GET THE LEAD OUT - NEW REGULATIONS, THAT IS
If someone told you that lead was in the news again, your first thoughts would probably be of antiquated or failing municipal water systems, lead-tainted drinking water, and children under age six suffering health and developmental issues. These are valid concerns that face hundreds of municipalities across the United States. However, this lead news is not about children or drinking water, but protecting adult workers from the hazards associated with lead exposure.
A Flash Report published by the Cal-OSHA Reporter on March 6, 2023, titled Cal/OSHA Finally Gets the Lead Proposal Out discusses proposed regulatory revisions to existing lead regulations in California. This isn’t a knee-jerk reaction by the state: in fact, this was first published 13 years ago by the Cal/OSHA Standards Board (Board). As is often the case for worker protection, groups that embrace the idea of a safe workplace are grateful and optimistic about the proposed changes, while many employers are not so excited. Businesses fear an increase in cost, slowing operations, and other perceived negative impacts on the various industries that would be affected by the changes.
The proposed changes are being studied by various groups during the 45-day comment period, which officially ends on April 20, 2023. While the entire scope of the proposed rule changes cannot be adequately addressed in this short article, one of the major changes proposed is the occupational exposure limits (OELs) to lead. Currently, the state permissible exposure limit (PEL) mirrors the federal OSHA limit of 50 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air typically expressed as 50 μg/M3. California also uses the OSHA limit of 30 μg/M3 as an Action Level, which, if exceeded, triggers certain mandatory actions to be taken by the employer. According to the Board, “The proposed amendments are needed to adequately protect employees who have occupational exposure to lead. Current requirements are more than 40 years old, and more recent evidence demonstrates that even at exposure levels well below those currently allowed by the existing regulations, harmful health effects can occur.”
The proposed new regulations would lower the PEL to 10 μg/M3, and the action level to 2 μg/M3, a considerable reduction as regulatory changes usually go with OELs. The changes are effective for both construction and general industry. According to the article, the Board says, “The updated standards are intended to be more consistent with existing scientific knowledge. The intent is to ensure that employees’ blood lead levels stay below ten micrograms per deciliter.”
Now, if you are still reading this article, perhaps you are thinking, “Hey, this is California; what does it have to do with me?” There used to be a popular saying in the latter part of the 20th century: “As California goes, so goes the nation.” History shows that California is often the front-runner in progressive thinking in many areas, including politics, the environment, and worker safety. While this role has become somewhat diminished in more recent times, California is still at the forefront of environmental and worker protection regulations. So if California is making the statement that current research indicates that worker protection standards for lead are out-of-date, then that research and the negative health effects associated with exposure to lead won’t stop at the California state line. And remember, we now have 50 years of epidemiological data to substantiate California’s claims.
While the obvious solution would be to simply stop using lead, we need lead and the jobs that involve lead. Therefore, potential exposure to lead is not going away. Lead is an essential component of lead-acid storage automobile batteries. Lead is crucial for radiation shielding devices; it’s used in the manufacture of bullets and fishing sinkers, and there are dozens of other lead uses. Lead is still mined, refined, and extensively recycled in the United States, with smaller amounts imported from Canada, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Austria.
领英推荐
One last point to make: federal OSHA would also like to make many OELs more stringent, including lead. They tried in 1989 to make changes to its air contaminants standard (CFR 1910.1000) when they made 212 existing PELs more stringent and created PELs for an additional 164 substances. Several legal challenges arose, and on July 7, 1992, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the changes. The existing PELs reverted back to the previous standards, most of which were first set in the early 1970s and were based on exposure levels developed in the late 1960s. It is interesting to note that OSHA established what is referred to as the Z Tables : Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3, all in 1910.1000. The Z Tables list only the federally enforceable PEL for each substance of concern. However, there is a special set of tables referred to as the Annotated Z Tables. These Annotated Tables list the substance of concern, the existing OSHA PEL, and the next column on the right has the Cal/OSHA PELs, with both the OSHA and the Cal/OSHA PELs listed under the category of “Regulatory Limits.”
One might ask, “How can federal OSHA impose California state regulations on workplaces outside of that state?” OSHA has a secret weapon, sort of a reverse Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card called The General Duty Clause. For an actual case study that sheds light on how OSHA uses the General Duty Clause, check out this article .
For Help with All Your Compliance Strategies:
E. Glenn Hargrove, CIH, CSP, PG, CHMM, Director, Industrial Hygiene Services
T: 540.278.1845 | E: [email protected]