OSHA chemical exposure standards
What Are OSHA Chemical Exposure Standards?
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) sets limits on the amount or concentration of hazardous chemicals in the workplace air.
These limits are known as Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs).
The goal is to protect workers from the adverse health effects of chemical exposures, such as toxicity, carcinogenicity, or respiratory damage.
Standards include limits for airborne contaminants, requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE), monitoring, and employee training.
Types of OSHA Chemical Exposure Standards
Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs):
Maximum concentration of a chemical to which most workers can be exposed during an 8-hour shift.
Expressed as Time-Weighted Averages (TWA), Short-Term Exposure Limits (STEL), or Ceiling Limits.
Hazard Communication Standard (HazCom):
Requires employers to inform workers about hazardous chemicals through labels, Safety Data Sheets (SDS), and training.
Specific Standards:
OSHA has set specific standards for certain chemicals, e.g., asbestos, benzene, lead, formaldehyde.
Process Safety Management (PSM):
For highly hazardous chemicals to prevent accidental releases.
Enforcement and Compliance
OSHA inspects workplaces and can issue citations or penalties for violations.
Employers must monitor chemical exposures, maintain records, and provide medical surveillance when required.
Key Case Laws on OSHA Chemical Exposure Standards
1. Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute (Benzene Case) (1980) — U.S. Supreme Court
Background:
OSHA set a new PEL for benzene, lowering the permissible exposure level.
Issue:
Whether OSHA properly justified the benzene standard and considered the costs of compliance.
Decision:
The Court ruled that OSHA must demonstrate a significant risk to health and that the standard is necessary to reduce that risk.
Significance:
Set the standard for how OSHA must justify exposure limits.
OSHA must balance health risks and economic feasibility.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. OSHA (Lead Case) (1992)
Background:
OSHA revised the lead exposure standard to tighten limits and improve worker protection.
Issue:
Whether OSHA adequately justified the new standards and complied with statutory procedures.
Decision:
The court upheld OSHA’s revised lead standard, affirming the agency’s authority to set protective limits.
Significance:
Reinforced OSHA’s broad discretion to protect workers from chemical hazards.
Emphasized the importance of scientific evidence.
3. United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall (1981)
Background:
Challenge to OSHA’s PEL for coke oven emissions.
Issue:
Whether OSHA adequately considered technological feasibility in setting limits.
Decision:
The court ruled OSHA must consider feasibility but ultimately deferred to OSHA’s expertise on standards.
Significance:
Clarified the role of feasibility in OSHA’s standard-setting.
Supported OSHA’s technical judgments in balancing safety and practicality.
4. Secretary of Labor v. OSHRC (Amoco Oil Co.) (1990)
Background:
Amoco was cited for failing to properly monitor worker exposure to hydrocarbons.
Issue:
Whether Amoco violated OSHA chemical exposure monitoring requirements.
Decision:
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) upheld the citation, emphasizing employer’s duty to monitor.
Significance:
Stressed employer responsibility to actively monitor and control chemical exposures.
Reinforced enforcement of exposure assessments.
5. Mannington Mills, Inc. v. OSHRC (1995)
Background:
OSHA cited Mannington Mills for inadequate exposure controls related to formaldehyde.
Issue:
Whether the employer’s measures met OSHA’s chemical exposure standards.
Decision:
The OSHRC found the employer’s controls insufficient and upheld the citation.
Significance:
Highlighted employer’s obligation to implement effective engineering controls.
Showed the importance of ongoing exposure assessment.
Summary
OSHA’s chemical exposure standards are designed to protect worker health by limiting airborne hazardous substances.
Courts require OSHA to justify standards with scientific evidence of significant risk and consider economic and technological feasibility.
Employers have a legal duty to monitor, control, and communicate chemical hazards.
Enforcement actions and litigation clarify and reinforce OSHA’s authority and worker protections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments