Thanks, Monica. We know all about manganese, and have been participating in some research on it. Manganism is rarely seen in the steel industry today, mostly due to the way in which alloying materials are added to the steel, but as you point out, it’s a serious problem in welding.
As to OSHA standards, setting new ones is a Herculean task. The rulemaking process has more than 30 steps, requires exhaustive analysis and massive support in the federal register, and is subject to all kinds of political interference and legal challenges. Even with a strong OSHA leadership and a supposedly friendly Administration, OSHA has released one new proposed health standard in a little less than 5 years – for silica. That standard is still a year or more from promulgation, after which it stands a good chance of being stayed by the Court of Appeals until the legal challenges are exhausted. They’ve finished only one health standard – the one adopting the GHS – but that was started under the Bush Administration and is still under challenge in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, although it has not been stayed.
The recent OSHA release on chemical safety is very welcome, but with respect to substances covered by the old TLVs, it’s best seen as a desperate attempt to get employers to do the right thing even where OSHA cannot compel them to. Some are already. Others may take the guidance seriously. Sadly, others will not. The problem with voluntary measures is that not everyone volunteers.
By the way, despite our shorthand name, our industries are broader than steel. We are the predominant North American union in aluminum, ferrous and nonferrous metals generally, rubber, paper, chemicals, oil refining, mining other than coal, and manufacturing in general.
Mike Wright
Michael J. Wright
Director of Health, Safety and Environment
United Steelworkers
412-562-2580 office
412-370-0105 cell
See us on the web at www.usw.org
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU]On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 9:31 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] OSHA provides new information on chemical safety
Mike, This is why the PEL that OSHA will finally set policy with must be one which has clear, demonstrable hazards within a period of time that workers are likely to be in the same job. In your industry, Mike, there is a candidate in Manganese whose PEL is a 5 mg/m3 Ceiling limit while the new TVL-TWA is 0.02 mg/m3. This is also what the DFG MAK is for fume.
The worker studies now can pick up early neurological damage consistent with early Parkinson's disease in welders of mild steel. The American Welding Soc Journal carried articles encouraging the industry to switch to the new standards and it showed that without local ventilation, all types of welding except one type of TIG resulted in Mn exposure over the TLV. Even hand held grinding exceeded the TLV. My reports now all recommend flexible duct exhaust at all welding sites.
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Wright, Mike <mwright**At_Symbol_Here**USW.ORG>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 9:03 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] OSHA provides new information on chemical safety
Correct. OSHA can’t cite for exposures lower than an existing PEL. We went through this for exposure to PCBs from a failed transformer. Since there was an old ACGIH TLV for Aroclors, adopted when they were believed to be fairly harmless, there was little they could do. Fortunately we had some help from TSCA.
Michael J. Wright
Director of Health, Safety and Environment
United Steelworkers
412-562-2580 office
412-370-0105 cell
See us on the web atwww.usw.org
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU]On Behalf Of Kim Gates
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 7:17 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] OSHA provides new information on chemical safety
I believe OSHA will only continue to cite for exceeding the PEL and not the annotated OELs for chemicals on the OSHA list. The press release says:
"OSHA also created another new web resource: the Annotated Permissible Exposure Limits, or annotated PEL tables, which will enable employers to voluntarily adopt newer, more protective workplace exposure limits. OSHA's PELs set mandatory limits on the amount or concentration of a substance in the air to protect workers against the health effects of certain hazardous chemicals; and OSHA will continue to enforce those mandatory PELs. Since OSHA's adoption of the majority of its PELs more than 40 years ago, new scientific data, industrial experience and developments in technology clearly indicate that in many instances these mandatory limits are not sufficiently protective of workers' health."
The letter explains that 5a1 will be cited only if there was no PEL and a hazardous exposure exists. OSHA can not cite for a more restrictive standard (either PELs or some other issue that is covered by a consensus standard that is more restrictive than an OSHA reg). https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24749
Kim Gates
Laboratory Safety Specialist
Environmental Health & Safety
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-6200
Kim.Gates**At_Symbol_Here**stonybrook.edu
631-632-3032
FAX: 631-632-9683
EH&S Web site: http://www.stonybrook.edu/ehs/lab/
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Monona Rossol <actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com> wrote:
It doesn't make it inevitable, but it helps. If workers have injuries documented to be from a particular chemical, and if the employer has documentation that exposures were below the PEL, and if that PEL is significantly less protective than the other two workplace standards, it makes using the General Duty Clause easier. OSHA can make the case that the employer should have been aware that this level of exposure is a recognized hazard by NIOSH, the State of California, and ACGIH (and probably by the DFG in the EU and on and on). That coupled with the statements OSHA published in the Federal Register in 1992 after the courts vacated their new PELs which clearly said that workers would not be protected by the old standards, I think employers should be using the more protective standards. It is now common practice for many Industrial Hygienists, myself included, to ignore the PELs in favor of better standards.
There also are a number of states that have adopted the vacated OSHA PELs for their state programs. And California was one. Since 1992, CalOSHA also lowered some more and added a few.
I am so impressed with my friend, David Michaels, for doing this. It's about the only strategy left to OSHA after the 1992 decision.
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Looney, Bill <bill.looney**At_Symbol_Here**AECOM.COM>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Sun, Oct 27, 2013 3:32 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] OSHA provides new information on chemical safety
Since OSHA is putting these more restrictive values out there and notifying employers, I have to wonder if they can use the General Duty Clause to make them de facto standards and enforce them in egregious circumstances?
William C. Looney
Senior Program Manager
Environment
D 414.944.6182 C 262.893.0658
Internal Cisco Extension 2166182
AECOM
1555 N RiverCenter Drive
Suite 214
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Phone: 414-944-6080
Fax: 414-944-6081
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.
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU]On Behalf Of Kim Gates
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 7:04 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] OSHA provides new information on chemical safety
OSHA Statement: 13-2026-NAT OSHA releases new resources to better protect workers WASHINGTON – Each year in the United States, tens of thousands of workers are made sick or die from occupational exposures to the thousands of hazardous chemicals that are used in workplaces every day. The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration today launched two new web resources to assist companies with keeping their workers safe. While many chemicals are suspected of being harmful, OSHA's exposure standards are out-of-date and inadequately protective for the small number of chemicals that are regulated in the workplace. The first resource OSHA has created is a toolkit to identify safer chemicals that can be used in place of more hazardous ones. This toolkit walks employers and workers step-by-step through information, methods, tools and guidance to either eliminate hazardous chemicals or make informed substitution decisions in the workplace by finding a safer chemical, material, product or process. The toolkit is available athttp://www.osha.gov/dsg/safer_chemicals/index.html. "We know that the most efficient and effective way to protect workers from hazardous chemicals is by eliminating or replacing those chemicals with safer alternatives whenever possible," said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. OSHA also created another new web resource: the Annotated Permissible Exposure Limits, or annotated PEL tables, which will enable employers to voluntarily adopt newer, more protective workplace exposure limits. OSHA's PELs set mandatory limits on the amount or concentration of a substance in the air to protect workers against the health effects of certain hazardous chemicals; and OSHA will continue to enforce those mandatory PELs. Since OSHA's adoption of the majority of its PELs more than 40 years ago, new scientific data, industrial experience and developments in technology clearly indicate that in many instances these mandatory limits are not sufficiently protective of workers' health. "There is no question that many of OSHA's chemical standards are not adequately protective," Michaels said. "I advise employers, who want to ensure that their workplaces are safe, to utilize the occupational exposure limits on these annotated tables, since simply complying with OSHA's antiquated PELs will not guarantee that workers will be safe." The annotated PEL tables provide a side-by-side comparison of OSHA PELs for general industry to the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health PELs, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommended exposure limits, and American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist threshold limit values. They offer an easily accessible reference source for up-to-date workplace exposure limits, which are available at http://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/index.html. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov. ### U.S. Department of Labor releases are accessible on the Internet at http://www.dol.gov. The information in this news release will be made available in alternate format (large print, Braille, audiotape or disc) from the COAST office upon request. Please specify which news release when placing your request at 202-693-7828 or TTY 202-693-7755. The Labor Department is committed to providing America's employers and employees with easy access to understandable information on how to comply with its laws and regulations. For more information, please visit http://www.dol.gov/compliance. |
Kim Gates
Laboratory Safety Specialist
Environmental Health & Safety
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-6200
Kim.Gates**At_Symbol_Here**stonybrook.edu
631-632-3032
FAX: 631-632-9683
EH&S Web site: http://www.stonybrook.edu/ehs/lab/
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post