About This Archive | DCHAS-L 2019 Index | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | DCHAS-L Home Page
From: Jarral Ryter <jryter**At_Symbol_Here**WESTERN.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Lead contamination [was: [DCHAS-L] Is lead sheeting a source of lead dust? And-Chemical Exposure question...
Date: Aug 2, 2019 17:10 UTC
Reply-To:
ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety
I'm very familiar with Johnson Controls. For the right to do the better-paying jobs, women were given the right to damage their fetuses. Very interesting trade off. But things got better after the lawyers figured out that the damaged fetus, can at age 18, file suit against the employer. The child is a 3rd party who never agreed to the exposure and did not provide informed consent to take a risk.
As for the limits I referred to, unions can set their own rules through their collective bargaining agreements with the producers. So SAG has rules about pregnant women, child performers and other high risk individuals. And they stick. Think for a minute about the leverage SAG has. If there is a limit in the collective bargaining agreement that is violated, the issue can go to grievance and hold up a production at a cost of millions per day. And if the star is not comfortable about the conditions under which they are asked to perform they also can delay shooting. And should there be an issue with a pregnancy or a child performer, the issue might also be tried in the press. That can be very expensive in terms of public relations.
We have a very different world here. And I think workers might want to take a look at some of our strategies. A few of them can be used in any industry.
Monona
-----Original Message-----
From: Harold Ingmire <hingmire**At_Symbol_Here**WHIPMIX.COM>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2019 12:25 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Lead contamination [was: [DCHAS-L] Is lead sheeting a source of lead dust? And-Chemical Exposure question...
I would recommend caution in dealing with the issue of "pregnant women", as this became a huge issue with Johnson Controls, Inc. back in the early 1990's in their automotive battery plans (I was HR/Safety in one.) The case was based on discrimination against women as they were removed from "leaded" areas and/or denied opportunities in those areas. While this never officially went through OSHA, the bigger issue you will have is ensuring you meet all the OSHA standards concerning the Lead Standard as for proper PPE, sanitation, clothing, footwear, etc., plus a proper medical surveillance program. Of course the best practices you can have to maintain the lowest exposure to lead is preferred.From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 7:03 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Lead contamination [was: [DCHAS-L] Is lead sheeting a source of lead dust? And-Chemical Exposure question...** CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. **So very interesting, Stephen. The only thing I would add would be to your comment #1.1. I would think that your workers exposure would be minimal, andI wouldn't leave it to my "thinking" alone. Why not do a lead wipe in the area and quantify the potential for exposure? OSHA cites at 200 ug/ft2 for housekeeping violations under the OSHA Lead Standard. So it certainly should be under this. And you might want to go a lot lower if there are women who may be pregnant in the area. The old HUD residential standard is 40 and the new is 10 ug/ft2.And if the wipe sample level is high, I would be testing to find out how far the lead has been tracked around. I will not go into a long story here -- only I'll tell you that in one case where there was lead dust like this, many nearby departments had floors that also exceeded the standards. Wouldn't it be ducky to just KNOW if there is a problem or not?Monona