Main

September 08, 2006

OSHA compliance issues: health hazards in a feed mill.


OSHA compliance issues: health hazards in a feed mill.
Related Articles

OSHA compliance issues: health hazards in a feed mill.

J Occup Environ Hyg. 2006 Nov;3(11):D116-9

Authors: Strelec F

PMID: 16939982 [PubMed - in process]



August 21, 2006

Developing regulations for occupational exposures to health hazards in Malaysia.


Developing regulations for occupational exposures to health hazards in Malaysia.
Related Articles

Developing regulations for occupational exposures to health hazards in Malaysia.

Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2006 Aug 7;

Authors: Rampal KG, Mohd Nizam J

In Malaysia exposures in the workplace are regulated under the Factories and Machinery Act (FMA), 1967 and also under the more comprehensive Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) enacted in 1994. With OSHA 1994 the philosophy of legislating safety and health in the workplace changed from one that was very prescriptive and containing detailed technical provisions under FMA, 1967 to one that is more flexible and encourages self-regulation under OSHA 1994. OSHA 1994 is supported by regulations, codes of practices and guidelines to further clarify the provisions in the Act. Under the FMA 1967 emphasis was on safety while with OSHA 1994 there has been equal emphasis on addressing health hazards in the workplace. Regulations for occupational exposures are developed by the Department of Occupational Safety and Health with tripartite and stakeholder consultation. When developing these regulations International Labor Organization Conventions, laws of other countries and occupational exposure standards adopted internationally are reviewed. The government also conducts surveys to collect information on both exposures and health effects in workplaces to have better understanding on specific occupational health problems. Effective law enforcement is crucial in ensuring compliance to safety and health law. The challenge at the moment is to ensure all employers and employees, particularly those in the small and medium enterprises, understand and comply with the provisions stipulated in the legislation.

PMID: 16899331 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]



August 15, 2006

Developing regulations for occupational exposures to health hazards in Malaysia.


Developing regulations for occupational exposures to health hazards in Malaysia.
Related Articles

Developing regulations for occupational exposures to health hazards in Malaysia.

Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2006 Aug 7;

Authors: Rampal KG, Mohd Nizam J

In Malaysia exposures in the workplace are regulated under the Factories and Machinery Act (FMA), 1967 and also under the more comprehensive Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) enacted in 1994. With OSHA 1994 the philosophy of legislating safety and health in the workplace changed from one that was very prescriptive and containing detailed technical provisions under FMA, 1967 to one that is more flexible and encourages self-regulation under OSHA 1994. OSHA 1994 is supported by regulations, codes of practices and guidelines to further clarify the provisions in the Act. Under the FMA 1967 emphasis was on safety while with OSHA 1994 there has been equal emphasis on addressing health hazards in the workplace. Regulations for occupational exposures are developed by the Department of Occupational Safety and Health with tripartite and stakeholder consultation. When developing these regulations International Labor Organization Conventions, laws of other countries and occupational exposure standards adopted internationally are reviewed. The government also conducts surveys to collect information on both exposures and health effects in workplaces to have better understanding on specific occupational health problems. Effective law enforcement is crucial in ensuring compliance to safety and health law. The challenge at the moment is to ensure all employers and employees, particularly those in the small and medium enterprises, understand and comply with the provisions stipulated in the legislation.

PMID: 16899331 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]



August 09, 2006

OSHA compliance issues--exposure to tularemia.


OSHA compliance issues--exposure to tularemia.
Related Articles

OSHA compliance issues--exposure to tularemia.

J Occup Environ Hyg. 2006 Aug;3(8):D74-6

Authors: Patel A, Kadis N, Abundo ML

PMID: 16862710 [PubMed - in process]



June 06, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.

Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385

Authors:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible.

PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



May 24, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.

Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385

Authors:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible.

PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



May 17, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.

Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385

Authors:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible.

PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



May 16, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.

Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385

Authors:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible.

PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



April 18, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.

Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385

Authors:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible.

PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



April 15, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.

Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385

Authors:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible.

PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



April 12, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.

Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385

Authors:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible.

PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



April 05, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.

Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385

Authors:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible.

PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.

Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385

Authors:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible.

PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



April 04, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.

Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385

Authors:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible.

PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



March 30, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.

Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385

Authors:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible.

PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.

Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385

Authors:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible.

PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



March 27, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.

Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385

Authors:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible.

PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - in process]



March 23, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Related


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385 Authors: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible. PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - in process]

March 22, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Related


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385 Authors: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible. PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - in process]

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Related


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385 Authors: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible. PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - in process]

March 21, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Related


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385 Authors: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible. PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - in process]

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Related


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385 Authors: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible. PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - in process]

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Related


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385 Authors: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible. PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - in process]

March 16, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Related


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385 Authors: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible. PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - in process]

March 15, 2006

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Related


Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule.
Related Articles Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2006 Feb 28;71(39):10099-385 Authors: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is amending the existing standard which limits occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). OSHA has determined based upon the best evidence currently available that at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) for Cr(VI), workers face a significant risk to material impairment of their health. The evidence in the record for this rulemaking indicates that workers exposed to Cr(VI) are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. The record also indicates that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) may result in asthma, and damage to the nasal epithelia and skin. The final rule establishes an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit of 5 micrograms of Cr(VI) per cubic meter of air (5 [mu]g/cu m). This is a considerable reduction from the previous PEL of 1 milligram per 10 cubic meters of air (1 mg/10 cu m, or 100 [mu]g/cu m) reported as CrO3, which is equivalent to a limit of 52 [mu]g/cu m as Cr(VI). The final rule also contains ancillary provisions for worker protection such as requirements for exposure determination, preferred exposure control methods, including a compliance alternative for a small sector for which the new PEL is infeasible, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene areas and practices, medical surveillance, recordkeeping, and start-up dates that include four years for the implementation of engineering controls to meet the PEL. The final standard separately regulates general industry, construction, and shipyards in order to tailor requirements to the unique circumstances found in each of these sectors. The PEL established by this rule reduces the significant risk posed to workers by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) to the maximum extent that is technologically and economically feasible. PMID: 16528853 [PubMed - in process]

March 13, 2006

Universal precautions: an update. Related Articles Universal precautions:


Universal precautions: an update.
Related Articles Universal precautions: an update. Heart Lung. 1994 Jul-Aug;23(4):352-8 Authors: Gershon RR, Karkashian C, Felknor S Universal precautions, the set of work practice recommendations designed to help minimize occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens, have been shown to be effective. However, lack of compliance with these recommendations has been well documented, both before and after the enactment of the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. Current issues, including occupationally acquired human immunodeficiency virus, percutaneous exposures and lack of compliance are discussed in this article. PMID: 7960863 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

March 12, 2006

Universal precautions: an update. Related Articles Universal precautions:


Universal precautions: an update.
Related Articles Universal precautions: an update. Heart Lung. 1994 Jul-Aug;23(4):352-8 Authors: Gershon RR, Karkashian C, Felknor S Universal precautions, the set of work practice recommendations designed to help minimize occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens, have been shown to be effective. However, lack of compliance with these recommendations has been well documented, both before and after the enactment of the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. Current issues, including occupationally acquired human immunodeficiency virus, percutaneous exposures and lack of compliance are discussed in this article. PMID: 7960863 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

March 10, 2006

Factors associated with exposure in Occupational Safety and


Factors associated with exposure in Occupational Safety and Health Administration data.
Related Articles Factors associated with exposure in Occupational Safety and Health Administration data. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1997 Mar;58(3):186-95 Authors: G mez MR This study investigated the possibility of making compliance data from the public and private sectors more amenable for multiple uses, by studying data from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspections during 1979-1989. The potential association of five variables with mean and upper-end (in upper quartile) airborne exposures in similar exposure groups was investigated. The exposure groups reflected airborne exposures to lead in the battery manufacturing industry, to perchloroethylene among dry cleaners, and to iron oxide among welders in three metal fabrication industries. Variables examined were year, inspection type and scope, and size and union status of inspected establishments. Multiple linear regression and logistic regression models were used for the analyses. In small battery plants mean exposure levels were higher and the relative frequency of upper-end exposures (> 75th percentile) greater than in larger establishments. Evidence suggested a decline in mean lead exposures (5-9% per year). Neither type of inspection nor union status were associated with mean or upper-end levels of lead exposure, although the study's power to detect an association was sometimes modest. Some evidence showed that full scope inspections may be associated with higher mean exposures. Strong evidence showed a decline in mean perchloroethylene exposures among dry cleaners (7% per year), but no temporal trends for welder exposures to iron oxide. With few exceptions, the size, type, scope, and union variables were rarely associated with mean or upper-end exposure levels among dry cleaners or welders, although the power of the analyses to detect associations was at times modest. Results show that OSHA data is amenable to analysis that can provide valuable insights about workplace exposures. Several findings of the study are directly useful to the design of public policy. PMID: 9075309 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

March 09, 2006

OSHA--is your practice in compliance? Related Articles OSHA--is


OSHA--is your practice in compliance?
Related Articles OSHA--is your practice in compliance? Conn Med. 2002 Mar;66(3):179 Authors: Berman DA PMID: 11957772 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

March 06, 2006

Breaking with tradition and redefining the disability equation:


Breaking with tradition and redefining the disability equation: the Southern Californian Edison experience.
Related Articles Breaking with tradition and redefining the disability equation: the Southern Californian Edison experience. Manag Care Q. 1995;3(1):56-65 Authors: Tortarolo JS, Polakoff PL Southern California Edison formed a single, new disability prevention and management organization: Employee Services. This department aggregated the formerly scattered programs dealing with the entire disability continuum from injury prevention through claims and rehabilitation to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliance and occupation research. PMID: 10172241 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

March 05, 2006

A practical approach to exposure assessment programs in


A practical approach to exposure assessment programs in the private sector: a partial validation study of a qualitative chemical exposure assessment model.
Related Articles A practical approach to exposure assessment programs in the private sector: a partial validation study of a qualitative chemical exposure assessment model. Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 2001 Feb;16(2):257-62 Authors: Dunham ML, Bullock WH, Oestenstad RK Utilizing a computer-based exposure assessment program, a United States-based chemical company was able to predict which chemicals and tasks presented the greatest probability of exposure in the workplace. The data generated by the model also enabled the company to prioritize these tasks for quantitative exposure monitoring. The assessment program addressed potential chemical exposure to workers in a cost-effective way. This assessment program reduced a facility's cost of complying with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard by about 90 percent. Overall, the program reduced the company's cost by about $700,000 when compared to traditional methods used for achieving compliance with these regulations. In addition, by utilizing a computer-based approach, a facility did streamline its chemical exposure assessment process. A comparative evaluation study was conducted in conjunction with a graduate research project. The purpose of the study was to compare the company's qualitative exposure assessment model with several other exposure assessment models. The project compared hazard rankings calculated from three exposure assessment models with actual exposure data for three work scenarios. Overall, the models appeared to be predictive of measured exposures. Therefore, they can be useful tools to help make decisions on which exposures have the highest potential to cause occupational illness to employees and therefore require additional monitoring and follow-up. PMID: 11217720 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

March 02, 2006

Re: Article by Dale J. Stephenson and Dean


Re: Article by Dale J. Stephenson and Dean R. Lillquist entitled "The effects of temperature and pressure on air-borne exposure concentrations when performing compliance evaluations using ACGIH TLVs and OSHA PELs".
Related Articles Re: Article by Dale J. Stephenson and Dean R. Lillquist entitled "The effects of temperature and pressure on air-borne exposure concentrations when performing compliance evaluations using ACGIH TLVs and OSHA PELs". Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 2001 Oct;16(10):941 Authors: Drummond I PMID: 11599542 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Safe handling of antineoplastic drugs. Related Articles Safe


Safe handling of antineoplastic drugs.
Related Articles Safe handling of antineoplastic drugs. Top Hosp Pharm Manage. 1994 Jul;14(2):1-10 Authors: Harrison BR Managers should be aware of the hazardous properties of antineoplastic drugs and of the procedures and equipment commonly recommended to provide a safe working environment for employees, patients, and visitors. Compliance with the many published guidelines should help ensure passage of the inevitable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or Joint Commission inspection. Acute and chronic toxicities of the antineoplastic drugs, the potential for exposure in the workplace, and the basic guidelines for safe handling of these agents are reviewed. PMID: 10136200 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

February 27, 2006

Federal government regulation of occupational skin exposure in


Federal government regulation of occupational skin exposure in the USA.
Related Articles Federal government regulation of occupational skin exposure in the USA. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2003 Jun;76(5):387-99 Authors: Boeniger MF, Ahlers HW There are at least 14 federal regulations and three agencies that are involved in the regulation of occupational skin exposures in the USA. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires the reporting of health effects information on chemicals, and such information is used to assess the risks of human and environmental exposure. The health effects information and any resulting risk assessments are generally available to the public. A fair amount of this information relates to skin irritation, sensitization, and dermal absorption. The EPA can require the submission of new data necessary for it to carry out its risk assessments, and has the authority to ban hazardous chemicals for certain uses. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the correct labeling of cosmetics and requires safety and efficacy data on new products that are claimed to have preventive or health benefits. Commercial distribution of topical skin-care and protection products, therefore, can be potentially scrutinized by the FDA, which can control the use of hazardous chemicals in such products. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has the most direct contact with workplaces through its field inspection compliance activity, which is directed at the reduction of workplace injuries and illnesses. Our analysis suggests that although considerable amounts of health effects information is generated and available, such information may not always be adequately conveyed to the end users of chemical products. In addition, the most effective and practical means of preventing exposure is often not apparent or generally known. Current regulations may have created a reliance on use of chemical protective equipment that may not always be the best approach to protecting workers. Lack of performance criteria that are measurable has hampered industry from objectively assessing skin exposures. This lack of performance criteria or guidance has also hindered the implementation of prevention strategies and a critical assessment of their effectiveness. Better guidance from regulatory agencies directed at performance-based control of occupational skin hazards is presently needed. PMID: 12783236 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

February 24, 2006

Re: Article by Dale J. Stephenson and Dean


Re: Article by Dale J. Stephenson and Dean R. Lillquist entitled "The effects of temperature and pressure on air-borne exposure concentrations when performing compliance evaluations using ACGIH TLVs and OSHA PELs".
Related Articles Re: Article by Dale J. Stephenson and Dean R. Lillquist entitled "The effects of temperature and pressure on air-borne exposure concentrations when performing compliance evaluations using ACGIH TLVs and OSHA PELs". Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 2001 Oct;16(10):941 Authors: Drummond I PMID: 11599542 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

February 21, 2006

Trends in occupational lead exposure since the 1978


Trends in occupational lead exposure since the 1978 OSHA lead standard.
Related Articles Trends in occupational lead exposure since the 1978 OSHA lead standard. Am J Ind Med. 2004 Jun;45(6):558-72 Authors: Okun A, Cooper G, Bailer AJ, Bena J, Stayner L BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to evaluate trends in occupational lead exposures throughout U.S. industry after the establishment of the general industry lead standard in 1978 and the construction industry standard in 1993. METHODS: Lead exposure measurements collected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under their compliance and consultation programs were analyzed. Time trends in the distributions of exposure levels were evaluated graphically. Trends in the proportion of exposures above the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) were analyzed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: The distribution of lead exposure levels declined over the study time period for general industry, but not for construction. The median exposure levels for general industry facilities decreased five- to tenfold. Logistic regression models reveal statistically significant declines in the odds of a lead exposure exceeding the PEL. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence for relatively large decreases in lead exposure levels in general industry facilities over time. The study does not provide similar evidence for the construction industry. Given the limited number of years of data available since the implementation of the revised construction standard for lead, re-analysis of lead exposure levels within this industry would be worthwhile when more data become available. PMID: 15164400 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

February 18, 2006

OSHA 2000: a review of compliance issues. Related


OSHA 2000: a review of compliance issues.
Related Articles OSHA 2000: a review of compliance issues. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2000 Sep;28(9):657-61 Authors: Cuny E The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration is responsible for enforcing worker safety regulations in the state of California. The infection control regulation, while the best known to dentists, is only one of many that affect every dental practice. The past two years have brought significant changes to Cal/OSHA rules. This paper reviews some of the current regulations that apply to dental offices. PMID: 11324046 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

February 15, 2006

Federal government regulation of occupational skin exposure in


Federal government regulation of occupational skin exposure in the USA.
Related Articles Federal government regulation of occupational skin exposure in the USA. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2003 Jun;76(5):387-99 Authors: Boeniger MF, Ahlers HW There are at least 14 federal regulations and three agencies that are involved in the regulation of occupational skin exposures in the USA. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires the reporting of health effects information on chemicals, and such information is used to assess the risks of human and environmental exposure. The health effects information and any resulting risk assessments are generally available to the public. A fair amount of this information relates to skin irritation, sensitization, and dermal absorption. The EPA can require the submission of new data necessary for it to carry out its risk assessments, and has the authority to ban hazardous chemicals for certain uses. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the correct labeling of cosmetics and requires safety and efficacy data on new products that are claimed to have preventive or health benefits. Commercial distribution of topical skin-care and protection products, therefore, can be potentially scrutinized by the FDA, which can control the use of hazardous chemicals in such products. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has the most direct contact with workplaces through its field inspection compliance activity, which is directed at the reduction of workplace injuries and illnesses. Our analysis suggests that although considerable amounts of health effects information is generated and available, such information may not always be adequately conveyed to the end users of chemical products. In addition, the most effective and practical means of preventing exposure is often not apparent or generally known. Current regulations may have created a reliance on use of chemical protective equipment that may not always be the best approach to protecting workers. Lack of performance criteria that are measurable has hampered industry from objectively assessing skin exposures. This lack of performance criteria or guidance has also hindered the implementation of prevention strategies and a critical assessment of their effectiveness. Better guidance from regulatory agencies directed at performance-based control of occupational skin hazards is presently needed. PMID: 12783236 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

February 14, 2006

The 1998 Donald E. Cummings Memorial Award Lecture.


The 1998 Donald E. Cummings Memorial Award Lecture. The industrial hygiene paradox, dilemmas, and a vision for the future.
Related Articles The 1998 Donald E. Cummings Memorial Award Lecture. The industrial hygiene paradox, dilemmas, and a vision for the future. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1998 Nov;59(11):753-7 Authors: Lick HB How do we move from diatribe to dialogue? Since the Donald E. Cummings Award was first established in 1943, the profession of industrial hygiene has seen many changes. The traditional hazards Alice Hamilton addressed in her 1948 Cummings lecture have been controlled. However, the advent of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has changed the approach of many of today's industrial hygienists from "best professional practices" to regulatory compliance or OSHA industrial hygiene. Further, the dialogue that has existed between academia, business, government, and labor that allows industrial hygienists to identify and resolve health hazards is now threatened by lawsuits and lobbyists. Industrial hygienists have a professional responsibility to workers, employers, clients, and the public. Our vision for the future must refocus on this responsibility as we once again embrace dialogue instead of diatribe. This lecture was presented at the American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition in Atlanta, Ga., on May 13, 1998. PMID: 9830082 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

February 12, 2006

Application of statistical models for secondary data usage


Application of statistical models for secondary data usage of the US Navy's Occupational Exposure Database (NOED).
Related Articles Application of statistical models for secondary data usage of the US Navy's Occupational Exposure Database (NOED). Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 2001 Feb;16(2):201-9 Authors: Formisano JA, Still K, Alexander W, Lippmann M Many organizations around the world have collected data related to individual worker exposures that are used to determine compliance with workplace standards. These data are often warehoused and thereafter rarely used as an information resource. Using appropriate groupings and analysis of OSHA data, Gómez showed that such stored data can provide additional insight on factors affecting occupational exposures. Using data from the Occupational Exposure Database of the United States Navy, the usefulness of statistical models for defining probabilities of exposure above permissible limits for observed work conditions is examined. Analyses have highlighted worker Similar Exposure Groups (SEGs) with potential for overexposure to asbestos and lead. In terms of grouping data, Rappaport et al. defined the Within-Between Lognormal Model, a scale-independent measure for quantifying between-worker variability within a selected worker group: (B)R.95 = exp[3.92s(sB)], representing the ratio of arithmetic mean exposures received by workers in the 97.5th and 2.5th percentiles. To help search for groups, the Proportional Odds Model, a generalization of the logistic model to ordinal data, can predict probabilities for group exposure above the Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL), or the Action Level (AL), which is one-half of the OEL. Worker SEGs have been identified for asbestos workers removing friable asbestos ((B)R.95 = 11.0) and nonfriable asbestos ((B)R.95 = 6.5); metal cleaning workers sandingspecialized equipment ((B)R.95 = 11.3), and workers at target shooting ranges cleaning up lead debris ((B)R.95 = 10). Estimated probabilities for the categories <AL, AL-OEL, and >OEL support current understanding of work processes examined. Differences in probability noted between tasks and levels of ventilation validate this method for evaluating other available workplace exposure determinants, and for predicting probability of membership in categories that may help further define worker exposure groups, and determinants of excessive exposures. Thus, analyses of retrospective exposure data can help identify work site and work practice factors for efficient targeting of remediation resources. PMID: 11217712 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

February 09, 2006

OSHA revises blood-borne pathogens compliance directive. Related Articles


OSHA revises blood-borne pathogens compliance directive.
Related Articles OSHA revises blood-borne pathogens compliance directive. ONS News. 2000 Feb;15(2):6 Authors: PMID: 12017657 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

February 08, 2006

A national survey of air medical infectious disease


A national survey of air medical infectious disease control practices.
Related Articles A national survey of air medical infectious disease control practices. Air Med J. 2000 Jan-Mar;19(1):8-12 Authors: Corriere C, Zarro C, Connelly PE, Tortella BJ, Lavery RF INTRODUCTION: Caring for an infectious patient in the air medical environment presents a special challenge to all air crew members (ACMs) involved. The purpose of this study was to survey the infectious disease control practices of air medical programs (AMPs) that