This is a call to action for all involved with US manufacturing! Cal/OSHA is proposing to set an airborne permissible worker exposure level (PEL) of 0.3 ppm time weighted average (TWA) for hydrogen chloride (HCl). If passed, this would be a lower level than 0.4 ppm recently set in California for hydrogen fluoride (HF). Let’s consider this for a moment. Exposure to HF vapors readily results in tissue damage and death. HCl is released when babies burp. The concentration of HCl in ocean breezes has been estimated to be about 0.3 ppm, a result of the action of sunlight on salt spray (1). While all chemicals have to be managed with respect and care, I am not fearful of burping a baby, nor do I avoid deep breaths of fresh, ocean air. I am very concerned, however, about working with HF.
All people involved in manufacturing should be concerned about the HCl proposal. Not just in and of itself, but because it is symptomatic of an overarching regulatory approach that will not optimally protect workers. It will also stifle manufacturing nationwide, because as we discuss below, Federal OSHA is encouraging the use of California PELs.
There are more desirable approaches. In fact, Cal/OSHA has a mechanism for the open, transparent, and scientific evaluation of data relating to workplace exposure of airborne chemicals. This approach has been used to develop scientifically-based, rational, and defendable PELs.
Cal/OSHA and Federal OSHA
Cal/OSHA PELs are legally-enforceable throughout California; and they have immediate implications throughout the United States. We are behind the times in protecting workers. Dr. David Michaels, US Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) said that “there is no question that many of OSHA’s chemical standards are not adequately protective (2).” California PELs are now annotated at the Federal OSHA level. If you check the Federal OSHA website, you will find annotated PEL lists; and in those lists the Cal/OSHA PELs are listed next to the Federal OSHA numbers (3). 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.” (2)
Cal/OSHA levels should be readily comparable
While the PEL does not tell the complete story of chemical hazards, PELs set by various agencies inherently need to be at least somewhat comparable in order to be useful. PEL levels must be scientifically-based; and they need to be relevant to the eight hour exposure by workers. It is very important for employers to have comparable PELs so that they can make intelligent decisions about the chemicals and processes they select.
Defendable Exposure Levels
To make useful, defendable PELs happen expeditiously, there has to be scientific review, and the process has to be open and transparent.
California was making progress. In fact, Cal/OSHA set up an open, transparent evaluation process that included a Health Expert Advisory Committee (HEAC) and a Feasibility Advisory Committee (FAC). (4,5) The HEAC did a careful, extensive, and scientific evaluation of risks associated with HCl. Inexplicably, Cal/OSHA elected to not use input from their own HEAC group and instead, without explanation, to substitute the input of OEHHA (please see next section).
In my opinion, Cal/OSHA has taken a step backward. If the process is not open, scientific, and transparent, proposed PELs are, perhaps justifiably, more likely to be thwarted by lawyers, lobbyists, and advocates. This holds up PEL development; this does not protect workers.
The OEHHA approach
For HCl, Cal/OSHA is using an analysis developed by OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). OEHHA is a California State agency with the stated mission to “protect and enhance public health and the environment by scientific evaluation of risks posed by hazardous substances.” (6) Quantification of hazards associated with Proposition 65 warning are developed by OEHHA.
OEHHA considers the impact of chemicals on communities. This means exposure twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for a lifetime. It includes effects on babies, children, the elderly, and other sensitive populations. It appears that Cal/OSHA will work with OEHHA directly to develop new PELs. Therefore, we would anticipate more PELs emanating from California that are far, far lower than those developed by other agencies and recognized professional organizations. It will become increasingly difficult for industry to make decisions about chemicals that are realistic and that protect workers.
Lower PELs are not inherently more protective
Cal/OSHA should reinstitute the feasibility analysis. PELs have to be legally enforceable and justifiable. In some instances, analytical techniques to measure PELs at very low levels may not be readily available. It is difficult and cumbersome to monitor employees to assure that the PEL has not been exceeded. In fact, one common rule of thumb is that the employee should not be exposed to more than 50% of the PEL. If it is difficult to measure exposure, manufacturers may not be able to use the chemicals they need.
Some regulators believe that a chemical with any known or suspect hazard should be regulated to as low a level as possible, regardless of any recognized risks at those levels, to the extent that it was no longer practical to use that chemical in industrial or manufacturing activities . The idea would be to encourage chemical substitution, even if the toxicological properties of the substitute chemical have not been studied. Under this philosophical approach, as soon as the substitute chemical came into wider use, it would also be subject to regulatory scrutiny and would also be regulated. I see a certain cosmic, dark humor in telling workers to stop using Chemical A because there are hazards. Instead, suggesting they reach into a cabinet of chemicals; if it does not have a low PEL (or maybe any PEL), and it works in the process, start using it. Because, gee, it will eventually all sort itself out, and the new chemical, if it turns out to be hazardous, will be regulated. Not a good idea!
This sort of sequential regulatory witch hunt does not protect workers. It encourages poor worker safety practices, because workers may be lulled into a false sense of security when a “bad” chemical is taken away and a “good” (poorly-understood) chemical is substituted. The approach that Cal/OSHA appears to be taking will foster unwise chemical substitution.
Beyond Baby Burp – weigh in with Cal/OSHA
I think Cal/OSHA should reinstitute HEAC and FAC, which have been inactive for almost two years. OEHAA has enviable technical resources; and those resources could be used as part of a scientific, open, transparent process. In the case of HCl, it would be exceedingly effective to discuss the OEHHA rationale in the open, scientific context of the HEAC meetings. This would make for a more defendable PEL proposal.
So, what should you do? California is going to lead the way in setting new PELs; and those PELs are going to impact your workers and your business throughout the U.S. Whether or not you agree with me, weigh in with your opinion. The safety of our workers and the robustness of our economy are at stake.
Who to contact
Submit statements to the DOSH Standards Board, preferably no later than March 14, 2014. Written comments received after 5:00 p.m. on March 20, 2014, will not be considered by the Board unless the Board announces an extension of time. E-mail comments to
oshsb@dir.ca.gov
You can access the Board’s notice and other materials associated with this proposal at http://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb/Airborne_contaminants_Hydrogen_Chloride.html
The author would like to thank James Unmack and Susan Ripple, HEAC members, andSteve Derman, a member of the FAC, for their helpful comments and suggestions.
- Personal communication from James Unmack; also see HEAC presentation of Hydrogen Chloride. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/doshreg/HydrogenChlorideDraft8-10-24-08.doc
- “OSHA releases new resources to better protect workers from hazardous chemicals,” OSHA Statement: 13-2026-NAT, Date: Oct. 24, 2013
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_documentp_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=24990 - Permissible Exposure Limits – Annotated Tables
https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/index.html
- Policy and Procedure for the Advisory Committee Process for Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) Updates to Title 8, Section 5155, Airborne Contaminantshttps://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/DoshReg/PEL-Process-3-07-final-draft.pdf
- B. Kanegsberg and E. Kanegsberg, “Compelling PELs,” Controlled EnvironmentsMagazine, December 2008, http://www.cemag.us/articles/2008/12/compelling-pels
- http://oehha.ca.gov
