Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal of
Occupational Health
Medicine and Occupational Health, ExxonMobil Yugen Kaisha, 2Department of Preventive Medicine and Public
Health, School of Medicine, Keio University and 3Occupational Health Training Center, University of Occupational
and Environmental Health, Japan
Methods
Control banding
The risk levels of 12 chemical handling tasks, which
are performed in refineries, a petrochemical plant, oil
terminals and a research laboratory of a petroleum
483
Task Description
Naphtha
*5
Oily
Sludge
Oil with
benzene
Petroleum
Products
Lubricating
oil *9
Petroleum
solvent
Gasoline
10
Acetone
Toluene
Gasoline
Naphtha
10
50
15
45
215
90
480
480
480
Gasoline
*4
15
Task
Chemical
Duration Handled
(min)
8,000
0.5
0.05
0.01
0.75
1,000
1,000
(l)
Handled
Quantity
Benzene
Benzene
(Toluene)
(Acetone)
Benzene
Total
hydrocarbon
n-Heptane
(Toluene)
(Benzene)
Benzene
Benzene
Benzene
Chemical
33
n
Av.
TWA
<0.00
0.40
0.16
6.60
<0.35
6.84
2.08
0.18
<0.00
0.40
0.02
2.96
<0.07
6.84
1.37
0.18
(ppm) (ppm) *1
Monitoring
2.5
2.5
50
750
0.5
100
*9
400
50
0.5
0.5
2.5
2.5
(ppm)
RV *2
Exp.
rating
III
III
III
II
III
*3
HER
Risk
Level
Ventilation
hood
Ventilation
hood
Ventilation
hood
RPE-2 *6
RPE-1 *6
Requested? Implemented
Control
*7, *8
*7, *8
*8
*8
*8
*7, *8
*7, *8
Note
*1: Time weighted average (TWA) exposure: 15 min TWA for task duration 15 min, 8 h TWA for task duration >15 min, *2: Reference value: ACGIH-TLV-STEL for task duration 15 min, ACGIHTLV-TWA for task duration >15 min, *3: Health effect rating, *4: Major gasoline ingredients: benzene(0.5%), toluene(6%), n-hexane(5%), *5: Major naphtha ingredients: benzene(1.2%), toluene(1.5%),
n-hexane(12%), *6: Respiratory protective equipment: RPE-1=half face mask, RPE-2=full face mask, *7: Exposure rating judged by observation, *8: General exhaust ventilation originally equipped, *9:
Monitored as total hydrocarbons; the RV (100 ppm) is a company standard of ExxonMobil Co.
Table 1. Chemical handling tasks and their risk assessment results by comprehensive exposure assessment
484
J Occup Health, Vol. 49, 2007
485
Name
Gasoline
Naphtha
Crude Oil
Benzene
Toluene
Lubricating oils
n-Heptane
Gasoline
Acetone
Toluene
Gasoline
Naphtha
Chemical evaluated
R-phrase Assigned Hazard Group *1
45, 65
45, 65
45
45, 46, 36/38, 48/23/24/25, 65
38, 48/20, 63, 65, 67
45
38, 50/53, 65, 67
45, 65
36, 66, 67
38, 48/20, 63, 65, 67
45, 65
45, 65
E
E
E
E
D
E
A
E
A
D
E
E
Scale of use
*2
M
L
L
M
S
M
M
S
S
S
L
M
Ability to Become
Airborne *3
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
Control Approach
Criterion *4
4
4
4
4, S
3, S
4
1, S
4
1, S
3, S
4
4
*1: A=Least hazardous, E=Most hazardous, *2: S=Small, M=Medium, L=Large, *3: L=Low, M=Medium, H=High, *4:
Corresponding control recommendation: 1=General ventilation, 2=Local exhaust ventilation, 3=Enclosure, 4=Seek expert advice,
S=Skin and eye precautions.
Definition
A
B
C
D
E
>RV*
50100 % of RV
1050 % of RV
110% of RV
No exposure
486
I
II
III
IV
Exposure rating
C
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
*Risk level: 1=Highest risk, 3=Lowest risk, **Health effect rating: I=Most hazardous,
IV=Least hazardous
Comprehensive exp.
assessment: Risk levelb
Appropriateness of judgment
by control banding
1, 2, or 3
1, 2, or 3
4
4
2 or 3
1
2 or 3
Over-controlled c
Appropriate c
Under-controlled c
Over-controlled
Not comparable
Over-controlled
a1=General
Results
Risk assessment results by means of control banding
are shown in Table 2. The judged control approach
criteria of 12 tasks ranged from 1 to 4. Each control
approach criterion, from 1 to 4, represents a specific
control recommendation. These are general ventilation,
local exhaust ventilation, enclosure, and seeking
expert advice, respectively. Five tasks which involved
chemicals hazardous to the skin and eyes were
487
Table 6. Repeat risk assessment by comprehensive exposure assessment after implementation of control technologies
#
Chemical
Monitoring
n
Av.
(ppm)
TWA
(ppm)*1
TWA *1
Assumed
(ppm)
RV *2
(ppm)
Exp.
rating
HER
*3
Risk
level
2 (Benzene)
<0.14
2.5
3 (Benzene)
<0.14
0.5
4 Benzene
5 Toluene
10 (Toluene)
9
2
0.07
6.10
0.07
6.10
0.5
50
50
C
C
D
I
III
III
2
2
3
Note
Judged by observation
*1: 8 h time weighted average exposure, *2: Reference value: ACGIH-TLV-STEL for task duration >15 min, ACGIH-TLV-TWA for task
duration >15 min, *3: Health effect rating, *4: Assigned protection factor (NIOSH, yielding 1/10 or 1/50 decrease in exposure for a half or
full face mask respectively.)
Table 7. Comparison of risk assessment results and appropriateness of control banding judgment
Task #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Control banding:
Control approach
criterion
4
4
4
4
3
4
1
4
1
3
4
4
N
Y
Y
Y
Y, Ventilation hood
N
N*
N
N*
Y, Ventilation hood
N
N
Appropriateness of control
banding judgment
Over-Controlled
Not Comparable
Not Comparable
Not Comparable
Over-Controlled
Over-Controlled
Appropriate
Over-Controlled
Appropriate
Over-Controlled
Over-Controlled
Over-Controlled
488
Discussion
Characteristics of control banding
The following characteristics of control banding can
be pointed out based on the results obtained.
(a) There is an enhanced tendency to provide safe-sided
judgment.
(b)There is an enhanced tendency to recommend seeking
expert advice; these cases are represented by control
approach criterion 4.
The following characteristics were also identified.
(c) It is valuable in practice that the need for skin/eye
489
490
491
Conclusion
The appropriateness of control banding system was
evaluated based on workplace safety by assessing risks
of chemical handling tasks with control banding and then
comparing the results with a practical risk assessment
outcome performed with the comprehensive risk
assessment. It was demonstrated that control banding
tends to provide a safe-sided judgment. A possible
interpretation of this is that control banding is inherently
designed to secure workplace safety by compensating for
insufficient exposure information with safe-sided
judgment criteria and by requiring expert advice in highrisk cases. Control banding could be widely and
effectively utilized by employers in Japan, provided that
the above characteristics are pre-acknowledged by users.
To this aim, it will be essential to establish institutional
mechanisms which facilitate development and utilization
of new local health experts. However, it should be noted
that the scope of tasks and chemicals evaluated in this
study was limited.
Acknowledgments: This study was supported by the
Labor Science Research Fund (the Program for
Comprehensive Occupational Safety and Health
Research) under supervision of the Ministry of Health,
Labour and Welfare, Japan: subject number of H16roudou-6.
References
1) Mori K: Gendai sangyou-hoken no kadai to korekara.
[The issues and the perspectives of todays occupational
health; JP]. Hataraku Hitono Anzen to Kenko 5, 50
55 (2004) (in Japanese)
2) Guidelines for risk assessment of chemicals and other
hazards. Tokyo: Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare
Japan, 2006.
3) Tischer M, Bredendiek-Kamper S and Poppek U:
Evaluation of the HSE COSHH Essentials exposure
predictive model on the basis of BAuA studies and
existing substances exposure data. Ann Occup Hyg 47,
557569 (2003)
4) Jones RM and Nicas M: Evaluation of the COSHH
Essentials foe vapor degreasing and bag filling
operations. Ann Occup Hyg 50, 137147 (2006)
5) Brooke I: A UK scheme to help small firms control
health risks from chemicals: toxicological
considerations. Ann Occup Hyg 42, 377390 (1998)
6) Health and Safety Executive. UK: COSHH Essentials,
Easy steps to control health risks from chemicals.
(online), available from <http://www.coshhessentials.org.uk/>, (accessed 2006-09-10).
7) European Chemicals Bureau: Classification and
labeling, Search Classlab, Search Annex 1. (online),
available from <http://ecb.jrc.it/classificationlabelling>, (accessed 2006-11-05).
8) American Industrial Hygiene Association: Laboratory
492