Industrial Hygiene in Construction

It’s sad to say, but many construction companies have not yet started a formal hearing conservation program. Their solution is to purchase the best earplugs, for the lowest cost, and give them away like candy.

As I’ve mentioned before: Sometimes OSHA’s rules are protective (meaning: you will be safe) and other times they are really not on par with the health research. Hearing loss and OSHA’s method of measuring noise are NOT protective to employee health (your hearing). For the best method of measuring noise, look to the recommended guidelines of the ACGIH. In order to get the exact parameters, you must purchase their Guide to Occupational Exposure Values (TLVs) booklet. It hasn’t changed (at least for noise) for a few years, but it is still the most up to date on health for your hearing. Here’s a summary of some differences:

• Exchange rate (how noise doubles and is averaged over time)
  • OSHA uses 5, ACGIH uses 3 >>which means noise doubles every 5, or 3 dB increase
  • this makes a BIG difference in your accumulated average noise level (TWA).
• Exposure Limit, or Criterion Level
  • OSHA says 90 dBA, ACGIH says 85 dBA
  • Doesn’t seem too different (-5), but remember noise is logarithmic and it’s measured different by OSHA & the ACGIH

NIOSH also has some guidelines, which are very similar to the ACGIH.

There are some strong benefits to having a hearing conservation program. Here are some examples and suggestions for bettering your own program.

• You can be recognized
• Win an award. 
• Have less (or even better: none) hearing loss claims
• What about just hearing soft noises? kids? hunting? sports? the TV?

If you have worked in construction for any period of time, you know how loud it can be, and how much exposure is out there. Don’t assume working in this industry that hearing loss will to happen to you. Do something about it. Here’s a presentation from CDC/NIOSH a few years back on how to start.

Hypothetically (and allegedly):

• You receive a project as a subcontractor.
• You are verbally told no asbestos or lead onsite. Only that’s not true.
• There is asbestos, and you, and multiple other subs, have disturbed it.
• The prime contractor says, “oops”. Has the materials tested, and then blames the owner for not letting them know.
• OSHA is called and citations are issued to the owner and GC for not testing and telling people.
• A year goes by and now both the owner and GC are being sued by 5 employees for $10,000,000 (yep $10 million, that’s the max BTW).
  • As a footnote: this incidentally is not a worker compensation case (yet) since they are not suing their employer (they are suing the GC and owner)

Even if the employees don’t win $10m, are you prepared for: the headache, loss of client-relationship, trust breaking? Here’s a similar hypothetical article about such a situation.

On the flip side, here are some positive things you can do:

• get a written copy of the building survey (lead & asbestos) ALWAYS. (you might also ask for cadmium, radon, other possible hazardous substances)
• Train your employees about asbestos prior to having to deal with it.
• Give employees the power to “stop work” if they are suspicious of possible asbestos containing material (PACM).
• When handing out a building survey to your subs, get their acknowledgment (in writing, of course)
• Fight your OSHA citations. Go to your informal conference. Present your evidence and, at the very least, beg for forgiveness.

If you haven’t heard, Federal OSHA is proposing to reduce the airborne silica permissible exposure limit (PEL) to 50 µg/m³. It is difficult to say how much lower this new rule will be, since the current standard relies on a calculated formula to obtain the exposure limit. However, to make this easier, let’s just say it’s a 50% reduction in the PEL. This limit is the same at the NIOSH Recommended Limit and above the ACGIH Threshold Value of 25 µg/m³. Before I offer my opinion, you can state yours to OSHA here, and I’d recommend you do.

Benefits:

• Increase awareness by everyone (any news is good news for silica awareness)
• Further protect employees from overexposures
• Update the health standards. The original rule was from the 1970s.
• New products for the industry will be created to control silica, like this.
• Pretask planning (JSA, JHA) will become more common
• Consultant hygienists will get more $ to: train, air monitor, etc.
• Alternatives to sampling. This is written in the proposed rule.
  • Rather than air sampling, you can choose to “over protect” and assure employees have adequate PPE
  • This is great for short duration tasks where exposure monitoring is prohibitive (see Table 1. below from OSHA’s Fact Sheet)

Weakness:

• Employers will spend additional money:
  • on controls for silica
  • on labor during the activities
  • on consultants to verify you’re below the PEL
• OSHA will cite you easier
  • (my guess) is compliance officers will cite you for failure to implement controls, rather than measuring the airborne dust and finding overexposure
  • driveby citations. Look at some of my “caught on camera” overexposures. It is easy to see why this will be easy for OSHA to cite.
• More confusion
  • remember how you felt when you started working with leaded paint? Picture that again.
  • smaller contractors might be confused with the changes
• I’ve heard: the airborne levels trying to be achieved are so low, they are at the laboratory detection limits. (this is a bit beyond me, honestly, but it has to do with chemistry & analytical methods)

Overall, I think lowering the limit will reduce employee overexposures to silica. The increase in awareness across the US will bring more attention to the danger. Contractor employers who are doing absolutely nothing to control silica will get caught, punished, and hopefully change. For good-contractors out there, this will make it easier to explain to your subcontractors who are a little behind. I can see many contractors using Table 1 as a guide to easily protect employees on short tasks with high silica exposures.

Your thoughts? I’d love to hear them. Here is a NY Times Article perspective.