Posted By Shane Johnston We have, for a handful of employees, undertaken lead-in-blood monitoring in the past. Discontinued as nothing above background was ever detected and control measures were further improved (LEV, PPE etc). Given that the biological monitoring is more encompassing that simple airborne monitoring (as it takes into consideration absorbtion and accidental ingestion), and that the result of this monitoring indicates that exposure is negligible, is there still a requirement to condusct a lead in air assessment?

Posted By Rakesh Maharaj Shane, Firstly, I understand the point that you are making, however the purpose of air monitoring is to ensure that airborne concentrations of lead are within the OELs and detect any situation these OELs are exceeded. The fact that an OEL is exceeded (for a short period of time) does not imply that the BEI for lead in blood lead being absorbed by the body over an entire shift (I am assuming that the work involving lead is routine) is exceeded. Airmonitoring results will enable one to detect (sooner than biological sampling) high levels of lead in air and enable management to put in place appropriate controls to prevent long term absorbtion by the body. I can hear you think, 'we already have adequate controls in place'. To this, I ask only two questions, how will you know if these controls fail? and for how long will employees be exposed before you detect from their blood-lead levels that the BEI (and OEL?) has been exceeded? From a more practical standpoint, I would suggest that rather than undertaking routine monitoring, I suggest that you undertake infrequent random monitoring - this approach will immediately indentify deviation from standard safe working conditions and practices. I hope this helps R

Posted By Paul Leadbetter Shane In the words of John Major, 'I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer'. Paul