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

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO BERYLLIUM:

BERYLLIUM FACILITY #2 - COPPER/BERYLLIUM MACHINE SHOP 

	

PRINCIPAL AUTHORS:

Daniel Almaguer, MS

Ed Burroughs, Ph.D, CIH, CSP

Dave Marlow

Li-Ming Lo, Ph.D

REPORT DATE:

October 2008

FILE NO.:

EPHB 326-14a

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 #2

Copper/Beryllium Machine Shop

								Mid-Western USA

NAICS:	332710 

SURVEY DATE:	June 18-21, 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.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 initial walk-through evaluation was conducted by NIOSH researchers
from the Engineering and Physical Hazards Branch, Division of Applied
Research and Technology, Cincinnati, Ohio in May 2007, to observe
processes and conditions in order to prepare for subsequent testing.  An
in-depth evaluation was conducted June 18-21, 2007.  During this
evaluation, two full shifts of environmental monitoring were conducted
for the duration of normal plant operations. 

II.	PROCESS DESCRIPTION 

On June 18 - 21, 2007, NIOSH conducted an in-depth industrial hygiene
survey at a copper/beryllium machine shop with a total workforce of 17
employees working two shifts.  The first shift has a total of 13
employees; seven machinists, four quality control inspectors, one tool
maker and one full-time maintenance employee.  Four machinists were
employed on the second shift.  This was the second 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 operations and to identify and describe the control technology
and work practices being used in this facility.

Process Description and Work Practices

Machine Shop

Processes utilized in the machine shop include: machining, grinding,
polishing, and buffing (see Plant Diagram).  Each of these processes has
the potential to create airborne particles of increasingly smaller size.
 The company has 35 Swiss screw machine automatic lathes that are used
in the production of connectors and test pins for the electronics
industry (see Photo 1 and 2).  The lathe operators manually insert 12
metal rods, 10-12 feet in length into the lathes prior to running the
automatic lathes.  The operators remain in the machining area to observe
and ensure proper operation of the lathes and randomly collect and
inspect products.  The lathe automatically feeds the metal rods which
are machined to diameters of less than 1/8 of an inch and cut to lengths
ranging from 4/100 to 2 inches.  Approximately 50% of the company’s
total production utilizes a copper/beryllium alloy containing 2%
beryllium.  On the days of our evaluation four of the 35 lathes were
running the copper/beryllium alloy which was reported to be a typical
production day.  Metal cutting fluids are used during machining to aid
in the cutting process, to extend the life of the cutting tools and to
control and contain the release of dust.  One full-time maintenance
employee was assigned cleaning duties and used a HEPA vacuum and wet mop
to clean floors and surfaces throughout the workday.

Cutting tools used in machining generally remove metal in relatively
large chips or turnings, and tend to produce little respirable
particulate.  The use of coolants and enclosure of machining operations
further reduces this potential.  The potential for dermal exposure,
however, is significant in machining with beryllium and the coolant both
being of concern.  

Grinding, polishing and buffing all involve the removal of metals from
the surface of the metal rods, but 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.  For this
reason, particle size information was collected in the machine shop
area.

Control Technology

Machining operations are enclosed and coolants are used when operating
to control the release of airborne metals.  Grinding and buffing of some
products are conducted in an Air King M-35P downdraft booth equipped
with a HEPA filter (see Photo 3) which is exhausted to the outdoors. 

Personal Protective Equipment

Personal protective equipment utilized throughout this facility included
safety glasses, safety shoes, ear plugs, and neoprene gloves.  At the
time of the NIOSH survey the company provided disposable filtering face
masks (R1085 disposable dust mask 50200) for voluntary use.  These
disposable masks did not have a NIOSH certification number.  NIOSH
researchers  recommended that NIOSH certified respirators be used.  As a
result of that recommendation, the company immediately ordered NIOSH
certified respirators, Moldex 2730 N100 disposable respirators. 

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.  Observations
regarding work practices and use of personal protective equipment were
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 and distance measurements were collected.

B.	Particulate Sampling and Analysis

ing to a 37-mm diameter filter (0.8 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 silica 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; and the data collected
can be used to identify appropriate control methods to reduce or
eliminate contaminate sources to protect workers.

The measurement of particle size and 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 sampling flow rate for these
impactors was 9 liters/minute, 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 general area of several
production processes at this facility.  The MOUDIs were connected via
tubing to a high volume pump operating at a flow rate of 30 liters per
minute.  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.  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.).

Three different substrates were used in the MOUDIs to collect airborne
particulate: Aluminum foil filters, 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 manufactures were
used to eliminate sampling bias from collecting materials; and the
Aluminum foil filters were used because the accuracy of gravimetric
analysis of membrane filters can be affected by environmental humidity
and sample transit.  To prevent particle bounce during sampling, a thin
layer of silicon spray was applied to the Aluminum foil filters, and the
filters were baked for a minimum of 2 hours at 100(C.  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 furnaces and cutting equipment
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 various locations throughout
this machine shop including the locations where the MOUDI samples were
collected.  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 liters per
minute (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.  

rface 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 Air King down
draft booth using a TSI VelociCalc Plus Air Velocity Meter Model 8360. 
An Air King M-35P downdraft booth equipped with a HEPA filtered exhaust
was the lone operation equipped with local exhaust ventilation.  This
small downdraft booth is used on an intermittent as needed basis to
chamfer smaller diameter rods on a bench grinder/buffer contained within
the booth.  The booth is approximately 6 feet high by 3 feet wide and 2
feet deep.  The operator stands at the face of the booth to grind and
buff the small diameter rods.  Ventilation measurements were collected
at the face of the downdraft hood opening which measured 24 inches by 24
inches.  Additionally, smoke tube tracers were used to visualize air
flow patterns at the face of the hood.  

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 OSHA PELs and ACGIH® TLVs® address the issue of combined
effects of airborne exposures to multiple substances.  NOTEREF
_Ref196213091 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  6 ,  NOTEREF _Ref188088056 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  11   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  11   The current
NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) for beryllium is 0.5 µg/m3 for
up to a 10-hour work day, 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  15  and
OSHA-PEL  NOTEREF _Ref188088056 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  11  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  13 , 

The NIOSH-REL for copper dust is 1 mg/m3 (1000 µg/m3) measured as an
8-10 hour TWA.  NOTEREF _Ref188097634 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  15   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  11  

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.”

Surface Contamination Criteria for Copper

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

V.	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

On June 18 - 21, 2007, air, surface wipe, and particle size samples were
collected throughout this copper/beryllium products machine shop.  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 7303 with modifications. 
NOTEREF _Ref196215024 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  9   Because this machine shop
manufactured copper/beryllium metal products the focus of this
evaluation was beryllium and copper with a primary emphasis on
beryllium.  The entire set of sample data for the air, surface wipe, 
and cascade impactor particle size samples for all thirty-one elements
are listed in Appendices A, B, and C, respectively.

Air Sample Results

Personal breathing zone and area air sampling results for beryllium and
copper are contained in Table 2; while the entire sample data set of 31
elements/metals analyses is presented in Appendix A.  At the time of the
NIOSH survey, four of the 35 lathes were using a copper/beryllium alloy
containing 2% beryllium.  A total of 15 full-shift samples were
collected on two consecutive days  (8 personal breathing zone samples
and 7 general area air samples) for elements/metals.  The sample time
(in minutes) is listed along with the calculated airborne beryllium and
copper concentrations in Table 2.  Exposure concentrations were
calculated from the analytical results after correcting for the results
of field blanks.  

Beryllium was detected in one personal breathing zone air sample; none
of the general area air samples collected had measurable quantities of
beryllium.  The lone sample with a measurable quantity of airborne
beryllium indicated a concentration of 0.047 µg/m3, which is
approximately 1/10 of the NIOSH REL of 0.50 µg/m3.  The machinists
remain in the area to monitor the lathes to ensure that they are
operating properly and inspect the products.  Metal cutting fluids are
used during machining to aid in the cutting process, to extend the life
of the cutting tools and to control and contain the release of dust.  

  

Because this facility is a machine shop, the airborne copper generated
in the operation would be expected to be in the form of dust. 
Therefore, the measured concentrations are compared to the copper dust
evaluation criteria.  Copper was detected in two of 15 samples
collected.  The two samples with measurable copper concentrations were
both personal breathing zone samples, none of the general area air
samples had measurable copper concentrations.  Both samples with
measurable copper dust concentrations were less than 1% of the
occupational exposure criteria  (1000 µg/m3).  The highest
concentration measured was 2.84µg/m3.

Other elements/metals detected were aluminum, cobalt, selenium, and
titanium; all at concentrations less than 1% of the most stringent OEL.

Surface Wipe Sample Results

Ghost Wipes™ which were analyzed for the 31 metals/elements; and 10
using Palintest® Dust Wipes which were analyzed for beryllium only.  

Ghost Wipes™ indicated measurable quantities of beryllium on 9 of 10
samples collected (see Table 3).  Detectable surface concentrations
ranged from 0.033 µg/100 cm2 to 3.6 µg/100 cm2.  The highest beryllium
surface concentration detected (3.6 µg/100 cm2) was on a sample
collected on the tool/workbench along the west wall of the machine shop.
 This one sample exceeds the DOE Guideline to maintain removable surface
contamination levels that do not exceed 3µg/100 cm2 during
non-operational periods  NOTEREF _Ref187589953 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3 ,
and six of the ten samples are above DOE release guidelines (0.2 µg/100
cm2, or the level of beryllium in the soil in the area of release).  The
next highest beryllium surface concentration detected was 1.1 µg/100
cm2 and was detected on a sample collected on top of the electrical box
in the center of the machine shop.  

Of the other metals detected on these wipes, lead was detected on one
wipe sample at a concentration of concern.  The sample collected on top
of the electrical box indicated a lead concentration of 120 µg/100 cm2
or about 1100 µg/ft2.  However, all other wipe samples indicated that
surface concentrations of lead were less than 160 µg/ft2. 

Palintest® Dust Wipes were analyzed for beryllium only and measurable
quantities of beryllium were detected on 9 of 10 samples collected (see
Table 3).  The highest beryllium surface concentration detected on the
Palintest® Dust Wipes was 0.3 µg/100 cm2 which was detected on a
sample collected on top of the electrical box in the center of the
machine shop.  

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 4 and 5,
and Figure 1; the entire Sioutas cascade impactor data set is contained
in Appendix C.  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 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 90%) of the data was non-detectable,
however, a summary of the data follows.  A total of 15 size-selective
impactor samples were collected during the two days of air sampling; 8
were personal breathing zone air samples and 7 were area samples.  The
results presented in Table 4 show the 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 4 of 8 personal samples and on one of 7 area samples
collected, three of these samples indicate measurable quantities of
beryllium particles smaller than 2.5 µm (stages B to E).  This tends to
suggest that airborne beryllium is present in concentrations that may
potentially reach the lower portions of the respiratory tract.  Copper
was detected on 8 of 8 and on 4 of 7 area samples collected in the
machine shop and the quality control room.  

MOUDI Size-Selective Impactor and APS Results

The MOUDIs  size-selective impactor sample results for the total
particulate are presented in Table 5.  Due to the low particle
concentrations detected at this site, the MOUDI samples were not
analyzed for 31 elements/metals typically included in the sample
protocol for this study.  The MOUDI samples results indicate measurable
mass concentrations of airborne particles in the respirable range. 
These samples failed to provide conclusive information about the
particle mass distributions due to either (1) the low airborne particle
concentrations at the sample locations selected or (2) the potential
loss of material from these fragile samplers during unloading at the end
of the sample period and/or transit back to the laboratory for the
gravimetric analysis.  The airborne particulate mass concentration was
low for all samples, making interpretation of this data problematic. 
Therefore, this data is provided for reference only.  

The APS was used to check the number concentrations of airborne
particles at the sampling locations where the MOUDI samples were
collected on June 19 and 20, 2007.  The APS data are presented
graphically in Figure 1 and are summarized numerically in Table 6. 
Based on summarized APS data (Table 6) indicate that the particle counts
measured in the sanding/grinding area were not much different from other
working areas as may be expected.  This was most likely due to the use
of a local exhaust ventilation booth that was employed to control the
particle emission.  Overall the APS data suggest that the count median
diameter (CMD) is close to the lower detection limit (0.5 µm) of APS
instrument.  However, based on the MMD from MOUDI which has a higher
size resolution, one might expect that the CMD is likely smaller than
0.5 µm.   

Ventilation Measurement Observations/Results

An Air King M-35P downdraft booth equipped with a HEPA filtered exhaust
was the lone operation equipped with local exhaust ventilation.  This
downdraft booth is used on an intermittent as needed basis to chamfer
smaller diameter rods on a bench grinder/buffer contained within the
booth.  The operator stands at the face of the booth to grind and buff
the small diameter rods.  On the days of sampling the grinding booth was
not being used, however, the LEV was turned on to collect a few
ventilation measurements.  The LEV and the grinder are interlocked to
ensure that the grinder is not operable unless the particle capture
system is on and functioning.   Ventilation measurements at the face of
the downdraft hood measured velocities of 320 to 360 feet per minute
(fpm); the downdraft opening measured 24 inches by 24 inches.  Visual
observations using smoke tube tracers confirmed that smoke is captured
by downdraft booth.   

VI.	CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of sampling during the June 2007, NIOSH in-depth survey
indicate that none of the measured airborne beryllium concentrations
exceeded the NIOSH REL of 0.5 µg/m3 (currently the most restrictive
OEL).  Only one of eight personal breathing zone samples collected
indicated a detectable quantity of beryllium; the concentration detected
(0.047 µg/m3) is less than 10% of the current NIOSH REL and less than
3% of the OSHA PEL of 2.0 µg/m3.  Beryllium was not detected on any of
the seven area samples collected.  

However, surface wipe sampling results indicate that special attention
should be given to cleaning any equipment before moving the equipment to
non-beryllium areas of the facility, and before transferring or moving
the equipment off-site.  This will ensure that surface contamination
levels are below the DOE guideline.  NOTEREF _Ref187589953 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  3 

A written respiratory protection program specific to the facility should
be developed and should comply with OSHA regulation 1910.134. 
Additionally, a hazard communication program compliant with OSHA
regulation 1910.1200 should be developed in both English and Spanish.

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 include such things as isolating the source and
using ventilation systems to control dust and is the preferred method
for controlling worker exposures.  Administrative actions include
limiting the worker's exposure time and providing showers.  PPE includes
wearing the proper respiratory protection and personal protective
clothing.

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

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 receive regular training on the proper handling of
beryllium, as well as the hazards of beryllium exposure.  Additionally,
those employees whose first language is Spanish should be provided
training in Spanish to ensure comprehension.

The use of dry sweeping techniques should not be used in beryllium
designated work areas.  The 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 written
respiratory protection program should be implemented 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.  Only NIOSH
certified respirators should be used.  Disposable respirators provided
at the time of the NIOSH survey were not NIOSH certified respirators,
but have been replaced with NIOSH certified disposable facemask. –
Moldex 2730 N100.  

The installation of a change room designed with a clean side and dirty
side is recommended.  This room should be equipped with lockers and
showers for exposed workers to shower and change from contaminated,
company-provided work clothes to street clothes prior to leaving the
facility reduces 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.  At the time of the NIOSH evaluation the change room
was not properly designed; the room did not have separate entrances to
segregate the clean side from the dirty side and did not have showers
for employees.  Following proper design will help control the spread of
beryllium contamination and prevent take home contamination.  Employees
should be required to shower and change from contaminated work clothing
to clean street clothes prior to leaving the worksite.  Work clothing
should be left at work and clean work clothes provided.

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 

There are several sources of information on engineering controls
including the ACGIH Industrial Ventilation Manual.  The NIOSH website is
also an excellent source of information on 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   14 

 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.

  Maynard, A.D. and Jensen, P.A. [2001].  Aerosol Measurement in the
Workplace.  Aerosol Measurement ed. by Paul A. Baron and Klaus Willeke.
Ch. 25, p779-799.

  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 7303, 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.

C

R

]

#

;

愀Ĥ摧漅uက;

<

=

>

?

@

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

]

^

Ö

×

v

x

§

½

;×

h

h

h

h

h¨Z

h



jí

já

h

h

jd

hç

 hç

hç

B*

hú

hú

hú

h

h

h

h

hAa

hKN

hAa

B*

,

 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/1
2196.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.

  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.

