ARE YOU EXPOSED TO ASTHMA TRIGGERS AT HOME AND AT WORK?

ARE YOU EXPOSED TO ASTHMA TRIGGERS AT HOME AND AT WORK?

 

Are YOU EXPOSED to Asthma Triggers at HOME AND AT Work?

http://metroforensics.blogspot.com/2014/11/are-you-exposed-to-asthma-triggers-at.html

Every day in America, 30,000 people suffer an asthma attack.  Five thousand of them go to the emergency room, 1,000 are admitted to the hospital—and 11 will die.  Although those numbers include asthma sufferers of all ages—children are especially susceptible to asthma-causing chemicals—a significant number are workers.  As many as 15 percent of adults develop asthma because of workplace exposures, according to the American Thoracic Society.  Many more who develop asthma outside the workplace find their condition worsened by workplace exposures.

We recently informed you about the off-gassing of coatings in the composites we bring in our homes and we manufacture at work.

EMERGING RISKS:  VOC OFF-GASSING OF COMPOSITE PRODUCTS (SUCH AS WIND TURBINES); INHALATION OF STYRENE VAPORS DURING THE MANUFACTURE OF WIND TURBINE BLADES

http://metroforensics.blogspot.com/2014/11/emerging-risks-voc-off-gassing-of.html

Occupational asthma is one of those furtive industrial hazards, sneaking up on its victims unawares while they go about their jobs. Induced by exposure to chemicals that irritate the airways, OA can be a debilitating condition that lays workers low for extended periods of time.

One common agent of OA is toluene-2,4-diisocyanate (TDI) which is used extensively to produce polyurethane foams, coatings, adhesives and sealants. Unfortunately, if workers are regularly exposed to TDI over a period of months or years, they become sensitized to it and develop immunologically mediated OA. This is triggered by further exposure by skin contact or inhalation, even by very low levels of the chemical.

It is not only industrial workers who are at risk.  Consumers using products containing TDI, like sprays and coatings, can be exposed via skin contact or inhalation as well as members of the general public who are in the vicinity of buildings where it is being used. This shortened exposure can lead to irritant-induced OA.

Part of the problem stems from simply being indoors.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that indoor environments may have pollutant levels two to five times higher, and occasionally more than 100 times higher, than outdoor levels—and Americans spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors, breathing these concentrated pollutants. 

Employers should be concerned not only with preventing workers from developing occupational asthma, but also with controlling workplace air quality so it does not exacerbate asthma in workers with a preexisting asthma diagnosis. 

Asthmagens in the workplace and at home

In 2012, the National Institutes of Health prepared a report on substances that cause or aggravate asthma in the built environment.  They identified 374 such substances, some commonly found in buildings where the enclosed environment concentrates them.

·         Indoor substances, objects, and systems linked to asthma include:

·         Building materials, such as paints, insulation, and plastics, as well as textiles like carpets and curtains;

·         Furnishings, especially plastics, or furnishings with plastic or resin coatings;

·         Cleaning products, especially those with disinfectant properties;

·         Personal care and hobby products ranging from perfumes to glues; and

·         Central heating and cooling systems and humidification devices, which are prone to biological contamination (bacteria, viruses, and molds).

The more insulated our homes are, the more concentrated these contaminants become in the air we breathe.  As we reported few days ago, the asthma incidents in the United States have doubled since 1980.  This is a reason for concern for all of us, especially the infants and children.  Recently, the State of California recommended that some of the isocyanates be considered air pollutants because they especially affect the infants and children.  See here.

GREEN INDUSTRY HAZARDS: INSULATION OR SEALING OF HOMES AND BUSINESSES USING SPRAY POLYURETHANE FOAM (SPF)/ISOCYANATES

http://metroforensics.blogspot.com/2014/10/green-industry-hazards-insulation-or.html

Naturally, workers who manufacture these products can be exposed to high levels of asthmagens during the manufacturing process. What employers may not realize, though, is that workers in environments where these products are used are also at risk because these chemicals continue to be released from the products at the point of final use.

High-Risk Workplaces

Certain employees are more frequently exposed to asthmagens at work, either during the manufacture of products or during their final use, including workers in: 

·         Agriculture. Agricultural workers encounter many biological asthmagens, including insect proteins, pollens, organophosphate insecticides, chloramides, sulfones, and mites.

·         Adhesives manufacturing. Workers producing adhesives encounter acid anhydrides, aliphatic amines, polycyclic compounds, diisocyanates, methyl methacrylate, and cyanoacrylates.

·         Plastics manufacturing. Aliphatic amines, polycyclic compounds, acid anhydrides, diazonium salts, formaldehyde, methyl methacrylate, diisocyanates, trypsin, bromelin, polyvinyl chloride, azodicarbonamide, styrene, polypropylene, and dioctyle phthalate are common asthmagens encountered in plastics manufacturing.

·         Health care. Glutaraldehyde, latex, formaldehyde, methyl methacrylate, cyanoacrylates, quaternary ammonium compounds, methyldopa, penicillins, psyllium, hexachlorophene, and chlorhexidine threaten the respiratory systems of healthcare workers.

Irritants in high doses that induce occupational asthma include hydrochloric acid, sulfur dioxide or ammonia, which is found in the petroleum or chemical industries. If you are exposed to any of these substances at high concentrations, you may begin wheezing and experiencing other asthma symptoms immediately after exposure. Workers who already have asthma or some other respiratory disorder may also experience an increase in their symptoms during exposure to these irritants.

Allergies play a role in many cases of occupational asthma. This type of asthma generally develops only after months or years of exposure to a work-related substance. Your body's immune system needs time to develop allergic antibodies or other immune responses to a particular substance.

For example, workers in the washing powder industry may develop an allergy to the enzymes of the bacteria Bacillus subtilis, while bakers may develop an allergy and occupational asthma symptoms from exposure to various flours or baking enzymes.

Veterinarians, fishermen and animal handlers in laboratories can develop allergic reactions to animal proteins. Healthcare workers can develop asthma from breathing in powdered proteins from latex gloves or from mixing powdered medications.

Occupational asthma can also occur in workers after repeated exposure to small chemical molecules in the air, such as with paint hardeners or in the plastic and resin industries.

The length of time you are exposed to a substance before it triggers your asthma varies. It can be months or years before symptoms occur. On the other hand, exposure to a high concentration of irritants can cause asthma within 24 hours.

Finally, inhaling some substances in aerosol form can directly lead to the buildup of naturally occurring chemicals in your body, such as histamine or acetylcholine within your lungs, which leads to asthma. For example, insecticides, used in agricultural work, can cause a buildup of acetylcholine, which causes your airway muscles to contract and tighten.

Metropolitan Engineering, Consulting & Forensics (MECF)

Providing Competent, Expert and Objective Investigative Engineering and Consulting Services

P.O. Box 520

Tenafly, NJ 07670-0520

Tel.: (973) 897-8162

Fax: (973) 810-0440

E-mail: metroforensics@gmail.com

Web pages: https://sites.google.com/site/metropolitanforensics/

https://sites.google.com/site/metropolitanenvironmental/

https://sites.google.com/site/metroforensics3/

http://metroforensics.blogspot.com/

We are happy to announce the launch of our twitter account. Please make sure to follow us at @MetropForensics or @metroforensics1

Metropolitan appreciates your business.

Feel free to recommend our services to your friends and colleagues.

ALLOCATION OF FUTURE REMEDIATION COSTS AMONG VARIOUS PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS

allocation of FUTURE remediation costS among various parties with respect to environmental CONTRIBUTION claims

Important New Jersey Supreme Court Decision Regarding the Right to Sue for Contribution

On July 28, 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a very important decision regarding the right to sue for contribution in Superior Court and the assignment of liability for environmental contribution claims without prior approval of the remediation plans by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Conservation (NJDEP or Department).  The case is Magic Petroleum Corporation v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., A-46-12 (069083)(N.J. 2014). 

Magic Petroleum is the owner and operator of a gasoline refueling and service station in the Clarksburg area of Millstone Township which contained several underground storage tanks that were alleged to have leaked petroleum hydrocarbons into the soil and groundwater. Magic Petroleum was designated a Spill Act discharger by the DEP and agreed to remediate the property under NJDEP oversight.  The lower courts reasoned that only the NJDEP could identify the contamination, analyze the extent of the discharge, and devise a cleanup strategy – findings that needed to be made prior to an allocation of liability. Moreover, such findings were deemed to be within NJDEP’s expertise and would not be determined until after completion of cleanup. The Appellate Division also declared that under the Spill Act, a party seeking contribution must first obtain the NJDEP’s written approval of the remediation plan.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held that Plaintiff property owners or other responsible parties may file contribution claims in Superior Court, and a court may allocate liability before the final resolution of a site remediation plan by the NJDEP.  The trial court may assign liability based on evidence presented at trial, but may not be able to issue a final damages award.  In addition, a party need not obtain written approval of the remediation plan prior to filing a claim for contribution.  This right to pursue contribution lawsuits grows out of the express language of New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act), as well as common law (as codified in the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-1, as modified by the Comparative Negligence Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1.

This decision is in agreement with decisions reached by other courts in CERCLA (or Superfund as is commonly known)) contribution claims to determine liability and/or cost allocation among the responsible parties.  See for example, New York v. Solvent Chemical Co., Inc., 664 F.3d 22, 27 (2d Cir. 2011) where the Second Circuit Court reversed the Trial Court's refusal to issue a declaratory judgment for future costs.  The Circuit Court noted that the Trial Court found that DuPont and Olin were liable for contribution for past remediation costs and that it provided no good reason why those parties should not be liable for ongoing, future costs.  The Circuit Court reasoned that a declaratory judgment with respect to liability saves litigants and courts substantial time and money, leaving for the future only the need to fix the amount of contribution and affording the court flexibility with respect to the time and manner for doing so. 

See also Ashley II of Charleston, LLC v. PCS Nitrogen, Inc., et al, 2010 U.S. Dist., Eastern District of SC, Charleston Division LEXIS 104772 (Docket No. 2:05-cv-2782-MBS), May 27, 2011.  In Ashley II the court noted that with regard to future response costs there is no final remediation plan for the site that has been approved by the U.S. EPA.  However, the court ruled that a government-approved remediation plan is not a prerequisite for the court’s entry of “an order allocating liability allocation”.  Dent v.Beazer, 993 F. Supp., (D.S.C. 1995) at 949.  To the extent that it later becomes disputed whether the final remediation plan for the site is consistent with the NCP, the court will retain jurisdiction over the case to decide this issue.

The implications of Magic Petroleum decision are particularly significant because it will foster greater cooperation between the responsible parties, leading into an expedited site remediation and restoration.  Responsible parties will no longer be able to sit on the sideline and avoid paying their fair share until after remediation is complete which could take many years.

As you all know, the real argument between the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) is always about the amount money they think they are liable for.  During these contribution suits, the party that presents the most credible cost analysis wins the battle.  Based on our experience with contribution lawsuits, we believe that the most effective methods are the probabilistic methods that use Monte Carlo simulations or equivalent approaches.  Now we will be able to use our experience with the federal contribution program to determine the future remediation costs in the New Jersey litigation using the EPA-approved Monte Carlo and decision tree methods. 

Monte Carlo Simulation and Decision Trees to Determine the Future Remediation Costs

Traditionally, remediation cost estimates have been point-in-time estimates that represent a single value for the cost of the project and a +/- range of 10 to 30 percent, depending on the stage of the estimate.  These estimates, especially the ones prepared early on in the project impart a false sense of accuracy because they are not capable of describing the wide variability that can occur as risks or uncertainties unfold.

Monte Carlo is a simulation technique that uses random numbers to measure the probabilistic effects of uncertainty.  It permits the calculation of probability distributions of outcomes for complex decision trees.  The technique employs a computer to repeatedly and rapidly simulate the outcome of a series of probable events.  A decision tree is prepared following the initial assessment of the all of the available information.  The decision tree visually portrays the structure of a decision problem, thus displaying the alternative courses of action, all possible outcomes and the probability values of each decision.

The decision tree is a model representing pertinent alternative future events, their costs, timing, and the probabilities of their occurrence. It lays out the most reasonable, possible cleanup responses, sequentially over time (i.e., one “branch” of the tree).  It breaks down these responses into their elements, such as studies, soil responses, groundwater responses, etc.

Each response element is represented by a “box” on a branch of the decision tree, and those boxes are then assigned costs, timing, and probabilities. Cost information is derived from project information when possible, such as agency planning documents or from internal budgets.

The decision tree is then statistically analyzed using Monte Carlo simulation.  Metropolitan has applied Monte Carlo simulation to the problem of comparing the possible costs of alternative environmental remediation options.  Using Monte Carlo random sampling from an option’s cost probability distribution, the probability that one option will cost more than another can be estimated and the most likely costs of each operation can be compared.  Probabilities (i.e., confidence levels) can be assigned to a range of possible costs, leading to more credible and defensible comparisons.

Monte Carlo simulation assigns a probability distribution to environmental risk.  That risk can increase or decrease depending on changes to environmental legislation.  Once probability distributions are established for all inputs required for a Net Present Value (NPV) analysis, the Monte Carlo simulation begins.  A computer program implementing the algebraic formula for NPV is written.  When the simulation calls for the dollar value of future liabilities or interest rates, these amounts are replaced by random numbers drawn from the appropriate probability distributions.  The model then applies the input values to the model and records the output.  We use @Risk, Crystal Ball, or similar software in conjunction with MS-Project software to do the simulations and present the results.

The computer works through the decision tree, drawing a sample from the relevant probability distributions at each point where an event occurs and then applying simple logic to determine how to proceed through the tree.  When alternative technologies are available, the computer model will determine the probability distributions of the possible costs of the technologies and then choose the least costly option.  If different possible events exist in the decision tree, the computer will model each event and the possible outcomes.  This process is repeated until meaningful probability distributions can be established.  The output of the simulation is a quantification of the ranges of outcomes, such as probability of cost overrun, probability of exceeding a deadline, and so on.  The simulation allows us to perform a sensitivity analysis to identify the primary variation drivers..  The results of the modeling include the mean, standard deviation and other statistics for the variable we model.

As an example, we would define as input to the simulation the environmental remediation costs for the future months as any value between $3.0 million and $6.0 million.  We would then identify a key output that we desire, such as the total project cost.  The Monte Carlo program then would perform thousands of simulations by repeatedly sampling random combinations of the input costs (all the cost items we provide, such as: permit costs, labor, material, oversight and other costs) to determine a distribution for the output, i.e., the total project cost.

The primary result of the analysis is a distribution of predicted costs derived from pertinent reasonable response alternatives allowing clients to select a single cost estimate according to their risk tolerance.  Monte Carlo estimates both capital and operating costs, so it also provides a cash flow prediction and a Net Present Value (NPV) for a given discount rate.

The clear advantage of this approach is that it uses all data in any possible combination to derive at the full range and probability of potential outcomes in other words, it does use the uncertainty as part of the decision making.  It provides a more realistic result and not one that is based on compounded conservative assumptions.  And it provides a measure of the quality of the data inputs by calculating the statistics of the distribution.  It does allow the decision maker to know how much risk is associated with a certain remediation cost estimate.  We believe that this method reduces the difficulty in estimating the allocation of remediation cost among various parties with respect to environmental claims and provides an early consensus or buy in of the PRPs and their insurers by instilling confidence in the results.

Probabilistic modeling is the generally-recognized standard for evaluating environmental liabilities.

Metropolitan has overseen the investigation and cleanup of more than 600 Superfund, ISRA, Act 2, UST, RCRA, state hazardous waste sites and other impacted sites.  We have estimated total response costs for sites, discounted to net present value, using a decision tree method, combined with Monte Carlo probabilistic analysis.  This kind of probabilistic modeling is the generally-recognized standard for evaluating environmental liabilities.  It is the preferred methodology for estimating environmental obligations in the future according to the ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials) "Standard Guide for Estimating Monetary Costs and Liabilities for Environmental Matters" (ASTM E2137-01 and ASTM E2137-06 (2011).  This method is specifically designed to examine and evaluate a wide range of uncertainty and results in an estimate that takes into account all potential remedial actions that might be required.  We believe this is a key method that will be applied in New Jersey cleanup cases moving forward.

Metropolitan’s analysis appropriately accounts for the distinct possibility that no future remediation of site may ever be required or undertaken.  Metropolitan also considers that, if remediation were required, the property might be remediated in part rather than in whole, and the remediation might take one of several different forms and occur at different times in the future.  As an example, at a cleanup site, Metropolitan analysis assigned an 80 percent probability that no further cleanup of the property (beyond the cleanup of a small parcel) would be necessary.  Then Metropolitan evaluated future costs of further action assessing both a 100 percent cleanup remedy and a 80/20 chain-link fencing and cleanup remedy.  Metropolitan also calculated the net present value of cleanups of various amounts of the remaining 120 acres over the next 20 years; specifically, Metropolitan assigned a 15 percent probability that the remediation would begin in five years; an 75 percent probability that the remediation would begin in 10 years; and a 10 percent probability that the remediation would begin in 20 years.  Metropolitan further assigned a 40 percent probability to the full 120 acres (i.e., 100 percent of the acreage) of right-of-way area being excavated; a 30 percent probability that 60 acres (i.e., 50 percent of the acreage) would be excavated; and a 30 percent probability that 30 acres (i.e., 25 percent of the acreage) would be excavated.

Based on these various probabilities of different outcomes, Metropolitan calculated the net present value (NPV) of the estimated total future response costs using all of these probabilities to be $1,200,000.

Allocation of Liability for Commingled Groundwater Plumes Based on Groundwater Modeling

Quite often we see that the ground water contamination at a site has been caused by a number of on-site and off-site sources.  For example, groundwater beneath two adjacent gas stations is contaminated with releases from the underground storage tanks.  The groundwater may all move in the same general direction, but because the contaminant plumes spread or fan out as they migrate through the soil and groundwater, the plumes blend together and the contaminants mix.  So a certain groundwater monitoring well would represent the impacts from both stations.  This is what we call a commingling plume issue and it is a very common phenomenon in urban settings. 

Courts have often imposed joint and several liability on parties that caused indivisible harm because of commingled contaminant plumes.  In a number of Superfund case, the courts apportioned liability for commingled contaminant plumes using computer modeling.  While statutorily only available under CERCLA §107 cost recovery actions, joint and several liability has often worked its way into contribution actions under CERCLA §113 when multiple parties were alleged to have contributed to the contamination.   In such instances, courts have often required defendants to provide evidence apportioning harm pursuant to the principles provided in the Restatement (Second) of Torts (.“Restatement.”) § 43 3A, a difficult burden. See, United States v. Hercules, Inc., 247 F.3d 706, 717 (8th Cir. 2001).  The Restatement provides that two parties can apportion damages for harm they caused by showing the harms are distinct or by offering a reasonable basis to determine the contribution of each party.   Defendants in a CERCLA § 113 contribution action can, in theory, apportion their liability based on the waste’s relative toxicity, migratory potential, extent of migration, distinct geographical area, release chronology (time), contaminant mass, contaminant concentration, and contamination volume. U.S. v. Hercules, at 247 F.3d at 718; U.S. v. Alcan Aluminum, 990 F.2d at 711, 722 (2nd Cir. 1993); U.S. v. Alcan Aluminum, 964 F.2d at 270 n. 29, 271; U.S. v. Broderick, 862 F. Supp. 272, 276-77 (D. Colo. 1994).  The volume of the plume is determined by the extent of groundwater contamination that exceeds a Remedial Action Objective, usually based on the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of the contaminants or some multiple thereof or site-specific cleanup levels.

 

The Use of Forensic Methods to Allocate Costs

In quite a few cases we used forensic methodologies to determine the age of the releases and to apportion the liability.  See for example:

https://sites.google.com/site/metropolitanforensics/environmental-forensics-determining-when-what-where-who-and-how-chemicals-were-released

Metropolitan personnel have been frequently retained to perform forensic chemical analysis.  Environmental forensics are used to develop a clearer understanding of the source(s) of the chemical contaminants, the time since chemical release, and how chemicals have moved through the environment.  With a clear understanding of hydrogeology, chemistry and physics and how chemicals interact in the environment, forensic analysis is used to support PRP allocations in situations  involving commingled plumes, track the fate and transport of the chemicals in the environment, and determine the extent to which remediation has successfully removed chemical mass from the environment.

Metropolitan staff was chosen to provide expert witness services in a case involving petroleum hydrocarbon contamination of commercial and industrial park from a refinery pipeline used by one oil & gas producer versus contamination from a second oil refinery located adjacent to the commercial and industrial park.

Metropolitan performed an exhaustive forensic analysis using soil, soil vapor, groundwater and free product data to demonstrate the source of soil and groundwater contamination on the property. In addition to the traditional environmental analyses typically performed on these media, a more focused forensic analysis was performed. Using forensic techniques, Metropolitan was able to successfully demonstrate that the contamination was caused by a release of leaded gasoline and aviation fuel which had been produced between 1965 and 1985.  In addition, Metropolitan identified several biomarker chemicals in the groundwater which confirmed the source as the refinery pipeline.

Since our involvement with the Superfund, RCRA and  ECRA sites in the 1980’s, our firm has actively participated in significant environmental litigation throughout the United States.  Today, our practice provides a wide range of consulting engineering, remediation and auditing, forensic engineering, forensic accounting and litigation consulting services to potentially responsible parties (PRPs), insurance companies and various governmental entities.  Specific services provided by our professionals include:

·         Preparation and evaluation of cost recovery claims for environmental cleanups

·         Analysis of historical costs involving one or more financial accounting systems

·         Analysis of claimed internal cost allocations

·         Examination of accounting policies and internal controls with respect to GAAP and industry practices

·         Calculation of lost profits or other business damages resulting from contamination

·         Allocation of environmental response costs and other damages to multiple parties at contaminated sites

·         Apportionment of costs to multiple parties, insurers and/or insurance coverage layers

Metropolitan Engineering, Consulting & Forensics (MECF)

Providing Competent, Expert and Objective Investigative Engineering and Consulting Services

P.O. Box 520

Tenafly, NJ 07670-0520

Tel.: (973) 897-8162

Fax: (973) 810-0440

E-mail: metroforensics@gmail.com

Web pages: https://sites.google.com/site/metropolitanforensics/

https://sites.google.com/site/metropolitanenvironmental/

https://sites.google.com/site/metroforensics3/

http://metroforensics.blogspot.com/

We are happy to announce the launch of our twitter account. Please make sure to follow us at @MetropForensics or @metroforensics1

Metropolitan appreciates your business.

Feel free to recommend our services to your friends and colleagues.

ACCORDING TO NIOSH, ORTHO-TOLUIDINE CAUSES BLADDER CANCER - Keep yourself and your family safe

ACCORDING TO NIOSH, ORTHO-TOLUIDINE CAUSES BLADDER CANCER - Keep yourself and your family safe

NIOSH Study Contributes to Classification of o-Toluidine as Human Carcinogen

o-Toluidine has been listed as a Known Human Carcinogen in the 13th Report on Carcinogens, a science-based public health document that identifies substances in our environment that are considered cancer hazards. A NIOSH study conducted at a rubber chemical manufacturing plant in New York State “…provided substantial evidence that o-toluidine was the agent causally related to the observed increase in urinary Mont bladder cancer risk among o-toluidine-exposed workers.” To learn more about o-toluidine and how to keep workers safe, visit the NIOSH o-toluidine webpage at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ot/default.html.

NIOSH considers o-toluidine most likely responsible for the bladder cancer incidence elevation at workers at a rubber manufacturing plant and recommended a re-examination of occupational exposure limits.

ORTHO-TOLUIDINE

About o-Toluidine

Below is some information about o-toluidine and the health problems it may cause. This information may be helpful to determine whether you are or have been exposed to o-toluidine in your job or whether symptoms you’ve experienced could be related to o-toluidine exposure.

What it looks like

·                     At room temperature, it is a thick, light yellow liquid

·                     When exposed to air and light, it will darken to reddish/orange brown

What it smells like

·                     It has a fishy odor

·                     It has a low odor threshold, which means most people will smell it even at very low levels.

How you can be exposed

·                     Breathing it in

·                     Getting it on your skin

Who is most likely exposed

·                     Industrial workers who use it

Beyond the industrial setting, there is little information available about o-toluidine exposure among other workers and the general public. We know that others may also be exposed, but probably at lower levels, including:

·                     Hair stylists because o-toluidine is used in some hair dyes.

·                     Laboratory workers who use o-toluidine to stain tissues or as part of a reagent to analyze glucose.

·                     The general public because o-toluidine is in

o        cigarette smoke

o        certain hair dyes

o        Prilocaine, a cream that is applied to the skin to numb it for minor dental and surgical procedures and blood draws. Our bodies convert Prilocaine to o-toluidine after it is absorbed.

o        air, soil, or water contaminated with o-toluidine

Health problems it may cause

Short-term effects

·                     skin, eye, and respiratory irritation

·                     cyanosis from a decrease in the supply of oxygen to the body due to methemoglobinemia. This condition occurs when o-toluidine changes hemoglobin, which carries oxygen in the blood, to methemoglobin, which hinders the release of oxygen.

·                     central nervous system depression including dizziness, headache, and confusion

Long-term effects

·                     bladder cancer

·                     anemia

·                     decreased appetite and weight loss

·                     cyanosis and methemoglobinemia

·                     skin lesions

·                     central nervous system depression including dizziness, headache, and confusion

After 24 years, OSHA decided to list ortho-toluidine as a human carcinogen.

Information for Industrial Workers

We know that o-toluidine can cause cancer. If you work with o-toluidine, there are ways you can keep yourself and your family safe.

Keep yourself and your family safe

·                     Be sure you use personal protective equipment (PPE) that will keep you from breathing in o-toluidine. If a respirator is needed, use one that is NIOSH-approved with an organic vapor cartridge (containing activated charcoal) or one that supplies breathing air. Do not use disposable filtering-facepiece respirators designed to protect against dusts since they don’t provide protection against o-toluidine.

·                     Good instruction and supervision are necessary to ensure skin protection against o-toluidine. Skin protection includes wearing gloves, protective arm sleeves, lab coats, and boot covers. When using gloves, remember that not all glove materials prevent o-toluidine from going through the glove and getting on your skin:  

o        Gloves made from butyl rubber, and some trademark materials, provide the best protection.

o        Gloves made from neoprene would be expected to provide some protection (rated 1-4 hours of protection) against o-toluidine.

o        Some laboratory tests have found gloves and other PPE made from polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride do not protect against o-toluidine.

o        Natural rubber, nitrile rubber, and polyvinyl alcohol have not been tested for protection against o-toluidine.

o        Glove manufacturers will have the most up to date information on whether a glove you are using will offer you the proper protection.

o        For more information about glove selection and information concerning the protective qualities of different types of glove materials, see the Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing, 5th edition (2007) by Krister Forsberg and S.Z. Mansdorf (Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ; ISBN 978-0-470-14681-1).

·                     If your worksite offers showers and locker rooms, use them. If you do not shower or if you wear your work clothes home, you can expose your family to chemicals. If your worksite does not have showers or a changing room, shower and change immediately after you get home. Wash your work clothes separate from the other clothes. Chemicals that are on your work clothes can still get on other clothes if they are washed together.

·                     If your worksite offers a medical surveillance program, use it. There is a reason it is in place. If your worksite does not have a surveillance program, be sure your doctor knows you work with o-toluidine. Your doctor may want to monitor you for bladder cancer, since o-toluidine is a known cause. There are medical tests that can tell you whether you’ve been exposed to o-toluidine. Talk with your doctor to learn more and to decide whether this would be beneficial.

·                     If you are concerned that you are being exposed to o-toluidine or another workplace hazard, contact our Health Hazard Evaluation Program and request to have your work environment assessed for free. For more details and to fill out a request, visit the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation website.

·                     Learn what your employer can do to help keep you safe.

·                     Find more information and resources related to o-toluidine.

New Substances Added To List Of Carcinogens

Four new substances have been added to a list of chemicals that may cause cancer compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The list of known carcinogens now includes a chemical called ortho-toluidine, which is used to make rubber chemicals, pesticides and dyes. Recent research has linked the substance to bladder cancer in people.

Three other substances were added to a list of agents that are "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens." These include a cleaning solvent called 1-bromopropane, a wood preservative mixture known as pentachlorophenol and cumene, which can be found in fuel products and even tobacco smoke. [12 Worst Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals & Their Health Effects]

"Identifying substances in our environment that can make people vulnerable to cancer will help in prevention efforts," Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement. "This report provides a valuable resource for health regulatory and research agencies, and it empowers the public with information people can use to reduce exposure to cancer-causing substances."

Ortho-toluidine was originally classed as "reasonably anticipated" to be a human carcinogen in 1983. But HHS scientists re-evaluated the substance, looking at three studies of dye workers and two studies of rubber-chemical workers who were regularly exposed to ortho-toluidine. They found enough evidence of a link between ortho-toluidine exposure and an increased risk of bladder cancer to call the chemical a known carcinogen, according to HHS. Rats also developed bladder tumors after they ingested ortho-toluidine.

Ortho-toluidine is no longer produced in the United States, but at least 1 million lbs. (450,000 kilograms) of the substance is imported into the country each year, according to HHS. The people who have the greatest risk of exposure are employees who work in chemical plants where ortho-toluidine is used to make rubber chemicals, dyes and pesticides.

HHS officials said they didn't have enough evidence to definitively prove that exposure to the other three chemicals can cause human cancers. But these substances do cause rats and mice to develop tumors, according to the agency.

In experiments, rodents that inhaled fumes of 1-bromopropane — a colorless to light yellow liquid solvent — developed tumors in several organs, including their skin, lungs and large intestine. The substance is used as a cleaner for optics, electronics and metals. It has also become popular in dry cleaning as a replacement for perchloroethylene, another chemical considered a health and environmental hazard.

Mice that inhaled cumene fumes developed lung tumors and liver tumors, according to HHS's review. The flammable liquid with a gasoline-like odor is found in coal tar and petroleum, as well as tobacco smoke. It is used primarily to make acetone and phenol.

Pentachlorophenol — a substance used to treat utility poles, wood pilings and fence posts — caused tumors in the liver and other organs of mice. In small studies of humans, exposure to this compound was associated with an increased risk of the blood cancer non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but the HHS said it considered the evidence too limited to call pentachlorophenol a known carcinogen.

The HHS's 13th Report on Carcinogens, which now includes 243 listings total, is available online: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/roc/roc13/index.html

High bladder cancer rate shrouds New York plant, exposing chemical hazards in the workplace

The Goodyear chemical plant in Niagara Falls, N.Y., has been plagued for decades by high rates of bladder cancer within its workforce. Federal health investigators blame a chemical called ortho-toluidine, used in a tire antioxidant.

NIAGARA FALLS, N.Y. — Ray Kline, it’s said, bled Goodyear blue.

Compact and laconic, Kline signed on as an operator at the Goodyear chemical plant here in 1960 and logged just short of 40 years. He routinely worked six days a week, 12 hours a day, retiring in 1999 as head of maintenance.

“I made a good living,” Kline said in the dining room of his comfortable home in Lewiston, N.Y., two blocks from the Niagara River — betraying little bitterness over the price his family paid for economic stability.

Kline, 75, has endured two bouts of bladder cancer. Strong evidence suggests the disease was work-related.

In a yet-to-be published study, federal health investigators have confirmed 50 cases of bladder cancer among plant employees through 2007, nearly three times the number that would have been expected in the general population of New York State. The unofficial tally to date, compiled by a lawyer for some of the cancer victims, is 58 cases.

The likely trigger in most instances, investigators concluded, was a chemical, still used by Goodyear and others, called ortho-toluidine.

The disease made its appearance in 1972 and continues to plague this decaying pocket of western New York. Workers at the 67-year-old plant, a collegial place that sustained generations, called it “the ginch.” Those who survived it fear its return. Those who avoided it wonder when their luck will run out. Many question why the chemical’s most prominent manufacturer, DuPont, took so long to issue warnings.

The long-running episode underscores the limits of regulation and points up the insidious nature of occupational illnesses, which by one estimate take more than 50,000 lives in America each year.

It’s a cautionary tale at a time when more than 80,000 chemicals, many carrying unknown or little-understood health effects, are on the market in the United States. Workers can become unwitting test subjects, made vulnerable by employers that fail to act on scientific knowledge or, in extreme cases, suppress the truth.

Three years before Kline landed at Goodyear, the plant began making Nailax, an antioxidant that keeps tires from cracking. Three U.S. companies supplied a key ingredient, ortho-toluidine, at various times from the 1950s into the 1990s; DuPont supplied Goodyear for the longest period, almost four decades.

By 1955, records show, DuPont knew the chemical caused bladder cancer in laboratory animals and protected its own workers from it. But it didn’t issue warnings to Goodyear and other customers until 1977, the year Kline’s son-in-law, Harry Weist, started at the Niagara Falls plant.

It would be another 13 years before Goodyear would take significant steps to reduce exposures to ortho-toluidine in the plant. By then, the outbreak of bladder cancer was under way.

Kline was case No. 21, diagnosed in 1997. Weist was No. 37, diagnosed in 2004.

“None of us are simple-minded,” said Weist, 57, who worked at the plant for 34 years. “If we knew this stuff was bad and we were getting exposed to it back in the day, we would have protected ourselves.”

In a statement to the Center for Public Integrity, Goodyear said it “takes the issue of ortho-toluidine exposure at the Niagara Falls plant very seriously. We are deeply concerned and continue to be committed to actions to address the issue.”

DuPont said it “conducts its business in accordance with the highest ethical standards and in compliance with all applicable laws to ensure the safety and health of our employees, our customers, and the people of the communities in which we operate. Our experience with ortho-toluidine was no exception.”

Its communications about the chemical were, DuPont said, “commensurate with the state of scientific knowledge” at the time.

Steve Wodka, a lawyer in Little Silver, N.J., maintains DuPont could have told Goodyear how to use ortho-toluidine safely by 1957, when Goodyear’s rubber chemicals division opened in Niagara Falls.

“There were so many warning signals,” said Wodka, who has sued DuPont and other ortho-toluidine suppliers on behalf of 24 bladder cancer victims from Goodyear and three from the now-shuttered Morton International chemical plant in Paterson, N.J. “If people had simply heeded them, there would have been a lot of lives saved.”

The disease cluster “wouldn’t have been detected by the medical community” had the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers union not pushed for a federal investigation at Goodyear, Wodka said. “It would have just blended into the background.”

Bladder cancer incidence among workers exposed to o-toluidine, aniline and nitrobenzene at a rubber chemical manufacturing plant

1.           Tania Carreón1,

2.           Misty J Hein1,

3.           Kevin W Hanley1,

4.           Susan M Viet2,

5.           Avima M Ruder1

+ Author Affiliations

1.           ¹Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

2.           ²Westat, Rockville, Maryland, USA

1.           Correspondence to Dr Tania Carreón, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Pkwy, Mailstop R-15, Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA; tjc5@cdc.gov

·                     Received 19 September 2013

·                     Revised 3 December 2013

·                     Accepted 5 December 2013

·                     Published Online First 24 December 2013

Abstract

Background An earlier investigation found increased bladder cancer incidence among workers at a rubber chemical manufacturing plant that used o-toluidine, aniline and nitrobenzene. The cohort was expanded to include additional workers (n=1875) and updated through 2007 to assess bladder cancer with improved exposure characterisation.

Methods Work histories were updated and exposure categories and ranks were developed for o-toluidine, aniline and nitrobenzene combined. Incident cancers were identified by linkage to six state cancer registries. Residency in time-dependent cancer registry catchment areas was determined. SIR and standardised rate ratios for bladder cancer were calculated by exposure category and cumulative rank quartiles for different lag periods. Cox regression was used to model bladder cancer incidence with estimated cumulative rank, adjusting for confounders. Indirect methods were used to control for smoking.

Results Excess bladder cancer was observed compared to the New York State population (SIR=2.87, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.96), with higher elevations among workers definitely exposed (moderate/high) (SIR=3.90, 95% CI 2.57 to 5.68), and in the highest cumulative rank quartile (SIR=6.13, 95% CI 2.80 to 11.6, 10-year lag). Bladder cancer rates increased significantly with estimated cumulative rank (10-year lag). Smoking only accounted for an estimated 8% elevation in bladder cancer incidence.

Conclusions Bladder cancer incidence remains elevated in this cohort and significantly associated with estimated cumulative exposure. Results are consistent with earlier findings in this and other cohorts. Despite other concurrent chemical exposures, we consider o-toluidine most likely responsible for the bladder cancer incidence elevation and recommend a re-examination of occupational exposure limits.