906663 \h 
\* MERGEFORMAT  17   NIOSH RELs do not address surface contamination
either, nor do ACGIH TLVs or AIHA WEELs.  Caplan stated, “There is no
general quantitative relationship between surface contamination and air
concentrations...” and that “Wipe samples can serve a purpose in
determining if surfaces are as ‘clean as practicable’. Ordinary
cleanliness would represent totally insignificant inhalation dose;
criteria should be based on surface contamination remaining after
ordinarily thorough cleaning appropriate for the contaminant and the
surface.”  NOTEREF _Ref199906663 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  17   With those
caveats in mind, the following paragraphs present guidelines that help
to place the results of the surface sampling conducted at this facility
in perspective.  

Surface Contamination Criteria for Beryllium 

A useful guideline to address the issues of beryllium surface
contamination is provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), where
DOE and its contractors are required to conduct routine surface sampling
to determine housekeeping conditions wherever beryllium is present in
operational areas of DOE/NNSA facilities.  NOTEREF _Ref187589953 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  3   Those facilities must maintain removable surface
contamination levels that do not exceed 3µg/100 cm2 during
non-operational periods. The DOE also has release criteria that must be
met before beryllium-contaminated equipment or other items can be
released to the general public or released for use in a non-beryllium
area of a DOE facility.  These criteria state that the removable
contamination level of equipment or item surfaces does not exceed the
higher of 0.2 µg/100 cm2, or the level of beryllium in the soil in the
area of release.  Removable contamination is defined as “beryllium
contamination that can be removed from surfaces by nondestructive means,
such as casual contact, wiping, brushing, or washing.”  Additionally,
the ACGIH has added a skin sensitization notation in their Notice of
Intended Changes.  NOTEREF _Ref196213091 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6 

Surface Contamination Criteria for Copper and Aluminum

NIOSH, OSHA, AIHA and ACGIH® have not established occupational exposure
limits for copper or aluminum on surfaces. 

V.	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

On September 26 - 27, 2007, air, surface wipe, and particle size samples
were collected in the greensand foundry, ingot foundry and cutting and
grinding shop of this facility.  These samples were analyzed for
thirty-one metals/elements (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lanthanum,
lead, lithium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, phosphorus,
potassium, selenium, silver, strontium, tellurium, thallium, tin,
titanium, vanadium, yttrium, zinc, and zirconium) in accordance with
NIOSH Method 7300 with modifications.  NOTEREF _Ref196215024 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  8   Because this foundry manufactured aluminum/beryllium
ingots and copper/beryllium metal products the focus of this evaluation
was beryllium, aluminum, and copper with a primary emphasis on
beryllium.  The results of sampling aluminum, beryllium and copper are
presented in Tables 2 – 6 and in the following text.  The entire set
of sample data for the air, surface wipe,  Sioutas impactor  and MOUDI
particle size samples for all thirty-one elements are listed in
Appendices A, B, C and D, respectively.

Air Sample Results

Samples were collected on a typical production day with the ventilation
systems operating.  During sampling employees were wearing respirators
and other personal protective equipment previously described in Section
II.  Personal breathing zone and area air sampling results for aluminum,
beryllium and copper are contained in Table 2; while the entire sample
data set of 31 elements/metals analyses is presented in Appendix A.  A
total of 23 full-shift samples were collected on two consecutive days
(17 personal breathing zone samples and 6 general area air samples) for
elements/metals.  The sample time (in minutes) is listed along with the
calculated airborne aluminum, beryllium and copper concentrations in
Table 2.  Exposure concentrations were calculated from the analytical
results after correcting for the results of field blanks.  

The results of personal and area air sampling for beryllium are
contained in Table 2.  The data show that three of 23 samples collected
exceeded the NIOSH REL for beryllium (0.5 µg/m3) and none exceeded the
OSHA PEL (2 µg/m3).  All three samples that exceeded the NIOSH
beryllium REL were personal samples: one sample collected on the
copper/beryllium foundry supervisor showed a concentration of 0.58
µg/m3; one collected on the aluminum/beryllium furnace operator showed
a concentration of 0.55 µg/m3; and one collected on a grinding room
employee showed a concentration of 1.07 µg/m3.

Because this facility has both a beryllium/copper foundry and a cutting
and grinding shop, the airborne copper generated in the operation would
be expected to be in the form of metal fume in the foundry, and as metal
dust in the cutting and grinding shop.  Therefore, the measured copper
concentrations in the foundry are compared to the copper fume evaluation
criteria and the measured copper concentrations in cutting and grinding
operations are compared to the copper dust evaluation criteria.

Copper metal was detected on all six samples analyzed for copper metal
with concentrations ranging from 3.4 µg/m3 to 42 µg/m3; the highest
concentration was less than 5% of the NIOSH and OSHA criteria (1000
µg/m3).  Copper metal fume was detected on all 17 personal samples
collected with concentrations ranging from 0.9 µg/m3 to 5.7 µg/m3; the
highest concentration detected was less than 6% of the NIOSH and OSHA
criteria (100 µg/m3).  

Aluminum was detected on 14 of 17 personal samples with concentrations
ranging from 3.4 µg/m3 to 42 µg/m3; the highest concentration was less
that 5% of the NIOSH and OSHA criteria (5000 µg/m3).  The results of
all other metals included in the analyses were all less than 6% of their
applicable criteria (see Appendix A).

Surface Wipe Sample Results

 Wipes™ which were analyzed for the 31 metals/elements; and 8 using
Palintest® Dust Wipes which were analyzed for beryllium only.  

Ghost Wipes™ indicated measurable quantities of beryllium on 8 of 8
samples collected (see Table 3).  Detectable surface concentrations
ranged from 0.2 µg/100 cm2 to 180 µg/100 cm2.  The lowest beryllium
surface concentrations detected (0.2) were detected on the table top in
the clean side of the lunch room and a concentration of 0.7 µg/100 cm2
was detected on the table top in the beryllium side of the lunch room. 
These levels are below the DOE Guideline (3 µg/100 cm2) for
non-operational periods.  The two lunch rooms had separate entrances and
separate HVAC systems. 

The highest beryllium surface concentration detected (180 µg/100 cm2)
was on a wood workbench surface in the Aluminum/Beryllium ingot foundry.
 Another sample collected on a workbench in the copper/beryllium foundry
area showed a surface concentration of 95 µg/100 cm2.  Wood is a porous
material and may have retained more of the beryllium-containing dirt and
grime.  Employees spend a lot of time at these benches where they
frequently touch the surfaces as they fill-in work logs to document work
orders. The DOE Guidelines recommend that removable surface
contamination levels be maintained at concentrations that do not exceed
3µg/100 cm2 during non-operational periods.  NOTEREF _Ref187589953 \h 
\* MERGEFORMAT  3   

The sample collected on a workbench in the ingot foundry indicated a
lead concentration of 170 µg/100 cm2; all other wipe samples indicated
lead surface concentrations of 8.8 µg/100cm2 or less.  No lead was
detected in the lunch room areas. 

In most instances, the beryllium surface concentration detected on the
Palintest® Dust Wipes agreed with the Ghost Wipes™.    

Particulate Size/Mass Distribution Results

One of the objectives of this study was to determine the particle size
and mass concentration of airborne beryllium particles generated during
the manufacturing process because there is substantial evidence that the
presence of an ultrafine component increases the toxicity for chronic
beryllium disease and possibly other toxic effects.  

The results of particle size measurements collected using the Sioutas
cascade impactors are summarized below and presented in Table 4.  The
MOUDI and APS data are summarized below and presented in Tables 5 and 6;
the entire Sioutas cascade impactor data set is contained in Appendix C
and the entire MOUDI data set is presented in Appendix D.  The term
particle size refers to the aerodynamic size which is defined as the
diameter of a unit density (1g/cm3) sphere which has the same settling
velocity as the particle in question.    

Sioutas Cascade Size-Selective Impactor Results

The results of size-selective sampling for aluminum, beryllium and
copper using the Sioutas Cascade Impactors are presented in Table 4,
while the entire data set for the 31 metals/elements included in the
laboratory analyses is presented in Appendix C.  A mass analysis of the
beryllium data collected with the Sioutas Cascade Impators is not
appropriate because a large percentage (approximately 85%) of the data
was non-detectable, however, a summary of the data follows.  A total of
11 personal size-selective impactor samples were collected during the
two days of air sampling.  The results presented in Table 4 show the
aluminum, beryllium and copper concentrations measured on each of the
five impactor stages and the sum total of all five stages for each
sample collected.  Beryllium was detected on six of the 11 personal
samples collected; two of these six samples indicate measurable
quantities of beryllium particles in stage B (size range 1.0 to 2.5
µm).  This tends to suggest that some airborne beryllium is present in
concentrations that may potentially reach lower portions of the
respiratory tract.  Copper and aluminum were detected on all 11 samples
collected.  

MOUDI Size-Selective Impactor and APS Results

The MOUDI size-selective impactor sample results for total particulate
are presented in Table 5.   MOUDI samples in both foundry areas were
collected over two working days and sampling locations were as close as
possible to the furnaces.  The MOUDI data showed low mass concentrations
of airborne particles in the greensand foundry and the ingot foundry
(0.342 and 0.060 mg/cm3, respectively). Beryllium was not detected in
any of the samples, and copper and aluminum were detected at very low
concentrations.  

The APS was used to check the number concentrations of airborne
particles at the sampling locations where the MOUDI samples were
collected.  The APS data for the ingot foundry and greensand foundry are
summarized numerically and graphically in Table 6.  The APS data are
consistent with the MOUDI data indicating that the manufacturing
processes in the greensand foundry generated higher airborne particle
concentrations than in the process in the ingot foundry.  

Ventilation Measurement Observations/Results

Ventilation measurements were collected in the greensand foundry, ingot
foundry and in the cutting and grinding shop.  Smoke tube traces
indicated that all the ventilation systems described below were
capturing the released smoke.  

Velocity measurements in the greensand foundry showed face velocities at
the furnace slot hood (24 inches by 6 inches, or one square foot) of 700
to 1100 feet per minute (fpm), a volume of 900 cubic feet per minute
(see photo 1); velocity measurements above the center of the furnace
were 150 to200 fpm.  Face velocities at the slot (12 inches by 4 inches,
or 0.33 ft2) above the crucible measured 150 to 200 fpm, a volume of 58
cfm.

Measurements in the ingot foundry showed face velocities at the furnace
slot hood of 350 to 450 fpm (the slot measured 24 inches by 8 inches or
1.33 ft2), a volume of 532 cfm (see photo 2); velocities at breathing
zone level at the canopy hood were approximately 250 to 350 fpm.  Face
velocities at the two dross barrel slots (24 inches by 6 inches or 1
ft2) were approximately 1500 fpm, a volume of 1500 cfm.

Ventilation measurements in the cutting and grinding shop showed face
velocities at the face of the enclosed cut-off saw booth of 100 to 150
fpm; the open face of the enclosure measured 5 feet wide by 4 feet high
(20 ft2).  Face velocities at the opening (18 inches by 36 inches or 4.5
ft2) to the enclosed down-draft belt-sander booth measured 500 to 700
fpm, a volume of 2700 cfm. 

VI.	CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Beryllium is used in products manufactured at this facility because of
its properties with more than 90% of the product line manufactured in
the greensand foundry being non-sparking tools.  The ingot foundry
produces both aluminum/beryllium ingots and copper beryllium ingots for
customers which require these alloys.  The results of sampling during
the September 2007, NIOSH in-depth survey indicate that three of 23
personal  samples collected exceeded the NIOSH REL for beryllium of 0.5
µg/m3 (currently the most restrictive OEL) and none exceeded the OSHA
PEL (2 µg/m3).   

Surface wipe sampling results indicate that some work surfaces in the
two foundry areas, with which employees are likely to have skin contact
have contamination levels 30 to 90 times above the DOE recommendations
for non-operational periods.  The DOE guidelines recommend that
removable surface contamination levels be maintained at levels that do
not exceed 3µg/100 cm2 during non-operational periods.  NOTEREF
_Ref187589953 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3 

Controlling worker exposures to beryllium dust and fume can be
accomplished through the use of engineering controls, work practices,
administrative actions, and personal protective equipment (PPE). 
Engineering controls are the preferred method for controlling worker
exposure; examples include isolating the source and the use of
ventilation systems.  Administrative actions include such items as,
limiting the worker's exposure time and providing showers.  PPE includes
wearing the proper respiratory protection and personal protective
clothing.

Current Administrative and Engineering Controls

To control the spread of beryllium within the plant and to prevent
take-home beryllium contamination several excellent administrative
controls and engineering controls are currently used in this facility.  
Beryllium workers must enter and exit the plant through a change room
and are provided work clothing that is laundered by the facility.  The
change room is designed with clean side and beryllium side (dirty side)
locker rooms, with a shower room located between the two rooms.  Workers
are required to change from company provided work clothing which becomes
contaminated during their work shift, shower, and change to clean street
clothing prior to leaving the facility at the end of their work shift. 
These administrative controls are a good way to reduce the potential for
post-work exposure and the possibility of carrying contamination home. 
The OSHA lead standard, 29 CFR 1910.1025(i)(2)(i) provides additional
detail regarding the design of change rooms, to help prevent the spread
of lead and a review of this standard would be helpful in determining if
additional design considerations are needed to prevent take-home
beryllium contamination.  

To prevent the spread of beryllium contamination within the plant the
two foundries and the cutting and grinding shop are beryllium designated
areas.  Entry to these beryllium designated areas is limited to workers
that have been trained and cleared to work in these areas.  Entry and
exit to the beryllium designated areas (i.e., the ingot foundry, the
green sand foundry and the cutting and grinding shop) is also controlled
by limiting access through two air showers.  Additionally, the facility
has separate lunch rooms for the clean side and beryllium side with
physical barriers and separate HVAC systems to isolate the beryllium
side and help control the spread of beryllium.

Recommendations

Recommendations to further reduce airborne beryllium concentrations and
controlling worker exposures to beryllium-containing dust and fume at
this facility include: 

All work surfaces in beryllium designated areas that employees are
likely to have skin contact with should be cleaned on a regular basis
(e.g. at the end of each work shift or weekly) to meet the DOE
guidelines.  The DOE Guidelines recommend that removable surface
contamination levels be maintained at concentrations that do not exceed
3µg/100 cm2 during non-operational periods.  NOTEREF _Ref187589953 \h 
\* MERGEFORMAT  3  

Only non-porous materials should be used for work bench surfaces.  This
would make decontamination efforts more effective and would result in
reduced surface contaminant levels on surfaces with which workers are
likely to have skin contact.

Special attention should be given to cleaning and decontamination of any
equipment before moving the equipment to non-beryllium areas of the
facility, and before transferring or moving the equipment off-site.  

Only employees who have been cleared to work in beryllium designated
areas should be allowed access to areas where beryllium-containing
materials are processed.

Employees should continue to receive regular training (e.g. yearly or
more often) on the proper handling of beryllium, as well as the hazards
of beryllium exposure.  A review of the written Hazard Communications
program should be conducted regularly (e.g. once every year or once
every two years) to ensure that it meets all the OSHA requirements
outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1200 (e).  

Dry sweeping techniques should not be used in beryllium designated work
areas.  The continued use of HEPA-filtered vacuums to remove dust from
floors and work surfaces is recommended.  

The use of respirators requires the implementation of a site specific
written respiratory protection program.  Therefore, a review of the
written respiratory protection program should be implemented to ensure
compliance with OSHA Regulation 1910.134 and should include: the
training of employees; the selection, maintenance, and use of
respirators; and monitoring of the program to ensure its ongoing
effectiveness and compliance with OSHA regulation 1910.134. The employer
shall include in the program the following provisions of this section,
as applicable:

1910.134(c)(1)(i) - Procedures for selecting respirators for use in the
workplace;

1910.134(c)(1)(ii) - Medical evaluations of employees required to use
respirators;

1910.134(c)(1)(iii) - Fit testing procedures for tight-fitting
respirators;

1910.134(c)(1)(iv) - Procedures for proper use of respirators in routine
and reasonably foreseeable emergency situations;

1910.134(c)(1)(v) - Procedures and schedules for cleaning, disinfecting,
storing, inspecting, repairing, discarding, and otherwise maintaining
respirators;

1910.134(c)(1)(vi) - Procedures to ensure adequate air quality,
quantity, and flow of breathing air for atmosphere-supplying
respirators;

1910.134(c)(1)(vii) - Training of employees in the respiratory hazards
to which they are potentially exposed during routine and emergency
situations;

1910.134(c)(1)(viii) - Training of employees in the proper use of
respirators, including putting on and removing them, any limitations on
their use, and their maintenance; and

1910.134(c)(1)(ix) - Procedures for regularly evaluating the
effectiveness of the program.  

Preventive maintenance is a key ingredient to proper systems operation. 
 Regularly scheduled maintenance of the ventilation systems should be
conducted on weekly, monthly or other schedule to ensure proper
operation of these systems.  Ventilation hood design and exhaust rates
for hot processes requires consideration of the significant quantities
of heat that are transferred to the air above and around the processes
by conduction and convection.  A thermal draft is created which causes
an upward air current with velocities as high as 400 fpm.  The ACGIH
Industrial Ventilation Manual is an excellent reference for information
on engineering controls for hot processes and other processes requiring
ventilation. 

Additional Sources of Information

Other guidelines for housekeeping in workplaces that use beryllium are
available from several sources.  In 1999, OSHA issued a Hazard
Information Bulletin, Preventing Adverse Health Effects from Exposure to
Beryllium on the Job (OSHA 1999).  The web link to that document is
provided below:

  HYPERLINK "http://www.osha.gov/dts/hib/hib_data/hib19990902.html" 
http://www.osha.gov/dts/hib/hib_data/hib19990902.html 

Additional information on beryllium standards, hazard recognition,
exposure evaluation and possible solutions can be found on the OSHA web
site at:

  HYPERLINK "http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/beryllium/index.html" 
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/beryllium/index.html 

The NIOSH website is also an excellent source of information on
beryllium.

  HYPERLINK "http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/beryllium/" 
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/beryllium/ 

REFERENCES

 On March 20, 1991, the Supreme Court decided the case of International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 111 S. Ct. 1196, 55 EPD 40,605. 
It held that Title VII forbids sex-specific fetal protection policies. 
Both men and women must be protected equally by the employer.

 OSHA PELs, unless otherwise noted, are TWA concentrations that must not
be exceeded during any 8-hour workshift of a 40-hour work-week [NIOSH
1997].  NIOSH RELs, unless otherwise noted, are TWA concentrations for
up to a 10-hour workday during a 40-hour workweek [NIOSH 1997].  ACGIH®
TLVs®, unless otherwise noted, are TWA concentrations for a
conventional 8-hour workday and 40-hour workweek [ACGIH 2008]

 PAGE   

 PAGE   23 

 42 CFR 85a [2002].  Public Health Service, HHS: occupational safety and
health investigations of places of employment.

 NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Method 7300, 4th rev.
ed., Eller PM, ed.  Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.

 10 CFR 850 [2003]. Department of Energy: chronic beryllium disease
prevention program.

 ATSDR [2002]. Toxicological profile for beryllium. Atlanta, GA: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

 OSHA [1999].  OSHA Hazard Information Bulletins: Preventing Adverse
Health Effects from Exposure to Beryllium on the Job.  Hazard
Information Bulletin no. 19990902.

   ACGIH [2007]. 2007 TLVs® and BEIs®: threshold limit values for
chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices.
Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists.

  ASTM [2002]. Standard practice for collection of settled dust samples
using wipe sampling methods for subsequent determination of metals. 
West Conshohocken, PA:  American Society for Testing and Materials
International, Designation D 6966-03.

 NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Method 7300, 4th rev.
ed., Eller PM, ed.  Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.

  NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Method 9110, 4th
rev. ed., Eller PM, ed.  Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.

 CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register.

)

*

U

u

"

(

˜

™

£

¥

°

	

B

G

H

T

x

{

‹

Œ

«

¬

ó

.u

š

›

œ

ž

Ÿ

 

¡

¢

£

¤

°

±

ༀ낄ᄓ킄㄂$葞Ꮀ葠ː摧ᑀ£ᜀó

õ

 h¯7

h¯7

 h¯7

9

h?

hí

h?

h

h

h

h

 h÷D

h

h

h

h

h÷D

h÷D

h¤<

h¤<

h

h

h

h

hAa

h

hAa

B*

h.

h.

h.

h.

hÛ

hÛ

h.

h.

h.

 h.

 

©

ª

å

æ

ç

  h”h

 h”h

 

 

¨

©

°

³

ù

  h”h

 h”h

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12
196.html . Accessed June 6, 2008.

 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.

 AIHA [2007]. 2007 Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) &
Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (WEEL) Handbook.  Fairfax, VA: 
American Industrial Hygiene Association.

 NIOSH [2005]. 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. 2005–149.

  Hathaway G et al, eds. [1991]. Proctor and Hughes' chemical hazards of
the workplace, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

 ACGIH [2001].  Documentation of Threshold Limit Values and Biological
Exposure Indices, 7th Edition.  American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45240.

 Caplan KJ [1993].  The significance of wipe samples.  Am. Ind. Hyg.
Assoc. J. 54:70–75.

 OSHA [2008] Surface Contamination Standards.  Available on-line at
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/surfacecontamination/standards.html.  Accessed
May 12, 2008.

 ACGIH [1995].  Air Sampling Instruments, for evaluation of atmospheric
contaminants – 8th edition 1995.  Cincinnati, OH: American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Committee on Industrial
Ventilation.

 ACGIH [2007].  INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION: A manual of Recommended Practice
for Design, 26th Edition.  Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Committee on Industrial Ventilation.