Tue 27 Aug 2013

alpha-chloroacetophenone

Posted by admin under Admin Controls, Chemical Exposure, Dermal, Exposure, IDLH, industrial hygienist, NIOSH, occupational hygiene, Olfactory, PEL (Perm Exp Limit), Personal Protective Equip (PPE), Respirators
Comments Off on alpha-chloroacetophenone

Yea, I know. Strange one, huh? In my time consulting, this is actually the second time I’ve come across this.

It is more commonly know as: Mace (R) or tear gas (not pepper spray though, that is Oleoresin Capsicum). Hopefully you haven’t actually experienced it’s exposure. It is worse (so I’m told) than pepper spray. More differences compared here.  All can be quantitatively measured by your favorite occupational hygienist.

Exposure in construction can come from incidental releases (incident response) or during clean up/ demolition of structures where this was used (think: police entry into a structure).

The OSHA exposure limit is 0.3 mg/m3. (NIOSH REL is the same, ACGIH TLV 0.35 mg/m3). They are all very low, actually.  Exposure can occur by inhalation, eyes, ingestion, and skin exposure.  NIOSH Pocket Guide is here.

Personal protection is a bit interesting. NIOSH recommends a full face respirator with P100 and organic vapor cartridges be used. The interesting part is that using this type of protection would allow exposure (based upon the protection factor) up to 15 mg/m3. Which, incidentally, is also the level as immediate danger to life and health (IDLH) = 15 mg/m3.

Some guides for dealing with this substance can be found here.

Tags:

 

Wed 14 Aug 2013

Preplanning & engineering controls

Posted by admin under Concrete, Dust, Engineering Controls, Exposure, fit testing, Noise, occupational hygiene, Personal Protective Equip (PPE), Respirators, Silica
Comments Off on Preplanning & engineering controls

I was visiting a friend and in their neighborhood all of the curbs were cut for driveways (they were not poured for the cutouts). curb1

This might have saved some time for the carpenters forming & pouring the concrete. But it created additional work for the concrete cutters and the finishing of the driveways.

This lack of pre-planning created:

  • additional time to cut the curb,
  • dust (and silica, for sure),
  • the use of additional water (hopefully) to control the dust,
  • respirators (& cartridge filters),
  • exposure to noise, dust, silica

I don’t know the circumstances why this occurred, but I wonder if the person planning the development thought of the exposures to other human beings?

curb2

ps. Sorry for my blogging absence. Have been on vacation! (for some of it)

Tags: , , , ,

 

Wed 10 Jul 2013

7 air pollution hazards in your home

Posted by admin under Asbestos, Asthma, Building Survey, Chemical Exposure, Exposure, Formaldehyde, Gloves, Health & Wellness, insulation, Lead, LEED, Mold, radon, Risk, ventilation
Comments Off on 7 air pollution hazards in your home

Industrial hygiene (aka occupational hygiene) focuses on occupational-related diseases due to many reasons.home fireplace

Have you considered, at your home, maybe even as you sleep, you might be exposed to something hazardous? Below are seven possible hazards in your home (related to IH):

  1. Radon. It comes from the ground and they say it causes cancer* (*some people question this toxicological data). You must perform a test to know if you have hazardous levels.
  2. Formaldehyde. If you have a newer house you have 2 things going against you: 1. your house is tightly built (no air leaks and limited fresh air) and 2. more particle board (recycled wood) was used in construction. Also, many furniture contains multidensity fiber wood (MDF) which off gas formaldehyde. Again test for it to know if you have dangerous levels.
  3. Lead. Is your house built prior to 1978? It probably has leaded paint. Any remodeling might distrupt it and you can expose your kids to lead.
  4. Isocyantes. (HDI, TDI, MDI, and others) Can cause asthma & respiratory issues. If your house was insulated with spray foam (polyurethane type) it needs to off-gas for awhile before you move right in.
  5. Asbestos. Causes cancer when airborne. If your house was built prior to 1980, you might have asbestos in your pipe insulation, popcorn ceiling, etc. Be sure and have it checked prior to remodeling.
  6. Mold. Respiratory diseases.
  7. Cleaning products. The symptoms can vary depending on the type of chemicals in the product. Use the recommended gloves, eye protection and respirator, if necessary, while cleaning with chemicals.

Do not be overly concerned about any one thing. Simply test and make any necessary adjustments. However, do keep in mind that most health recommendations for substances relate to normal working adults who go home to a non-hazardous place. There can be issues if you are either: not considered in the general population of healthy workers and, you go home to a place that isn’t free of additional hazards.

Tags: , , , , ,

 

Wed 26 Jun 2013

PCBs in caulk

Posted by admin under Air Monitoring, Building Survey, EPA, Exposure, IAQ, industrial hygienist, Management, NIOSH, occupational hygiene, PCB, Risk, Uncategorized
Comments Off on PCBs in caulk

Yep. Polychlorobiphenyls (PCB) are found in caulking. Typically buildings before 1979 have this caulk. (EPA Facts about PCB in Caulk) The only way to know is to test. BUT, wait!

Either:

  • Assume you have it and renovate with caution. Or,
  • Have the air tested for PCBs in the air.

Do not have a bulk sample taken. You should ask for an exposure assessment to be performed (air monitoring) by a qualified industrial hygienist. The reason is two-fold.

  1. The potential for the hazard is airborne. In most instances, people aren’t getting exposure from any other method.
  2. By measuring the air, you account for any other sources of PCBs (paint, ballasts, oils, ceiling tiles).

Most of this caulk is found in outdoor uses (high grade) in older buildings up to around 1980-ish. If an airborne exposure assessment finds levels below the acceptable rules & recommendations (depends on age & location), you may continue with your project. Of course, you would take appropriate precautions, like these recommendations from the EPA. They also have a very nice flow chart. Just like a choose-your-adventure book, make sure you don’t fall into the “Abatement” box!

EPA PCB Caulk flow chart

Tags: , , , , ,

 

Wed 19 Jun 2013

Spray Polyurethane Foam insulation (SPF)

Posted by admin under Admin Controls, Air Monitoring, Asthma, Biological Monitoring, Engineering Controls, EPA, Exposure, Hazard Communication, IAQ, insulation, LEED, Management, occupational hygiene, odor thresholds, Olfactory, Personal Protective Equip (PPE), Risk, Training
Comments Off on Spray Polyurethane Foam insulation (SPF)

Let me first say that I am still learning about this hazard and why it is so dangerous.

Polyurethane foam is used as an insulating material. More info on it’s uses here. The danger is when you spray it (think: expandable type), or apply it, or cut/remove it after it’s cured. The danger is in the off-gassing.

There are two main considerations:spray foam

  • the process of applying the foam
    • spray type
    • quantity?,
    • ventilation?
  • the type (manufacturer/brand/type) of foam
    • curing rate,
    • type of hazard, etc.

What we know is that there is a hazard. AND, this hazard may not effect everyone, OR, it may not effect you until some time has gone by. But, some of the chemicals in these types of products include:

There is a huge potential for work related asthma when using these types of products. And, even contact with the skin can trigger an allergic response/asthma attack. If you have employees working around this type of product and have ANY respiratory symptoms (or asthma), please have them checked by an occupational medicine doctor.

Control of this hazard should include:

  • PPE for employees (respiratory, eye, & skin protection)
  • ventilation during application
  • ventilation during off-gassing & curing (can be 72 hours)
  • control plan for spills, cutting & demo
  • control plan for employee/occupants with asthma

The EPA has a quick reference card here (hat tip to Tom), and more detail from the EPA on how to control the hazard here. The Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance has free training here (haven’t checked it out though), and be mindful that anyone can be an instructor (good & bad).

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 

Mon 10 Jun 2013

See, I told you formaldehyde was a problem

Posted by admin under Carcinogen, Chemical Exposure, Exposure, Formaldehyde, insulation, LEED
Comments Off on See, I told you formaldehyde was a problem

It’s not a secret. (previous article here) Formaldehyde is in many types of composite, pressboard, and multidensity wood products. The EPA is now proposing to limit the amount of formaldehyde that can be added to these types of products.

When you build a structure, these types of products can offgass small amounts of formaldehyde. Even though the total formaldehyde is far less than 1% of the total product by weight/volume (which means it may NOT be listed on the SDS/MSDS- clue: look for the Prop 65 label). This can add up. The EPA is proposing to regulate the amount of formaldehyde a product can off-gas, and provide 3rd party certification framework for regulating it . composite wood

Unfortunately, nowadays “GREEN” products/ or recycled goods can contain a lot of formaldehyde. (used in the process of making & adhering the different recycled materials together).

Expect some push back from industry. Even though it’s a known carcinogen, there is sure to be some push-back.

Tags:

 

Wed 29 May 2013

The enemy of Occupational Hygiene

Posted by admin under Chlorinated Solvent, Ethics, Exposure, Lead, Risk
Comments Off on The enemy of Occupational Hygiene

There are some things in occupational hygiene which make our job harder: politics, money, personalities, fiction (not facts), rules/laws and schedules.

However, there is one person who we can blame. Maybe not entirely, but he epitomizes the opposite of protecting people’s health. Thomas Midgley, Jr. Who? Yea, he’s new to me too. Thomas Midgley

This guy has killed millions of people. Maybe not directly, but through his politics and lack of ethics. Here is a great article from Seth Godin on this guy. Essentially he allowed lead to be added to gasoline, AND, helped to provide CFC (chlorofluorocarbons) to products. However, he probably got what he deserved: He died from his inventions. It is easy to look at hindsight and blame him, but at the time, I wonder what he was thinking? My guess is money.

The enemy of Occupational Hygiene is probably not Thomas Midgley. It’s our ethics. If we fail to make the right choice every time, where does that lead us?

If you’re reading this, you probably don’t suffer from an ethical-failure to protect people. (Most people in safety don’t.) Rather, you should pat yourself on the back and keep doing the right thing. Good job.

 

Tags:

 

Wed 1 May 2013

When is fit testing NOT required?

Posted by admin under Air Monitoring, Exposure, fit testing, Management, N95, PEL (Perm Exp Limit), Personal Protective Equip (PPE), Respirators, Safety Policies, Safety Programs, Training, Uncategorized
Comments Off on When is fit testing NOT required?

There are only a few instances when you are not required to perform fit testing. The main reason not to perform fit testing is if the employees are wearing a respirator voluntary. (meaning: it’s not required)

So, how do you know if it’s required? It’s required when:

  • You have overexposures to a substance (it’s required by OSHA to wear a respirator- so make sure you know, perform air monitoring), or
  • If everyone is wearing a respirator during this task (it’s probably also required, just not formally- ie. spray finishing, or my favorite sanding drywall dust) or,
  • If your company policy requires them to be worn (management says: it’s required to wearing a respirator during this task).

So, if you choose voluntary to wear a respirator and there is NOT a policy, or law, that says you HAVE to wear one then, you don’t need fit testing. (but you do need a few other things, Appendix D, etc.)

There is only one other exception:loose fitting respirator

  • loose fitting hooded /helmet atmosphere supply respirators (when used in areas not immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH))

Some employers choose to use these types of respirators because:

  • the employee wears a beard
  • it is convenient to use
  • offers eye/face/neck protection
  • it offers a greater protection factor
  • it’s easier to don/doff (take on/off)

These guidelines for fit testing are different than medial testing before wearing a respirator, as spoken about here.

helmet respirator

Tags: , , , , ,

 

Fri 26 Apr 2013

Company Safety Awards

Posted by admin under Admin Controls, Engineering Controls, Management, Safety Policies, Safety Programs, Uncategorized
Comments Off on Company Safety Awards

If you’ve ever won an award before, sometimes getting the award rarely equates to anything lasting (other than your increased ego). gold starHowever, in construction nowadays, safety awards are HUGE! This is especially true if you are competitive bidding (or plan to in the future). I know companies who have received jobs & project  based upon one (or several) safety awards they have won. Of course they had other things going for them, but the safety award was the tipping point.

I am talking about company safety awards, not safety awards for being safe (see my earlier post, about safety incentives).

I really don’t think it matters where you get the award.

Heck, create your own award! If you’re a GC, or a specialty contractor, why not give awards to your subcontractors or general contractors if they do an amazing safety work, or provide innovation? Print off your own certificates. Or, at the end of your project, ask your owner/GC if they will recommend and/or give you an award for the safe work you’ve performed.

Here’s an example of a construction website’s awards: Russell, James (no connections). Here’s a similar article from EHS Today.

 

Tags: , , ,

 

Wed 17 Apr 2013

Safety Incentives – think twice

Posted by admin under Admin Controls, Behavior Based, Engineering Controls, Exposure, Hazard Communication, Management, Risk, Safety Policies, Safety Programs, Tool Box Talk, Training, Uncategorized
Comments Off on Safety Incentives – think twice

On one hand it makes perfect sense. If you work safely, over time, this is something that should be rewarded. Many, many companies provide a safety-incentive for no/low work place injuries.  However, there is a downside, which some people have discovered:  If you reward people for being safe, there is a possibility they won’t tell you if something isn’t safe. It’s called a reporting bias, or selective reporting.

Unfortunately this bias is exactly the opposite of what the best companies do. The best companies report every little thing (every incident). People who scrutinize the numbers can tell you for every accident that occurs, there are usually 100 little incidents which occurred prior to the accident. The reporting of incidents is the best indicator for future accidents. (aka, catch phrase: leading indicators)

A really cool example of this is Google Dengue Trends. Dengue is a mosquito-spread virus. Google looks at search words and, over time & many data points, can actually see people where the fever is spreading. An article in Science & Tech (June, 2001 Graham Smith) “Google launches Dengue Trends tool to help doctors track spread of deadly fever”

So how do you motivate people to report an unsafe act?

Here are some ideas:

  • Pre task planning & post task wrap-up (downside: can be a lot of paperwork)
  • Check the first-aid safety box for what’s being used
  • Encouraging open communication
  • Spies (not my favorite)
  • Follow up on any report of near miss (by management within a certain time frame)
  • Reward the reporting of incidents
  • Make it easy, safe, convenient, rewarding, honorable, and validating

Or, maybe you should ask the opposite question: What would motivate someone NOT to tell you? In construction, it is common practice to provide a bonus at the end of a project based upon various factors. This most definitely includes profitability, but it can also include safety. If you didn’t hurt anyone on the project, you SHOULD be rewarded. (or, at least be given a pat on the back). Here’s a case of someone who really got it backwards: A former safety manager at the Shaw Group (formerly Stone & Webster Construction) falsified records.

Tags: , , , ,

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »