Make OSHA’s Industrial Hygiene Program Better!
Eileen Senn eileensenn@gmail.com
June 28, 2009
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s
(OSHA) current and long-standing approach to
regulating chemicals, noise, radiation, and other health
hazards in the workplace has generally failed to protect
workers. Citations are rarely issued and many health
hazards remain under-regulated or completely
unregulated. Below are fifteen proposals to make
OSHA’s industrial hygiene program better. The first
eight cover actions that can be taken administratively
and the last seven cover actions that will require new
regulations. Proposals 9. to 13. could be included in a
revived OSHA Program Standard.1 Here are the
proposals in brief, with more details following.
1. Target inspections where the worst worker
exposures are expected and where workers have
work-related health problems or elevated biological
monitoring results.
2. Focus inspections on finding work-related health problems that can be cited under the
general duty clause and finding violations of standards that don’t require sampling.
3. OSHA makes recommendations for improvements even when they find no violations of
standards.
4. OSHA does in-office reviews of employer documents as an enforcement mechanism,
including injury and illness records, medical surveillance and monitoring programs and
data, training programs, and written programs.
5. All OSHA health inspections include checking compliance for worker training and written
programs requirements.
6. Active recruitment and training of industrial hygiene talent to OSHA.
7. Create OSHA databases of processes, exposures, controls, substitutes, employer
exposure monitoring and medical surveillance results.
8. Integrate functioning of OSHA industrial hygiene, safety, medical, ergonomic, and
education professionals.
9. Expand hazard communication to all health hazards.
10. Expand exposure assessment for all health hazards.
11. Implement the hierarchy of controls for all health hazards.
12. Employers report use of chemical, radiological, and biological agents to OSHA along with
information on the conditions of use.
13. Employers track and report employee work-related health problems to OSHA.
14. Regularly updated health-based exposure limits based on the best information available.
15. Regulation of indoor air quality (IAQ), temperature, repetitive trauma, lifting, violence,
bacteria, viruses, and other biological hazards based on the best state and international
models.
1
OSHA never adopted the proposed Program Standard, which included requirements for management
leadership and employee participation, hazard assessment, hazard prevention and control, employee training,
and assessment of program effectiveness. Much of the proposed standard is summarized in the document at
www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/peoshweb/shguide.pdf .
Proposal 1
Current way: Health inspections are targeted where previous violations were found.
Better way: Target inspections in workplaces where the worst worker exposures are
expected and where workers have work-related health problems or elevated biological
monitoring results.
Reasoning: Inspecting where previous violations were found creates an ever-narrowing set
of workplaces being targeted. Contemporary surveillance systems2 could allow OSHA to tap
into information on worker exposures and illnesses, such as elevated lead levels, pesticides
poisonings, or silicosis cases, which lead to problem workplaces.
Questions: What surveillance systems are most useful to OSHA?
Proposal 2
Current way: Unproductive health inspections focus on sampling. No attempt is made to find
out if workers have work-related health problems.
Better way: Inspections that focus on finding work-related health problems that can be cited
under the general duty clause and finding violations of standards that don’t require sampling. 3
Reasoning: OSHA industrial hygienists spend a lot of time and money air sampling to
evaluate compliance with PELs. They almost never find violations, making this effort a giant
waste of OSHA resources.4
Questions: Should OSHA inspectors use standard checklists5 and a work-related health
problem survey6?
Proposal 3
Current Way: Most health inspections results in no citations, giving the impression that there
are no problems in the workplace – a Clean Bill of Health.
Better Way: Useful recommendations for improvements7 can be made by OSHA even when
they find no violations of standards.
2
Occupational health surveillance is the tracking of occupational injuries, illnesses, hazards, and exposures.
Surveillance systems have been developed using laboratory reports of elevated heavy metal levels, healthcare
provider reports of occupational disease, hospital discharge data, emergency room visits, death certificates, and
workers’ compensation claims. www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/surveillance/
3
These include the record-keeping, sanitation, hazardous chemicals in laboratories, bloodborne pathogens,
ventilation, process safety management, asbestos, lead, and cadmium in construction, and personal protective
equipment standards.
4
It is a well-kept secret that nearly all OSHA sampling shows employers in compliance with exposure limits.
This was true even during the brief period of time when some PELs were temporarily lowered in 1989. The
overall rate of compliance for samples collected by OSHA between 1/1/85 and 6/30/91 was 92.3% for full-shift,
time-weighted average samples, 95% for ceiling samples, 96.1% for peak samples and 78.9% for action levels.
For more details, see Ending OSHA’s Dependence on Exposure Limits, Applied Occupational and
Environmental Hygiene, 10 (6), 520-522, June 1995, in OSHA Compliance Issues column.
5
NIOSH has over 80 checklists for OSHA standards for schools at www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-101/ . They
could easily be adapted for all workplaces.
6
A work-related health problems survey is given in Appendix 6 of Playing Industrial Hygiene to Win,
www.nycosh.org/reference_library/Senn.html
7
Standard industrial hygiene recommendations are given in Appendix 3 of Playing Industrial Hygiene to Win,
www.nycosh.org/reference_library/Senn.html
2
Reasoning: Precaution is a sound public health practice.8
Questions: Should recommendations be generic or tailored to the workplace?
Proposal 4
Current Way: Onsite inspections are the only OSHA enforcement mechanism.
Better Way: OSHA in-office reviews of employer documents as enforcement mechanism,
including injury and illness records, medical surveillance and monitoring programs and data,
training programs, and written programs.
Reasoning: Onsite inspections are extremely resource-intensive. Computerized and human
reviews of employer compliance documents by OSHA could catch many violations and would
be resource-efficient.
Questions: Will employer records need to be kept in a standardized format or database to
facilitate OSHA review?
Proposal 5
Current Way: OSHA doesn’t do much enforcement of requirements in its standards for
worker training and written programs.
Better Way: All OSHA health inspections should include checking compliance with
requirements for worker training9 and written programs10.
Reasoning: These provisions are often violated, easy to enforce, and can make a difference.
Questions: How can inspectors most efficiently check compliance?
Proposal 6
Current Way: OSHA has no industrial hygiene interns and NIOSH fellowships for college
and graduate school training in industrial hygiene dried up many years ago.
Better Way: Active recruitment and training of industrial hygiene talent to OSHA.
Reasoning: Especially in this economy, many bright, progressive young people might be
interested in becoming OSHA industrial hygienists if encouragement and assistance were
available.
Questions: Should OSHA recruit on Monster.com as well as USA Jobs www.usajobs.gov/?
Should NIOSH fellowships be given to those who promise to work for OSHA for a minimum
number of years?
8
For more on the Precautionary Principle, see the Science and Environmental Health Network website,
www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html.
9
Descriptions of training that employers are required to provide are found in more than 100 occupational safety
and health standards. For details, see OSHA Publication 2254, Training Requirements in OSHA Standards and
Training Guidelines, 1998, www.osha.gov/Publications/osha2254.pdf , which needs to be updated for changes
in the past ten years.
10
Requirements for written programs include hazard communication, laboratory chemical hygiene plan,
bloodborne pathogens model exposure control plan, respirator program, written certification of assessment for
personal protective equipment, hearing conservation program, emergency action plan, fire prevention plan, and
confined space entry procedures.
3
Proposal 7
Current Way: OSHA doesn’t track much valuable information available during inspections.
Better Way: OSHA databases of processes, exposures, controls, substitutes, employer
exposure monitoring and medical surveillance results should be created.
Reasoning: This information would be a valuable resource for future inspections and
standard-setting.
Questions: How can OSHA staff be given the incentive to complete additional paperwork?
Should registries of exposed workers be created? 11
Proposal 8
Current Way: OSHA has industrial hygiene and safety but almost no medical, ergonomic, or
education professionals.
Better Way: Integrated functioning of OSHA industrial hygiene, safety, medical, ergonomic,
and education professionals.
Reasoning: OSHA needs staff with expertise in all the occupational health fields.
Questions: What exactly would the role be for new types of OSHA professionals?
Proposal 9
Current way: Hazard communication is limited to chemical hazards.
Better way: Expand hazard communication to all health hazards as part of an OSHA
Program Standard.
Reasoning: We now have over twenty years of experience with hazard communication and
know that it is vital. Education on all health hazards will empower workers with more
information about hazards, controls, and OSHA standards and should increase the quality of
worker complaints to OSHA.
Questions: How protect workers, especially non-union workers, from retaliation once they
know about hazards and want to act to reduce exposures? Should the training length and
content be set? Should providers be evaluated for competence?
Proposal 10
Current way: Most health hazards have no requirement for exposure assessment. There are
only 14 chemicals with 17 comprehensive standards12 that include requirements for
assessing exposures.
Better way: New regulation requiring exposure assessment for all health hazards as part of
an OSHA Program Standard.
Reasoning: Hazard assessment is a necessary first step in protecting workers.
Questions: Should the assessment include a review of whether the process, equipment, or
chemical can be eliminated and safer ones used? Should the assessment be qualitative or
quantitative or some combination? Should exposure assessment through computer modeling
be allowed?
11
An exposure registry is the enrollment of persons exposed or likely to have been exposed to occupational or
environmental hazards. The registry may include how these groups are managed with regard to primary or
secondary preventive efforts.
12 Acrylonitrile 1910.1045, Arsenic (inorganic) 1910.1018, Asbestos 1910.1001, Benzene 1910.1028, Cadmium
1910.1027, Chromium (VI) 1910.1026, Coke oven emissions 1910.1029, Cotton dust 1910.1043, 1, 2 -Dibromo3-chloropropane (DBCP) 1910.1044, Ethylene oxide 1910.1047, Formaldehyde 1910.1048, Lead 1910.1025,
Methylene chloride 1910.1052, Vinyl chloride 1910.1017, Asbestos in Construction 1926.1101, Cadmium in
Construction 1926.1127, Lead in Construction 1926.62
4
Proposal 11
Current way: 1910.1000 13 has a hierarchy of controls14 that only kicks in when exposure
limits are exceeded.
Better way: New regulation requiring implementation of the hierarchy of controls for all health
hazards as part of an OSHA Program Standard.
Reasoning: Engineering controls at the source of exposure are inherently better than
controls along the exposure path, such as housekeeping, or at the worker, such as personal
protective equipment. They should be required even if not sufficient to keep the exposures
within PELs.
Questions: Should Control Banding15 be considered? How can OSHA provide employers
easy access to information on the best substitutes, engineering controls, etc.?
Proposal 12
Current way: OSHA has no knowledge of how employers use chemical, radiological, and
biological agents.
Better way: New hazard surveillance16 regulation as part of an OSHA Program Standard.
Require employers to report use of chemical, radiological, and biological agents to OSHA
along with information on the conditions of use such as identities, amounts, and forms of
agents; number of employees exposed; frequency and duration of exposures; descriptions of
control measures in place.
Reasoning: Such reporting is feasible with personal computers and online reporting.
Questions: How can OSHA make sure the information it gets from employers is accurate
and complete?
13
There are approximately 500 chemicals that have Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs). These PELs are listed
in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 in the OSHA Air Contaminants Standard, 1910.1000
www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9991
14
The hierarchy of controls is a list of steps that employers must take to prevent or reduce exposure to a
hazard, ranked from best to worst in terms of effectiveness. It starts with substituting a safer material, machine,
or process; followed by engineering controls like mechanization, enclosure, and ventilation; followed by
administrative controls like limiting exposure time and distance, housekeeping, hygiene facilities, medical
surveillance and air monitoring; ending with personal protective equipment like hearing protection, respirators,
gloves, goggles, and clothing.
15
Control Banding is a technique used to guide the assessment and management of workplace risks. It is a
generic technique that determines a control measure (for example dilution ventilation, engineering controls,
containment, etc.) based on a range or “band” of hazards (such as skin/eye irritant, very toxic, carcinogenic, etc)
and exposures (small, medium, large exposure). It is an approach that is based on two pillars; the fact that there
are a limited number of control approaches, and that many problems have been met and solved before.
www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ctrlbanding/
16
Hazard surveillance involves identifying potentially hazardous practices or exposures in the workplace and
assessing the extent to which they can be linked to the conditions of use. Research to design and use a hazard
surveillance survey are described in Blando J, Lefkowitz D, Valiante D, Gerwel B, Bresnitz E. Survey of Current
Lead Use, Handling, Hygiene, and Contaminant Controls among New Jersey Industries. J Occup Environ Hyg
(2007) 4:539-546.
5
Proposal 13
Current way: Employers and OSHA have no knowledge of where workers have developed
work-related health problems. Requirements for medical surveillance appear in some specific
OSHA standards 17 but there is no generic standard.
Better way: New regulation requiring employers to track and report work-related health
problems to OSHA as part of an OSHA Program Standard.
Reasoning: Workplaces where workers have work-related health problems should have
priority for interventions.
Questions: How should employers go about determining if employees have work-related
health problems? Employee self-reporting? Medical surveillance? How prevent employer
retaliation when employees report?
Proposal 14
Current way: Exposure limits for chemicals, noise, and radiation that find most workplaces in
compliance.
Better way: Regularly updated health-based exposure limits based on the best information
available.
Reasoning: Limits are decades outdated and often feasibility-based. We know more now
about effects on the immune and endocrine systems and that some exposures may be more
dangerous at lower levels.
Questions: What standards should OSHA adopt?18 What should be done when there are
data gaps about the health effects of hazards? How deal with exposure to mixtures, shortterm exposures, sporadic exposures, skin and ingestion exposures, and low-level
exposures?
Proposal 15
Current way: No regulation of indoor air quality (IAQ), temperature, repetitive trauma, lifting,
violence, bacteria, viruses, and other biological hazards.
Better way: Regulation of these hazards based on the best state and international models.
Reasoning: These hazards are common and much is known about how to control them.
Questions: How to deal with the large impact on OSHA and employers of regulating such
common hazards that have been ignored for so long?
17
A list of 32 OSHA standards that contain requirements for medical surveillance is given in Appendix B of
NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin 60: Interim Guidance for Medical Screening and Hazard Surveillance for
Workers Potentially Exposed to Engineered Nanoparticles, www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-116/#7
18
Possibilities for chemicals, just from the U.S., include NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limits (REL)
www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/92-100.html, ACGIH Threshold Limit Values (TLV) www.acgih.org/TLV/, AIHA Workplace
Environmental Exposure Levels (WEEL) www.aiha.org/content/insideaiha/volunteer+groups/weelcomm.htm,
EPA Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL) www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/, AIHA Emergency Response Planning
Guideline (ERPG) www.aiha.org/content/insideaiha/volunteer+groups/erpcomm.htm, and Temporary
Emergency Exposure Limits (TEEL) developed by the Subcommittee on Consequence Assessment and
Protective Actions (SCAPA) for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) / National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) www.atlintl.com/DOE/teels/teel.html
6