Protection standards

Code of Federal Regulations, Tide 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations, Washington, D.C., 1976. 

The new hand protection standard resulted from OSHA s belief that many hand injuries result from not wearing hand protection or wearing protection for the wrong type of hazards. Employers should evaluate and provide hand protection when there are hazards to hands from absorption of harmful substances, severe cuts or lacerations, severe abrasions, punctures, chemical burns, thermal burns, and harmful temperature extremes. 

In a laboratory, fire hazard may vary from minimal to severe. Proper protective measures, though costly, are worth the price. A laboratory must meet local fire protection standards for industry, which are usually more restrictive than those for a home. While a fire department official is not a chemist, given the proper input he will come up with good suggestions. Providing him with the necessary information is an important job for the laboratory planner. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Standard Operating Procedures for Field... 

The mission of the OSHA is to save lives, prevent injuries, and protect the health of employees in the workplace.25 OSHA accomplishes these goals through several regulatory requirements including the hazard communication standard (HCS) and the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Worker Protection Standard (HAZWOPER). 

Hazardous waste operations and emergency response worker protection standard... 

Without confronting the complexity of studying and evaluating the TSPAs, one can gain some perspective on the scale of the hazards by considering the protective standards that have been proposed for nuclear waste repositories, in particular for the proposed US. site at Yucca Mountain (Bodansky, 1996). There have been three major proposals in recent years ... 

EPA, 1999, 40 CFR Part 197, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain,... 

IN Constituent comprising groundwater protection standards Yes CELDS 1990b... 

Marino PE, Franzblau A, Lilis R, et al. 1989. Acute lead poisoning in construction workers The failure of current protective standards. Arch Environ Health 44 140-145. 

FRC (1961). Federal Radiation Council, Background Material for the Development of Radiation Protection Standards, FRC Report No. 2 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington). 

X-Ray Protection Standards for Home Television Receivers, Interim Statement of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Washington, 1968)... 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Reports Series No. 332. IAEA, Vienna, Austria. 74 pp. 

Zach, R., J.L. Hawkins, and S.C. Sheppard. 1993. Effects of ionizing radiation on breeding swallows at current radiation protection standards. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12 779-786. 

A general application of loss prevention practices is considered prudent both by insurers and petroleum companies, so overall, all facilities are required to achieve the corporate protection standards. In fact the premium of insurance is normally based on the level of risk for the facility after an insurance engineer has "surveyed" the facility. Isolated cases may appear where less fixed protection systems are provided in place of manual fire fighting capabilities, however the general level of overall loss prevention level or risk is maintained. Insurers will also always make recommendations for loss prevention improvements where they feel the protection levels are substandard and the risk high. Where they feel the risk is too high, they may refuse to underwrite certain layers of insurance or charge substantial additional premiums for reinsurance requirements. 

Environmental Protection Standards (1989-1994). China Standard Publishing House, Beijing. 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2007). (accessed 2007). Respiratory Protection Standard. 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.134. URL http //www.osha. gov/pis/oshaweb/owadisp.show document p table=STANDARDS p id=12716. 

The second difference pertains to the derivation of Dj to protect workers. Historically, it has been assumed that workers are normally healthier than the general population, and show less variability in response to chemical exposure. Worker protection standards are thus routinely less restrictive than those covering the general population. Elncertainty factors used to derive worker protective limits are normally smaller than those used for the general population. 

Albert. R.E. (1983) The acceptability of using the cancer risk estimates associated with the radiation protection standard of 5 lems/year as the basis for setting protection standards for chemical carcinogens with special reference to vinyl chloride, Report to Ministry of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Division, Ibronto, Ontetrio, Canada (Ministry of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Division, Ibronto, Ontario, Canada). 

Dose Effect Modifying Factors In Radiation Protection, Report of Subcommittee M-4 (Relative Biological Effectiveness) of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report BNL 50073 (T-471) (1967) Brookhaven National Laboratory (National Tbchnical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia) X-Ray Protection Standards for Home Tblevision Receivers, Interim Statement of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (National Coxmcil on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Washington, 1968)... 

Success in Solving Environmental Protection Problems. The EPA reported that 1303 chemical plants out of 1371 were in compliance with the 1970 Clean Air Act. This represents a 95 per cent compliance rate. Also, 89 per cent of the chemical plants were in compliance with the 1977 deadline of "best practicable control" specified in the 1972 Federal Water Quality Act Amendments. (4) Hence, the chemical industry has been somewhat successful in utilizing its technology to meet environmental protection standards. Officers from twelve of the fifteen responding firms indicated that R D effort to meet these deadlines represented efficient and effective solutions to pollution control problems. 

Radiation protection health and environmental protection standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings listed constituent... 

EPA. 2002d. Radiation protection program. Health and environmental protection standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR 192, Appendix 1. http //ecfr.access.gpo.gov/otcg. April 19,2002. 

The protection standards for QD relationships depend on the type of structure and the type of barricade. The factor indicating the distance to be provided is called the K or the risk factor. The assignment of numerical values for K was likewise reviewed by Jarrett (Ref 12) Design of Barricades... 

A database based on these standards could significantly raise the quality of the program-wide database, reduce start-up problems, and facilitate CSDP s attainment of worker protection standards. 

Exempt Radioactive Wastes. The radioactive waste classification system in the United States does not include a general class of exempt waste (see Table 1.1). Rather, many products and materials that contain small amounts of radionuclides (e.g., specified consumer products, liquid scintillation counters containing 3H and 14C) have been exempted from requirements for use or disposal as radioactive material on a case-by-case basis. The various exemption levels are intended to correspond to low doses to the public, especially compared with dose limits in radiation protection standards for the public or doses due to natural background radiation. However, the exemption levels are not based on a particular dose, and potential doses to the public resulting from use or disposal of the exempt products and materials vary widely. 

The chemical paradigm also differs from the radiation paradigm in that there are no standards that apply to all controlled sources of exposure and all hazardous substances combined, as in radiation protection standards. Regulations for hazardous chemicals generally apply only to specific release pathways (eg., the atmosphere) or... 

Established Exemption Levels. NRC s radiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20 (NRC, 1991) include limits on concentrations or annual releases of radionuclides for unrestricted discharge into sanitary sewer systems, except any excreta from individuals undergoing medical treatment with radioactive material are exempt from the limits. These regulations also include an exemption for land disposal of liquid scintillation materials and animal carcasses that contain 2 kBq g 1 (0.05 pCi g-1) or less of 3H or 14C, although the exempted scintillation materials must be managed in accordance with RCRA requirements due to the presence of toluene. 

NRC regulations described above represent a case-by-case approach to establishing exemption levels for radioactive material. Although the various exemption levels are expected to correspond to low doses from use and disposal of materials compared, for example, with dose limits in radiation protection standards for the public... 

Measures of Response for Substances Causing Deterministic Responses. For purposes of health protection in routine exposure situations, incidence has been the primary measure of deterministic response for both radionuclides and hazardous chemicals. Fatalities also are of concern for substances that cause deterministic responses, but only at doses substantially above the thresholds for nonfatal responses. Given that the objective of standards for health protection is to prevent the occurrence of deterministic responses, incidence is not modified by any subjective factors that take into account, for example, the relative severity of different nonfatal responses with respect to a diminished quality of life. Judgments about the importance of deterministic responses are applied only in deciding which responses are sufficiently adverse to warrant consideration in setting protection standards. 

Establishing an acceptable risk or dose. There also are a number of precedents for establishing an acceptable (barely tolerable) risk or dose of substances that cause stochastic responses for the purpose of classifying waste as low-hazard or high-hazard. For radionuclides, the annual dose limit for the public of 1 mSv currently recommended by ICRP (1991) and NCRP (1993a) and contained in current radiation protection standards (DOE, 1990 NRC, 1991) could be applied to hypothetical inadvertent intruders at licensed near-surface disposal facilities for low-hazard waste. This dose corresponds to an estimated lifetime fatal cancer risk of about 4 X 10 3. Alternatively, the limits on concentrations of radionuclides in radioactive waste that is generally acceptable for near-surface disposal,... 

---