Industrial Hygiene in Construction

Controlling most of these types of exposures is really simple. If you know the job- and you know it will generate airborne silica = Pre Task Plan!

I wish Superintendents would enforce their project managers, or project engineers, to make a pre-task plan for every concrete/silica producing task. Then, (please don’t stop yet), review the plan once the project starts!

Below are two examples with different outcomes:

1. Cutting concrete block.

The pretask plan called for a garden hose with attachment(s) to wet the cutting area. Everything was perfect until the water was shut off. But, they improvised and found an electric water pump with bucket and recycled the water. It was a great outcome. What if the power went out? They could have used a Hudson sprayer.

2. Grinding plaster off a brick wall.

They built an enclosure and containment. They had a negative air machine with HEPA filters. They had a vacuum with HEPA filters, tyvek, 1/2 face respirator, eye protection, etc. But, as they worked the vacuum couldn’t keep up with the amount of dust generated by the 7 inch Bosch grinder. It was really dusty. They worked like this for days. No one onsite saw them because they were in containment. Unfortunately  the project is almost over and it could have been better. A simple shroud to the grinder, like this one (no endorcement) might have controlled the dust & silica. Sure, it might have been troublesome to find the exact one, and get a vacuum attachment, and have the extra weight, and ….

So, let’s talk to people about silica, talk about solutions, and then check to see if they’re effective.

There are some items you need to do BEFORE you wear a respirator. If you are using it on a voluntary basis, go here.

1. obtain medical approvalfor employees to wear a respirator
   • fill out a questionaiire (just like Appendix C of OSHA)
   • they might have you perform a lung function test (spirometry)
   • you will get a yes/no answer (probably 99% are approved)
   • you might try an online medical evaluation
2. have a fit test performed
   • qualitative fit test unless you wear a full face mask, or a type better than this
   • my favorite choice is irritant smoke, but it could also be saccharine, isoamyl acetate (banana), or Bitrex (R).
3. get trained. Learn how to:
   • clean it
   • store it
   • know what your respirator can’t protect you from
   • choose the right cartridges
   • know when you have break through
   • fit check (different than a fit test -BTW)

Wondering how often you must update the above steps? Go here. There are more steps to having a respiratory program, but you must do these things before you start.

You must follow both. (I’ve mentioned this before)

OSHA’s rules are very detailed and apply to any amount of lead in paint (even less than 0.5%) if you are disturbing it. The only time OSHA rules do not apply is:

• if you are working as a sole-proprietor (no employees), or
• if you are in some other country.

EPA’s rules are just a start. They apply to any residential facility where there are kids under the age of 6. OSHA’s rules are much more comprehensive and protective. (in some instances, overkill)

To EPA’s credit, they have done a great job of marketing and letting contractors know they insist on compliance. OSHA, on the other hand, only inspects 2% of businesses/year and does virtually no marketing. The chances of OSHA showing up on any given jobsite, is nearly 0%.

OSHA’s rules are very complete and comprehensive. You WILL need air monitoring, blood monitoring, PPE, change areas, water/sanitation, and training. The worst thing you can do is NOT follow the OSHA rules, find overexposures, and then try to “make up” for it. From my experience this scenario is a bad place to be, and happens all the time.

When clients ask me to assist in choosing a product, I try to recommend a product with the least dangerous chemicals in it. I understand this isn’t always possible. However, I try to emphasize the worst case health scenarios and leave it up to the company to decide how to proceed. There are reasons to use a hazardous (to your health) product.

However, here are some considerations when choosing a hazardous product:

• more hazard vs less cost
• more hazard vs less time actually using product
• more hazard vs cost of PPE
• more hazard vs what the spec says
• more hazard vs different hazard
• more hazard vs terrible health effect/potential
• more hazard vs perception by others on the project (by the GC/public/subcontractors, media, neighbors)

Another issue with chemicals is the names and nomenclature. There are so many different names, common names, chemical names, and sub names of products – it gets confusing.

One solution called, ChemHat.org, offers a unique way of considering other chemicals. Plug in the CAS# (Chemical Abstract Number) or the name, and it gives you some ideas.

Another alternative in choosing the best product is to ask.

• Ask your industrial hygienist if this product is safe and/or are there concerns?
• Ask the GC if this is the only product that can be used
• Ask the architect if there are alternatives that are equally effective
• Ask the manufacturer if they have comparable products without the XXX hazard

Background: A new client recently had an OSHA health inspection (industrial hygiene). He received citations stemming from overexposures(they found levels above the PELs) to airborne particulates.

The company wondered what to do next. Here were my suggestions:

• Fix the problem. You will need to comply and assure that your employees aren’t overexposed. Even if the inspection made you upset, use your energy to make the situation right. Focus your energy on removing the hazard, not complaining about how you were treated.
  • Engineer the problem out. Remove the hazard. If not,
  • Change your policies so no one is further overexposed. If you can’t fix it by the this, or the above method, then,
  • Provide personal protective equipment to affected employees.
• Request the full inspection package. – this will include the officer’s field notes, interview questions, observations and sampling methodology.
  • look through these documents carefully
  • keep them for your records
•  Informally appeal the citations.
  • at the appeal show them you have complied/changed
  • ask for a reduction in fines (it never hurts to ask)
  • ask to group the citations together – instead of citation 1 item 1a, 1b, item 2, etc. ask to narrow it down to just one
  • bring any additional information which supports your side and/or the changes you’ve made (including training docs, programs, policies, etc.)
• Resample the areas.
  • make significant changes to these areas. Then,
  • hire an industrial hygienist to perform additional sampling in these areas
  • ask them to document the changes you have made to reduce the exposures
  • review this with your safety committee & those affected

You already knew it. There is a lot to do in industrial hygiene. At times this occupation feels like a safety middleman trying to keep people out of trouble. Occasionally I’m rewarded with really helping someone. In the United States, there is still a lot of occupational hygiene issues and concerns. Overseas, particularly in developing countries, there is even more.

It is hard to obtain accurate exposure data, or illness rates, from these underdeveloped countries. (How does a village of 1,000 people in Kenya report that they’ve had lead exposure to battery recycling?) How these exposures are brought to light is by either a massive death (# of people, quickly) or, someone with a camera able to actually photograph the pollution. As we know, what it looks like doesn’t necessarily correlate with hazardous levels of exposure. But, in some cases, it’s pretty obvious.

I ran across this photo story on pollution (The Guardian, UK). They estimate 125 million people are exposed to industrial pollutants (generic term, I know). This makes occupational related exposures a health risk as big as TB and Malaria! The article is based upon a report from the Blacksmith Institute which included this map of the worst pollution with associated disease.

How does this apply to construction? The worst offenders are lead (Pb) (and other metals), and asbestos.

What can you do? Here’s their recommendation, from the report (p50):

Developing countries need the support of the international community
to design and implement clean up efforts, improve pollution control technologies, and provide educational
trainings to industry workers and the surrounding community

Another NPR article about lead poisoning can be found here.

If you operate a ready-mix plant and have concrete trucks, you are aware of this process. Once a year (hopefully, only once) a person must climb into the drum of the ready-mix truck and chip off excess concrete. What happen during regular use, is that some concrete hardens, which usually sets-up over and around the blades. Access into the drum is by either the 3×4 hole in the side, or down the chute.

Yes, it is a confined space (def’n: 1. large enough to enter, 2. not designed for occupancy, and 3. limited entry/egress).

Here are a list of the possible hazards:

• silica dust (from chipping concrete)
• noise exposure
• hazardous atmosphere (curing concrete uses up oxygen, which we DO need BTW)
• slipping hazard (drum is round inside)
• heat stress (if you’re trying to do this activity in the summer)
• eye hazard (chipping)
• electrical hazard (if you’re using water & have an electric hammer)
• lock out / tag out (if the truck drives away, or if the barrel starts turning)

There are many resources available (see below). Some things to keep in mind; ventilation (fans, etc) to control the airborne silica dust are usually not effective (too much dust versus exhaust). Water controls are best, but you must limit the amount of water and the direction of the sprayer. I suggest looking at what others have done.

Keep in mind, if you perform this activity you will need (as a company):

• respiratory program (medical, fit test, written plan)
• confined space program (multi gas meter, written program, attendant?)
• lock out /tag out policy or procedures
• training (for each of the above, and for this specific activity)

At this point I know what my contractor-friends are thinking…I will subcontract this out!   ha. If you do, please make sure your sub is doing it right.

Resources:

Georgia Tech – good presentation & guidance

Georgia Tech/OSHA – Safe Work Practices (in Spanish too!)

Teamsters H&S hazards & controls

Illinois DCEO – Consultation on ready mix cleaning

Yes. If you are in construction, I recommend it. Here’s why:

First, the rules. OSHA does NOT have a specific construction standard for hearing conservation. Why does this matter? Well, the current OSHA rules state that if you have 1 day (that’s only one day) of average noise level above an average of 85 decibels A-weighted (dBA), called the Action Limit, you are required to start a program. Obviously noise levels vary on construction jobsites. I’d guess that most projects have at least one day of levels above 85dBA’s.

And, these particular OSHA rules are terrible. Well, they are terrible if you care about your hearing. (see my earlier post). The rules are simply not protective enough. If you are exposed to noise for 8-hours a day at 90 dBA (the OSHA average exposure limit) you WILL have hearing loss (this is without hearing protection). Does that seem like a very protective rule?  I’ve heard talk about them changing it, but…I doubt it will ever happen.

Second, let’s consider cost vs. reward. To start a hearing conservation program you must measure your employees hearing , called audiometric testing (and do a few other things). It costs approximately $20/employee to do this per year. Compare this with the average claim (of hearing loss) cost of around $20,000. So, if you have 20 employees, and it costs you $400/year…it takes about 50 years to pay yourself back for NOT starting a program. ($20,000/400= 50 years)

Third, consider your employees. Having their hearing checked may seem like a hassle and a worthless exercise, but, some will appreciate it. I’ve found that employees like to know how they are hearing. It’s good if your employer cares how well you hear. It’s also a yearly reminder in hazard awareness to noise.

Because in construction, we know there’s noise!

If you’re dead-set on NOT having a program, you’ll need documented noise dosimetry for each employee, job task, and possible overexposure above 85 dBAs. It is possible  for a construction company to avoid having a program, but you have the burden to prove there isn’t noise. Call your favorite industrial hygienist for help.

Assume your general contractor reports that he has found a material (floor tile, popcorn ceiling, etc) with less than 1%. He wants you to remove it with the rest of the demolition because, as you know, “…if it’s less than 1%, it’s NOT considered asbestos containing!”.

Are you ok to remove it?

Yes, and no. There is more to consider. The “1% rule” (as it’s called) as it is called states that they only regulate asbestos containing materials if they contain more than 1% of asbestos. Here are a few other considerations:

1. OSHA definition. Don’t get stuck on the definition. If you have employees, you must still follow parts of the OSHA rules. At a minimum, you must train your employees, work practices, clean-up and disposal requirments. More details on training here.
2. How were the samples taken? If one bulk sample shows less than 1% asbestos, you still might have a problem. According to the EPA/AHERA sampling rules, some types of materials must have up to 7 samples taken. This rule is in place because, back in the day, asbestos was added to joint compound (or anything similar) and it could really vary in amount according to where you take the sample. In addition, OSHA does not allow for composite sampling (combining the layers).
3. Do you know that 0.99% asbestos is still bad for you? Asbestos is a carcinogen. The greater the exposure, the greater the risk of disease. Any exposure could be the one to cause the disease. If the material is friable and you are disturbing it, I would NOT recommend performing that activity. Hire an abatement contractor.
4. Finally.Let’s assume it’s non-friable, you are not going to disturb it (when removing it) and it’s less than 1%. What will you do if your neighbor next door decides to call OSHA/EPA? Do you have a written plan and procedure? Have your employees been trained on the hazard? How to remove it? How to dispose of it? …Sometimes bad publicity will get you in worse trouble than any monetary fine.

 

The new standard for material safety data sheets (MSDS) which incorporate the global harmonization system (GHS) rules are coming.

Federal OSHA has approved the rules, and in our state, Oregon, they have been proposed, with an adoption to take place in December 2013.

It’s time to panic!… No. Not really.

Most employers will have until December of 2013 to implement the rules. OSHA will be publishing additional (and hopefully, helpful) information on what to do. For most employers it will mean you need to do a few major things:

• Train your employees on the new rules
• Reclassify (rename) the hazards, mainly the flammable ones, which have changed the most.

If you really need help with this, or feel like you can’t wait until OSHA publishes more information, email or find me here and we can discuss.