California’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, the standards-setting agency within Cal/OSHA, has proposed regulations to lower the action level and permissible exposure limit for airborne lead in construction and general industry. The agency proposes to lower the action level from 30 µg/m3 as an eight-hour time-weighted average to 2 µg/m3 as an eight-hour TWA, and to lower the PEL for lead, calculated as an eight-hour TWA, from 50 µg/m3 to 10 µg/m3. Cal/OSHA explains in a public notice (PDF) that the new rulemaking was initiated in response to health-based recommendations made by the California Department of Public Health in 2010 and 2013 and is intended to maintain employee blood lead levels (BLLs) below 10 µg/dl. Existing regulations aim to maintain BLLs below 40 µg/dl. Cal/OSHA also seeks to reduce workers’ exposure to lead through the oral route and to expand requirements for blood lead testing of employees who work with lead. Proposed revisions to existing requirements that address these concerns include establishing general hygiene requirements when employees are exposed to lead, rather than when they are exposed to lead above the PEL, as well as increasing the frequency of blood lead testing for employees whose BLLs are at or above 10 µg/dl, compared to existing requirements that call for testing of individuals whose BLLs are at or above 40 µg/dl. Cal/OSHA’s proposal would also require monthly blood lead testing for workers whose airborne exposures to lead are above 500 µg/m3 as an 8-hour TWA, regardless of respirator use. The proposed revisions would also lower the BLL at which some employees must be offered at least annual medical examinations and consultations from 40 μg/dl to 20 μg/dl. An employee would be temporarily removed from work due to a high BLL, a practice known as medical removal protection (MRP), if their BLL is at or above 30 μg/dl, whereas existing requirements set the criteria for MRP at a BLL of 50 μg/dl. MRP would also be required for employees whose two most recent BLL measurements or average BLL within the previous six months is at or above 20 μg/dl. The criteria for employees on MRP to return to work involving lead would be changed from a BLL of 40 μg/dl to 15 μg/dl. “The proposed amendments are needed to adequately protect employees who have occupational exposure to lead,” Cal/OSHA’s notice states. “[R]ecent evidence demonstrates that even at exposure levels well below those currently allowed by the existing regulations, harmful health effects can occur.” Anticipated benefits of the lead proposal include a reduction in the number of workers who are exposed to harmful amounts of lead, decreased risk that workers exposed to lead will develop harmful health effects, and a reduction in take-home lead exposures among workers’ families and other household members, according to Cal/OSHA. The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board accepted written comments on the lead proposal until April 20, 2023, and held a public hearing in Sacramento, California, on the same date. The text of the proposed regulation as it was provided prior to the comment deadline and public hearing is available as a PDF . For more information, see the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board webpage on lead.

Nominations for the annual Safe-in-Sound Excellence in Hearing Loss Prevention Awards are now being accepted. The awards are cosponsored by NIOSH, the National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA), and the Council on Accreditation of Hearing Conservationists (CAOHC). Two awards are given: one for excellence and one for innovation. According to Safe-in-Sound Review Committee Coordinator Scott Schneider, CIH, judges for the excellence award consider what nominees have done to control noise levels in their workplace—such as purchasing quieter tools or equipment, regularly checking noise levels, providing effective hearing protection and annual hearing tests, training workers effectively on noise on and off the job, controlling noise to NIOSH-recommended levels, and evaluating their program each year. Those who wish to nominate another individual, group, or company must submit nominations by June 8, 2023. Self-nominations will be accepted through August 18, 2023. For information on how to submit a nomination, visit the Safe-in-Sound website.

OSHA should improve its procedures for interviewing complainants and witnesses when conducting workplace inspections and investigations, according to a report released by the U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The report, which examined 100 randomly selected cases of OSHA inspections conducted during fiscal years 2019 and 2020, sought to determine the extent to which OSHA ensured that complaints and referrals received by the agency were adequately addressed. According to the report, OSHA did not interview the complainant in half of the cases and did not obtain witness statements in 37 percent. Forty-one of 65 cases where interviews were conducted resulted in penalties or citations, and no penalties or citations were issued in five cases for which OSHA did not interview complainants or witnesses. OSHA’s case files did not contain evidence supporting the decision not to investigate in 11 of 30 cases where no inspection was conducted. In 10 percent of cases involving inspections, employers corrected hazardous conditions after the deadline identified by OSHA, while no documentation of abatement existed for 11 percent. OSHA’s response, included as an appendix to the OIG report, notes that the 100 audited cases represent less than 0.2 percent of the more than 62,500 cases the agency processed during fiscal years 2019 and 2020. According to OSHA, “fewer interviews occur when no violation is observed simply because there is less to inquire about.” The agency also notes that documentation to support its decision not to investigate a workplace is required only for formal complaints. The OIG report is available online as a PDF.