Carbon Monoxide Poisoning 05-12-09

7/27/2019 Carbon Monoxide Poisoning 05-12-09

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/carbon-monoxide-poisoning-05-12-09 1/44

Prevent Carbon Monoxide

Poisoning rom Forklits

SHARPSafety & Health Assessment &

Research for Prevention

Success strategies or electric and uel-driven orklit eets



.



i

Contents Page

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

Carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning ........................................................................................ 2

What are the toxic eects? ................................................................................... 2

What sources generate CO? ................................................................................. 2

Why is it dangerous to use uel-driven orklits indoors? ............................................... 3

Economic Impact o Carbon Monoxide (CO) Poisoning ............................................... 5

Cost o CO workers’ compensation claims in Washington State................................... 5

Be aware! CO claims were reviewed and the ollowing actors werecommonly associated with CO poisoning caused by orklits ......................... 5

Controlled atmosphere storage rooms ............................................................................... 6

Economic impact – case studies ......................................................................................... 7

CO Prevention Strategies You Need to Know................................................................. 11

Strategy 1. Electric Forklits – Facts & Company Experience ..................................... 13

Key points to consider with electric lits ............................................................................13

Battery lie and charging........................................................................................14

Battery saety ...........................................................................................................14

Using electric orklits: Two company proles ..................................................................15

Large company - Prole #1 ....................................................................................16

Medium-size company - Prole #2 .......................................................................17

Strategy 2. Fuel-Driven Forklits – Control CO & Save Fuel Costs ..............................19

Engine maintenance ..............................................................................................................19

Why do low CO emissions save on uel? ...........................................................................19

Carbon monoxide emissions testing ...................................................................................20

Fuel-driven lits: The latest in catalytic converters ..........................................................21

When should catalytic converters be used? ......................................................21

What kinds o catalytic converters are available? ............................................21

Do catalytic converters eliminate all CO in exhaust gas? ................................21

Keep these points in mind about catalytic converters .....................................22



ii

Contents Page

Strategy 2. Fuel-Driven Forklits – Continued

Building ventilation and administrative controls ..............................................................23

Employee training and hazard communication .................................................................25

Who should be trained? .........................................................................................25

What should the training cover?...........................................................................25

Summary ................................................................................................................................27

Regulations and Resources ............................................................................................... 29

Permissable exposure limits (PELs) or carbon monoxide ..............................................29

Helpul resources ...................................................................................................................30

List o Acronyms................................................................................................................... 30

Appendices

A. Cost Analysis Worksheet o Electric and Fuel-Driven Forklits .................................31

B. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Emission Regulations ................................33

C. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Employee Training Checklist ..................................................35

Notes:

WISHA reers to the Washington Industrial Saety and Health Act.

DOSH is the Washington State Department o Labor & Industries’ Division o Occupational Saety

and Health.Unless otherwise indicated, statistics and examples in this document pertain to Washington State.



1

IntroductionCarbon monoxide (CO) poisoning rom internal combustion orklits is common in Washington State.This document illustrates the health dangers to employees and the economic eects o CO poisoning.Employers are encouraged to adopt a CO prevention plan using the strategies outlined in this publication.

The strategies include:

1. Use o electric orklits

2. Control o CO and reduced uel costs or combustion engine orklits

Useul inormation included in this document includes:

n Economic Impact o CO Poisonings

n Case studies on recent company-wide poisonings

n Electric Forklits

n Company experience with electric orklits

n Forklit cost-comparison worksheet

n Fuel-Driven Forklits

n Save uel costs by reducing CO emissions

n In-house emissions testing

n New emission regulations and catalytic converter technology

n Recommendations or CO monitoring

n Employee Training Checklist

The purpose o this document is to educate employers on the risks and costs o CO poisoning. Use thisdocument to investigate whether electric lits are aordable or your company. I you continue to operate

uel-driven lits indoors, ollow this document to design a comprehensive CO prevention strategy thatprevents poisonings, uses the latest technology available, and is cost-eective.

I you operate uel-driven orklits indoors, you are stronglyencouraged to:

n Review the costs and benets o electric orklits

n Save uel costs and reduce CO poisoning risk with a

comprehensive CO prevention strategy



2

Technical Tip: CO is a chemical asphyxiant that when inhaled, binds tightly to hemoglobin in the blood orming carboxyhemoglobin (COHb)and preventing the blood rom carrying oxygen. Medical providersmay determine COHb blood levels in the course o treatment. COHbblood levels can also be used to estimate the amount o CO present in

the air at the time o the poisoning.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Poisoning

Carbon monoxide (CO) is odorless, tasteless, colorless, non-irritating and cannot be detected by any o thesenses. Because it cannot be detected, employees can be exposed to very high levels without realizing

there is a problem.

What are the toxic eects?

Early symptoms o CO exposure are fu-like and nonspecic: headache, nausea, dizziness, visualdisturbances, and rapid breathing. A person may eel weak and disoriented, making it dicult to escape the environment. Organs that are highly dependent on oxygen – such as the brain and heart – are

essentially “starved” during CO poisoning, and severe poisoning can lead to unconsciousness, permanentbrain injury and death. In pregnant women, CO can reach the etus and cause harm.

CO does not accumulate in the body. Once exposure has stopped and resh air is inhaled, the lungs exhaleCO and it is removed rom the body. Breathing pure oxygen or use o a hyperbaric chamber (pure oxygen

administered under pressure) can be administered to speed the removal o CO rom the blood.

What sources generate CO?Carbon monoxide (CO) is produced by the incomplete combustion o carbon-containing uels. Sources thatgenerate CO include:

n Internal combustion engines, such as orklit engines powered by:

n Gasoline

n Liqueed petroleum gas (LPG, e.g. propane)

n Diesel

n Small gas- or propane-powered engines can generate CO and should never be used inenclosed spaces. Examples include:

n Area heaters

n Pressure washers

n Compressors

n Generators

n Floor buers

n Other uel-burning power tools



3

Why is it dangerous to use uel-driven orklits indoors?

n Even low levels o CO can make your employees ill.

n CO can accumulate rapidly in the environment. How much and how quickly depends on:

n The number o orklits idling or operating

n How well the engines are tuned

n Length o time the orklits operate

n How ast resh air and ventilation dilute the CO

Forklits that operate outside do not typically pose a threat or CO poisoning because the exhaust is dilutedinto the ambient environment. Electric orklits do not emit carbon monoxide.



4



5

Economic Impact o Carbon Monoxide (CO) Poisoning Workers’ compensation claims data show that orklits are the most requent source o occupational COpoisoning in Washington State rom 2000 – 2005 (154 out o 345 claims accepted or CO poisoning or 45%).

Cost o CO workers’ compensation claims in Washington State

The gure below shows the median costs or CO claims rom 2000 to 2005, by the top 5 CO sources. Mostworkers’ compensation claims incur medical-only costs; examples o these costs are emergency room treatment and medical bills. Claims or individuals who miss our or more days o work are described as

“compensable” and these costs include all medical costs as well as time loss (kept-on-salary) benetsand disability benets. Not only are orklit-related CO claims the most requent; they are the mostexpensive. In 2000 – 2005, there were 137 medical-only CO claims caused by orklits with a median cost o

$523 per claim (hal o the 137 claims cost less than this amount and hal cost more). The 16 more serious,compensable, orklit-CO claims had median costs o $4,008, with compensable costs ranging rom aminimum o $55 to a maximum claim cost o $69,000. These costs aect an employer’s bottom line.

Be aware! CO claims were reviewed and the ollowing actors were commonlyassociated with CO poisoning caused by orklits:

n Use o uel driven orklits indoors.

n Use o uel driven orklits in or near controlled atmosphere (CA) rooms or in cold storage(rooms with little to no ventilation).

n

Renting a orklit or the rst time, or renting rom a dierent vendor.

n Failure to veriy emission tests o rental lits.

n Use o uel driven orklits during cherry export packing.

n Building ventilation not working properly.

n Re-routing o orklit trac through populated work areas.

n Extensive idling by a orklit or diesel truck with workers nearby.

n Spill cleanup and re-stacking o collapsed produce.

$4,008 (16 cases)

$2,684 (6 cases)

$523 (137 cases)

$278 (55 cases)

$427 (22 cases)

$353 (17 cases)

$353 (8 cases)

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000

Forklift

Auto/Truck/Bus

Heater/Furnace

Saw

Pressure Washer

Median Cost, in Dollars

C a r b o n M o n o x i d e S o u r c e

Median workers' compensation cost for CO claims, 2000 - 2005

Medical-only claims

Compensable claims



6

Tip: Electric orklits are the only reliable tool or sae movement o produce within opened CA

rooms. Their costs should be budgeted into the operating and construction costs associated withCA storage.

Controlled atmosphere storage rooms

Controlled Atmosphere (CA) rooms are used in produce-packing warehouses or long-term storage o ruitsand vegetables. Washington State is a leader in CA storage technology, and has the largest volume o CA

storage anywhere in the world. In 1997, 67% o all apple storage space in Washington State was in the ormo CA storage (Washington State Department o Agriculture, Plant Services Division).

From 1994 to 1999, approximately 41 percent o CO poisonings specic to ruit packing and storage

occurred in cold rooms or open CA rooms. These rooms are inherently designed with no resh airventilation and CO levels can build quickly inside them. Because so many poisonings occur in conjunctionwith opened CA rooms, and because CA technology is growing, produce packers are highly encouraged toconsider using electric lits in these rooms.



7

Tip: With so many employees at risk and with some types o poisonings predictable, preventing these injuries is cost-eective.

Economic impact – case studies

Indirect costs associated with CO poisoning include:

n Absenteeism n Investigation costs

n Employee turnover n Risk o third party litigation

n Re-training costs n Public relations issues n Reduced attention to product quality n Cost o market delays

n Poor employee morale

The ollowing ve case examples illustrate workers’ compensation costs and WISHA penalties associatedwith CO poisoning. In the ruit packing industry or warehouse setting, a single CO event typically leads tomultiple workers becoming ill, which drives up all costs.

When: June 2004

Where: Fruit packing company

Number o Workers Poisoned: 45

Workers’ Comp. Cost: Approximately $32,000

WISHA Penalty: $14,000

Ater working 4 to 5 hours in a large warehouse that had been sealed according to pestumigation protocols, employees were ill and unconscious. Ambulances evacuated all sick

workers to the local emergency room (ER). Using the carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) levels oundin workers’ blood drawn at the ER, WISHA estimated the airborne CO levels inside the plant

had ranged rom 266 to 532 ppm; this exceeds WISHA’s ceiling limit o 200 ppm.

Cause o Poisoning:

A DOSH investigation revealed that our rental lits emitted excessive CO (5% to 6%). Threeemployer-owned orklits showed good maintenance and emitted less than 1% CO. All seven

lits were tted with catalytic converters. In this incident, there were no engineering oradministrative controls in place such as electric powered lits, ventilation, and CO alarms.

Case Study 1: Cherry umigation and export packing



8

When: July 1997

Where: Fruit packing plant

Number o Workers Poisoned: 89 (1/3 total workorce)

Workers’ Comp. & WISHA Costs: Approximately $114,000

Case Study #2: Cherry umigation and export packing

Cause o Poisoning

The cause o this cherry packing poisoning was the same as described on the previous page.

Electric orklits are needed in a sealed warehouse.

When: September 2004

Where: Food distribution center


Workers’ Comp. Costs: Approximately $1,254


Case Study #3: Unloading idling diesel truck with an LPG orklit

Four warehouse personnel, including the orklit driver, were unloading an idling diesel truckwith one LPG-powered orklit. All employees were treated with oxygen at the local ER orsymptoms o headache, rapid heart rate, nausea, dizziness, light-headedness and urge to pass

out.

Cause o Poisoning

Sources o CO included the propane lit as well as the idling diesel truck. The warehouse had

some natural ventilation, but no mechanical ventilation. Idling vehicles, no CO alarms and pooremployee training contributed to this incident.



9

When: September 2002

Where: Produce wholesale company


Workers’ Comp. & WISHA Costs: Approximately $7,359

Case Study #4: Vegetable inventory in cold room

Ater 2 hours in the cold room, one employee suered unconsciousness and others hadsevere headache, nausea, and atigue. Using the COHb blood levels taken at the ER, WISHAestimated airborne exposures inside the cold room at 350 ppm; this exceeds the WISHA

ceiling limit o 200 ppm.

Cause o Poisoning

The cause o this poisoning was one propane powered orklit operating continuously during the sorting and packing. There was no ventilation and access doors were either shut or hungwith heavy plastic. Electric lits were needed.

When: January 2003

Where: Fruit packing warehouse


Workers’ Comp. Costs: $139,754 (2,503 lost work days)


Case Study #5: Apple inventory in a cold room

Ater 3 hours o inventorying apples in a cold room, employees recognized that they had

symptoms o headache, nausea, and atigue. Mistaking these symptoms or the fu, employeescontinued to work. Upon their arrival, the re department shut-down the acility, evacuated allemployees, and had the cold room ventilated with ambient air; CO levels were at 600 ppm.

Cause o Poisoning

Two propane-powered orklits, no ventilation, and no CO alarms contributed to this incident. Lacko employee training on the hazards o CO resulted in a costly delayed response to this incident.



10



11

CO Prevention Strategies You Need to KnowThe gure below shows two strategies to prevent CO poisoning rom orklits. Electric orklits, illustratedat the top o the diagram, require no CO control measures. Fuel-driven orklits, illustrated at the bottom,require engine maintenance, building ventilation and administrative controls to control CO emissions. The

elements or both strategies are discussed in detail in the ollowing sections.

For uel-driven orklits, uel cost savings are a benet o keeping orklit engines tuned. Be sure to see the

Engine Maintenance section, page 19.

Electric orklit on ar let, LPG-powered orklit on right.



12



13

Strategy 1.Electric Forklits – Facts & Company Experience

Electric orklits do not produce CO and are the most reliable solution to eliminate CO poisoning in yourworkplace. Electric orklits are the only type o lit that should be used in spaces that are indoor, small

and enclosed, and/or have no ventilation. Examples where electric lits are most appropriate include theollowing situations:

n All indoor spaces

n Enclosed spaces with little or no ventilation

n Rerigerated storage warehouses

n Cold rooms

n Controlled atmosphere rooms

n Cargo containers and trucks

Key points to consider with electric lits

n Because electric lits do not produce CO, the costs associated with managing CO are eliminated.

n Purchase Price and Operating Costs. While the purchase price o electric lits is greater thanuel-driven lits, operating costs on an electric lit are much less. A material handling company inYakima, Washington, has documented through their guaranteed preventative maintenance

program that the average annual operating cost o an electric orklit is $0.73 per hour less thanLPG-powered orklits. This is a savings o $7,300 over 10,000 operating hours or the electric lit.

n Operating Lie. The operating lie o some manuacturers’ electric orklits is 12,000 – 14,000

hours; this is greater than the 10,000 hour operating lie o a comparable LPG-powered lit by thesame manuacturer. One company has reported at least 4 more years o lie with electric orklits(12-year lie) compared to their propane-powered lits (8 year lie, see the Company Prole #2 on

page 17). When comparing the costs o electric lits to uel-driven lits the operating lie willgreatly aect the annualized costs (see Worksheet in Appendix A).

n Acceleration Speed. Electric lits do accelerate at speeds slower than a uel-powered orklit.

n Employers who use electric lits have reported that this reduction in speed has unexpectedbenets. While the work continues at a steady pace, risk or pedestrian accidents, lit tip-over, and tire wear are reduced. See Company Prole #2 or estimated cost savings on tires related to acceleration speed.

n Risk Reduction. Money invested on electric orklits is money saved on potential CO poisoning. In the case studies described on pages 7-9, companies incurred workers’ compensation costs andWISHA penalties ranging rom approximately $5,000 to $150,000.

n Right Tool or the Job. Because cold rooms and CA rooms have limited ventilation, the propermaterials handling tool is an electric lit. The purchase and use o electric lits should be includedin your company budget and standard operating procedures required or successul CAroom storage.



14

Battery lie and charging

n A high-quality battery may come with a 5-year or 1500 charge-cycle warranty. Battery liespancan range rom 3 years under very poor maintenance, 5 to 7 years or most consumers, and up

to 12 years under optimal care and use applications.

n Personnel need technical training to charge and maintain batteries to maximize the liespan.

Without proper maintenance, battery lie will be signicantly reduced.

n Beore purchasing an electric lit, work with your insurance company and local redepartment to ensure that battery storage and maintenance will be acceptable.

n Discuss battery recycling and recovery options with your vendor at the time o battery purchase.

Batteries and battery chargers or electric orklits.

Battery saety

Employees should be educated on the hazards associated with lead acid batteries. Battery chargingareas should be dedicated, well-ventilated spaces. The primary saety and health hazards with lead acidbatteries include:

n Hydrogen Gas. Battery charging produces hydrogen gas as a by-product. Hydrogen gasis explosive and odorless. To remove hydrogen gas, the charging area needs to be well

ventilated (see Forklits and Other Powered Industrial Trucks WAC 296-863). Hydrogen gasdetectors are recommended.

n Suluric Acid. Lead acid batteries contain suluric acid, a corrosive that burns the skinand eyes. Eye goggles and rubber gloves are required when handling batteries. Aneyewash station is required in the battery charging area (see Saety and Health Core Rules,

First Aid WAC 296-800-150).

n Shock. Contact o bare hands with both battery terminals at the same time can result in shock.

n Battery Weight. Electric orklit batteries may weigh up to 3,000 pounds. A mechanical liting

device is needed to move the batteries between the orklit and charging station. It isessential to properly secure the battery load at all times to prevent injury.

Example o a battery saety sign and emergency

body shower in a battery charging room.



15

Using electric orklits: Two company profles

Two ruit packing companies who have adopted electric orklits were interviewed about their experienceswith electric lits. Strategies or bringing electric lits into their uel-driven feets are discussed, along with

electric orklit perormance and costs. To help compare the cost o electric lits with uel-driven lits, a costanalysis worksheet (Appendix A) is provided. When costs are compared on an annual basis, electric litsare competitive in price with uel-driven orklits. Use the worksheet, along with inormation rom your local

vendor, to estimate the short- and long-term costs o either uel-driven or electric orklits.



16

Large company - Profle #1

A large ruit packing warehouse in eastern Washington has begun the long-term process o replacing uel-driven orklits with electric lits. The company has over 700,000 square eet (t2) o warehouse space with 70%o this space in rerigeration. They employ approximately 400 workers with 100 trained lit drivers, and operate

two 9-hour shits seven days per week. Beginning in 2002, a total o 35 out o 70 uel-driven lits havebeen replaced.

Motivation or this change was an awareness o CO poisoning at other ruit packing warehouses and a desire to reduce their risk. Their strategy was to replace LPG orklits used in small, rerigerated, high-use areas rst,while continuing their existing maintenance and tune-up program or the remaining uel-driven lits.

Carbon Monoxide Concentrations

CO levels are measured using a xed CO meter and individual badge dosimeters. The CO meter is permanentlylocated in the packed ruit segregation area, where CO levels are highest.

Beore electric lits were used. Area CO levels could be as high as 90 ppm with an 8-hour Time-Weighted

Average (TWA) o about 50 ppm. This exceeds the WISHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) o 35 ppm over an8-hr TWA.

Ater electric lits were introduced. Area CO levels rarely exceed the 35 ppm threshold that activates theventilation system. The 8-hour TWA is typically about 15 ppm. Full shit worker exposure levels have declinedrom about 20 ppm to about 4 ppm.

Electric Forklift Performance

Liting. The electric orklits readily achieve the rated liting capacity o 5,000 pounds. Liting with electric litsis quicker and the engine doesn’t need to be revved to generate hydraulic pressure. Liting is unaected by the battery charge until the charge is insucient. At this point the “lit interrupt” is triggered and the lit stops

working. At this point the battery is re-charged.

Speed. Electric lits are as ast as LPG lits but cannot accelerate as quickly. Management considers this to bea positive aspect, because there is less erratic and irresponsible driving.

Maneuverability. Electric orklits have a tighter turning radius, reducing the amount o tailswing during a turn.Tailswing reers to the distance the rear o the orklit swings away rom the lit during a turn. Tailswing is a

primary cause o pedestrian injuries around orklits. A tighter turning radius increases operating eciency andreduces the potential or injuries.

Battery Charging vs. Reueling. A charged battery lasts 6 to 8 hours, slightly longer than the reueling intervalo 4 to 6 hours or the LPG lits. The amount o time to change a battery, about ten minutes, is comparable to theamount o time needed to reuel an LPG powered orklit.

Costs and Savings Associated with Electric Forklifts

Initial Costs. Approximately $300,000 dollars have been spent since 2002 on this initiative. Costs include 17

electric lits as well as 2 batteries and one charger per lit.

Battery Costs. Initial cost o $4,000 - 5,000 per battery, but volume purchases can bring this cost down.

Operating Costs. Operating costs were not estimated.

Maintenance (Labor). Considerably less labor is required to maintain electric orklits compared to LPGorklits. One FTE is needed to oversee battery charging operations, including the removal and replacemento batteries rom the orklits.

Maintenance (Parts). Electric motors require considerably less maintenance compared to LPG engines. Tirecosts are approximately $1,000/year or LPG lits versus $300/year or the electric orklits. The motor and transmission or electric lits transer power in a way that essentially eliminates wheel spinout, thus saving

tire wear.



17

Medium-size company - Profle #2

A small ruit packing warehouse in eastern Washington operates two 8-hour shits, ve days per week through most o the year. They employ approximately 200 workers, with 25 to 30 employees trained to driveorklits. A large raction o their 140,000 t2 packing and warehouse is rerigerated.

Motivation or using electric lits came rom recognition o potential CO poisoning, ollowed by CO exposuremonitoring that conrmed elevated CO concentrations. The strategy used was to replace all LPG orklits

used inside the warehouse over a several year period. In 1993 they began purchasing electric lits, as o2005 they own 13 electric lits and 4 LPG lits.

Carbon Monoxide Concentrations

Carbon monoxide concentrations are no longer monitored at this company. No WISHA citations have been

received and no workers have been hospitalized or diagnosed with CO poisoning at this company.

Electric Forklift Performance

Liting. Forklits readily achieve the rated liting capacity o 5,000 pounds. The liting abilities o electric andLPG orklits have been observed to be similar.

Speed. Electric lits are as ast as LPG lits, but cannot accelerate as quickly. This has not aected the

eciency o materials handling and conveyance in the warehouse.

Maneuverability. Maneuverability has been observed to be similar between electric and LPG lits.

Battery Reueling. A charged battery lasts 6 to 7 hours. Battery changes require two people, more eort,and take approximately 5 to 10 minutes longer to complete compared to reueling a LPG orklit.

Battery Lie. Battery liespan has been 8 to 10 years.

Costs and Savings Associated with Electric Forklifts

Initial Costs. Costs or the lits already purchased were not available. Recently the company received aquote o $33,000 or a 5,000-lb capacity electric orklit, two batteries and a charger. A comparable LPG lit

was believed to cost $21,000 at this time.

Battery Costs. Several 950 amp batteries were recently purchased or $4,100 each.

Battery Charging Room. While their initial battery room utilized existing space, a 1,000 t2 battery chargingroom was constructed as part o a recent acility upgrade. The ventilated room is equipped with 15battery chargers stacked vertically in a rack with a pair o batteries. The company also elected to install a

hydrogen gas detector.

Operating Costs. The uel costs o LPG orklits were never tracked and compared with the operating cost

o electric lits.

Maintenance. Electric lits require considerably less in-house maintenance labor as compared to LPG lits.The cost o parts and outside labor was tracked or electric and LPG orklits over a two-year period rom

2001 to 2002. Parts and outside labor costs, per operating hour, were much lower at $0.45 or electric lits

as compared to $1.25 or LPG-powered lits. In this comparison, lit age was similar: the electric lits wereapproximately 5.1 years old compared to 5.7 years or the LPG-powered lits. With an average annual usage

o about 1,200 hours per orklit, this is a cost savings o almost $1,000 per orklit per year. Tires were ound to last two to three times longer on electric lits. When LPG lits accelerate quickly, the tires spin and wear the tread. This does not happen with the slower accelerating electric lits.

Operating Lie. Company is still using electric lits purchased 12 years ago. In contrast, they haveexperienced that LPG-powered lits typically need to be replaced ater about eight years.



18



19

Strategy 2.Fuel-Driven Forklits – Control CO & Save Fuel Costs

Engine maintenanceImproperly tuned engines are not efcient. When engines are properly tuned and CO emissions are reduced,uel is used more efciently. This produces real savings on uel costs. The target emission rate or CO is1% or less.

A orklit that emits 5% CO wastes approximately 375 more gallons o propane per year per shit compared to

a lit that emits 0.5% CO (see gure below). Traditionally, over one-hal o the ork lits tested by one industryvendor were ound to emit 5% or more o CO.

At propane uel prices o $1 to $2 per gallon, lits emitting 5% CO may waste $375 to $750 per year on a single

8-hr shit. A feet o 10 lits may waste up to $3,750 to $7,500 per year on a single shit and $7,500 to $15,000with two shits.

Save Fuel Costs by Reducing CO Emissions!

Why do low CO emissions save on uel?

All combustion processes require air, uel and heat to burn. In an engine, the air to uel (A/F) ratio describes the balance between two o these key actors. The theoretical ratio at which all propane uel will be burnedusing all o the oxygen in the air is 15.2 lbs o air burned or every 1 lb o uel (the A/F ratio is 14.7:1 or

gasoline engines.)

The relationship between the A/F ratio, propane consumption, and carbon monoxide emissions is shownin the gure on the next page. Notice that as the A/F mixture approaches 10:1 and becomes “rich”, uel

consumption increases and carbon monoxide emissions increase to approximately 10%. Such rich mixturescontaining more uel are not well balanced and combustion is less complete. Rich mixtures not only burnmore uel than necessary, but they generate high levels o CO as waste gas. In “lean” A/F ratios (ratios >

15.2:1), excess air is present during combustion, leading to elevated production o nitrogen oxides (NOx),

another toxic gas pollutant. The optimal A/F mixture or propane engines is a ratio o 15.2:1. Engines tuned to this ratio get the best uel economy and emit low CO emissions at approximately 0.5%. For more inormationon how emission testing can save uel costs, see Blanke Industries’ technical bulletin Use o CO & Tune-ups

to Lower Fuel Costs (Technical Bulletin No. TB-FL0108, accessed on February 13, 2009, atwww.blankeindustries.com/bulletins/ForklitTechnicalBulletin2.pd ) .

http://www.blankeindustries.com/bulletins/ForkliftTechnicalBulletin2.pdf

http://www.blankeindustries.com/bulletins/ForkliftTechnicalBulletin2.pdf



20

Carbon monoxide emissions testing

Carbon monoxide emission testing is essential or uel-driven orklits that operate indoors. The carbonmonoxide concentration in orklit emission should be 1% or less; concentrations greater than thisindicate the need or an engine tune-up. Routine CO exhaust checks make good business sense and can beperormed in-house with convenient and easy to use hand-held CO exhaust gas analyzers. Such analyzers arecommercially available or $1,000 and up. Savings in uel costs may pay or the cost o an emission analyzer.

Tip: Consultants rom L&I’s Division o Occupational Saety and Health (DOSH) are availableor assistance with emission testing, particularly or small employers. These consultations

provide ree, condential, no-penalty assessments. Consultation does require that you correctany serious hazards noted. See the DOSH contact inormation provided on page 30 or moreinormation.

In-house orklit emissions testing.



21

Fuel-driven lits: The latest in catalytic converters

While a orklit can be tuned to emit 0.5% to 1% CO, this is still 5,000 to 10,000 ppm o CO. This emissionconcentration may still be enough to accumulate and cause poisoning in certain work operations. You can

determine whether you need catalytic converters through area and personnel sampling.

When used properly, catalytic converters reduce CO in raw exhaust gas. They convert the harmul exhaustemissions o CO, hydrocarbons (HC), and nitrogen oxides (NO

x) into less harmul emissions o nitrogen,

water vapor, and carbon dioxide.

When should catalytic converters be used?

n When uel-driven lits operate in semi-enclosed and well-ventilated areas.

n When workers are in close proximity to exhaust umes.

n When the warehouse product is adversely aected by exhaust emissions.

n Use electric orklits i the space is enclosed, not ventilated or poorly ventilated.

What kinds o catalytic converters are available?

Lits that are currently equipped with converters are likely to be using two-way catalytic converters thatremove CO and hydrocarbons (HC) rom exhaust gas. While two-way converters can reduce CO emissions, they may not perorm consistently. Rich running engines may contain more CO in the emissions than can beremoved. CO emissions vary with operating condition (i.e. idle, cruise, ull load) and two-way converters,

which require an external air induction, are not able to adjust or these dierent conditions. Though widelyavailable in the past, two-way converters are being phased out o production and have become obsoletewith the advent o three-way catalytic converters.

Three-way catalytic converters remove CO and HC like two-way converters, but they also remove NOx

rom exhaust gas. To work properly, 3-way converters require installation o an air-to-uel ratio controller.

The controller ensures that all three contaminants are present in the correct proportions or maximumemissions reductions. The retail price or a 3-way converter and controller may range rom approximately

$1,500 to $2,500. Check with your local vendor or more inormation on converter installation costs,maintenance costs and projected liespan.

Do catalytic converters eliminate all CO in exhaust gas?

No. A three-way catalytic converter is expected to reduce CO emissions by 70 to 90 percent. Perormanceo a three-way converter will depend on engine maintenance, the setting o the A/F ratio controller, thestate o the uel system, and the catalyst technology used. In an unventilated space, the perormance o a

two or three-way catalytic converter may not be enough to prevent CO poisoning. The root o the problemremains that CO accumulates quickly in enclosed spaces, and can cause harmul health eects even at

low levels. While catalytic converters may substantially reduce the risk o a CO poisoning, they do noteliminate the risk entirely.



22

Keep these points in mind about catalytic converters:

n Catalytic converters require well maintained engines, tuned to the right A/F ratio. Propaneburning engines that run rich (A/F ratio < 15.2:1) will contain more CO emissions in the raw

exhaust than can be converted to CO2

(carbon dioxide). Carbon monoxide poisoning couldoccur rom a rich running engine equipped with any type o catalytic converter.

n

Two-way catalytic converters require oxygen in the exhaust gas to convert harmul COinto less harmul CO2. This is usually supplied by an external air induction device and i the

device is not unctioning correctly perormance will suer.

n Two-way catalytic converters can overheat when used on a poorly maintained engine. Thiscan destroy the converter in a ew weeks and in certain applications (paper handling or

instance), can be a re hazard.

n Installation o a catalytic converter does not qualiy a orklit to be used in rerigeration rooms,cold storage rooms, or other non-ventilated spaces. Electric lits should be used in these areas.

See Appendix B or important inormation on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) orklit emissionregulations that took eect in 2004 and in 2007.



23

Building ventilation and administrative controls

Ventilation

Building ventilation alone should not be relied upon to prevent CO poisoning when uel-driven orklit areused indoors. Along with ventilation, actors that aect the risk o CO poisoning include:

n Employee proximity to orklit exhaust.

n Adequate dilution o orklit exhaust gases with room air.

n Consistent engine and catalytic converter maintenance.

n Regular testing o CO emissions, including vendor testing o rental lits.

It is challenging to accurately determine dilution ventilation requirements or warehouse vehicles andorklits. The American Conerence o Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommends 5,000 cubiceet per minute (cm) dilution ventilation or every 60 horsepower propane ueled orklit (ACGIH Committee

on Industrial Ventilation. Industrial Ventilation: A Manual o Recommended Practice, 23rd edition. Chapter10 Specic Operations, Section 10.85 Vehicle Ventilation, page 10-140. ACGIH, Cincinnati, OH, 1998).This recommendation assumes: a) orklit CO emissions do not exceed 1%; b) orklit operation does notexceed 50% o the working day; c) good distribution o airfow must be provided; and d) total volume o the

warehouse space must amount to 150,000 t3 /lit truck or more.

Administrative controls

Monitoring or carbon monoxide

Air monitoring o CO is needed to assess the risk or CO poisoning. Air monitoring is used to determinewhether employees are exposed to CO concentrations under or above the Permissible Exposure Level(PEL) and to alert sta to an emergency. For a list o the CO PELs, please see page 29.

The two main approaches to monitoring or CO are:

1. Ambient area and survey monitoring

2. Personal monitoring on the worker’s shirt lapel (breathing zone)

Personal electronic detectors (see table on the next page) with high- and low-level alarms are

recommended as a practical and economical choice. These detectors are available at moderate cost and

could be used or every-day monitoring as well as kept on hand or upset conditions when high CO levelsmight be anticipated. When buying any monitor, special attention should be paid to measurement accuracy,

pre-programmed alarm levels, maintenance, calibration procedures and instrument lie. See a saetyvendor or more inormation.

CA rooms are continually monitored or several environmental parameters, such as temperature, humidity,nitrogen, and carbon dioxide. Consider integrating a CO alarm into the room’s environmental monitoring

system.



24

Pass ive Average

Emergency Exposure Maint. & Instrument

Monitor Type Result Display Aler t1

(PEL)2

Calibration Accuracy Life Cost3

Stationary Electronic Monitors4 Digital Yes Yes High High Years $$$

Hand-held electronic survey (mobile) Digital No No High High Years $$,$$$Detector Tubes Color Change No No n/a Low(±25%) 1 day $

Passive Badges Color Change No Yes n/a Low(±25%) 1 day $

Personal Electronic Detectors Digital Yes Yes n/a Varies Up to 2 years $$

Ambient Area and Survey Mon itor ing

Personal Monitoring

Key eatures o dierent CO monitoring equipment

1Assuming the monitor is turned on in the morning and unctioning properly, reers to whether themonitor can alert to an emergency during a busy work day.

2 Reers to whether the monitor can calculate 8-hr time weighted and 5 minute average exposures that can be used to determine compliance with the PEL.

3Approximate Cost: $ = $15 each; $$ = $200 - $500; $$$ = $500 - $1,000; $$$ = > $1,000

4 Stationary electronic monitors require careul placement within the worker-occupied and orklit travel zones. Monitors that are placed outside o the worker-occupied zone and that do not measure the air that employees breathe may ail to alert in an emergency. Stationary monitors will become troublesome i the alarm chronically sounds and is routinely ignored.

Tip: Residential carbon monoxide detectors are not intended or use in an occupational setting.The built-in alarm point on residential detectors may not be accurate or low enough to detect

workplace CO exposures.

Tip: Consultants rom L&I’s Division o Occupational Saety and Health (DOSH) are availableor assistance with emission testing, particularly or small employers. These consultationsprovide ree, condential, no-penalty assessments. Consultation does require that you correctany serious hazards noted. See the DOSH contact inormation provided on page 30 or more

inormation.



25

Employee training and hazard communication

Who should be trained?

It is critical to train orklit mechanics and operators on CO so that they can accept their responsibility toprevent poisonings. Both warehouse employees who work near orklits and their supervisors should be

trained.

What should the training cover?

Use the sample CO Training Checklist provided in Appendix C to guide your training.



26



27

SummaryCarbon monoxide poisoning rom orklits is common in Washington State. Reducing your risk or COpoisoning makes good business sense, and this guide provides the details to help you choose the strategy that is right or you.

The rst strategy to consider in preventing CO poisoning is the use o electric orklits, particularly innon-ventilated spaces such as cold rooms and controlled atmosphere rooms. Company experiences withelectric orklits, as well as a orklit annualized cost-comparison worksheet, is provided.

The second strategy, or uel-driven orklits, is rooted in good engine maintenance that saves money andreduces CO emissions. I you use uel-driven lits indoors, include the ollowing in your comprehensive

strategy to prevent CO poisoning:

n Maintain engines at the proper air to uel ratio. Target CO emissions at 0.5% to 1%, and savemoney on uel costs at the same time.

n Use catalytic converters to reduce CO emissions.

n Conduct routine engine tune-ups.

n Conduct routine in-house emission testing to ensure CO emissions are 0.5% to 1%.

n Provide adequate general ventilation in areas where orklits operate.

n Conduct area CO monitoring to determine whether electric lits or uel-driven lits with catalyticconverters are needed. Conduct personal CO monitoring o workers to determine their exposure.

Keep a ew personal CO alarms on hand or use during upset conditions, when CO poisoningcould be a problem.

n Educate lit drivers and mechanics on their role in preventing CO poisoning. Educate all workersand supervisors on CO sources, symptoms, and action to take during a poisoning.



28



29

Regulations and Resources

Permissible exposure limits (PELs) or carbon monoxide

There are laws that govern the amount o CO in the air that workers can breathe. These standards do not

apply to orklit tailpipe emissions; they apply to the ambient air where employees are working. Knowingwhich standards apply to your business can be a challenge. The ollowing table lists the predominant

standards and recommendations. How do you gure out which standard applies to you? Consider theollowing:

1. Is your state regulated by the Occupational Saety & Health Administration (OSHA)? Go to

www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp to nd out.

2. I your state is governed by OSHA, ollow the column titled OSHA PEL in the table below.

3. I your state has its own State-OSHA Plan, then you need to check with your state’s labordepartment to nd out what the relevant standards are. Use the State Plan Directory at www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp to nd out who to call. (Note: State-OSHA standards are at least equivalent to OSHA, but they can be more stringent (e.g., a lower PEL, such as in Washington State).

4. I you want to ollow the best saety practices, strive or the levels listed in the NIOSH andACGIH columns. These are recommendations rather than standards. The NIOSH column isparticularly applicable i the work shit is 10 hours long rather than 8 hours long.

5. I your business is located in Washington State, ollow the last column which is specic toWashington’s Industrial Saety and Health Act (WISHA).

Standards or carbon monoxide in air

Time Interval1OSHA PEL2 NIOSH REL3 ACGIH TLV4 WISHA PEL5

10-hr TWA6 -- 35 ppm -- --

8-hr TWA 50 ppm -- 25 ppm 35 ppm

Ceiling Value7 -- 200 ppm -- 200 ppm9

IDLH8 -- 1200 ppm -- 1500 ppm

1This is the length o time to which the standard applies2Occupational Saety & Health Act, Permissible Exposure Level

3National Institute or Occupational Saety and Health, Recommended Exposure Level

4American Conerence o Governmental Hygienists, Threshold Limit Value

5Washington Industrial Saety & Health Act, Permissible Exposure Level

6TWA: Time-weighted average7NIOSH ceiling values should not be exceeded at any time8Immediately Dangerous to Lie or Health, exit immediately

9WISHA ceiling value is a 5 minute average

http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp








30

Helpful resources

Washington State Department of Labor & Industries

Warning! Carbon Monoxide (CO) Gas! Posters (publication #81-1-2005) and Pamphlets (#81-2-2005) can be

obtained ree rom the SHARP Program at the Department o Labor & Industries:

http://www.Lni.wa.gov/Safety/Research/HazardousChem/CarbonMonoxide/default.asp or

by calling 1-888-667-4277. The materials are bilingual in English and Spanish.

Forklift Safety Guide for Employers. Available at:

http://www.Lni.wa.gov/IPUB/417-031-000.pdf (PDF fle).

Carbon Monoxide. Fact sheet available at:

http://www.Lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/CarbonMonoxide/default.asp .

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

NIOSH Alert, Preventing injuries and deaths of workers who operate or work near forklifts. DHHS (NIOSH)

Publication Number 2000 – 112a. August 2000. Available at www.cdc.gov/niosh/2001-109.html.

DOSH Consultation Services:To learn more about DOSH Consultation Services, go to: www.Lni.wa.gov/Safety/Basics/Assistance/ Consultation. To speak with someone directly, call the regional ofce near you.

Regional Phone Contacts

Everett........................................................................... 425-290-1431

Seattle........................................................................... 206-281-5533

Tacoma.......................................................................... 253-596-3917

Tumwater...................................................................... 360-902-5472

E. Wenatchee............................................................... 509-886-6570

Spokane........................................................................ 509-324-2543

List of AcronymsA/F Ratio Air to Fuel Ratio

CA Controlled Atmosphere

CFM Cubic Feet per Minute

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2

Carbon Dioxide

COHb Carboxyhemoglobin

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

HC Hydrocarbon

LPG Liquefed Petroleum Gas (includes propane)NO

xNitrogen Oxides (includes Nitric Oxide, NO, and Nitrogen Dioxide, NO

2)

PEL Permissible Exposure Limit

PPM Parts Per Million

WISHA Washington Industrial Saety & Health Act

http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Research/HazardousChem/CarbonMonoxide/default.asp

http://www.lni.wa.gov/IPUB/417-031-000.pdf

http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/CarbonMonoxide/default.asp

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/2001-109.html

http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Basics/Assistance/Consultation




http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/2001-109.html

http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/CarbonMonoxide/default.asp

http://www.lni.wa.gov/IPUB/417-031-000.pdf




31

LPG Electric

1 Truck Capacity lb lb

2 Price of Truck $ $

3 Estimated Truck Life yrs yrs

4 Annual Cost of Truck Ownership (L ine 2/3) $/yr $/yr

5 Cost of a pair of batteries (2) ---- $

6 Estimated cost of battery recycling & disposal ---- $

7 Estimated life of battery pair ---- yrs

8 Annual Cost of Battery Ownership (Line (5+6)/7) ---- $/yr

9 Charger Cost ---- $

10 Charger Life ---- yrs

11 Annual Cost of Charger Ownership (Line 9/10) ---- $/yr

12 Total Annual Ownership Cost (Lines 4+8+11) $/yr $/yr

13 Fuel Cost $/yr $/yr

14 Annual Hours of Operation hrs/yr hrs/yr

15 Total Annual Energy Cost (Lines 13 x 14) $/yr $/yr

16 Yearly Maintenance Labor Cost (include emission testing) $/yr $/yr

17 Yearly Maintenance Parts Cost (include catalytic converter) $/yr $/yr

18 Total Annual Maintenance Cost (Lines 16+17) $/yr $/yr

19 Total Annual Cost (Lines 12+15+18) $/yr $/yr

Annual Cost Analysis for Electr ic and Fuel -Driven Forkl if ts*

ENERGY COST

MAINTENANCE COST

COST TOTALS

OWNERSHIP COST

Appendix A.

Cost Analysis Worksheet o Electric and Fuel-Driven Forklits

The ollowing table outlines the major annual costs associated with both electric and LPG-poweredorklits. The list may not be complete, but it is a starting point or comparing the two types o orklits.

Work with your orklit vendor to estimate the costs and benets o either type o lit.

* Adapted rom Yausa Batteries Inc’s Web site, beore they sold their industrial battery line.

Additional costs that may be dicult to quantiy but that should be listed:

n Cost o battery storage room vs. propane uel tank replacement & maintenance.

n Cost o CO monitors and badges.

n Cost savings realized by averting workers’ compensation claims and WISHA penalties related toCO poisoning.



32





34



35

Appendix C.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Employee Training Checklist

The ollowing checklist can serve as a guide or topics that should be covered in employee training.

DateDiscussed

Topic

Discuss where carbon monoxide gas is generated at your company.

Carbon monoxide gas cannot be detected by the senses. You:

c Cannot taste itc Cannot smell it

c Cannot see it

Signs and Symptoms of CO Poisoning

c Feels like sudden onset o the uc Headachec Dizzinessc Nausea

c Rapid breathingc Chest painc Unconsciousnessc Death

How drivers can protect themselves and others:

c Do not allow lits to idle.c Keep engines well tuned to emit 1% CO or less.c Do not adjust the carburetor outside o a tune-up.c Maintain catalytic converters.c Do not operate uel-driven lits in non-ventilated areas.c Immediately remove lits suspected o high CO rom operation.c Be wary o rental lits. Ask the vendor what % CO they emit.c Other (?).

How employees can protect themselves and others:

c Do not work in confned areas with uel-driven lits.c

Do not work in sealed umigation rooms with uel-driven lits.c Report non-working ventilation immediately to supervisor.c Notiy supervisor immediately i CO monitor alarms.c Seek help immediately i you suspect CO poisoning.c Watch or illness in your co-workers.c Other (?)

Pay attention to unusual situations that have caused CO poisoning in the past:

c Restricted ventilation or any reason.c Non-unctional ventilation.c Use o rented orklits without knowledge o CO emissions.c Upset conditions such as restacking collapsed storage.c Re-routed orklit trafc closer to worker stations.c

Other (?)CO Monitoring in the workplace

c What the CO monitors do.c What the alarms mean.c Action to take when an alarm sounds.c Other (?)

Emergency Response

c Seek resh air immediately i you suspect CO poisoning.c Call 911 or victims who are ill or unconscious.



36

Appendix C, continuedEducational posters and pamphlets, titled Warning! Carbon Monoxide Gas! are available in English andSpanish rom Labor & Industries. Download these documents rom:

http://www.Lni.wa.gov/Saety/Research/HazardousChem/CarbonMonoxide/deault.asp or call the SHARP

Program at 1-888-667-4277.

To reinorce the concept that all uel-burning combustion engines produce CO gas, ask your employees to think about engines they may have at home that produce CO. Home atalities do occur rom generators and

heaters used in non-ventilated garages and sheds adjacent to the home.

Beore the training identiy all possible sources o CO.

All combustion engines produce CO gas. Examples include:

5 Fuel-driven orklits 5 Generators

5 Heaters 5 Power washers

5 Idling trucks 5 Portable saws

5 Sprayers 5 Floor scrubbers





37

This document was produced by:

Carolyn Whitaker, CIH, MS

Washington State Department of Labor & Industries

SHARP Program

PO Box 44330

Olympia, WA 98504

Telephone: 1-888-667-4277

Fax: 360-902-5672

Web site: www.Lni.wa.gov/safety/research

Email: [email protected]

A Note about this Publication

The purpose o this document is to educate employers on dierent strategies that can be used to prevent

carbon monoxide poisonings rom internal combustion orklits. Mention o proprietary names does not

constitute endorsement by Labor & Industries or the SHARP Program.

An electronic copy o this report can be ound at: http://www.Lni.wa.gov/Safety/Research/ HazardousChem/CarbonMonoxide/default.asp.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Gerry Croteau at the University o Washington’s Field Research & Consultation

Group or conducting the company profles on electric orklits and or document review. Thanks to

McDougal & Sons, Inc. or inormation on electric lit use, and to Zirkle Fruit Company or electric litinormation as well as or many o the photos included in this document. Thanks to SHARP sta Eddy

Rauser or providing claims data, Gary Greve or graphics and document layout, and Rob Anderson, Christy

Curwick and Steve Whittaker or document review. Thank you to those who granted telephone interviews

and document review: Blanke Industries, Inc., Nett Technologies, Yakima Papé Material Handling, and the

Washington Farm Bureau. From Labor & Industries, thanks go to John McFadden or photo credits, and

DOSH regional and central ofce sta or document review.

Other formats for persons with disabilities are available on request.Call 1-800-547-8367. TDD users, call 360-902-5797. L&I is anequal opportunity employer.

Publication Number 81-3-2009

Revised October 2009

http://www.lni.wa.gov/safety/research

mailto:Mailto:sharp%40Lni.wa.gov?subject=





mailto:Mailto:sharp%40Lni.wa.gov?subject=

http://www.lni.wa.gov/safety/research







Documents

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning 05-12-09