|
U.S. Department of Labor | |
||||
| Occupational Safety & Health Administration | ||||||
 |
|
REGULATORY REVIEW OF 29 CFR 1926.62 Lead in Construction Pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive Order 12866 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis Office of Evaluations and Audit Analysis August 2007 Table of Contents ACRONYMS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE REVIEW Chapter 1. BACKGROUND OF STANDARD/REVIEW 1.1 Background 1.2 Description of 29 cfr 1926.62 1.2.1 Applicability 1.2.2 Main Requirements 1.3 Reasons for Review 1.4 Organization of the Report Chapter 2. LEAD HAZARDS/USE OF LEAD IN CONSTRUCTION 2.1 Lead 2.2 Lead Exposure Routes 2.3 Health Effects of Lead Exposure4 2.4 Lead Exposures in Construction 2.5 Other Sources of Lead Exposure 2.6 Conclusion Chapter 3. INDUSTRY PROFILE 3.1 Construction Industry 3.1.1 Overview 3.1.2 Sectors Unlikely to Be Subject to the standard 3.1.3 Sectors Likely to Be Subject to the standard 3.2 Heavy Construction 3.2.1 Bridge Painters 3.2.2 Other Heavy Construction Activities 3.3 Lead Abatement 3.4 Renovation and Remodeling Employees 3.4.1 Painters 3.4 2 Renovation and Remodeling 3.4.3 Other Specialty Trade Contractors 3.5 Conclusion Chapter 4. OTHER FEDERAL REGULATIONS ON LEAD EXPOSURE 4.1 EPA Regulations 4.1.1 Background 4.1.2 Lead-Based Paint Regulations 4.1.3 Other EPA Regulations 4.2 HUD Regulations 4.3 CPSC Regulations 4.4 Comparison 4.5 Voluntary standards Chapter 5. ANALYSIS OF LEAD EXPOSURES IN CONSTRUCTION 5.1 ABLES Data 5.2 Lead Exposures In Industrial Construction 5.2.1 Cases of Elevated BLLs in Industrial Construction Employees 5.2.2 Studies of Bridge Employees 5.2.3 NIOSH Studies 5.2.4 State Data 5.2.5 Iowa Study 5.2.6 Conclusion 5.3 Lead exposure in Renovation and Remodeling Work 5.3.1 Extent of Lead in the Housing Stock 5.3.2 Likelihood of Exposure 5.3.3 Blood Lead Levels in Residential Construction Employees CHAPTER 6. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEAD IN CONSTRUCTION RULE 6.1 General History 6.1.1 Violations by Industry 6.1.2 Violations by Subsection of the Rule 6.2 Compliance in the Painting Industry 6.2.1 Violations Over Time 6.2.2 Violations by Subsection of the Rule 6.2.3 Violations by Size of Firm 6.2.4 Violations by Type of Work 6.3 Other Compliance data Chapter 7. COST IMPACTS OF THE STANDARD 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Unit Costs 7.2.1 Wage Rates 7.2.2 Initial Assessment Costs - Bridges and Industrial Jobs 7.2.3 Employee Protection Costs 7.2.4 Medical Surveillance Costs 7.3 Industrial/Bridge Painting 7.4 Renovation and Remodeling Costs 7.5 Lead Abatement Costs 7.6 Small Entity Impacts 7.6.1 Impact on Bridge Painters 7.6.2 Residential Painters 7.6.3 Impact on Lead Abatement Contractors 7.7 Conclusion Chapter 8. SECTION 610 AND EO 12866 REVIEWS 8.1 Section 610 Review 8.1.1 Continued Need for the Rule 8.1.2 Nature of the Complaints and Comments, and OSHA Responses 8.1.3 Complexity of the Rule 8.1.4 Overlap with Other Rules 8.1.5 Changes That Affect the Rule 8.2 E.O. 12866 Analysis 8.2.1 Whether the standard Has Become Unjustified or Unnecessary as a Result of Changed Circumstances 8.2.2 Whether the standard is Compatible with Other Regulations and Not Duplicative or Inappropriately Burdensome in the Aggregate 8.2.3 Whether the standard is Consistent With the President's Priorities 8.2.4 Whether the Effectiveness of the standard Can Be Improved Chapter 9. CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX A: BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX B: UNIT COST DATA APPENDIX C: LIST OF COMMENTERS APPENDIX D: REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT, SECTION 610 APPENDIX E: INTRODUCTION AND SECTION 5 OF E.O. 12866 Table of Figures Table 2-1: Lead-Related Construction Tasks and Their Presumed 8-Hour TWA Exposure Levels Table 2-2: Mean Exposures and Time Required to Reach 8-hour TWA for Renovation and Remodeling Activities Table 2-3: 30-Minute Lead Exposures by Work Method (mg/m3) Table 2-4: Mean and Total 30-Minute Lead Exposures (mg/m3) by Percentage Lead in Paint and Work Method Table 3-1: Number of Firms and Employees in the Construction Industry Table 3-2: 2003 Construction Spending by Type of Construction Table 3-3: Distribution of Construction Firms by Employee Number, 2001 Table 3-4: 2003 Variation in Employment by Sector Table 3-5: 1993-2003 Inspections and Violations by Industry Sector Table 3-6: Estimated Number of Employees in Sectors with Potential Lead Use Table 3-7: Number of Painting Firms Specializing by Type of Construction Table 3-8: Painting Firms by Employees and Sales Table 3-9: Size and Sales of General Renovation and Remodeling Firms Table 3-10: Estimated Number of Firms and Employees Subject to the standard Table 4-1: Comparison of OSHA, EPA, and HUD Lead Programs Table 5-1: ABLES Data by SIC Code and State for BLLs > 25 Table 5-2: 2002 ABLES Data by SIC Code and BLL Table 5-3: Number of ABLES Cases by State for SIC Code 1721 Table 5-4: Mean BLLs for Bridge Employees, by Job Category and Year - Connecticut Road Industry Surveillance Project, 1991-1994 Table 5-5: BLLs in Bridge Employees 1994 Table 5-6: Reports of California Industrial Construction Employee BLL - 1995-1999 Table 5-7: Reports of California Bridge Painter BLL Data 2002-2004 Table 5-8: Reports of Massachusetts Industrial Construction Employee BLL - 1991-2001 Table 5-9: Reports of Ohio 1995-2004 BLL Data on Bridge Painters Table 5-10: Total Housing Units and Units with Lead Hazards Table 5-11: Building Components Coated with LBP by Year of Construction (%) Table 5-12: Percent of Painting Work on New Construction Table 5-13: Estimated Number of Painting Jobs/Year Involving LBP (Assumed Total 50 Jobs/Year) Table 5-14: Washington State Lead Exposure During Surface Preparation for Residential Painting Table 5-15: Demographic and Work Practice Summary, EPA Phase II Table 5-16: Work Practice Summary for Paint Removal and Clean Up, EPA Phase II Table 5-17: Employee BLLs from EPA Study, Phase II Table 5-18: Predicted Employee Blood-Lead Concentrations Associated with Low, Medium, and High Exposure Indices for Each Employee Group Table 5-19: Employee BLLs from EPA Study Phase IV Table 5-20: Predicted Changes in High Risk Employee BLL (mg/dL) Associated with 10 Days of Work in Pre-1940 Homes Table 5-21: Reports of California Construction Employee BLL- 1995-1999 Table 5-22: Reports on Massachusetts Industrial Construction Employee BLL - 1991-2001 Table 5-23: Reports on Ohio Painters 1995-2004 Table 6-1: Violations by Industry Sector 1993-2003 Table 6-2: Requirements of Subsection (d) Most Often Violated, 1993-2003 Table 6-3: Subsections Most Often Violated by Painting Firms 1993- 2003 Table 6-4: Violations by Size of Painting Firms FY 2003 Table 6-5: Inspections with Violations by Type of Paint Work Table 7-1: Wage Rates Table 7-2: Capital and O&M Costs for Initial Assessments Table 7-3: FHWA Lead Health and Safety Costs for Bridges Table 7-4: Respirator Costs by Type Table 7-5: Shrouded Tool Costs Table 7-6: Estimated Compliance Cost for Bridge Painting/Repair Table 7-7: Project Cost Analysis for a 15,000 Square Foot Bridge Table 7-8: Project Cost Analysis for a 250,000 Square Foot Bridge Table 7-9: Estimated Costs of Residential Painting Projects for 50 Jobs per Year Table 7-10: Estimated Lead Abatement Cost/Job for 30 Jobs/Year Table 7-11: Estimated Lead Abatement Costs Per Job by Number of Jobs/Year Table 7-12: Employment and Sales Distributions for Selected Construction Sectors Table 7-13: Size and Annual Sales of the Median Firm by Sector Table 7-14: Costs of Painting Jobs by Unit Size Table 7-15: Percentage Increase in Average Job Cost for Compliance Table 8-1: Comparison of OSHA, EPA, and HUD Lead Programs ABLES Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance AHS American Housing Survey AIHA American Industrial Hygiene Association AL Action Level ATSDR U.S. Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BCTD Building and Construction Trades Department AFL-CIO BLL Blood Lead Level CAA Clean Air Act CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDPHAS CT Department of Public Health and Addiction Services CFR Code of Federal Regulations COC U.S. Chamber of Commerce CONNDOT CT Department of Transportation CPSC U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission CRISP CT Road Industry Surveillance Project CWA Clean Water Act D&B Dun and Bradstreet EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESC EnviroScience Consultants FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration FHSA Federal Hazardous Substances Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTE Full-time Equivalents HEPA High-efficiency Particulate Air HHE Health Hazard Evaluation HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development LBP Lead-based Paint LBPPPA Lead-based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act LEHA Lead and Environmental Hazards Association NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality standards NAHB National Association of Home Builders NAICS North American Industry Classification System NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health NPCA National Paint and Coatings Association NYSOHCN NY State Occupational Health Clinic Network O&M Operations and Maintenance OMB Office of Management and Budget OSHA U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEL Permissible Exposure Limit PM Particulate Matter PPE Personal Protective Equipment RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act R&R Renovation and Remodeling SBA Small Business Administration SSPC Steel Structures Painting Council SIC standard Industrial Classification TIC Tank Industry Consultants TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act TWA Time-weighted Average USC United State Code XRF X-ray Fluorescence ZPP Zinc Protoporphyrin In 1993, in response to a statutory mandate (Sections 1031 and 1032 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Pub.L. 102-550), OSHA promulgated the Lead in Construction standard (29 CFR 1926.62) as an interim final rule. Elevated blood lead levels (BLLs) can produce irreversible adverse health effects, and studies had shown lead disease in construction employees. The goal of the standard is to protect construction employees from lead-related diseases, which can result from exposure to lead dust or fumes. Construction employees are exposed to lead primarily when they remove lead-based paint (LBP) from structural steel bridges or buildings, engage in demolition of structures with LBP, engage in the removal of lead from buildings, or prepare some old buildings for painting. A relatively small number of construction employees are exposed to lead when using molten lead to seal cables, lead-containing mortar, lead sheeting, repairing old plumbing, and performing work on older structures, as well as on shielding for ionizing radiation, radioactive materials, and X-rays. In 1978, LBP was banned for use on residences or other buildings where consumers could be exposed; industrial use of LBP was phased out in the same period. Lead solder for water pipes was banned in 1988. The statute very specifically mandated the provisions in the standard. OSHA recognized, as it had when it adopted the general industry lead standard that exposure patterns would vary widely among the different types of construction employees. Since the interim final rule was published, a number of studies have been conducted that document exposure levels and blood lead levels among construction employees. Based on the availability of more data and public recommendations, OSHA decided to conduct a review of § 1926.62 to determine whether the standard should continue unchanged or whether it is possible to revise the standard to reduce the burden without reducing employee protection. The risks posed by exposure to lead are well documented. The 2005 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR) Draft Toxicological Profile for Lead adds to the wealth of information by confirming the known health effects of lead and documenting new research, such as on the effects of lead when in combination with other metals and other toxic substances. Other research, such as the NIOSH studies of exposure pathways that can be as significant as inhalation thereby furthering employee exposures, indicate that we are continuing to uncover evidence that employees need protection from exposure to lead. Similarly, the comments identified a number of studies of exposure of employees in a variety of workplaces demonstrating the continuing need for the protection that the Lead in Construction standard provides. Based on the findings in this report and the evidence produced during this review process, OSHA concludes that for the hazards associated with lead in the construction industry, a mandatory standard remains necessary to adequately protect employees. During this study, no evidence has been presented to OSHA suggesting that employers are having difficulty or are not capable of complying with the Lead in Construction standard during most operations most of the time. Technologies needed to comply with the standard are readily and widely available. This lookback study also concludes that the Lead in Construction standard has not had a negative economic impact on business, including small businesses, in most sectors affected. The construction sector overall is growing in terms of profits, revenues and employment. Since no comments suggest that the Lead in Construction standard has threatened massive dislocation to or imperil the existence of the construction industry, OSHA finds that the Lead in Construction standard remains economically feasible. This regulatory review of the Lead in Construction standard meets the requirements of both Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive Order (EO) 12866. Under Section 610, this review examines whether the standard should be continued without change, rescinded, or amended to minimize any significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, taking into consideration the continued need for the rule, comments and complaints received regarding the rule, the complexity of the rule, whether the rule is duplicative and changes in technology and economic conditions since the issuance of the rule. Under Section 5 of EO 12866, this review examines whether the standard has become unjustified or unnecessary as a result of changed circumstances, and whether the standard is compatible with other regulations or is duplicative or inappropriately burdensome in the aggregate. This review also ensures that the regulation is consistent with the priorities and the principles set forth in EO 12866 within applicable law, and examines whether the effectiveness of the standard can be improved. To assist OSHA in this review, OSHA requested public comments on these issues on June 6, 2005 (70 FR 32739). Please note, this report uses the phrase "industrial construction," "industrial painting," and similar terminology. These phrases refer to construction work at industrial facilities and other non-building construction, such as bridges, pipelines, tunnels, tanks, etc. The phrases do not include employees in general industry, who are not covered by the Lead in Construction standard. This review of the Lead in Construction standard under Regulatory Flexibility Act section 610 finds the following: In 1993, OSHA estimated that 937,000 employees were exposed to lead in the construction industry. That included employees exposed below levels that would trigger the standard. OSHA estimates that, as of 2003, there are 649,000 employees exposed at levels that may trigger application of the standard. OSHA regularly enforces the lead standard in the construction industry. Between 1993 and 2003, Federal OSHA and State-Plan States made a total of 4,384 inspections in construction that covered lead exposure and issued 12,556 citations. Less than 25 percent of housing units have lead paint on any element. This represents about 20 million housing units. It is not known how many commercial and industrial buildings have lead paint, but the age distribution of those buildings is similar to that of residential buildings. There are about 225,000 structural steel highway and railroad bridges in the U.S., and it is estimated that 90,000 have lead paint. Other industrial structures, such as tanks, may have lead paint. Older plumbing may use lead pipes or lead solder. Lead solder still has some uses; lead containing mortar is used in tanks containing acid; lead is used for some electric cable splicing, radiation shields, and for some other purposes. Construction employees may be exposed to lead in these areas. There is a continued need for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Lead in Construction standard. This standard, mandated by statute, remains both justified and necessary to implement the statute's intent; that is, to reduce both lead exposures in construction employees and disease resulting from these lead exposures. The standard has reduced blood lead levels (BLLs) of exposed employees. Retention of the standard is necessary to continue to achieve that goal because the study revealed that certain construction jobs still have high airborne lead exposures, and compliance data indicate that there are still instances of non-compliance with the standard. Studies continue to show that elevated BLLs are associated with neurological effects, including reduced intelligence, changes in brain function, fatigue, impotence, and reductions in nerve conductivity. There are also systemic effects from lead exposures, such as changes in the level of circulating thyroid hormones and changes in immune system parameters. Other effects from lead exposures include reduced kidney function, increased blood pressure, gastrointestinal effects, cardiovascular effects, and anemia. There is evidence that lead is a reproductive toxin. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that lead and lead compounds are reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that lead is a probable human carcinogen. Furthermore, a recently published study of the general, U.S. adult population reports increases in both cardiovascular deaths and deaths from all causes at BLLs substantially lower than previously reported [i.e., an increase in mortality at BLLs >0.10 µmol/L (≥2µg/dL)]. A number of jobs in the construction industry create high airborne levels of lead. These include bridge repainting and repair, lead remediation, remodeling and renovation of older housing and commercial buildings, preparation for repainting of residences and other structures, repairs of older plumbing, and other jobs. Exposures to employees in bridge repainting can be in the 1000's of ug/m3 of lead, and paint preparation exposures can be in the 100's of ug/m3 of lead. National Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES) data and other studies show that some construction employees still have relatively high blood lead levels which may be indicative of disease. These data show that the standard has resulted in lower blood lead levels for construction employees. Although one study indicates that high airborne exposures did not lead to high blood lead levels for a group of residential painters, other studies indicate high blood lead levels in residential painters. No studies contradict Congress' conclusion that this standard is needed to protect construction employees. The evidence indicates that the Lead in Construction standard has not had a negative economic impact on business, including small businesses, in most sectors affected. The construction sector overall is growing in terms of profits, revenues and employment. Small businesses are retaining their share of the business. Bridge painting is generally paid for by governmental entities that usually require bidders to meet the OSHA standard. Larger projects need to meet EPA requirements requiring experienced contractors who follow OSHA requirements. Lead remediation projects follow HUD requirements which require compliance with the OSHA requirements. Renovation and remodeling of older buildings containing lead are usually big enough jobs so that the costs of following the OSHA standard are relatively small in comparison to total costs. In addition to potential exposure to lead in bridge painting projects, lead paint is still used in some municipalities for traffic paints. However, studies have shown that exposures are minimal because of the nature of the equipment used. Substitutes are available and widely used through the United States; in fact, several jurisdictions prohibit the use of lead chromate paint. Therefore, OSHA expects the economic impact to be negligible. Residential repainting presents a more complex picture. Lead paint was banned after 1978; therefore, the standard has no impact on painting new units or repainting units built after 1978. There is relatively little lead paint on units built from 1941 to 1978; for most repainting jobs on units built between 1941 and 1978, an initial assessment that lead exposures are low is all that would be required, and therefore, the costs are manageable for small painting contractors. For some units built before 1941 and a few built between 1941 to 1978, where lead exposure levels are high during preparation for repainting, hazards are created for the painters and their families; the standard creates costs to reduce those hazards. For larger and better quality jobs, the costs to comply with the standard are manageable for small painting contractors. However, for smaller, low quality jobs, a self-employed painter not covered by the standard could underbid a contractor who followed the standard, and for this limited category of jobs, there could be a negative economic impact. On Jan. 10, 2006, EPA proposed regulations for all rental properties and owner-occupied housing containing children under 6 to protect the residents from lead exposure. The practical effect of those regulations will be to encourage the hiring of painting contractors who obey the OSHA standard, and therefore, those small painting contractors who comply with the OSHA Standard will then be more likely to be hired. Steps OSHA will be taking to further reduce economic impacts are discussed below. The standard is not overly complex. It follows the format and principles of other OSHA health standards. However, OSHA will review its compliance assistance and guidance materials to determine the need for enhancements. OSHA also will review the adequacy of how these materials are disseminated and additional means for reaching affected populations. The OSHA Lead in Construction standard does not conflict with other regulations. Both EPA and HUD have major regulations regarding lead, the EPA to reduce lead in the environment and HUD to reduce lead exposure in residences, especially to children. The OSHA and HUD regulations tend to be complementary. Following OSHA regulations will reduce lead dust in residences which both protects the painter or remodeller and the children who live in that unit. The relationship with EPA regulations is more complex. For example, EPA requires the use of enclosures on bridge painting to prevent the spread of lead to the environment. This tends to increase airborne exposures in the employee's breathing zone, making rigorous adherence to the OSHA standard crucial for protecting the employee. Though the HUD and EPA regulations do not conflict with OSHA's standard, commenters made two suggestions which OSHA will seriously consider and discuss with EPA, HUD, and NIOSH. First, many of the commenters suggested that the agencies develop a joint training program which would cover the requirements of each of the agencies. Second, some commenters suggested that OSHA consider modifying its initial assessment monitoring to be more integrated with HUD and EPA approaches. Several technological changes will make it easier to comply with the standard. The reduced use of lead in paint, piping, solder and elsewhere will in the long term reduce employee exposure to lead. Low-volume/high-velocity exhaust systems adapted to portable hand tools can increase their effectiveness and reduce their cost of operation. Small volumes of air at relatively high velocities are used to control dust. Portable trailers with showers and clean change facilities have become more available and cheaper to rent, reducing the likelihood that employees will contaminate "clean areas" of the project (including non-lead areas, and sanitary/eating/drinking facilities), themselves, and other employees, and reducing the chance that lead would be tracked home. OSHA received a number of extensive comments which are summarized in Chapter 8. Commenters representing NIOSH, HUD, state EPAs, the Building and Construction Trades Division of the AFL-CIO, the New York State Occupational Health Clinic Network, and a number of public interest and environmental protection professional groups stressed the need for the standard, the studies demonstrating the negative health effects of lead, and the high levels that construction employees can be exposed to if they are not properly protected. They suggested ways that the standard should be strengthened and expressed how important it is that the OSHA, HUD, and EPA regulations all work together. The National Association of Home Builders, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and U.S. Small Business Administration suggested that OSHA have a rulemaking to reconsider the data and make the standard more cost-effective. Congress not only directed OSHA to issue the Lead in Construction standard, it also specified in considerable detail what should be included in this standard in response to lead poisoning of construction employees. Congress did not specifically direct OSHA to engage in further rulemaking like it did when it directed OSHA to issue the Hazardous Waste standard. The health studies and exposure information since the standard was issued do not indicate any less need for the standard, and the standard is consistent with other health standards. Therefore, a very large-scale, OSHA resource-intensive rulemaking for lead in construction, which would most likely result in a rule very similar to the rule we have now, does not appear to be a wise use of OSHA's limited rulemaking resources. Many commenters made suggestions intended to make the standard more effective in protecting employees and more cost-effective. These include: issuing more extensive outreach and guidance materials, including materials in Spanish and other relevant languages; developing a joint training curriculum covering OSHA, HUD, and EPA requirements; developing a clearer initial assessment approach, to be better integrated with HUD and EPA requirements; reducing any duplication between regulations; and making the standard more cost-effective for small businesses, by encouraging the development of less costly ways to meet industrial hygiene requirements, so that lead will not contaminate the employees, clean areas of the project (including, for example, non-lead areas, sanitary/eating/drinking facilities, etc.) and reducing the chance that lead would be tracked home. OSHA will review these suggestions for possible implementation. The Executive Order 12866 review of the Lead in Construction standard indicates that: The Lead in Construction standard, mandated by statute, remains both justified and necessary to implement the statute's intent; that is, to reduce both lead exposures in construction employees and disease resulting from these lead exposures. The standard has reduced blood lead levels of exposed employees. Its retention is necessary to continue to achieve that goal because construction jobs still have high airborne lead exposures, and compliance data indicate that there are continuing violations of the standard. Therefore, the standard is consistent with EO 12866. The standard is consistent with other OSHA standards. Also, it is not in conflict with and is generally consistent with EPA regulations to reduce environmental exposures and with HUD regulations to reduce lead exposures in children. Indeed, the OSHA standard is often complimentary to those regulations. As discussed, OSHA will review initial assessment requirements to see if a more unified and cost-effective approach can be developed. The standard is not inappropriately burdensome in the aggregate. The one narrow area discussed above where there may be some burden (i.e., house painters exposed to lead while performing small jobs) will be ameliorated by better outreach materials, better guidance on initial assessment, and the finalization of new EPA regulations. The effectiveness of the Standard could be improved by making outreach materials available in Spanish and other relevant languages. Also, after consultation with EPA and HUD, OSHA will consider the development of unified training materials and exploring a more unified approach to initial assessment. Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions: OSHA concludes that the Lead in Construction standard is necessary to protect construction employees from lead disease.
As a result of this lookback review and the comments received from participants, OSHA is considering the following actions to improve the effectiveness of the standard and make it more cost-effective:
INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE REVIEW In 2003, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) began a review of its Lead in Construction standard under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act[1] and Section 5 of Executive Order (EO) 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review.[2] The purpose of a review under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act:The review requirements of Section 5 of EO 12866 require agencies: "To reduce the regulatory burden on the American people, their families, their communities, their State, local, and tribal governments, and their industries; to determine whether regulations promulgated by the [Agency] have become unjustified or unnecessary as a result of changed circumstances; to confirm that regulations are both compatible with each other and not duplicative or inappropriately burdensome in the aggregate; to ensure that all regulations are consistent with the President's priorities and the principles set forth in this Executive Order, within applicable law; and to otherwise improve the effectiveness of existing regulations."To carry out these reviews, on June 6, 2005, OSHA asked the public for comments on all issues raised by these provisions (70 FR 32739). Specifically, OSHA requested comments on the impacts of the rule on small businesses; the benefits and utility of the rule in its current form and, if amended, in its amended form; the continued need for the rule; the complexity of the rule; and whether, and to what extent, the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal, State, and local government rules. OSHA also asked for comments on new developments in technology, economic conditions, or other factors affecting the ability of covered firms to comply with the standard. Furthermore, OSHA asked for comments on alternatives to the rule that would minimize significant impacts on small businesses, while achieving the objectives of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. OSHA accepted written comments from June 6, 2005 through November 7, 2005. All documents and comments received relevant to the review and documents discussed in this report are available at the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H023, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210, Telephone (202) 693-2350. Many of the comments received are also available on-line at www.dockets.osha.gov. This chapter discusses the history of the Lead in Construction standard, summarizes it major requirements, and describes the reasons OSHA selected the standard for review. 1.1 Background OSHA set standards for lead exposure in general industry and construction beginning in 1971 under Section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.[3] The original standard set a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 200 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air (µg/m3), which had to be achieved by engineering and work practice controls.[4] OSHA later revised the general industry standard in 1978 by lowering the PEL to 50 µg/m3 and adding provisions that required employers to provide medical surveillance, medical removal protection (MRP), hygiene facilities, appropriate respirators, and air monitoring, among other things.[5] The 1978 standard also excluded the construction industry from its coverage, because insufficient information was available to resolve issues about application of the standard to the construction industry.[6] In 1993, OSHA issued an interim final rule for lead in construction,[7] as a result of a Congressional mandate in Title X[8] of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.[9] Congress mandated the Lead in Construction standard to ensure that OSHA's lead regulations would be as protective of construction employees as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) lead guidelines and the OSHA lead standards for general industry. Even though efforts were made to develop a comprehensive standard regulating occupational exposure to lead in the construction industry, OSHA did not issue a lead standard for the construction industry before Congress enacted Title X.[10] In May of 1993, OSHA issued the interim final rule for lead exposure in construction at 29 CFR 1926.62 (58 FR 26667). That standard is in effect today. 1.2 Description of 29 cfr 1926.62 1.2.1 Applicability The standard applies to employers engaged in any construction work where an employee may be exposed to lead. Construction work includes all of the following:
1.2.2 Main Requirements The standard establishes maximum limits of exposure to lead for all employees covered, including a PEL and action level (AL). The PEL sets the maximum employee exposure to lead: 50 µg/m3 averaged over an eight-hour period. If employees are exposed to lead for more than eight hours in a workday, their allowable exposure as a time weighted average (TWA) for that day must be reduced according to this formula: Allowable employee exposure (in µg/m3) = 400 divided by the hours worked in the day. The AL, regardless of respirator use, is an airborne concentration of 30 µg/m3, averaged over an eight-hour period. The AL is the level at which an employer must begin specific compliance activities including both employee protection programs and written compliance programs.[12] An employer whose workplace may be subject to the standard must conduct an initial exposure assessment to determine if any employee could be exposed to lead at or above the action level. The exposure is based on potential exposure if not wearing a respirator. While the initial assessment is being conducted, the employer must provide protective equipment, hand-washing facilities, biological monitoring, and training to any employee sanding, scraping, heating, or power cleaning any surface with lead-based paint (LBP), spray painting LBP, or using lead-containing mortar. The initial assessment is to be based on measurements of employee exposures. Additional assessments must be conducted if work practices change in ways that could increase exposures. When the initial assessment indicates that lead exposures are likely to occur, the employer must implement work practices and controls to reduce exposures to below the PEL if feasible. The employer must have a written compliance program, which must be revised every six months. The written compliance programs must be reviewed and updated at least annually and must include:
The standard requires that all surfaces be maintained as free as practicable of lead dust. Vacuums must be equipped with HEPA filters. The employer must ensure that employees do not smoke, eat, drink, or apply cosmetics in areas where employee exposure to lead exceeds the PEL. The employer must provide a clean change area for changing clothes and, if feasible, showers. The employer must also provide eating areas that are as free as practicable of lead dust and ensure that employees wash their hands before eating. The employer must make available to any employees exposed above the action level medical surveillance in the form of blood sampling and analysis, medical exams and consultations, and multiple physician reviews. Employers must remove employees with blood lead levels (BLLs) that exceed 50 mg/dL and allow them to return to their former jobs when their BLL is at or below 40 mg/dL. The employer must provide employees with information and training on lead hazards and safe practices and post warning signs in working areas. The employer must retain records of the initial assessment, monitoring results, medical surveillance, and medical removals. 1.3 Reasons for Review At the time OSHA was required to promulgate the standard, OSHA had data on exposure levels from construction work, but limited data on blood lead levels (BLLs) in the construction employees. Manufacturing employees who were exposed to lead at the levels measured during some construction activities suffered from serious health effects. These employees, however, were exposed to lead at these levels on a daily basis over a period of years. The data were applicable to some construction employees who were exposed over an extended period of time, usually on large industrial construction projects, and were supported by some case studies of lead diseases in industrial construction employees. There were not, however, studies of construction employees with low or intermittent exposures. Since the promulgation of the standard, NIOSH and many States have collected data on adult BLLs; in 2002, States began to report the data disaggregated by industrial sector. Because of the concern with childhood lead exposures, other Federal and State agencies have studied or funded studies that measured exposures and BLLs in residential and other building renovation, painting, and demolition. In addition, HUD conducted a survey of the presence of lead in the U.S. housing stock that revised its 1990 estimates of the number of units with lead and lead hazards substantially downwards. Finally, in 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sought public suggestions for federal regulations that should be reviewed. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) recommended that the lead in construction standard be reviewed. The NAHB stated that the original standard was promulgated as an interim final rule, which did not provide an opportunity for comment or examination of data on employee exposures, particularly for residential construction and renovation/remodeling. They stated that little evidence was available to support the applicability of a lead standard to the construction industry when the rule was issued. They further noted that LBP was banned from residential construction in 1978. They also stated that the impact on small entities was substantial. Although not all of these assertions may be supported, OSHA decided to review the standard to determine whether modifications to the standard could be made that would reduce the burden without lessening employee protections. 1.4 Organization of the Report The report is organized as follows:
This chapter discusses the characteristics and hazards of lead, the uses of lead in construction, and the potential levels of lead exposure. The discussion of lead hazards is adapted from the draft 2005 toxicological profile of lead prepared by the Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR), part of the Centers for Disease Control.[14] The ASTDR profile was used as a basis for this summary because the peer-reviewed updated profile includes a comprehensive review and assessment of the research on the exposure routes, absorption, and health effects of lead. 2.1 Lead Lead is a naturally occurring metallic element with multiple uses. Its most important use is in the production of some types of batteries. It is also used in the production of ammunition, in some kinds of metal products (such as sheet lead, solder, some brass and bronze products, and pipes), and in ceramic glazes. In 2003, 84.2 percent of lead consumed in the U.S. was for storage batteries, 3.5 percent for ammunition, 2.6 percent for oxides (paints, glazes, pigments, chemicals), 2.3 percent for casting metals, and 1.7 percent for sheet lead (used in building construction, tanks, process vessels, and medical radiation shields).[15] Chemicals containing lead were used as gasoline additives to increase octane rating, but their use was phased out in the 1980s; lead in gasoline was banned beginning January 1, 1996. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned the use of lead solder in plumbing and plumbing repairs in 1988. The amount of lead added to ceramic products, caulking, and solder has been reduced in recent years. For house painting, white lead (a lead oxide) was used in paint as a "hiding" pigment. In addition to preventing the sun's damaging rays from hitting the surface of the substrate, the white lead helped prevent the growth of mold and mildew. In the early 20th century, titanium dioxide (TiO2) came into use as a substitute for lead in house paints, but did not come into prevalent use by itself until the mid-20th century (earlier in the century, titanium oxide and white lead were often mixed).[16] Lead-based paint (LBP) was used as a base coat for structural steel to prevent corrosion. Lead in paint used on consumer products and residences was banned in 1978. LBP used on structural steel also began to be phased out in the late 1970s,[17] but its use has not been banned. 2.2 Lead Exposure Routes Lead exposures occur through inhalation and ingestion. Lead inhalation, the most common exposure route for construction employees, occurs from breathing in dust or fumes that contain lead. Once lead is inhaled into the lungs, it goes quickly to other parts of the body in the blood. Most adult lead exposure occurs when lead dust is transferred to food or liquids the person is consuming, to cigarettes the person is smoking, or to cosmetics the person is using.[18] Young children are more likely than adults to be exposed through ingestion, particularly when they play in areas where the soil is contaminated with lead or where lead-based paint chips exist. Very little of the lead ingested actually enters the blood and other parts of the body. The amount that gets into the body from the stomach partially depends on when the person ate the last meal. It also depends on age and how well the lead particles dissolved in the stomach juices. Experiments using adult volunteers showed that, for adults who had just eaten, the amount of lead that got into the blood from the stomach was only about 6 percent of the total amount taken in. In adults who had not eaten for a day, about 60-80 percent of the lead from the stomach got into their blood. In general, if adults and children swallow the same amount of lead, a higher proportion of the lead swallowed will enter the blood in children than in adults.[19] When lead enters the blood it travels to the "soft tissues" (e.g., the liver, kidneys, lungs, brain, spleen, muscles, and heart). After several weeks, most of the lead moves into the bones and teeth. In adults, about 94 percent of the total amount of lead in the body is contained in the bones and teeth. About 73 percent of the lead in children's bodies is stored in their bones. Some of the lead can stay in the bones for decades; however, lead can leave the bones and reenter the blood and organs under certain circumstances. For example, employees who have been exposed to lead for several years and then have their exposures and blood leads reduced, will have lead leach back from their bones into their blood, increasing the time it takes to reduce blood lead levels. This can also happen during pregnancy and periods of breast feeding, after a bone is broken, and during advancing age. The body does not change lead into any other form. Under conditions of continued exposure, not all the lead that enters the body will be eliminated, and this may result in accumulation of lead in body tissues, notably bone.[20] Older Americans (60 years old or more) generally have the highest blood lead levels (BLLs) of any age cohort, but their level has declined over time as have the levels of all age groups. In 1999, the geometric mean BLL ranged from 1.1 μg/dL (6-19 year olds) to 2.2 μg/dL (60+ year olds).[21] 2.3 Health Effects of Lead Exposure The effects of lead are the same whether it enters the body through inhalation or ingestion. The main target for lead toxicity is the nervous system, both in adults and in children. Mortality. The ATSDR profile concluded that the information available suggests a potential association between lead exposure and cerebrovascular disease, but that there is no information from studies in animals that would support or refute the existence of a possible association between lead exposure and mortality due to cerebrovascular disease. Studies of lead employees suggest that long-term exposure to lead may be associated with increased mortality due to cerebrovascular disease.[22] Cancer. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that lead and lead compounds are reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens based on limited evidence from studies in humans and sufficient evidence from animal studies. EPA has determined that lead is a probable human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence from studies in animals and inadequate evidence in humans. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that inorganic lead is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence from studies in animals and limited evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans. IARC also determined that organic lead compounds are not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity in humans based on inadequate evidence from studies in humans and animals.[23] Cardiovascular Effects. ATSDR stated that bone lead appears to be a better predictor of lead-induced elevations in blood pressure than BLLs. Meta-analyses of epidemiological findings have found a persistent trend that supports a relatively weak, but significant association between lead and increased blood pressure; this association amounts to an increase of 1 mmHg in systolic blood pressure for each doubling of blood lead.[24] A study published in September 2006 determined the association between BBLs below 10 µg/dL and mortality in the general U.S. population.[25] This study found an association between BBLs and increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at BBLs substantially lower than previously reported.[26] "Blood lead level was significantly associated with both myocardial infarction and stroke mortality, and the association was evident at levels >0.10 µmol/L (≥2µg/dL)."[27] Furthermore, this study concluded that "despite the marked decrease in blood lead levels over the past 3 decades, environmental lead exposures remain a significant determinant of cardiovascular mortality ...."[28] Neurological Effects. ATSDR reported that neurobehavioral effects including malaise, forgetfulness, irritability, lethargy, headache, fatigue, impotence, decreased libido, dizziness, weakness, and paresthesia have been reported in lead employees with BLLs in the range of 40-80 μg/dL. BLLs between 40 and 80 μg/dL have been associated with neuropsychological effects in lead employees. Studies of older populations with current mean BLLs <10 μg/dL have reported associations between BLL or bone lead and poorer performance in neurobehavioral tests. Lead also has been shown to affect nerve conduction velocity and postural balance in employees with BLL in the range of 30- 60 μg/dL. Alterations of somatosensory evoked potentials also have been reported in lead employees with mean BLLs in the range of 30-50 μg/dL.[29] Systemic Effects. Changes in circulating thyroid hormones generally occur in employees who have BLLs of 40-60 mg/dL. Altered immune parameters have been found in lead employees with BLLs between 30-70 mg/dL. Exposure to high amounts of lead resulting in BLLs of 100-120 μg/dL in adults or 70-100 μg/dL in children produce encephalopathy, a general term that describes various diseases that affect brain function. Symptoms develop following prolonged exposure and include dullness, irritability, poor attention span, epigastric pain, constipation, vomiting, convulsions, coma, and death. Lead poisoning in children can leave residual cognitive deficits that can be still detected in adulthood.[30] Colic is a consistent early symptom of lead poisoning. Although the gastrointestinal symptoms usually occur at BLLs of 100 mg/dL to 200 mg/dL, they have been noted in employees with BLLs as low as 40-60 mg/dL. Anemia is also associated with elevated BLLs; the threshold BLL is estimated to be 50 mg/dL for a decrease in hemoglobin.[31] The overall dose-effect pattern suggests an increasing severity of nephrotoxicity associated with increasing BLL, with effects on filtration rate at BLLs below 10 mg/dL and severe deficits in function and pathological changes occurring with BLLs above 50 mg/dL.[32] Reproductive Effects. ATSDR reported that some studies of humans occupationally or environmentally exposed to lead have observed associations between BLL and abortion and pre-term delivery in women and alterations in sperm and decreased fertility in men. On the other hand, there are several studies that found no significant association between lead exposure and these end points. At least for the effects in males, the threshold BLL appears to be in the range of 30-40 μg/dL.[33] Effects on Children. Children are more sensitive to the effects of lead than adults. Lead affects children in different ways depending how much lead a child swallows. A child who swallows large amounts of lead will develop blood anemia, kidney damage, colic, muscle weakness, and brain damage, which can kill the child. If a child swallows smaller amounts of lead, much less severe effects on blood and brain function may occur. In this case, recovery is likely once the child is removed from the source of lead exposure and the amount of lead in the child's body is lowered by giving the child certain drugs that help eliminate lead from the body. At still lower levels of exposure, lead can affect a child's mental and physical growth. Fetuses exposed to lead in the womb may be born prematurely and have lower weights at birth. Exposure in the womb, in infancy, or in early childhood may also slow mental development and lower intelligence later in childhood. There is evidence that some effects may persist beyond childhood.[34] BLLs. The BLL at which health impacts occur varies. ATSDR stated that epidemiological studies and clinical observations provide evidence for a progression of adverse health effects of lead in humans that occur in association with BLLs ranging from <10 μg/dL to >60 μg/dL. At the low end of the blood lead concentration range, adverse effects include delays and/or impaired development of the nervous system, delayed sexual maturation, neurobehavioral effects, increased blood pressure, depressed renal glomerular filtration rate, and inhibition of pathways in heme synthesis. Although fewer studies have examined associations between health outcomes and bone lead concentrations, recent studies provide evidence for adverse effects occurring in association with bone lead concentrations in excess of 10 μg/g (e.g., cardiovascular/renal, neurobehavioral effects). The timing of exposure, in addition to the exposure intensity, appears to be an important variable in the exposure-response relationship for lead. Exposures that occur during pre- and postnatal development, which result in BLLs of 10 μg/dL or less, produce delays or impairments of neurological and sexual development. Cognitive deficits, hypertension, and depressed kidney filtration rate have been observed in older adults (>60 years and/or post-menopause) in association with BLLs <10 μg/dL. This may reflect a higher vulnerability with age or the effects of cumulative lifetime exposures that are less evident in younger populations that have lower time-integrated exposures. [35] ATSDR noted that ACGIH considers BLL above 10 μg/dL to be excessive for women of child-bearing age. ACGIH set the biological exposure index for exposed employees at 30 μg/dL. ATSDR indicated that BLL measurements have limitations as a measure of lead body burden. ... PbB [BLL] can change relatively rapidly (e.g., weeks) in response to changes in exposure; thus, PbB can be influenced by short-term variability in exposure that may have only minor effects on lead body burden. A single blood lead determination cannot distinguish between lower-level intermediate or chronic exposure and higher-level acute exposure. Similarly, a single measurement may fail to detect a higher exposure that occurred (or ended) several months earlier. Time-integrated measurements of PbB may provide a means for accounting for some of these factors and thereby provide a better measure of long-term exposure....[36]2.4 Lead Exposures in Construction Employees in the construction industry may be exposed to lead in several forms:
The percentage of lead in LBP used in residential and commercial buildings was as high as 20 percent prior to 1920, but the percentage began to decline as substitutes were found.[40] In the 1950s, paint manufacturers voluntarily limited residential LBP to one percent lead.[41] (As discussed in Chapter 5, most housing units built prior to 1978 do not have LBP.) LBP was banned for residential use in 1978 and lead solder in plumbing was banned in 1988.[42] Because the exposures to old lead-solder during plumbing repairs are generally brief, the primary sources of high lead exposures for residential and commercial construction involve preparation for repainting, renovation, remodeling, and lead abatement work on structures that were built before 1978 and contain LBP. The hazard to employees of lead exposures depends on the level of lead to which an employee is exposed, the length of that exposure, and the frequency of exposures. OSHA has estimated the 8-hour TWA exposure levels for certain construction activities as shown in Table 2-1. Employees would not necessarily engage in each of these activities for 8 hours at a time. For example, enclosure movement and removal generally takes less than an hour. In contrast, abrasive blasting could be done over extended periods of time. The activities listed in the two higher TWA columns in Table 2-1 are generally limited to industrial uses of lead on bridges and other industrial structures. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has measured ambient lead levels inside of containment during abrasive blasting between 2,000 mg/m3 and 50,000 mg/m3. Where there is insufficient ventilation, FHWA reports that levels exceed 50,000 mg/m3.[43] A limited study conducted in California on hot cutting of stripped versus unstripped steel on a bridge produced exposure levels of 670 mg/m3 versus 30,000 mg/m3.[44] Table 2-1: Lead-Related Construction Tasks and Their Presumed 8-Hour TWA Exposure Levels
A study conducted for EPA measured lead exposures for various renovation and remodeling activities and confirmed the general ranges OSHA estimated for paint removal and demolition. The study also estimated the hours of activity that would result in an estimated geometric mean 8-hour TWA of 50 mg/m3. Table 2-2 presents the data. Surface preparation consists of a variety of activities including wet and dry scraping and sanding and feathering of edges. Table 2-2: Mean Exposures and Time Required to Reach 8-hour TWA for Renovation and Remodeling Activities
An earlier California study of exterior residential and commercial painters measured both 30-minute lead exposures (58 samples) and full-shift, task-specific samples (25 samples) at 11 jobs sites for 25 different employees. The measurements focused on activities with higher exposure potential. Table 2-3 presents the 30-minute exposures by work method; Table 2-4 presents the exposures by percentage of lead in paint and work method. Table 2-3: 30-Minute Lead Exposures by Work Method (mg/m3)[45]
Table 2-4: Mean and Total 30-Minute Lead Exposures (mg/m3) by Percentage Lead in Paint and Work Method
The California study reported that the 25 full-shift samples, when calculated as 8-hr. time-weighted averages (8-hr. TWAs), ranged from 0.8 to 550 mg/m3. The arithmetic mean was 57 mg/m3, above the OSHA PEL. Six of the 25 samples (24 percent) were above the PEL. All six of the samples that exceeded the PEL represented work shifts that involved dry manual sanding or uncontrolled power sanding, whereas only 9 of the 19 sample results below the PEL represented work shifts that involved use of these methods. The two highest full-shift air samples (310 and 550 mg/m3) were the result of dry manual sanding on a surface that tested 18 percent lead and contained detectable lead in the top layer of paint. The study concluded that painters' airborne lead exposures depend both on the surface preparation method being used and the amount of lead in the paint. The "dustier" the surface preparation method and the higher the concentration of lead in the paint, the higher the airborne lead exposure will be.[46] 2.5 Other Sources of Lead Exposure Between 1976 and 1991, the mean BLLs of the U.S. population aged from 1 to 74 years dropped from 12.8 to 2.8 μg/dL. The prevalence of BLLs ≥10 μg/dL also decreased sharply from 77.8 to 4.3 percent. ATSDR stated that the major cause of the observed decline in PbBs is most likely the removal of 99.8 percent of lead from gasoline and the removal of lead from soldered cans. By the 1999-2002 survey, the geometric mean of BLLs for people between 20 and 59 was 1.5 μg/dL (2.0 for men, 1.2 for women); for people over 59, the mean was higher (2.2 μg/dL).[47] Despite the overall decline, employees may be exposed to lead from non-occupational sources, which may increase their risk from occupational exposures. ATSDR stated that exposure to lead above levels that naturally occur in soil or dust is common. Some of the most important non-occupational exposures occur as a result of living in urban environments, especially near stationary emission sources such as smelters; consumption of produce from family gardens; home renovation; eating dirt when a child; smoking; and wine consumption. Smelters and other manufacturing plants may emit lead into the air; utilities and some manufacturing sectors also release lead and lead compounds to water. Lead used in shot and sinkers has been found to contaminate water. Flaking and powdered LBP is present in soils around houses and can be taken up by edible plants. Lead has been found in some dietary supplements; ATSDR reported that many non-Western folk remedies contain substantial amounts of lead. CDC has reported on lead poisoning from Mexican fruit candy and an Iraqi powder used to color rice and meat. Lead may leach from lead crystal decanters and glasses. A 1977 study found lead in cigarettes; ATSDR noted that although there are no recent studies of lead in tobacco, higher levels of lead in indoor air are associated with households with smokers. Hair dyes and some cosmetics also contain lead, which can be transferred to hands and food. Lead ammunition may result in exposures at levels up to 1,000 mg/m3 at discharge. Soil lead concentrations at shooting ranges have been found to be 10 to 100 times greater than background levels. Illegal moonshine, made in stills composed of lead-soldered parts, has been found to have high lead levels.[48] Exposure may also result from hobbies that use lead. For example, molten lead can be used in casting ammunition and making fishing weights or toy soldiers; leaded solder is used in making stained glass; leaded glazes and frits are used in making pottery; artists' paints may contain lead; lead compounds are used as coloring agents in glassblowing; and lead may be present in platinum printing and screen printing materials.[49] 2.6 Conclusion Exposure to excessive levels of lead can lead to elevated BLLs and cause serious health effects and mortality. Further, a recently published study of the general, U.S. adult population reports increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at BBLs substantially lower than previously reported [i.e., increased mortality at BBLs >0.10 µmol/L (≥2µg/dL)].[50] Acute effects from short-term spikes in BLLs may be reversible if the exposure ends and the BLLs fall, although research on the effects of short-term increases is limited. Some effects of chronically elevated BLLs, however, may be irreversible. Many of the studies of occupational lead health effects are generally based on employees in sectors where employees were exposed over a number of years (3 to 20+ years), but some are based on shorter exposures in construction. They indicate that the most severe health effects occur when BLLs exceed 40 mg/dL, although there is considerable individual variation on when symptoms begin and some effects occur at 10 mg/dL. These studies are applicable to construction employees, though the impacts may be less for intermittent exposures. Construction employees are susceptible to the health effects of lead exposure depending on the level of exposure and the length of that exposure. Measurements indicate that the level of exposure in construction work can be very high, particularly for industrial construction employees and for indoor painters who prepare surfaces covered with lead paint for repainting. Chapter 5 further discusses the data on these exposures. Occupational lead exposures not only present health risks to exposed employees, these exposures also present health risks to exposed employees' families when these exposed employees bring lead home on their clothes. Children are particularly at risk because children are far more susceptible to lead poisoning, experiencing more serious effects at much lower BLLs. Studies have found that when construction employees are exposed to lead, they are likely to carry enough lead home to cause elevated BLLs in their children; carrying lead dust home also results in continuing exposures for the employees. Furthermore, work involving lead-based paint on buildings can result in long-term lead exposures for the occupants if the lead dust is not adequately removed at the end of a project. This chapter describes the sectors affected by the lead in construction standard. After a general discussion of the construction industry, the chapter reviews OSHA citation data to identify the sectors most likely to be affected by the standard. The rest of the chapter focuses on the sectors most likely to be exposed to lead. For each of these sectors, the discussion covers the type of work involved, size of the sector, in terms of number of firms and employees, the value of the work, and the frequency of lead work. 3.1 Construction Industry 3.1.1 Overview In 2002, the construction industry had 710,000 establishments employing about 7.2 million employees, about 5.3 million of whom were construction employees. In addition, the construction industry includes about 2.1 million self-employed independent contractors.[51] Construction work is generally divided into sectors: building contractors - residential building (single family and multifamily) and commercial/office/institutional buildings; heavy construction - industrial buildings (manufacturing facilities), highways, bridges, and tunnels, pipelines, power lines, industrial nonbuilding (e.g., tanks); and specialty trade contractors (painters, electricians, plumbers, etc.). This report uses the phrases "industrial construction" and "industrial painting" to refer to heavy construction work. Table 3-1 presents data from the Bureau of Census 2002 Construction Census on the number of establishments, construction employees, and self-employed employees for three general sectors and the main specialty trade contractors likely to be affected by the lead standard. Lead abatement employees are not included on the table because they are classified in the waste and remediation sector (NAICS code 56291). They will, however, continue to be subject to §1926.62. Overall, employees in the construction industry represent about seven percent of the total U.S. workforce and about 6.4 percent of paid employees. Table 3-1: Number of Firms and Employees in the Construction Industry
** Included in masonry figures Source: 2002 Economic Census, U.S. Census. The total value of construction was approximately $861 billion in 2002 and $898 billion in 2003.[52] Construction spending represents about eight percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. Table 3-2 presents the distribution of construction spending by type of construction. Table 3-2: 2003 Construction Spending by Type of Construction ($000,000)
Construction firms are generally very small, in terms of the number of employees. Table 3-3 shows the percentage of firms in the three divisions of the industry with varying numbers of full-time employees (FTEs).[53] Table 3-3: Distribution of Construction Firms by Employee Number, 2001
Two other general characteristics of the construction industry are relevant to this study. In 2005, the construction sector had an annual employee turnover rate of about 65 percent.[54] One commenter to the docket on this study reported that a large residential construction firm with 2,500 employees issued W-2s to more than 8,000 employees in a recent year. A study of 450 union construction employees found that the mean number of employers that the employees had had in the previous year varied from 1.4 for painters to 3.2 for laborers and iron workers, with the range being 1 to 12 employers.[55] Although some specialty trades are highly skilled, others require little or no training and are often entry level jobs that employees do to gain experience before moving on to better paid and less physically difficult work. Part of the high turnover rate is also probably the result of a second characteristic of the work, which is its seasonality. Although most interior construction work can occur year round, work that must be done outdoors is constrained by the weather. Extreme heat or cold, high winds, high humidity as well as precipitation can delay work. In 2003, the construction sector as a whole employed 700,000 more production employees in August than it had in February, a 116 percent increase. The percentage variation was generally lower in non-residential building and interior work, such as drywall and electrical, and much higher for other sectors. Table 3-4 shows the percent of the high month (usually July or August) to the low month (usually February or March) for selected sectors. Table 3-4: 2003 Variation in Employment by Sector
3.1.2 Sectors Unlikely to Be Subject to the standard The lead standard applies to construction work where the employees could be exposed to lead. In practice, the majority of construction employees have little or no exposure to lead. Because, in 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of lead-based paint (LBP) in residential construction and on any surface that consumers are likely to be exposed to (office, store, institutional interiors) and in 1988, EPA banned the use of lead in plumbing, new residential building construction will not generally be subject to the standard because lead-containing materials should not be used. The use of LBP on structural steel industrial construction, such as bridges and tanks, began to be phased out in the late 1970s. Work on most new industrial construction will also not involve LBP although lead solder may still be used on some industrial structures. As discussed in Chapter 2, a limited number of activities involving structures painted with LBP prior to 1979 create enough lead dust to expose employees to significant levels unless the activities continue for extended periods. Unless they spend most of their time on older (pre-1950) buildings, most specialty trade contractors, such as electricians, plumbers, flooring installers, and masons, may be exposed to lead dust relatively infrequently. As discussed in detail in Chapter 5, about 25 percent of all housing units have LBP. These percentages decline each year as new houses are added to the housing stock, older units are demolished, and lead abatement occurs. The existence of LBP in commercial and institutional buildings has not been studied to the same degree, but the age distribution of these buildings is very similar to the age distribution of housing units.[56] Although the percentages are declining, they represent more than 20 million housing units. Most specialty trade contractors engage in few, if any, activities that disturb LBP or old pipes with lead solder, where they exist. When those activities occur, such as removing an old pipe, cutting into a wall to add an electrical outlet, or removing old wiring that includes lead, the activities take only a few minutes. Even removal of old windows, the housing element most likely to be coated with LBP and to have significant deterioration of the paint, is unlikely to result in prolonged employee exposure to high levels of lead dust because the removal takes only a few minutes. Another factor for specialty trade employees is the length of each job. Some of the trades work at multiple job sites each day (plumbers, electricians, window installers). Others may spend from a part of a day to several days per job (roofers, flooring, carpenters, masonry). The length of time at any one location will depend on the type of job and size of the building unit being repaired. Although residential work will generally take less time than commercial or institutional work, there may be very short jobs at commercial sites and longer term work at residences where major reconstruction is being done. Compliance with § 1926.62 is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6, but the compliance data are useful to identify sectors most likely to be affected by the standard. Table 3-5 presents the number of inspections in which the standard was cited from 1993 to 2003 (the first and last years do not cover 12 months of data). The table also presents the number of establishments and construction employees in each sector at the end of 1997. The data indicate that the standard applies mainly to a subset of construction sectors, focusing heavily on painters, general contractors (which included renovation and remodeling), lead abatement, and certain industrial uses. The standard has also been cited at non-construction sites (e.g., hospitals, universities, manufacturers, and real estate management). These inspections presumably involve construction work being carried out by employees of the firms; violations by non-construction firms represent about 8 percent of all violations. Table 3-5: 1993-2003 Inspections and Violations by Industry Sector
** 1997 Census data are by NAICS code; no NAICS code corresponds to this SIC code. The largest number of the violations of the standard (about 41 percent) are for failing to conduct the initial assessment or to provide protection for employees during the initial assessment. This pattern is particularly true for the major non-construction sites, where paragraph (d) has been cited at least once for every inspection. 3.1.3 Sectors Likely to Be Subject to the standard General building contractors that do remodeling and renovation work are likely to be subject to the standard if that work involves removing and replacing older parts of a structure (e.g., for remodeled kitchen and bathrooms or for additions) or repainting areas that have been previously covered with LBP. Lead and lead-containing mortar are still used in limited circumstances in the heavy construction sector, but the primary concern in industrial construction is the removal of LBP from structural steel bridges. Employees repairing and removing these structures may also be exposed to lead if they are required to cut through elements painted with LBP. The primary affected specialty trade employees are painters and demolition employees.[57] Lead abatement employees, classified in the waste remediation sector, are also likely to be exposed to LBP. These sectors are discussed in detail in the following sections. 3.2 Heavy Construction 3.2.1 Bridge Painters Employees who repair and repaint structural steel bridges are the employees most likely to be exposed to LBP because the structures require periodic repainting that usually involves removing the old paint.[58] The size of these structures, the concentration of lead in the paint previously used (up to 40 percent), and rules to prevent releases to the environment result in the potential for prolonged exposures to high levels of lead. Paint removal is usually accomplished by abrasive blast cleaning, although some removal is done by vacuum blast cleaning, high pressure water jetting, and chemical stripping. Systems are available that combine shrouded tools with power vacuums to almost eliminate dust exposures, but these systems generally are not suitable for bridges and larger structures. Where LBP could be applied to most surfaces, the replacement coatings require very clean surfaces and a surface profile to adhere. The shrouded tool systems do not produce surfaces that meet these requirements.[59] The shrouded tools also take longer to remove paint; one industry expert stated that it would be less expensive to replace a tank than to remove the coating with these tools.[60] Consequently, abrasive blasting continues to be the main method of removing paint from structural steel. As discussed in Chapter 2, abrasive blasting produces very high levels of lead dust. The length of any particular job will depend on the size of the structure. Work on smaller bridges, such as highway overpasses, are often bundled so that a firm receives a contract to repair and repaint a number of bridges over a season; for example, Monmouth County, New Jersey, let a contract for work on eight bridges. Work on larger bridges may take years to complete; the repair and repainting of the Ben Franklin Bridge in Philadelphia is projected to take eight to ten years.[61] Work on bridges is slower than other industrial construction because the work must allow traffic to continue to move. Employees in bridge painting firms are assumed to do the same kind of work and face the same risk of lead exposure each day. The risks to painters may be heightened by environmental regulations; some state and local regulations require that the work be conducted in enclosures to prevent release of lead to the environment (see Chapter 4). These structures can increase employee exposure to lead. Data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) indicate that there are about 193,000 structural steel bridges in the U.S.[62] In addition, the Federal Railroad Administration Bridge Safety Survey of 1992-93 estimated that there were about 32,300 metal railroad bridges.[63] In 1993, CDC stated that an estimated 90,000 bridges in the United States were coated with lead-containing paints.[64] Because structural steel bridges repainted since 1993 do not have LBP on them, the total number of bridges with LBP will be less than the 1993 estimate. In addition, some bridges constructed or repainted since the late 1970s when LBP was phased out of bridge coatings are now beginning to be repainted. Consequently, some bridge painting jobs may no longer involve LBP. However, to be conservative, this study assumes that any bridge painting job will involve the removal of LBP. This approach is backed by a study that showed that lead exposures for employees renovating (including paint removal and torch cutting) a previously deleaded bridge were as high as several times the PEL[65]. Because almost all highway bridges are owned by federal, state, or local governments, bridge repair and repainting work is done under contract with government agencies. Many states require that the firms be certified by the Steel Structures Painting Council (SSPC) to conduct this work (see Chapter 4). The other industrial painters that OSHA originally included in its estimates of potentially affected employees were those that painted water and industrial steel tanks. The number of tanks still coated with LBP is, however, likely to be low. Steven Roetter of Tank Industry Consultants stated that there are about 500,000 industrial and water tanks in the U.S., about of quarter of them municipal water tanks. Less than one percent of the water tanks still have LBP.[66] Industrial tanks may be more likely to have LBP, but if tanks are on average repainted every 20 years, as OSHA estimated in its original economic analysis of the lead in construction standard, virtually all of the tanks will have been repainted since LBP was phased out. Mr. Roetter indicated that the tank industry conducts about 150 abrasive blasting projects a year, with a small percentage of these involving LBP.[67] To estimate the number of industrial painters, this report uses data from the 2002 Economic Census of Construction, which reported that there were 455 establishments employing about 5,600 painters in firms. This estimate is higher than the number of firms who are certified by SPCC to do bridge work. Some State and local departments of transportation have their own maintenance staff to do some bridge repair. In addition, some of the largest bridges, such as the Golden Gate Bridge, have their own staff handle all repair and maintenance.[68] Consequently, there are some governmental entities that are directly affected by the standard. If these entities are in States with delegated programs, they would be subject to the standard. Because bridge painting requires substantial equipment and generally a crew of employees, it is assumed that all bridge painters are employees of painting firms. Non-building painting firms are estimated to average 12 employees, 10 of whom are painters. The average value of construction for bridge painting firms in 2002 was $1.8 million. The data do not allow specific estimates of the percentage of these firms that are small. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that almost all bridge painters are small entities. 3.2.2 Other Heavy Construction Activities Lead is also used in the following other industrial construction activities:.
Table 3-6: Estimated Number of Employees in Sectors with Potential Lead Use in Heavy Construction
The estimates in Table 3-6 are likely to be high because many employees in these sectors may not be engaged in work that involves lead exposures. Except for bridge construction firms, compliance citations in these sectors are relatively low. The masonry citations are for all masonry work; it is unlikely that most employees specializing in masonry repair work on acid tanks. Elevator cables are recabled only every 10 to 15 years, so most work on elevators does not involve the use of lead. Lead exposures in these sectors, therefore, will be of concern only for a subset of these employees who specialize in activities that involve lead. 3.3 Lead Abatement Lead abatement specialists are licensed or certified by States or the U.S. EPA to assess the extent of LBP or LBP hazards in structures and to remove or encapsulate the LBP. The employees are generally divided into specialties, including project designers, inspectors, risk assessors, project monitors, supervisors, and employees. Of these, only supervisors and employees are likely to be exposed to high lead levels as part of their work. The Occupatio | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||