A key feature of REACH is the Derived
No Effect Level (DNEL), a new health-and ecotoxicity-based exposure limit.
DNELs express the maximum amount of
a substance that humans can be exposed
to. A given substance may have multiple
DNELs that specify limits for certain populations, durations of exposure, and types
of effects.2
According to Laszcz-Davis, the process
used to arrive at a DNEL bears little resemblance to the rounds of review and
comment attending the typical OSHA PEL
standards development process. “The
OSHA PEL process has generally been
collaborative,” she explains. “There is initial work performed by scientists within
the government, and then there is an opportunity for public input. Once one takes
into consideration technology, feasibility
and cost, and integrates it with the
health-based data, a PEL gets proposed.
The dilemma is that the OSHA PEL
process moves at glacial speed.
“In the REACH system, the final DNEL
number is a health-based number, with no
consideration for technological capability
or feasibility. And the other thing the
DNEL does is [take into account] ecotoxic-
ity. So [REACH] is very good about em-
bracing the environmental piece. OSHA’s
scope limits it to the workplace alone.”
Some studies indicate that the “worker-
inhalation-chronic-systemic” DNEL—the
kind of DNEL that most resembles a PEL—
is significantly lower for many sub-
stances than the corresponding PEL. 3
Will the need for U.S. companies to ad-
just to the more protective REACH re-
quirements doom PELs to insignificance?
No one can say for sure, though busi-
nesses are already feeling the effects of
REACH, which is being implemented in
stages over several years.
“Many companies in the U.S. recognize
that what they end up with ‘over the pond’
could be distinctly different from what we
have stateside,” Laszcz-Davis says. “It’s a
problem. You’re doubling resources, you’re
doubling efforts. And this is one of the
reasons why I think we need a broader
perspective in dealing with OELs.”
Control Banding
In 2002, when AIHA’s first attempt to
kick-start the OSHA PEL-setting process
was just getting underway, Deborah Imel
Nelson sat in on AIHA conference calls
related to the PEL project and participated
in a roundtable on PELs at AIHce in San
Diego. At the time, some of Nelson’s col-
leagues at the World Health Organization,
including her boss, didn’t think that up-
dating PELs was a goal worth pursuing.
And while Nelson’s belief in the impor-
tance of health-based OELs has not wa-
vered, her frustration over the persistence
of outdated PELs convinced her that the
key to protecting workers lay elsewhere.
