Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents|
| Standard Number:||1910.1025(k)|
February 10, 1986
Sidney Lerner, M.D.
University of Cincinnati
College of Medicine
Mail Location 182
Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0182
Dear Mr. Lerner:
This is in response to your letter dated November 26, 1984, which you resubmitted May 6, 1985. Please accept my apology for the lengthy delay of this response. The overwhelming number of letters and telephone calls regarding the Hazard Communication Standard has caused unavoidable delays in responding to the public's concerns.
Your letter describes a lead exposure case history and submits two questions relating to it for interpretation relative to the legal requirements of the lead standard, 29 CFR 1910.1025. Briefly, the case history involved an employee who, while on medical removal protection because of a high blood lead reading, voluntarily leaves his job and applies for employment in another company where he will have exposure to lead to a degree which would require medical surveillance. His pre-employment examination at the new company shows his blood lead to be 45 ug/dl, the same as it was when he left his previous employer.
Question 1: Is it necessary for his previous employer to continue benefits (assuming that he has no medical problems) relative only to his elevated blood lead after he leaves employment voluntarily.
Question 2: May the new employer place him into lead exposure involving more than exposure to an air lead of 30 ug/m3 air since he never had, with that new employer, a blood lead which exceeded a level requiring removal?
Answer: Paragraph (j)(3)(i)(b) of 29 CFR 1910.1025 a requires a pre-assignment medical examination for employees who will be exposed above the action level for more than 30 days per year. A proper examination includes a