RE: Bloodborne Pathogen Standar

[Wes <vanpelt@ios.com>]

Mike and All,

1) The OSHA Bloodborne Pathogen Standard does not cover urine.

2) Using only 250 uCi of P-32 would not normally require a urine bioassay program because the researcher would have to drink 2.5 batches of it to exceed the ALI.

3) Using 250 uCi of P-32 one can "easily" exceed the annual skin dose limit of 50 rem if even a few percent of the activity stays on the skin for hours or days.

respectfully,

Wes Van Pelt
vanpelt@ios.com

----------
From: 	Mike Bohan[SMTP:mike.bohan@yale.edu]
Sent: 	Wednesday, May 01, 1996 4:40 PM
To: 	Multiple recipients of list
Subject: 	Bloodborne Pathogen Standar

                      Subject:                              Time:  4:20 PM
  OFFICE MEMO         Bloodborne Pathogen Standards vs....    Date:  01/05/96

I recommended to one of my clients that uses approximately 250 uCi of P-32 as a
DNA probe, that they should setup a simple in-house urinalysis bioassay program,
using their LSC, as part of their routine Health Physics procedures.  

The small manufacturing company's Industrial Hygienist (I.H.) however said that
they couldn't do that because their company's policy prohibited them from
handling bodily fluids, in order to avoid OSHA's bloodborne pathogen standards.

Consequently, I recommended a commercial provider of bioassay services, but I
fail to see how that helps, because they still must collect, package and mail
samples to be assayed.

My question to my fellow RADSAFE members is...  Has anyone else run into this
problem and do OSHA standards (specifically ... Bloodborne Pathogen) apply in
this workplace setting and under these circumstances???  

P.S. - I suggested that each individual could handle their own samples for
screening purposes with positive results sent to the commercial provider as
necessary, but the I.H. nixed that plan too!

Thanks for your advice.

Mike Bohan, RSO
e-mail: mike.bohan@yale.edu
phone: (203) 785-2950
fax: (203) 737-4252