Hi Monona,

OSHA also recommends the lower limits (Please see OSHA Fact Sheet 3634 
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA_FS-3634.pdf   ).

Regards,

Bill

William C. Looney
Senior Program Manager
Environment
D 414.944.6182  C 262.893.0658
Internal Cisco Extension 2166182
bill.looney**At_Symbol_Here**aecom.com 

AECOM
1555 N RiverCenter Drive
Suite 214
Milwaukee, WI  53212
Phone:  414-944-6080
Fax:  414-944-6081
www.aecom.com

This communication is intended for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it is 
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or 
subject to copyright. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in 
error, please contact the sender immediately. Any communication received in 
error should be deleted and all copies destroyed.   
=EF=81=90 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of 
Secretary, ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 2:14 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] JCH&S July/Aug 2013 nano article

From: Monona Rossol <actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com>
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 10:05 am
Subject: JCH&S July/Aug 2013 nano article

All, I just read with much interest the article in the Journal of Chemical H&S 
"Toward a comprehensive framework for nanomaterials: An interdisciplinary 
assessment of the current Environmental Health and Safety Regulation regarding 
the handling of carbon nanotubes."
 
It is mostly a great article, but as you can probably guess, I found stuff to 
kvetch about.
 
Here's the thing:  The closest the authors got to the issue of air quality 
limits was the outdated OSHA graphite PEL of 5 mg/m3.  Clearly, no  one with any 
conscience would use that limit, not even in the most avaricious nano 
industries.  Plus, under the General Duty Clause, OSHA can theoretically cite 
using better standards.  The ACGIH limit of 2 mg/m3 for graphite at least should 
have been mentioned.  And there is an even lower German Fed Research Standard 
that has been adopted by some countries. 
 
But assuming that the article wants to stick to US regulations and standards, 
they talked about OSHA and NIOSH, noting that NIOSH standards are not "federally 
mandated." The footnote for NIOSH references a call for public comments on a 
proposed bulletin on exposure to carbon nanotubes.   Naughty, naughty, guys.. 
That bulletin (# 65) was published in April of 2013.  Plus, NIOSH has other 
bulletins on nano topics that should have been included--more later.   
 
Most importantly, the OSHA and NIOSH information did not include the fact that 
in 2011 NIOSH set the first ever occupational air quality standard for a 
nanoparticle. I could be wrong, but I think this is a first anywhere in the 
world.  That's news.
 
This new recommended exposure limit (REL) is for nano TiO2.   This nanoparticle 
has been around for decades since it is a white pigment and the paint industry 
learned early that the smaller the particle, the less they would need to get the 
same coverage in a paint.  So there is more study of these nanoparticles than 
any other.  Just FYI, look at the various time weighted average (TWA) limits:
 
OSHA PEL 15 mg/m3 total dust (all sizes) ACGIH TLV 10 mg/m3 with a notice of 
intended change to lower that to 1 mg/m3 for respirable NIOSH REL  2.4 mg/m3 for 
respirable NIOSH REL  0.3 mg/m3 for nanoparticles
 
There is another reason not to ignore this TiO2 issue in this article, and that 
is that the authors cover the preliminary cancer evaluations for carbon 
nanotubes and fibers in detail.  Now if they only want to talk about CNT and 
CNF, this is OK, but the article's title says it is about nanoparticles.   The 
TiO2 story is relevant because NIOSH was the only agency to list TiO2 as a 
carcinogen.  They listed is decades ago, stuck to it, and no one agreed--until 
2010 when IARC reevaluated the existing data in terms of particle size.  IARC 
now lists TiO2 as 2B.   
 
Even more relevant to the article would be some mention of NIOSH Bulletin 63 on 
TiO2.  I think it would have been enlightening to quote even one sentence from 
their conclusion in this document that:
 
"...TiO2 is not a direct-acting carcinogen, but acts through a secondary 
genotoxicity mechanism that is not specific to TiO2, but is primarily related to 
particle size and surface area."
 
Whoopie damn dooo, class!  So NIOSH has reason to believe that lotsa itsy bitsy 
stuff can cause cancer.  And this revolting development was generated primarily 
by our wee NIOSH with only a morale boost from IARC. 
 
And we're not done here, because the NIOSH Bulletin 65 mentioned above on 
occupational exposure to CNT/CNF published in April 2013 sets more limits.  It 
says: ...NIOSH now recommends an exposure limit at the current analytical limit 
of quantification of 1 ug/m3.   Oops.  How low is that again?  Micro what?
 
I also like this story because it is a relief to me in lectures to be able to 
point to at least one thing the US has done recently in occupational health that 
is both right and first.  And if you look at both the current information and 
history of limits, you would note that NIOSH is usually first-est with the 
most-est.  That's what happens when you isolate a bunch of underfunded smart 
people and give them no power to do anything but think about stuff.
 
 
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President:  Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012     212-777-0062
actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com   www.artscraftstheatersafety.org