Exposure Assessment: A Statistical Validation of Mercury Exposures in the Workplace An Analysis of Potential Workplace Exposure to Mercury from Broken.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
FHM TRAINING TOOLS This training presentation is part of FHMs commitment to creating and keeping safe workplaces. Be sure to check out all the training.
Advertisements

EH Terminology Presented by QBE Loss Control Services.
Health Hazard Evaluations of Worker Exposures During Cement Tile Roofing Operations Ronald M. Hall, MS, CIH National Institute for Occupational Safety.
Hazardous Materials Section Five: Scene Safety, PPE and Scene Control
Eduardo J Salazar-Vega, MPH CPH Jan Koehn, MS CIH.
OSHA Personal Air Sampling Presented By: Joseph Cantone Industrial Hygienist/Project Manager.
Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005 Portland, Maine For related information visit:
Protecting welders from hex-chrome This material was produced under grant SH F-11 from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
IH&S 725 Dr. Myers, C.I.H. Compliance statistics Lecture Notes.
1 WMIHS Silica and Manganese March 3, 2015 James R. Strobridge, CIH.
Silica Larry Joswiak, MPH March 31, 2010.
Sunil Chithiri, M.S, CHMM Environmental Health, Safety, & Risk Management Stephen F. Austin State University.
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
Occupational Health Introduction to Industrial Hygiene © 2011 Sensible Safety Source LLC.
Elizabeth L. Pullen, CIH APOSHO 26 & Australasian
Toxic New Source Review Lance Ericksen Engineering Division Manager MBUAPCD.
B. Hubbard, B. Middaugh, N. Zimmerman and J. McGlothlin Grant Title: “Development and Evaluation of a Personal, Respirable Silica Scavenging System for.
Health and Safety OS352 January 26, Agenda Why do we need to legislate health and safety issues? Why do we need to legislate health and safety issues?
American Industrial Hygiene Conference Atlanta, Georgia American Industrial Hygiene Conference Atlanta, Georgia PO135 Exposure Assessment Strategies II.
Health and Safety OS352 September 9, Agenda Why do we need to legislate health and safety issues? What does OSHA do?
Occupational Health & Safety
Unit 3: Potential Chemical Exposure During Two-Component
OSHA Compliance for Temp Agencies and Host Employers
CHAPTER 2 – ROLES OF CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL IN SAFETY AND HEALTH
Asbestos Exposure Presentation Presented by: Todd & Cue Ltd © 2006, 2012 Zywave, Inc. All rights reserved.
Energy Facility Contractors Group Safety Working Group Industrial Hygiene / Industrial Safety Technical Team Dina Siegel, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Indoor Firing Ranges Training Education Recommended Practices.
Safety 5120Industrial Hygiene Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) TLV ® Definition concentrations … which it is airborne concentrations … which it is believed.
1 Occupational Air Sampling Strategies – who, when, how…. Lecture Notes.
Tom Cecich, CSP, CIH NC Chapter ASSE March 12, 2015.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Roger Seitz Addressing Future Human Actions for Safety Assessment Summary from CSM on Human Action And Intrusion.
© 2012 Delmar, Cengage Learning Chapter 13 Regulatory Overview OSHA, PSM, and EPA.
Hazard Communication.  Introduction Hazard Communication (HazCom) Training  Required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)  All.
Introduction to INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
Occupational Health (North America) 18 th International Lead Conference June 2013 Robert Steinwurtzel and Thomas Hogan
IH Legislation and Regulation Worker H&S issues have occasionally come up for centuries, sometimes playing a major role in labor relations Accidental injuries.
Air Quality in Emergency Response Worker Health Considerations Sacramento, CA October 16, 2008 Rupali Das, MD, MPH Occupational Health Branch Division.
United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 1 National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection August 8-9, 2007.
Consideration for Stakeholders Regarding Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment as Part of the MSD Prevention Strategy for Ontario Richard Wells University.
Health Hazards Instructional Goal
Tier 1 Environmental Performance Tools Economic Criteria.
Protecting our Protectors Forum on Catastrophe Preparedness: Partnering to Protect Workplaces Max Kiefer Associate Director, Emergency Preparedness and.
Comments on the Research of Dr. Bob Musselman (Atmospheric Deposition Research) Allen S. Lefohn, Ph.D. A.S.L. & Associates Helena, Montana August 10, 2005.
Acceptable Exposure Limits …extrapolation of toxicological data to recommendations for limits for occupational exposures.
IH&S 725 Dr. Myers, C.I.H. Occupational Air Sampling Strategies – who, when, how…. Lecture Notes.
NEW PHOSTOXIN LABELING
Indoor Air Quality and Occupational Health and Safety Legislation in Alberta.
Workers Comp Overview & Accident Investigations
#aihce Can Control Banding be Useful to Ensure Adequate Controls for Safe Handling of Nanomaterials? A Systematic Review June 3, 2015 The findings and.
TOXICOLOGY OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS CHEMICAL PHYSICAL ERGONOMIC PSYCHOLOGIC BIOLOGIC.
Health Hazards!!! Introduction:
Independent Oversight Status Report on Workplace Exposure Monitoring ISM Workshop 2007.
What Retailers Need to Know About New Light Bulb Legislation November 2011.
Hazard Recognition and Risk Analysis Why follow safe work practices?
Department of Defense Voluntary Protection Programs Center of Excellence Development, Validation, Implementation and Enhancement for a Voluntary Protection.
Chemical Risk Assessment & Exposure Monitoring Quantitative Risk Assessment Revision December Information provided subject to the 'Conditions for.
Heat Given Off by Halogen, LED, and CFL light bulbs Group # Period Names:
OSHA A GUIDE TO THE NEGATIVE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT.
OSHA Final Rule: Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica OSHA has amended its existing standards for occupational exposure to respirable.
CHAPTER 5 Occupational Exposure Limits and Assessment of Workplace Chemical Risks.
Preventing Exposure to Lead in Drinking Water
Silica Hazard Awareness Training
Silica.
Lead.
Silica Hazard Awareness Training
Exposure Assessment: A Statistical Validation of Mercury Exposures in the Workplace An Analysis of Potential Workplace Exposure to Mercury from Broken.
Objective – Be Safe in the Lab
Preventing Exposure to Lead in Drinking Water
Safety Data Sheets.
TOXICOLOGY.
Presentation transcript:

Exposure Assessment: A Statistical Validation of Mercury Exposures in the Workplace An Analysis of Potential Workplace Exposure to Mercury from Broken Compact Fluorescent Lamps March 4, 2008 Charles Vidich and Terry Grover

Overview n Purpose of Study n Study Hypothesis n Study Design & Methodology n Regulatory Background n Exposure Assessment n Cleaning Protocol Premises n Findings n Implications n Recommendations

Purpose of Study n Assess potential exposures to mercury from broken Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) n Establish a controlled testing environment to ensure analytical results are scientifically defensible and statistically validated n Develop safe work practices for Broken CFL cleanup l Focus on Postal Worker Cleanups l Identification of Contractor Response Strategies

Study Hypothesis Compact Fluorescent Lamps, whether broken or intact, are recyclable but may cause adverse health effects if not properly managed in an occupational setting.

Study Design & Methodology n Focus on Outcome: Work Practice Development l Two driving factors: â Employee Safety in the workplace â Guidance for Product Take Back Pilot Program

Study Design & Methodology n Critical Factors: l 1) CFL Lamp Mercury Exposure l 2) Quantity of CFLs Broken n Physical design of test chambers (2) l 8 by 12 by 11.5 feet - full double Poly containment over VAT covered concrete floors n Regulatory & Industry Standards Review n Statistical Validation – Price & Associates l Repetitive tests – 5 Independent Tests

Regulatory Background n Occupational References Standards Drove the Analysis n Mandatory Standards; l OSHA PEL of 100 ug/m 3 (TWA over 8 hours) n Industry and Government Exposure Guidelines l NIOSH REL and Ceiling Values â REL =.05 mg/m 3 Time Weighted Average (TWA) â Ceiling Value.1 mg/m 3 â NIOSH Ceiling (ILDH) 1.0 mg/m 3 l ACGIH PEL and STEL â PEL =.025 mg/m 3 â STEL = Not Applicable l EPA Reference Concentration

Mercury Standards/Advisories Yellow = Advisories & Red = Mandatory OSHA PEL

Continuous Exposure Data for Breakage of 30 CFLs: All Trials NIOSH Ceiling

Continuous Exposure Data for Breakage of 4 CFLs: Run 2

Continuous Exposure Data for Breakage of 4 CFLs: All Trials

4 CFL Exposure Compared to Mercury Standards/Advisories 8 Hour TWA for 4 CFLs

30 CFL Exposure Compared to Mercury Standards/Advisories 8 Hour TWA for 30 CFLs

Exposure Assessment n Built on Previous Exposure Assessment in August 2004 n Two test chambers; One CFL type Tested (GE Energy Smart – 100 Watt) n Lumex RA-915 Mercury Analyzer and Jerome 471 Mercury Analyzer meters used for real time readings l Covered the Spectrum of Exposures â Jerome used for > 100 ug/m 3 â Lumex used for < 100 ug/m 3 n Exposures also analyzed with NIOSH test method 6009

Exposure Assessment n Two Scenarios Investigated: - Each with 5 repetitions n Scenario 1: 4 CFLs broken simultaneously n Scenario 2: 30 CFLs broken simultaneously n Exposure may be affected by the method of breakage and anomalies in mercury levels in manufacturing production l Statistical methods address this variation

Cleaning Protocol Premises n Initial Approach Based on NEWMOA guidance n Minimize costs – no mercury HEPA vacuums n Assume breakage in a worst case confined area n Manual cleaning and use of flowers of sulfur n Ventilation and temperature controls if possible l Ventilation is a Key Exposure Variable l Time delay in response is also a key variable n Proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) l Cleanups based on exposures below the need for respiratory protection

Cleaning Protocol Premises n Key Cleaning Assumptions l 1 cleaning per day l 5 minute wait before response l Maximum of four broken CFLs l Cleanups limited to Impervious Surfaces

Findings n 10 clean-up simulations conducted for GE CFLs n The 4 GE CFLs when broken did not exceed 1 microgram per cubic meter for an 8 hr TWA n The 30 GE CFLs when broken did not exceed 6 micrograms per cubic meter for an 8 hour TWA n NIOSH REL Ceiling was exceed three minutes after breakage when 30 CFLs were broken n OSHA PEL TWA could be exceeded if cleanup exceeded 4.4 hours in containment. n Study Hypothesis is validated for breakage of large quantities of CFLs. l There are health concerns associated with uncontrolled breakage of 30 CFLs or more (e.g., bulb crushing operations).

Implications n Work Practice and Job Safety Analysis (JSA) Guidance can now be used to respond to incidents involving 4 or fewer CFLs in the USPS n Draft Report was Prepared November 2007 n Final Report is being reviewed by USPS Headquarters’ Industrial Hygienist n Union Briefings are Planned for Spring 2008 n Business Development has already been Briefed l Product Take Back Implications are Huge n Strategy for Formal Release of Document is still Pending

Recommendations n Findings are applicable to both governmental and private workplace environments n USPS Recommends Limiting Cleanup of 4 or fewer CFLs to avoid potentially exceeding ACGIH and NIOSH Ceiling Guidelines l Initial and refresher training is a prerequisite n The actual upper limit of acceptable exposure may be greater than identified in this study. l However, out of an abundance caution, the concept of “incidental breakage” should be limited to 4 our fewer CFLs l Regulatory Agencies should re-evaluate their “incidental bulb breakage” cleanup guidelines.