Fri 14 Feb 2014

Plasma cutting on stainless steel

Posted by admin under Air Monitoring, Exposure, Hexavalent chromium, industrial hygienist, occupational hygiene, PEL (Perm Exp Limit), Personal Protective Equip (PPE), Respirators, Welding
Comments Off on Plasma cutting on stainless steel

This has to be one of the coolest types of cutting. Raw obliteration of metal.

As you know, hexavalent chromium (Cr6) is generated when the metal, chromium, is heated. Cutting this metal with a plasma torch is an easy way to heat it up quickly.  We performed air monitoring on one employee performing plasma cutting on #304 stainless. Luckily the employee was wearing a 1/2 face tight fitting respirator (and skin protection due to the body readily absorbing Cr6) and we found exposures at 36% of the exposure limits (they were within the acceptable limits). This employee was able to stand away from the cutting due to the machine he was using. He did not do this task all day and no engineering controls (ventilation) was used. 

****Caveat: Please do your own air sampling. Conditions and environment may not be similar to your environment, and they can change rapidly. One sampling event rarely indicates all conditions. We’re talking about people’s health!****Keep in mind welding safety! 

plasma cutting

And a close up of the cutting machine without the motor & tracks:

cutting bevel

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

Tue 11 Feb 2014

Professional Profile – Illa Gilbert-Jones, CIH, CSP

Posted by admin under AIHA, industrial hygienist, occupational hygiene, Professional Profile, safety
Comments Off on Professional Profile – Illa Gilbert-Jones, CIH, CSP

People are inspiring. Starting in 2014, I would like to profile prominent professionals in the health, safety and construction industry.

The idea originally came from a publication  called, The Synergist,  published by the AIHA. At the back of their magazine they introduce someone in the industry. I have always enjoyed hearing about how others got into this field and where their paths have taken them. Unfortunately, this publication is (mostly) only for people in industrial hygiene. Which (IMO) does little to promote the profession to others outside of it.

 

Illa Gilbert-Jones, CIH, CSPIlla 2014

How did you get started in IH?
I was in the Masters program at the University of Washington and started out with an emphasis on toxicology. I noticed that those in industrial hygiene in the class before me we’re getting job offers so I decided to also complete the industrial hygiene courses.

What is your background?
My career started at Boeing Company as a safety administrator just before completing my masters. From there I have worked as an industrial hygienist for Bayer Corporation Product Safety for the chemical business, primarily isocyanates. I also worked in their Corporate Safety/Industrial Hygiene group before moving to Phoenix where I worked for Phelps Dodge Mining Company as the Corporate Occupational Health Manager. Although a copper mining company, Phelps Dodge also had smelters, refineries, copper magnet wire, and carbon black facilities with classic industrial hygiene issues-heavy metal fumes. After leaving Phelps Dodge, I did a short stint with Clayton Environmental in California before taking a position with a paint manufacturing/distribution as the Security, Safety, Health & Environmental Manager. After a few years in California, we returned to the Northwest where I worked for SAIF Corporation for over 7 years as a safety management consultant.

You are starting a new position, can you tell us what you will be doing?
On January 1st I accepted the position as Program Administrator for Oregon Fatality Assessment & Control Evaluation (OR-FACE). OR-FACE operates under a NIOSH grant. The program is research based and designed to identify and study fatal occupational injuries. The goal of the FACE program is to prevent occupational fatalities by identifying and investigating work situations at high risk for injury and then formulating and disseminating prevention strategies to those who can intervene in the workplace. More specifically,
• Identify traumatic occupational fatalities through a statewide surveillance network
• Investigate selected traumatic occupational fatalities
• Have a multidisciplinary team analyze the surveillance and investigation data
• Develop and disseminate prevention strategies for these injuries
• Collaborate with other states and NIOSH to develop prevention strategies to decrease the rate of occupational injuries and fatalities

What has been the most satisfying aspect of the field?
Similar to all occupational safety & health professionals, satisfaction is in observing and experiencing improvements in work conditions by reducing risk of contaminant and physical exposures. It is especially satisfying after struggling time-after-time to influence decision makers and then a breakthrough finally occurs and they become safety advocates.

What is the most fun part?

Developing relationships with those as passionate about injury/illness prevention and in giving back to the profession by mentoring those new to the field.

What is the challenging part?

The realization that the job is never done. Serious injuries and fatalities continue to happen. For occupational illnesses from chronic exposure it is very difficult to influence change today for a negative outcome in the distant future.

What advice do you have for those getting started?

Never be satisfied with small changes, be persistent and try all options in pursuing what you believe to be right. Always look for opportunities to increase yours and others in subject knowledge. Additionally, expand your expertise into areas that are normally grouped with industrial hygiene, e.g., safety, risk management, environmental.

What are your hobbies and outside interests?

I try to please my artistic side by learning and writing calligraphy. On the physical side, I try to go to water aerobics regularly, bicycling, and also use a wrist fit-bit to track my daily steps.

What do you see for the future of IH?

Practicing industrial hygiene creates skills for investigating and understanding several layers of causes. These skills enable an H&S professional to critically look at all possible solutions. Because of these skills, I believe industrial hygienists can be successful in a lot of different field. I have seen IH’s become HR Managers, Lab Managers, and of course HSE Managers. The future of IH is taking on more complex issues such as determining true body burden from exposure and in understanding genetic susceptibility to disease from these exposures.

Editor: Thank you Illa! You are inspiring. You may contact Illa directly at OHSU, or at: illagjones {at}gmail.c0m

Tags:

 

Thu 30 Jan 2014

real IAQ = Moisture Control

Posted by admin under Biological Monitoring, Building Survey, Engineering Controls, EPA, IAQ, occupational hygiene, Risk, safety, Stucco
Comments Off on real IAQ = Moisture Control

If you really have an indoor air quality and mold/fungus issue, it usually stems from moisture. I’ve talked about it before, here. The simplest answer is to find the water. Control the moisture and you inevitable will control the future indoor air quality concerns. Once you have found (and controlled) the water, then it is time to repair the damage and lingering water (which can’t evaporate).

The issue is: where does moisture come from? Well, it ‘can’ come from almost any direction:

EPA moisture control

  • from above (rain, roof vents, skylights)
  • from below (moisture in flooring, concrete)
  • walls (penetrations into the exterior, or windows and flashing)
  • out of thin air (relative humidity)

The EPA has written a new document titled, “Moisture Control Guidance for Building, Design, Construction and Maintenance“. As a contractor, how do you know when the clean up is too much to handle? I’ve written a bit more about it here.

The best time to clean up a moisture issue was yesterday, but the second best time to clean it up is today. Don’t let it sit, it usually doesn’t get any better.

Tags:

 

Wed 27 Nov 2013

Top 10 Hazards of drywall

Posted by admin under Asbestos, Building Survey, Dermal, Drywall, Dust, Exposure, Fall Protection, Gloves, hearing protection, Ladder, Ladders, Lead, Leaded Sheetrock, Management, Noise, occupational hygiene, OSHA, Powder Actuated Tool, Respirators, safety, Silica, Uncategorized
Comments Off on Top 10 Hazards of drywall

I titled this post, “hazards of drywall”, but it encompassing most of the common hazards of plaster, mud, gypsum, wall-hangers, tapers, and acoustic employees.

  1. Corrosive drywall.

    I have not dealt with this subject on a personal level. However, AIHA has a new guidance document titled, “Assessment and Remediation of Corrosive Drywall: An AIHA Guidance Document“, which is a clarification of an earlier white paper document from 2000, titled, “Corrosive Drywall“. The danger is from a specific type of drywall which was imported from China. After installation it is known to emit sulfide vapors, which corrode copper (electrical wires), and can give off a sulfur smell (HT to JeffH in Ohio).

  2. Asbestos in mud/plaster.

    Be aware, some older buildings (pre 1980s) may have asbestos in the mud compound or plaster (not as common). This will be a concern if you are performing demo on these walls. Info here.

  3. Silica (dust) in joint (mud) compound.

    Some types of silica I have found to have silica. This can be an issue when sanding. AND, if you install drywall like me…you do a lot of sanding. More information from an earlier post can be found here. NIOSH has some suggestions too.

  4. Leaded sheetrock. If you are installing (or demo) leaded sheetrock, you NEED to protect yourself. Airborne levels of lead can approach the exposure limits, even during installation. More info here.
  5. Lead in paint. If you’re tying into existing plaster/drywall and there’s paint, you need to know if there’s lead in it. Sanding on the paint is a good way to be exposed. More info here.
  6. Ergonomics. Hanging the wallboard takes a toll on your body after 20 years (or less). Not to mention sanding. Washington OSHA (L&I) has a good demo.
  7. Noise. Cutting steel studs, powder actuated tools (there’s lead exposure too, you know).
  8. Skin hazards. Cutting, but also dermatitis from prolonged exposure to dust.
  9. Eye hazards. Dust, carpentry, etc. Working overhead is an easy way to get falling items in your eyes.
  10. Falls. Last on my list, but certainly not the least. Scaffolding, working from ladders, and using stilts, to name a few.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

Tue 19 Nov 2013

Silica rule delayed

Posted by admin under Dust, Exposure, Federal OSHA, OSHA, PEL (Perm Exp Limit), Silica, Uncategorized
Comments Off on Silica rule delayed

For better, or worse, the silica rule has been delayed, again. This delay is for an extension of the public comment period, which goes until December 12, 2013. Public hearings are set to begin on March 4, 2014.

Find OSHA here, with links to my previous post. A NPR story from February, 2013.

My views on this rule haven’t changed much: It’s still a mixed-bag. There are still overexposures to silica (see my pictures from the last 3 weeks). However, will the new rule change the behavior?

  • Overexposures are still happeningsilica street2
  • Silica deaths have decreased over the past (without the new rule)
  • Will the small employers (the ones who typically offend the most) comply? Or just wait to be cited?

But, my overwhelming thought is this:

  • Any new rule will generate “noise” for the subject of silica. And, that’s a good-thing.
  • This will drive:
    • compliance
    • changes
    • innovation
    • discussions
    • awareness

silica street1

Tags: , , , ,

 

Thu 7 Nov 2013

Now for a “best case” scenario

Posted by admin under Air Monitoring, Asbestos, Behavior Based, Building Survey, Ethics, Exposure, Hazard Communication, Management, Risk, Safety Policies, Uncategorized
Comments Off on Now for a “best case” scenario

I previously wrote about a worst-case scenario in which asbestos was not discovered till after it was disturbed.TSI asbestos

Recently I heard a story of the opposite:

A general contractor hired a company to remove various pieces of asbestos. They had obtained an asbestos building survey, which clearly stated where the  asbestos was located. A boiler with surrounding insulation was identified as non-asbestos containing (asbestos-free). The employee was using a bobcat to demolish the boiler. As he started to tear into the insulation surrounding the boiler (disturb it), he paused. He checked the building survey again, and it had clearly stated it was “asbestos free” (actually 5 samples had been taken of the insulation around the boiler). Then, he did what most other people would not do: HE REFUSED to demo the insulation. He told the General Contractor and owner he thought it was asbestos containing and wanted it tested, AGAIN.

Guess what they found? Yep. Asbestos WAS contained inside the insulation around the boiler.

There was obviously some break-down in communication with the report, inspector, and possibly the lab.  However, this employee is to be commended and, really, the safety culture at this company should be congratulated. You never know where you will find asbestos.  The employee had enough guts to speak up for his safety (and for the others).

Measuring good-safety behavior is the type of thing we should reward. In the past (and still today) many safety-people measure losses ( ie. how many injuries). This is backwards thinking. We should be rewarding good behavior and encouraging people to speak up for safety.

For example; what do you say to this guy?

scaffold ladder

Tags:

 

Tue 5 Nov 2013

Hazard Communication with GHS – SDS/MSDS

Posted by admin under Federal OSHA, GHS, Hazard Communication, Management, MSDS, OSHA, Personal Protective Equip (PPE), Safety Programs, SDS, Training, Uncategorized
Comments Off on Hazard Communication with GHS – SDS/MSDS

If you live in the United States, you have less than one month to train your employees on the new Hazard Communication standard (1910.1200(h) & 1926.59), which should include information about the new types of Safety Data Sheets (formerly known as MSDS) and the adaptation with the Global Harmonization System (GHS). December 1, 2013 is the enforcement start date for OSHA. Don’t make this complicated, it is straightforward. Here’s what you should do:

  • Train employees in hazard communication (simply: so they know the hazards they are working with)beer
  • Document your training (in case of an OSHA inspection)
  • Show them a sample Safety Data Sheet (SDS), compared with the old MSDS
  • Explain that the new SDS will not be available immediately, but will roll-out over a few years (or more)

*Please note the “Beer” hazard warning on the right is not GHS compliant. 

For Help:

Tags: , , , , , ,

 

Wed 18 Sep 2013

Hearing loss prevention, in construction

Posted by admin under ACGIH, Exposure, Federal OSHA, Hearing Conservation, hearing protection, Management, NIOSH, Noise, OSHA, Personal Protective Equip (PPE), Safety Programs, TWA, Uncategorized
Comments Off on Hearing loss prevention, 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.NIOSH noise

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

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.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

Fri 6 Sep 2013

Let me give you a “hypothetical” worst-case scenario:

Posted by admin under Asbestos, Building Survey, Cadmium, Carcinogen, Exposure, Lead, Management, OSHA, Uncategorized
Comments Off on Let me give you a “hypothetical” worst-case scenario:

Hypothetically (and allegedly):demo1

  • 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.

Tags: , , ,

 

Wed 4 Sep 2013

Lowering the Silica exposure limit

Posted by admin under ACGIH, Air Monitoring, Concrete, Dust, Engineering Controls, Exposure, Federal OSHA, Hazard Communication, hygienist, industrial hygienist, NIOSH, occupational hygiene, OSHA, PEL (Perm Exp Limit), Personal Protective Equip (PPE), Respirators, Risk, Sandblasting, Silica, Training, Uncategorized
Comments Off on Lowering the Silica exposure limit

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.

 

OSHA helps

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)

OSHA lead table 1

 

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.

Tags:

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »