Training health and safety committees to use control banding: lessons learned and opportunities for the United States.

Control banding (CB) is a control-focused risk management model that has received international attention. CB strategies are designed to control workplace chemical exposures after the completion of a qualitative risk assessment. Connecticut was one of the first states to provide training on how to use this control-focused tool. Joint labor/management teams and individuals from 34 workplaces attended a control banding workshop and learned how to use one CB model, the United Kingdom (UK) Health and Safety Executive's Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Essentials Toolkit. After the initial training program the investigators used follow-up workshops, questionnaires, site visit data, and case studies to evaluate the training curriculum and assess the utility and effectiveness of this CB strategy. We found that the model is easily learned, although several areas for improvement were identified. Participants from 10 workplaces used COSHH Essentials to evaluate at least one task. The training curriculum was effective in that the agreement between the exposure variables coded by these workplaces and one of the workshop instructors, a certified industrial hygienist (CIH), were highly concordant. The training curriculum and the model promoted a discussion of risk between workers and managers and resulted in the implementation of improvements in the work environment. The model agreed with both the CIH's and the worksites' qualitative risk assessments 65% of the time, and likely over-controlled for 71% (5/7) of the cases of nonagreement. Feedback from workshop participants benefits the current dialogue on the implications of implementing CB in the United States.

Vibration exposure and disease in a shipyard: a 13-year revisit.

BACKGROUND: In a 1988 study of shipyard workers, a progressive association was observed between cumulative exposure to vibration and the vascular and neurological symptoms of the hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS). In 2001, after a decade of exposure reduction and ageing of the workforce, a second study at the same site was initiated. METHODS: In 2001, 214 subjects were selected; they represented four current weekly vibration exposure time intervals--0 hr, >0 < 5 hr, > or =5 < 20 hr, > or =20 hr. The 1988 and 2000 cross-sectional populations were compared on the basis of exposure duration and current symptoms. RESULTS: In 2001, the study population was 9.6 years older than the 1988 group. Current weekly exposure hours were similar in the low and medium exposure groups 2001 and 1988, but exposure was reduced by an average of 9.7 hr per week in the highest exposure group (> or =20 hr) in 2001. Symptom severity was regressed polychotomously on estimated exposure (log cumulative hours); the OR was weaker in 2001 than in 1988 for sensorineural symptoms-1.44 [CI 1.04-1.98] versus 2.35 [CI 1.48-3.73]. This was also true for vascular symptoms-1.70 [CI 1.06-2.71] versus 3.99 [CI 2.27-7.01]. Vascular symptoms were more prevalent in the highest lifetime vibration exposure group in 1988 (68.7 vs. 43.2% in 2001); sensorineural symptoms were more prevalent in the least vibration exposed group in 2001 (52.6 vs. 20.7% in 1988). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of vascular symptoms associated with cumulative vibratory exposure was significantly greater in 1988, but neurological symptoms were more common at lower exposure levels in 2001. The presumption that reducing exposure duration alone is sufficient, in the absence of change in vibration magnitude, is not supported by the results of this study.