It seems like I just wrote about this topic... because I did, last week. Yesterday, OSHA announced that, upon further consideration, they will not be changing their interpretation of the occupational noise control standard.
Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health, said "...it is clear from the concerns raised about this proposal that addressing this problem requires much more public outreach and many more resources than we had originally anticipated." One could surmise that given the current landscape of Capitol Hill that this proposal will not be returning soon.
Text of news release is here.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
On second thought, noise is what it always was
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
"feasible engineering and administrative noise controls"
The National Hearing Conservation Association has published a defense of the proposed changes, rebutting some of the arguments that are being put forward by business groups. The NHCA points out the shortcomings in the current policy:
This policy – established over 25 years ago in the absence of rulemaking or public input – does not require employers to implement feasible engineering and administrative noise controls until workers’ eight-hour average exposures reach 100 dBA or greater, which is ten times more intense than the current Permissible Exposure Limit of 90 dBA. The current policy has made noise the only regulated health hazard in which OSHA has failed to acknowledge the primacy of engineering controls, and has resulted in a substantial increase in risk of hearing loss for some American workers. The alternative exposure reduction method currently allowed by OSHA for eight hour average exposures between 90 and 100 dBA is the use of earplugs or earmuffs, which have been demonstrated to provide insufficient protection for many workers, if they are used at all.
Links:
Does this make the breakroom a safer place?
I must be falling down on the job -- I had no idea that saccharin had been de-listed from the hazardous waste list. Now that it's off the list, I won't have to report those diet soda spills to the feds anymore...
The following is an update from EPA's Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP & Oil Information Center:
On December 17, 2010, EPA published a final rule to remove saccharin and its salts from the CERCLA list of hazardous substances and the RCRA list of hazardous wastes. EPA's listing of saccharin as a hazardous waste under RCRA was the sole basis for its listing as a hazardous substance under CERCLA; therefore, since EPA has removed saccharin's listing as a hazardous waste, there is no longer reason for it to be listed as a hazardous substance under CERCLA. Persons in charge of vessels or facilities from which saccharin or its salts are released will no longer be required to immediately notify the National Response Center of the release under CERCLA Section 103 and will not be subject to the liability provisions under CERCLA Section 107.
More information on this final rule is available at the following URL:
www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/wastetypes/wasteid/saccharin
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
FDA Safety Notification: Risk of Eye and Skin Injuries from High-powered, Hand-held Lasers Used for Pointing or Entertainment
Date Issued: Dec. 16, 2010
Audience: Consumers
Product: Hand-held laser pointers that emit 5 milliwatts (mW) output power or higher.
Purpose: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting consumers about the risk of eye and skin injuries from high-powered laser pointers.
Summary of Problem and Scope:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting consumers about the risk of eye and skin injuries from exposure to high-powered laser pointers. FDA regulations limit the energy output of hand-held laser pointers to 5 milliwatts (mW). (More.....)
Audience: Consumers
Product: Hand-held laser pointers that emit 5 milliwatts (mW) output power or higher.
Purpose: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting consumers about the risk of eye and skin injuries from high-powered laser pointers.
Summary of Problem and Scope:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting consumers about the risk of eye and skin injuries from exposure to high-powered laser pointers. FDA regulations limit the energy output of hand-held laser pointers to 5 milliwatts (mW). (More.....)
Monday, January 3, 2011
OSHA Issues $787,000 in Penalties Against Wisconsin Firm
From Environmental Protection Online
The citation includes 14 alleged willful and one serious violation against WRR Environmental Services Co. of Eau Claire in connection with a June 29 explosion and fire at its plant, OSHA announced Tuesday.
Dec 15, 2010
OSHA issued $787,000 in proposed penalties Tuesday against a hazardous waste management and solvent recycling company, WRR Environmental Services Co. of Eau Claire, Wis. There were 14 willful and one serious citation filed for allegedly failing to implement measures to prevent chemical fires and explosions at its plant in Eau Claire, where an OSHA investigation took place after a June 29 explosion and fire in a solvent sludge feed tank.
The tank's roof blew off, and a nearby tank also exploded. "Employees had been working in the area of the solvent sludge feed tank immediately prior to the explosion. Fortunately, there were no reported injuries," OSHA stated in its news release.
"Even after WRR Environmental Services experienced a devastating fire that destroyed the facility in 2007, the company still failed to implement an adequate program to ensure safe operating conditions," said OSHA Assistant Secretary Dr. David Michaels.
OSHA said this investigation was part of its new Severe Violators Enforcement Program.
Transformation of Silver Nanoparticles in Sewage Sludge
From Environmental Protection Online
Carol Potera
Carol Potera, based in Montana, has written for EHP since 1996. She also writes for Microbe, Genetic Engineering News, and the American Journal of Nursing.
Citation: Potera C 2010. Transformation of Silver Nanoparticles in Sewage Sludge. Environ Health Perspect 118:a526-a527. doi:10.1289/ehp.118-a526a
Online: 01 December 2010
The release and environmental fate of nanoparticles throughout the life cycle of “nanoenabled” goods is an area of growing research interest. In the first known field study of the fate of silver nanoparticles in the wastewater treatment system, researchers now report these nanoparticles transform into silver sulfide in the sludge produced by sewage treatment plants.1 This new information about the life cycle of silver nanoparticles provides a starting point for further exploring their impact on the environment.
Silver has been used as an antimicrobial agent for millennia,2 and the increased surface area offered by the nanoparticle form of the metal offers greater germ-killing capacity.3 Today, manufacturers add silver nanoparticles to hundreds of consumer products, including food storage containers, clothing, computer keyboards, cosmetics, pillows, cell phones, and medical appliances.4
Silver is water soluble, so contact with any type of moisture—such as a bath or a spin in the washing machine—washes some out and sends it into wastewater systems. “We wanted to know what form of silver enters the environment after it goes down the drain and passes through sewage treatment plants,” says Michael Hochella, a geochemist at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and director of natural and incidental nanoparticles for the multi-institute Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology.5
Sludge from sewage treatment facilities can end up as landfill or soil amendments in agricultural fertilizers, or it can be burned in incinerators. In 2006 and 2007 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analyzed sewage sludge samples from 74 municipal wastewater treatment facilities nationwide and tested for 28 metals, including silver (which was detected in all the samples).6 Through the EPA, Hochella and postdoctoral fellow Bojeong Kim obtained frozen samples of sludge from a Midwest facility. They suspected it would contain the nanosilver particles now used in consumer products—although the EPA’s goal in sampling was simply to obtain national estimates of the concentrations of selected analytes, not identify nanoparticles.
Numbers of Goods Containing Silver Nanoparticles4
Kim developed analytical methods to determine the size, chemistry, and atomic structure of silver nanoparticles in the samples. The samples tested high in silver, but the silver could not be attributed to an industrial source. Scanning transmission electron microscopy revealed the nanoparticles were 5–20 nm in diameter and formed small, loosely packed aggregates no more than 100 nm in size. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry showed that sulfur (which is produced by microorganisms that digest sewage) combined with the silver in a 2:1 ratio, and the crystal structure confirmed the formation of silver sulfide nanoparticles.1
The results underscore the complexity of environmental fate. “What we start with is not what ends up in the environment,” Hochella says. The researchers don’t know how many silver nanoparticles were introduced to the wastewater treatment plants or how much incoming nanosilver ended up as silver sulfide nanoparticles. However, Kim notes that no pure silver nanoparticles were found in the sludge.
In general, silver sulfide is highly insoluble and settles out of water.7 But no one knows if silver sulfide nanoparticles behave in the same way. Properties of metals can change dramatically as particle size decreases.3 “It’s hard to predict whether the solubility of nanoparticles will increase, decrease, or stay the same,” Kim says. The bioavailability, toxicity, and reactivity of silver sulfide nanoparticles also are unknown.
If silver sulfide nanoparticles do prove toxic, the environmental implications could be unfavorable. Antimicrobial nanoparticles could adversely impact desirable microorganisms that decompose waste in sewage treatment plants, says Murray McBride, director of the Cornell Waste Management Institute. Furthermore, McBride says, nanosized silver sulfide applied to agricultural land could oxidize in soils and release toxic silver ions that kill beneficial soil microorganisms. On the other hand, one study of laboratory-grown Pseudomonas putida biofilms indicated some bacteria bind silver ions, potentially rendering them less toxic.8
References and Notes Top
1. Kim B, et al. Environ Sci Technol 44(19):7509–7514. 2010. doi:10.1021/es101565j Find this article online
2. Alexander JW Surg Infect (Larchmt) 10(3):)289–292. 2009. doi:10.1089/sur.2008.9941 Find this article online
3. Chen X, Schluesener HJ Toxicol Lett 176(1):1–12. 2008. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2007.10.004 Find this article online
4. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Nanotechnology Consumer Product Inventory. Washington, DC:The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (2010). Available: http://tinyurl.com/5sa88q [accessed 3 Nov 2010].
5. Funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology is a consortium of scientists from Duke University, Carnegie Mellon University, Howard University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, the University of Kentucky, and Stanford University who study the biological, environmental, and ecological consequences of nanomaterials.
6. EPA. Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey Statistical Analysis Report. EPA-822-R-08-018. Washington, DC:Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009). Available: http://tinyurl.com/33mlma4 [accessed 3 Nov 2010].
7. Lytle PE Environ Toxicol Chem 3(1):21–30. 1984. Find this article online
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
