By Alison B. Kaelin, CQA ABKaelin, LLC Managing Chemical & Permissible Exposure Limits n October 2014, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it is seeking Coatings Industry Considerations public comment on strategies for managing chemical hazards in to protect workers from adverse health 1968 Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) of the the workplace and approaches to effects related to hazardous chemical American Conference of Governmental Iupdating chemical permissible expo- exposure. Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). sure limits (PELs). In this request, OSHA Most of OSHA’s PELs were issued short- This means that approximately 95 per- admits that “Many OSHA PELs are ly after adoption of the Occupational cent of OSHA’s PELs have not out-of-date and they’re not adequate for Safety and Health (OSH) Act in 1970. been updated since they were adopted ensuring protection of worker health.” OSHA has occupational exposure limits nearly 45 years ago. Further, the The initiative is requesting public for only about 470 substances. Section American Chemistry Council estimates comment by April 8, 2015 on how 6(a) of the OSH Act allowed OSHA to that approximately 8,300 chemicals are to streamline and improve OSHA’s adopt existing federal standards or nation- being used in significant amounts in the process for updating PELs and possible al consensus standards as enforceable workplace, and that OSHA is regulating approaches to reducing and controlling OSHA standards. Most of these are listed approximately only 5 percent of these chemical exposures in the workplace. as simple limits in the three Z-Tables of 29 chemicals. This article discusses material provid- CFR 1910.1000; Subpart Z, Toxic and Industrial experience, safety, health ed in the request for information and Hazardous Substances: Table Z-1, Limits and industrial hygiene professionals the OSHA website section; for Air Contaminants, Table Z-2, and Table and organizations, new developments in “Transitioning to Safer Chemicals” and Z-3, Mineral Dusts. technology, and current scientific data evaluates them based on their potential Approximately 30 chemicals and car- (such as what we now have about lead, relevance or impact on the coatings cinogens are regulated through Compre- silica and to name just a industry. hensive Health Standards (including lead, few) clearly demonstrate that, in many cadmium, hexavalent chromium and instances, the outdated PELs are not Permissible Exposure Limits arsenic). Most PELs were adopted from sufficiently protecting worker health. PELs establish the acceptable amount the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act as Even the more recent PELs, such as the or of a substance in the existing federal standards for general OSHA PEL for “Lead in Construction” of air in the workplace. They are intended industry. These were adopted from the 50 µg/m3 as an eight-hour time--

36 JPCL December 2014 / paintsquare.com ©iStockphoto/iznashih

ed average established in 1993, is now make updating current PELs or issuance approaches, OSHA relies heavily on the considered to be outdated based on of new PELs for other chemicals cum- Communication Standard current health effects data. bersome and nearly impossible to (HCS). It suggests that priorities for new In 1989 OSHA tried to update and achieve. and revised PELs may be based on the establish new PELs for more than 350 As part of the request for information updated hazard classifications estab- chemicals in a single rulemaking. (RFI), OSHA has indicated that new lished in the HCS. It states that data However, the entire rulemaking was ulti- strategies are also needed to update used for “banding” (grouping based on mately vacated by the court. and supplement the PELs. OSHA similarities) could be based on informa- Industrial hygiene professional associ- Director Dr. David Michaels stated that tion in the safety data sheets. One ations and safety advocacy organizations OSHA is exploring a number of “more method suggests that the hazard classi- such as the American Industrial Hygiene flexible, scientifically accepted fication and dustiness of the material Association (AIHA) and the ACGIH have approaches that may streamline the might have to be considered. advocated updating OSHA’s outdated risk-assessment process and increase The RFI also suggests that OSHA is PELs for years. the capacity to address a greater num- interested in using task-based control ber of chemicals.” OSHA indicates it is approaches in the construction industry PEL Updates considering the following concepts: such as the method used in the recently Currently, Section 6(b) of the OSHA Act • A tiered approach to exposure- proposed rule for crystalline silica. This mandates that OSHA meets the follow- response assessment that will enable approach allows employers to choose ing requirements before proposing rules the agency to establish acceptable PELs to measure their workers’ exposure to for a comprehensive health standard: for larger numbers of workplace chemi- silica and independently decide which • The standard must substantially cals; controls work best in their workplaces. reduce a significant risk of material • Chemical grouping approaches to Alternately, the employers can simply harm. expedite the process; use a pre-established control method • Compliance with the standard must be • Toxicity testing and other emerging that outlines work practice, engineering technically feasible. This means that the test data to calculate risk; controls and respiratory protection protective measures required by the • Alternative approaches to judging based on the task (such as use of hand standard currently exist, can be brought economic and technical feasibility that grinders). into existence with available technology, might involve less time and fewer or can be created with technology that resources; Alternative Approaches to Chemical Management can reasonably be developed. • Opportunities to incorporate non-reg- OSHA indicated that workers suffer • Compliance with the standard must be ulatory “informed substitution” — the more than 190,000 illnesses and 50,000 economically feasible. This is reviewed considered transition from a potentially deaths annually due to chemical expo- by the Office of Management and hazardous chemical, material, product sures. Workplace chemical exposures Budget. or process to a safer chemical or non- are linked to various cancers, lung, kid- • It must reduce risk of adverse health to chemical alternatives — as part of work- ney, skin, heart, stomach, brain, nerve, workers to the extent feasible. place chemical management; and and reproductive diseases. • The standard must be supported by • Banding chemicals together either As a precursor to the RFI, in substantial evidence in the record, con- through similar toxicity, occupational October 2013 OSHA introduced the sistent with prior agency practice or is exposure danger, task-based exposure “Transitioning to Safer Chemicals: A supported by some justification for or through control measures such as Toolkit for Employers and Workers” departing from that practice. dilution ventilation, website and annotated an occupational • These requirements and the sheer or containment. exposure limits table to assist employ- number of chemical compounds in use, In the RFI discussion of the potential ers to voluntarily reduce chemical

paintsquare.com / JPCL December 2014 37 Chemical Hazards & Exposure Limits

exposures and adopt newer, more pro- such as air emissions and TRIR ard. NIOSH communicates its recommen- tective workplace exposure limits. reporting. dations to OSHA in order to produce • Assess costs. legally enforceable standards. NIOSH also Transitioning to Safer Chemicals Process • Assess potential changes in worker publishes a pocket guide to chemical haz- The “Transitioning to Safer Chemicals” experience, training and transition. ards, alerts, special hazard reviews and (www.osha.gov/dsg/safer_ technical guidelines. chemicals/index.html) and "Toolkit" Step 5: Select online resources support OSHA’s hierar- ACGIH Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) chy of controls where hazard elimination Step 6: Pilot Test the Alternative ACGIH is a private, scientific organization or substitution make the most effective • Implement a pilot or small scale test. that produces recommendations and for reducing chemical hazards. • Identify resources needed if alternative guidelines to help manage occupational The OSHA step-by-step toolkit pro- is implemented. health hazards. TLVs are airborne concen- vides employers and workers with infor- • Evaluate. trations of chemical substances which are mation, methods, tools and guidance on believed to cause no adverse effects after using informed substitution in the work- Step 7: Implement repeated exposure over a working life- place. It can be utilized by all types of and Evaluate the Alternative time. businesses that use products containing • Evaluate worker benefit (reduction in Because the TLVs are based solely on chemicals in their everyday operations. exposures). health issues, there is no attention given • Determine if alternative meets needs. to economic or technical practicality. They The Toolkit Steps are recognized as credible and their inclu- Step 1: Engage Annotated Z-Tables sion is required on safety data sheets by • Form a team to develop a plan. OSHA’s mandatory PELs in the Z-Tables the HCS. • Develop goals for chemical remain in effect. However, OSHA recom- The complete set of annotated tables management. mends that employers consider using can be accessed at www.osha.gov/dsg/ • Develop a work plan. the alternative occupational exposure annotated-pels/index.html. limits because the agency believes that Step 2: Inventory and Prioritize exposures above some of these alterna- Paint and PELs • Identify current or expected tive occupational exposure limits may be How could this effect the painting indus- chemical inventory. hazardous to workers, even when the try? Current hazardous constituents pre- • Obtain product information. exposure levels are in compliance with sent in most coating formulations could • Identify and assess risks, health the relevant PELs. potentially be affected through reduction effects, exposure pathways, etc. The annotated tables provide alterna- of existing PELs or introduction of new through review of SDS and other tive occupational exposure levels from PELs for the 95 percent of chemicals not data. the following sources: covered. • Prioritize transition based on risk, A quick review of the safety data sheets use, health effects, etc. California Division of Occupational for commonly used zinc, epoxy and ure- • Provides resources for locating Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) PELs thane three-coat systems indicated that product and health data. Cal/OSHA has created a broad list of PELs exist for most chemicals listed; how- PELs (Cal/OSHA AC-1 Table) that are ever, most PELs were significantly higher Step 3: Identify Alternatives enforced in workplaces under its jurisdic- than TLVs or Cal/OSHA Levels. Cal/OSHA • Provide resources for locating and tion. Of all the states that have OSHA- is currently considering reduction of the evaluating safer chemicals. approved state plans, California has the PEL for lead to 15 to 20 µg/m3 and other most extensive list of PELs. groups are lobbying for reductions in Step 4: Assess and Compare hexavalent chromium and other stan- Alternatives NIOSH Recommended dards. As new safety data sheets continue • Identify performance characteristics. Exposure Limits (RELs) to come online through the HCS, it is • Determine whether alternatives NIOSH assesses all accessible medical, expected that OSHA will apply more and introduce new risks. biological, engineering, chemical, and more to drastically reduce PELs • Note other regulatory considerations trade information pertaining to the haz- accordingly.

38 JPCL December 2014 / paintsquare.com Conclusions the OSHA request for information by the transportation and construction manage- The scope of the RFI and the information April 8, 2015 deadline. ment experience in the coatings industry. on which OSHA wants feedback are so • Start looking at your voluntary chemical She is the owner of ABKaelin, LLC, a vast that it is impossible to predict what usage (chemicals not specified or mandat- provider of OSHA regulatory changes, if any, will ultimately ed by contract). Are there opportunities to training; quality assur- result from this process. The RFI poses substitute a less hazardous product? If so, ance, auditing, con- more than 50 general questions seeking use the seven-step process to investigate sulting, and related information that will establish the replacements. services to the protec- agency’s approach for evaluating and • Consider your worker exposures to lead tive coatings, con- regulating chemical exposure in the and other materials which have PELs that struction, fabrication, workplace. There is no question, howev- we know are insufficient. Consider revis- and nuclear industries. er, that employers who regularly handle ing your work practices, engineering con- Kaelin is a certified quality auditor and a chemicals in the workplace should pay trols and training to proactively reduce NACE-certified Coating Inspector. She was careful attention to this RFI and consider worker exposures to as low as is feasible. a corecipient of the inaugural SSPC 2014 submitting information by April 8, 2015 • Keep tuned, there is certain to be more Women in Coatings Award, a 2012 JPCL to be part of the record as the agency conversation and controversy as this Top Thinker, a 2012 JPCL Editor’s Award considers its next steps. process unfolds. Winner and an SSPC Technical Achieve- ment Award winner in 2005. Kaelin is also So What Can We Do? About the Author a JPCL contributing editor. JPCL Employers who regularly handle chemi- Alison B. Kaelin, CQA, has more than 25

cals in the workplace should respond to years of , environmental, Click our Reader e-Card at paintsquare.com/ric at e-Card Reader our Click

paintsquare.com / JPCL December 2014 39