Mercury in Gas Operations - Occupational Health Risk Assessment

The project goal was to determine plant operations and maintenance worker’s level of exposure to mercury during routine and non-routine (i.e. turnarounds and inspections) maintenance events in eight gas processing plants. The project team prepared sampling and analysis plans designed to each plant’s process design and scheduled maintenance events. Occupational exposure sampling and monitoring efforts were focused on the measurement of mercury vapor concentration in worker breathing zone air during specific maintenance events including: pipe scrapping, process filter replacement, and process vessel inspection. Similar exposure groups were identified and worker breathing zone and ambient air samples were collected and analyzed for total mercury. Occupational exposure measurement techniques included portable field monitoring instruments, standard passive and active monitoring methods and an emerging passive absorption technology. Process sampling campaigns were focused on inlet gas streams, mercury removal unit outlets, treated gas, acid gas and sales gas. The results were used to identify process areas with increased potential for mercury exposure during maintenance events. Sampling methods used for the determination of total mercury in gas phase streams were based on the USEPA Methods 30B and EPA 1631 and EPA 1669. The results of four six-week long sampling campaigns have been evaluated and some conclusions and recommendations have been made. The author’s role in this project included the direction of all field phases of the project and the development and implementation of the sampling strategy. Additionally, the author participated in the development and implementation of the Quality Assurance Project Plan, Data Quality Objectives, and Similar Exposure Groups identification. All field generated data was reviewed by the author along with laboratory reports in order to generate conclusions and recommendations.

Effectiveness of Colors used on Safety and Health Signs for Communicating Severity of Injury

Signs are used extensively in workplaces and on products to identify hazards and provide instructions for appropriate behavior. A fundamental element of these signs is the signal-word panel located at the top of the sign. The colors and words in this panel are intended to convey information about the hazard identified. One type of hazard information concerns the severity of injury/illness associated with the hazard. The standard of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for facility signs uses three severity categories: 1) death or serious injury, 2) minor or moderate injury, and 3) property damage. The standard specifies which signal-word panel format, including color, to use based in part on the severity category. The purpose of this study was to determine if college students associate color with severity. The sample population consisted of 59 students tested in nine small groups. Twelve signs were shown to them in random order. Five of the signs had a color for the background of the signal-word panel. The colors were red, orange, yellow, blue, and gray. The signal word was a nonsense word and the text panel contained repetitions of the letter x in sentence format. Subject rated their impressions of the colors using two ordered rating scales for severity. Results indicated that color had a highly significant effect on severity ratings. Median ratings were generally consistent with the ANSI standard, except for orange. Red rated highest on both scales. Blue and gray rated lowest. Yellow and orange were in between red and blue. According to the ANSI standard, orange should indicate the same severity as red. These results indicated that orange was associated with less severity than red. Apparently, the ANSI standard's use of orange to identify a hazard associated with death or a serious injury is questionable.

The Presence of Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite Attic Insulation and/or Other Asbestos Containing Materials in Homes and the Potential for Living Space Contamination

Asbestos-contaminated vermiculite attic insulation (VAI) produced from a mine near Libby, Montana, may be present in millions of homes along with other commercial asbestos-containing materials (ACM). The primary goal of the research described here was to develop and test procedures that would allow for the safe and effective weatherization of low-income homes with asbestos. The presence of asbestos insulation was confirmed by bulk sampling of the suspect asbestos material. The homes were then tested for the presence of asbestos fibers in the living spaces. All 40 homes containing VAI revealed the presence of amphibole asbestos in bulk samples. Asbestos (primarily chrysotile) was confirmed in bulk samples of ACM collected from 18 homes. Amphibole asbestos was detected in the living space of 12 (26%) homes, while chrysotile asbestos was detected in the living space of 45 (98%) homes. These results suggest that asbestos sources in homes can contribute to living space contamination

Communicating Severity of Hazard with the Signal Word on a Safety Sign

An experiment examined five signal words on safety signs for effectiveness at communicating information about severity of a hazard. Perceived severity was rated by 59 college students for the signal words Deadly, Danger, Warning, Caution, and Notice. Results indicated that Deadly communicated the highest ratings for severity. Danger was second. Warning and Caution were tied for third. The lowest ratings were for Notice.

Risk Reduction Strategies: Past, Present, and Future

Several respected authors have proposed short lists of all strategies for controlling hazards or reducing risks from hazards. This article reviews those attempts and proposes an improved list of nine risk reduction strategies.

Pool Irradiator Safety Review for Genesis-II Systems

This report examines the Genesis II irradiator made by Gray*Star Incorporated, Mississippi Department of Health radiation safety regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection guidelines for irradiators. The purpose for this report is to evaluate any hazards which may lead to a catastrophic water loss, evaluate protective action distances during a reduced shielding situation, and evaluate the safety engineering measures incorporated by Mississippi and Federal regulations to ensure the mitigation of risk for pool irradiators. Due to safeguard controls prohibiting release of precise data on emergency response measures and radioactivity of the isotopes utilized this report will be focused on regulations mandating specific engineering controls and manufacturer recommended guidelines for best practices.