What do we want?  We want a new OSHA Silica standard.

When do we want it?  Now

How long is too long?  In the case of OSHA’s proposed revisions to its silica standard, an interested stakeholder thinks two years is too long. The proposed revisions have languished within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for over two years – way past the standard 90 day review period.  The stakeholder is The Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA). They recently called for progress on the standard and created a petition asking for immediate action. It is important for the proposed revisions to make it out of the OMB because that is only the first step in the lengthy review process to have the revisions go into effect.

However, there are 2 sides to every story. Although LIUNA and other safety stakeholders have repeatedly urged OMB to finish its review, there have been some industry and business groups that have opposed the standard, citing concerns about the higher costs and adequate monitoring techniques.

Over exposure to silica has been linked to silicosis, an irreversible and progressive lung disease. It is also associated with cancer of the lung. An estimated 1.7 million US workers are exposed to silica. Some Public Health experts that estimate up to 280 workers die each year from silicosis while thousands more develop silicosis as a result of workplace exposures.

LIUNA created an online petition on the White House Web Site to call for action. Unfortunately, the petition failed to gather the required 25,000 votes (just coming up short) needed to require a formal response.  Although they failed with this effort, groups like LIUNA, AIHA, and many other safety stakeholders will continue the movement.  As an example, in a January 25, 2012 letter, a group of more than 300 occupational safety experts, doctors and public health scientists urged President Barack Obama to help move along the delayed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review of OSHA's proposed crystalline silica rule. You can see the letter here:

 http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/obama-letter-on-silica-1-25-12.pdf

If you are a safety and health professional like me, you may feel the same way I do.

What do we want? We want a new OSHA silica standard

When do we want it?  Now

In my last blog I posted on March 1, 2013, I told everyone about the new OHSA online cadmium tool to help the Health & Safety Professional assess workers exposure to cadmium. Here is another tool, this time it is for silica and was prepared by The Center for Construction Research and Training.

The Center for Construction Research and Training launched a website they hope will educate workers on how to control silica exposures and lower the health risk of contracting silicosis. Silicosis is a form of occupational lung disease caused by inhalation of crystalline silica dust, and is marked by inflammation and scarring in the form of nodular lesions in the upper lobes of the lungs. It is a type of pneumoconiosis^. Silicosis (particularly the acute form) is characterized by shortness of breath, cough, fever, and cyanosis (bluish skin). It may often be misdiagnosed as pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs), pneumonia, or tuberculosis.

The website – www.silica-safe.orghas tips and tools to assist workers and contractors in identifying silica hazards, understanding health risks, and methods to control silica dust.  Check it out – it even has an e-tool to allow you to create a job-specific plan for controlling silica.

The video Included here illustrates just how much of an impact silica can have on your respiratory system and your overall health.

Good news from OSHA!  OSHA has launched a new online tool to aid compliance with the agency’s Cadmium Standard (CFR 1910.1027). Available at www.dol.gov/elws/cadmium.htm , the cadmium Biological Monitoring Advisor is intended mainly for use by medical professionals who assess worker’s exposure to cadmium. In simple layman’s terms, the new tool analyzes biological monitoring results provided by the user or worker. These results, along with responses to a series of questions, are used to determine the biological monitoring and medical surveillance requirements that must be met under the standard.

It is estimated that each year 300,000 US workers are exposed to cadmium. Short –term exposure to the soft silver-white metal can cause weakness, fever, headaches, chills, and muscular pain. Chronic or long term exposure to cadmium can cause kidney damage, lung cancer and prostate cancer in men. 

Cadmium is found in the following consumer products:

-          Batteries

-          Pigments

-          Metal Coatings

-          Plastics

-          Some metal alloys

-          Fertilizers

-          Cigarettes

For more information regarding the risk factors, symptoms, and diagnosis steps taken for cadmium exposure read here is a paper from the NYU Langone Medical Center.

PEL updates overdue for OSHA

OSHA can take a cue from their counterparts across the pond. Most of the Health & Safety Professionals in the US (including myself) agree that the OSHA PELs need to be overhauled. I think we can also agree that it is nearly impossible for OSHA to do this in a timely manner. Even the leaders at OSHA will agree. The European Advisory Committee for Safety and Health at Work (ACSH) has adopted an opinion in December in favor of adding new occupational exposure limit values (OELV) to the existing Carcinogens Directive. The opinion is now on the Commission’s desk.

If the Commission agrees with the ACSH opinion, these ten new substances will soon be added to the list of occupational carcinogens for which a mandatory OELV will apply in all EU countries:

           Crystalline silica                              Hydrazine

           Chromium VI                                 Epichlorohydrine

           Refractory ceramic fibers                1,2 dibromomethane

           Trichloroethylene                           Methylenediamine (MDA)

           Acrylamide                                    Wood dust

This would remove a big obstacle to reducing an estimated 10 million European workers’ exposure to these carcinogens. The ACSH opinion should help jump-start the revision of the Carcinogens Directive which has been on the Commissions agenda since 2004 (sound familiar OSHA?). I hope the Commission will now move swiftly to put forward a proposal for a Directive so the European Parliament and Council can do their job, because without a formal proposal from the Commission, the process will go nowhere. Various stages still have to be gone through, not least the impact assessment, although the ability to prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths should be considered sufficient justification for revising the Directive.  Listen to this; it is believed that these new OELV’s can be put into place by 2015 – that is just 2 years from now.

       OSHA - if the EU can do this why can’t we?