heta 96-0109-2616 rumpke, inc. landfill colerain township, … · 2002. 6. 14. · heta...

HETA 96-0109-2616Rumpke, Inc. Landfill

Colerain Township, Ohio

Daniel Almaguer, MSKenneth F. Martinez, MSEE, CIH

This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved. Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports



This Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) report and any recommendations made herein are for the specific facility evaluated and may not be universally applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved.


applicable. Any recommendations made are not to be considered as final statements of NIOSH policy or of any agency or individual involved. Additional HHE reports are available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports



ii

PREFACEThe Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch of NIOSH conducts field investigations of possiblehealth hazards in the workplace. These investigations are conducted under the authority of Section 20(a)(6)of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 669(a)(6) which authorizes the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, following a written request from any employer or authorized representative ofemployees, to determine whether any substance normally found in the place of employment has potentiallytoxic effects in such concentrations as used or found.

The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch also provides, upon request, technical andconsultative assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies; labor; industry; and other groups or individualsto control occupational health hazards and to prevent related trauma and disease. Mention of company namesor products does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORTThis report was prepared by Daniel Almaguer, M.S., and Ken Martinez, M.S.E.E., C.I.H., of the HazardEvaluations and Technical Assistance Branch, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and FieldStudies (DSHEFS). Field assistance was provided by Dave Sundin, Dave Marlow, Dino Mattorano, GregKinnes, and Angela Weber. Desktop publishing by Kate L. Marlow.

Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management representatives at Keating, Muething andKlekamp; Ungers and Associates, Inc.; Hamilton County General Health District, and the OSHA RegionalOffice. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely reproduced. Single copies of this report will beavailable for a period of three years from the date of this report. To expedite your request, include a self-addressed mailing label along with your written request to:

NIOSH Publications Office4676 Columbia ParkwayCincinnati, Ohio 45226

800-356-4674

After this time, copies may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 5825Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Information regarding the NTIS stock number may beobtained from the NIOSH Publications Office at the Cincinnati address.

For the purpose of informing affected employees, copies of this report shallbe posted by the employer in a prominent place accessible to the employeesfor a period of 30 calendar days.

iii

Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 96-0109-2616Rumpke, Inc. Landfill

Colerain Township, OhioDecember 1996

Daniel Almaguer, MSKenneth F. Martinez, MSEE, CIH

SUMMARYOn March 18, 1996, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received a request to assistthe Hamilton County General Health District with the assessment of airborne microbiologic aerosols at the RumpkeIncorporated, landfill in Colerain Township, Ohio. On March 9, 1996, the north slope of "Mount Rumpke" slidinto an adjacent area excavated by the Rumpke Mountain Mining Operations exposing 20 to 30 acres of garbageat the site. During the week of March 18, 1996, a mixture of blended cellulose and synthetic fibers was sprayedover the exposed garbage to provide a cover layer. An odor control agent was also sprayed near the exposedgarbage to reduce or eliminate odors.

On the afternoon of March 18, 1996, NIOSH investigators conducted an initial walk-through inspection of theColerain Township landfill and returned on April 3, and 11, 1996, to assess general area air concentrations ofairborne particulates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and bioaerosols. Area airsamples were collected at six locations; three on-site and three off-site around the perimeter.

The airborne concentrations measured on the survey days did not exceed the NIOSH recommended exposure limits(RELs), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limits (PELs), orAmerican Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®) threshold limit values (TLVs®). Thehighest detectable concentrations for all substances (including bioaerosols) were found inside the landfillcompactor cab. Samples for respirable particulates did not contain quartz, but the existence of quartz in the sideby side samples for total particulates collected inside the compactor cab cannot preclude the possibility ofrespirable quartz. Real-time particulate measurement results also indicate that airborne particulate, less than 10:m in diameter, at all sampling locations was below 0.150 milligrams per cubic meter. Results of H2S samplingshowed trace concentrations of H2S present at most locations, and trace concentrations of other sulfur compoundswere present in the landfill compactor cab on the second day of sampling.

Bioaerosol samples were collected to determine area concentrations of culturable microorganisms (i.e., fungi, totalbacteria, and enteric bacteria), fungal spores, and endotoxins. The results of the air samples for culturable entericbacteria are indicative of possible microbiologic dissemination from the working face of the landfill to perimeterareas (created by disruptive activities, such as movement of the large compactors). While the results of the airsamples for fungal spore counts revealed no uniquely distinguishing findings, the concentrations detected in thecab of the compactor were consistently higher than all other sample concentrations. This is likely the direct resultof the disruptive activity of the compactor on the landfill contents (and the fungal reservoirs present within).

iv

Finally, the results of the air sampling for endotoxins (in the compactor cab) were marginally above those from allother sample locations.

All sampled airborne contaminants were well below the occupational exposure criteria. Theisolation of enteric bacterial species around the periphery of the landfill supports the conclusionof possible microbiologic dissemination from the working face. The concentrations observed atthe Rumpke landfill are consistent with bioaerosol studies of municipal landfills reported in theliterature. The absence of definitive exposure criteria precludes the ability to assess the risks ofsuch bioaerosol exposures. However, these results do indicate that the highest concentrations ofparticulates (including spore counts) measured were inside the landfill compactor cab. A reviewof the literature indicates that exposures to total dust and respirable quartz in excess of theoccupational exposure criteria have been associated with landfilling operations. To protect thelandfill compactor operators from exposures to respirable quartz and various genera ofmicroorganisms, the retrofitting of landfill compactors with particulate air filters is warranted.

Keywords: SIC 4953 (Refuse Systems) landfills, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic chemicals, total hydrocarbons,total particulate, quartz, bioaerosols, endotoxins, fungi, bacteria.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Industrial Hygiene Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Total and respirable particulate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Hydrogen sulfide and sulfur compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Qualitative samples for VOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Quantitative samples for VOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Temperature and relative humidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Bulk material samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Microbiologic Aerosol Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Real-time Particulate Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Particulates, Not Otherwise Classified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Silica (Amorphous, Quartz, Cristobalite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Hydrogen Sulfide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Microorganisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Endotoxins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Industrial Hygiene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Microbiologic Aerosols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

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

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0109

INTRODUCTIONOn March 18, 1996, the National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) received arequest to assist the Hamilton County General HealthDistrict with assessment of airborne microbiologicaerosols associated with a slope failure at theRumpke Incorporated, landfill in Colerain Township,Ohio. This report presents the results andconclusions regarding the NIOSH environmentalevaluations conducted on April 3 and 11, 1996.

BACKGROUNDOn March 9, 1996, the north slope of "MountRumpke" slid into an adjacent area excavated by theRumpke Mountain Mining Operations exposing 20to 30 acres of garbage at the site. During the week ofMarch 18, 1996, a mixture of blended cellulose andsynthetic fibers was sprayed over the exposedgarbage to provide a cover layer. An odor controlagent was also aerosolized at various points near theexposed garbage in an attempt to reduce or eliminateodors. Currently, about 120 acres are used to landfillmunicipal waste and Rumpke, Inc. is permitted tolandfill approximately 235 acres at the ColerainTownship site.

The Hamilton County General Health District and anindustrial hygiene consultant for Rumpke, Inc.conducted sampling for methane gas, particulates,and asbestos in and around the landfill site followingthe slope failure. On the afternoon of March 18,1996, NIOSH investigators conducted an initialwalk-through inspection at the landfill site, and wereaccompanied by the Director of Water Quality andWaste Management and the Waste ManagementManager for the Hamilton County General HealthDistrict, as well as representatives of the RumpkeDepartment of Engineering and EnvironmentalAffairs.

Based on the March 18th walk-through inspection, itwas determined that general area air sampling shouldbe conducted on-site, inside the landfill area, and

along the perimeter of the site to determine generalarea air concentrations of airborne particulates,volatile organic compounds (VOCs), andbioaerosols. However, because of the unpredictablespring weather, air sampling was postponed untilApril 3 and 11, 1996. Area air samples werecollected at six locations; three off-site around theperimeter of the landfill and three on-site. The threeperimeter sites were the same locations used duringthe previous sampling conducted by the HealthDepartment, based on the expected wind direction(the wind direction varied at times on the second dayof sampling). Perimeter locations chosen wereupwind (off Old Colerain Avenue), downwind (at theDirector’s home), and sidewind (off Bank Road).The on-site sampling locations chosen were the barnwhere the odor control agent was being sprayed, atthe working face of the landfill, and inside a landfillcompactor cab (bioaerosol samples not collectedinside the cab).

METHODS

Industrial Hygiene SamplingSamples collected at the off-site perimeter locationsand at the barn (on-site) included a sample toconduct a qualitative screening for volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) that may have been emittedfrom the decomposing garbage, a sample toquantitate selected VOCs identified on thequalitative samples, and a sample for hydrogensulfide (H2S). Perimeter samples were collected toevaluate the potential dissemination of contaminantsfrom the landfill. Quantitation would have requiredmuch higher flowrates and longer sample times thanthose used during this evaluation. Samples for allpreviously mentioned substances were collected atthe working face of the landfill and inside thecompactor cab, as well as other sulfur compounds,and total and respirable particulate.

Total and respirable particulate

Total dust samples were obtained using battery-

Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 96-0109 Page 3

powered pumps calibrated at a flowrate of 2.0 litersper minute (Rpm) attached via Tygon® tubing to pre-weighed (tared) 37 millimeter (mm) diameterpolyvinyl chloride (PVC) filters with a 5 micrometer(:m) pore size. Respirable particulate samples werealso collected on tared PVC filters using battery-powered pumps calibrated at a flowrate of 1.7 Rpmconnected via Tygon® tubing to a Dorr-Oliver nyloncyclone particle size selector which removesparticulates exceeding an aerodynamic diameter of10 :m. Gravimetric analyses were performed fortotal and respirable particulates using NIOSHmethods 0500 and 0600, respectively.1 Theanalytical sensitivity was 0.01 milligrams (mg) persample. Samples were further analyzed for quartzand cristobalite using x-ray diffraction in accordancewith NIOSH Method 7500.1

Hydrogen sulfide and sulfurcompounds

General area air samples for H2S were collected onOrbo™ 32 solid sorbent tubes (400/200 charcoal)according to NIOSH Method 6013.1 Area samplesfor other sulfur compounds were collected on Orbo™

43 solid sorbent tubes and analyzed by gasch roma tography ( G C) wi th Su l fu rChemiluminescence Detection (SCLD).

Qualitative samples for VOCs

Qualitative samples for VOCs were collected onthermal desorption tubes connected via Tygon®

tubing to battery-powered sampling pumps calibratedto provide a volumetric airflow rate of 0.02 Rpm.Samples for VOCs were screened via gaschromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS).

Quantitative samples for VOCs

Quantitative samples for VOCs were collected on100/50 milligram solid sorbent charcoal tubesconnected via Tygon® tubing to battery-poweredsampling pumps calibrated to provide a volumetricairflow rate of 0.2 Rpm. Significant analyte peaksidentified on the qualitative screening samples were

analyzed by GC with flame ionizationdetection (FID) in accordance with NIOSH Methods1501 and 15501.

Temperature and relativehumidity

On April 3, 1996, temperature and relative humiditywere measured using a Vaisala Model HM 34battery-powered, direct reading meter. Thisinstrument is capable of providing direct readings fordry-bulb temperature and relative humidity (RH),ranging from -4°F to 140°F and 0% to 100%,respectively. Instrument calibrations are performedmonthly using primary standards. Readings obtainedwith this meter appeared to be higher than the actualtemperature and RH on the day of the survey.Therefore, on April 11, 1996, temperature and RHmeasurements were obtained using a Psychro-Dyne®

psychrometer. This instrument utilizes the wet anddry bulb method of measuring moisture in the air,which is based on the cooling effect of the wet bulb.

Bulk material samples

Bulk material samples of the odor control agent werecollected in 20 mL glass vials and submitted to thelaboratory for analysis via GC/MS.

Microbiologic AerosolSamplingTo determine general area air concentrations ofculturable airborne fungi, total bacteria, and entericbacteria, the Spiral Air Systems (SAS) Portable HighFlow Model 5203 (Pool Bioanalysis Italiana,Milano, Italy) was used at a calibrated flowrate of186 Rpm over sample periods of 1 to 2 minutes.Sampling times were adjusted based on theestimated loading at a particular sampling location(e.g., 1 minute sample times were used at theworking face based on higher expected bioaerosolsconcentrations). Malt Extract agar was used for theenumeration of total fungi, tryptic soy agar was usedfor the enumeration of total bacteria, and


MacConkey’s agar was used for the enumeration ofenteric bacteria. Sample plates were incubated at30/C. The taxa and rank of the collectedmicroorganisms were determined by morphologicalcharacteristics and/or biochemical tests.

Bioaerosol air samples were collected at twolocations inside the landfill property line and threelocations around the perimeter. At each samplelocation, at least three replicate samples persampling day were collected for culturable fungi,total bacteria, and enteric bacteria. Four replicatesper sampling day were collected at the working faceand odor control locations. The number ofreplicates was increased to improve the statisticalconfidence of the on-site areas for comparison toperipheral zones. Sampling at each location wasconducted on two separate days (approximately 2hours per sampling location). Temperature and RHwere recorded for each location.

To determine general area concentrations of airbornefungi and Gram-negative bacteria using non-culturable sampling methods, air was drawn throughfilters, via flexible Tygon® tubing, with Gilian®Model HFS 513A high flow personal samplingpumps. Airborne fungal spores were collected on a37-millimeter (mm) mixed cellulose ester (MCE)filter at a calibrated flow rate of 2 Rpm withsubsequent optical microscopic analysis. Each filtersample was analyzed according to a modification ofNIOSH Method 7400.1 One quarter of each filtersample was cleared with acetone vapor and mountedin a phloxine-alcohol-glycerin mounting medium.(Phloxine is a biological dye that stains fungal sporespink.) The prepared slide was allowed to sit overnight or was heated gently to enhance staining beforereading. Slide samples were scanned (200 fields persample) at 400x magnification using bright field orphased contrast illumination. Only particles greaterthat 2 :m in diameter were considered as possiblefungal spores.

Samples for endotoxin (a cell wall constituent ofGram-negative bacteria) were collected on a 37-mmpolyvinyl chloride (PVC) filter at a calibrated flowrate of 2 liters per minute (Rpm). Each filter sample

was analyzed gravimetrically (NIOSH Method05001) and subsequently placed into 50 ml conicalcentrifuge tubes. Ten milliliters of sterile,pyrogen-free water (LAL Reagent Water,BioWhittaker Inc., Walkerville, Maryland) wasadded to each tube. The filter samples were gentlyrocked at room temperature for approximately 60minutes. Each supernate was then decanted in a 15ml centrifuge tube and centrifuged for 10 min at2200 revolutions per minute (rpm) at 4/C. Fromeach tube, 3 ml of the supernatant fluid wasrecovered, placed in a sterile vial, and stored at -85/Cuntil analyzed. The samples were assayed forendotoxin content using the Kinetic-QCL Assay Kit(BioWhittaker, Walkerville, MD) according to themanufacturer’s recommended procedure.

Real-time ParticulateMeasurementReal-time sampling for airborne particulates wasconducted with the Grimm Model 1105 DustMonitor (Labortechnik GmbH & CoKG, Ainring,Germany). The Grimm Dust Monitor is a lightscattering aerosol spectrometer designed forreal-time particulate measurement with particle sizediscrimination. Eight channels collect countinformation for particle sizes of greater than 0.75, 1,2, 3.5, 5, 7.5, 10, and 15 :m. Data was collectedsimultaneously with the culturable microbiologicaerosols (over an approximate 2 hour period) at thesame five sampling locations. For each samplinglocation, data was integrated for 1 minute and storedsequentially on the Grimm data card over the entiresampling period. The collected particle count andsize information was downloaded to a laptopcomputer following the completion of the samplingday.

EVALUATION CRITERIAAs a guide to the evaluation of the hazards posed byworkplace exposures, NIOSH field staff employenvironmental evaluation criteria for the assessmentof a number of chemical and physical agents. These


criteria are intended to suggest levels of exposure towhich most workers may be exposed up to 10 hoursper day, 40 hours per week for a working lifetimewithout experiencing adverse health effects. It is,however, important to note that not all workers willbe protected from adverse health effects even thoughtheir exposures are maintained below these levels. Asmall percentage may experience adverse healtheffects because of individual susceptibility, apre-existing medical condition, and/or ahypersensitivity (allergy). In addition, somehazardous substances may act in combination withother workplace exposures, the general environment,or with medications or personal habits of the workerto produce health effects even if the occupationalexposures are controlled at the level set by thecriterion. These combined effects are often notconsidered in the evaluation criteria. Also, somesubstances are absorbed by direct contact with theskin and mucous membranes, and thus potentiallyincrease the overall exposure. Finally, evaluationcriteria may change over the years as newinformation on the toxic effects of an agent becomeavailable.

The primary sources of environmental evaluationcriteria for the workplace are: (1) NIOSHRecommended Exposure Limits (RELs)2, (2) theAmerican Conference of Governmental IndustrialHygienists' (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values(TLVs)3 and (3) the U.S. Department of Labor,OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs)4.In July 1992, the 11th Circuit Court of Appealsvacated the 1989 OSHA PEL Air ContaminantsStandard. OSHA is currently enforcing the 1971standards which are listed as transitional values inthe current Code of Federal Regulations; however,some states operating their own OSHA approved jobsafety and health programs continue to enforce the1989 limits. NIOSH encourages employers tofollow the 1989 OSHA limits, the NIOSH RELs, theACGIH TLVs, or whichever are the more protectivecriterion. The OSHA PELs reflect the feasibility ofcontrolling exposures in various industries where theagents are used, whereas NIOSH RELs are basedprimarily on concerns relating to the prevention ofoccupational disease. It should be noted when

reviewing this report that employers are legallyrequired to meet those levels specified by an OSHAstandard and that the OSHA PELs included in thisreport reflect the 1971 values.

A time-weighted average (TWA) exposure refers tothe average airborne concentration of a substanceduring a normal 8-to-10-hour workday. Somesubstances have recommended short-term exposurelimits (STEL) or ceiling values which are intended tosupplement the TWA where there are recognizedtoxic effects from higher exposures over theshort-term.

Particulates, Not OtherwiseClassifiedOften the chemical composition of the airborneparticulate does not have an established occupationalhealth exposure criterion. It has been the conventionto apply a generic exposure criterion in such cases.Formerly referred to as nuisance dust, the preferredterminology for the non-specific particulate ACGIHTLV criterion is now "particulates, not otherwiseclassified (n.o.c.)," [or "not otherwise regulated"(n.o.r.) for the OSHA PEL]. In comments to OSHAon August 1, 1988, on their “Proposed Rule on AirContaminants,” NIOSH questioned whether theproposed PEL for PNOR (10 mg/m3) was adequateto protect workers from recognized health hazards.

The OSHA PEL for total particulate, n.o.r., is 15.0mg/m3 and 5.0 mg/m 3 for the respirable fraction,determined as 8-hour averages. The ACGIHrecommended TLV for exposure to a particulate,n.o.c., is 10.0 mg/m3 (total dust, 8-hour TWA).These are generic criteria for airborne dusts which donot produce significant organic disease or toxiceffect when exposures are kept under reasonablecontrol.5 These criteria are not appropriate for duststhat have a biologic effect.


Silica (Amorphous, Quartz,Cristobalite)Amorphous silica does not have a crystalline latticemolecular configuration. Historical evaluations ofamorphous silica suggest that it is of low toxicity,and it has not been reported to produce fibroticnodules in lung tissue (characteristic of crystallinesilica exposure).6,7 The NIOSH REL for exposure toamorphous silica is a full-shift, total particulateTWA of 6 mg/m3, providing the silica contains lessthan 1% crystalline forms.8 The OSHA PEL is 80mg/m3 divided by the %SiO2, as an 8-hour TWA.The ACGIH TLV for amorphous silica containingless than 1% crystalline silica is 10 mg/m3, inhalableparticulate TWA over eight hours, and a respirableparticulate TWA of 3 mg/m3.

Crystalline silica (quartz) and cristobalite have beenassociated with silicosis, a fibrotic disease of thelung caused by the deposition of fine particles ofcrystalline silica in the lungs. Symptoms usuallydevelop insidiously, with cough, shortness of breath,chest pain, weakness, wheezing, and non-specificchest illnesses. Silicosis usually occurs after years ofexposure, but may appear in a shorter period of timeif exposure concentrations are very high. TheNIOSH RELs for respirable quartz and cristobaliteare 50 :g/m3, as TWAs, for up to 10 hours per dayduring a 40-hour work week.2 These RELs areintended to prevent silicosis. However, evidenceindicates that crystalline silica is a potentialoccupational carcinogen and NIOSH is currentlyreviewing the data on carcinogenicity.9,10,11,12 TheOSHA PELs for respirable quartz is 10 mg/m3

divided by the value “%SiO2+2,” the PEL forcristobalite is ½ the calculated value for quartz.8 TheACGIH TLVs for respirable quartz and cristobaliteare 100 and 50 :g/m3, as 8-hour TWAs, respectively.

Hydrogen SulfideHydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless, flammable gaswith a strong odor of rotten eggs. In landfills, themajority of the H2S is present as a result of decayingorganic matter. Acute exposure to H2S at airborne

concentrations above 10 parts per million (ppm) hasbeen associated with the development ofconjunctivitis and keratitis.13 One hour exposure toH2S concentrations between 50 and 100 ppm canproduce mild eye and respiratory irritation whichbecomes markedly worse when the concentrationsare in the 200 to 300 ppm range. At H2Sconcentrations between 500 and 700 ppm, exposuresfor 0.5- to 1-hour can result in unconsciousness anddeath, and between 1000 to 2000 ppm or more,unconsciousness and death can occur within minutes.Conclusive evidence of adverse health effects fromchronic exposure to hydrogen sulfide atconcentrations below 20 ppm is lacking.13,14,15,16

However, there is some evidence that H2S alone atlow concentrations, or in combination with otherchemical substances (e.g. petroleum products orcarbon disulfide), is associated with the developmentof nervous system, cardiovascular, andgastrointestinal disorders, and effects on the eyes.Repeated exposure to H2S results in increasedsusceptibility, so that eye irritation, cough, andsystemic effects may result from concentrationspreviously tolerated without effect. Hydrogensulfide has an odor threshold between 0.002 and0.003 ppm for humans.15 The smell is faint buteasily perceptible at 0.77 ppm and offensive at 3 to5 ppm. Up to about 30 ppm, H2S smells of rotteneggs, but at about 30 ppm the smell is described assweet or sickening sweet. At 150 ppm, H2S causesolfactory-nerve paralysis and the smell is no longerperceptible. The smell of H2S therefore is not areliable warning of its presence, especially at highconcentrations.

In a recent study, Bhambhani, et al.17 compared theeffects of inhalation of 5 ppm H2S on thephysiological and hematological responses ofhealthy men and women during exercise. Subjectsincluded in the study completed two 30-minuteexercise tests on a cycle ergometer at 50% of theirpredetermined maximal aerobic power whilebreathing medical air or 5 ppm H2S from a speciallydesigned flow system. The results indicated thatthere were no significant differences between thetwo exposures for the metabolic (oxygen uptake,carbon dioxide production, respiratory exchange


ratio), cardiovascular (heart rate, blood pressure, ratepressure production), arterial blood (oxygen andcarbon dioxide tensions, pH), and perceptual (ratingof perceived exertion) responses in either sex. Noneof the subjects reported any adverse health effectssubsequent to the H2S exposure. These resultssuggest that healthy men and women can safelyperform moderate intensity work in environmentscontaminated with 5 ppm H2S or lower. The deviceused to deliver H2S to the subjects fits in theirmouths and did not result in exposure to the subjects'eyes. This is important since adverse effects on theeyes are what the NIOSH and OSHA exposure limitsare based on.

The NIOSH REL for H2S is a 10-minute ceilingconcentration of 10 ppm.2 When there is a potentialfor exposure to H2S at a concentration of 50 ppm orhigher, continuous monitoring is recommended byNIOSH. The OSHA standard for H2S is a 10-minuteceiling concentration of 20 ppm or a maximumallowable peak of 50 ppm for 10-minutes once, if noother measurable exposures occur.4 The ACGIHrecommends a TLV-TWA of 10 ppm and a STEL of15 ppm.3

MicroorganismsMicroorganisms (including fungi and bacteria) arenormal inhabitants of the environment. Thesaprophytic varieties (those utilizing non-livingorganic matter as a food source) inhabit soil,vegetation, water, or any reservoir that can providean adequate supply of a nutrient substrate. Under theappropriate conditions (optimum temperature, pH,and with sufficient moisture and available nutrients)saprophytic microorganism populations can beamplified. Through various mechanisms, theseorganisms can then be disseminated as individualcells or in association with soil or dust particles orwater droplets. In the outdoor environment, thelevels of microbial aerosols will vary according tothe geographic location, climatic conditions, andsurrounding activity.

Some individuals manifest increased immunologicresponses to antigenic agents encountered in the

environment. These responses and the subsequentexpression of allergic disease is based, partly, on agenetic predisposition.18 Allergic diseases typicallyassociated with exposures in indoor environmentsinclude allergic rhinitis (nasal allergy), allergicasthma, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis(ABPA), and extrinsic allergic alveolitis(hypersensitivity pneumonitis).19 Allergicrespiratory diseases resulting from exposures tomicrobial agents have been documented inagricultural, biotechnology, office, and homeenvironments.20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27

Symptoms vary with the type of allergic disease: (1)allergic rhinitis is characterized by paroxysms ofsneezing; itching of the nose, eyes, palate, orpharynx; nasal stuffiness with partial or total airflowobstruction; rhinorrhea with postnasal drainage; (2)allergic asthma is characterized by episodic orprolonged wheezing and shortness of breath due tobronchial narrowing; (3) ABPA is characterized bythe production of IgE and IgG antibodies withsymptoms of cough, lassitude, low grade fever,wheezing, and occasional expectoration ofmucous.19,28 Heavy exposures to airbornemicroorganisms can result in an acute form ofextrinsic allergic alveolitis which is characterized bychills, fever, malaise, cough, and dyspnea (shortnessof breath) appearing 4 to 8 hours after exposure.Onset of the chronic form of extrinsic allergicalveolitis is thought to be induced by a continuouslow-level exposure, and onset occurs without chills,fever, or malaise but is characterized by progressiveshortness of breath with weight loss.29

Acceptable levels of airborne microorganisms havenot been established, primarily due to the varyingimmunogenic susceptibilities of individuals.Relationships between health effects andenvironmental microorganisms must be determinedthrough the combined contributions of medical,epidemiologic, and environmental evaluation.30 Thecurrent strategy for on-site evaluation involves acomprehensive inspection of problem areas toidentify sources of microbial contamination androutes of dissemination. In limited situations, airsamples for microorganisms may be collected to


document the airborne presence of a suspectedmicrobial contaminant. Airborne dissemination(characterized by elevated levels compared toreference background locations and an anomalousranking among the microbial species) correlated tosymptomology may suggest that the contaminantmay be responsible for the health effects.

EndotoxinsA bacterial endotoxin is a lipopolysaccharide (LPS)compound from the outer cell wall of gram negativebacteria, which occur abundantly in organic dusts.31

It has been suggested that the lipid portion of theLPS is responsible for the molecule’s characteristictoxicity.32 The biological properties of endotoxinvary depending upon the bacterial species fromwhich they are derived, as well as upon the state ofthe growth cycle of the bacteria.33 Endotoxins havea wide range of biological activities involvinginflammatory, hemodynamic, and immunologicalresponses. Of most importance to occupationalexposures are the activities of endotoxin in thelung.34 The primary target cell forendotoxin-induced damage by inhalation is thepulmonary macrophage. Human macrophages inparticular have been shown to be extremely sensitiveto the effects of endotoxin in vitro.35 Endotoxin,either soluble or associated with particulate matter,will activate the macrophage, causing the cell toproduce a host of mediators.34

Clinically, little is known about the response toinhaled endotoxins. Exposure of previouslyunexposed persons to airborne endotoxin can resultin acute fever, dyspnea, coughing, and smallreductions in forced expiratory volume in onesecond (FEV1), although some investigators havenot been able to demonstrate acute changes inFEV1.34 The effects of repeated exposure toaerosols of endotoxins in humans are not known.Some animal studies have demonstrated a chronicinflammatory response characterized by goblet cellhyperplasia and increased mucous production. Thissuggests that repeated exposure may cause asyndrome similar, if not identical, to chronicbronchitis.34

Occupational exposure criteria have not beenestablished for bacterial endotoxin by either OSHA,NIOSH, or ACGIH. However, Rylander hasreported that a sufficient toxicological data base isbelieved to exist for establishing an occupationallimit for endotoxin based on acute changes inpulmonary function.36 Eight-hour TWAconcentrations have been suggested for airwayinflammation with increased airway reactivity [200endotoxin units per cubic meter (EU/m3)], over-shiftdecline in FEV1 (2000 EU/m3), for chest tightness(3000 EU/m3), and toxic pneumonitis (10,000-20,000 EU/m3).

RESULTS

Industrial HygieneThe results of sampling for total and respirableparticulates are presented in Table 1. The airborneconcentrations measured on the survey days did notexceed the OSHA PELs or ACGIH TLVs. The totalparticulate samples collected in the landfillcompactor cab showed detectable quantities ofquartz, however, the corresponding side by sidesamples for respirable particulate did not containquartz. The results of real-time sampling forairborne particulates are also presented in Table 1.These results indicate that airborne concentrations ofparticulates less than 10 :m at all sampling locationswere below 0.150 milligrams per cubic meter.

Samples for H2S and other sulfur compounds arepresented in Table 2. These results indicate thattrace concentrations of H2S were present at mostlocations, and a trace concentration of other sulfurcompounds was present in the landfill compactor cabon the second day of sampling.

Qualitative VOC samples showed that samplescollected in the landfill compactor cab had greaterconcentrations of contaminants than other locations.The primary compounds detected via GC/MSincluded C3-C6 alkanes, toluene, xylenes, styrene,limonene, acetone, isopropanol, and various C9-C15aliphatics. Other minor compounds detected


included methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone,tetrahydrofuran, butyl acetate, perchloroethylene,1,1,1-trichloroethane, and siloxanes.

Quantitative sample results for VOCs are presentedin Table 2. These samples were analyzed for totalhydrocarbons and quantitation was performed usingstandards spiked from a bulk Stoddard solvent. Theterm volatile organic compounds refers to a largeclass of organic chemicals (i.e., containing carbon)that have sufficiently high vapor pressure to allowsome of the compounds to exist in the gaseous stateat room temperature. Total hydrocarbons areorganic chemicals consisting exclusively of theelements carbon and hydrogen, derived principallyfrom petroleum, coal tar, and plant sources.37

During the first day of sampling, traceconcentrations of total hydrocarbons were detectedat the Bank Road location and a concentration of3.73 mg/m3 was detected inside the landfillcompactor cab. On the second day of sampling aconcentration of 1.4 mg/m3 was detected inside thelandfill compactor cab. Detectable airborneconcentrations of total hydrocarbons were not foundat any other sample location the two days ofsampling. The concentrations detected wereapproximately 1% or less of the occupationalexposure criteria for Stoddard solvent. Becausethese samples were quantitated using a Stoddardsolvent standard the occupational criteria forStoddard solvent is used for comparison purposes.Stoddard solvent is a mixture of predominantly C9 -C11 hydrocarbons, of which 30% to 50% are straight-and branched-chain paraffins, 30% to 40%naphthenes, and 10% to 20% aromatichydrocarbons, and is chemically similiar to mineralspirits.6 The NIOSH REL for Stoddard solvent is350 mg/m3 as an 8-10 hour TWA concentration, theOSHA standard is an 8-hour TWA concentration of525 mg/m3, and the ACGIH TLV-TWA is 525mg/m3.

Analysis of the bulk material sample of the odorcontrol spray showed that the major components ofthe liquid were a variety of terpene/terpenederivatives, isopropanol, diethanolamine, and

triethanolamine.

Microbiologic AerosolsSummary results of the air samples for culturableenteric bacteria are presented in Table 3 andFigure 1. (Note, a predominant number of thesample plates for culturable fungi and total bacteriawere over-grown to the point of being too numerousto count. As a consequence, the data from thesesamples are not reported.) Variations at eachsampling location between the two days of samplingare observable. However, consideration of theprevailing wind direction at the time of samplingprovides consistent trends between samplinglocations and the enteric microbiologicconcentrations and predominant species. Thesetrends are indicative of possible microbiologicdissemination from the working face of the landfill toperimeter areas (created by disruptive activities, suchas movement of the large compactors).

Samples collected at the working face upwind on thefirst day of sampling resulted in no colony formingunits (CFU) on the sample plates. Samples collectedon the second day (the same location but downwindof the working face) resulted in an arithmetic meanconcentration of 21 CFU per cubic meter of air(CFU/m3) of culturable airborne enteric bacteria.The samples were predominated by Rhanellaaquatilis, Pantoea agglomerans, and yeasts, withlesser numbers of Enterobacter agglomerans,variants of Pseudomonas fluorescens, Acinetobactergenospecies, and Agrobacterium rhizogenes.Samples collected in the proximity of the odorcontrol system (downstream at the time of samplingfor both days) resulted in arithmetic meanconcentrations of 11 and 10 CFU/m3. The taxonomyof the samples were consistent with that of theworking face samples, although the ranking wasslightly different. Samples collected at a residenceon Hughes Road downstream of the working faceexhibited a combined arithmetic mean concentration(20 CFU/m3) that was higher than any othercombined concentration (refer to Figure 1). Thesamples collected on Bank Road near the perimeterfence exhibited the lowest combined arithmeticconcentration (5 CFU/m3) when compared to all


other sample locations. Although the taxonomicranking varied slightly in both sampling locations,the identifiable species were consistent with thosefound at the working face. The samples collected ina field behind a church on Old Colerain showeddiffering results over the two day sampling period.On the first day of sampling (prevailing windconditions defined the sample location as upwind),no detectable concentration was found. However,the second day of sampling resulted in an arithmeticmean concentration of 32 CFU/m3 with entericbacterial species consistent with those identified atthe working face. This unexpected result may havebeen due to consistently changing wind directions onthe second day of sampling. On the first day ofsampling, the perceived wind speed was less andmore stable in direction than on the second day.

Summary results of the air samples for fungal sporecounts and endotoxins are presented in Table 4. Theconcentration of fungal spores at various locations inand around the periphery of the landfill revealed nouniquely distinguishing findings. The levels weresimilar to or lower than those observed at the churchfield. However, the concentrations collected in thecab of the compactor were consistently higher thanall other sample concentrations. This is likely thedirect result of the disruptive activity of thecompactor on the landfill contents (and the fungalreservoirs present within). As with the fungal sporeresults, the endotoxin levels on-site and downwind ofthe municipal landfill were similar to those samplescollected at the church field. Similarly, the samplescollected in the compactor cap were marginallyabove those from all other sample locations. Overall,the concentrations observed were well below thecriteria suggested by Rylander.

DISCUSSIONThe sampling results do not exceed the applicableoccupational or environmental criteria. However,windy weather conditions may have adverselyaffected the collection efficiency of the samplersused, which would result in under-estimation of theactual concentrations.

The enteric bacterial concentrations and isolatedspecies from air samples collected on and around theperiphery of the Rumpke landfill are consistent withbioaerosol studies of municipal landfills reported inthe literature. In an investigation of a sanitarylandfill in Finland, Rahkonen, et al. [1987]documented airborne concentrations of total coliformbacteria (from area samples collected with Andersensix-stage viable cascade impactors) during thesummer, autumn, and winter seasons of 14, 29, and24 CFU/m3, respectively. 38 These concentrationscorrelate with those found in the area samplescollected at the Rumpke landfill. Rahkonen andEttala [1990] in a similar investigation of twoFinlandian sanitary landfills identified genera ofPseudomonas, Enterobacter, Klebsiella, Rahnella,Flavobacterium, and Achromobacter in air samplescollected with Andersen six-stage viable cascadeimpactors.39 In 67% of the collected samples, gram-negative bacteria concentrations exceeded 1000CFU/m3. Klebsiella has been recommended by theAmerican Society for Testing and Materials as oneof the indicator organisms for assessing airbornemicroorganism concentrations at municipal solid-waste processing facilities.40 Klebsiella was isolatedfrom samples of three of the study samplinglocations including the location at Hughes Road,downstream of the odor control system, and at thechurch field.

Acceptable levels of airborne microorganisms (fungi,total bacteria, or enteric bacteria) or their metabolicproducts have not been established. This absence ofexposure criteria results primarily from the varyingimmunogenic susceptibilities of individuals and alimited understanding of the relationship betweenexposure concentrations and the initiation of disease.Combining the disciplines of medicine,epidemiology, and industrial hygiene for each uniquesituation may provide insight into the relationshipsbetween health effects and exposure.

CONCLUSIONS


Industrial hygiene sampling from on-site landfilllocations and peripheral zones showed airbornecontaminant concentrations well below criteria usedfor evaluating occupational exposures. The isolationof enteric bacterial species around the periphery ofthe landfill only supports the conclusion of possiblemicrobiologic dissemination from the working face.The concentrations observed at the Rumpke landfillare consistent with bioaerosol studies of municipallandfills reported in the literature. The absence ofdefinitive exposure criteria precludes the ability toassess the risks of such bioaerosol exposures.However, these results do indicate that the highestconcentrations of particulates (including sporecounts) measured were in the landfill compactor cab.A review of the literature indicates that significantexposures to total dust and respirable quartz havebeen associated with landfilling operations.41,42 Toprotect the landfill compactor operators frompotentially high exposures to respirable quartz andvarious genera of microorganisms, the retrofitting ofthe landfill compactors with air filters should beinvestigated.

RECOMMENDATIONSBased on the results of personal air monitoring, thefollowing recommendations are provided to improvehealth and safety conditions for employees at theRumpke landfill.

1. To protect the landfill compactor operators fromexposure to airborne concentrations of respirablequartz and various genera of microorganisms, thelandfill compactors (and other heavy equipment)should be retrofitted with air cleaning devices.Engineering control modifications to the compactors,loaders, and bulldozers in the form of cab retrofitswith HEPA filtration and positive pressurization, cansignificantly reduce the infiltration of outdoorcontaminant sources.

2. Personal exposures of landfill compactoroperators and other heavy equipment operatorsshould be characterized by periodically conducting

personal breathing zone air sampling for hydrogensulfide, total particulate and respirable particulatesduring normal landfilling operations. Respirableparticulate samples should be analyzed for silicacontent (i.e., percent quartz, cristobalite, etc.).Quartz was detected in total particulate samplescollected by the NIOSH investigators at the RumpkeLandfill and respirable silica exposures have beendocumented in heavy equipment operators at otherlandfilling operations. Excavation, transport, andcompaction of soil used for daily cover can createconsiderable dust resulting in exposure to airbornesoil containing silica.

3. The episodic nature of refuse compaction andsoil delivery and dissemination can result inextremes between dusty conditions to relatively dustfree. The wastestreams at landfills are known to varyconsiderably; residues containing heavy metals andother toxic materials can become airborne when theyare disposed. Construction debris may also containasbestos-containing materials. Therefore, because ofthe difficulty in ascertaining which loads of refuse orwhat specific conditions may result in increased riskof exposure to employees, respiratory protectionconsisting of high efficiency particulate air (HEPA)filters should be provided and worn by all employeesexposed to the dusts from materials intended forlandfill disposal. This includes silica-containing soilused for cover at the working face. Mechanicsservicing equipment contaminated with hazardousresidues should also use respiratory protection. Acomplete employee respiratory protection programshould be developed. The minimum standards forsuch a program are described in the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA) GeneralIndustry Standards, 29 CFR 1910.134.

4. Previous NIOSH studies have indicated thatengine noise from heavy equipment used atmunicipal landfills can result in levels to equipmentoperators that exceed the OSHA PEL of 90 dB(A)for an 8-hour TWA.42 Therefore, it is advisable toconduct a noise measurement survey to determineheavy equipment operators actual exposure.


1. NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of AnalyticalMethods, 4th Edition. Cincinnati, Ohio: NationalInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health,DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.

2. NIOSH [1992]. Recommendations foroccupational safety and health: compendium ofpolicy documents and statements. Cincinnati,OH: U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Public Health Service, Centers forDisease Control, National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)Publication No. 92-100.

3. ACGIH [1996]. 1996 threshold limit valuesfor chemical substances and physical agents andbiological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH:American Conference of Governmental IndustrialHygienists.

4. Code of Federal Regulations [1993]. 29 CFR1910.1000. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Federal Register.

5. ACGIH [1986]. Documentation ofthreshold limit values and biological exposureindices for chemical substances and physical

agents. Cincinnati, OH: AmericanConference of Governmental IndustrialHygienists.

6. Hathaway GJ, Proctor NH, Hughes JP, andFischman MJ [1991]. Proctor and Hughes'Chemical Hazards of the Workplace. 3rd. ed.New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

7. NIOSH [1986]. Occupational respiratorydiseases. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, Public HealthService, Centers for Disease Control, NationalInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health,DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 86-102.

8. NIOSH [1994]. Pocket Guide to ChemicalHazards. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, Public HealthService, Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, National Institute for OccupationalSafety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) PublicationNo. 94-116.

9. NIOSH [1974]. Abrasive blasting respiratoryprotective practices. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control,National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 74-104,p106.

10. IARC [1987]. IARC monograms on theevaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals tohumans: silica and some silicates. Vol 42. Lyons,France: World Health Organization, InternationalAgency for Research on Cancer, pp 49,51,73-111.

11. NIOSH [1988]. NIOSH testimony to the U.S.Department of Labor: statement of the NationalInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health.Presented at the public hearing on OSHAPELs/crystalline silica, July 1988. NIOSH policystatements. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, Public HealthService, Centers for Disease Control, NationalInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health.

5. Employees should be encouraged to showerbefore leaving the facility each day and should not beallowed to leave the site with any soiled workuniforms. The use of Tyvek® suits, to be worn overthe work uniform should be available for situationswhen extremely dusty conditions are present. Theuse of a Tyvek® suit can, however, increase thepossibility of heat stress in the warmer summermonths. A heat stress monitoring program may needto be implemented.

6. Eating, drinking, and smoking should occur onlyin break areas and employees should be informed ofthe importance of handwashing to reduce the risk ofdermal exposure and the ingestion hazards related totoxic materials.

REFERENCES


12. DHHS [1991]. Sixth annual report oncarcinogens: summary 1991. Research TrianglePark, NC: U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Public Health Service, National Institutefor Environmental Health Sciences, pp 357-364.

13. NIOSH [1977]. Criteria for a RecommendedStandard. Occupational Exposure to HydrogenSulfide. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-158. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

14. Beauchamp RO Jr. et al. [1984]. A criticalreview of the literature on hydrogen sulfidetoxicity. CRC Crit Rev Toxicol 13:25-97.

15. Glass DC [1990]. A review of the healtheffects of hydrogen sulfide exposure. Ann OccupHyg 34(3):323-327.

16. Schecter MT, Spitzer WO, Hutcheon ME[1989]. Cancer downwind from sour gasrefineries: The perception and the reality of anepidemic. Environ Health Perspect 79:283-290.

17. Bhamhani Y, Burnham R, Snydmiller G,MacLean I, Martin T [1994]. Comparativephysiological responses of exercising men andwomen to 5 ppm hydrogen sulfide exposure. AmInd Hyg Assoc J 55(11): 1030-1035.

18. Pickering, CA [1992]. Immune respiratorydisease associated with the inadequate control ofindoor air quality. Indoor Environ 1:157-161.

19. Burge, HA [1988]. Environmental allergy:definition, causes, control. Engineering Solutionsto Indoor Air Problems. Atlanta, GA: AmericanSociety of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers pp. 3-9.

20. Vinken W, Roels P [1984]. Hypersensitivitypneumonitis to Aspergillus fumigatus in compost.Thorax 39:74-74.

21. Malmberg P, Rask-Andersen A, Palmgren U,Höglund S, Kolmodin-Hedman B, Stålenheim G[1985]. Exposure to microorganisms, febrile

and airway-obstructive symptoms, immune statusand lung function of swedish farmers. Scand JWork Environ Health 11:287-293.

22. Topping MD, Scarsbrick DA, Luczynska CM,Clarke EC, Seaton A [1985]. Clinical andimmunological reactions to Aspergillus nigeramong workers at a biotechnology plant. BritishJ Ind Med 42:312-318.

23. Edwards JH [1980]. Microbial andimmunological investigations and remedial actionafter an outbreak of humidifier fever. British JInd Med 37:55-62.

24. Weiss NS, Soleymani Y [1971].Hypersensitivity lung disease causedby contamination of an air-conditioning system.Annals of Allergy 29:154-156.

25. Hodgson MJ, Morey PR, Attfield M,Sorenson W, Fink JN, Rhodes WW, VisvesvaraGS [1985]. Pulmonary disease associated withcafeteria flooding. Archives Environ Health40(2):96-101.

26. Fink JN, Banaszak EF, Thiede WH,Barboriak JJ [1971]. Interstitial pneumonitis dueto hypersensitivity to an organism contaminatinga heating system. Annals Internal Med 74:80-83.

27. Banazak EF, Barboriak J, Fink J, Scanlon G,Schlueter EP, Sosman A, Thiede W, Unger G[1974]. Epidemiologic studies relatingthermophilic fungi and hypersensitivity lungsyndrome. Am Review Resp Disease 110:585-591.

28. Kaliner M, Eggleston PA, Mathews KP[1987]. Rhinitis and asthma. JAMA258(20):2851-2873.

29. Jordan FN, deShazo R [1987]. Immunologicaspects of granulomatous and interstitial lungdiseases. JAMA 258(20):2938-2944.

30. ACGIH [1989]. Guidelines for theassessment of bioaerosols in the indoor


environment. Cincinnati, OH: AmericanConference of Governmental IndustrialHygienists.

31. Hagmar L, Schütz A, Hallberg T, Sjöholm A[1990]. Health effects of exposure to endotoxinsand organic dust in poultry slaughter-houseworkers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 62:159-164.

32. Milton DK [1995]. Endotoxin. In: BurgeHA, ed. Bioaerosols. Boca Raton, LA: LewisPublishers, p. 77.

33. Rylander R [1987]. The role of endotoxin forreactions after exposure to cotton dust. Am J IndMed 12:687-697.

34. Jacobs RR [1989]. Airborne endotoxins: anassociation with occupational lung disease. ApplOccup Environ Hyg 4:50-56.

35. Olenchock SA [1985]. Endotoxins inoccupationally related airborne dusts. GovernLab 1:28-30.

36. Rylander R [1994]. Organic dusts - fromknowledge to prevention. Scand J Work EnvironHealth 20 (special issue):116-122.

37. Sax NI, Lewis RJ [1987]. Hawley’sCondensed Chemical Dictionary. 11th. ed. NewYork, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

38. Rahkonen P, Ettala M, Loikkanen I [1987].Short Communication: Working conditions andhygiene at sanitary landfills in Finland. AnnOccup Hyg 31(4A): 505-513.

39. Rahkonen P, Adela M [1990]. Airbornemicrobes and endotoxins in the work environmentof two sanitary landfills in Finland. Aerosol SciTech 13:505-513.

40. ASTM [1995]. 1995 Annual Book of ASTMStandards, Section 11, Water and EnvironmentalMicrobiology: Standard practice for samplingairborne microorganisms at municipal solid-waste

processing facilities. Philadelphia, PA: AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials, E884-82.

41. Mozzon D, Brown DA, Smith JW [1987].Occupational Exposure to Airborne Dust,Respirable Quartz and Metals Arising fromRefuse Handling, Burning and Landfilling.American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal48(2):111-116(1987).

42. NIOSH [1994]. Health Hazard EvaluationReport: Hardy Road Landfill, Akron, Ohio.Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Department of Health andHuman Service, Public Health Service, Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention, NationalInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health,NIOSH Report No. HETA 93-0696-2395.


Table 1

Air sampling results for total and respirable particulatesRumpke Landfill, Colerain Township, Ohio

HETA 96-0109April 1996

Sample milligram/cubic meter (mg/m3)

Location Date Time(minutes)

Total Particulate Respirable Particulate Real-time particulates§(less than 10 micrometers)

Perimeter Locations

Bank Road 4/3 NA NA NA 0.021

4/11 NA NA NA 0.029

Hughes Road 4/3 NA NA NA 0.013

4/11 NA NA NA 0.029

Old Colerain 4/3 NA NA NA 0.005

4/11 NA NA NA 0.009

Locations Inside the Landfill

Odor Control(barn)

4/3 NA NA NA 0.143

4/11 NA NA NA 0.085

Working Face 4/3 375 0.27 ND 0.020

4/11 348 0.29 ND 0.025

Compactor cab 4/3 382 0.34* 0.12 NA

4/11 351 - 353 0.58# ND NA

Occupational Exposure Criteria:

NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit no REL† no REL† no REL†

OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit 15‡ 8-hour TWA 5‡ 8-hour TWA 15‡ 8-hour TWA

ACGIH Threshold Limit Value 10‡ 8-hour TWA 3‡ 8-hour TWA 10‡ 8-hour TWA

NA - not applicable, sample not collected at this location.ND - nondetectable, analyte not found at this location.TWA - time-weighted average.§ - integrated over an approximate two-hour period.* - this sample contained a trace quantity of quartz (approximately 8%).# - this sample contained 0.11 mg/m3 or 19% quartz.† - On August 1, 1988, NIOSH concluded that the documentation cited by OSHA was inadequate to support the proposed PEL.‡ - for particulates not otherwise regulated by OSHA or not otherwise classified by ACGIH.


Table 2

Air sampling results for sulfur compounds and volatile organic chemicalsRumpke Landfill, Colerain Township, Ohio


Sample parts per million (ppm)

Location Date Time(minutes)

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)

Other sulfur compounds Volatile organic chemicals(total hydrocarbons)†

Perimeter Locations

Bank Road 4/3 172 - 383 Trace NA Trace

4/11 453 Trace NA ND

Hughes Road 4/3 211 - 367 Trace NA ND

4/11 431 Trace NA ND

Old Colerain 4/3 149 - 327 Trace NA ND

4/11 294 - 465 Trace NA ND

Locations Inside the Landfill

Odor Control(barn)

4/3 125 ND NA ND

4/11 334 Trace ND ND

Working Face 4/3 169 - 375 Trace NA ND

4/11 345 - 348 fault ND ND

Compactor cab 4/3 134 - 382 Trace NA 3.73 mg/m3

4/11 52 - 356 ND - fault Trace 1.40 mg/m3

Occupational Exposure Criteria:

NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit 10 (10-min. Ceiling) ‡350 mg/m3

OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit 20 Ceiling50 (10-min. Maximum)

‡525 mg/m3

ACGIH Threshold Limit Value 10 8-hour TWA15 (15-min. Ceiling)

‡525 mg/m3

NA - not applicable, sample not collected at this location.ND - nondetectable, analyte not found at this location.TWA - time-weighted averagefault - sample pump failure† - total hydrocarbons quantitation was performed using standards spiked from a bulk Stoddard Solvent‡ - stoddard solvent criteria used for comparison purposes


Table 3

Results of sampling for culturable enteric bacteriaRumpke Landfill, Colerain Township, Ohio


Sample Location

SampleCollection

Date

MeanConcentration

(CFU/m3)StandardDeviation

PredominantGenera

Hughes Road (dw) 4/3/96 30 26 Ps.c>Ac.g>Ps.f

Hughes Road (dw) 4/11/96 10 9 Ps.f>Yeast=Kl.o>Pa.a=Ps.c

Bank Road (uw) 4/3/96 4 6 Ac.g=En.a=Pa.a=Ps.f

Bank Road (uw) 4/11/96 6 6 Yeast>En.a>Ps.f=Ra.a

Church (uw) 4/3/96 0 0

Church (uw/dw) 4/11/96 32 24 Ps.f>Ps.c=Ra.a>Ag.r=Kl.o=Yeast>En.a

Odor Control (dw) 4/3/96 11 5 Ac.g>Kl.o=Ps.c>Pa.a=Ra.a=Ps.f

Odor Control (dw) 4/11/96 10 17 Ac.g=Ps.f

Working Face (uw) 4/3/96 0 0

Working Face (dw) 4/11/96 21 10 Ra.a>Pa.a=Yeast>En.a>Ps.f>Ac.g=Ag.r

Note: Ac.g = Acinetobacter genospecies Pa.a = Pantoea agglomerans Yeast = yeast Ag.r = Agrobacterium rhizogenes Ps.c = Pseudomonas cichorii En.a = Enterobacter agglomerans Ps.f = Pseudomonas fluorescens uw = upwind Kl.o = Klebsiella oxytoca Ra.a = Rahnella aquatilis dw = downwind


Table 4

Results of sampling for fungal spores and endotoxinsRumpke Landfill, Colerain Township, Ohio


SAMPLELOCATION

SAMPLEDATE

SPORES(spores/m3)

ENDOTOXIN(EU/m3)

Bank RoadApril 3, 1996 15500 1.0

April 11, 1996 5400 2.2

Hughes RoadApril 3, 1996 19300 1.1

April 11, 1996 16400 1.6

Church FieldApril 3, 1996 40700 1.4

April 11, 1996 9600 1.3

Working FaceApril 3, 1996 22400 1.9

April 11, 1996 9700 1.4

Compactor CabApril 3, 1996 59800 2.4

April 11, 1996 62800 4.4


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Con

cent

ratio

n (C

FU/m

3)

Combined 03-Apr-96 11-Apr-96

Hughes Rd.

Bank Rd.

Church

Odor Control

Working Face

Figure 1

Results of Sampling for Culturable Enteric BacteriaRumpke Landfill, Colerain Township, Ohio


heta 96-0109-2616 rumpke, inc. landfill colerain township, … · 2002. 6. 14. · heta...

Documents