CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT FOR

ELECTRONIC RECYCLING OPERATIONS, UNICOR

MARIANNA FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

MARIANNA, FLORIDA

REPORT DATE:

October 2008

REPORT NUMBER:

EPHB 326-15a 

 PRINCIPAL AUTHORS:

Dan Almaguer, MS

G. Edward Burroughs, PhD, CIH, CSP

Alan Echt, MPH, CIH

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:					UNICOR Recycling Operations

	Federal Correctional Institution

	Marianna, Florida

NAICS:	562920

SURVEY DATE:					August 8 - 9, 2007

SURVEY CONDUCTED BY:			Edward Burroughs, PhD, CIH, CSP

							Alan Echt, MPH, CIH

	Dave Marlow

							Li-Ming Lo

	

								

					

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 do not necessarily reflect
the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

												Page

Executive
Summary………………………………………………………
………………….…   	 1	

Introduction……………………………………………………
……………………….   	 3

II.	Process
Description……………………………………………………
……………….   	 5	

III.	Sampling and Analytical
Methods……………………………………………………..   
 7	

IV.	Occupational Exposure Limits and Health
Effects…………………………………….   	 9	

	A.	Exposure Criteria for Occupational Exposure to Airborne Chemical
Substances… 	11	

	
Barium…………………………………………………………
……………………	12	

	
Beryllium………………………………………………………
……………………	12	

	
Cadmium………………………………………………………
…………………… 	12	

	
Lead…………………………………………………………
……………………… 	13	

	
Nickel…………………………………………………………
……………………. 	13

	
Dust…………………………………………………………
………………………	13	

	B.	Surface Contamination
Criteria…………………………………………………….	14


	
Lead…………………………………………………………
………………………	14	

	
Beryllium………………………………………………………
……………………	15	

	
Cadmium………………………………………………………
……………………	15	

	
Nickel…………………………………………………………
…………………….	15	

	
Barium…………………………………………………………
……………………	16	

	C.	Heat Stress Evaluation
Criteria……………………………………………………..
16	

V.	Results and
Discussion……………………………………………………
…………….	18	

	A.	Bulk Material Sample
Results………………………………………………………
19	

	B.	Surface Wipe Sample
Results………………………………………………………
19	

	C.	Air Sample
Results………………………………………………………
………….	20	

	D. 	Heat Stress Evaluation
Results……………………………………………………...
21

	E. 	Local Exhaust System
Measurements……………………………………………….	23	

VI.	Conclusions and
Recommendations…………………………………………………
…..	24

VII.
References……………………………………………………
…………………………..	31	

Tables, Appendices and Figures

												Page

Table 1	Occupational Exposure Limits for Five Metals of Primary
Interest………… 	  11	

Table 2	Heat Stress TLV®s and Action Limit WBGT
Values……………………….	  17

Table 3 	Summary Statistics for Airborne Metal
Measurements……………………..	  35

Table 4 	Airborne Metal
Measurements………………………………………………	  36

Table 5	Wipe Sample
Results………………………………………………………..
  38

Table 6	Composition of Bulk Dust Samples from the Glass Breaking
Operation…..	  39

Table 7	WBGT Measurements, Marianna Federal Correctional
Facility……………	  40

Table 8	Estimated Work
Rates……………………………………………………….	 
41

Table 9	Air Velocity Measurements for HFM 1 and HFM
2………………………...	  42

Appendix A	Occupational Exposure Criteria for
Metal/Elements………………………...	  43

Appendix B	Metallic Composition of Bulk Dust Samples from the Glass
Breaking 

	
Operation………………………………………………………
…….	  44

Appendix C	Metallic Composition of Wipe
Samples……………………………………..	  45

Appendix D	Metallic Composition of Airborne Dust
Samples……………………………	  47

Figure I	Marianna FCI UNICOR Factory Floor
Plan…………………………………	  56

Figure II	Marianna FPC UNICOR Factory Floor
Plan…………………………………	  57

Figure III	Marianna FPC Glass Breaking
Area………………………………………….	  58

Figure IV	Marianna FPC Glass Breaking
Booth………………………………………...	  59

Figure V	Marianna FPC Glass Breaking Booth Work
Stations…………………………	  60

Figure VI	NIOSH Recommended Heat-Stress Exposure Limits for
Heat-Acclimatized 

Workers………………………………………………………
……….	  61

Figure VII	Layout of Typical Facility Where Protective Clothing is
Required………….	  62

Figure VIII	Size Distribution of Airborne
Particles………………………………………	  63EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

Researchers from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) conducted a study of the recycling of electronic
components at the Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI) facilities (aka,
UNICOR) in Marianna, Florida, in August, 2007 to assess worker exposures
to metals and other occupational hazards, including heat, associated
with these operations. 

The electronics recycling operations at Marianna can be organized into
four production processes: a) receiving and sorting, b) disassembly, c)
glass breaking operations, and d) packaging and shipping.  A fifth
operation, cleaning and maintenance, was also addressed but is not
considered a production process per se.  It is known that lead, cadmium,
and other metals are used in the manufacturing of electronic components
and pose a risk to workers involved in recycling of electronic
components if the processes are not adequately controlled or the workers
are not properly trained and provided appropriate personal protective
clothing and equipment.  

Methods used to assess worker exposures to metals during this evaluation
included: personal breathing zone sampling for airborne metals and
particulate; surface wipe sampling to assess surface contamination; and
bulk material samples to determine the composition of settled dust. 
Samples were analyzed for 31 metals with five selected elements (barium,
beryllium, cadmium, lead and nickel) given emphasis.  Heat exposures
were determined using wet bulb globe temperature monitors.  

The results of air sampling conducted during the August visit indicated
no overexposures of workers to metals above the most stringent
occupational exposure limits during the routine and non-routine
operations evaluated during that site visit.  The highest exposures to
metals (as determined by both arithmetic and geometric means) occurred
to workers in the Federal Prison Camp (FPC) glass breaking operation
while changing filters, while workers in the Federal Prison Camp (FPC)
UNICOR factory had the highest exposure to airborne particulate during
routine production operations.  The results of two of those samples were
affected by unanticipated events.  In one instance, a worker touched the
inlet of the cassette with her glove and some lint was sucked onto the
filter.  In the other, a worker unloading a truck reported that toner
spilled onto her from surplus equipment she was unloading.  When those
two samples (which did not exceed allowable limits) are not considered,
the particulate concentrations are well below levels of concern.  When
those two samples are not included in the analyses, the FPC glass
breakers had the highest particulate exposures.  These occurred during
the filter change operation.

 μg/m3 (140 minute sample) for a breaker to 891 μg/m3 (147 minute
sample) for a feeder.  During the filter change operation, they ranged
from 4,912 μg/m3 (57 minute sample) for a worker working inside the
glass-breaking booth to 274 μg/m3 (45 minute sample) for a worker
outside the booth.  All airborne particulate measurements representing
potential exposures during routine and non-routine operations were,
however, below applicable occupational exposure limits (e.g., the OSHA
PEL of 15 mg/m3 (15000 μg/m3), 8-hr TWA for total particulate).

Although beryllium is used in consumer electronics and computer
components, such as disk drive arms (beryllium-aluminum), electrical
contacts, switches, and connector plugs (copper-beryllium) and printed
wiring boards [Willis and Florig 2002, Schmidt 2002], beryllium in this
study was not detected at levels above the detection limit of the
analytical method.  Most of the recycling activities at this facility
resemble typical maintenance activities on consumer products (e.g.,
personal computers), such as opening cases and removing components. 
Willis and Florig [2002] noted that most beryllium “in consumer
products is used in ways that are not likely to create beryllium
exposures during use and maintenance.”  This may account for the
results seen at this facility.  Other e-recycling activities that
include further processing, such as shredding of the components, may
produce higher exposures to beryllium but shredding does not occur at
this facility.

Samples collected during routine daily glass breaking operations showed
that the highest exposure was less than 10% of the OSHA PEL for lead of
50 μg/m3 8 hr TWA (4.5 μg/m3 8hr TWA for a 109 minute sample).  The
highest lead exposure measured during the filter change operation was
12.5 μg/m3 8 hr TWA for a 57 minute sample.  The highest cadmium result
during routine glass breaking was 2.0 μg/m3 8hr TWA for a 143 minute
sample, less than half the OSHA PEL of 5 μg/m3 8hr TWA.  During the
filter change operation, the highest cadmium concentration was 1.4
μg/m3, 8hr TWA, for a 57 minute sample. Samples collected on
disassembly workers in the FCI factory area and on workers in the FPC
factory area were well below levels of concern for cadmium, lead and
nickel.  Unless specified, the results of the samples presented are for
the duration of sample and not calculated on an 8 hour time-weighted
average basis.

  

Lead, cadmium and other heavy metals were detected in the surface wipe
and bulk dust samples.  There are few established standards available
for wipe samples with which to compare these data.  Some of the surfaces
tested for lead indicated levels exceeding the most stringent criteria.
The wipe sample results can not be used to determine when the
contamination occurred.  They only represent the surface contamination
present at the time the sample was collected.

Environmental heat monitoring and estimates of work rate indicated that
some workers in this facility were exposed to heat stress (e.g., above
the ACGIH® TLV®) or at risk of heat stress (e.g., exceeding the
ACGIH® Action Limit) during this survey period.  The locations where
heat stress was noted included the glass breaking operation (breakers,
feeders, and outside workers) and the warehouse (truck crew), while a
risk of heat stress was noted in the warehouse (other workers),
FCI-disassembly and FCI-Refurbish.

Recommendations resulting from this study include:

The implementation of a site specific health and safety program at
Marianna that includes a heat stress program.

The respiratory protection program for this facility should be evaluated
to ensure that it complies with OSHA regulations.  

Attention should be focused on practices to prevent accidental ingestion
of lead and other metals, such as housekeeping to reduce surface
contamination and hand washing to prevent hand-to-mouth transfer of
contaminants. 

Management should evaluate the feasibility of providing and laundering
work clothing for all workers in the recycling facility.

Change rooms should be equipped with separate storage facilities for
work clothing and for street clothes to prevent cross-contamination.   

All UNICOR operations should be evaluated from the perspective of
health, safety and the environment in the near future. 

A comprehensive program is needed within the Bureau of Prisons to assure
both staff and inmates a safe and healthy workplace.

I.	INTRODUCTION   

Researchers from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) conducted a study of exposures to metals and other
occupational hazards associated with the recycling of electronic
components at the Federal Prison Industries (aka, UNICOR) in Marianna,
Florida*.  The principal objectives of this study were:

1.	To measure full-shift, personal breathing zone exposures to metals
including barium, beryllium, cadmium, lead and nickel.  

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

3.	To identify and describe the control technology and work practices
used 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 exposures
to beryllium and other metals.

4.	To evaluate the use of personal protective equipment in operations
involved in the recycling of electronic components.

Other objectives such as a preliminary evaluation of heat exposures and
visual observations of undocumented hazards, were secondary to those
listed above but are discussed in this document.

An evaluation was conducted August 8 - 9, 2007, by NIOSH researchers
from the Engineering and Physical Hazards Branch, Division of Applied
Research and Technology, Cincinnati, Ohio.  During this evaluation, two
full shifts of environmental monitoring were conducted for the duration
of routine plant operations, and monitoring was also conducted during
non-routine operations, such as cleaning and maintenance as described in
Section II (Process Description) and Section III (Sampling and
Analytical Methods).   

Computers and their components contain a number of hazardous substances.
 Among these are “platinum in circuit boards, copper in transformers,
nickel and cobalt in disk drives, barium and cadmium coatings on
computer glass, and lead solder on circuit boards and video screens”
[Chepesiuk 1999].  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes that
“In addition to lead, electronics can contain chromium, cadmium,
mercury, beryllium, nickel, zinc, and brominated flame retardants”
[EPA 2008].  Schmidt [2002] linked these and other substances to their
use and location in the “typical” computer: lead used to join metals
(solder) and for radiation protection, is present in the cathode ray
tube (CRT) and printed wiring board (PWB).  Aluminum, used in structural
components and for its conductivity, is present in the housing, CRT,
PWB, and connectors.  Gallium is used in semiconductors; it is present
in the PWB.  Nickel is used in structural components and for its
magnetivity; it is found in steel housing, CRT and PWB.  Vanadium
functions as a red-phosphor emitter; it is used in the CRT.  Beryllium,
used for its thermal conductivity, is found in the PWB and in
connectors.  Chromium, which has decorative and hardening properties,
may be a component of steel used in the housing.  Cadmium, used in
Ni-Cad batteries and as a blue-green phosphor emitter, may be found in
the housing, PWB and CRT.  Cui and Forssberg [2003] note that cadmium is
present in components like SMD chip resistors, semiconductors, and
infrared detectors.  Mercury may be present in batteries and switches,
thermostats, sensors and relays [Schmidt 2002, Cui and Forssberg 2003],
found in the housing and PWB.  Arsenic, which is used in doping agents
in transistors, may be found in the PWB [Schmidt 2002].

Lee et al. [2004] divided the personal computer into three components,
the main machine, monitor, and keyboard.  They further divided the CRT
of a color monitor into the “(1) panel glass (faceplate), (2) shadow
mask (aperture), (3) electronic gun (mount), (4) funnel glass and (5)
deflection yoke.  Lee et al. [2004] note that panel glass has a high
barium concentration (up to 13%) for radiation protection and a low
concentration of lead oxide.  The funnel glass has a higher amount of
lead oxide (up to 20%) and a lower barium concentration.  They analyzed
a 14-in Philips color monitor by electron dispersive spectroscopy and
reported that the panel contained silicon, oxygen, potassium, barium and
aluminum in concentrations greater than 5% by weight, and titanium,
sodium, cerium, lead, zinc, yttrium, and sulfur in amounts less than 5%
by weight.  Analysis of the funnel glass revealed greater than 5%
silicon, oxygen, iron and lead by weight, and less than 5% by weight
potassium, sodium, barium, cerium, and carbon.  Finally, Lee et al.
[2004] noted that the four coating layers are applied to the inside of
the panel glass, including a layer of three fluorescent colors (red,
blue and green phosphors) that contain various metals, and a layer of
aluminum film to enhance brightness.

The reports referenced in the two preceding paragraphs cite the
potential hazards of electronic waste by listing the constituents of
electronic components. However, they do not cite any data on emissions
or occupational exposures that resulted from recycling work practices. 
German investigators [BIA 2001, Berges 2008a] broke 72 cathode-ray tubes
using three techniques (pinching off the pump port, pitching the anode
with a sharp item, and knocking off the cathode) in three experiments
performed on a test bench designed to measure emissions from the
process.  In contrast to the reports of potential hazards cited above,
neither lead nor cadmium was detected in the total dust, with one
exception, where lead was detected at a concentration of 0.05 mg/cathode
ray tube during one experiment wherein the researchers released the
vacuum out of 23 TVs by pinching off the pump port [BIA 2001, Berges
2008b].  They described this result as “sufficiently low that a
violation of the German atmospheric limit value of 0.1 mg/m3 need not
generally be anticipated” [BIA 2001].  The researchers noted that
“the working conditions must be organized such that skin contact with
and oral intake of the dust are excluded” [BIA 2001].

There are very few articles documenting actual occupational exposures
among electronics recycling workers.  Sjödin et al. [2001] and
Pettersson-Julander et al. [2004] have reported potential exposures of
electronics recycling workers to flame retardants while they dismantled
electronic products.  Recycling operations in the Marianna facility are
limited to disassembly and sorting tasks, with the exception of breaking
CRTs and stripping insulation from copper wiring.  Disassembly and
sorting probably poses less of a potential hazard to workers than tasks
that disrupt the integrity of the components, such as shredding or
desoldering PWBs.

The process of greatest concern was the glass breaking operation (GBO,
described below) that releases visible emissions into the workroom
atmosphere. Material safety data sheets and other information on
components of CRTs broken in this operation listed several metals,
including lead, cadmium, beryllium and nickel.  In addition, Federal
Occupational Health (FOH) investigators expressed a particular interest
in those metals and barium because of whistleblower allegations that
inmate workers and civilian staff members were being exposed to toxic
materials, including lead, cadmium, barium, and beryllium, at
electronics recycling operations overseen by Federal Prison Industries
(UNICOR) at a number of BOP facilities around the country.

Due to the location and time of the evaluation at this facility, the
potential for heat stress was also evaluated at the Marianna recycling
operation.  This information was presented to the Bureau of Prisons and
FOH in an earlier report dated September 26, 2007 and is included as
part of this report.

II.	PROCESS DESCRIPTION

  

The recycling of electronic components at the Marianna Federal
Correctional Institution (FCI) is done in two separate buildings:  1)
the main factory located within the FCI main compound; and 2) the
Federal Prison Camp (FPC) located approximately a quarter mile to the
south on the same property.  Diagrams of these work areas are shown in
Figures I and II, respectively, with an enlargement of the GBO in Figure
III.  These figures provide the layout of the work process, although
workers often moved throughout the various areas in the performance of
their tasks.  The population of the UNICOR FCI facility was
approximately 205 workers and of the FPC approximately 86 workers. 

The recycling of electronic components at this facility can be organized
into four production processes: a) receiving and sorting, b)
disassembly, c) glass breaking operations, and d) packaging and
shipping.  A fifth operation, cleaning and maintenance, will also be
addressed but is not considered a production process per se.

Incoming materials destined for recycling are received at a warehouse
where they are examined and sorted.  A truck crew loads and unloads
semi-trailers at the loading dock in the warehouse area. They unloaded
two trailers on August 8 and loaded two and unloaded two on August 9. 
During this evaluation it appeared that the bulk of the materials
received were computers, either desktop or notebooks, or related devices
such as printers.  Some items, notably notebook computers, could be
upgraded and resold, and these items were sorted out for that task.  

 After electronic memory devices (e.g., hard drives, discs, etc.) were
removed and degaussed or shredded, computer central processing units
(CPUs), servers and similar devices were sent for disassembly; monitors
and other devices (e.g., televisions) that contain CRTs were separated
and sent for disassembly and removal of the CRT.  Printers, copy
machines and any device that could potentially contain toner, ink, or
other expendables were segregated and inks and toners were removed prior
to being sent to the disassembly area.  

In the disassembly process external cabinets, usually plastic, were
removed from all devices and segregated.  Valuable materials such as
copper wiring and aluminum framing were removed and sorted by grade for
further treatment if necessary.  Components such as circuit boards or
chips that may have value or may contain precious metals such as gold or
silver were removed and sorted. With few exceptions each of the workers
in the main factory will perform all tasks associated with the
disassembly of a piece of equipment into the mentioned components with
the use of powered and un-powered hand tools (primarily screwdrivers and
wrenches), with a few workers collecting the various parts and placing
them into the proper collection bin.  Work tasks included removing
screws and other fasteners from cabinets, unplugging or clipping
electrical cables, removing circuit boards, and using whatever other
methods necessary to break these devices into their component parts. 
Essentially all components currently are sold for some type of
recycling.  

The third production process to be evaluated was the GBO where CRTs from
computer monitors and TVs were sent for processing.  This was an area of
primary interest in this evaluation due to concern from staff, review of
process operations and materials involved, and observations during an
initial walk-through.  This was the only process where local exhaust
ventilation was utilized or where respiratory protection was in
universal use.  Workers in other locations would wear eye protection and
occasionally would voluntarily wear a disposable respirator.  Workers in
the GBO wore personal protective equipment (PPE) based upon their
assigned work.

Two outside workers moved inventory for feeders and breakers.  One wore
a tee-shirt, work pants and cloth gloves; the other wore a short-sleeve
work shirt, work pants and cloth gloves. Two feeders removed CRTs from
large (Gaylord) boxes and placed them on a roller conveyor for the
breakers.  Feeders wore spun-bonded olefin coveralls over tee-shirts and
work pants, shoe covers, Kevlar® sleeve guards, and cloth work gloves
with rubberized palms and fingers. Two breakers broke the funnel and
panel glass.  The breakers wore loose-fitting hood-type powered
air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), (MB14-72 PAPR w/ Super Top Hood,
Woodsboro, MD, Global Secure Safety), spun-bonded olefin coveralls over
work pants and tee-shirts, shoe covers over work boots, cloth work
gloves over rubber gloves, and Kevlar® sleeve guards. The PPE is kept
in lockers against a wall in the GBO, opposite the glass-breaking booth.
 When the breakers are finished breaking glass, they clean the floor,
first with brooms and then with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
vacuum cleaner.  The breakers leave the booth in their coveralls and
PAPR, use another HEPA vacuum cleaner on their coveralls before removing
them, then remove and dispose of their coveralls, remove their PAPRs and
leave the work area.  Shoes are HEPA-vacuumed before exiting the GBO
(visitors are offered shoe covers).  Battery chargers for the PAPRs are
located on a bookcase against the wall adjacent to the glass-breaking
booth in the staging area. 

CRTs that had been removed from their cases were trucked to this process
area in large boxes.  These are staged by the outside workers using a
pallet jack.  The CRTs are lifted by hand from Gaylord boxes by the
feeders and placed on a roller conveyor through an opening on the side
of the glass breaking enclosure.  The breakers roll the CRTs onto an
angle-iron grate for breaking (see Figure IV).  Each breaker stands on
an elevated platform facing the grate, which is positioned in front of
the local-exhaust ventilation unit described by the manufacturer as a
reverse flow horizontal filter module (HFM).  As the CRT moved from left
to right in the booth the electron gun was removed by tapping with a
hammer to break it free from the tube, then a series of hammer blows was
used to break the funnel glass and allow it to fall through the grate
into large Gaylord boxes (cardboard boxes approximately 3 feet tall
designed to fit on a standard pallet) positioned below the grate.  This
was done at the first (left) station in Figure V.  The CRT was moved to
the second (right) station where any internal metal framing or lattice
was removed before the panel glass was broken with a hammer and also
allowed to fall into a Gaylord box.  During the two days of sampling 293
and 258 CRTs were broken.  Various sources on-site stated that “normal
production” was approximately 300 CRTs per day.  The work shift in the
GBO was abbreviated due to the environmental heat on both days, and was
further shortened on August 9 to allow time for the filter change
procedure.  Given the shortened work schedule, the production rate
(number of CRTs broken) on the days of sampling was not thought to be
lower than expected for a typical day.  No count was made by the survey
team regarding the number of color vs. monochrome monitors broken.

The HFMs were designed and manufactured by Atmos-Tech Industries (model
HFM24-ST/RF/SP, Ocean City, NJ).  Each unit is equipped with a bank of
35% efficient pleated pre-filters and a HEPA filter, a direct-drive 1200
cfm fan with a ½ horsepower motor, and a control panel with a minihelic
pressure gauge and variable speed control.  Air enters through the
pre-filters in the front of the unit, passes through the HEPA filter,
and is discharged into the room through a grille at the back of the
unit.  A frame attached to the front of each unit supports 24-in long
plastic strip curtains on the front and sides.  The top is enclosed with
a sheet of ¼-inch clear polycarbonate plastic.  The prefilters are held
in place by a metal grille.  Glass breaking is performed on top of an
angle-iron grate inside the area enclosed by the strip curtains.  Figure
V shows the left-hand HFM, number 1.

The final production process, packing and shipping, returned the various
materials segregated during the disassembly and glass breaking processes
to the warehouse to be sent to contracted purchasers of those individual
materials.  To facilitate shipment some bulky components such as plastic
cabinets or metal frames were placed in a hydraulic bailer to be
compacted for easier shipping.  Other materials were boxed or
containerized and removed for subsequent sale to a recycling operation.

In addition to monitoring routine daily activities in the four
production processes described above, environmental monitoring was
conducted to evaluate exposures during the replacement of filters in the
local exhaust ventilation system used for the GBO.  This is a
maintenance operation that occurs at approximately monthly intervals
during which the two sets of filters in this ventilation system are
removed and replaced.  This operation was of particular interest because
of concern expressed by management and workers and also because of
elevated exposures documented in previous similar operations.  Two
workers in spun-bonded olefin coveralls, gloves and PAPRs remove both
sets of filters, clean the system, and replace the filters.  They are
assisted by two additional workers who wear spun-bonded olefin coveralls
and gloves while working outside the glass breaking enclosure.  The
filter change is a maintenance operation that occurs at approximately
monthly intervals during which the ventilation system is shut down and
all filters are removed and replaced. Initially the exhaust system
components, including the accessible surfaces of the filters, are
vacuumed with a HEPA vacuum.  Then the filters are removed and bagged
for disposal, and the area inside the filter housing is vacuumed.  New
filters are inserted to replace the old ones, the LEV system is
reassembled, and any residual dust is HEPA vacuumed.  

III.	SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS  

Air sampling techniques

Methods used to assess worker exposures in this workplace evaluation
included: personal breathing zone sampling for airborne metals and total
particulate; surface wipe sampling to assess surface contamination; and
bulk material samples to determine the composition of settled dust. 
Material safety data sheets and background information on CRTs and other
processes in this operation listed several metals, including lead,
cadmium, beryllium and nickel.  Additionally, FOH personnel expressed
specific interest in barium due to whistleblower allegations that inmate
workers and civilian staff members were being exposed to toxic
materials, including lead, cadmium, barium, and beryllium, at
electronics recycling operations overseen by Federal Prison Industries
(UNICOR) at a number of BOP facilities around the country.

Personal breathing zone and general area airborne particulate samples
were collected and analyzed for metals and airborne particulate. 
Samples were collected for as much of the work shift as possible, at a
flow rate of 3 liters/minute (L/min) using a calibrated battery-powered
sampling pump (Model 224, SKC Inc., Eighty Four, PA) connected via
flexible tubing 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.  These samples were subsequently analyzed for
metals using inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICP) according to
NIOSH Method 7300 [NIOSH 1994] with modifications.  It is possible to
determine both airborne particulate as well as metals on the same sample
by using a pre-weighed filter (for total particulate samples) and then
post-weighing that filter to determine weight gain before digesting for
metals analysis.  This analytical technique produces a measure for dust
and a measure of 31 elements, including the five of particular interest
mentioned above, and that information is appended to this report. 
Because Method 7300 is an elemental analysis, the laboratory report
describes the amount of the element present in each sample (μg/sample)
as the element.  The method does not distinguish among the compounds
which may have contained the element in the sample.

Because there is evidence that the presence of an ultrafine component
increases the toxicity for chronic beryllium disease and possibly other
toxic effects, information on the aerosol size distribution was
collected to assist in evaluation of the potential exposure [McCawley et
al. 2001].  An aerodynamic particle sizer (APS model 3321, TSI
Instruments, Shoreview, MN) was used to collect this information on a
real time basis with data transfer directly to a laptop computer.  The
number concentration [number of particles/cubic centimeter (cm3)] of
particles of various sizes was counted over the range from 0.5 to

20 µm a using time-of-flight technique.  The sampler was placed inside
of the glass-breaking enclosure.

Bulk sampling and analysis

Bulk material samples were collected by gathering a few grams of settled
dust or material of interest and transferring this to a glass collection
bottle for storage and shipment.  These samples were analyzed for metals
using NIOSH Method 7300 [NIOSH 1994] modified for bulk digestion.  

Surface contamination technique

 by 10-cm square opening.  The templates were held in place by hand or
taped in place, 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 [NIOSH 1994]. Palintest wipes were analyzed for
beryllium using the Quantech Fluorometer (Model FM109515, Barnstead
International, Dubuque, Iowa) for spectrofluorometric analysis by NIOSH
Method 9110 [NIOSH 1994]. 

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 to help place the sampling results in proper
perspective.  

Heat Exposure Measurements 

Measurements to determine heat exposure were made with a QUESTemp° 34
datalogging thermal environment monitor (Quest Technologies, Oconomowoc,
WI).  This device was capable of measuring wet-bulb, dry-bulb and globe
temperatures and calculating the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature Index (WBGT)
out (for solar load, not used for this evaluation), WBGTin (for no solar
load), and humidity.  The WBGTin (indoors or outdoors with no solar
load) is the sum of 0.7 times the Natural Wet-Bulb (NWB) Temperature and
0.3 times the Globe Temperature (GT), expressed by the equation:

WBGTin = 0.7 NWB + 0.3 GT

Where NWB is measured using a natural (static) wet-bulb thermometer and
GT is measured using a black globe thermometer.  Measurements were
stored electronically in the instrument and downloaded to a computer at
the end of the work day.

Local Exhaust Ventilation Characterization Methods

Several methods were used to evaluate the local exhaust ventilation
system.  These methods included measuring air velocity at the face of
each of the HFMs inside the glass-breaking area, and measuring air
velocities at the plastic curtains enclosing the glass-breaking grate in
front of each HFM.  In addition, a smoke tracer was used to confirm the
direction of the airflow and effect of secondary airflows on hood
performance.  A Velocicalc Plus Model 8388 thermal anemometer (TSI
Incorporated, St. Paul, MN) was used to measure air speeds at the face
of each HFM and just inside the enclosing plastic strip curtain.  A
Wizard Stick smoke device (Zero Toys, Inc., Concord, MA) was used to
visualize air flow.

The face velocity tests were performed by dividing the face of the HFM
into 12 rectangles of equal area and measuring the velocity at the
center of each.  Face velocities were taken at each center point
averaged over a period of 30 seconds, using a 5-second time averaging
setting on the instrument.  The metal grid in front of the pre-filters
was used to support the edge of the probe and the researcher stood to
one side to avoid obstructing air flow.  To measure the velocities
achieved by the control at each center point, the anemometer probe was
held perpendicular to the air flow direction at those points.  The same
measurements were repeated at the front edge of the plastic strip
curtains enclosing the area immediately in front of each HFM to
determine the capture velocity at that point.

Smoke was released around the periphery of the hood and in the interior
of the hood to qualitatively evaluate the capture and determine areas of
concern.  By releasing smoke at points in and around the hood, the path
of the smoke, and thus any airborne material potentially released at
that point, could be qualitatively determined.

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 (OSHA) 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 [NARA
2008]. 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
[NIOSH 1992]; 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 [ACGIH 2008]. ACGIH®
TLV®s 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 the American Industrial
Hygiene Association (AIHA), another professional organization. WEELs
have been established for some chemicals “when no other legal or
authoritative limits exist” [AIHA 2007]. 

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® TLV®s address the issue of combined
effects of airborne exposures to multiple substances [29 CFR
1910.1000(d)(1)(i), ACGIH 2008].  ACGIH® [2008] 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.  Exposure Criteria for Occupational Exposure to Airborne Chemical
Substances

The OELs for the five primary contaminants of interest, in micrograms
per cubic meter (µg/m3), are summarized in Table 1 and additional
information related to those exposure limits is presented below.

Table 1: Occupational Exposure Limits for Five Metals of Primary
Interest (µg/m3)

	Barium (Ba)	Beryllium (Be)	Cadmium (Cd)	Lead (Pb)	Nickel (Ni)

REL	500 TWA	0.5 TWA	Lowest Feasible Concentration	50 TWA	15 TWA

PEL	500 TWA	2 TWA

5 (30 minute ceiling)

25 (peak exposure never to be exceeded)	5 TWA	50 TWA	1000 TWA

TLV®	500 TWA	2 TWA

10 (STEL)	10 (total) TWA

2 (respirable) TWA	50 TWA	1500 TWA (elemental)

100 TWA (soluble inorganic compounds)

200 TWA (insoluble inorganic compounds



This subset of five metals has been selected for consideration through
the body of this report because their presence was noted on MSDSs or
other information pertaining to CRTs and other processes at this
facility (beryllium, cadmium, lead and nickel) or due to the interest
expressed in barium exposures by FOH personnel due to whistleblower
allegations that inmate workers and civilian staff members were being
exposed to toxic materials, including lead, cadmium, barium, and
beryllium, at electronics recycling operations overseen by Federal
Prison Industries (UNICOR) at a number of BOP facilities around the
country.

The occupational exposure limits of all 31 metals quantified in this
work are listed in Appendix A.  Note that these limits refer to the
contaminant as the element (e.g., the TLV®s, beryllium and compounds,
as Be; cadmium and compounds, as Cd [ACGIH 2008]).  Additionally, the
OEL for dust is presented here to place those air sampling results in
perspective.

Occupational Exposure Criteria for Barium (Ba)

The current OSHA PEL, NIOSH REL, and ACGIH® TLV® is 0.5 mg/m3 as a TWA
for airborne barium exposures (barium and soluble compounds, except
barium sulfate, as barium) [29 CFR 1910.1000, NIOSH 2005, ACGIH 2008]. 
There is no AIHA WEEL for barium [AIHA 2007].  Skin contact with barium,
and many of its compounds, may cause local irritation to the eyes, nose,
throat and skin, and may cause dryness and cracking of the skin and skin
burns after prolonged contact [Nordberg 1998].   

Occupational Exposure Criteria for Beryllium (Be)

The OSHA general industry standard sets a beryllium PEL of 2 µg/m3 for
an 8-hour TWA, a ceiling concentration of 5 µg/m3, not to exceed 30
minutes and a maximum peak concentration of 25 µg/m3, not to be
exceeded for any period of time [29 CFR 1910.1000].  The NIOSH REL for
beryllium is 0.5 µg/m3 for up to a 10-hour work day, during a 40-hour
workweek [NIOSH 2005].  The current TLV® is an 8-hr TWA of 2 µg/m3,
and a STEL of 10 µg/m3 [ACGIH 2008].  The ACGIH® published a notice of
intended changes for the beryllium TLV® to 0.05 μg/m3 TWA and 0.2
μg/m3 STEL based upon studies investigating both chronic beryllium
disease and beryllium sensitization [ACGIH 2008].  There is no AIHA WEEL
for beryllium [AIHA 2007].  Beryllium has been designated a known human
carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC
1993]. 

Occupational Exposure Criteria for Cadmium (Cd)

 in urine (β2-M) [29 CFR 1910.1027 Appendix A]. An employee whose
biological testing results during both the initial and follow-up medical
examination are elevated above the following trigger levels must be
medically removed from exposure to cadmium at or above the action level:
(1) CdU level: above 7 μg/g creatinine, or (2) CdB level: above 10
μg/liter of whole blood, or (3) β2-M level: above 750 μg/g creatinine
and (a) CdU exceeds 3 μg/g creatinine or (b) CdB exceeds 5 μg/liter of
whole blood [OSHA 2004].

The ACGIH® TLV® for cadmium and compounds as cadmium is 10 μg/m3  as
a TWA, and 2 μg/m3 TWA for the respirable fraction of airborne cadmium
and compounds, as cadmium  [ACGIH 2008].  The ACGIH® also published a
Biological Exposure Index® that recommends that cadmium blood level be
controlled at or below 5 μg/L and urine level to be below 5 μg/g
creatinine [ACGIH 2008].  There is no AIHA WEEL for cadmium [AIHA 2007].

In 1976, NIOSH recommended that exposures to cadmium in any form should
not exceed a concentration greater than 40 μg/m3 as a 10-hour TWA or a
concentration greater than 200 μg/m3 for any 15-minute period, in order
to protect workers against kidney damage and lung disease.  In 1984,
NIOSH issued a Current Intelligence Bulletin, which recommended that
cadmium and its compounds be regarded as potential occupational
carcinogens based upon evidence of lung cancer among a cohort of workers
exposed in a smelter [NIOSH 1984].  NIOSH recommends that exposures be
reduced to the lowest feasible concentration [NIOSH 2005].  This NIOSH
REL was developed using a previous NIOSH policy for carcinogens (29 CFR
1990.103). The current NIOSH policy for carcinogens was adopted in
September 1995. Under the previous policy, NIOSH usually recommended
that exposures to carcinogens be limited to the “lowest feasible
concentration,” which was a nonquantitative value. Under the previous
policy, most quantitative RELs for carcinogens were set at the limit of
detection (LOD) achievable when the REL was originally established. 
From a practical standpoint, NIOSH testimony provided in 1990 on
OSHA’s proposed rule on occupational exposure to cadmium noted that,
“NIOSH research suggests that the use of innovative engineering and
work practice controls in new facilities or operations can effectively
contain cadmium to a level of 1 μg/m3.  Also, most existing facilities
or operations can be retrofitted to contain cadmium to a level of 5
μg/m3 through engineering and work practice controls” [NIOSH 1990].  

Early symptoms of cadmium exposure may include mild irritation of the
upper respiratory tract, a sensation of constriction of the throat, a
metallic taste and/or cough. Short-term exposure effects of cadmium
inhalation include cough, chest pain, sweating, chills, shortness of
breath, and weakness.  Short-term exposure effects of ingestion may
include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps [NIOSH 1989]. 
Long-term exposure effects of cadmium may include loss of the sense of
smell, ulceration of the nose, emphysema, kidney damage, mild anemia, an
increased risk of cancer of the lung, and possibly of the prostate
[NIOSH 1989, Thun et al. 1991, Goyer 1991]. 

Occupational Exposure Criteria for Lead (Pb)

lled to ≤ 30 µg/dL. A national health goal is to eliminate all
occupational exposures that result in BLLs >25 µg/dL [DHHS 2000]. 
There is no AIHA WEEL for lead [AIHA 2007].

Occupational exposure to lead occurs via inhalation of lead-containing
dust and fume and ingestion from contact with lead-contaminated
surfaces. Symptoms of lead poisoning include weakness, excessive
tiredness, irritability, constipation, anorexia, abdominal discomfort
(colic), fine tremors, and "wrist drop” [Saryan and Zenz 1994,
Landrigan et al. 1985, Proctor et al. 1991a].  Overexposure to lead may
also result in damage to the kidneys, anemia, high blood pressure,
impotence, and infertility and reduced sex drive in both genders. In
most cases, an individual's BLL is a good indication of recent exposure
to and current absorption of lead [NIOSH 1978].

Occupational Exposure Criteria for Nickel (Ni)

The NIOSH REL for nickel metal and other compounds (as nickel) is 15
µg/m3 based on its designation as a potential occupational carcinogen
[NIOSH 2005].  The ACGIH® TLV® for insoluble inorganic compounds of
nickel is 200 µg/m3 (inhalable fraction).  For soluble inorganic nickel
compounds the TLV® is 100 µg/m3 (inhalable fraction). The TLV® for
elemental nickel is 1,500 µg/m3 (inhalable fraction) [ACGIH 2008]. The
OSHA PEL for nickel is 1,000 µg/m3   TWA [29 CFR 1910.1000].  Metallic
nickel compounds cause allergic contact dermatitis [Proctor et al.
1991b].  NIOSH considers nickel a potential occupational carcinogen
[NIOSH 2005].  There is no AIHA WEEL for nickel [AIHA 2007].

Occupational Exposure Criteria for Dust

The maximum allowable exposure to airborne particulate not otherwise
regulated is established by OSHA at 15 mg/m3   for total and 5 mg/m3 
for the respirable portion [29 CFR 1910.1000].  A more stringent
recommendation of 10 mg/m3 inhalable and 3 mg/m3 respirable is presented
by the ACGIH® which feels that “even biologically inert insoluble or
poorly soluble particulate may have adverse health effects” [ACGIH
2008].  There is no AIHA WEEL for these substances [AIHA 2007].

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 [Caplan 1993].  Although some OSHA standards 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
surface contamination criteria included in OSHA standards [OSHA 2008]. 
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 [Caplan 1993].  NIOSH RELs do not address surface contamination
either, nor do ACGIH® TLV®s or AIHA WEELs.  Caplan [1993] stated that
“There is no general quantitative relationship between surface
contamination and air concentrations...” He also noted 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.”  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 Five Metals of Primary Interest

Surface Contamination Criteria for Lead

Federal standards have not been adopted that identify an exposure limit
for lead contamination of surfaces in the industrial workplace. 
However, in a letter dated January 13. 2003 [Fairfax 2003], OSHA’s
Directorate of Compliance Programs indicated that the requirements of
OSHA’s standard for lead in the construction workplace [29 CFR
1926.62(h)(1), 1926.62(i)(2)(i) and 1926(i)(4)(ii)] interpreted the
level of lead-contaminated dust allowable on workplace surfaces as
follows:  a) All surfaces shall be maintained as ‘free as
practicable’ of accumulations of lead, b) The employer shall provide
clean change areas for employees whose airborne exposure to lead is
above the permissible exposure limit, c) The employer shall assure that
lunchroom facilities or eating areas are as free as practicable from
lead contamination, d) The OSHA Compliance Directive for the Interim
Standard for Lead in Construction, CPL 2-2.58 recommends the use of
HUD's acceptable decontamination level of 21.5 µg/100 cm2  (200
µg/square foot [ft2]) for floors in evaluating the cleanliness of
change areas, storage facilities, and lunchrooms/eating areas, e) In
situations where employees are in direct contact with lead-contaminated
surfaces, such as, working surfaces or floors in change rooms, storage
facilities, lunchroom and eating facilities, OSHA has stated that the
Agency would not expect surfaces to be any cleaner than the 21.5 µg/100
cm2 (200 µg/ft2)  level, and f) For other surfaces, OSHA has indicated
that no specific level can be set to define how "clean is clean" nor
what level of lead contamination meets the definition of "practicable."
OSHA notes that “the term ‘practicable’ was used in the standard,
as each workplace will have to address different challenges to ensure
that lead-surface contamination is kept to a minimum.  It is OSHA’s
view that a housekeeping program which is as rigorous as
‘practicable’ is necessary in many jobs to keep airborne lead levels
below permissible exposure conditions at a particular site” [Fairfax
2003]. Specifically addressing contaminated surfaces on rafters, OSHA
has indicated that they must be cleaned (or alternative methods used
such as sealing the lead in place), as necessary to mitigate lead
exposures. OSHA has indicated that the intent of this provision is to
ensure that employers regularly clean and conduct housekeeping
activities to prevent avoidable lead exposure, such as would potentially
be caused by re-entrained lead dust. Overall, the intent of the
"as-free-as-practicable" requirement is to ensure that accumulation of
lead dust does not become a source of employee lead exposures. OSHA has
stated that any method that achieves this end is acceptable. 

In the United States, standards for final clearance following lead
abatement were established for public housing and facilities related to
children. However, no criteria have been recommended for other types of
buildings, such as commercial facilities.  One author has suggested
criteria based upon lead-loading values. Lange [2001] proposed a
clearance level of 108 µg/100 cm2 (1000 µg/ft2) for floors of non-lead
free buildings and 118 µg/100 cm2 (1100 µg/ft2) for lead-free
buildings, and states that “no increase in BLL should occur for adults
associated or exposed within a commercial structure” at the latter
level.  These proposed clearance levels are based on calculations that
make a number of intentionally conservative assumptions such as: a) Lead
uptake following ingestion is 35% absorption of lead in the
gastrointestinal system, b) Fingers have a total “touch” area of 10
cm2 and 100% of the entire presumed lead content on all 10 fingers is
taken up, c) The average ‘normal’ environmental lead dose (from
‘uncontaminated food/water/air) is 20 µg per day, d) The weight of
the exposed person is 70 kg, and e) Daily lead excretion is limited to
an average of 48 µg.  Lange [2001] notes that “use of the proposed
values would provide a standard for non-child-related premises (e.g.
commercial, industrial, office)…” but cautions that, “Further
investigation is warranted to evaluate exposure and subsequent dose to
adults from surface lead.”

Surface Contamination Criteria for Beryllium

A useful guideline is provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, 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. Those facilities must maintain
removable surface contamination levels that do not exceed 3 μg/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 Cadmium

Like lead and beryllium, cadmium poses serious health risks from
exposure.  Cadmium is a known carcinogen, is very toxic to the kidneys,
and can also cause depression.   However, OSHA, NIOSH, AIHA and ACGIH®
have not recommended criteria for use in evaluating wipe samples.  The
OSHA Cadmium standard [29 CFR 1910.1027] mandates that “All surfaces
shall be maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of
cadmium,” that, “all spills and sudden releases of material
containing cadmium shall be cleaned up as soon as possible,” and that,
“surfaces contaminated with cadmium shall, wherever possible, be
cleaned by vacuuming or other methods that minimize the likelihood of
cadmium becoming airborne.”

Surface Contamination Criteria for Nickel

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

Surface Contamination Criteria for Barium

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

C. Heat Stress Evaluation Criteria

Section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act)
identifies federal agency safety program and responsibilities and,
through its implementing regulations, requires agency heads to furnish
federal employees places and conditions of employment “that are free
from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or
serious physical harm” [29 CFR 1960.8].  In addition, Executive Order
12196 expands on the responsibilities originating from the Act and
requires agency heads to “[a]ssure prompt abatement of unsafe or
unhealthy working conditions.”  In circumstances where such conditions
cannot be abated, the agency must develop a plan that identifies a
timetable for abatement and a summary of interim steps to protect
employees.  Employees exposed to the conditions also must be informed of
the provisions of the plan.

The criteria OSHA uses to determine overexposures to heat stress were
developed by the NIOSH and the ACGIH®.  Factors taken into
consideration in evaluating heat stress include environmental and 
metabolic heat (judged as the work rate) of the worker; the clothing and
personal protective equipment worn; and the cycle of work and recovery.
The assumptions made for the purposes of this report are that all
workers have been acclimatized under heat-stress conditions similar to
those anticipated for a minimum of 2 weeks and that there is adequate
water and salt intake.

As described in the ACGIH® Documentation of Threshold Limit Values
[ACGIH  2007], Light work is illustrated as, “Sitting with light
manual work with hands or hands and arms and driving. Standing with some
light arm work and occasional walking.”  The Moderate work category,
considered to be the predominant rate observed at Marianna, is defined
by the ACGIH® TLV® as, “Sustained moderate hand and arm work,
moderate arm and leg work, moderate arm and trunk work, or light pushing
and pulling.  Normal walking.”  The example of Heavy work given in the
ACGIH® TLV® as, “Intense arm and trunk work, carrying, shoveling,
manual sawing; pushing and pulling heavy loads; and walking at a fast
pace.” Very Heavy work is exemplified by, “Very intense activity at
fast to maximum pace.”

Because the evaporation of sweat from the skin is the predominant heat
removal mechanism for workers, any clothing or PPE that impedes that
evaporation needs to be considered in an evaluation of heat stress. 
Accepted clothing for heat stress evaluation using the TLV® WBGT
criteria is traditional long sleeve work shirt and pants.  This is
essentially the level of clothing worn by all workers at the Marianna
facility.  Therefore an adjustment for clothing beyond such a summer
work uniform; a Clothing Adjustment Factor – [CAF]), should be made
for workers in the GBO, due primarily to their use of spun-bonded olefin
coveralls [ACGIH 2007, Bernard 2005].

NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limits

The NIOSH RELs for Heat Stress for acclimatized workers are shown in
Figure VI [NIOSH 1986]. NIOSH recommends controlling total heat
exposures so that unprotected, healthy acclimatized workers are not
exposed to combinations of metabolic and environmental heat that exceed
the applicable RELs.  The recommended limits are for healthy workers who
are physically and medically fit for the level of activity required by
their work and are wearing the traditional one layer work clothing of
not more than long-sleeved work shirts and pants (or equivalent).  The
limits may not provide adequate protection to workers wearing clothing
with lower air or vapor permeability or insulation values that exceed
those of traditional work clothing.  NIOSH recommends that no worker be
exposed to combinations of metabolic and environmental heat exceeding
the applicable ceiling limit unless provided with and properly using
adequate heat-protective clothing.

NIOSH [1986] recommends reducing the REL and RAL by 2 ºC (3.8 ºF) when
the worker is wearing a two-layer clothing system, and lowering the REL
and RAL by 4 ºC (7.2 ºF) when a “partially air and/or vapor
impermeable ensemble or heat reflective or protective leggings,
gauntlets, etc. are worn.”  However, the NIOSH document notes that
those suggested corrections are scientific judgments that were not
substantiated by controlled experimental studies or prolonged experience
in industrial settings. 

Threshold Limit Value and Action Level

The above work rate and clothing factors can be used, in combination
with the hourly work / rest regimen of exposed workers, to find the
permissible maximum WBGT heat exposure limit (expressed in oC) from the
table of TLV®s. 

Table 2: Heat Stress TLV®s and Action Limit WBGT Values [ACGIH 2007]

Allocation of Work in a Cycle of Work and Recovery 	TLV® (WBGT values
in ºC)

	Action Limit (WBGT values in  ºC)





Very 



Very

	Light 	Moderate 	Heavy 	Heavy 	Light 	Moderate 	Heavy 	Heavy

75% to 100% 	31.0	28.0 	— 	— 	28.0 	25.0 	— 	—

50% to 75% 	31.0	29.0 	27.5 	— 	28.5 	26.0 	24.0 	—

25% to 50% 	32.0	30.0 	29.0 	28.0 	29.5 	27.0 	25.5 	24.5

0% to 25% 	32.5	31.5 	30.5 	30.0 	30.0 	29.0 	28.0 	27.0



Assessment of exposures in relation to the stress and strain TLV®s is a
step-by-step process, once exposures and working conditions have been
assessed.  The first step is to ascertain whether or not a CAF is
available.  There is a CAF for polyolefin coveralls of 1.0 ºC (1.8 ºF)
WBGT.  The TLV®s note that “the recommended adjustment factors are
based on a worker wearing a single layer coverall over modesty
clothing” (e.g., shorts and tee-shirt, or perhaps the tee-shirts and
work pants worn by the workers in the GBO).

If there is a CAF available, one should determine whether or not the
screening criteria for the Action Limit (above) are exceeded, and if
they are, then determine if the screening criteria for the TLV® (above)
are exceeded (if the Action Limit criteria are not exceeded, continue to
monitor work conditions).  If the screening criteria for the TLV® are
exceeded, a detailed analysis is recommended, including obtaining a task
analysis that includes a time-weighted average of the “Effective
WBGT” (the environmental WBGT plus the CAF) and the metabolic rate.

The next step is to review the results of the detailed analysis.  If the
detailed analysis indicates that the Action Limit is exceeded, but the
TLV® is not (or the workers are acclimatized), then general controls
should be implemented and monitoring of conditions continued.  General
controls include [ACGIH 2007]:

• Provide accurate verbal and written instructions, annual training
programs, and other information about heat stress and strain 

• Encourage drinking small volumes (approximately 1 cup) of cool,
palatable water (or other acceptable fluid replacement drink) about
every 20 minutes 

• Permit self-limitation of exposures and encourage co-worker
observation to detect signs and symptoms of heat strain in others 

• Counsel and monitor those who take medications that may compromise
normal cardiovascular, blood pressure, body temperature regulation,
renal, or sweat gland functions; and those who abuse or are recovering
from the abuse of alcohol or other intoxicants 

• Encourage healthy life-styles, ideal body weight and electrolyte
balance 

• Adjust expectations of those returning to work after absence from
hot exposure situations and encourage consumption of salty foods (with
approval of physician if on a salt-restricted diet) 

• Consider preplacement medical screening to identify those
susceptible to systemic heat injury 

• Monitor the heat stress conditions and reports of heat-related
disorders 



If the detailed analysis reveals that the “exposure exceeds the limits
for acclimatized workers,” the ACGIH® [2007] recommends that
physiological monitoring (e.g., core body temperature, heart rate
monitoring) as “the only alternative to demonstrate that adequate
protection is provided.” If physiological monitoring indicates that
employees are experiencing excessive heat strain (the overall bodily
response to heat stress), then job-specific controls should be
implemented.  These include [ACGIH 2007}:

• Consider engineering controls that reduce the metabolic rate,
provide general air movement, reduce process heat and water vapor
release, and shield radiant heat sources, among others

• Consider administrative controls that set acceptable exposure times,
allow sufficient recovery, and limit physiological strain

• Consider personal protection that is demonstrated effective for the
specific work practices and conditions at the location



Finally, ACGIH® [2007] notes that a program to manage heat stress is
required when heat stress levels exceed the Action Limit or workers
utilize clothing ensembles that limit heat loss, and that in either
case, general controls should be utilized to protect workers.

V.	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The work described here was conducted in August, 2007 at the Marianna
FCI and FPC, UNICOR Recycling Factory electronic components recycling
operations.  During this testing air, surface wipe, bulk dust and heat
data were collected in locations where the electronics recycling
operations were taking place or had taken place in the past.  The
primary purposes of this evaluation were to estimate the potential
exposures of inmates and/or staff to toxic substances and heat
encountered during the recycling of electronic components, and to
recommend remedial measures to reduce exposures if necessary.

A statistical summary of air sampling results is presented in Table 3,
and results of personal breathing zone and area air sampling are shown
in Table 4.  Surface wipe sample results are contained in Table 5; bulk
material sample results are presented in Table 6; environmental heat
measurements are shown in Table 7; and estimated work rates and
metabolic heat values are given in Table 8.  Table 9 provides the
results of the ventilation evaluation in the GBO.  As mentioned in
Section III above, all samples were analyzed for 31 metals due to the
parameters of the analytical method.  While the data in these tables
present the results of just the five metals of primary interest in this
evaluation, results of all analyses are contained in the appendices.  
These data indicate levels well below the OELs of those other metals,
even when results for combined exposures as calculated by Equation 1 are
considered. 

A. Bulk Material Sample Results 

Five bulk material samples of dust from locations within the GBO were
collected in August 2007.  These samples were analyzed for metals, and
the results are presented in Table 6 for the metals of primary interest.
 The one metal present in all five samples in significant concentration
is lead, which ranged from 2,200 to 35,000 mg/kg (0.22% to 3.5%). 
Nickel was measured at 0.2% in one sample.  No beryllium was detected in
these bulk samples.  The entire data set (all 31 metals) is presented in
Appendix B at the end of this report.  

B. Surface Wipe Sample Results

The surface wipe sample results collected during the visit in the
electronic recycling operations at the Marianna FCI are summarized below
and in Table 5, and the entire surface wipe sample data set is contained
in Appendix C.  Results of spectrofluorometric analysis for beryllium
only confirmed ICP measurements and are not repeated in the tables.

It is noteworthy that many of the cadmium wipe samples collected from
work surfaces described as “rubber” or “mat(t)” have many of the
highest levels of surface contamination, although the data were not
analyzed for statistical significance since this technique is considered
semi-quantitative.  As Table 5 indicates, the majority of these mats
were used as table coverings in the work area.  The higher cadmium
levels may indicate that these surfaces are more difficult to clean and
retain dust, or they may be indicative of the operations taking place at
those work stations.  In either case, using cardboard or another
disposable covering on top of the mats and discarding the covering after
every shift would address the issue of contamination of these surfaces. 

FCI Recycling Factory

μg/100 cm2.  No beryllium was detected in samples from the recycling
factory; the limit of detection was 0.07 μg/100 cm2.  Many of the
surfaces tested for lead indicated levels exceeding the OSHA-referenced
HUD criteria of 21.5 μg/100 cm2, including two in the breakdown area
that contained 110 and 140 μg/100 cm2.  While there are no criteria for
evaluating cadmium surface contamination, 3 of 23 of the cadmium
measurements were 19 μg/100 cm2 or greater, with a range from less than
the limit of detection of 0.1 μg/100 cm2 to 65 μg/100 cm2.  The
highest level of nickel surface contamination was 68 μg/100 cm2.

FPC

Three surfaces were wiped to measure surface metal contamination in the
camp (Table 5) and one produced the highest levels of barium, cadmium
and lead seen (320, 360, and 5100 μg/100 cm2 respectively) and 52 μg
of nickel/100 cm2.  This was a sample of accumulated dust collected on
top of an electrical conduit attached to the back wall to the left of
HFM-1 inside the containment area.  This indicates insufficient cleaning
in this area of airborne dust that escaped capture by the local exhaust
system.  It should be noted that the denominator (100 cm2) is an
approximation for this sample, which was collected from a rounded
surface where a template could not be used.  The other two samples here
were well below the suggested maximum levels.  However, one was obtained
from the door of a locker used to store PPE, and the other was collected
on top of the bookcase used to charge the PAPR battery packs, indicating
that some contamination is present in these clean areas.  This is
confirmed by the results of the bulk sample of settled dust collected
from on top of a locker in the GBO (Table 6).  

C. Air Sample Results

 Air measurements were collected during both routine and non-routine
operations in the areas identified, including the GBO.  Data presented
here and in Table 4 are for the duration of the samples rather than for
an 8-hour time weighted average since the concentrations of contaminants
are so low in most cases.  Measurements made during the filter change
operation are presented at the bottom of Table 4 and discussed
separately below since this was not a routine production operation.  The
full data set of all 31 metals is presented in Appendix D.

 

FCI Recycling Factory

Eighteen samples were collected in the UNICOR recycling factory for
airborne metals during the August, 2007 study.  These data can be
identified by date in Table 4, but the magnitudes of the exposures were
not generally different by date.  Measurements during routine operations
revealed that barium concentrations ranged between <0.05 and 0.26 μg/m3
and were below occupational exposure limits.  Beryllium levels also were
all below the limit of detection.  The minimal detectable concentration
(limit of detection/sample volume) varied with sample volume, most being
<0.03 μg/m3.  Cadmium, lead and nickel, likewise, were found at low
levels ranging up to 0.091, 0.54, and 0.19 μg/m3, respectively.  Lead
was the metal found in highest quantity, but only 6 samples were above
the limit of detection and the highest was approximately 1% of the
occupational exposure limits of 50 μg/m3.  Airborne particulate
concentrations ranged up to 717 μg/m3 (<0.1 to 0.7 mg/m3).

FPC Recycling operations

 μg/m3 respectively, when the compromised samples are ignored. 
Airborne total particulate concentrations ranged from <60 to 887 μg/m3
when the compromised samples are excluded.

FPC Glass Breaking Room – Routine Production 

 μg/m3, respectively.  None of the samples exceeded the relevant
occupational exposure limits as 8-hr TWAs (e.g., 6.8 μg/m3 of cadmium
in a 143 minute sample results in an 8-hr TWA of 2.0 μg/m3).  This
cadmium result approached, but did not exceed, the OSHA Action Level. 
Particulate measurements ranged up to 891 μg/m3.  These results
indicate that the HFMs do an effective job in controlling the
breakers’ exposures to levels below relevant occupational exposure
criteria. The feeders’ exposures indicate that their jobs should be
reviewed to determine the source of their airborne exposures to
determine if it originates from material handling or from dust escaping
the enclosed booth area. When the results of sampling conducted during
routine operations in the GBO are reviewed, the reader should recall
that the GBO was operating on a shortened schedule due to the hot
conditions.

 

FPC Glass Breaking Room – Non-Routine Filter Cleaning and Maintenance
Operations

The filter change operation in the GBO, discussed in the Process
Description (Section II), was the task of most concern regarding
exposures of workers to toxic metals. As noted above, the filter change
is a maintenance operation that occurs at approximately monthly
intervals during which the ventilation system is shut down and all
filters are removed and replaced.  During this operation, two workers in
spun-bonded olefin coveralls, gloves and PAPRs remove both sets of
filters, clean the system, and replace the filters.  They are assisted
by two additional workers who wear spun-bonded olefin coveralls and
gloves while working outside the glass breaking enclosure. The exhaust
system components, including the accessible surfaces of the filters, are
first HEPA vacuumed.  The filters are then removed and bagged for
disposal, and the area inside the filter housing is vacuumed.  New
filters are inserted to replace the old ones, the LEV system is
reassembled, and any residual dust is HEPA vacuumed.

Air sampling preformed during this operation revealed that barium
concentrations ranged from 1.0 to 16 μg/m3.  No beryllium or nickel was
detected.  Cadmium ranged from 0.74 to 12 μg/m3 (0.069 to 1.4 μg/m3
8-hr TWA), and again lead was the metal found in the highest
concentration, ranging from 5.6 to 105 μg/m3 (0.53 to 12 μg/m3 8-hr
TWA).  Airborne total particulate measurements ranged from 270 to 5,000
μg/m3.

 the 0.6 – 0.7 μm size range, with the number of particles in the
larger particle size near 3 μm increasing to more than 150
particles/cm3.  Filter changing produced the highest particle counts,
while routine daily cleaning produced higher number concentrations than
routine glass-breaking operations.  However, results indicated that none
of the tasks were especially dusty when compared to other industrial
environments and tasks [Alexander et al. 1999, Kuhlbusch et al. 2004,
Evans et al. 2008]. 

D. 	Heat Measurement Results

 

The heat measurement data collected on August 8 and 9, 2007, are
presented in Table 7.  Measurements of indoor wet bulb globe temperature
(WBGTin) were calculated for one hour increments and are presented for
each of the two days of the testing at that facility.  Included are the
heat stress data obtained in the various locations tested in both FCI
and FPC.  The GBO operation was limited to the morning because of the
summer heat.  However, no work-rest regimen was in place at any of the
Marianna operations.

Having observed work at all Marianna locations evaluated, work rates in
the FCI and FPC were determined as shown in Table 8.  The metabolic heat
values are taken from the ACGIH® TLV® documentation [ACGIH 2007]. 
They represent midpoints in the range of metabolic rates for the
categories of work.  Because all workers were not working at the same
rate, even though they were assigned the same jobs, some tasks were
given overlapping classifications.

Comparison of the Results with the NIOSH REL

Using the plot in Figure 7, entering a Metabolic Heat value of 300 Watts
(W) and entering a WBGT value of 32.8 ºC (adding the NIOSH clothing
adjustment of 4 ºC to the measured WBGT value of 28.8 ºC) for the
breakers, shows that the REL for continuous work (60 minutes/hour) was
exceeded for the breakers during their first hour of work on August 8. 
Since that hour represented their minimum measured heat exposure, the
breakers’ exposures exceeded the REL for continuous work for all of
the measured periods.  The feeders’ estimated metabolic heat equaled
or exceeded that of the breakers (e.g., they lifted and carried CRTs,
while the breakers slid them and used breaking tools) and they shared
the same environmental heat exposure and wore spun-bonded olefin
coveralls over their work clothes.  Therefore, the feeders were also
exposed above the REL on both sampling days.  Using the plot in Figure 7
and entering a metabolic heat value of 240 W (the average work rate for
the outside workers in the GBO) on the horizontal axis and an unadjusted
WBGT value of 28.8 ºC, shows that the outside workers in the GBO were
at or slightly over the REL for continuous work for that period, and
likely exceeded the REL for continuous work during the period from 9:00
am to 10:00 am on August 9, when the WBGT value was 30.4 ºC.

Using the same procedure, entering a metabolic heat value of 240 W for
all FCI workers and hourly TWA WBGT values that ranged from 28.3 ºC to
29 ºC on August 8 and from 29.2 ºC to 30.4 ºC, the FCI workers’
heat exposures approached or exceeded the REL for continuous work for
several periods on both days. Using the plot in Figure 7, the WBGT
values in Table 7, and a metabolic heat value of 300 W for the truck
crew shows that their exposures approached or exceeded the REL for
continuous work on both days as well. Only the other warehouse workers
experience heat exposures that were below the REL for continuous work on
both days, based on an estimated metabolic heat of 180 W and a maximum
1-hr TWA of 29.4 ºC WBGT.

Comparison of the Results with the ACGIH® TLV®

Adjusting the TLV® and Action Limit values in Table 2 by a CAF
reduction of 1ºC for workers wearing spun-bonded olefin coveralls and
comparing the results in Table 7 with those values utilizing the work
rates noted above indicates that some of the tasks performed by workers
at this facility result in exceeding recommended heat stress values
under the conditions measured on August 8 and 9, 2007.

Specifically, the breakers’ measured WBGT values of 28.8 ºC and 29.7
ºC on August 8 and 29.7 ºC and 30.4 ºC on August 9 exceeded the
CAF-adjusted TLV® of 27 ºC for moderate work performed continuously
(45-60 minutes out of every hour), and it should be noted that the WBGT
monitor was placed outside of the plastic enclosure wherein the breakers
worked (because 4 of 6 GBO workers work outside this enclosure).  The
WBGT value may have been higher inside the enclosure due to heat
generated by the electric motors in the HFMs.  The same measured WBGT
values represented the feeders’ environmental heat exposures.  Their
moderate to heavy work also resulted in WBGT exposures in excess of the
CAF-adjusted TLV®s of 27 ºC for continuous moderate work and 26.5 ºC
for heavy work for a work cycle of 50% to 75% work in an hour.  The
filter change operation WBGT measurement of 31.2 ºC on August 9 also
exceeded the CAF-adjusted TLV® for continuous light work of 30 ºC.  No
CAF adjustment is required for workers in other tasks, who wore typical
summer work clothing.

For the outside workers in the GBO , the  measured WBGT values of 28.8
ºC and 29.7 ºC on  August 8 and 29.7 ºC and 30.4 ºC  on August 9 and
light  to moderate work rates result in exposures that exceeded the
TLV® for continuous moderate work and the Action Limit for continuous
light work.  Reviewing the WBGT values measured in the Warehouse on
August 8 reveals that they ranged from 28.1 ºC to 28.5 ºC, while WBGT
measurements on August 9 in the Warehouse ranged from 28.6 ºC to 29.4
ºC.  Those values exceed the Action Limit for continuous light work of
28.0 ºC.  The WBGT monitor in the Warehouse was placed on the wooden
reception counter at the loading dock entrance in an attempt to measure
the exposures of both the warehouse workers and the crew unloading
trucks.  The truck crew workers exposures also exceeded the TLV® of 28
ºC for continuous moderate work.  WBGT temperatures measured in the FCI
–Refurbish area ranged from 28.3 ºC  to 29.1 ºC  on August 8, and
from 29.2 ºC to 30.3 ºC on August 9, exceeding the Action Limit for
continuous light work. Finally, measured WBGT values in the
FCI-Disassembly area ranged from 28.4 ºC to 29.4 ºC on August 8, and
from 29.3 ºC to 

30.4 ºC on August 9.  These measurements exceeded the Action Limit for
continuous light work.

E. 	Local Exhaust System Measurements 

The tests described above were conducted with the variable speed control
on both units set at 100%.  The minihelic gauges on the left-hand HFM
(s/n 11023-1) and on the right-hand HFM (s/n 11023-2) read 1.2 and 1.3
inches, respectively.  The results of the velocity measurements are
presented in Table 9.  The average face velocity measured at HFM-1 (the
one on the left when facing them from the front, s/n 11023-1) was 0.66
meters/second (m/sec) (130 feet/minute [fpm]); the average capture
velocity at the edge of the front curtains was 0.37 m/sec (73 fpm).  The
average face velocity measurement was in close agreement with the
manufacturer’s test report of 0.66 m/sec (130 fpm) measured at the
face of the HEPA filter with the fan operating at 100% capacity. 
However, the manufacturer’s readings only varied from 0.64 to 0.68
m/sec (125 to 133 fpm) versus 0.35 to 1.07 m/sec (68 to 210 fpm)
measured during this testing.  The average face velocity measured at
HFM-2 was 0.54 m/sec (106 fpm); the average capture velocity measured at
the edge of the curtains in front of the unit was 0.40 m/sec (78 fpm). 
The manufacturer’s test of the new unit reported an average face
velocity of 0.76 m/sec (150 fpm) at the face of the HEPA filter (range
0.71-0.81 m/sec [140-160 fpm]).  There were some gaps visible between
the prefilters on both HFMs and there was a gap between HFM-2 and the
angle-iron grate.  The gaps between the prefilters may shorten the
service life of the HEPA filter by allowing larger particles to reach
it.  The measurements of the face and capture velocity show that better
capture is achieved in the central portion of both workstations;
performance drops off considerably outside of the center part of the
enclosure.   These gaps may also account for the distribution of face
velocities noted (some of which differed by more than 20% from the mean
value) as air was exhausted through the gaps, flowing around, rather
than through, the prefilters.  The gap between the grate and the HFM may
decrease the effectiveness of the HFM by increasing the distance from
the face to the glass-breaking operation and may allow broken glass to
escape collection and land on the floor resulting in an additional
hazard and a longer clean-up time.  Smoke released showed the air tended
to flow into the enclosed area in front of each HFM as expected.

Both HFMs are in an area enclosed by plastic curtains on two sides and a
building wall on the other two sides.  The curtain enclosing the front
of the area is composed of plastic strips.  The side curtain is a
continuous plastic sheet, except for a cut out framed in wood that
allows the attending inmates to pass material to the tube breakers via a
roller conveyor.  The area in enclosed on top by plastic as well.

The HFMs discharge into the enclosure (rather than to the outside of the
building, for example) recirculating the filtered air into the
workplace.  Since the air is recirculated, the enclosure is not under
negative pressure with regard to the rest of the glass breaking
facility.  The American National Standards Institute and the American
Industrial Hygiene Association note that recirculation of air from
industrial exhaust systems into workroom air can result in hazardous air
contaminant concentrations in the facility if not designed properly
[ANSI/AIHA 2007].  They recommend performing an evaluation of the
process and the toxicity of the materials used in the process before
recirculating air to the workplace [ANSI/AIHA 2007].  That standard
emphatically states “under no circumstances shall workroom air consist
of 100% recirculated air.”  According to the ANSI/AIHA standard., the
recirculation of exhaust air streams that contain highly toxic
substances (as defined by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard)
requires the use of a continuous monitoring device for the contaminant
in the exhaust stream; however a continuous monitoring of the pressure
drop across the redundant filter may be acceptable if filter testing
upon installation reveals the presence of no more than 10% of the
acceptable concentration of the contaminant in the discharge ductwork
[ANSI/AIHA 2007].  There are no continuous monitoring devices installed
on these HFMs.  While the samples collected during this evaluation were
not collected in the discharge ductwork, the measured occupational
exposures were very low.  Monitoring of the pressure drop across the
HEPA filter may be an acceptable means of monitoring filter loading and
detecting any leaks.  There are manometers installed on both HFMs.

Exhausting the HFMs to the outside of the building could create negative
pressure within the glass-breaking booth with respect to the rest of the
building to help contain airborne contaminants generated by that
operation and eliminate the recirculation of exhaust air.  Addition of
tempered make-up air would cool the workers; the volume of makeup air
supplied should be balanced with the exhaust volume to maintain the
desired negative pressure.  However, since the HFMs are not designed to
exhaust externally, the manufacturer should be consulted before any
modifications are attempted.

The OSHA lead standard includes requirements for the design and
evaluation of mechanical exhaust systems in workplaces where the OSHA
PEL of 50 μg/m3 [29 CFR 1910.1025].  These include a requirement to
perform measurements at least every 3 months (and within 5 days of any
change that might impact upon exposure) which demonstrate the
effectiveness of the system in controlling exposure, such as capture
velocity, duct velocity, or static pressure.  Where exhaust air is
recirculated into the workplace, that regulation also requires the use
of a high efficiency filter with reliable back-up filter and the use of
controls to monitor the concentration of lead in the return air and to
bypass the recirculation system automatically if it fails.  The OSHA
cadmium standard includes similar requirements and adds a requirement to
utilize procedures to minimize employee exposure to cadmium when
maintenance of ventilation systems and changing of filters is being
conducted.  However, none of the air samples revealed lead or cadmium
exposures above the OSHA PEL in the GBO, so these requirements do not
apply here.

VI.	CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The primary purpose of sampling is to determine the extent of employee
exposures and the adequacy of protection.  Sampling also permits the
employer to evaluate the effectiveness of engineering and work practice
controls and informs the employer whether additional controls need to be
installed.  Values that exceed OELs indicate that additional controls
are necessary.  This study focused on the evaluation of airborne
exposures and heat stress, with additional data collected on surface
contamination.  Measurements of environmental heat indicate exposures
above safe levels for the work loads and work schedules.  The results of
air sampling during this August 2007 survey found that lead, cadmium,
and other metals are generated and released during the recycling
operations at this facility.  No exposures to airborne metals or
particulate were found that exceeded the OSHA Action Level for these
substances during routine production or during non-routine operations,
such as the monthly filter change operation.  When the results of
sampling conducted during routine operations in the GBO are reviewed,
the reader should remember that the GBO was operating on a shortened
schedule due to the hot conditions.

Although the whistleblower was concerned about beryllium and literature
that pertains to e-waste recycling report that beryllium is present in
electronic components, none was detected in air, wipe, or bulk samples
collected at this facility.  One explanation for this is based on the
work of Willis and Florig [2002].  They note that beryllium “in
consumer products is used in ways that are not likely to create
beryllium exposures during use and maintenance.”  The recycling
operations (except the GBO) involve disassembly of electronics and
sorting of the components.  While some breakage occurs during the
disassembly process, the components likely to contain beryllium are not
subject to further processing that might create the potential for
beryllium exposures.

μg/100 cm2, as well as samples for cadmium and nickel that produced
results up to 66 μg of cadmium /100 cm2 and 70 μg of nickel/100 cm2. 
Modifications can be made to assure continued exposure control and to
improve operations in general.

When reviewing the work practices for the inmates working in the GBO,
one is struck by the approaches taken to worker protection. A typical
work area where exposure levels dictate the use of protective clothing
includes an outer change area where workers can remove and store their
street clothing and don their work clothing and personal protective
equipment before entering the work area (Figure VII).  As Figure VII
illustrates, in a typical facility where protective clothing is
required, workers exit the work area through a “decon” area (e.g.,
where they vacuum the outer surface of their clothes) upon completion of
their work, and then enter a separate, “dirty” locker area, where
their soiled work clothes are removed and placed in receptacles for
cleaning or disposal.  The workers then pass through a shower area, and
then enter the clean locker area, where they change into their street
clothes again.  In some cases (e.g., asbestos removal), respirators are
worn into the shower and not removed until the exterior surfaces are
rinsed.

In the Marianna GBO, air sampling revealed that the use of protective
clothing, respirators or change rooms is not required by the OSHA lead
or cadmium standards, since the PEL is not exceeded.  However,
management has chosen to require the use of respirators and protective
clothing.  At the time of this evaluation, the workers wore their prison
uniforms into the work area and donned disposable spun-bonded olefin
coveralls on top of them.  Thus, their prison uniforms may become
contaminated by their work, and the workers may be at risk of heat
illness through their use of the outer garments.  In addition,
respirators and clean protective clothing are stored in lockers in the
work area, where they are at risk of contamination.  Since this facility
already provides uniforms; a second set could be provided for workers in
the GBO, collected, segregated and laundered separately and in
accordance with good practices and applicable regulations.  Using a
different colored uniform for use in the GBO would aid in the
segregation of work uniforms from “street clothes.”  Using a
separate uniform inside the GBO and discontinuing the use of spun-bonded
olefin coveralls over the normal prison uniform would improve heat loss
and reduce the level of heat stress while protecting the workers from
the environment.

  

Heat Stress Recommendations

The following additional recommendations are based on NIOSH, and ACGIH®
recognized methods and/or procedures which can be used to reduce heat
stress hazards at the Marianna FCI and FCP workplaces: 

BOP should institute measures immediately to ensure compliance with the
ACGIH® heat stress criteria in preparation for next summer.  If UNICOR
is not presently able to ensure such compliance, it should suspend glass
breaking operations at Marianna during hot weather until a heat stress
program can be developed and implemented to offset the potential health
problems and/or consequences that may result from glass breaking
activities and the elevated temperatures found during this
investigation.  If the BOP has an equally effective alternative to
achieving compliance other than the development of a heat stress plan
and the interim suspension of GBO, it should promptly notify the OIG.

1.  Based upon the exposures to hot environments documented in this
report, the site-specific health and safety program at Marianna must
include a heat stress section, which includes, as a minimum:

a. Procedures that will be used to determine environmental and metabolic
heat.  NIOSH [1986] recommends establishing a WBGT or environmental
profile for each hot work area during winter and summer months to help
determine when to implement engineering and/or work practice controls. 
Additional measurements should be made to aid in the implementation
decision when the profile indicates that excessive heat should be
anticipated or if a heat wave is forecast.

b. Both routine and non-routine work practices should be carefully
observed to estimate the metabolic heat associated with each job or
task.  Procedures for obtaining those estimates can be found in NIOSH
[1986] and ACGIH [2007] publications.

c. NIOSH [1986] recommends instituting a medical surveillance program
for all workers who may be exposed to heat stress above recommended
limits, including preplacement and periodic examinations.  The
recommended content of the examinations and other relevant information
can be found in that reference.

2.  Engineering controls are the preferred method to reduce and/or
eliminate occupational stressors in the workplace; therefore, cooling
methods, such as air conditioning systems should be investigated to
reduce the heat load in this work place.  Portable air conditioners may
be used in the trailers while the trailer crews are working, if
monitoring shows their use is warranted.

3. In lieu of implementing engineering controls, work/rest schedules can
be utilized to control worker exposure to heat stress.  Provisions for a
work/rest regimen should be established so that exposure time to high
temperatures and/or the work rate is decreased.  For example, a measured
hourly TWA WBGT of 29 ºC and a moderate work load dictates a work rest
schedule of 30 to 45 minutes work per hour [ACGIH 2008].  In addition,
the BOP needs to reassess its current use of PPE (i.e., the use of
spun-bonded olefin, PAPRs, gloves, etc.) and consider adding personal
cooling devices, such as, cooling vest or packs for workers in the GBO.

4.  An initial and periodic training program should be implemented,
informing employees about the hazards of heat stress, predisposing
factors and how to recognize heat-related illness signs and symptoms,
potential health effects, first aid procedures, precautions for work in
hot environments and preventing heat-induced illnesses, worker
responsibilities, and other elements [NIOSH 1986].

5.  An acclimation program should be implemented for new employees or
employees returning to work from absences of three or more days.

6.  Specific procedures should be developed for heat-related emergency
situations, including provisions that first aid be administered
immediately to employees displaying symptoms of heat related illness.

7.  Workers should be permitted to drink water at liberty.

8.  The ACGIH [2007] recommends the following general controls for
limiting heat strain.  Consult the documentation of the Heat Stress and
Strain TLV for further information.

• Provide accurate verbal and written instructions, annual training
programs, and other information about heat stress and strain 

• Encourage drinking small volumes (approximately 1 cup) of cool,
palatable water (or other acceptable fluid replacement drink) about
every 20 minutes 

• Permit self-limitation of exposures and encourage co-worker
observation to detect signs and symptoms of heat strain in others 

• Counsel and monitor those who take medications that may compromise
normal cardiovascular, blood pressure, body temperature regulation,
renal, or sweat gland functions; and those who abuse or are recovering
from the abuse of alcohol or other intoxicants 

• Encourage healthy life-styles, ideal body weight and electrolyte
balance 

• Adjust expectations of those returning to work after absence from
hot exposure situations and encourage consumption of salty foods (with
approval of physician if on a salt-restricted diet) 

• Consider preplacement medical screening to identify those
susceptible to systemic heat injury 

• Monitor the heat stress conditions and reports of heat-related
disorders

9. If the detailed analysis required by the TLV® reveals that the
“exposure exceeds the limits for acclimatized workers,” the ACGIH®
[2007] recommends that physiological monitoring (e.g., core body
temperature, heart rate monitoring) as “the only alternative to
demonstrate that adequate protection is provided.” If physiological
monitoring indicates that employees are experiencing excessive heat
strain (the overall bodily response to heat stress), then job-specific
controls should be implemented.  These include [ACGIH 2007]:

• Consider engineering controls that reduce the metabolic rate,
provide general air movement, reduce process heat and water vapor
release, and shield radiant heat sources, among others

• Consider administrative controls that set acceptable exposure times,
allow sufficient recovery, and limit physiological strain

• Consider personal protection that is demonstrated effective for the
specific work practices and conditions at the location

10.  It is strongly recommended that the current version of the
documentation of the ACGIH® TLV®s be referenced to assist in adding
additional specific information when preparing a site-specific heat
stress program for the Marianna facilities.  Examples would be on a
thorough understanding of the various clothing ensembles worn throughout
the year (especially during the warmer seasons) and the role that PPE
(i.e., the use of spun-bonded olefin suits, hoods, gloves, etc.) may
play on the effects of heat stress.  Additional emphasis should be
placed on the TLV® Guidelines for Limiting Heat Strain and the
Guidelines for Heat Stress Management.  It is also recommended that that
additional material on heat stress be investigated, such as OSHA’s
Heat Stress Card (OSHA Publication 3154).  This and other relevant
materials can be found on OSHA’s web page (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/heatstress/index.html" 
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/heatstress/index.html ).

Based on the data presented in this report, the following
recommendations are made.  These recommendations are divided into four
categories, described as ventilation controls in the GBO, programmatic
issues, procedural issues, and housekeeping issues.

    

Ventilation controls in the GBO:

The HFM ventilation controls maintain airborne metal and dust exposures
in the GBO booth to concentrations below allowable limits.  Typically,
respirators would not be required in an environment where occupational
exposures are below allowable limits.  However, the PAPRs probably
provide some heat stress relief by blowing air past the workers’
heads. Their use should be continued.

There is currently no ventilation system supplying air to the GBO.  The
air in the breaking booth is filtered and recirculated by the HFMs. 
ANSI and AIHA [2007] recommend that “under no circumstances shall
workroom air consist of 100% recirculated air.”  Providing tempered
and filtered outside air would satisfy that recommendation and provide
some relief from heat stress.  However, any air supply system should be
designed carefully.  Adding a supply of air to the breaking booth
without any exhaust would create a positive pressure in the booth and
spread potentially contaminated air to the rest of the GBO.  Ideally, a
tempered air supply to the GBO would be balanced with exhaust air to
create a slight negative pressure in the breaking booth with regard to
the rest of the GBO.  Depending on the source of their exposures, this
pressure differential could result in lower exposures for the feeders. 
Consult with a qualified engineer and the HFM manufacturer to determine
the best way to achieve this using the existing HFMs if possible.  The
addition of a change room should also be taken into account.

According to the ANSI/AIHA [2007] standard, the recirculation of exhaust
air streams that contain highly toxic substances (as defined by the OSHA
Hazard Communication Standard) requires the use of a continuous
monitoring device for the contaminant in the exhaust stream; however a
continuous monitoring of the pressure drop across the redundant filter
may be acceptable.  There are no continuous monitoring devices present
on the HFMs.  However, there are pressure gauges mounted on the side of
each unit.  Consult with the manufacturer to determine if these are
installed in order to monitor pressure drop across the HEPA filter and
to determine what settings should lead to filter change (high pressure
across the filter) or process shut down (low pressure setting).  A
visual or audio warning device should be added that would signal the
worker if the HFM stops working or if the pressure drop across the
filter exceeds the manufacturer’s recommended settings.	

Programmatic issues:

Training of workers should be scheduled and documented in the use of
techniques for dust suppression, the proper use of local ventilation,
personal protection equipment (e.g., coveralls, respirators, gloves) and
hazard communication, housekeeping and personal hygiene practices. 
Written programs should be prepared and the programs implemented and
updated as required to ensure that workers receive training in hazard
communication, respiratory protection, working in hot environments, an
the use of personal protective equipment. 

The respiratory protection program for this facility should be evaluated
for this operation in order to ensure that it complies with OSHA
regulation 1910.134, especially with regard to cleaning and storage
practices.  BOP should also be aware of the fact that the respirator
manufacturer Global Secure PAPR is going through bankruptcy, and their
approvals will likely soon be listed as 'Obsolete", meaning the
manufacturer no longer supports them with replacement parts.  If OEM
replacement parts are needed and can't be purchased, the respirator will
no longer be usable as a NIOSH approved device.  

Frequently while conducting the on-site work, NIOSH researchers observed
tasks being conducted in a manner which appeared to be biomechanically
taxing, such as workers lifting large CRTs from Gaylord boxes and
placing them on the roller conveyor in the GBO.  Tasks should be
evaluated to determine if there are awkward postures or lifting
techniques that may result in repetitive stress trauma and if
modifications in procedures or equipment would provide benefit to this
workplace.

Heat stress should be periodically re-evaluated during hot weather
(e.g., the summer months).  

All UNICOR operations, including but not limited to recycling should be
evaluated from the perspective of health, safety and the environment in
the near future. 

A program should be established within the Bureau of Prisons to assure
that these issues are adequately addressed by competent, trained and
certified health and safety professionals.  While a written program to
address these issues is necessary at each facility, adequate staffing
with safety and health professionals is required to ensure its
implementation.  One indication of adequate staffing is provided by the
United States Navy, which states “Regions/Activities with more than
400 employees shall assign, at a minimum, a full time safety manager and
adequate clerical support” [USN 2005].  That document also provides
recommended hazard-based staffing levels for calculating the “number
of professional personnel needed to perform minimum functions in the
safety organization.”

A comprehensive program is needed within the Bureau which provides
sufficient resources, including professional assistance, to assure each
facility the assets needed to assure both staff and inmates a safe and
healthy workplace.

Procedural issues:

The use of an alternative method (e.g., static pressure drop) should be
investigated to determine frequency of filter change.  The manufacturer
of this system may have guidelines in this regard.

Workers performing the filter change operation should continue to
utilize respiratory protection as part of a comprehensive respiratory
protection program. The PAPRs used provide adequate protection for the
modified filter change operation.

Because the facility already provides uniforms to its workers,
management should evaluate the feasibility of providing and laundering
work clothing for all workers in the recycling facility, instead of the
current practice of providing disposable clothing for glass breaking
workers only.  Contaminated work clothing must be segregated from other
clothes and laundered in accordance with applicable regulations.  Use of
different colored uniforms for work and “street” clothes would aid
in the segregation process.

While levels of airborne contaminants were below acceptable limits
(e.g., the OSHA PELs for lead and cadmium), best practices and the
current use of protective clothing in the GBO suggest that change rooms
should be modified to provide showers and separate storage facilities
for protective work clothing and equipment and for street clothes that
prevent cross-contamination.  The use of properly constructed change
rooms as described above would restrict any contamination to the work
area and keep it out of residential areas of the facility.   

The use of alternative methods to break cathode-ray tubes should be
investigated by Marianna management.  Lee et al. [2004] present
different methods to separate panel glass from funnel glass in CRT
recycling (sec 2.1) and for removing the coatings from the glass (sec
2.2).  The hot wire and vacuum suction methods (supplemented with local
exhaust ventilation) described by Lee et al. may produce fewer airborne
particulates than breaking the glass with a hammer. The authors [Lee et
al. 2004] describe a commercially-available method in which an
electrically-heated wire is either manually or automatically wound
around the junction of the panel and funnel glass, heating the glass. 
After heating the glass for the necessary time, cool (e.g., room
temperature) air is directed at the surface, fracturing the
glass-to-glass junction using thermal shock.  The separated panel and
funnel glass can then be sorted by hand.  They also describe a method
wherein a vacuum-suction device is moved over the inner surface of the
panel glass to remove the loose fluorescent coating [Lee et al. 2004]. 
The vacuum used must be equipped with HEPA filtration.  Industrial
central vacuum systems are available; they may cost less in the long run
than portable HEPA vacuum cleaners. These modifications may also reduce
the noise exposure to glass breakers.

German authorities [BG/BIA 2001] have issued a set of best-practices for
dismantling CRTs that should be reviewed for their applicability to
these operations.  Among those is a recommendation for the provision of
washrooms and rooms with separate storage capabilities for street and
work clothing.

Housekeeping:

Due to the levels of surface contamination of lead and other metals
measured in the recycling facility, workers should wash their hands
before eating, drinking, or smoking. While not observed here, remember
that consumption of food, beverage or tobacco in the workplace should be
prohibited to prevent accidental ingestion of hazardous substances.

Given the concentrations of lead and cadmium detected in the bulk dust
samples, surface wipe samples, and air measurements, periodic industrial
hygiene evaluations and facility inspections are recommended to confirm
that exposures are maintained below applicable occupational exposure
limits. 

μm and pass the assembled appliance test, 99.995% efficiency where 10%
of the particles are smaller than 1.0 μm, 22% below 2.0 μm, and 75%
below 5.0 μm. High levels of lead surface contamination was measured in
some work areas, indicating the need for improved housekeeping practices
in effect in all locations observed.  Other practices not observed
during the time of this evaluation, but which have been observed at
other facilities should be discouraged; this includes the use of
compressed air to clean parts or working surfaces.

The use of disposable coverings on work surfaces (e.g., cardboard from
excess boxes) may aid housekeeping practices.  Wipe sampling can be used
initially to determine the frequency with which the coverings should be
discarded.  However, Marianna facility management must ensure that the
contaminated coverings are disposed of properly.

VII.	References

ACGIH [2007]. Documentation of Threshold Limit Values for Chemical
Substances and Physical Agents. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

ACGIH [2008]. Threshold limit values for chemical substances and
physical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

AIHA [2007]. Workplace environmental exposure levels.   Fairfax, VA:
American Industrial Hygiene Association.

Alexander WK, Carpenter RL, Kimmel EC [1999]. Inhalation toxicology
session: breathing zone particle and lead concentration from sanding
operations to remove lead based paints. Drug and Chemical Toxicology
22:41-56. 

ANSI/AIHA [2007].  American national standard for recirculation of air
from industrial process exhaust systems.  Fairfax, VA: American
Industrial Hygiene Association.

ASTM [2002]. Standard practice for collection of settled dust samples
using wipe sampling methods for subsequent determination of metals. 
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

Berges M (Markus.Berges@dguv.de)[2008a].  WG: Project-Nr. BIA3058: Dust
emission during release of vacuum from cathode-ray tubes.  Private
e-mail message to Alan Echt (  HYPERLINK "mailto:AEcht@cdc.gov" 
Aecht@cdc.gov ), June 16.

Berges M (Markus.Berges@dguv.de)[2008b].  AW: BG.BIA-Empfehlungen zur
Uberwachung translated.  Private e-mail message to Alan Echt ( 
HYPERLINK "mailto:AEcht@cdc.gov"  Aecht@cdc.gov ), June 27.

Bernard, T.E., Luecke, C.L., Schwartz, S.W., et al, “WBGT Clothing
Adjustments for Four Clothing Ensembles Under Three Relative Humidity
Levels,”  J Occup Environ Hyg, 5 (251) 2005

BG/BIA [2001]. Recommendations for monitoring work areas – manual
disassembly of monitors and other electrical equipment.  

BIA [2001].  Project-Nr. BIA 3058 Dust emission during release of vacuum
from cathode- ray tubes.  Berufsgenossenschaftliches Institut für
Arbeitssicherheit –BIA, Berufsgenossenscheft der Feinmechanik und
Elektrtechnik.  Available on-line at
http://www.hvbg.de/e/bia/pro/pro1/pr3058.html  HYPERLINK
"http://www.hvbg.de/e/bia/pro/prol/pr3058.html. Accessed June 13"  .
Accessed June 13 , 2008.

Caplan KJ [1993]. The significance of wipe samples.  Am Ind Hyg Assoc J
53:70–75.

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

Chepesiuk R [1999]. Where the chips fall: environmental health in the
semiconductor industry. Environ Health Perspect. 107:A452–A457.

Cui J, Forssberg E [2003]. Mechanical recycling of waste electric and
electronic equipment: a review.  J Hazard Mater. 99:243–263.

DHHS [2000]. Healthy people 2010: Understanding and Improving Health.
2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Available on the internet at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/Document/default.htm" 
www.health.gov/healthypeople/Document/default.htm 

DOD [1987].  Military handbook industrial ventilation systems,
MIL-HDBK-1003/17.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense.

EPA [2008]. Planning for Natural Disaster Debris Guidance. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA530-K-08-001. p.26. 

Evans DE, Heitbrink WA, Slavin TJ, Peters TM [2008]. Ultrafine and
respirable particles in an automotive grey iron foundry.  Ann. Occup.
Hyg, 52:9-21.

Fairfax RE [2003]. Letter of January 13, 2003 from RE Fairfax, Director,
Directorate of Compliance Programs, OSHA, to Frank White, Vice
President, Organization Resource Counselors, Inc.  Available at  
HYPERLINK
"http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRET
ATIONS&p_id=25617" 
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETA
TIONS&p_id=25617 Accessed May 12, 2008.

Goyer RA [1991]. Toxic effects of metals. In: Amdur ML, Doull J,
Klaassen CD (eds.) Casarett and Doul’s Toxicology, pp. 623–680.

IARC [1993]. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to
humans: beryllium, cadmium, mercury, and exposures in the glass
manufacturing industry.  Vol. 58. Lyon, France: World Health
Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Kuhlbusch TAJ, Neumann S, Fissan H [2004]. Number size distribution,
mass concentration and particle composition of PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 in
Bag Filling Areas of Carbon Black Production. Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Hygiene. 1:660-671.

Landrigan PJ, Froines JR, Mahaffeyet KR [1985]. Body lead burden:
summary of epidemiological data on its relation to environmental sources
and toxic effects. In: Dietary and environmental lead: human health
effects. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

Lange JH [2001]. A suggested lead surface concentration standard for
final clearance of floors in commercial and industrial buildings. Indoor
and Built Environment 10:48–51.

Lee C-H, Chang C-T, Fan K-S, Chang T-C [2004]. An overview of recycling
and treatment of scrap computers.  J Hazard Mater. 114:93–100.

McCawley MA, Kent MS, Berakis MT [2001]. Ultrafine beryllium number
concentration as a possible metric for chronic beryllium disease risk.
Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 16:631–638.

NARA [2008]. Executive Order 12196–Occupational safety and health
programs for Federal employees.  College Park, MD:U.S. National Archives
and Records Administration.  Available on-line at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/1
2196.html" 
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12
196.html . Accessed June 6, 2008.

NIOSH [1978]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure
to inorganic lead. Revised criteria – 1978. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-158.

NIOSH [1984]. Current intelligence bulletin #42: Cadmium. Cincinnati,
OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 84-116.

NIOSH [1986].  Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational
exposure to hot environments. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 86-113

NIOSH [1989]. Occupational health guidelines for chemical hazards.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)/DOL (OSHA) Publication No.
81-123 and supplements 88-118, 89-104

NIOSH [1990]. NIOSH testimony on the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration’s proposed rule on occupational exposure to cadmium,
July 17, 1990, OSHA Docket No. H-057A.  NIOSH policy statements. 
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health. p.16.

NIOSH [1992]. NIOSH 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, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health. DHHS(NIOSH) Publication No. 92-100.

NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM®), 4th ed. 
Schlecht, P.C. & O’Connor, P.F. eds.  Cincinnati, OH:  U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication 94-113 (August, 1994), 1st Supplement Publication
96-135, 2nd Supplement Publication 98-119, 3rd Supplement 2003-154.

NIOSH [2005]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-149.  Available on-line at  
HYPERLINK "http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/"  http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/
.  Accessed June 6, 2008.

Nordberg G, ed. [1998]. Barium. In: Metals: chemical properties and
toxicity.  Chapter 63. In: Stellman, JM, ed. Encyclopedia of
occupational health and safety. 4th ed. Vol. 2.  Geneva: International
Labor Office. Pp. 63.8-63.9.

OSHA [2004]. Cadmium. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSHA 3136-06R.  Available
on-line at:   HYPERLINK "http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3136.pdf" 
http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3136.pdf .  Accessed June 4, 2008.

Pettersson-Julander A, van Bavel B, Engwall M, Westberg H [2004].
Personal air sampling and analysis of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and
other bromine containing compounds at an electronic recycling facility
in Sweden.  J Environ Monit. 6:874–880. Epub 2004 Oct 21.

Proctor NH, Hughes JP, Fischman ML [1991a]. Lead. In: Chemical hazards
of the workplace. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Company,
Philadelphia, pp 353-357.

Proctor NH, Hughes JP, Fischman ML [1991b]. Nickel and inorganic
compounds. In: Chemical hazards of the workplace. 3rd ed. Philadelphia,
PA: J.B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, pp 422-424.

Proctor NH, Hughes JP, Fischman ML [1991c]. Yttrium. In: Chemical
hazards of the workplace. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott
Company, Philadelphia, pp 591.

Saryan LA, Zenz C [1994]. Lead and its compounds. In: Occupational
medicine. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: Mosby-Year Book, Inc.

Schmidt CW [2002]. E-Junk explosion.  Environ Health Perspect.
110:A188–A194.

Sjödin A, Carlsson H, Thuresson K, Sjölin S, Bergman A, Ostman C
[2001]. Flame retardants in indoor air at an electronics recycling plant
and at other work environments.  Environ Sci Technol. 35:448–454.

Thun MJ, Elinder CG, Friberg L [1991]. Scientific basis for an
occupational standard for cadmium. Am J Ind Med. 20:629-42.

USN [2005] Navy safety and occupational health (soh) program manual,
chapter 3. organization and staffing.  Washington, DC: Department of the
Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations OPNAVINST 5100.23G. 30 DEC
2005.  Available online at    HYPERLINK
"http://safetycenter.navy.mil/instructions/osh/510023/5100_23G_Cover_Ch1
0.pdf" 
http://safetycenter.navy.mil/instructions/osh/510023/5100_23G_Cover_Ch10
.pdf 

Accessed May 12, 2008.

Willis HH, Florig HK [2002]. Potential exposures and risks from
beryllium-containing products. Risk Anal. 22:1019–1033.



Table 3: Summary Statistics for Airborne Metal Measurements*

(Concentration units for means is µg/m3)

	Ba	Be	Cd	Pb	Ni	Particulate

18 samples collected in the FCI UNICOR factory



Arithmetic Mean (μg/m3)	0.13	0.025	0.056	0.29	0.22	250

Arithmetic Standard Deviation (μg/m3)	0.075	0.013	0.029	0.17	0.15	155

Geometric Mean (μg/m3)	0.11	0.022	0.050	0.25	0.19	207

Geometric Standard Deviation (μg/m3)	1.9	1.5	1.7	1.8	1.8	1.9









12 samples collected in the FPC UNICOR factory



Arithmetic Mean (μg/m3)	0.09	0.022	0.067	0.22	0.22	234

Arithmetic Standard Deviation (μg/m3)	0.11	0.0078	0.058	0.078	0.078	304

Geometric Mean (μg/m3)	0.067	0.022	0.055	0.22	0.22	140

Geometric Standard Deviation (μg/m3)	2.0	1.3	1.8	1.3	1.3	2.6 









12 samples collected in the FPC GBO

	Arithmetic Mean (μg/m3)	0.80	0.037	1.1	6.1	0.37	435

Arithmetic Standard Deviation (μg/m3)	0.74	0.0078	2.1	6.5	0.078	330

Geometric Mean (μg/m3)	0.46	0.037	0.29	3.0	0.37	287

Geometric Standard Deviation (μg/m3)	3.4	1.2	4.7	3.9	1.2	2.9









6 samples collected in the FPC GBO during filter change 

Arithmetic Mean (μg/m3)	4.8	0.092	4.2	30	0.92	1567

Arithmetic Standard Deviation (μg/m3)	5.7	0.013	4.2	38	0.13	1737

Geometric Mean (μg/m3)	2.9	0.091	2.7	18	0.91	968

Geometric Standard Deviation (μg/m3)	2.8	1.1	2.9	2.9	1.1	3.0



Where results were less than the limit of detection (LOD), the value
LOD/√2 was used in calculating these statistics.  These summary
statistics exclude two samples collected in the FPC UNICOR factory that
were compromised, MSMHF-9 and MSMHF-11. The employee who wore sample
MSMHF-9 reported that toner “exploded” (spilled) as she unloaded
recyclable components from a truck.  This probably accounts for the high
dust loading.  The employee who wore sample MSMHF-11 touched the
cassette inlet with her glove at 9:35 am.  Some lint was transferred to
the filter.  This probably accounts for the high dust loading on this
sample as well.Table 4: Airborne Metal Measurements

	Building	Date	Area / Personal	Sample Description	Sample Duration	Flow

Rate	Ba	Be	Cd	Pb	Ni	Particulate

Sample ID



	Minutes	L/minute	µg/m3	µg/m3	µg/m3	µg/m3	µg/m3	µg/m3

The following 18 samples were collected in the FCI UNICOR factory









MCMWF-5	FCI	8/8/07	P	Break down	251	3.0	0.15	<0.03	(0.052)	(0.54)	(0.19)
717

MCMWF-6	FCI	8/8/07	P	Orderly (moves Materials)	253	3.0	0.26	<0.03
(0.079)	<0.1	(0.11)	369

MCMWF-7	FCI	8/8/07	P	Bailer	253	3.0	0.21	<0.03	(0.047)	(0.17)	(0.13)	277

MCMWF-8	FCI	8/8/07	P	Refurbishing	241	3.0	0.077	<0.03	<0.03	<0.1	(0.089)
373

MCMWF-9	FCI	8/8/07	P	Refurbishing	245	3.0	(0.063)	<0.03	<0.03	(0.35)
(0.15)	218

MCMWF-10	FCI	8/8/07	P	Dismantling	239	3.0	0.11	<0.03	(0.052)	<0.1	<0.08
265

MCMHF-1	FCI	8/9/07	P	Orderly	217	3.0	0.26	<0.03	(0.091)	<0.3	<0.3	307

MCMHF-2	FCI	8/9/07	P	Bailer	207	3.0	0.19	<0.03	(0.069)	<0.3	<0.3	306

MCMHF-3	FCI	8/9/07	P	Separator	269	3.0	0.17	<0.02	(0.056)	(0.40)	<0.2
235

MCMHF-4	FCI	8/9/07	P	Orderly refurbish	123	3.0	<0.05	<0.05	<0.1	<0.5
<0.5	<81

MCMHF-5	FCI	8/9/07	P	Disassembly refurbish	94	3.0	<0.07	<0.07	<0.1	<0.7
<0.7	<106

MCMHF-6	FCI	8/9/07	P	Disassembly refurbish	235	3.0	0.14	<0.03	<0.06
(0.37)	<0.3	213

MCMHF-7	FCI	8/9/07	P	Orderly	271	3.0	0.12	<0.03	<0.05	<0.2	<0.2	185

MCMHF-8	FCI	8/9/07	P	Disassembler	275	3.1	0.18	<0.02	<0.05	<0.2	<0.2	282

MCMHF-9	FCI	8/9/07	P	Disassembler	240	3.0	0.21	<0.03	<0.06	(0.44)	<0.3
333

MCMHF-10	FCI	8/9/07	P	Disassembly refurbish	237	3.0	(0.055)	<0.03	<0.06
<0.3	<0.3	(122)

MCMHF-11	FCI	8/9/07	P	Orderly refurbish	250	3.0	(0.039)	<0.03	<0.05	<0.3
<0.3	(76)

MCMHF-12	FCI	8/9/07	P	Disassembly refurbish	72	3.0	<0.09	<0.09	<0.2	<0.9
<0.9	<140

The following 14 samples were collected in the FPC UNICOR factory









MSMWF-5	Camp	8/8/07	P	Lead truck crew	220	3.0	(0.055)	<0.03	<0.06	<0.3
<0.3	(102)

MSMWF-6	Camp	8/8/07	P	Dock unload/load	212	3.1	(0.041)	<0.03	<0.06	<0.3
<0.3	(117)

MSMWF-7	Camp	8/8/07	P	Truck work, sweeping	105	3.0	<0.06	<0.06	<0.1	<0.6
<0.6	<95

MSMWF-8	Camp	8/8/07	P	Truck crew, sweep/unload	206	3.0	(0.042)	<0.03
<0.07	<0.3	<0.3	178

MSMWF-11	Camp	8/8/07	P	Breakdown CPUs	166	3.0	0.42	<0.04	<0.08	<0.4	<0.4
<60

MSMWF-12	Camp	8/8/07	P	Breakdown CPUs	263	3.0	(0.063)	<0.03	<0.05	<0.3
<0.3	(110)

MSMHF-7	Camp	8/9/07	P	Truck crew	256	3.0	(0.049)	<0.03	(0.089)	<0.3	<0.3
872

< quantity less than the limit of detection.  Parentheses indicate
quantity between the limit of detection and limit of quantitation. 
†The employee who wore sample MSMHF-9 reported that toner
“exploded” (spilled) as she unloaded recyclable components from a
truck.  *The employee who wore sample MSMHF-11 touched the cassette
inlet with her glove at 9:35 am.  Some lint was transferred to the
filter.  These incidents probably account for the high dust loading on
both samples.

Table 4: Airborne Metal Measurements (continued)

	Building	Date	Area / Personal	Sample Description	Sample Duration	Flow

Rate	Ba	Be	Cd	Pb	Ni	Particulate

Sample ID



	Minutes	L/minute	µg/m3	µg/m3	µg/m3	µg/m3	µg/m3	µg/m3

MSMHF-8	Camp	8/9/07	P	Truck crew	297	3.0	(0.064)	<0.02	0.24	<0.2	<0.2
887

MSMHF-9	Camp	8/9/07	P	Truck crew	245	3.0	0.20	<0.03	0.49	(0.42)	<0.3
9,524†

MSMHF-10	Camp	8/9/07	P	Fork lift driver	254	3.0	(0.033)	<0.03	<0.05	<0.3
<0.3	(101)

MSMHF-11	Camp	8/9/07	P	CPU disassembly	301	3.0	1.6	<0.02	0.14	1.1	0.84
14,396*

MSMHF-12	Camp	8/9/07	P	CPU disassembly	251	3.0	(0.060)	<0.03	<0.05	<0.3
<0.3	(62)

MSMHF-13	Camp	8/9/07	P	CPU disassembly	207	3.0	(0.069)	<0.03	<0.06	<0.3
<0.3	(108)

MSMHF-14	Camp	8/9/07	P	CPU disassembly	269	3.0	0.16	<0.03	<0.05	<0.2
<0.2	161

The following 12 samples were collected in the FPC GBO









MSMWF-1	Camp	8/8/07	P	Feeder	143	3.0	0.65	<0.05	6.8	3.7	<0.5	513

MSMWF-2	Camp	8/8/07	P	Feeder	140	3.0	0.69	<0.05	3.8	5.2	<0.5	619

MSMWF-3	Camp	8/8/07	P	Outside person 	137	3.0	(0.11)	<0.05	(0.22)	<0.5
<0.5	<73

MSMWF-4	Camp	8/8/07	P	Outside person 	135	3.0	(0.079)	<0.05	(0.21)
(0.57)	<0.5	(116)

MSMWF-9	Camp	8/8/07	P	Breaker, Front Side (left)	91	3.0	1.5	<0.07	0.59
12	<0.7	806

MSMWF-10	Camp	8/8/07	P	Breaker, Back Side (right)	88	3.0	0.42	<0.08	<0.2
(2.4)	<0.8	(140)

MSMHF-1	Camp	8/9/07	P	Outside person	150	3.0	0.49	<0.04	<0.09	3.1	<0.4
311

MSMHF-2	Camp	8/9/07	P	Outside person	148	3.0	(0.097)	<0.05	<0.09	(0.68)
<0.5	(173)

MSMHF-3	Camp	8/9/07	P	Feeder	147	2.9	2.1	<0.05	(0.18)	15	<0.5	891

MSMHF-4	Camp	8/9/07	P	Feeder	144	3.0	1.3	<0.05	(0.13)	8.8	<0.5	694

MSMHF-5	Camp	8/9/07	P	Breaker front side	109	3.0	2.0	<0.06	0.70	20	<0.6
856

MSMHF-6	Camp	8/9/07	P	Breaker back side	140	3.0	(0.13)	<0.05	<0.1	(1.0)
<0.5	<71

The following 6 samples were collected in the FPC GBO during filter
change 

MSMHF-17	Camp	8/9/07	P	Filter change back, inside booth	45	3.0	5.0	<0.1
5.3	29	<1	1,704

MSMHF-19	Camp	8/9/07	P	Filter change front, inside booth	57	3.0	16	<0.1
12	105	<1	4,912

MSMHF-20	Camp	8/9/07	P	Filter change outside booth	62	3.0	1.6	<0.1	1.7
9.7	<1	753

MSMHF-21	Camp	8/9/07	P	Filter change outside booth	58	2.9	3.6	<0.1	4.4
22	<1	1,427

MSMHF-22	Camp	8/9/07	P	Filter change outside booth	47	3.0	1.3	<0.1	1.1
8.5	<1	(333)

MSMHF-23	Camp	8/9/07	P	Filter change outside booth	45	3.0	1.0	<0.1
(0.74)	(5.6)	<1	(274)



Table 5: Wipe Sample Results

SAMPLE I. D.	DATE	DESCRIPTION			Ba	Be	Cd	Pb	Ni

	Results in g/100 cm2

SAMPLES TAKEN FROM THE FCI FACTORY

MCMWG – 1	8/8/07	Cleaning area, table top where workers cleaning
monitors	1.8	<0.07	0.49	5.6	2.7

MCMWG – 2	8/8/07	Table top near repair worker	15	<0.07	3.0	35	17

MCMWG – 3	8/8/07	Table top near breakdown worker, laminate surface	5.1
<0.07	1.1	37	3.9

MCMWG – 4	8/8/07	Table top near breakdown worker, surface is floor-mat
material	16	<0.07	65	46	25

MCMWG – 5	8/8/07	Table top near breakdown worker, rough wood surface
8.9	<0.07	5.1	34	39

MCMWG – 6	8/8/07	Table top near testing worker, vinyl surface	5.9
<0.07	1.5	11	7.2

MCMWG – 7	8/8/07	Table top near sander, vinyl surface	20	<0.07	2.2	23
24

MCMWG – 8	8/8/07	Table top near worker doing copper stripping,
Masonite surface 	2.0	<0.07	0.73	14	3.7

MCMWG – 9	8/8/07	Table top near breakdown worker, rubber mat surface 
2.6	<0.07	0.91	46	3.7

MCMHG – 1	8/9/07	Table top in breakdown area, rubber matt surface	18
<0.07	22	110	28

MCMHG – 2	8/9/07	Table top in breakdown area, smooth wood surface	0.60
<0.07	0.82	3.6	1.5

MCMHG – 3	8/9/07	Inside of Gaylord box containing small boards	1.0
<0.07	0.60	1.8	2.5

MCMHG – 4	8/9/07	Inside bailer in disassembly area	0.38	<0.07	(0.16)
2.5	1.2

MCMHG – 5	8/9/07	Rubber matt surface in breakdown area	21	<0.07	4.1	85
14

MCMHG – 6	8/9/07	Smooth wood surface in breakdown area	15	<0.07	3.0	17
7.3

MCMHG – 7	8/9/07	Smooth wood surface in breakdown area	80	<0.07	19	88
19

MCMHG – 8	8/9/07	Rough wood surface in breakdown area	11	<0.07	1.9	72
11

MCMHG – 9	8/9/07	Rough wood surface in breakdown area	62	<0.07	2.9	140
18

MCMHG – 10	8/9/07	Smooth work surface in copper stripping area	3.4
<0.07	0.54	9.8	2.7

MCMHG – 11	8/9/07	Top of sanding table in refurbish area, rubber
surface	53	<0.07	3.0	33	68

MCMHG – 12	8/9/07	Table top for refurbishing large assemblies, very
rough wood surface	1.4	<0.07	1.0	5.3	5.1

MCMHG – 13	8/9/07	Inside box containing “Frames with boards”
(0.16)	<0.07	<0.07	1.1	<0.3

MCMHG – 14	8/9/07	Smooth wood surface, disassembly operation in
refurbish area	7.4	<0.07	1.1	36	3.9

SAMPLES TAKEN FROM THE CAMP FACILITY						

MSMWG – 1	8/8/07	Top of bookcase outside breaking area	1.3	<0.07	1.2
8.4	(0.75)

MSMWG – 2	8/8/07	Locker in GB area (top, under handle)	0.25	<0.07	0.31
2.9	(0.32)

MSMWG – 3	8/8/07	Top of conduit inside containment on interior wall
320	<0.07	360	5100	52

< Indicates a value less than the limit of detection.  Numbers in
parentheses indicate a result between the LOD and LOQ.Table 6:
Composition of Bulk Dust Samples from the Glass Breaking Operation

SAMPLE I. D.	DATE	SAMPLE DESCRIPTION	Ba	Be	Cd	Pb	Ni

MSMWB – 1	8/8/07	Bulk from filter in shop vac	1000	<0.2	170	2200	1800

		used for general cleaning

MSMWB – 2	8/8/07	Bulk from Nilfisk vac used 	890	<0.2	(1.3)	35000	7.7

		outside containment area

MSMWB – 3	8/8/07	Bulk from Nilfisk vac used 	82	<0.2	(0.98)	2300	2.1

		inside containment area

MSMWB – 4	8/8/07	Settled dust on top of locker	570	<0.2	130	2500	610

MSMHB – 1	8/9/07	Floor sweeping outside of 	470	<0.2	260	10000	31

		curtained area during filter change

			using broom to sweep floor

	

All samples were taken from glass breaking room at the camp facility. 
Concentrations are in mg/kg.  < indicates a value less than the limit of
detection.  A value in parentheses indicates a result between the limit
of detection and limit of quantitation.

Table 7: Wet Bulb Globe Temperature Measurements, Marianna Federal
Correctional Facility

Heat Stress Data – August 8, 2007

Location	Times	Hourly TWA* WBGTin ºC (°F)

Camp – Glass Breaking Room	8:52 a.m. to 9:52 a.m.	28.8 (83.8)

	9:53 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.	29.7 (85.5)

Camp – Warehouse	9:41 a.m. to 10:41 a.m.	28.1 (82.6)

	10:42 a.m. to 11:42 a.m.	28.4 (83.1)

	11:43 a.m. to 12:43 p.m.	28.5 (83.3)

	12:44 p.m. to 1:44 p.m.	28.5 (83.3)

	1:45 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.	28.2 (82.8)

FCI – Refurbish	10:24 a.m. to 11:24 a.m.	28.3 (82.9)

	11:25 a.m. to 12:25 p.m.	28.9 (84.0)

	12:26 p.m. to 1:26 p.m.	29.1 (84.4)

	1:27 p.m. to 2:27 p.m.	29.1 (84.4)

	2:28 p.m. to 3:28 p.m.	28.8 (83.8)

FCI – Disassembly	10:31 a.m. to 11:31 a.m.	28.4 (83.1)

	11:32 a.m. to 12:32 p.m.	29.0 (84.2)

	12:33 p.m. to 1:33 p.m.	29.1 (84.4)

	1:34 p.m. to 2:34 p.m.	29.4 (84.9)

	2:35 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.	29.2 (84.6)



Heat Stress Data – August 9, 2007

Location	Times	Hourly TWA* WBGTin ºC (°F)

Camp – Glass Breaking Room	7:59 a.m. to 8:59 a.m.	

29.7 (85.5)

	9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.	30.4 (86.8)

Glass Breaking Room

during Filter Change	12:35 p.m. to 1:35 p.m.	31.2 (88.2)

Camp –Warehouse	8:44 a.m. to 9:44 a.m.	28.6 (83.5)

	9:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.	29.3 (84.8)

	10:46 a.m. to 11:46 a.m.	29.4 (84.9)

	11:47 a.m. to 12:47 p.m.	29.3 (84.7)

	12:48 p.m. to 1:48 p.m.	29.2 (84.5)

FCI – Refurbish	9:35 a.m. to 10:35 a.m.	29.2 (84.6)

	10:36 a.m. to 11:36 a.m.	29.6 (85.2)

	11:37 a.m. to 12:37 p.m.	29.7 (85.5)

	12:38 p.m. to 1:38 p.m.	29.7 (85.5)

	1:39 p.m. to 2:39 p.m.	30.1 (86.1)

	2:40 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.	30.3 (86.5)

FCI – Disassembly	9:04 a.m. to 10:04 a.m.	29.3 (84.7)

	10:05 a.m. to 11:05 a.m.	29.6 (85.3)

	11:06 a.m. to 12:06 p.m.	29.9 (85.9)

	12:07 p.m. to 1:07 p.m.	30.0 (86.0)

	1:08 p.m. to 2:08 p.m.	30.2 (86.4)

	2:09 p.m. to 3:09 p.m.	30.4 (86.8)

		*Time weighted average

Table 8: Estimated Work Rates

Location	Task	Work Rate	Metabolic Heat (Watts)

FCI	All tasks	Light/moderate	180/300

FPC	Unloading trucks	Moderate	300

	Warehouse work	Light	180

	GBO* helpers	Light/moderate	180/300

	GBO feeders	Moderate/heavy	300/415

	GBO breakers	Moderate	300

Table 9: Air Velocity Measurements for HFM 1 and HFM 2

 

 

Units in meters/second (feet/min)

Appendix A

Occupational Exposure Criteria for Metal/Elements



Appendix B

Metallic Composition of Bulk Dust Samples from the Glass Breaking
Operation

Concentrations are in mg/kg

Please see Table 6 for sample dates and descriptions.

<indicates a result less than the limit of detection.  Values in
parentheses represent results between the limit of detection and limit
of quantitation.

	MSMWB-1	MSMWB-2	MSMWB-3	MSMWB-4	MSMHB-1

Al	3900	120	54	5000	410

Sb	110	<3	<3	100	(8.3)

As	<7	<7	<7	<7	<7

Ba	1000	890	82	570	470

Be	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2

Cd	170	(1.3)	(0.98)	130	260

Ca	18000	770	150	26000	700

Cr	53	1.9	2.3	87	23

Co	5.2	<0.2	<0.2	18	0.63

Cu	210	28	3.5	320	52

Fe	9200	1100	800	18000	4300

La	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	2.3	(0.12)

Pb	2200	35000	2300	2500	10000

Li	(3.2)	(0.14)	<0.09	(15)	0.44

Mg	1800	72	16	3800	77

Mn	220	290	4.6	370	50

Mo	4.2	(1.1)	<0.4	6.0	(0.42)

Ni	1800	7.7	2.1	610	31

P	790	(33)	<10	2800	57

K	2700	190	190	3700	400

Se	<20	<20	<20	<20	<20

Ag	13	0.30	<0.08	1.8	<0.08

Sr	130	32	18	150	140

Te	<2	<2	<2	(3.5)	(4.0)

Tl	<5	(6.8)	(8.5)	(9.7)	<5

Sn	67	<4	<4	65	(7.9)

Ti	44	2.8	1.0	58	3.2

V	6.5	(0.10)	<0.1	15	<0.1

Y	2100	19	31	2300	5800

Zn	5900	4500	390	7700	13000

Zr	(2.0)	(20)	<2	(2.6)	(3.8)

Appendix C

Metallic Composition of Wipe Samples

Concentrations are in μg/100 cm2

Please see Table 5 for sample dates and descriptions.

<indicates a result less than the limit of detection.  Values in
parentheses represent results between the limit of detection and limit
of quantitation.

	MCMWG - 1	MCMWG - 2	MCMWG - 3	MCMWG - 4	MCMWG - 5	MCMWG - 6	MCMWG - 7
MCMWG - 8	MCMWG - 9	MCMHG - 1	MCMHG - 2	MCMHG - 3	MCMHG - 4

As	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2

Ba	1.8	15	5.1	16	8.9	5.9	20	2.0	2.6	18	0.60	1.0	0.38

Be	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07
<0.07	<0.07

Cd	0.49	3.0	1.1	65	5.1	1.5	2.2	0.73	0.91	22	0.82	0.60	(0.16)

Cr	1.1	6.0	2.7	8.2	12	2.4	4.7	2.3	3.2	9.8	(0.89)	(0.56)	(0.56)

Co	(0.18)	2.5	(0.25)	0.98	1.1	0.34	0.79	2.0	1.1	1.2	<0.09	(0.15)	(0.10)

Cu	5.1	35	12	68	130	14	36	14	51	83	3.3	3.3	2.2

Fe	58	567	137	667	3197	187	447	267	167	2297	21	49	95

La	<0.05	0.34	(0.077)	<0.05	1.3	(0.082)	0.37	(0.14)	(0.11)	0.87	<0.05
<0.05	(0.058)

Pb	5.6	35	37	46	34	11	23	14	46	110	3.6	1.8	2.5

Mn	1.8	18	4.4	22	110	7.0	15	35	22	35	(0.35)	1.4	1.8

Mo	<0.2	0.66	<0.2	2.9	2.2	<0.2	(0.34)	(0.22)	<0.2	0.71	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2

Ni	2.7	17	3.9	25	39	7.2	24	3.7	3.7	28	1.5	2.5	1.2

P	<6	301	13	22	<6	53	<6	<6	<6	<6	<6	<6	<6

Se	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3

Ag	0.16	0.76	0.29	9.7	5.2	0.28	0.32	(0.10)	0.26	3.7	(0.069)	(0.068)
<0.04

Sr	0.50	3.8	2.3	3.4	3.8	1.1	1.7	0.91	0.78	2.7	0.47	0.48	(0.36)

Te	<0.5	(0.72)	<0.5	<0.5	(0.51)	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5

Tl	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2

Sn	<3	19	32	44	39	(5.4)	13	11	95	190	(3.1)	<3	(3.6)

V	<0.05	0.29	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.14)	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	(0.076)	(0.13)	<0.05
<0.05	<0.05

Y	(0.065)	1.3	0.91	2.9	0.41	0.20	0.51	(0.11)	0.19	1.4	(0.056)	<0.04
<0.04

Zn	108	638	348	598	728	178	178	138	558	708	218	138	98

Zr	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10

Appendix C (Continued)

Metallic Composition of Wipe Samples

Concentrations are in μg/100 cm2

Please see Table 5 for sample dates and descriptions.

<indicates a result less than the limit of detection.  Values in
parentheses represent results between the limit of detection and limit
of quantitation.

	MCMHG - 5	MCMHG - 6	MCMHG - 7	MCMHG - 8	MCMHG - 9	MCMHG - 10	MCMHG - 11
MCMHG - 12	MCMHG - 13	MCMHG - 14	MSMWG - 1	MSMWG - 2	MSMWG - 3

As	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2

Ba	21	15	80	11	62	3.4	53	1.4	(0.16)	7.4	1.3	0.25	320

Be	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07	<0.07
<0.07	<0.07

Cd	4.1	3.0	19	1.9	2.9	0.54	3.0	1.0	<0.07	1.1	1.2	0.31	360

Cr	6.7	2.7	6.5	4.1	10	2.7	9.3	2.1	(0.25)	2.0	(0.33)	(0.39)	13

Co	36	(0.14)	1.3	0.87	19	(0.22)	1.5	(0.17)	<0.09	(0.098)	<0.09	(0.11)
0.59

Cu	94	18	43	19	77	31	95	21	1.3	13	1.5	(0.8)	29

Fe	1897	157	887	501	1897	1797	527	267	7.3	177	10	1.7	1297

La	0.58	(0.055)	0.90	0.29	0.92	0.55	0.24	(0.13)	<0.05	(0.071)	<0.05
<0.05	1.5

Pb	85	17	88	72	140	9.8	33	5.3	1.1	36	8.4	2.9	5100

Mn	44	3.0	49	110	450	110	24	12	0.51	14	<0.1	<0.1	22

Mo	(0.27)	0.70	2.9	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	(0.39)	(0.28)	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2
(0.47)

Ni	14	7.3	19	11	18	2.7	68	5.1	<0.3	3.9	(0.75)	(0.32)	52

P	<6	<6	12	<6	<6	<6	20	<6	<6	<6	<6	<6	80

Se	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3

Ag	1.1	0.30	1.6	0.58	9.3	(0.066)	0.55	4.3	<0.04	0.58	<0.04	<0.04	1.2

Sr	2.4	1.2	4.7	1.7	2.6	0.94	2.8	0.79	(0.32)	1.8	0.91	0.72	170

Te	3.7	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5

Tl	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	(2.2)	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2

Sn	170	27	62	120	160	(4.1)	19	(4.0)	<3	43	<3	<3	12

V	(0.092)	(0.054)	(0.080)	0.21	0.56	<0.05	(0.14)	<0.05	<0.05	(0.073)
<0.05	<0.05	0.33

Y	0.14	(0.11)	1.1	3.3	2.0	(0.11)	0.45	(0.054)	<0.04	0.27	1.0	0.49	810

Zn	628	278	698	488	1298	488	308	148	91.3	378	118	148	3098

Zr	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10	<10

Appendix D

Metallic Composition of Airborne Dust Samples

Concentrations are in μg/m3

Please see Table 4 for sample dates, description, duration and flow
rate.

<indicates a result less than the limit of detection.  Values in
parentheses represent results between the limit of detection and limit
of quantitation.

	MCMWF-5	MCMWF-6	MCMWF-7	MCMWF-8	MCMWF-9	MCMWF-10

Aluminum	2.8	2.6	2.4	(1.8)	(1.5)	(1.3)

Antimony	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.6	<0.5	<0.6

Arsenic	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1

Barium	0.15	0.26	0.21	0.077	(0.063)	0.11

Beryllium	<0.03	<0.03	<0.03	<0.03	<0.03	<0.03

Cadmium	(0.052)	(0.079)	(0.047)	<0.03	<0.03	(0.052)

Calcium	17	17	12	9.1	7.8	8.1

Chromium	(0.24)	(0.13)	(0.18)	<0.1	<0.1	(0.22)

Cobalt	<0.04	<0.04	<0.04	<0.04	<0.04	<0.04

Copper	(0.29)	(0.33)	(0.17)	<0.1	0.53	(0.20)

Iron	5.4	5.9	6.1	3.5	2.3	4.2

Lanthanum	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

Lead	(0.54)	<0.1	(0.17)	<0.1	(0.35)	<0.1

Lithium	<0.009	<0.009	<0.009	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

Magnesium	1.3	1.1	0.96	1.2	0.53	0.67

Manganese	0.15	0.21	0.11	(0.093)	(0.12)	(0.13)

Molybdenum	<0.052	<0.08	<0.08	<0.08	<0.08	<0.08

Nickel	(0.19)	(0.11)	(0.13)	(0.089)	(0.15)	<0.08

Phosphorus	<4	<4	<4	<4	<4	<4

Potassium	1.6	1.0	0.82	(0.33)	(0.40)	(0.39)

Selenium	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3	<3

Silver	<0.03	<0.03	<0.03	<0.03	<0.3	(0.050)

Strontium	0.077	0.066	0.057	0.050	0.039	0.049

Tellurium	<0.4	<0.4	<0.4	(0.44)	<0.4	<0.4

Thallium	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.6

Tin	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.6

Titanium	(0.065)	0.076	(0.054)	(0.044)	<0.03	(0.045)

Vanadium	<0.03	<0.03	<0.03	<0.03	<0.03	<0.03

Yttrium	<0.008	<0.03	<0.03	<0.01	<0.02	<0.02

Zinc	7.7	6.1	5.7	5.8	3.4	2.9

Zirconium	(0.20)	(0.16)	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1



Appendix D (Continued)

Metallic Composition of Airborne Dust Samples

Concentrations are in μg/m3 

Please see Table 4 for sample dates, description, duration and flow
rate.

<indicates a result less than the limit of detection.  Values in
parentheses represent results between the limit of detection and limit
of quantitation.

	MCMHF-1	MCMHF-2	MCMHF-3	MCMHF-4	MCMHF-5	MCMHF-6

Aluminum	(2.2)	<1	(1.4)	<2	<2	(1.8)

Antimony	<0.5	<0.5	<0.4	<0.8	<1	<0.4

Arsenic	<2	<2	<1	<3	<4	<1

Barium	0.26	0.19	0.17	<0.05	<0.07	0.14

Beryllium	<0.03	<0.03	<0.02	<0.05	<0.07	<0.03

Cadmium	(0.091)	(0.069)	(0.056)	<0.1	<0.1	<0.06

Calcium	14	9.5	12	<5	<7	(6.5)

Chromium	<0.2	<0.2	<0.1	<0.3	<0.4	<0.1

Cobalt	<0.06	<0.06	<0.05	<0.1	<0.1	<0.06

Copper	<0.3	<0.3	<0.2	<0.5	<0.7	<0.3

Iron	(4.6)	(3.5)	(4.7)	<5	<7	<3

Lanthanum	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.02	<0.03	<0.01

Lead	<0.3	<0.3	(0.40)	<0.5	<0.7	(0.37)

Lithium	<0.02	<0.02	<0.01	<0.03	<0.04	<0.01

Magnesium	<1	<1	<1	<2	<3	<1

Manganese	0.20	(0.12)	0.16	<0.08	<0.1	(0.13)

Molybdenum	(0.18)	<0.2	<0.1	<0.3	<0.4	<0.1

Nickel	<0.3	<0.3	<0.2	<0.5	<0.7	<0.3

Phosphorus	<5	<5	<4	<8	<11	<4

Potassium	1.0	(0.74)	0.90	<0.3	<0.4	(0.55)

Selenium	<5	<5	<4	<8	<11	<4

Silver	(0.022)	(0.018)	(0.012)	<0.03	<0.04	(0.017)

Strontium	(0.052)	(0.042)	(0.042)	<0.03	<0.04	(0.030)

Tellurium	<0.5	<0.5	<0.4	<0.8	<1	<0.4

Thallium	(0.77)	<0.6	<0.5	<1	<1	<0.6

Tin	<0.8	(0.82)	<0.6	<1	<2	<0.7

Titanium	(0.037)	(0.032)	(0.059)	<0.05	<0.07	<0.03

Vanadium	(0.031)	<0.02	<0.01	<0.03	<0.04	(0.014)

Yttrium	(0.014)	0.27	<0.01	0.20	<0.03	<0.01

Zinc	4.9	5.2	5.6	1.1	(0.74)	6.2

Zirconium	(0.18)	<0.2	<0.1	<0.3	<0.4	<0.1



Appendix D (Continued)

Metallic Composition of Airborne Dust Samples

4

5

R

W

_

-

+

=

?

Q

R

X

Y

Z

[

\

]

^

_

`

a

m

摧㝸Úᘀ_

`

a

b

m

	



@

B

C

E

f

‚

„

…

·

Ì

Ð

-m

n

æ

ç

B

„

Î

옍

옍

摧㤪¢

옍

옍

摧剢é

Æ

B*

hÙ

hÙ

B*

B*

h

B*

h

h

B*

B*

 

¡

Ë



®

Ÿ

¡

Ë

æ

ç

②朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

最⩤ꈹ氀჆

옍

ᘠ豨ꐋ㔀脈䩃

hŒ

hŒ

②朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

	”

ytŒ

ytŒ

ytŒ

ytŒ

ytŒ

ytŒ

ytŒ

ytŒ

最⩤ꈹ氀჆

最⩤ꈹ氀჆

Æ

  hO

 hO

hÕ

hÕ

hÕ

hŒ

hŒ

hÕ

hŒ

B*

B*

h4

h4

hú

hú

B*

h0

h0

0

1

²

³

¬



-

/

0

1

±

²

³

*

+

/

2

:

<

 

¢

¬



B*

B*

B*

Ff

②朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

~	\

莃莃ྃꚄ廿Ꚅ柿⩤ꈹ氀჆

ༀꚄ廿Ꚅ柿⩤ꈹ氀჆

ༀꚄ廿Ꚅ柿⩤ꈹ氀჆

ྀꚄ廿Ꚅ柿⩤ꈹ氀჆

~	\

h¯

h¯

h¯

h¯

h¯

h¯

h¯

h¯

hß

瑹֖

瑹֖

瑹֖

瑹֖

瑹֖

瑹֖

瑹֖

@

(ഀ⧆ഀӬ޼ઌබာዼᗌ᣶᭬Ḽ₲⏜♒莃莃莃莃莃莃ྃ뒄
帀뒄最⩤ꈹ氀჆

最⩤ꈹ氀჆

摧㤪¢(ഀ⧆ഀӬ޼ઌබာዼᗌ᣶᭬Ḽ₲⏜♒莃莃莃莃莃
莃ྃ뒄帀뒄最⩤ꈹ氀჆

$ഀ⧆ഀи޼ઌ൜ာዼᗌᢜ᭬Ḽℌ⏜♒莃莃莃莃莃莃枃⩤
ꈹ氀჆

最⩤ꈹ氀჆

③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

摧㤪¢$ഀ⧆ഀи޼ઌ൜ာዼᗌᢜ᭬Ḽℌ⏜♒莃莃莃莃莃
莃枃⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

②朂⩤ꈹ氀჆

愀Ȥ③朁⩤ꈹ氀჆

μg/m3

Please see Table 4 for sample dates, description, duration and flow
rate.

<indicates a result less than the limit of detection.  Values in
parentheses represent results between the limit of detection and limit
of quantitation.

	MCMHF-7	MCMHF-8	MCMHF-9	MCMHF-10	MCMHF-11	MCMHF-12

Aluminum	(1.0)	(1.3)	(2.5)	<1	<0.9	<3

Antimony	(0.42)	<0.4	<0.4	<0.4	<0.4	<1

Arsenic	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<5

Barium	0.12	0.18	0.21	(0.055)	(0.039)	<0.09

Beryllium	<0.03	<0.02	<0.03	<0.03	<0.03	<0.09

Cadmium	<0.05	<0.05	<0.06	<0.06	<0.05	<0.2

Calcium	7.1	11	15	(3.0)	<3	<9

Chromium	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.5

Cobalt	<0.05	<0.05	<0.06	<0.06	<0.05	<0.2

Copper	<0.2	<0.2	<0.3	<0.3	<0.3	<0.9

Iron	(3.9)	(2.6)	(6.3)	<3	<3	<9

Lanthanum	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.04

Lead	<0.2	<0.2	(0.44)	<0.3	<0.3	<0.9

Lithium	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.05

Magnesium	<1	<0.9	<1	<1	<1	<4

Manganese	(0.11)	(0.086)	0.22	(0.089)	(0.041)	<0.1

Molybdenum	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.5

Nickel	<0.2	<0.2	<0.3	<0.3	<0.3	<0.9

Phosphorus	<4	<4	<4	<4	<4	<14

Potassium	(0.43)	1.2	1.5	(0.27)	<0.1	<0.5

Selenium	<4	<4	<4	<4	<4	<14

Silver	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.05

Strontium	(0.022)	(0.041)	(0.047)	<0.01	<0.01	<0.05

Tellurium	<0.4	<0.4	<0.4	<0.4	<0.4	(2.1)

Thallium	<0.5	<0.5	<0.6	<0.6	<0.5	<2

Tin	<0.6	<0.6	(0.75)	<0.7	<0.7	<2

Titanium	<0.03	<0.02	(0.061)	<0.03	<0.03	<0.09

Vanadium	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.05

Yttrium	<0.01	0.075	<0.01	(0.066)	<0.01	<0.04

Zinc	3.4	5.6	7.9	2.5	0.77	<0.4

Zirconium	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.5



Appendix D (Continued)

Metallic Composition of Airborne Dust Samples

Concentrations are in μg/m3

Please see Table 4 for sample dates, description, duration and flow
rate.

<indicates a result less than the limit of detection.  Values in
parentheses represent results between the limit of detection and limit
of quantitation.

	MSMWF-1	MSMWF-2	MSMWF-3	MSMWF-4	MSMWF-5	MSMWF-6

Aluminum	(2.8)	(4.3)	<2	<2	<1	<1

Antimony	<0.7	<0.7	<0.7	<0.7	<0.5	<0.5

Arsenic	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2	<2

Barium	0.65	0.69	(0.11)	(0.079)	(0.055)	(0.041)

Beryllium	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.03	<0.03

Cadmium	6.8	3.8	(0.22)	(0.21)	<0.06	<0.06

Calcium	28	36	<5	<5	(3.6)	(4.3)

Chromium	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2

Cobalt	<0.09	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.06	<0.06

Copper	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.3	<0.3

Iron	(8.2)	(9.8)	<5	<5	(3.9)	<3

Lanthanum	<0.02	<0.02	<0.02	<0.02	<0.01	<0.01

Lead	3.7	5.2	<0.5	(0.57)	<0.3	<0.3

Lithium	<0.02	<0.02	<0.02	<0.03	<0.02	<0.02

Magnesium	<2	<2	<2	<2	<1	<1

Manganese	(0.17)	(0.16)	<0.07	<0.07	<0.05	<0.05

Molybdenum	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2

Nickel	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.3	<0.3

Phosphorus	<7	<7	<7	<7	<5	<5

Potassium	2.3	3.1	<0.2	<0.2	(0.18)	(0.20)

Selenium	<7	<7	<7	<7	<5	<5

Silver	(0.023)	<0.02	<0.02	<0.03	<0.02	<0.02

Strontium	0.19	0.29	(0.027)	<0.03	<0.02	<0.02

Tellurium	<0.7	(0.88)	<0.7	(0.94)	<0.5	<0.5

Thallium	<0.9	<1	<1	<1	<0.6	<0.6

Tin	<1	(1.3)	<1	<1	<0.8	<0.8

Titanium	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.03	<0.03

Vanadium	<0.002	<0.02	<0.02	<0.03	<0.02	<0.02

Yttrium	2.1	2.3	0.36	0.17	<0.01	<0.01

Zinc	49	36	2.7	2.0	0.70	(0.43)

Zirconium	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2



Appendix D (Continued)

Metallic Composition of Airborne Dust Samples

Concentrations are in μg/m3

Please see Table 4 for sample dates, description, duration and flow
rate.

<indicates a result less than the limit of detection.  Values in
parentheses represent results between the limit of detection and limit
of quantitation.

	MSMWF-7	MSMWF-8	MSMWF-9	MSMWF-10	MSMWF-11	MSMWF-12

Aluminum	<2	<1	<3	<3	<1	<0.9

Antimony	<1	<0.5	<1	<1	<0.6	<0.4

Arsenic	<3	<2	<4	<4	<2	<1

Barium	<0.06	(0.042)	1.5	0.42	0.42	(0.063)

Beryllium	<0.06	<0.03	<0.07	<0.08	<0.04	<0.03

Cadmium	<0.1	<0.07	0.59	<0.2	<0.08	<0.05

Calcium	<6	(3.6)	23	<8	<4	<3

Chromium	<0.3	<0.2	<0.4	<0.4	<0.2	<0.1

Cobalt	<0.1	<0.07	<0.1	<0.2	<0.08	<0.05

Copper	<0.6	<0.3	<0.7	<0.8	<0.4	<0.3

Iron	<6	(3.6)	<7	<8	<4	<3

Lanthanum	<0.03	<0.02	<0.03	<0.03	<0.02	<0.01

Lead	<0.6	<0.3	12	(2.4)	<0.4	<0.3

Lithium	<0.03	<0.02	<0.04	<0.04	<0.02	<0.01

Magnesium	<3	<1	<3	<3	<2	<1

Manganese	<0.1	<0.05	<0.1	<0.1	<0.06	<0.04

Molybdenum	<0.3	<0.2	<0.4	<0.4	<0.2	<0.1

Nickel	<0.6	<0.3	<0.7	<0.8	<0.4	<0.3

Phosphorus	<10	<5	<11	<11	<6	<4

Potassium	<0.3	(0.23)	3.4	(0.46)	(0.24)	<0.1

Selenium	<10	<5	<11	<11	<6	<4

Silver	<0.03	<0.02	<0.04	<0.04	<0.02	<0.01

Strontium	<0.03	<0.02	0.59	(0.12)	(0.026)	<0.01

Tellurium	<1	<0.5	<1	<1	<0.6	<0.4

Thallium	<1	<0.6	<1	<2	<0.8	<0.5

Tin	<2	<0.8	<2	<2	<1	<0.6

Titanium	<0.06	<0.03	<0.07	<0.08	<0.04	<0.03

Vanadium	<0.03	<0.02	<0.04	<0.04	<0.02	<0.01

Yttrium	0.28	<0.02	26	7.5	1.2	0.11

Zinc	(0.86)	0.63	66	16	3.8	0.96

Zirconium	<0.3	<0.2	<0.4	<0.4	<0.2	<0.1



Appendix D (Continued)

Metallic Composition of Airborne Dust Samples

Concentrations are in μg/m3

Please see Table 4 for sample dates, description, duration and flow
rate.

<indicates a result less than the limit of detection.  Values in
parentheses represent results between the limit of detection and limit
of quantitation.

	MSMHF-1	MSMHF-2	MSMHF-3	MSMHF-4	MSMHF-5	MSMHF-6

Aluminum	(2.7)	<2	8.9	(5.3)	(5.2)	<2

Antimony	<0.7	<0.7	<0.7	<0.7	<0.9	<0.7

Arsenic	<2	<2	<2	<2	<3	<2

Barium	0.49	(0.097)	2.1	1.3	2.0	(0.13)

Beryllium	<0.04	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.06	<0.05

Cadmium	<0.09	<0.09	(0.18)	(0.13)	0.70	<0.1

Calcium	(9.3)	(5.4)	33	32	19	<5

Chromium	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.3	<0.2

Cobalt	<0.09	<0.09	<0.09	<0.09	<0.1	<0.1

Copper	<0.4	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.6	<0.5

Iron	(5.1)	<5	16	(8.3)	(8.9)	<5

Lanthanum	<0.02	<0.02	<0.02	<0.02	<0.03	<0.02

Lead	3.1	(0.68)	15	8.8	20	(1.0)

Lithium	<0.02	<0.02	<0.02	<0.02	<0.03	<0.02

Magnesium	<2	<2	(2.3)	<2	<2	<2

Manganese	(0.10)	<0.07	(0.19)	(0.18)	<0.09	<0.07

Molybdenum	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.3	<0.2

Nickel	<0.4	<0.5	<0.5	<0.5	<0.6	<0.5

Phosphorus	<7	<7	<7	<7	<9	<7

Potassium	1.4	(0.45)	5.9	3.7	4.3	<0.2

Selenium	<7	<7	<7	<7	<9	<7

Silver	<0.02	<0.02	<0.02	<0.02	<0.03	<0.02

Strontium	(0.067)	(0.025)	0.33	0.23	0.73	(0.055)

Tellurium	<0.7	<0.7	<0.7	(1.3)	<0.9	(0.86)

Thallium	<0.9	<0.9	<0.9	<0.9	<1	<1

Tin	<1	(1.3)	<1	<1	<2	<1

Titanium	<0.04	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.06	<0.05

Vanadium	<0.02	<0.02	<0.02	<0.02	<0.03	<0.02

Yttrium	8.0	0.60	52	23	37	1.7

Zinc	17	2.0	84	49	80	3.8

Zirconium	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.3	<0.2





Appendix D (Continued)

Metallic Composition of Airborne Dust Samples

Concentrations are in μg/m3

Please see Table 4 for sample dates, description, duration and flow
rate.

<indicates a result less than the limit of detection.  Values in
parentheses represent results between the limit of detection and limit
of quantitation.

	MSMHF-7	MSMHF-8	MSMHF-9	MSMHF-10	MSMHF-11	MSMHF-12

Aluminum	(1.0)	(1.7)	3.9	<0.9	27	<0.9

Antimony	<0.4	<0.3	(0.52)	<0.4	(0.43)	<0.4

Arsenic	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1

Barium	(0.049)	(0.064)	0.20	(0.033)	1.6	(0.060)

Beryllium	<0.03	<0.02	<0.03	<0.03	<0.02	<0.03

Cadmium	(0.089)	0.24	0.49	<0.05	0.14	<0.05

Calcium	(4.4)	7.9	16	<3	177	<3

Chromium	0.19	0.12	5.0	<0.1	0.48	<0.1

Cobalt	<0.05	<0.05	0.30	<0.05	<0.04	<0.05

Copper	<0.3	<0.2	<0.3	<0.3	1.7	<0.3

Iron	208	168	2449	(3.9)	48	<3

Lanthanum	0.082	0.081	0.97	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

Lead	<0.3	<0.2	(0.42)	<0.3	1.1	<0.3

Lithium	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

Magnesium	<1	(1.1)	9.9	<1	13	<1

Manganese	2.5	2.8	27	(0.051)	0.91	(0.15)

Molybdenum	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1

Nickel	<0.3	<0.2	<0.3	<0.3	0.84	<0.3

Phosphorus	<4	<3	<4	<4	(8.7)	<4

Potassium	(0.23)	(0.34)	0.78	<0.1	45	<0.1

Selenium	<4	<3	<4	<4	<3	<4

Silver	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.099	<0.01

Strontium	<0.01	(0.039)	(0.054)	<0.01	0.47	<0.01

Tellurium	<0.4	<0.3	(0.50)	<0.4	<0.3	<0.4

Thallium	<0.5	<0.4	<0.5	<0.5	<0.4	<0.5

Tin	<0.7	<0.6	(0.69)	<0.7	<0.6	<0.7

Titanium	<0.03	<0.02	(0.050)	<0.03	0.85	<0.3

Vanadium	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	(0.027)	<0.01

Yttrium	<0.01	0.32	(0.050)	<0.01	0.097	<0.01

Zinc	2.3	3.0	20	0.51	24	1.3

Zirconium	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	(1.0)	<0.1





Appendix D (Continued)

Metallic Composition of Airborne Dust Samples

Concentrations are in μg/m3

Please see Table 4 for sample dates, description, duration and flow
rate.

<indicates a result less than the limit of detection.  Values in
parentheses represent results between the limit of detection and limit
of quantitation.

	MSMHF-13	MSMHF-14	MSMHF-17	MSMHF-19

Aluminum	<1	<0.9	(7.1)	30

Antimony	<0.5	<0.4	<2	<2

Arsenic	<2	<1	<7	<6

Barium	(0.069)	0.16	5.0	16

Beryllium	<0.03	<0.03	<0.1	<0.1

Cadmium	<0.06	<0.05	5.3	12

Calcium	<3	(4.6)	<15	47

Chromium	<0.2	<0.01	<0.7	<0.6

Cobalt	<0.06	<0.05	(0.36)	0.82

Copper	<0.3	<0.3	<1	<1

Iron	<3	(3.6)	<15	41

Lanthanum	<0.01	<0.01	<0.07	(0.056)

Lead	<0.3	<0.2	29	105

Lithium	<0.02	<0.01	<0.07	<0.06

Magnesium	<1	<1	<6	<5

Manganese	<0.05	(0.048)	<0.2	(0.35)

Molybdenum	<0.2	<0.1	<0.7	<0.6

Nickel	<0.3	<0.2	<1	<1

Phosphorus	<5	<4	<22	<18

Potassium	<0.2	(0.38)	5.6	23

Selenium	<5	<4	<22	<18

Silver	<0.02	<0.01	<0.07	<0.06

Strontium	<0.02	(0.012)	2.1	7.6

Tellurium	<0.5	<0.4	<2	<2

Thallium	<0.6	<0.5	<3	<2

Tin	<0.8	<0.6	<4	<3

Titanium	<0.03	<0.03	<0.1	(0.23)

Vanadium	<0.02	<0.01	<0.07	<0.06

Yttrium	<0.01	<0.01	200	438

Zinc	2.3	3.6	467	1053

Zirconium	<0.2	<0.1	<0.7	<0.6





Appendix D (Continued)

Metallic Composition of Airborne Dust Samples

Concentrations are in μg/m3

Please see Table 4 for sample dates, description, duration and flow
rate.

<indicates a result less than the limit of detection.  Values in
parentheses represent results between the limit of detection and limit
of quantitation.

	MSMHF-20	MSMHF-21	MSMHF-22	MSMHF-23

Aluminum	<4	(6.5)	<5	<5

Antimony	<2	<2	<2	<2

Arsenic	<5	<6	<7	<7

Barium	1.6	3.6	1.3	1.0

Beryllium	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1

Cadmium	1.7	4.4	1.1	(0.74)

Calcium	<11	(12)	<14	<15

Chromium	<0.5	<0.6	<0.7	<0.7

Cobalt	<0.2	(0.24)	<0.3	<0.3

Copper	<1	<1	<1	<1

Iron	<11	<12	<14	<15

Lanthanum	<0.05	<0.05	<0.06	<0.07

Lead	9.7	22	8.5	(5.6)

Lithium	<0.05	<0.06	<0.07	<0.07

Magnesium	<4	<5	<6	<6

Manganese	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2

Molybdenum	<0.5	<0.6	<0.7	<0.7

Nickel	<1	<1	<1	<1

Phosphorus	<16	<18	<21	<22

Potassium	(2.5)	4.8	(1.3)	(1.2)

Selenium	<16	<18	<21	<22

Silver	<0.05	<0.06	<0.07	<0.07

Strontium	0.81	1.5	0.57	0.49

Tellurium	<2	<2	<2	<2

Thallium	<2	<2	<3	<3

Tin	<3	<3	<4	<4

Titanium	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1

Vanadium	<0.05	<0.06	<0.07	<0.07

Yttrium	51	131	38	24

Zinc	124	333	92	59

Zirconium	<0.5	<0.6	<0.7	<0.7



Figure I: Marianna FCI UNICOR Factory Floor Plan



Figure II: Marianna FPC UNICOR Factory Floor Plan



Figure III: Marianna FPC Glass Breaking Area

Figure IV: Marianna FPC Glass Breaking Booth

(Includes box of CRTs on hand truck below window in plastic curtain)

Worker feeds CRTs from box at left into enclosure where glass is broken.
Two horizontal flow modules (HFMs) are visible in the enclosed area. 
Those units collect and filter air and recirculate the filtered air into
the enclosure.  The booth is enclosed on two sides by concrete block
walls and on two sides by plastic curtains.  It is enclosed on top by
plastic.  There is no mechanical ventilation in the GBO besides the HFMs
 



Figure V: Marianna FPC Glass Breaking Booth Work Stations

(Plastic curtain pulled to the left to show first work station)

Worker takes CRT from left, removes gun, breaks funnel glass, and passes
to right where second worker breaks panel glass.  The horizontal flow
modules (HFMs) collect and filter the air and recirculate the filtered
air inside the booth. The booth is enclosed on four sides and on top. 
There is no mechanical ventilation in the GBO besides the HFMs inside
the booth.

Figure VI: NIOSH Recommended Heat-Stress Exposure Limits for
Heat-Acclimatized Workers [NIOSH 1986]

C = Ceiling Limit

*for “standard worker” of 70 kg (154 lbs) body weight and 1.8 m2
(19.4 ft2) body surface.

Figure VII: Recommended Layout of Typical Facility where Protective
Clothing is Required [DOD 1987].

Note the arrows showing the movement of the workers to segregate
contaminated equipment and clothing from clean items.  Workers shower
before re-entering clean locker rooms after removing contaminated
clothing.



Figure VIII:  Size Distribution of Airborne Particles 

* This report documents the study conducted at Marianna, Florida.  Other
NIOSH DART field studies were conducted at Federal correctional
facilities in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania and Elkton, Ohio.

 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]

 OSHA has referenced a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
lead criteria in documents related to its enforcement of the lead
standard [Fairfax 2003].

 PAGE   

 PAGE   ii 

 PAGE   

 PAGE   63 

 

 

 

 

