Industrial Hygiene in Construction

Many times an IH is called upon to determine the cause of a person’s ailing symptoms. For example, an employee might complain of congestion, irritability, bloody nose, etc. Someone has decided it might be from their exposure at work.

The practice of industrial hygiene is difficult to apply to an individual. What I mean is, this field of study was developed due to serious health concerns over a population of people at work. This is essentially how science works, you take a population, study it, find the differences, then make conclusions.

Trouble occurs when you try this backwards. If the same person (as example above) complains of congestion, irritability, bloody nose- can we assume they must have exposure to lead dust? Not usually. We must obtain other clues.

What industrial hygienists try to do in these instances is rule-out the possible over-exposures. Sometimes we can measure for chemical exposures to see if it might be of concern. But even then, it’s not fool proof. Below are a few issues which make it complicated.

• exposure at work? job? extracurricular activities? home?
• person might have autoimmune disease and gets sick easier
• sampling is not feasible
• sampling is somehow screwed up (by IH, lab, mail carrier)
• exposure is through food, clothing, etc.

Even with these fallacies, there are things an individual can do to narrow down their ailments:

• create a log. time, type of symptoms, pain scale, others experience/smell, food eaten
• change things and see if it improves/makes it worse
• research – but do it right. Look at the items you use, check the SDS

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.

You probably already knew this. Risk changes over time.

As we start to measure, and value, loss we immediately want to minimize it. However, it’s an unobtainable goal. “Zero losses”. Really? It’s not actually possible, you know (at least in the long term).

Look at this graph of the number of deaths in the US over the years due to silica. In 1968 we had approximately 1,000 deaths. Now, in the year 2005, we are less than 200. Yet, OSHA wants us to lower the exposure limit.  (I am personally not opposed to it – but I am open to debate about it, really)

Our world is becoming smaller. But, you already knew this, too.

To give an example, look at what happened in Bangladesh on November 24/25, 2012. Meanwhile in the US, we were watching football and eating leftover turkey.  Over 100 people died due to safety concerns that turned into a fire. This country is going through what the US experienced pre-1970. Other countries have similar problems.

I suppose living in the US is a yet another reason for thanksgiving. Yes…, But.  What can you do to make the biggest impact? I don’t have the answer, but, I am open to suggestions.

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.

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

I’ve mentioned this before.

If you’re using these tools in construction please be careful.

Quick summary:

• the powder contains lead (Pb)
• you can be exposed to lead when it is airborne, AND if it gets on your hands & you eat it.
• lead is not healthy for kids
• Wash!

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

When measuring by air sampling for a job task, or an employee’s personal exposure, how many samples should you take?

Sometimes it is easier to place one filter cassette (or media) on the employee for the duration of their day.  At the end of the shift, you collect your equipment, mail it to the lab, and they spit out a 8-hour time weighted average (8-hour TWA). This is simple and easy to understand.

However, if you have the time and resources, it is usually beneficial to obtain multiple samples throughout the day. Taking multiple samples allow you to:

• obtain peaks, lows, and anomalies.
• look at: set up & clean up activities (separate from daily tasks)
• measure multiple employees doing the same task (to better capture the job task)
• calculate your own time weighted average
• capture short term exposure levels (STELs), or excursion limits *
• choose appropriate PPE for short duration tasks
• determine if employees are “falsifying” the data (skewing the data high or low)
• reduce filter overloading (in some cases)

There are some reasons NOT to obtain multiple samples:

• collection limit constraints (sometimes the method of sampling does not allow for this type of multiple sampling)
• it can be costly
• it is very time consuming (and nearly impossible, if you have multiple pumps on multiple employees throughout the site)
• difficulty interpreting the data (the math, the inferences, etc)

If you are hiring an industrial hygienist to perform air monitoring, ask about multiple samples. It might be slightly more expensive, but the information and data might be worth the cost.

*ACGIH recommends that if the compound does not have a STEL, all airborne levels should not exceed 3x the 8-hour TWA as an excursion limit.

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.