Document QgzzvJkLRREKxkk2vL6411ZOk

k ;* * :/ rvot: /. J Srem tK Dlieiles # Heolfh leed IndvitrUi Assedetle*. Inc /AVI Moditea Are. New York If, H. t y/ ' tafs+y . ,,_ 11 Ff^ Look Ahead with Lead J-^M;l^ 1ll^^`,^l!^^ja^^g ^StuSSt^ftti^iwiinr!- '<' --.. >wnt)pi.iwwwffrwww iywyuvwyu f -] July 18, 1966 i "1j LEAD KTGIDZ A) SimT KflXETI* To all memtyn of the Lead Induatrlee Association, Inc. L**1 Tfft Criteria A.->*lrl Svrrg Attached for your lnfornatlon la a copy of a aelf-explanatory letter to the Leed Health and Safety CcesUttee reporting on the results of a surrey of Individuals la state, city and regional forerrsaent occupational health edadn- lstrstlon on criteria for evaluating Industrial exposure to leeduT^A copy of a emery of response la aleo attached. ** 'v Ve hiTe not Included herewith a cc;y of the table of detailed Infcmatloo W\lch you will note mi eer.t to the sentera of the Lead Health end Safety Cooxittee a* It was felt that, because of the specialised nature of this subject,03et of the recipients of this bulletin would be Interested In reviewing only the ferveml euaaary cf the total response. However, we are SAlntelning a linlled eupply, and will be happy to supply copies of the table to eny of you Wio wish to hare thso. Very truly youre, j c */:* -j 3 Janes C. Rouses Assistant Director Health and Safety LEAD INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION. INC. ta MtOltON AVtNUI NSW YORK, M. Y. IOOI nunM - UM MM HI July 18,1964 Tot All aaeban of th Load Health and Safety Coaaittea Ht Usd Test Criteria Analysis Surrey Attached you will find tha raaulta of a eurrey we conducted In 3eptaeber,196t of Individuals in stats,city and regional gcTsmosnt occupational health sdKlnietratlon on critsria for evaluating industrial exposure to load. As you know, tha analysis of biological fluids for lead. usually blood and urine, as an aid In ovalusting Industrial exposure is alaost universal. However, tha wide variety of last* used, as wall as tha wide rarge of critaria used for Julging tha rasults, has cauasd a cartaln anount of confusion when attempts ara salt to coepara dlaer-oattc afforts In ona Jurisdiction with thosa esda In another. Accorlirwly, this survey was bad* In an attscg>t to provide a bottar comparison for Judging by sssscllirg such lnforatioo as ths typee of lasts and sooe of tha critaria, or standards,that public agsnciss ars presently saploylng in thslr evaluation of lead exposures In Industry. Ths following ffuestions art suggestive Of ths type of Information that was Intended to ba sacurad by naans of tha surreyi . What tast (or lasts) do yon use in ths evaluation of industrial exposure to laadf . ttvat Judgment criterion, or standard, do you apply In sraluatlng tha rer-ilte of thasa tests? . Ars thasa tast rsaultt nsad In lagal (eoapanaatlcn) sltuatloosT A tails showing ths datailsd lnfomalion received fro* thosa responding to this aim; is attached, together with a sepsrste gsnaral h o s aij of ths total response. To'r your irvforoation, ths spaces in ths tabls under ths healing tltlsd "Tsais and Standards that sr* narked only with an "A* lndlcsta that ths rsspendnts reported conducting ouch lasts. - ' ' tij.'.u;!*V iy mi ye r V-./';v Y-. N 458.01 fe5'>'i'r 'vV / f < >. c ^ '}-#r'-. > / 7^* M * ,, 'WWpm 4>r'a>'' E;''>!'W*' l * i*.-'-/' * '*>`A1 Lr'a.^J`^r'n ;' ?4~.^,-\' ' `'-' ' * k ^ ^F ,. > '*- -- .**.= ** * '..;. .'';-% !.' ' __ ^ p t Jb*r-` " ' - *' *? * : ' . - . .: - . : %.* ' - - S... ( `.i *M :' .1 (2) V* Kara not racaived pansi salon to publish th# inforaatlem oontainad In tha attaohad tabla and will, tharafora, appraciat# your treating thin nattar aa confldantlal* Vary truly your*. JJ" C lR****\. Jaaaa C. Roma* i*l*tant Director Haalth and Safaty JCR/Jt rl $ r t -V*^" *-*4-^*'^-:' : ?p : , > , :b* Teat Criteria kmlnit Surrey Questionnaire Billed to 61 individuals la elite, city tad regional gorareeent occupational health adnlnlstration. Respondeat* totiled 54* Including t 39 froa etite organi rational 3 free county organisational 11 froa city organisations j and one froa Puerto Rico. Thirty-seven respondent* reported utilising blood testing, * Bajorlty ad hering to the standard of 80 ^ig of lead per ICO graa* of blood* Forty-two reported using urine testing, a aajorlty adhering to a atandard ranging between 150^g and 200^ig of lead per liter of urine. Respondents Indicating use of neither blood nor urine consisted alaoat totally of those depending on other associated departaent* or labe to supply or carry out auch testing or tho Indicated no r.eel for lead testing (e.g, Vyodrg, Idaho). M1* other test criteria are employed, r respondents Indi cated their Use to the exclusion of blood, urine, or both. Such other criteria Include! urinary porphyrin* - 7 respondent*, baaophlllo stippling - 4 respondent* Respondents parenthetically Indicating use of air samplings to detemlr# laad content mxsbered 19. Only on* reported that it analysed paint for laad : content. -0 Seventeen respondent* indicated that no use 1* aad* of their findings la cocpenaati.cn cases. Ten respondent* Indicated that their finding* are used, though they are not necessarily binding, and nay be used In a supporting bail# In relation to other Bed1 cal evidence. Twelve respondent* reported that their flndlnge are not Intended for use In ooapeneatlon cases, but any be used under certain circuMtances. S' t/29/U ! p f -Ai;. xt'u.K iwjxn V-unjt lauJUiw^J-liiiuJUiiiyaggffgWWW ^ N 458.02 r