Industrial Hygiene in Construction

Unfortunately this website has taken a backseat to actual work. My apologies for not updating the information, and especially to trusted subscribers of this site.

In the coming months, I plan to publish more posts with the same type of information. Thanks for hanging on. – Alden

As a preview: Did you notice that the State of Michigan OSHA (MIOSH) has updated (lowered) their lead (Pb) blood level mandates? Sadly, it took a lot of people being overexposed to lead (remember Flint, MI?) in order to make this simple change. I hope other states follow.

Only the enforcement of the new silica rule has been delayed until September 23, 2107.  The Federal OSHA silica rule is still being implemented and will take effect on June 23, 2017.

OSHA says in their memorandum they are delaying the enforcement because they hope to develop additional guidance materials and train their compliance officers.

I suspect that many individual state plan OSHA (like Cal-OSHA, etc) may also delay like Federal OSHA, whether or not they announce it.

The new silica rule for construction is a lot of work, retooling, and training. If you haven’t started, there’s no time to lose. I would suggest you start by:

• Examine the tasks you perform which may have dust exposure (grinding, concrete cutting, milling, etc.)
• Refer to the Federal OSHA Small Entity Guide and see if you are properly tooled (have the correct equipment to control exposure)
• If the tasks aren’t listed in Table I – then you have more work to do (look at alternative control methods)
• Train your employees. Both in general awareness & for the competent person. Consider making your own company training video (like this one). Don’t worry, it doesn’t have to be awesome Hollywood cinematography…but having a training which is specific to your company, tools, and activities is best.

There is a lot more to the rule, but the above steps are the best place to start.

Honestly, I did not think lead exposure to adults (and even kids in small amounts) was an issue. Mainly because:

• OSHA has good (protective) rules on lead in construction (updated in 1993) and they mimic the ACGIH TLVs.
• We all have lead in our blood. (…and I seem to be doing fine)
• We are doing better as a society. For example: no more* leaded gasoline.

But, one technical session last year at a conference changed my mind. We have a long ways to go.

The point: low levels of lead may have significant health consequences. And, if you have lead (Pb) in your body–it is from a source.

If I haven’t convinced you, the CDC is also considering ANOTHER reduction in childhood blood lead levels. In 2012 they reduced the advisory blood lead levels (in children) to 5 ug/dl. Later this month (Jan 17, 2017) they are meeting to consider reducing this level to 3.5 ug/dl! Whether of not they reduce it, the fact they are considering it should further our attention.

And, if you think this just applies to industries with heavy lead, think again. It has A LOT to do with construction.

“Construction Program researchers and the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) conducted a surveillance study in 1993 and 1994 involving the voluntary participation of 46 construction workers’ families. BLL (blood lead level) testing of young children indicated that the workers’ children, particularly those under age six, were at greater risk of having elevated BLLs (≥ 10 µg/dL) than children in the general population”

We (you) must pinpoint the source of your lead exposure. And, it may not be obvious. Since lead exposure can occur from airborne levels and by ingestion, the sources of lead exposure can vary widely.

For example, in Flint, Michigan they changed water sources to a more natural one. But, *spoiler alert*, the water had more salt – which was corrosive – which leached higher levels of lead from the pipes. Other sources can include: kids toys, jewelry, fishing weights, battery recycling, glass manufacturing, etc. (the picture of the above light pole looks like galvanized metal, but actually contained 45% leaded paint!)

What to do…

• Train and make people aware of the issue (free video that we produced! 1:31)
• Blame someone. Just kidding. Find the source of your lead exposure.
• Before starting a project, know where the lead paint is, and the activities you plan on performing.
• Get your blood tested for lead levels
• Wear the proper PPE and ESPECIALLY have good hygiene
• Perform air monitoring (and probably wipe sampling) to verify lead is not escaping from project.

At this point, the OSHA silica rules are forthcoming, what should you be doing to prepare?

• Read the OSHA Small Entity Guide. Initially it is daunting – 103 pages, but much of it is specific to tasks from Table 1 and the full rules are within it, as well. Plus, they have pictures!
• Identify tasks which could have silica exposures 
• Train employees, identify your “competent person(s)” – my suggestion is: Superintendents/Project Managers
  • Warn those on your projects: NO VISIBLE DUST on any tasks (cutting, finishing, dry sweeping, etc.)
• Document activities with airborne silica exposures below 25 ug/m3
• Identify possible solutions for overexposures
  • Verify airborne levels with personal air sampling
• Start a process to log the number of days with (any) exposure – >30 is inclusion into medical
• Find a medical provider that can have medical screen performed & with a B reader

*Thanks Andrew for the photos*

I was recently forwarded an article on a gentleman who won a large sum of money ($8.75 million) for an asbestos related disease. There are many people getting these types of settlements for similar exposures.

However, what is interesting, is the attorneys argued the company knew about asbestos in 1965, but the exposure occurred in the 1970’s. Keep in mind, the asbestos rules at OSHA didn’t come out until the 1970s as well. So, exposure occurred before the regulations were in effect.

So, they knew of the airborne hazard, but continued to exposure workers before there was a rule. Does this sound like any modern day issue?   –hint– silica?!

Nowadays with the public being uber-aware of “potential” airborne hazards (mold?), with information so readily available, with OSHA rules outdated (annotated Z1 tables), and others publishing health standards like ACGIH,….the lesson is: protect your employees.

I don’t think we should be arguing about the OSHA rules. Let’s use available information and science. “More Than Just A Number” (article published by AIHA, May 24, 2016).

Exciting news! In just a few months we will be releasing free training materials!

In summary: I applied (and obtained) a grant through OSHA to produce training materials for the four major health hazards in construction. We are titling it, “Focus 4 Health Hazards for Construction”.  (similar to the Focus 4 Susan Harwood training materials available at OSHA)

Indented audience is for younger construction workers in hazard recognition of, 1. silica, 2. noise, 3. asbestos and 4. lead (pb) in construction. A short video (1-4 minutes) for each subject gives an introduction to the hazard. And, to follow up a training power point presentation (and short summary) will also be available to further instruct people in how to control and protect themselves.

On a personal level…it has been exhausting, and I’ve learned a lot!  From obtaining the grant, to hiring a videographer, filming, securing filming sites, and quarterly reports…. exhausting.  But, I’m confident you (and others) will enjoy it. Subscribe (via email) to keep updated. You can also follow me on instagram: “adventuresInIH”. (link coming)

You’ve probably heard the Federal silica proposed-rule has moved in it’s next step towards being a promulgated-rule.

And, you’ve hopefully looked at my prior post about the positives and negatives of the rule. I am usually not in favor of more rules, but as a safety person, my overall opinion is the new rule would be good.

However, there is some opposition (EHS Today Summary Article) from a few industry groups and associations, including ARTBA, NAM, and the ACC in an article to plastic manufacturers. And just recently a lawsuit was filed to stop the rule. They have some good arguments, of which, I think the best are: THERE ARE ALREADY OVEREXPOSURES at the current PEL, and silica related deaths have been in decline for decades.

The ACGIH and NIOSH have been recommending lower airborne limits for years. If you are a construction firm, hopefully you already have (engineering & administrative) controls and respiratory protection in place. If not, the best time to start was yesterday, and the next best time is tomorrow.

OSHA has recently announced the final time frame for the proposed silica rule. February 1, 2015 is their anticipated rule promulgation. However, we will see if anyone protests this new information, and if the date for final rule “sticks”.

AIHA broke the news (at least to me) and you can see their summary here. If this is the first you’ve heard about this new rule, then it’s time to do some research, and I might recommend starting here. There are quite a few new requirements, including a lower permissible exposure limit (PEL).

“Do I need a bloodborne pathogens (BBP) program for my construction company?”

Of course, the answer depends, . But, OSHA does have a letter of interpretation.

The basics are: do your employees have DAILY exposure (anticipated exposure) to blood, or blood containing substances? Further defined as; “today we are going to pick up these bloody needles. Or, “this afternoon we are going into this live sewer, which is coming from the treatment plant”.

Here is OSHA Bloodborne construction letter of interp, but interpret the letter of interpretation yourself. 🙂

“…while the bloodborne pathogens standard does not apply to construction work, as defined in 29 CFR 1910.12(b), it does apply to employees performing maintenance activities who experience occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials. OSHA expects the construction employer performing maintenance activities to take the following precautions as required by the following referenced standards: Section 29 CFR 1926.21(b)(2) requires that the employer instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe condition…”

In summary, most construction firms do NOT need a full blown bloodborne pathogen program. However, you should still train your employees on the hazards they might incur. This might include the hazards of bloodborne pathogens. There may be a time and project where they wished they had the training.

There is a lot of confusion over confined spaces in construction. OSHA is enforcing these rules since Aug 3, 2015, but has given a 60 day postponement (effective Oct 2, 2015). Right now you need to make “good faith efforts” to comply. For those in construction, you need to get up to speed, and even more importantly, get confident. Unfortunately, this information isn’t going to get you 100% there.

The reason confined spaces (and the rules) are so complicated is because every space is different. It’s not a minimum height guard rail, or fall arrest system. There are just too many factors, including: 

• the size (or smallness)
• the ventilation (or lack of)
• access (or lack of)
• the work activity (what you introduce)
• the hazards (before you enter, and what you introduce)
• the people inside (people are different, and work different)

To begin getting educated, here are my suggestions:

• Know the definition of (and when it’s) a confined space (hint: 3 things)
• Know the location(s) of your confined spaces (AND mark them as such)
• Train your employees and yourself
• Buy a multi-gas meter
  • And, know how to use it, bump it, and calibrate it
  • And, train others
• Know: host employer, controlling contractor, sub contractor, mobile worker. It may not be obvious.
• Know: ventilation. When you can use it,  what changes, and how much you need
• Understand “rescue”.  And, the answer is not calling 911.

When an accident happens in a confined space, there’s a high likelihood it’s a fatality.

If you have confidence in the rules, and, more importantly, in the hazards & controls, confined spaces can be safe.