|
Spring
2003 Update
By Eileen Senn, MS, CIH
Author's Note: Precious little
in industrial hygiene has changed since this article was first
published in New Solutions in spring 1991. Some industrial hygienists
do practice using the principles outlined here, especially those
working for unions, COSH groups, and occupational health clinics.
However, most industrial hygienists, including those who work
for OSHA, are still dependent on exposure limits and air sampling.
Due to court action, the "updated" OSHA PELs never
came to fruition. On the plus side, a few more comprehensive
OSHA standards for chemicals have been promulgated. The OSHA
standards on personal protective equipment, including respirators,
have been revised. NIOSH has many new publications available.
The Internet has dramatically increased access to health and
safety information. These changes are reflected in this updated
version of Playing Industrial Hygiene to Win.
In the wider world during
the past decade, progressive folks, especially within the environmental
movement, have been working on the "Precautionary Principle".
I believe this work has tremendous potential for application
to occupational health and is quite relevant to playing industrial
hygiene to win. The Precautionary Principle, proposed as a new
guideline in environmental decision-making, suggests that when
an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment,
precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and
effect relationships are not fully established. The principle
has four central components: taking preventive action in the
face of uncertainty; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents
of an activity; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly
harmful actions; and increasing public participation in decision
making. For more information, please visit these web sites:
http://www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html
http://www.futurenet.org/19technology/raffensberger.htm
http://www.pmac.net/precaut.htm
Note especially reference 11, Implementation of the precautionary
principle in standards for the workplace
http://staff.washington.edu/oshalert/OHS_Resolutions.htm
See resolution 200011: Precautionary Principle and Children's
Health
http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2001/109p871-876kriebel/abstract.html
http://www.rachel.org/search/index.cfm?St=1
Related Articles by the Author:
1. Controlling Chemical Exposure: Industrial Hygiene Fact Sheets
- Concise Guidance on 16 Components of Industrial Hygiene Controls
- www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/survweb/ihfs.pdf
2. Clear and Complete Presentation of Air Sampling Data - New
Solutions, Volume 2, Number 2, 247-252, 1999
3. Ending OSHA's Dependence on Exposure Limits, Applied Occupational
and Environmental Hygiene, 10 (6), 520-522, June 1995, in OSHA
Compliance Issues column.
Your comments and suggestions
on any of these articles are most welcome. Please e-mail me at
eisenn@msn.com.
ITEM - Numerous workers become
sensitized to toluene diisocyanate (TDI) at a plant manufacturing
foam automobile seats. Personal air sampling conducted by corporate
industrial hygienists consistently shows levels of TDI to be
within all legal and recommended standards.
ITEM - Dozens of workers in a
new office building suffer eye, nose and throat irritation. Vendors
who supplied the furniture, partitions and carpeting all reveal
that they used formaldehyde in their products. Air samples collected
by an indoor air quality consultant, however, show formaldehyde
levels in compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) standard.
ITEM - Workers at a construction
site become ill and bulk samples of the soil reveal high levels
of phenols and many other chemicals. Industrial hygienists from
OSHA collect personal air samples but can find no violations
of OSHA's Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs).
ITEM - Machinery noise levels
at a carburetor-rebuilding factory create stressful working conditions
and damage workers' hearing. An OSHA industrial hygienist measures
noise levels high enough for management to require workers to
wear earplugs but not high enough to require management to quiet
the machinery.
INTRODUCTION
Industrial hygienists can be
extremely helpful to workers by identifying, evaluating and recommending
controls for health hazards on the job. Experience has shown,
however, that industrial hygienists' personal exposure monitoring
and exposure limits have been used to "scientifically prove"
that working conditions are "safe" when they were not,
even when workers were getting sick.
The idea of measuring how much
of a chemical, radiation, noise or other hazard a worker is exposed
to and comparing this to a level that has been proven to be safe
is not a bad idea. But there are many problems with the way this
has worked in practice.
- Problem I: Most chemicals and
other hazards have not had adequate long-term tests conducted
to determine whether they can cause cancer, damage brain and
nervous system function, lung function, immune and hormone systems
function, reproductive system function or many other vital bodily
function.
- Problem 2: Legal or recommended
limits are often thousands of times too high to protect health.
Many limits were set using unscientific, irregular procedures
and corporations have strongly influenced or even dictated the
outcome.
- Problem 3: OSHA tried to "update"
its PELs in 1988. However, it did not use the latest scientific
methods or information to do so, and the new PELs were only slightly
more protective than the old ones. The new rule was remanded
by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and these limits are not
currently in force.
- Problem 4: Most measurements
of worker exposure have been incomplete and inaccurate.
- Problem 5: Industrial hygienists'
preoccupation with the ritual of air sampling has given the impression
that this is the best way to approach an occupational health
problem and detracted from other, more useful activities that
industrial hygienists can perform such as evaluating controls.
Because of these problems, industrial
hygiene monitoring usually paints a rosy picture of conditions
in the workplace by giving it a "Clean Bill of Health."
Even though this is often false, it is hard to dispute because
it appears to be quantitative and scientific.
BEWARE THE "CLEAN BILL
OF HEALTH"
Workers and their unions should
be aware of the potential use of industrial hygiene monitoring
against them. Certain wording in an industrial hygiene report
is often a tip-off that a "Clean Bill of Health" is
in the making. Two examples are:
1. "No violations of OSHA standards were found." This
statement seems designed to give peace of mind to those unfamiliar
with the inadequate nature of most OSHA standards. It also implies
that compliance with every standard was checked - a highly unlikely
possibility
2. "The concentrations of; y and z were found to be well
below any legal or recommended standard." This statement
is easily misinterpreted to mean that no adverse health effects
are expected at the levels found. The statement also implies
that exposure to these particular chemicals is the only health
concern at the workplace.
DEALING WITH THE INDUSTRIAL
HYGIENIST
For whom the industrial hygienist works greatly influences how
willing and able he or she will be to listen to and assist workers
and unions. The majority of industrial hygienists work for corporations/employers
either directly or as hired consultants. Many want to do a good
job but are hampered by their employer. Some are used as little
more than technicians to measure air contaminants. Their professional
judgment and experience rarely are called upon to make recommendations
for improvement in the workplace. In some cases, a union may
be powerful enough to have a corporate industrial hygienist do
a proper evaluation and make useful recommendations. The tendency,
however, of a corporate industrial hygienist will be not to talk
to the union unless it demands involvement. Contract language
that mandates union involvement is therefore, very helpful.
Obviously, it is ideal if the
industrial hygienist works for the union directly or is hired
as a union consultant. The courts have ruled that, under the
National Labor Relations Act, unions have the right to have their
own health and safety expert make workplace surveys and recommend
improvements. Ongoing relations between the union health and
safety committee and the industrial hygienist are necessary to
evaluate the workplace, make educated tactical choices and educate
members. These judgments require union committees to think about
priority setting both to get victories and to confront the most
serious hazards.
Because of their dependence on
air sampling, poor quality exposure limits, and other problems
discussed later, government industrial hygienists working for
OSHA really have their hands tied at this time unless the problem
is one of the few where OSHA has a useful standard (see Appendix
2). In most cases involving chemical exposure, they will
be unable to issue citations. However, they should be asked to
write a letter describing the hazards they observed but could
not cite and making control recommendations.
Hygienists working for the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) or state
governments usually have the freedom to write reports containing
strong recommendations and should be asked to do so. It will
be totally up to the union to negotiate with management to implement
the recommendations, however, since these agencies have no enforcement
powers.
MISINTERPRETATION OF OSHA
HEALTH INSPECTIONS
OSHA health inspections that
do not result in citations are especially subject to misinterpretation
as a "Clean Bill of Health." When OSHA cannot find
violations of its exposure limits for chemicals, radiation or
noise, it is not permitted to issue a citation ordering the employer
to correct the problems. The employer is then likely to claim
that there are no health hazards in the workplace even when workers
are experiencing health problems. Even if a citation is issued,
people mistakenly may believe that the citation lists everything
wrong in the workplace.
In reality, there may be many
hazards in the workplace that OSHA did not observe or OSHA's
industrial hygiene sampling did not pick up. Some of the reasons
for this could be:
- The process used by OSHA is
backwards. Instead of focusing on health complaints, the OSHA
industrial hygienist looks at exposure numbers. For workers,
this adds insult to injury.
- OSHA sampling only evaluates
how much of a chemical enters the body by being breathed in.
But many chemicals also are absorbed through the skin or accidentally
eaten due to contaminated lunchrooms.
- OSHA most often measures only
for one or two chemicals, rather than for all those to which
workers are exposed.
- OSHA does not consider the combined
effects of chemicals and other hazards such as heat and noise.
- OSHA usually collects air samples
for only one day and may easily miss peak exposures occurring
during maintenance, leaks, and emergencies, especially if they
occur after first shift.
- Variations due to season or
production schedules also may be missed.
- During the OSHA inspection,
the employer may slow down production or change the chemicals
or procedures used to try to hide bad conditions.
CHOOSING WHEN TO FILE OSHA
HEALTH COMPLAINTS
Before filing an OSHA health
complaint you should be fairly sure that there are violations
of OSHA standards in your workplace. Otherwise, there is a good
chance that the problems you are concerned about will not be
cited by OSHA, giving the impression that everything is fine.
There are several chemical-related
OSHA health standards that apply to all workplaces and that are
widely violated. These include 1910.1200 - Hazard Communication,
1910.1020 - Access to Medical and Monitoring Data, and 1904 -
Recording and Reporting Illnesses. Whenever you file a complaint,
these should be mentioned if you have reason to believe the employer
is out of compliance.
The OSHA noise standard, 1910.95,
is also widely violated and may be something you will have success
with in an OSHA complaint.
When the problem you face is
reducing exposure to chemicals, however, you come right up against
the problem of PELs that are too high to protect workers from
health effects. There are only a few chemicals for which OSHA
has even a small chance of finding overexposures when it collects
air samples. These are listed in Appendix
4. There are no solvents on this list; OSHA has virtually
no chance of finding solvent exposures above the solvent PELs
because they are hundreds of times too high to protect health.
There is another group of chemicals
that has comprehensive OSHA standards. These are listed in Appendix 2. Comprehensive standards
specify a whole range of requirements for air monitoring, personal
protective equipment, engineering controls and work practices,
medical monitoring and employee education and training. Most
of these requirements go into effect only when the PEL or half
of the PEL (the "action level") is exceeded but some
provisions apply even when exposure limits are not exceeded.
The PELs in comprehensive standards are, on the whole, much more
protective than PELs in the OSHA Z tables. So if you have a problem
with one of the chemicals with a comprehensive standard, an OSHA
inspection may be helpful.
If employees are required to
wear personal protective equipment such as respirators or eye
or face protection, check to see if the provisions of 1910.132,
1910.133, 1910.134, 1910.136, and 1910.138 are being followed.
General requirements for all personal protective equipment are
contained in 1910.132.
Some helpful provisions of the
other chemical-related standards are given in Appendix
2. The full text of these standards should be consulted to
see if the employer is violating any provisions. These are available
at www.osha.gov.
WRITING YOUR OWN RULES FOR
THE CORPORATE NUMBERS GAME
Because corporate industrial
hygiene monitoring is most often used against workers, it should
be approached with extreme caution. The union must do its best
to assure that monitoring will benefit workers and not undermine
their demands to clean up the workplace. The union should take
full advantage of its legal right to bargain over health and
safety that is provided by the National Labor Relations Act.
Certainly there is little need
for corporate exposure monitoring with carcinogens, mutagens
or teratogens since the position of labor and many health professionals
is that there is no "safe" level for these. Instead,
insist that the emphasis be put on reducing exposures to such
chemicals to the lowest possible level.
In deciding whether sampling
may be justified, the union should determine whether the following
circumstances exist.
- The employer plans to install
engineering controls and wishes to compare exposures before and
after controls. This is a legitimate purpose and usually can
be accomplished using area samples or direct reading instruments,
rather than personal samples worn by workers.
- Personal samples worn by workers
to evaluate exposures will be used for one or more of the following:
-To decide where controls are needed.
-To create a record of current exposures.
-To compile exposure data for future use in epidemiology studies
or other research.
The union will want to seriously
consider whether it will support sampling for the last two purposes.
These are in the realm of research and may not ever actually
benefit workers. Sampling to decide where controls are needed
is much more legitimate and likely to result in immediate improvement
of working conditions.
In all cases, it is important
to assure that the following conditions are met:
- All of the chemical exposures
in question' are identified and will be sampled.
- The union will observe monitoring
and can assure that sampling will take place during the worst
exposures.
- The employer agrees that exposure
data will be given in full to the union and applicable parts
to all workers who have been sampled or have similar exposures,
with a copy to these workers' permanent personnel files.
- The employer commits in writing
to make the data available to public health professionals acceptable
to the union who wish to use it for epidemiology or other research
purposes.
- Exposure limits that are protective
of health will be used to evaluate the samples. Unions and workers
will get more protection if they use health guidelines based
on an excellent EPA database rather than OSHA or other exposure
limits. A list of these EPA-based guidelines appears in a booklet
entitled "Health-Based Exposure Limits and Lowest National
Exposure Limits", published by the Santa Clara Center for
Occupational Safety and Health (SCCOSH), 760 N. 1st Street, 2nd
Floor, San Jose, CA 95112, 408-998-4050, 408-998-4051 (Fax),
sccosh@igc.org. The 1995 edition is online at http://dmi-www.mc.duke.edu/oem/chem-exp.htm.
If the above outcomes and conditions
cannot be assured, the union should devise a strategy to change
the situation. The following may assist union attempts to negotiate
an acceptable agreement with management:
- Advising management that the
union will label all sampling results as fraudulent and will
give no credibility to them.
- Advising management that the
union will boycott the sampling by advising workers not to wear
sampling devices.
- Other actions designed to motivate
management to re-negotiate.
Obviously, the union must be
confident of its ability to protect workers from discipline if
some of these actions are actually carried out.
The union should also bear in
mind that some workers might decide on their own to contaminate,
destroy or otherwise sabotage samples. This is likely to happen
especially where workers have had past experiences where sampling
resulted in no improvements in the workplace. Such sabotage may
arise out of curiosity about how bad things have to be before
management acts and frustration that poor working conditions
are not recognized as needing improvement. Such workers may need
union guidance and protection.
USEFUL ACTIONS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL
HYGIENIST
Have the industrial hygienist
spend time looking at the work as it is carried out, evaluating
controls, and talking with workers to find out when they experience
irritation, smell odors, see dust; in this way, the worst exposure
periods can be pinpointed. Appendix 1
contains a checklist for evaluating the potential for chemical
exposure by each route of entry.
The industrial hygienist should
note all potential exposures to chemicals, noise, radiation,
heat, cold, vibration, repetitive trauma, bacteria, viruses and
other biological hazards. In order to document that exposure
is taking place, it is helpful to have photographs or videotape
showing skin contact or visible contaminants.
The hygienist can collect bulk
or wipe samples for analysis when there is no other way (such
as a Material Safety Data Sheet) to find out if a substance is
present. These types of samples are useful if you can use a "yes"
or "no" answer to act. Bulk samples often are taken
of materials suspected to be asbestos. Wipe samples of surfaces
such as lunch tables may be useful where contamination by chemicals
that are toxic when ingested, such as lead, is suspected.
The hygienist should observe
and investigate all of the following and note whether they are
effective:
- Labeling, placarding and communication
of hazards to employees.
- Level of health and safety expertise
and staffing among management.
- Worker training and education
in their job duties as well, as health and safety practices and
controls.
- Confined space entry procedures
and practices.
Have the industrial hygienist
and/or the union interview workers in private concerning any
health problems, symptoms or complaints they may have. Results
of such interviews must be confidential. Any reports should reveal
only the employees' job title, not names. A simple survey form
for this purpose is provided in Appendix
6.
DEMAND A GOOD REPORT
Unions and workers should insist
that the industrial hygienist write a report and that they get
a copy of it. Unions and workers are entitled to all reports
under OSHA Regulation 1910.1020. The report should state clearly
the limitations of their investigations. For example such a statement
could read as follows:
"The findings and exposure data reported here are accurate
only for the workplace conditions existing at the time of the
evaluation. Not all potential occupational health problems or
exposures were evaluated. Inadequate information is available
concerning what exposures to most hazards are safe for workers."
Unions and workers also should
insist that the report fully describe the conditions that the
industrial hygienist observed in the workplace. This in itself
will go a long way towards combating management's claims that
all is well and good.
Most importantly, the report
should list all of the possible improvements that could be made
in the workplace. The union can decide which ones it wants the
most. Changes in the work environment should be stressed over
personal protective equipment.
A listing of standard industrial
hygiene recommendations is provided in Appendix
3.
If NIOSH has published control
technology recommendations for specific operations, these should
be highlighted in the report. Some industries and operations
for which control technology reports have been published are
identified in Appendix 5.
Non-technical recommendations
should be included, such as increased health and safety staffing
and training among management personnel and better worker training.
If the union thinks it will be beneficial, a recommendation for
a joint union-management health and safety committee can be made.
DOING YOUR OWN INDUSTRIAL
HYGIENE
As we have seen, industrial hygiene
often has misplaced an emphasis on technical sampling methods
rather than good investigations into health hazards and innovative
problem solving. The more we realize that the best industrial
hygiene is problem-solving, the more accessible it is for union
health and safety representatives and activists. Here is a review
of the traditional concepts of industrial hygiene and how a labor
union might approach them.
Hazard Recognition: The best way to recognize potential
health hazards is to know work operations and the associated
hazards in the particular workplace. Inspections that utilize
visual observations of the workplace for those hazards and talking
to the "experts" (workers) are the best ways to learn
the hazards.
Hazard Evaluation: This currently is done by sampling.
Instead, evaluation can be performed by observing visible contaminants,
noting odors, predicting exposure from situations such as open
containers or spraying operations, or from interviewing workers
about their health symptoms and complaints.
Controlling Hazards: This requires problem-solving techniques,
coupled with solutions. Some solutions, such as designing a ventilation
system, require a certain amount of technical expertise, while
others require job expertise to recognize ways to change work
organization and work practices. All solutions need to be trial-tested
and modified until they are workable. A
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1991: Peter Dooley contributed
wonderful encouragement, many helpful reviews and clarifying
discussions. Thoughtful reviews of earlier drafts were done by
Buck Cameron, Debbie Nagin, Thurman Wenzl, Richard Youngstrom,
and Grace Ziem. Barry Castleman and Grace Ziem conducted the
original expose of exposure limits that laid the foundation for
the ideas in this article.
2003: Peter Montague brought
my attention to the Precautionary Principle and it's similarity
to my work; he also encouraged me to arrange to have this article
more widely distributed. I appreciate permission from Chuck Levenstein,
Editor of New Solutions (www.uml.edu/Dept/WE/research/publictn/newsoln.htm),
to place this article on the Internet and the New York Committee
for Occupational Safety and Health (www.nycosh.org), the New
Jersey Work Environment Council (www.njwec.org), and the National
COSH Network (www.coshnetwork.org/) for posting this article
on their web sites.
Appendix
1
CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING CHEMICAL EXPOSURE
1) EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL FOR
AIRBORNE EXPOSURE
a) Exposure Sources (rank high/medium/low)
i) Types and amounts of chemicals in use or created by combustion
or decomposition.
ii) Visible leaks, spills or emissions from process equipment,
vents, stacks or from containers.
iii) Settled dust that may be re-suspended into the air.
iv) Open containers from which liquids may evaporate.
v) Heating or drying that may make a chemical more volatile or
dusty.
vi) Odors. Consult an odor threshold table to get an estimate
of concentration.
vii) Do air monitoring where the presence of a contaminant is
suspected but cannot be verified by sight or smell.
viii) Visualize exposure by taking photographs or videotape.
b) Job Functions (estimate hours/day)
i) Manual handling in general.
ii) Active verb job tasks such as grinding, scraping, sawing,
cutting, sanding, drilling, spraying, measuring, mixing, blending,
dumping, sweeping, wiping, pouring, crushing, filtering, extracting,
packaging.
c) Control Failures
i) Visible leaks from ventilation hoods, ductwork, and collectors.
ii) Hoods that are located too far from the source or that are
missing or broken.
iii) Ductwork that is clogged, dented, or has holes.
iv) Insufficient make-up air to replace exhausted air.
v) Contamination inside respirators.
vi) Improperly selected, maintained or used respirator.
vii) Lack or inadequate housekeeping equipment.
viii) Lack of or inadequate doffing and laundering procedures
for clothing contaminated by dust.
2) EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL FOR ACCIDENTAL INGESTION
a) Exposure Sources (rank high/medium/low)
i) Types and amounts of chemicals in use or created by combustion
or decomposition. Solids are of primary concern.
ii) Contamination of work surfaces that may spread to food, beverage,
gum, cigarettes, hands or face.
iii) Contamination of hands or face that may enter mouth.
iv) Do wipe sampling to verify the presence of a contaminant
on work surfaces, hands, face, and so forth.
b) Control Failures
i) Contamination of inside of respirator that may enter mouth.
ii) Contamination of lunchroom surfaces that may spread to food,
beverage, gum, cigarettes, hands or face.
3) EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SKIN CONTACT AND ABSORPTION
a) Exposure Sources
i) Types and amounts of chemicals in use or created by combustion
or decomposition. Check dermal absorption potential. Do not rely
upon OSHA SKIN notations. Assume most liquids will penetrate
skin.
ii) Consider whether one chemical can act as a "carrier"
for other chemicals.
iii) Visualize dermal exposure by taking photographs or videotape.
b) Job Functions.'
i) Dipping hands into material.
ii) Handling of wet objects or rags.
c) Control Failures
i) Contamination of inside of gloves.
ii) Improperly selected, maintained or used gloves.
iii) Improperly selected, maintained or used chemical protective
clothing.
iv) Lack of or inadequate facilities for washing of hands and
face close to work areas.
v) Lack of or inadequate shower facilities.
Appendix 2
USEFUL OSHA HEALTH STANDARDS
CHEMICALS WITH COMPREHENSIVE
STANDARDS
1910.1001 Asbestos
1910.1017 Vinyl chloride
1910.l018 Inorganic arsenic
1910.1025 Lead
1910.1027 Cadmium
1910.1028 Benzene
1910.1029 Coke oven emissions
1910.1043 Cotton dust
1910.1044 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane
1910.1045 Acrylonitrile
1910.1047 Ethylene oxide
1910.1048 Formaldehyde
1910.1050 Methylenedianiline
1910.1051 1,3 Butadiene
1910.1052 Methylene chloride
1915.1001 Asbestos in Shipbuilding
1926.62 Lead in Construction
1926.1101 Asbestos in Construction
1926.1127 Cadmium in Construction
CHEMICAL-RELATED STANDARDS
1910.94 Ventilation
1910.107 Spray finishing using flammable and combustible materials
1910.108 Dip tanks containing flammable or combustible liquids
1910.120 Hazardous waste operations and emergency response
1910.152 Process Safety Management
1910.252 Welding, cuffing and brazing
1910.1200 Hazard communication
1910.1450 Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in labs
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
STANDARDS
1910.132 General requirements
1910.133 Eye and face protection
1910.134 Respiratory protection
1910.136 Footwear
1910.138 Gloves
GENERAL
1910.141 Sanitation; lunchrooms
1910.151 Medical services and first aid
NON-CHEMICAL HAZARDS
1910.95 Occupational noise exposure
1910.96 Ionizing radiation
1910.97 Nonionzing radiation
RECORD KEEPING
1904 Recording and reporting occupational injuries and illnesses
1910.1020 Access to medical and monitoring data
Appendix 3
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Provide employees immediately
with short-term protection against the toxic material(s) by providing
the following properly selected, fitted and maintained personal
protective and emergency equipment:
a) Respirators see OSHA Reg. 1910.134
b) Gloves see OSHA Reg. 1910.138
c) Chemical-protective clothing see OSHA Reg. 1910.132
d) Chemical splash goggles see OSHA Reg. 133
e) Chemical-protective boots see OSHA Reg. 1910.136
f) Eye-wash fountain - see OSHA Reg. 1910.151
g) Body-wash shower - see OSHA Reg. 1910.151
h) Spill clean-up kits
i) Other________________________
2) Permanently reduce exposure to the toxic material(s) by instituting
the following engineering and work
Practice controls:
a) Substitute a less toxic material
b) Isolate or enclose the operation
c) Install local exhaust ventilation
d) Provide dilution ventilation
e) Eliminate skin contact
f) Other________________________
3) The following elements of an effective respirator program
should be instituted see OSHA
Reg. 1910.134(b):
a) Written standard operating procedures governing the selection
and use of respirators
b) Proper selection on the basis of the hazards to which workers
are exposed
c) Training of users in proper use and limitations of respirators
d) Assignment of respirators to individual workers for their
exclusive use
e) Regular cleaning and disinfecting after each day's use
f) Storage in a convenient, clean and sanitary location
g) Inspection during cleaning and replacement of worn or deteriorated
parts
h) Surveillance of work area conditions and degree of employee
exposure or stress
i) Regular evaluation to determine the continued effectiveness
of the program
j) Annual review of respirator user's medical status for physical
ability to perform the work and use the equipment
4) Improve housekeeping as follows:
a) Keep floors and work surfaces free of visible contaminants
see OSHA Reg. 1910.22(a)
b) Eliminate dry sweeping
c) Eliminate the use of compressed air for cleaning - see OSHA
Reg. 190.242(b)
d) Use a HEPA vacuum for cleaning
e) Use wet wiping or mopping for cleaning
f) Clean up spills promptly using properly trained and equipped
employees see OSHA Reg. 1910.120
g) Eliminate vermin - see OSHA Reg. 1910.141(a)(5)
h) Other__________________________
5) Improve lunchroom, locker and lavatory facilities as follows:
a) Prohibit eating in work areas see OSHA Reg. 1910.141(g)
b) Require vacuuming of clothing before entering lunchroom
c) Keep lunchroom clean see OSHA Reg. 1910.141(g)
d) HEPA vacuum lunchroom daily
e) Provide separate locker facilities for work and street clothing
see OSHA Reg. 1910.141(e)
f) Assure that employees wash hands and face prior to eating,
drinking or smoking
g) Keep lavatories clean
h) Provide soap, towels and warm water in lavatories - see OSHA
Reg. 1910.141(c)(2)
i) Provide additional lavatories - see OSHA Reg. 1910.141(c)
j) Provide additional hand-washing facilities
k) Provide showers
l) Assure that employees shower before going home
m) Keep showers clean
n) Provide soap, towels and warm water in showers - see OSHA
Reg. 1910.141(c)(3)
o) Provide potable drinking water - see OSHA Reg. 1910.141(b)
p) Other___________________________
6) Assure that employees receive comprehensive information and
training concerning hazardous chemicals -- see OSHA Reg. 1910.1200
and state Right-to-Know Laws.
7) Maintain an OSHA Log of Injuries and Illnesses and post Summary
every February - see OSHA Reg. 1904.
8) Notify employees of their rights to obtain copies of medical
and monitoring data and provide such copies to employees upon
their request- see OSHA Reg. 1910.1020.
9) Form and hold regular meetings of a joint worker-management
health and safety committee.
10) Obtain information on the following comprehensive OSHA standards:
a) 1910.1001 - Asbestos
b) 1910.1017 - Vinyl chloride
c) 1910.l018 - Inorganic arsenic
d) 1910.1025 - Lead
e) 1910.1027 - Cadmium
f) 1910.1028 - Benzene
g) 1910.1029 - Coke oven emissions
h) 1910.1043 - Cotton dust
i) 1910.1044 - 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
j) 1910.1045 - Acrylonitrile
k) 1910.1047 - Ethylene oxide
l) 1910.1048 - Formaldehyde
m) 1910.1050 - Methylenedianiline
n) 1910.1051 - 1,3 Butadiene
o) 1910.1052 - Methylene chloride
p) 1910.1001 - Asbestos in Shipbuilding
q) 1926.62 - Lead in Construction
r) 1926.1101 - Asbestos in Construction
s) 1926.1127 - Cadmium in Construction
Appendix
4
CHEMICALS FOR WHICH OSHA HAS BETTER THAN A 1 IN 10 CHANCE
OF FINDING EXPOSURES GREATER THAN THE PEL
(To be revised pending receipt of OSHA data)
OSHA Personal TWA Samples Collected
- January 1985- December 1989
SUBSTANCE PERCENT OVEREXPOSURES
1. Silver metal and soluble compounds 37.2
2. Coke oven emissions 31.1
3. Respirable silica 28.5
4. Lead - inorganic 27.5
5. Wood dust 22.9
6. Carbon monoxide 21.4
7. Chromic acid and chromates 20.4
8. Total dust 15.6
9. Beryllium and compounds ' 14.5
10. Coal tar pitch volatiles 13.9
11. Copper dusts and mist 12.9
12 Mercury 12.4
13. Welding fume, total particulate 11.2
14. Ethylene oxide 10.5
15. Arsenic and organic compounds 10.1
Appendix
5
SOME INDUSTRIES AND OPERATIONS FOR WHICH NIOSH CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
REPORTS
AND HAZARD CONTROLS HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED
NIOSH Numbered Publications
74-100 - Lead Exposure at an Indoor Firing Range
74-114 - Cotton Dust Control in Yarn Manufacturing
75-108 - Development of Design Criteria for Exhaust Systems for
Open Surface Tanks
75-115 - Engineering Control of Welding Fumes
75-165 - Compendium of Materials for Noise Control (revised:
See 80-116)
76-130 - Lead Exposure and Design Considerations for Indoor Firing
Ranges
76-179 - Abrasive Blasting Operations: Engineering Control and
Work Practices Manual
76-180 - Engineering Control Research Recommendations
76-186 - Recirculation of Exhaust Air
78-109 - An Evaluation of Cotton Dust Control Systems
78-141 - The Recirculation of Exhaust Air ... Symposium Proceedings
78-159 - Engineering Control Technology Assessment for the Plastics
and Resins Industry
78-165 - Control of Exposure to Metalworking fluids
79-114 - An Evaluation of Occupational Health Hazard Control
Technology for the Foundry Industry
79-125 - Assessment of Selected Control Technology Techniques
for Welding Fumes
79-143A - Validation of a Recommended Approach to Recirculation
of Industrial Exhaust Air Vol. I
(Spring Grinding, Chrome Plating, Dry Cleaning, Welding and Vapor
Degreasing Operations)
79-143B - Validation of a Recommended Approach to Recirculation
of Industrial Exhaust Air Vol. II (Lead Battery, Woodworking,
Metal Grinding and Enamel Blending Operations)
80-107 - CIB -33 - Radiofrequency (RF) Sealers and Heaters: Potential
Health Hazards and Their Prevention
80-112 - Industrial Hygiene Characterization of the Photovoltaic
Solar Cell Industry
80-114 - Control Technology for Worker Exposure to Coke Oven
Emissions,
80-136 - Engineering Control Technology Assessment of the Dry
Cleaning Industry
80-143 - Control Technology Assessment: The Secondary Nonferrous
Smelting Industry
81-113 - Evaluation of Air Cleaning and Monitoring Equipment
Used in Recirculation Systems
81-118 - Control of Emissions from Seals and fittings in Chemical
Process Industries
81-121 - An Evaluation of Engineering Control Technology for
Spray Painting
83-115 - Occupational Health Control Technology for the Primary
Aluminum Industry
83-127 - Comprehensive Safety Recommendations for Land-Based
Oil and Gas Well Drilling
84-102 - Engineering Control of Occupational Safety and Health
Hazards: Recommendations for Improving Engineering Practice,
Education and Research, Summary Report
84-106 - NIOSH Alert - Request for Assistance in controlling
Carbon Monoxide Hazard in Aircraft Refueling Operations
84-110 - Health Hazard Control Technology Assessment of the Silica
flour Milling Industry
84-111 - Control of Air Contaminants in Tire Manufacturing.
85-102 - Control Technology Assessment: Metal Plating and Cleaning
Operations
88-108 - Safe Maintenance Guide for Robotic Workstations
88-119 - Guidelines for Protecting the Safety and Health of Health
Care Workers
89-107 - Guidelines 'for Prevention of Transmission of HIV Virus
and Hepatitis B Virus to Health-Care and Public-Safety Workers
89-115 - Current Intelligence Bulletin 52- Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers
in Health Care Facilities
Engineering Controls and Work Practices
89-120 - Control Technology for Ethylene Oxide Sterilization
in Hospitals
89-121 - Control of Asbestos Exposure During Brake Drum Service
Hazard Controls
96-105 (January, 1996), HC1 Control of Dusts From Sanding in
Autobody Repair Shops
96-106 (January, 1996), HC2 Control of Paint Overspray in Autobody
Repair Shops
96-107 (January, 1996), HC3Control of Nitrous Oxide in Dental
Operatories
96-121 (September, 1996), HC4 Control of Wood Dust from Horizontal
Belt Sanders
96-122 (September, 1996), HC5 Control of Wood Dust from Shapers
96-123 (September, 1996), HC6 Control of Wood Dust from Automated
Routers
96-124 (September, 1996), HC7 Control of Wood Dust from Large
Diameter Disc Sanders
96-125 (September, 1996), HC8 Control of Wood Dust from Random
Orbital Hand Sanders
96-126 (September, 1996), HC9 Control of Wood Dust from Orbital
Hand Sanders
96-127 (September, 1996), HC10 Control of Wood Dust from Table
Saws
96-128 (September, 1996), HC11 Control of Smoke from Laser/Electric
Surgical Procedures
97-103 (September, 1996), HC12 Control of Organic Dusts From
Bedding Choppers in Dairy Barns
97-107 (April, 1997), HC13 Control of Dust From Powder Dye Handling
Operators
97-113 (April, 1997), HC14 Control of Scrap Paper Baler Crushing
Hazards
97-137 (June, 1997), HC15 Control of Ergonomic Hazards from Squeegee
Handles in the Screen-Printing Industry
97-154 (October, 1997), HC16 Control of Exposure to Perchloroethylene
in Commercial Drycleaning
97-155 (October, 1997), HC17 Control of Exposure to Perchloroethylene
in Commercial Drycleaning (Substitution)
97-156 (October, 1997), HC18 Control of Exposure to Perchloroethylene
in Commercial Drycleaning (Machine Design)
97-157 (October, 1997), HC19 Control of Exposure to Perchloroethylene
in Commercial Drycleaning (Ventilation)
97-158 (October, 1997), HC20 Control of Spotting Chemical Hazards
In Commercial Drycleaning
97-159 (October, 1997), HC21 Control of Fire Hazards in Commercial
Drycleaning Shops Using Petroleum-Based Solvents
97-160 (October, 1997), HC22 Control of Ergonomic Hazards in
Commercial Drycleaning
98-106 (December, 1997), HC23 Controlling Silica Dust from Foundry
Casting-Cleaning Operations
98-107 (December, 1997), HC24 Controlling Cleaning-Solvent Vapors
at Small Printers
98-108 (December, 1997), HC25 Controlling the Ergonomic Hazards
of Wiring Tasks for Household Appliances
98-149 (October, 1998), HC26 Controlling Formaldehyde Exposures
During Embalming
98-150 (November, 1998), HC27 New Shroud Design Controls Silica
Dust from Surface Mine and Construction Blast Hole Drills
99-112 (January, 1999), HC28 Controlling Chemical Hazards During
the Application of Artificial Fingernails
99-105 (January, 1999), HC29 Control of Nitrous Oxide During
Cryosurgery
99-113 (June, 1999), HC30 Control of Drywall Sanding Dust Exposures
2001-142 (July, 2001), HC31 Dust Protection for Bag Stackers
A more extensive list of control
technology documents and ordering information can be found online
at www.cdc.gov/niosh/pubs.html. Many of the older publications
are no longer available from NIOSH and/or NTIS. There are links
to all documents that are currently available on the NIOSH Homepage.
NIOSH documents are sometimes available at no cost from NIOSH
Publications. Call 1-800-35-NIOSH, 1-800-356-4674. Some OSHA
and NIOSH offices, especially regional offices, have libraries
that may have older NIOSH documents available for use.
Appendix
6
(Name of Local Union)
WORK-RELATED HEALTH PROBLEMS REPORT
This Report Is Confidential
Please print clearly and attach additional pages if necessary.
Name _____________________________________________
Date______________
Job Title___________________________
Work Area___________________________
Home phone (______)______________
Work phone (_______)_________________
Date began your current job _____/__________
Hours of work____________
month year
NOTE: Symptoms of work-related
health problems may include but are not limited to: irritation
of the eyes, nose, or throat; hoarseness or change in voice;
cough, shortness of breath; burning, heaviness, tightness in
the chest; skin irritation, itching, redness, rash; chills, indigestion,
nausea, vomiting; weight loss; headaches, light-headedness, fainting,
confusion, fatigue, drowsiness, reduced memory; muscle weakness,
poor coordination, numbness, pins-and-needles feeling, tremors,
seizures; swelling, pain or discomfort in a part of the body.
1. Please describe any health
symptoms/problems that you feel may have been caused or made
worse by your current job.
2. When did the symptoms/problem(s)
begin or begin to occur more often than normal?
_______/___________
month year
3. Do the symptoms/problem(s)
get better during:
Daily non-work time No Yes
Days off No Yes
Longer vacations No Yes
4. Have you had to leave work
early because of these symptoms/problems?
No Yes
Times in past year ______
5. Have you missed days from
work because of these health symptoms/problem(s)?
No Yes
Times in past year ______
6. Have you sought health care
advice for any of these health symptoms/problem(s)?
No Yes
Times in past year ______
7. What does your health care
provider say about these symptoms/problems?
8. Have you filed for Workers
Compensation for any of these health problem(s)?
No Yes
If yes, which problem(s)?
If yes, were you awarded Workers
Compensation? Yes No
9. What do you think is causing
your health symptoms/problem(s)?
10. What do you think would improve
your health symptoms/problem(s)?
Place in a Sealed Envelope and
Return to a
(Name of Local Union) Representative
Address of Local Union
Phone and Fax of Local Union
The “This page was last updated on” line just below reflects the date on which this page was transferred to this redesigned website. The information in this page (as opposed to the design) was last updated on May 6, 2003.
|