Search This Blog

Showing posts with label industrial hygiene consulting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label industrial hygiene consulting. Show all posts

Friday, March 09, 2018

OSHA's Silica Standard - What's All The Fuss About? Part Two

In our previous post, we discussed that as long as you were performing tasks that were listed in Table 1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Respirable Crystalline Silica 1926.1153 standard we didn't see what all the fuss was about.  Even if some tasks required a respirator some of those tasks would allow you to use an administrative control (have the worker do the task for 4 hours or less) to eliminate the respirator requirement.  The fuss is all about those tasks that do not eliminate respirator usage (i.e, Task (x) Jackhammers and handheld powered chipping tools with a water delivery system at the point of impact, used indoors or in an enclosed area) in Table 1 or a task not listed in Table 1.  We already discussed the requirements, if Table 1 requires a respirator in Part One of this blog.  So the question is what is required if your task is not listed in Table 1 or you can't fully & properly implement the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection described in Table 1?  Well that's a long story and that's what all the fuss is all about!

Mr. Peter Delucia's Silica Presentation at the PACNY Conference
Before we get into this long story, we would like to thank Mr. Peter Delucia, of AAC Contracting, for his assistance in helping us write this blog post.  Mr. Delucia's presentation at the Professional Abatement Contractors of New York (PACNY) 22nd Annual Environmental Conference was jam packed with examples, references, and information out in the internet to assist employers wanting to comply with this standard.  Much of that information helped us write this post.


If you can't use Table 1 (the above video would be a Table 1 activity), then you have to use an alternative exposure control method (d).  Which first requires that no employee be exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica ( silica) in excess of 50 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), calculated as an 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA).  Second employers must perform an exposure assessment (d)(2)(i) for each employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be exposed to silica at or above the action level (25 ug/m3).  Here you have two choices either the performance option (d)(2)(ii) or scheduled monitoring option (d)(2)(iii).  The performance option allows combination of air monitoring or objective data that is sufficient to accurately characterize employee exposures to silica. The performance option can be almost like Table 1 in that the employer can use objective data that is created by others to determine employee exposures to silica.  Some manufacturers are creating objective data for their tools (i.e., Milwaukee Tool, which has some objective data information for some of their tools and shrouds).  You can use these by just following the instructions on the objective data and making sure you meet the conditions listed in objective data.  The second choice is to perform initial monitoring (scheduled monitoring) to assess the 8-hour TWA exposures for each employee on the basis of one or more personal breathing zone air samples that reflect the exposures of employees on each shift, for each job classification, in each work area.  Which means you need to have the personal air sampling equipment and a laboratory for analysis of your air samples.  This is a little complicated and because most people are unfamiliar with how to do personal air sampling, this can be quite intimidating!


However, with the proper training (we do a respirable crystalline silica competent person course) and a good laboratory to support your efforts the competent person could perform the sampling necessary to meet the OSHA requirements.  There is some basic equipment that is needed to do sampling (as you can see from the video above).  One of the most important pieces is the personal air sampling pump.  These pumps are portable and are usually worn on the waist of the person you want to determine their exposure.  There are quite a few manufacturers of these pumps (Sensidyne, maker of Gillian sample pumps & SKC, maker of Universal sample pumps, etc.).  You want these pumps to be durable and be able to handle a drop here and there.  Purchasing these pumps is not a bad idea but before you consider doing that we need to remind you that these pumps need to be calibrated against a primary standard at least every three months.  Primary standards are not cheap (Buck Calibrator & Gilibrator, etc).  So unfortunately, its not that easy to buy the pumps and use them.  If you don't intend on using these pumps regularly a better choice would be to rent the pumps from a laboratory.  Then have the laboratory maintain and calibrate the pumps when they send them to you.  This also allows for billing the equipment to specific projects.  There are quite a few labs that can help you in that way (SGS Galson & EMSL, etc.).  This way you can tell them what you are sampling and they will send you the equipment and sampling media you need for doing the sampling and incorporate the analysis price for the whole exposure assessment.  They will also send you instructions on using the equipment properly, sample & chain of custody forms for doing the sampling, as needed. The samplers for silica are pictured below and you will want to use either one of these samplers.  The standard then goes into how often you will need to do scheduled monitoring based on the results, employee notification of results, and observation of monitoring results.

Personal Pump with PPI sampler for silica
Breathing zone sampling with aluminum cyclone sampler for silica

Once you have determined which method you are using (Exposure Assessments, or Scheduled monitoring), the employer must have a written exposure control plan.  The plan must cover the tasks in the workplace; a description of engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection used to limit exposure; housekeeping measures used to limit exposure; and procedures to restrict access.  The employer must update the plan at least annually and designate a competent person to make frequent and regular inspections of job sites, materials, & equipment to implement the plan.   The final step is to train the workers and the competent person on the exposure control plan so everyone understands and knows what is required under the plan.  Again, we have added a number of courses to our schedule or contact us here if you need us to work with you in developing your exposure control plan or exposure monitoring plan to help you keep your employees safe!

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Worker Exposure to Silica Significant During Hydraulic Fracturing

Silicosis
Silicosis (Photo credit: Mr. Ducke)
Just read the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH's) blog regarding "Worker Exposure to Crystalline Silica during Hydraulic Fracturing".  Obviously, environmental concerns regarding this type of work are being fought in New York on what seems likely a daily or weekly basis.  Usually the arguement for hydraulic fracturing is, job creation and of course energy independence.  However, it is interesting how worker safety is rarely discussed when we talk about hydraulic fracturing.  This study done by NIOSH and discussed on their blog obviously discusses the need to ensure that workers are protected from being overexposed to respirable crystalline silica dust.  Overexposure to respirable crystalline silica dust can lead to the development of the uncurable respiratory disease silicosis, in addition to other diseases.    The typical view that filtering facepiece and half-mask respirators could protect the workers, according to the blog is not sufficient to protect the workers.  Meaning engineering, work practice controls, and administrative controls need to be implemented, making the process more complicated.
Since New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) is working on drafting regulations for hydraulic fracturing, we hope they also take into account what is needed to protect worker safety on these sites as well as what is needed to protect the environment.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Honoring Dr. Alice Hamilton For Women's History Month


Alice Hamilton, pioneer of occupational medici...
Image via Wikipedia
Recently saw a tweet by the Young Workers honoring Dr. Alice Hamilton (For Women's history month -- Alice Hamilton (NIOSH video 1988; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E75pST2QTEM&feature=colike).  It still surprises us when we see a video on the pioneers in the industrial hygiene field, discussing issues we are still dealing with today.  Dr. Hamilton was dealing with imigrant labor being mistreated similar to what we see today with undocumented/illegal aliens.  Dr. Hamilton also was dealing with workers being exposed to various toxic dusts and then the workers developing various diseases caused by these exposures.  Today we still see this happening as we've written about in our current newsletter (Toxic Dusts - Demolition Implications).  When will we learn from our previous mistakes?  When will we stop the exposures and the resulting illnesses?  When will we start to care?
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, December 08, 2011

OSHA Issues Hazard Alert for Hair Salon Owners & Workers?

English: Example:hair being straighten with a ...
Image via Wikipedia
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a hazard alert regarding hair smoothing products.  You can find this alert at OSHA's website titled "Hair Smoothing Products That Can Release Formaldehyde".  During Federal OSHA investigations, air tests showed formaldehyde at levels above OSHA's limits (of 0.5 ppm during an 8-hour work shift or 2 ppm during any 15-minute period) for formaldehyde in salons using Brazilian Blowout Acai Professional Smoothing Solution, labeled "formaldehyde free," and Brasil Cacau Cadiveu, resulting in violations and citations to the manufacturers and distributors of the products.  The violations included failing to list formaldehyde as a hazardous ingredient on the Material Safety Data Sheet (the hazard warning sheet) provided to downstream users (e.g., salon owners, stylists), failing to include proper hazard warnings on product labels, and failing to list the health effects of formaldehyde exposure on the MSDS.
Formaldehyde is a colorless, strong-smelling gas that presents a health hazard if workers are exposed.  You can be exposed to formaldehyde if you breathe it into your lungs, if it gets into your eyes, or if it is contained in a product that gets onto your skin.  You can also be exposed accidentally if you touch your face, eat food, or drink after using a product containing formaldehyde without first washing your hands.  It can irritate the eyes and nose, and cause coughing and wheezing.  Formaldehyde is a "sensitizer," which means that it can cause allergic reactions of the skin, eyes, and lungs such as asthma-like breathing problems and skin rashes and itching.  When formaldehyde is in a product that gets sprayed into the eyes, it can damage the eyes and cause blindness.  It is also a carcinogen.
It is important to realize that though the product may be labeled as formaldehyde free, formaldehyde might be listed as methylene glycol, formalin, methylene oxide, paraform, formic aldehyde, methanal, oxomethane, oxymethylene, or CAS Number 50-00-0.  All of these are names for formaldehyde under OSHA's formaldehyde standard.  There are also chemicals, such as timonacic acid (also called thiazolidinecarboxylic acid) that can release formaldehyde under certain conditions, such as those present during the hair smoothing treatment process.  Formaldehyde can be released from hair smoothing products that list any of these names on the label and workers can breathe it in or absorb it through their skin.  Workers can be exposed to formaldehyde during the entire hair straightening process, especially when heat is applied (e.g. blow-drying, flat ironing).
As a salon owners, you must follow the OSHA formaldehyde standard if a product contains formaldehyde or any of the chemicals mentioned above, this would include:
  • Give employees appropriate gloves and other personal protective equipment (e.g., face shield, chemical splash goggles, chemical-resistant aprons) and train them on how to use this equipment while mixing and applying the products;
  • Explain to workers how to read and understand the information on a product's label and MSDS;
  • Make sure the workplace has eye and skin washing equipment if products that contain formaldehyde could be splashed onto the workers’ skin or into their eyes;
  • Train workers how to safely clean up spills and properly throw products out; and
  • Get workers the right medical attention (e.g., doctor exams) if they develop signs and symptoms of an exposure to formaldehyde or are exposed to large amounts of formaldehyde during an emergency (e.g., a large spill).
Contact Future Environment Designs and we can help you with any of the above items.  Give us a call, if you think workers may be exposed to above the OSHA formaldehyde standard and you need air testing to ensure compliance with the air quality standards.  We are here to help.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

2011 Northeast Regional Industrial Hygiene Conference & Exposition is Friday

This Friday is the 2011 Northeast Regional Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition held annually at Hyatt Regency Hotel in New Brunswick, New Jersey.  The title of this year's conference is "Emergency Preparedness - 10 Years Beyond & GHS - New Horizons".  According to the published program interesting topics include the "Fukushima Accident in Japan" by Dennis Quinn, CHP, DAQ, Inc. and the "Making a Difference: Sustainable Construction Practices at MTA & NYCT" by Thomas Abdallah, P.E. LEED AP, Chief Environmental Engineer, MTA New York City Transit.  We are looking forward to attending the Conference, and the Exposition Hall with the vendors is always like going to a class reunion for us.  We hope you get a chance to attend this event and hope to see you there. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, March 04, 2011

Remedial Investigation of Gowanus Canal Identifies Widespread Contamination, Health and Ecological Problems

Looking south along Gowanus Canal from Gowanus...Image via WikipediaOn February 2, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a press release regarding the results of the remedial investigation of the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, New York.  This investigation confirmed the widespread presence of more than a dozen contaminants, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and various metals, including mercury, lead and copper, at high levels in the sediment in the Gowanus Canal. PAHs and metals were also found in the canal water. PAHs are a group of chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas, wood, garbage, or other organic substances. PCBs were used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment. PCBs are suspected carcinogens and can have neurological effects. PAHs are also suspected carcinogens.  The investigation also identified characteristics of the canal that will influence future plans for a cleanup.  A companion human and ecological risk assessment found that exposure to the contaminants in the canal poses threats to people’s health and the environment.


“The findings of the investigation of the Gowanus Canal confirmed that contamination of the urban waterway is widespread and may threaten people’s health, particularly if they eat fish or crabs from the canal or have repeated contact with the canal water or sediment,” said EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck. “The next step is the review of options for cleaning up the Gowanus, so we can move ahead with a full-scale cleanup of the canal that will result in a revitalized urban waterway.”
Based on the results of the investigation and the human and ecological risk assessment, EPA will commence work on a study that will outline all of the options for addressing contamination in the Gowanus Canal.  This study, called a feasibility study, will take place over the coming months.  It is anticipated that a draft feasibility report containing an assessment of all options will be completed by the end of this year.  
During the investigation, EPA collected and analyzed more than 500 samples of sediment from the Gowanus Canal and more than 80 water samples for the presence of various contaminants. EPA also collected more than 200 fish, including striped bass, eel, white perch and blue crab, to analyze their tissue for contaminants. Air samples were collected at street level and at heights at which people would breathe while boating on the canal.
For more nformation visit EPA's website at: http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/gowanus/

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

NIOSH Seeking Comments On The Draft Recommendations For Emergency Responder Health Monitoring and Surveillance

Csa-slsImage via WikipediaThe National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) today invited public comment on a draft document titled, "Emergency Responder Health Monitoring and Surveillance."  This document was developed by a consortium of federal agencies, state health departments, and volunteer organizations, headed by the NIOSH with the goal of proposing a more comprehensive and systematic approach to worker safety and health for all emergency responders.

The set of guidelines and recommendations described in the document is the result of the collaborative efforts of the workgroup.  When final, it is expected that this document will serve as an interagency resource that is intended for review and possible publication by the National Response Team. 
"The gaps in our ability to ensure the safety and health of all workers involved in large scale and complex emergency responses have been documented through our responses to the World Trade Center disaster, Hurricane Katrina, and most recently, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill," said NIOSH Director John Howard, M.D.  "This document is the result of our shared learning from these events and our combined commitment to protect those workers who respond in times of need."
This draft document proposes a new framework for ensuring responder safety and health by monitoring and conducting surveillance of their health and safety during the entire cycle of emergency response, including the pre-deployment, deployment, and post-deployment phases of a response.  The proposed system is referred to as the "Emergency Responder Health Monitoring and Surveillance (ERHMS)" system, and includes a guidance section describing the principles involved in ensuring optimal responder safety and health, as well as tools which can be utilized to help facilitate the execution of these principles during an actual response.
The draft document is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/review/docket223/ for written public comment until April 4, 2011.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, January 30, 2011

EPA & GE Agree On Next Phase of Hudson River PCB Cleanup


Dredging on Buriganga River BangladeshImage via Wikipedia
Dredging Boat in Bangladesh
On December 17, 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) presented General Electric (GE) with the requirements for the next phase of the cleanup of the Hudson River.  The second phase of the cleanup should begin in May 2011.  This second phase would require GE to remove far more contaminated sediment from the river before sealing or "capping" any remaining polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).  On December 23, 2010, EPA commended GE for agreeing to conduct the second and final phase of the Hudson River cleanup .
In the first phase of the cleanup, nearly 37% of the area was capped due to the continued presence of contamination, despite multiple dredging passes that removed the great majority of the PCBs.  Capping in 15% percent of the area was unavoidable because of physical barriers in the river, leaving 22% percent capped in areas without these barriers.  While fish and other aquatic life are not exposed to the contamination in the capped areas, the EPA has determined that it is necessary in Phase 2 to set a stringent limit on what percentage of the total project area can be capped if dredging does not meet the cleanup goals.  This limit will be set at 11% of the total project area, not counting those areas where capping is unavoidable.  This limit represents a significant improvement from Phase 1 and will require GE to employ considerably more rigorous dredging procedures.

Dredging during the second phase will go deeper into the sediment and, by relying on better information and lessons learned during the first phase, will remove more contaminated sediment in fewer passes.  Phase two will require GE to remove an estimated 95 percent or more of PCBs from the areas designated for dredging.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

OSHA Acts To Protect Residential Roofing Workers

Fall Protection established for this roof project.
On December 22, 2010, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced a new directive withdrawing a former one that allowed residential builders to bypass fall protection requirements.  The directive being replaced, issued in 1995, initially was intended as a temporary policy and was the result of concerns about the feasibility of fall protection in residential building construction.  However, there continues to be a high number of fall-related deaths in construction, and industry experts now feel that feasibility is no longer an issue or concern.
"Fatalities from falls are the number one cause of workplace deaths in construction.  We cannot tolerate workers getting killed in residential construction when effective means are readily available to prevent those deaths," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels.  "Almost every week, we see a worker killed from falling off a residential roof.  We can stop these fatalities, and we must."
The National Association of Home Builders recommended rescinding the 1995 directive, as did OSHA's labor-management Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and Health; the AFL-CIO; and the Occupational Safety and Health State Plan Association, which represents the 27 states and territories that run their own occupational safety and health programs.
According to data from the department's Bureau of Labor Statistics, an average of 40 workers are killed each year as a result of falls from residential roofs.  One-third of those deaths represent Latino workers, who often lack sufficient access to safety information and protections.  Latino workers comprise more than one-third of all construction employees.
OSHA's action rescinds the Interim Fall Protection Compliance Guidelines for Residential Construction, Standard 03-00-001.  Prior to the issuance of this new directive, Standard 03-00-001 allowed employers engaged in certain residential construction activities to use specified alternative methods of fall protection rather than the conventional fall protection required by the residential construction fall protection standard. With the issuance of today's new directive, all residential construction employers must comply with 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1926.501(b)(13).  Where residential builders find that traditional fall protection is not feasible in residential environments, 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13) still allows for alternative means of providing protection.
Construction and roofing companies will have up to six months to comply with the new directive.  OSHA has developed training and compliance assistance materials for small employers and will host a webinar for parties interested in learning more about complying with the standard. To view the directive and for more information, visit http://www.osha.gov/doc/residential_fall_protection.html.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

EPA Revises Lead Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements


Air Quality Testing for several parameters.
On December 14, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final lead (Pb) ambient air monitoring requirements.  The purpose of this revision was to expand the nation’s lead monitoring network to better assess compliance with the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead issued in 2008.  In 2008, EPA substantially strengthened the lead NAAQS by revising the level of the primary (health-based) standard from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 0.15 μg/m3, measured as total suspended particles (TSP).  The agency revised the secondary (welfare-based) standard to be identical to the primary standard.  EPA in this final rule (Dec. 2010) also changed the emission threshold that state monitoring agencies (such as New York State Department of Environmental Conservation [NYS DEC]) must use to determine if an air quality monitor should be placed near an industrial facility that emits lead. The new emission threshold is 0.5 tons per year (tpy), reduced from the previous threshold of 1.0 tpy. Any new monitors located near an emissions source must be operational no later than one year after this rule is published in the Federal RegisterEPA maintained a 1.0 tpy lead emission threshold for airports.  However, EPA is requiring a 1-year monitoring study of 15 additional airports (beyond those currently required to monitor at the existing 1.0 tpy emission threshold) for the New York area this includes Brookhaven and Republic airports. The study will help EPA determine whether airports that emit less than 1.0 tpy have the potential to cause the surrounding areas to exceed the lead NAAQS of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).  The monitors participating in the study must be operational no later than one year after this rule is published in the Federal Register.
EPA is also requiring lead monitoring in large urban areas (Core Based Statistical Areas, or CBSAs, with a population of 500,000 people or more).  Monitors will be located along with multi-pollutant ambient monitoring sites (known as the “NCore network”).  Lead monitoring at these sites will begin January 1, 2012.
  • The NCore network will consist of approximately 80 monitoring sites, of which 63 will be in large urban areas.  The requirement to add these monitors replaces an existing requirement to place lead monitors in each CBSA with a population of 500,000 or more people.
The above revisions were made based on comments received on EPA’s proposed revisions.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Mold Complaint Dismissed

Water-damaged ceiling tiles is an indication of a moisture control problem
An article published December 23, 2010 in the Suffolk-News Herald (VA) said a lawsuit filed by a former teacher (claiming mold in her classroom made her sick) against the School Board was dismissed by a United States District Court judge last week.  The former teacher, Christina Hood, had claimed that she began suffering medical problems after beginning her job as a teacher at Booker T. Washington Elementary School in 2007. She said itchy and irritated eyes, a rash, sinusitis and bronchitis were caused by mold in the school.  She had requested damages of $1.5 million.  Hood’s complaint accused the School Board of deliberately exposing her to dangerous conditions at the school, claiming that the board knew of the mold and bacteria growths before she was hired.  She also alleged that the School Board was deliberately indifferent to her health and safety.
In a motion for dismissal, however, School Board attorney Wendell Waller noted that the school system had not been indifferent to Hood’s medical condition.  The response states that the school’s management had allowed Hood to put a dehumidifier in her classroom and frequently inquired as to her condition.  The School Board also retained a professional company to inspect Hood’s classroom for mold.  The assistant director for facilities and planning also inquired about Hood’s past medical condition and her symptoms, inspected the classroom for mold and took air samples.
The school division also had Hood’s classroom cleaned thoroughly several times and was willing to transfer her to a middle-school position teaching seventh-grade math, but Hood was licensed only up to sixth grade.
“The facts alleged … fail to meet the strict ‘shock the conscience’ standard because the defendants did not ignore Hood’s complaints but did in fact take steps to remedy conditions in Hood’s classroom,” the motion for dismissal stated.
This case shows it is important for facility directors to take the concerns of individuals complaining about indoor air quality seriously.   Facility directors should implement an indoor air quality management program to ensure you document all that was done to resolve the indoor air quality complaint.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, January 06, 2011

New York Times Lists the Top 10 Reasons Small Businesses Fail

The New York Times building in New York, NY ac...Image via WikipediaNew York Times posted an excellent article regarding the top 10 reasons small businesses fail.  As a small business owner myself I can say that all of these are definitely issues that make it hard to run a business over a long period of time.  Poor accounting, lack of a cash cushion, and operational inefficiencies have all played a part at one time or another for causing me problems with running my business.  However, though at times I have looked back and said what was I thinking going into business for myself, I feel it has been one of the best decisions in my life.  I highly recommend that if you have this dream you go out and just do it!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning in Freeport

Carbon Monoxide detector connected to a North ...Image via WikipediaCarbon monoxide that seeped out from a faulty heating system at La Mar Plastic Packaging on Tuesday December 28, 2010 sent dozens of people to the hospital - two with serious injuries - Nassau County fire and village officials said.  La Mar Plastic Packaging located at 216 N. Main St. in Freeport, called Freeport Firefighters about 10:30 a.m., and rescuers evacuated dozens of people complaining of headaches, dizziness and nausea from the structure, said Vincent McManus, a district supervisor for the Nassau fire marshal's office.
After a preliminary investigation, fire officials, members of the Freeport Building Department and the county's hazardous materials team determined that the deadly gas came from hanging gas-fired heaters in the building, McManus said.
Mark Stuparich, an assistant chief for the Freeport Fire Department, said it was unlikely the building was equipped with a carbon-monoxide detector. "The thing would have been going off all morning," he said.  Assistant Chief Stuparich said readings of indoor air showed upward of 500 parts per million (ppm) of carbon monoxide.  According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), normal indoor levels are 5 ppm or less.  According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the permissible exposure limit is 50 parts per million or less in an eight-hour period.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

AIHA Survey Indicates Issues That Concern Industrial Hygiene Profession

Globally Harmonized System of Classification a...Image via WikipediaThe American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) conducts a biennial public policy survey of its members to determine concerns for the industrial hygiene profession in 2011-2012.  The survey was conducted on-line in October, 2010.  The AIHA uses the survey to list the top public policy issues of concern to AIHA members and the occupational and environmental health and safety (OEHS) profession over the next two years.  AIHA will review existing white papers and position statements, as well as draft new position statements, to determine the appropriate response to each of the issues.

Overall the Top Issues for 2011-2012 are:

  • Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) – Updating The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) PELs are consensus-based limits that indicate how long an individual can be exposed to a particular substance without experiencing harmful effects. The occupational health and safety profession considers PELs to be one of the most basic tools needed to protect workers. However, many PELs have not been updated since the 1960s and 1970s. Science in this area has matured, but the PELs have not. AIHA continues to work with OSHA, Congress and others to reach a consensus on the best way to update the PELs.
  • Injury and Illness Prevention Program (I2P2) - OSHA is developing a rule to require employers to establish and maintain an Injury and Illness Prevention Program. It involves identifying and controlling hazards as well as planning, implementing, evaluating and improving processes and activities that protect employee safety and health. AIHA has been providing leadership in the development of OHS management science and practice since its inception. AIHA supports the need and importance in defining effective occupational health and safety programs and the acceptance in the IH and safety community that hazard assessment and implementation of a written safety and health program are parts of minimum acceptable professional practice on any work site.
  • Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) / Globally Harmonized System (GHS) AIHA supports efforts to improve the accuracy of MSDS and supports efforts to improve hazard communication for employers and employees. Such efforts are also a crucial element in protecting workers and others in case of national emergencies. A major part of improving hazard communication is adoption of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). AIHA supports adoption of the GHS.
  • Professional Recognition/Title Protection - This issue continues to appear in the top public policy issues for AIHA, as it has since 1993. Professional recognition/title protection allows industrial hygienists and others who have met minimum educational and experience requirements (such as certified industrial hygienists and certified safety professionals) to be legally defined and recognized as competent to perform certain work without the need for additional requirements. One area of concern is the continued influx of specific occupational health and safety titles that are awarded by non-accredited bodies and the attempt to recognize these titles in various policy making activities. AIHA continues to educate federal and state policymakers about the importance of recognizing those professionals who have received education and certification from nationally recognized and accredited organizations.
  • OSHA Reform and NIOSH Recognition - Each year Congress introduces and considers legislation to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act. This legislation addresses many parts of the OSH Act, including criminal penalties, whistleblower protections, expansion of coverage, and the Voluntary Protection Program. AIHA supports efforts to review and amend the OSH Act if changes provide added protection for workers. AIHA also supports efforts to protect the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) from attempts to diminish the importance of the Institute and its research. AIHA supports appropriations to adequately fund both OSHA and NIOSH.
  • Laboratory Accreditation  - Accredited laboratories are the best way to ensure that test samples of potential workplace hazards are analyzed correctly. AIHA continues working to see that the AIHA laboratory accreditation program is internationally recognized and noted in federal and state legislation and regulation as one of the programs with recognition and acceptance.
For further information regarding AIHA's top policy issues for 2011–2012, please contact Aaron Trippler at atrippler@aiha.org.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, December 05, 2010

Review of Northeast Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition

This Friday, December 3, 2010, we went to the 64th Annual Northeast Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel New Brunswick, NJ.  The conference was presented by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), New Jersey Section, Inc. and co-sponsored by the Metro New York and Philadelphia Sections AIHA.  The title of the conference was "Welcome to the Future! Evolving Industrial Hygiene Opportunities."  The conference agenda included presentations in Nanotechnology by Dr. Chuck Geraci from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); Prevention through Design by Ms. Donna Heidel from NIOSH; Managing Risk in the Face of Change by Mr. T.J. Lentz from NIOSH; Industrial Forensics by Mr. Ryan Hall from RJ Lee Group; Bioterrorism Response by Dr. Nancy Connell from University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ); Before and After Measurements of Ergonomic Successes from Mr. Dan MacLeod of Dan McLeod LLC; and then the Bedbugs Invasion Panel that included Mr. Jay Taylor from Chubb and Son, Mr. Roy Viola, Esq. from McGiveny & Kluger, Mr. Rick Cooper of Cooper Pest Solutions, and Dr. Howard Sandler of Sandler Occupational Medical Associates.  The exhibition included AJ Abrams Co.; Analytics Corp., Belfor USA, Bomark Instruments,  EMSL, Environmental Reports, Nilfisk, Sandler Occupational Medicine Assoc., Unitech Services Group, and Zefon International to name a few.
The event like usual is great day for networking and catching up with people you haven't seen in a while.  It was great to see you folks, Mrs. Deborah Gul Haffner, Mr. Ed Olmstead, Mr. Stu Mirowitz, Mr. Jack Springston, Mr. Ed Gertz, Mr. Paul DeBiase, Mr. Ken Burns, Mr. Ron Smith, and Mr. Ken Shaw, to name a few.  As with most conferences, we go in hopes of learning something new or possibly meet someone who will help your business.  Well this conference was duo win on that front for us.  The Bedbug Panel provided alot of information that we will discuss in our next newsletter.  The Prevention Through Design presentation was our favorite.  It discussed "Building Industrial Hygiene into the Plan for Safer and Greener Economy."  Discussing the role of industrial hygiene in the green economy, and the need for industrial hygienist to be at the beginning of the design project.  Interesting statistic, from this presentation, was from an Australian Study that determined that design continues to be a significant contibutor to work-related serious injury.  37% of workplace fatalities involved design-related issues and another 14% of fatalities, design-related issues may have played a role.  If that statistic was not enough for us, the case studies presented emphasized how industrial hygienists involved at different stages of the project affected or prevented risk shifting.  The presentation also discussed whether worker safety and health should be included in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system?  A building could be rated platinum but were their any fatalities during construction, are the occupants happy with indoor air quality, or what are costs involved with operations and maintenance? 
Kudos to the New Jersey section for an excellant conference.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

That Time of Year! Conferences, Posting Requirements, and OSHA Violations Increased!

It's that time of year again. We're between conferences.  February 15-16, 2024 was the Professional Abatement Contractors of New Yor...