Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
thunderchild  
#1 Posted : 19 April 2023 12:05:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
thunderchild

Afternoon all!!!

I have never had to deal with occupational health in relation to lead (noise, dust etc. I have). So i understand a nurse coning in to take blood samples on set periods depending on exposure and females etc and a lab processing the blood to get the results.

Now the bit I don't understand and I am ignorant of this is requiring a doctors consultation after we have the results. The highest we have currently is 30 which is below the regulation action level (all females are below also) so can anyone point me in the direction of requiring the doctor consultation if we're blow the levels.

Sorry if these are stupid questions but as I say I've never dealt with this and my predecessor has left it all in a mess and I'm trying to get my head around it all.

peter gotch  
#2 Posted : 19 April 2023 13:55:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Thunderchild

It would be helpful if you would define what you mean by "30"!

However, in simple terms everything is set out in the Approved Code of Practice and guidance that supports the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 - L132.

Three circumstances where you need medical surveillance:

1. Assessment says that exposure is "significant", i.e. half of the occupational exposure limit which for lead other than lead alkyl is 0.15mg per metre cubed - with assessment made on a day that exposure is likely to be at its maximum in terms of an 8 hour time weighted average.

2. Someone's blood lead or lead in urine hits a number that varies depending on the vulnerability of the person - women of reproductive capacity, young persons ie 16 or 17 and everyone else.

3. A "relevant doctor" directs surveillance.

Nurses don't come into the equation except as delegated by a "relevant doctor".

Once you need that "relevant doctor" probably sensible to be guided by what they say until such time as you can justifiably dispense with their services - which in pragmatic terms means that 

(a) you don't have anyone with elevated blood in lead or urine in lead levels 

(b) you are confident that exposure is still not "significant" or has been reduced to below such level and can be expected to remain so.

I would note that I think that probably only a fraction of those who should be under medical surveillance under these Regulations actually are. HSE publishes statistics for those subject to surveillance which in some sectors are frighteningly small.

Research in California in the 1980s concluded that over half of demolition worker and those employed in scrap yards had substantially elevated lead in blood levels and I don't think that the UK controls this risk much better than the Californians.

When they were refurbishing the Heilanman's Umbrella at Glasgow Central Station the HSE took a very close interest from the start of the project - so you would expect it to be a paragon of virtue! - yet within weeks of paint removal operations starting, people were getting "suspended".

So, if on a specimen project things were going badly you can reasonably expect more problems in scenarios which are less under the microscope.

thunderchild  
#3 Posted : 19 April 2023 14:07:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
thunderchild

OK, sorry I wasn't clear we are blelow the maximum level but we do have to have people's blood monitored quarterly (child reproductive age), 6-monthly and anually all depending on there levels. So we are in the catagory of needing the nurse to come in, that I am not desputing.

However what my sticking point is the follow up visit from the doctor to consult on the results. The results list I can see (as we have the signed consent form) which tells me who has the most exposure and what there levels are so why do I need the Dr to come in and say the same thing? Even staff have said this is pointless.

I've been told its due to a legislative change but the CLAW regs were last updated in 2002 (I know there is a review of the levels underway) so I did't think it was that. Then I thought maybe GPDR (what a joy) but its not that either.

Then I'm told its due to a prosecution that Dr's were then made to see people by law. I looked at the case you mentioned as the previos one was 2015 if memory serves. But the bell cleaning had no monitoring at all so still not sure where the DR come in to it all???

Confused......

Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.