职业暴露限值——英国再次尝试。

T. Ogden
{"title":"职业暴露限值——英国再次尝试。","authors":"T. Ogden","doi":"10.1093/ANNHYG/46.5.435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations came into force about 12 yr ago, Britain has had a legally enforceable system of exposure limits. This is now likely to have a major overhaul. There are at present two types of limit, Occupational Exposure Standards (OESs), which broadly speaking are supposed to be set low enough to prevent any ill-health developing, and Maximum Exposure Limits (MELs), which are set for substances that have ‘serious health implications’ and for which it is not always practicable to achieve a level that will prevent disease. OESs can be exceeded under some circumstances, and exposure by inhalation does not have to be reduced any further than the OES. MELs define a maximum permissible exposure, but exposure must also be reduced as far as reasonably practicable. (This is a legally defined concept which means that exposures must be reduced to a level where further reduction would involve a cost grossly disproportionate to the benefit achieved.) Topping (2001) recently described the system in detail. The list of limits, and guidance aimed at employers, is published annually in EH40 (Health and Safety Executive, 2002). This system has strengths, notably the frank recognition that for some substances a desirable limit to protect health is not practicable, and the involvement of experts nominated by employers’ and employees’ organizations and other interests in determining for which substances a MEL is applicable, and what the level should be. However, a market survey on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) showed that the carefully negotiated and executed dual-limit system was an almost complete failure in terms of the all-important understanding and application by users of chemicals (Topping et al., 1998). There were other problems intrinsic to the system which have become more troublesome as time has gone by, and the need to run a system compatible with the European Union’s Chemical Agents Directive has increased the problems. The HSE has now issued a discussion document on a possible new scheme with a view eventually to changing the COSHH Regulations. The document can be downloaded from http://www.hse.gov.uk/condocs, and comments are invited by the end of July; but there will be a further consultation later on the more formal legislative proposals.","PeriodicalId":342592,"journal":{"name":"The Annals of occupational hygiene","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Occupational exposure limits--Britain tries again.\",\"authors\":\"T. Ogden\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ANNHYG/46.5.435\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations came into force about 12 yr ago, Britain has had a legally enforceable system of exposure limits. This is now likely to have a major overhaul. There are at present two types of limit, Occupational Exposure Standards (OESs), which broadly speaking are supposed to be set low enough to prevent any ill-health developing, and Maximum Exposure Limits (MELs), which are set for substances that have ‘serious health implications’ and for which it is not always practicable to achieve a level that will prevent disease. OESs can be exceeded under some circumstances, and exposure by inhalation does not have to be reduced any further than the OES. MELs define a maximum permissible exposure, but exposure must also be reduced as far as reasonably practicable. (This is a legally defined concept which means that exposures must be reduced to a level where further reduction would involve a cost grossly disproportionate to the benefit achieved.) Topping (2001) recently described the system in detail. The list of limits, and guidance aimed at employers, is published annually in EH40 (Health and Safety Executive, 2002). This system has strengths, notably the frank recognition that for some substances a desirable limit to protect health is not practicable, and the involvement of experts nominated by employers’ and employees’ organizations and other interests in determining for which substances a MEL is applicable, and what the level should be. However, a market survey on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) showed that the carefully negotiated and executed dual-limit system was an almost complete failure in terms of the all-important understanding and application by users of chemicals (Topping et al., 1998). There were other problems intrinsic to the system which have become more troublesome as time has gone by, and the need to run a system compatible with the European Union’s Chemical Agents Directive has increased the problems. The HSE has now issued a discussion document on a possible new scheme with a view eventually to changing the COSHH Regulations. The document can be downloaded from http://www.hse.gov.uk/condocs, and comments are invited by the end of July; but there will be a further consultation later on the more formal legislative proposals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":342592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Annals of occupational hygiene\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Annals of occupational hygiene\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ANNHYG/46.5.435\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Annals of occupational hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ANNHYG/46.5.435","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

自从12年前《对健康有害物质控制条例》(COSHH)生效以来,英国已经有了一个合法的可执行的接触限值系统。现在,这可能会有一个重大的改革。目前有两种类型的限制,一种是职业接触标准(OESs),广义上讲,它应该设定得足够低,以防止任何健康不良的发展,另一种是最大接触限制(MELs),它是为具有“严重健康影响”的物质设定的,对于这些物质,达到预防疾病的水平并不总是可行的。在某些情况下,臭氧浓度是可以超标的,而吸入的臭氧浓度不必比臭氧浓度进一步降低。最低容许量规定了最大容许接触量,但也必须在合理可行的范围内减少接触量。(这是一个法律定义的概念,意味着必须将暴露减少到进一步减少所涉及的成本与所取得的效益严重不成比例的水平。)Topping(2001)最近详细描述了这个系统。每年在EH40(健康与安全执行局,2002年)中公布限额清单和针对雇主的指导。这一制度有其优点,特别是坦率地承认,对某些物质来说,保护健康的理想限度是不切实际的,并且由雇主和雇员组织以及其他利益相关者提名的专家参与确定适用于哪些物质的最低限度以及最低限度应该是多少。然而,代表健康与安全执行局(HSE)进行的一项市场调查表明,就用户对化学品最重要的理解和应用而言,精心协商和执行的双重限制制度几乎是完全失败的(Topping等,1998)。随着时间的推移,该系统本身还存在其他问题,这些问题变得越来越麻烦,而且需要运行一个与欧洲联盟的化学制剂指令兼容的系统,这增加了问题。HSE现在已经发布了一份关于可能的新方案的讨论文件,以期最终改变COSHH法规。该文件可从http://www.hse.gov.uk/condocs下载,并于7月底前接受评论;但稍后会就更正式的立法提案进行进一步磋商。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Occupational exposure limits--Britain tries again.
Since the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations came into force about 12 yr ago, Britain has had a legally enforceable system of exposure limits. This is now likely to have a major overhaul. There are at present two types of limit, Occupational Exposure Standards (OESs), which broadly speaking are supposed to be set low enough to prevent any ill-health developing, and Maximum Exposure Limits (MELs), which are set for substances that have ‘serious health implications’ and for which it is not always practicable to achieve a level that will prevent disease. OESs can be exceeded under some circumstances, and exposure by inhalation does not have to be reduced any further than the OES. MELs define a maximum permissible exposure, but exposure must also be reduced as far as reasonably practicable. (This is a legally defined concept which means that exposures must be reduced to a level where further reduction would involve a cost grossly disproportionate to the benefit achieved.) Topping (2001) recently described the system in detail. The list of limits, and guidance aimed at employers, is published annually in EH40 (Health and Safety Executive, 2002). This system has strengths, notably the frank recognition that for some substances a desirable limit to protect health is not practicable, and the involvement of experts nominated by employers’ and employees’ organizations and other interests in determining for which substances a MEL is applicable, and what the level should be. However, a market survey on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) showed that the carefully negotiated and executed dual-limit system was an almost complete failure in terms of the all-important understanding and application by users of chemicals (Topping et al., 1998). There were other problems intrinsic to the system which have become more troublesome as time has gone by, and the need to run a system compatible with the European Union’s Chemical Agents Directive has increased the problems. The HSE has now issued a discussion document on a possible new scheme with a view eventually to changing the COSHH Regulations. The document can be downloaded from http://www.hse.gov.uk/condocs, and comments are invited by the end of July; but there will be a further consultation later on the more formal legislative proposals.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信